During a protest, he got shot to death for his views.
Stupidity is everywhere.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
From the article it sounds like there were two shootings and that it may not be related to the anti-abortion activities.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm sure that he was protesting abortion at the time was a total coincidence.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'll wait to hear what the investigation says. I'm just pointing out that your conclusion "he got shot to death for his views" has been addressed by investigators and they claim they don't yet know.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:I'm sure that he was protesting abortion at the time was a total coincidence.
Given that there was a 2nd shooting elsewhere and the same person is apparently suspected in both...it might have been. Perhaps we'll find out as the investigation progresses.
I hope that it was a coincidence, because he certainly didn't deserve to die for his views. (Not that dying for no reason is a marked improvement. )
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
CNN is reporting that the shooter did target him because of his anti-abortion activities:
There are bad people on both sides of every issue. It's as simple--and complicated--as that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
A very bad man. And liked shooting people. I hope that his other victim doesn't just become a footnote. This is terrible all around.
Posted by James Tiberius Kirk (Member # 2832) on :
This will not end well.
--j_k
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There are bad people on both sides of every issue. It's as simple--and complicated--as that.
But sometimes, the numbers are vastly disproportionate. It's as simple as that.
ETA: And incidentally, the proper thing to say when someone on your side of an argument (no matter how far removed towards the extreme they are) does something horrible isn't, "There's bad folks on all sides." Rather it's something along the lines of, "This was a disgraceful act that shames me as someone who believes things similar to the perpetrator. I completely reject the deed itself and the doer himself."
[ September 11, 2009, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Rakeesh ]
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
Yeah, but if I had to write something that long about every person on my side who does something horrible, I'd quickly run out of time to do anything else.
Seriously, though, the guy is a murderer and should be shunned by every pro-choice person everywhere as such, even more than just because he became an inconvenience for our politics.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Yeah, but if I had to write something that long about every person on my side who does something horrible, I'd quickly run out of time to do anything else.
Fortunately it's unlikely you'll ever know about every person on your side who does something horrible, so it won't come up:)
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Rakeesh's statement is exactly how I feel. As much as I dislike anti-abortion protestors, they shouldn't be endangered because of their beliefs. I hope the shooter spends the rest of his life in jail.
On another note, "But sometimes, the numbers are vastly disproportionate."
Yes. There have been far more people killed because they are providing abortions, or seeking to have an abortion, than people who have been killed because they are protesting access to abortions.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
All of which is dwarfed by the numbers of people killed by abortions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: All of which is dwarfed by the numbers of people killed by abortions.
That statement begs the question.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And incidentally, the proper thing to say when someone on your side of an argument (no matter how far removed towards the extreme they are) does something horrible isn't, "There's bad folks on all sides." Rather it's something along the lines of, "This was a disgraceful act that shames me as someone who believes things similar to the perpetrator. I completely reject the deed itself and the doer himself."
This would be true if and only if I felt any sort of kinshp with the person who committed such atrocities. I canntot and will not apologize or justify myself for the wrongful act committed by anyone who shares an opinion with me, not even when that person commits their atrocity because of said opinion. I do not expect every anti-abortion advocate out there to feel shame every time an abortion doctor is killed (although when I hear some of them suggest that he deserved it, I get riled).
I may be pro-choice in my political views but that man had nothing to do with me and I feel no shame for his action, only sorrow for the man killed and his family, as I would for any homicide victim.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"All of which is dwarfed by the numbers of people killed by abortions."
Zero only dwarfs negative numbers.
Posted by T:man (Member # 11614) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: All of which is dwarfed by the numbers of people killed by abortions.
People are killed when they are having an abortion?
Posted by Blayne Bradley (Member # 8565) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: All of which is dwarfed by the numbers of people killed by abortions.
How is that in anyway productive?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It might be interesting to revisit the reactions we had when Dr. Tiller was murdered.
quote:All of which is dwarfed by the numbers of people killed by abortions.
I partially agree with that statement (partially because I don't, for example, think a 'morning after' abortion equates to a person being killed - though I'm not sure), but that, too, is irrelevant.
It's irrelevant because as a method of reducing abortions in this country, killing providers and their supporters doesn't work. It is, in fact, extremely counterproductive to the effort of reducing and eventually eliminating abortions in this country, and I think we can all agree that that particular goal is plenty difficult enough to reach already.
So I have zero sympathy for folks (not saying you're saying this, katharina, but I've heard it elsewhere) who have killed abortion doctors and say, "This person won't kill any more babies." Because so far as I can tell, they (the killers) haven't reduced the actual abortions occuring at all. They've just redistributed them very, very slightly, and to make even that insignificant impact they had to kill someone.
If their true motivation were to make abortions less commonplace, if that was the biggest and most important goal in their hearts and minds, they wouldn't be making martyrs. They'd be on a PAC or something like that. If, however, their true motivation involves primarily hatred, bloodlust, and vengeance, well, making martyrs actually makes sense from that perspective.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:So I have zero sympathy for folks (not saying you're saying this, katharina, but I've heard it elsewhere) who have killed abortion doctors and say, "This person won't kill any more babies."
Terrorism against abortion providers has actually lowered the abortion rate in Kansas, as far as I know.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This act is despicable. People bombing abortion clinics and murdering doctors is despicable. BOTH sides should agree with this.
One side also believes the act of abortion is murder and that it too is despicable. All of us at Hatrack know this, all of us know pretty much which members believe that. But I believe in my virtual community here - I believe that none of us would condone this action nor would any of us condone the action of murdering a doctor. So as we discuss these issues, I like to keep that belief close to my heart and give all my fellow jatraqueros the benefit of the doubt. We may disagree on whether or not a fetus is an independent being who has a right to life but I think we all agree that murder of someone outside the womb is wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Terrorism against abortion providers has actually lowered the abortion rate in Kansas, as far as I know.
Are there any statistics in support of this, Tom? How long-range are they? And how would those statistics know if, for example, any individuals terrorized away from their local abortion providers didn't simply take a drive to the next place?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: All of which is dwarfed by the numbers of people killed by abortions.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make, perhaps you can clarify because the context of the comment suggests you think that "the numbers of people killed by abortions" is an ameliorating factor we should consider when someone murders abortion providers or people seeking an abortion. I hope that isn't what you intended because I find it morally repugnant to justify cold blooded murder under any circumstance.
As Belle said, we may disagree about whether or not a fetus is a human being. I will add, we may disagree about whether abortion is equivalent to murder. We may disagree about the rights of the mother. We may disagree about what circumstances if any justify seeking an abortion. We may disagree about the appropriate roll of government in regulating and restricting abortions. We may disagree about which side has the moral high ground, which side has greater concern for human rights, and which side is more belligerent. We may disagree about how far an individual has the right to go to defend their beliefs on this issue.
But we should all agree that murder is a heinous crime that is never excusable in anyway. And there should be no question in any mind that our opponents in any political argument are full human beings deserving of human rights. Murdering people for their stand on abortion or even their participation in abortion crosses a line that should never be crossed. There is nothing that can ameliorate such an act.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Murdering people for their stand on abortion or even their participation in abortion crosses a line that should never be crossed. There is nothing that can ameliorate such an act.
Well, if it turns out that abortion is the murder of a child, then killing someone participating in an abortion isn't murder at all, unless defense of an innocent's life is also murder.
In such a case I wouldn't label it a murder, even though I still think it's a line that ought never be crossed, because as I said before, it's simply not effective. If you're going to kill someone it should at least work. Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Well, if it turns out that abortion is the murder of a child, then killing someone participating in an abortion isn't murder at all, unless defense of an innocent's life is also murder.
No! Killing someone in defense of an innocent life is only justifiable it the innocent life is in immanent danger and can only protected prevented by the use of deadly force.
Killing someone because you believe they are going to commit a murder at some future time, is murder. Legally and morally. Killing someone because they support policies you think are likely to lead to the death of innocent life, is still murder, legally and morally. Killing someone because you believe they have in the past taken an innocent life is still murder, legally and morally.
Unless you know of a case where someone was killed while they were actually in the process of doing an abortion and could not be stopped by any other means, I'm confident it was murder and indefensible. Murder is wrong.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: All of which is dwarfed by the numbers of people killed by abortions.
Nope. Nice try though.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
"Well, if it turns out that abortion is the murder of a child, then killing someone participating in an abortion isn't murder at all, unless defense of an innocent's life is also murder."
Well, if it turns out that meat is murder, then killing someone eating a Big*Mac isn't murder at all, unless defense of an innocent's life is also murder. Ya can't allow a person to go about willy nilly killing other folks cuz of hypotheticals, not even when that person believes their own particular hypothetical to be true.
* Admittedly a bad example. Eating a McDonalds hamburger is proof that one's taste buds are undead.
[ September 13, 2009, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Well, if it turns out that abortion is the murder of a child, then killing someone participating in an abortion isn't murder at all, unless defense of an innocent's life is also murder.
No! Killing someone in defense of an innocent life is only justifiable it the innocent life is in immanent danger and can only protected prevented by the use of deadly force.
I would venture to say that most likely (legally as well as morally and ethically) even if I walked up to someone and stated: "I am about to go to x address, with this gun here, and commit murder," and that person then pulled out a weapon and killed me, they would probably be guilty of murder as well. And that's even when all the factors involved are incredibly clear cut.
Now, if your personal sense of morality leads you to believe that you can kill a doctor who performs abortions, I'm glad we have a system of laws in place to protect me from your justice.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Now, if your personal sense of morality leads you to believe that you can kill a doctor who performs abortions, I'm glad we have a system of laws in place to protect me from your justice.
And I certainly the hope that overwhelming majority of people out there who deplore abortion, would find that (justifying killing doctors) morally abhorrent.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
All in all, I find this incident very sad. Since the shooter shot another person who was seemingly unrelated to the abortion controversy, it seems unlikely that abortion was the sole factor involved. It seems likely that this guy was very seriously disturbed (unbalanced, maybe even evil). I am prone to see it more as random violence than real part of the abortion controversy, even though holding an anti-abortion sign is likely the thing that go this particular man shot rather than the one across the street.
I find it very unfortunate that some issues in our society have become so polarized and so contentious, that people feel they must resort to violence. Luckily, that is still a very minor part of the abortion controversy, which I am sure is no consolation to those who have been directly affected. Even though the majority of abortion related acts seems to come from nut jobs or one ilk or another, I can't help but wonder if even these people would be less prone to violence if the rest of the debate were less vitriolic.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:No! Killing someone in defense of an innocent life is only justifiable it the innocent life is in immanent danger and can only protected prevented by the use of deadly force.
Yes. Killing someone in defense of another life (innocence not being necessary to the question, really) is justifiable if the life is in imminent danger of death or serious injury (because that can also result in death) or some other heinous injury (such as rape), and it is reasonable to believe that deadly force is the only way to prevent the thing from happening.
Wow, that's a mouthful. Basically, killing is justifiable and not murder (to me) if it's done because I believe that someone else is about to be killed or seriously injured by another person, and I can't see any way to stop that from happening besides the use of lethal force.
quote: Killing someone because you believe they are going to commit a murder at some future time, is murder.
I agree.
quote: Killing someone because they support policies you think are likely to lead to the death of innocent life, is still murder, legally and morally.
I agree.
quote: Killing someone because you believe they have in the past taken an innocent life is still murder, legally and morally.
I agree.
I'm pointing all of this out because I'd be interested to see where I said anything to the contrary. The only ground you've got to stand on is that someone might not 'know' that an abortion doctor, with abortions scheduled for a given day, was actually going to perform abortions that day. They could get struck by lightning or get the vaporizing flu, after all.
Anyway, even in that case, if someone honestly believed that abortion was cold-blooded murder of children, I would still not condone them killing an abortion doctor who performed hundreds of abortions a month because, as I said, it simply wouldn't work.
But for the sake of argument, if it turned out that abortion was in fact the cold blooded murder of children (and I don't think it is), then no, killing a given abortion doctor would not be murder, barring some other circumstances. Bearing in mind that people have tried other methods of stopping them.
Morally speaking, how much and how long is a person supposed to try non-lethal means before resorting to lethal means, Rabbit? Indefinitely? A day, a month, a decade?
-----
quote: Well, if it turns out that meat is murder, then killing someone eating a Big*Mac isn't murder at all, unless defense of an innocent's life is also murder. Ya can't allow a person to go about willy nilly killing other folks cuz of hypotheticals, not even when that person believes their particular hypothetical to be true.
Way to agree with me, aspectre!
----
quote:I would venture to say that most likely (legally as well as morally and ethically) even if I walked up to someone and stated: "I am about to go to x address, with this gun here, and commit murder," and that person then pulled out a weapon and killed me, they would probably be guilty of murder as well. And that's even when all the factors involved are incredibly clear cut.
Does the second person believe the first person, Orincoro? Is it reasonable of them to have believed the threat? Is that address thirty second's walk up the street, or three hour's drive? Depending on the answers to those questions, you might be surprised.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Sure, that's a bag of nuts, but the point is obviously that with a real situation involving an abortionist or a protester, a preemptive killing is always going to be wrong.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sure, that's a bag of nuts, but the point is obviously that with a real situation involving an abortionist or a protester, a preemptive killing is always going to be wrong.
OK, though I'm still not sure why folks feel the need to tell me that, as I've already said as much at least twice.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote: Well, if it turns out that abortion is the murder of a child, then killing someone participating in an abortion isn't murder at all, unless defense of an innocent's life is also murder.
That is why people are saying this to you. I don't think the first thing that pops into most people's minds when they read this is an image of a doctor with gloves on and a mask actually performing the procedure in a hospital room, and somebody busting in and shooting him dead.
I realize you said: "participating in," but that significantly broad to reasonably include a doctor on his way from the parking lot, or a nurse wiping the doctor's brow. It's begging an obvious question. Your statement could easily be read as a justification for a more preemptive act, even if you don't intend it that way. And anyway, I don't agree with you. I don't believe, for instance, that executioners are morally guilty of murder even though I believe that state sanctioned execution constitutes murder. It's a murder, in my opinion, being committed by the state, not by the person working the switch. Though we accept this concept when dealing with illegal murder, for instance conspiracy to commit murder is treated in the same way as the physical act (though in that case both the conspiracy and the physical act are crimes), we don't seem to use this concept when talking about abortion.
Anyway, if anything, I just think the pro-life focus on the specific act of abortion, rather than the more difficult societal problems that lead to abortions as a symptom, is in practical terms ineffective and counterproductive. When I see that the same people who are against legalized abortion are also not in favor of comprehensive sex education and the promotion of contraception, I tend to think the sanctity of life is not really the core issue- especially when many of these people are in favor of state-sanctioned execution. Rather, I think these acts of demonstration against abortion exist partly (in the larger picture) because they are a better public face for an ideological movement in favor of religious government. If one were in favor of a non-secular government, one would gravitate towards creating public outcry against specific symptoms of secular governmental control. If one were actually solely interested in the elimination of abortion, a more effective tack would be gaining a voice as part of a secular government in order to improve the social problems that cause an increase in abortions. Today, in my opinion, neither side of this issue, either pro-life or pro-choice, is aiming its energy anywhere near the right place. At the same time, this obviously bears little import for the individuals involved in demonstrations, who *are* ideologically committed to the obstruction of any and all abortions they have any power to effect. Of course these people want to feel, and are justified in feeling, that the only way for them to act is to confront the problem at the end-point, and also the point that so well defines the problem. But the problem is not entirely the procedure of abortion itself, and stopping all legal abortions would not fix the society in which they occur. Even if abortion was physically impossible, and babies were delivered by storks, there would be parents who would abandon them, refuse them, kill them, or neglect them. That would not be a problem solved by abortion, and in my opinion that is the greater problem, from which abortion follows. No loving and kind and generous and totally together and accepting society with all the resources needed for new parents, of any age, would need or want abortions. But we don't have all those things, and so we have this act, and we cannot make that problem go away by cutting off its head, and leaving the body.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:
I realize you said: "participating in," but that significantly broad to reasonably include a doctor on his way from the parking lot, or a nurse wiping the doctor's brow.
It's really not, no more than someone on their way from their house to the bank they intend to rob is actually participating in a bank robbery one stoplight out of their driveway, Orincoro. If folks are reading 'participating in' to mean 'supporting in any way or potentially supporting in any way', well, I don't mean that. It's not what I said, either.
quote:Your statement could easily be read as a justification for a more preemptive act, even if you don't intend it that way.
Only if you substantially alter the meaning of the words 'participating in' to include things that most folks usually term 'supporting' or 'planning on doing later on'. Particularly since I've also already stated that lethal force should only be used - when it should be used, and (again) I don't think it should be used against abortion doctors - as a last resort, when other options are exhausted. If the doctor is not actually participating in the abortion at the moment, there are obviously other alternatives remaining.
quote:I don't believe, for instance, that executioners are morally guilty of murder even though I believe that state sanctioned execution constitutes murder. It's a murder, in my opinion, being committed by the state, not by the person working the switch.
This is a pretty strange disconnect to me. Someone is saved from being a murderer just because they get to cash a check afterwards? Isn't the usual term for that sort of thing 'assassin'?
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
So if someone believes that abortion isn't murder, then they should kill any person who professes a belief that abortion is murder to protect the innocent abortionist and various assistants (eg file clerks) from being murdered by that "abortion is murder" believer?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:So if someone believes that abortion isn't murder, then they should kill any person who professes a belief that abortion is murder to protect the innocent abortionist and various assistants (eg file clerks) from being murdered by that "abortion is murder" believer?
I totally said this or something very like this.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
And if someone believes that abortion is murder, then they should kill any person who professes a belief that abortion is not murder to protect innocent "abortion is murder" believers from being killed by those trying to protect the abortionists?
Then again the resulting tit-for-tat would go a long way towards solving any hypothetical overpopulation problem.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, please believe that I have read what you wrote carefully. I still have a question. If a doctor is in the operating room, ready to start an abortion, do you believe it is then justified to kill him?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, please believe that I have read what you wrote carefully. I still have a question. If a doctor is in the operating room, ready to start an abortion, do you believe it is then justified to kill him?
Do I believe it? No. But then I don't think abortion is the murder of an innocent.
I'm not trying to dodge your question, it's just that it's not nearly specific enough. It's a big thing, when to kill and when not to, and unfortunately for the sake of easy answers I don't think the correct answer is 'never'.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Number of Pro-Life protesters murdered by pro-Choice nutcases, that I know of..."x"
Number of Pro-Choice doctors, nurses, or others murdered by Pro-Life nutcases, that I know of...5x or so.
Number of Fetus destroyed by Pro-Choice doctors that I know of---5,000,000x or so.
Number of young girls that died before Rowe from back room abortions, dangerous pregnancies taken to termination, or other situations where an abortion could have saved the life of the mother-to-be? --- that I know of -- 5,000x or so
So the answer to the comment is this...
There seems to be more nutcase Pro-Life people killing doctors than nutcase Pro-Choice folks killing protesters.
This seems to be because the Pro-Lifers are more motivate to stop the abortions than the Pro-Choice folks are to stop the protests.
The question is whether you believe a fetus is a person if you want to tally up death tolls.
To the Pro-Life person, it is a life and makes the Pro-Choice people cold blooded murders.
To the Pro-Choice person, it is just a bunch of cells, and not worth the costs in lives of the girls and women killed before Rowe. Now the Pro-Life people are the cold blooded murderers, preferring the deaths of women and girls in order to force others to abide by their faith.
In reality, this is known.
Killing protesters does not discourage protesters.
Killing doctors does not reduce abortions.
Education, Motivation, Caring, and frank, open discussions of sex and pregnancy does reduce abortions.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
I'm not sure why Rakeesh is getting piled on here. I think it's entirely consistent to suggest that if one believes that an abortion is murder than one should intercede, violently if necessary, to prevent it.
Of course I don't believe that abortion is murder and the idea of violent vigilantism scares the hell out of me, but I really don't see why people have such a hard time seeing the behavior as being internally consistence with a certain set of beliefs which are widely held.
I'm actually more surprised that more of the "abortion is murder" crowd aren't mobilizing violently. Some possible explanations are that they believe it's not pragmatically unjustified (i.e. it won't decrease the number of abortions), they place the order of a civil society above the lives that are being snuffed out, or their use of "murder" is hyperbole and they don't actually believe that there is a complete equivalence between ending a life pre- and post- gestation/viability.
I know if there were doctors that frequently - and legally - walked into hospital nurseries to euthanize day-old babies who's mothers had second thoughts then I *would* consider that murder and I have a hard time not thinking that violent acts committed to protect these children weren't justified.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: Of course I don't believe that abortion is murder and the idea of violent vigilantism scares the hell out of me, but I really don't see why people have such a hard time seeing the behavior as being internally consistence with a certain set of beliefs which are widely held.
Those are just two of the reasons I don't condone killing abortion doctors.
quote: I know if there were doctors that frequently - and legally - walked into hospital nurseries to euthanize day-old babies who's mothers had second thoughts then I *would* consider that murder and I have a hard time not thinking that violent acts committed to protect these children weren't justified.
I'll go a step further than that. While I would certainly think these hypothetical doctors unquestionably invited violence against themselves in this situation, I still wouldn't condone that violence if it wouldn't have an impact on the actual euthanizations themselves.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Didn't this whole subtopic start with a statement that violence against abortionists HAD reduced the number of abortions in a particular area in Kansas?
For the record I largely agree with Matt and Rakeesh. I don't see a moral inconsistency in those who commit terrorism in an attempt to deter abortion. However, vigilantism only works if you're skilled on the order of Dexter or Batman, and since those are both fictitious people and I don't know offhand of any successful real vigilantes who didn't cause more problems than they solved, I'd say its society's perogative to stamp it out.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by MattP: I'm actually more surprised that more of the "abortion is murder" crowd aren't mobilizing violently. Some possible explanations are that they believe it's not pragmatically unjustified (i.e. it won't decrease the number of abortions), they place the order of a civil society above the lives that are being snuffed out, or their use of "murder" is hyperbole and they don't actually believe that there is a complete equivalence between ending a life pre- and post- gestation/viability.
The reason is simple: civilization
We have come together as a civilization and determined that there are some things more important than our individual systems of beliefs. We have determined that certain compromises must be made in order to affect and maintain said civilization.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Darth_Mauve: Number of statistics I'll make up on the fly if I think it makes a point: 3.
There, fixed that for you.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't think abortion is murder, it's a lot more like various forms of manslaughter, though not entirely so since it is always deliberate. But I have to recognize that the people engaging in it don't view it that way.
P.S. I see my civic duty going forward as trying to persuade people that it is wrong to engage in.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't think that a position has to be inconsistent to be frightening. In fact, quite the opposite. Positions that are allow no inconsistency are often extreme.
And I wasn't accusing Rakeesh of a position; I was asking for clarification.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Rakeesh, please believe that I have read what you wrote carefully. I still have a question. If a doctor is in the operating room, ready to start an abortion, do you believe it is then justified to kill him?
Kate, you are often a generous and seemingly open-minded person. Why do you ask questions like this? And if I was the person on the operating table, absolutely.
P.S. I'll clarify that I spent my first long while in hatrack making similar requests for clarification as you do. People asked me to stop, and I try to.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I asked - without the assumption of what the answer would be - in order to understand what Rakeesh's position was. Very little point in discussing it, if I don't understand what someone is trying to say. He could have said, "no that is still going too far" or "yes that is stopping a murder" neither of which would have been "wrong". He asked for clarification of my question in a way that made sense.
I do not understand why people have a problem answering questions about their position when they are discussing their position on something. If you can explain that, it would be great. It seems to me that asking questions is a good way to get answers.
ETA: For example, why would you be on the hypothetical operating table?
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Switched chart? Computer glitch? I'm not saying it's likely, just that I would consider it justified in that scenario.
I would try verbal negotiation first, of course.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by pooka: Switched chart? Computer glitch? I'm not saying it's likely, just that I would consider it justified in that scenario.
I would try verbal negotiation first, of course.
I would agree that people trying to perform abortions on women who want to carry their babies to term* should be stopped and that such a woman would be justified in using whatever force was necessary.
*There are some exceptions. Girls too young to make that decision for example. That nine-year-old that was in the news recently comes to mind.
ETA: I find it difficult to imagine that a doctor faced with a woman telling him "no, there has been a mistake" would continue.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't know anything about the case of the nine-year old. It certainly sounds extreme. I know there was a case of a 9 year old in Honduras back in 2003. Though I don't remember the particulars of that either.
I haven't worked with any abortion doctors so I wouldn't know about the second. Delivery doctors are used to their patients having mercurial emotions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. I was thinking of the one in Brazil. I just wanted to say that there were some extreme cases and my statement was not meant to include those.
As for the other, I can't even imagine the lawsuit.
ETA: I'm not saying it couldn't happen or hasn't happened, just that any doctor who would go ahead and perform an abortion on a woman who was desperately protesting that it was a mix up of the files or a computer glitch without at least checking is a moron.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I wouldn't necessarily know at the time what the source of the misunderstanding was. I actually had my worst experience with a midwife Nurse Practitioner proceeding with what she felt needed to be done over my objections. But as I granted, abortion is probably a very different procedure from a live delivery.
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Kind of off topic but still relevant to the discussion:
Here in Nevada (And probably a lot of other states) if a man causes bodily harm to a pregnant woman and she loses the baby, he can be charged with murder.
It does not matter if she is 3 weeks along or 8 months, or if she had already made an appointment at the abortion clinic, it is considered murder.
If the mother is only in her first trimester and the group of cells in her body aren't a living being, then shouldn't he just be charged with destruction of property?
It is not my intention to make light of the subject. The argument for abortion on both sides is sophistry.
Personally in my family I would never want an abortion unless something horrible happened to my wife.
That being said, I am religious but I do believe a woman can choose what she wants. I don't agree with it but she can get an abortion as long as I don't have to pay one penny to help her get it. As soon as that happens I have a vested interest in that child and as far as I am concerned she has given up the right to an abortion.
If she pays for it herself then go right ahead. Do I disagree with her choice? Yes. Am I going to judge her for it? No. That is not my job. That is between her and God. Personally I believe God will place that child somewhere else where they are wanted.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
You'd be hard-pressed to prove whether bodily injury caused the miscarriage of a fetus in the first trimester. Up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually in the first 10 weeks, many before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Personally in my family I would never want an abortion unless something horrible happened to my wife.
I would imagine that most -- although not all -- married couples might feel that way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: ETA: I'm not saying it couldn't happen or hasn't happened, just that any doctor who would go ahead and perform an abortion on a woman who was desperately protesting that it was a mix up of the files or a computer glitch without at least checking is a moron.
I'd have to put the descriptor somewhere south of just 'moron' in this case, kmbboots. (Just to be clear, though, I'm sure you'd agree)
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was keeping it clean for Hatrack. Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: You'd be hard-pressed to prove whether bodily injury caused the miscarriage of a fetus in the first trimester. Up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually in the first 10 weeks, many before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
While a statistic such as this may be true, I would contend that it would be more hard pressed to say it was a natural miscarriage if a man stabbed a woman in the stomache, punched her or threw her around. A jury will more than likely throw the statistic out the window. Whether the mother knows she is pregnant or not is irrelevant in this case.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Why do you think they deserve more attention than they've received?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I think the stories I posted received the appropriate amount of attention.
If a Tea Party protester bit off the finger of a liberal, Nancy Pelosi would talk about it on the hill and CNN/ABC/MSNBC etc would be non-stop. If every year May 5th was beat up a Hispanic day, there would be warnings and non-stop coverage. If anti-abortion protesters were burning down abortion clinics it would be national news, not a minor local story. If right wing extremists were toppling NPR radio towers it would be a huge story.
Appropriate coverage for one side, an agenda on the other. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush had white house Czars on the other side of the coin.
Fox news is definitely slanted to the right but they are way outnumbered by the media slanted to the left.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If a Tea Party protester bit off the finger of a liberal, Nancy Pelosi would talk about it on the hill and CNN/ABC/MSNBC etc would be non-stop. If every year May 5th was beat up a Hispanic day, there would be warnings and non-stop coverage. If anti-abortion protesters were burning down abortion clinics it would be national news, not a minor local story. If right wing extremists were toppling NPR radio towers it would be a huge story.
I think that you're making assumptions here and behaving as if those assumptions prove themselves. Consider this quote: "Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush had white house Czars on the other side of the coin." Bush did have White House "czars." He had bunches of them. The problem here is that perspective is not being applied.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
Not only did he have bunches, many of them were identical positions.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by Geraine:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: You'd be hard-pressed to prove whether bodily injury caused the miscarriage of a fetus in the first trimester. Up to half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, usually in the first 10 weeks, many before the woman even knows she is pregnant.
While a statistic such as this may be true, I would contend that it would be more hard pressed to say it was a natural miscarriage if a man stabbed a woman in the stomache, punched her or threw her around. A jury will more than likely throw the statistic out the window. Whether the mother knows she is pregnant or not is irrelevant in this case.
The application of any law is as important as the written details. Has there ever been a case in which someone who caused a miscarriage during the first 10 weeks of pregnancy was prosecuted for homicide? Has there ever been such a case when the mother did not yet know she was pregnant?
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Mal's stories of Liberal malfeasance.
1) Two radio towers were knocked down. The owners of the tower had been in conflict with certain ecological groups, but also with neighbors who complained they interfered with everything from Intercoms to health. It would have upped the stations ability to compete with other stations.
The Agenda of the web-site is conservative, so unproven allegations should be taken with a grain of salt. Those allegations are that some eco-terrorists left a calling card. (Note, even if true this was not an attack on AM radio and its usually conservative shows, but on the possible ecological dangers posed by the transformers).
I had not heard about these, but it seems to be a local problem. The straw-man argument about what Nancy Pelosi would do if they were liberal radio stations being attacked is useless.
2) Liberal man bites off finger of Tea-Bagger at a rally--made all the big news. It made the comics and the big stations and was headlined on NPR. I can't imagine where Mal thinks that it was ignored.
3)Never heard of this. A group of kids beat up a caucasion girl because it was "Beat up whitey day."
The only source of this is a very conservative, and racially polarized web site. I find it hard to believe. I find it harder to believe that if it were real we wouldn't have heard more about it since this is the time of fear-mongering the press knows will sell papers.
4)ELF again--burned down houses. I remember this story from last year. It got attention, but not loads, mainly because Elf is a Oregon/Washington group and I'm far away. That and they seem to be mostly inept.
People who do bad things are bad people. I don't care what their ideology is. Complaining that people notice your sides bad things but not their own is whining.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:If a Tea Party protester bit off the finger of a liberal, Nancy Pelosi would talk about it on the hill and CNN/ABC/MSNBC etc would be non-stop. If every year May 5th was beat up a Hispanic day, there would be warnings and non-stop coverage. If anti-abortion protesters were burning down abortion clinics it would be national news, not a minor local story. If right wing extremists were toppling NPR radio towers it would be a huge story.
I think that you're making assumptions here and behaving as if those assumptions prove themselves. Consider this quote: "Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush had white house Czars on the other side of the coin." Bush did have White House "czars." He had bunches of them. The problem here is that perspective is not being applied.
Yes Bush did have white house czars but if there were self avowed Marxists, it wouldn't take eight months of Glenn Beck to get some minor attention and an 1201 AM Saturday morning resignation glossed over by the mainstream media. All presidents have advisors, Obama is the one who called his Czars. The media isn't doing what it should. What happened to the research journalism of 60 minutes....now college kids going into ACORN offices are doing what the mainstream media use to do.
Posted by MattP (Member # 10495) on :
So your complaint is not about czars, its about Van Jones, specifically? Why the czar rant then?
And who cares who calls them czars? They are normal run-of-the-mill advisor and management positions. "Czar" is just a silly term that doesn't actually confer any meaning on the position and trying to associate the term "czar" with a nefarious, Marxist, conspiracy is kind of silly if you have any clue what a real czar is.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
For that matter, anyone who'd call Jones a Marxist really, really knows nothing about Van Jones -- or else somehow believes that having briefly been a Marxist somehow manifests as a permanent "taint" of some sort.
The guy was most famous for advocating a market-driven approach to environmentalism.
---------
It's also worth noting that Obama was neither the first president nor certainly the first individual to call a political appointee a "czar." A simple Google search comes up with ten times -- ten distinct times, for different people -- for Dubya alone. I can only find a couple quotes from Obama with the word in it, both times talking about the same person. In other words, if you're worried that "czar" somehow betrays some love of the Russian monarchy, you're going to have to ask Bush about that one.
I certainly agree with the "research journalism" thing, though. If we had more research journalists, not only would we know all about ACORN, but Glenn Beck would have long ago been driven off the air in humiliation and no one would think Obama was the first president to offhandedly refer to one of his appointed advisors as a "czar."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...but Glenn Beck would have long ago been driven off the air in humiliation...
I think any steps to this outcome will have to include garlic, a cross, and a stake and mallet.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I wasn't sure that this was clear: Russian czars would have been the opposite of communists.
[ September 16, 2009, 12:37 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Appropriate coverage for one side, an agenda on the other. Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and Bush had white house Czars on the other side of the coin.
Don't be such a dope. I did entire papers about Bush's czar appointments and I was in high school.
You've got the advantage of how many decades on me and you don't even realize presidents have Czars?
The Nixon and Ford administrations had czars, for christ's sake.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Yep, every administration since Nixon has had appointed officials who were called czars. How the fact that "czar" is a common term in US politics could be news to any anyone who has been paying even a modicum of attention is beyond me.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I doubt I would hold up my High School paper as proof of my expertise in a given area. All presidents have had czars/advisors, yes. None more than our current president though. This president's czars, or advisors if you prefer, are extemist, socialists radicals. ACORN, SEIU, Weather Underground founders, self avowed communists, black panther members, etc.
My point is if Bush had clan member advisors, self avowed Fascists, Militia Members, etc the media would not tolerate it. I think they are fair comparisons from opposite sides. This president gets a pass....except on Fox.
Notice he's going on 5 Sunday networks, including Univision...skipping Fox which happens to be the most watched news network in the nation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Got anything actually bad to say about any of the other czars, malanthrop, other than their quantity?
quote:Notice he's going on 5 Sunday networks, including Univision...skipping Fox which happens to be the most watched news network in the nation.
Well, Fox is also a terrible news station, so I'm not gonna lose much sleep over not seeing him there.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:None more than our current president though.
In what way are you defining "czar" so that this is true? What actual positions are you discussing?
Posted by Geraine (Member # 9913) on :
Rabbit,
Related to your statement, I was not able to find definitive court cases (I dont have the time here at work, I will poke around when I get home) however I did find a site that lists the different states with these types of laws.
Rake--if one of them does not meet with Mal's political views, obviously they all must be evil. Don't you know that.
Oh, and Mal, love the segue from the Czar argument that still doesn't make sense, to the Fox News meme. If you can't prove one point, jump to another.
When we were arguing about going to war in Iraq a few years ago I noticed the same pattern. Pro-War people argued WMD, until that was argued down. Then they jumped to --Hussein is Evil. When that was argued against (by listing several other evil dictators we were not going to war against) the Terrorist Connection was brought up. When that was proven false they quickly jumped back to WMD. Round and round we went, getting no where until those arguing against the war folks gave up.
Now we have anti-President Obama people doing the same thing. He's not a US Citizen--when that is shown to be wrong, He's an Islamic plant. When that is refuted, he's a socialist trying to have the government take over everything. When that is proven wrong its "He plays with terrorists". When that is argued against, we go back to him not being a US citizen. Round and round, with the facts out there to prove the complaints wrong, but the Right refusing to listen.
Do you know what got us in the deep mess of Iraq and Afghanistan? Its the Neo-Con, Republican Bosses belief that Ideology Can Create Reality. Many of those who went to rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq where ideologically pure Neo-Con, but had not the expertise to do the job. Still, the power people in Washington, the Delay Republican machine, said that if they say something long enough and loud enough it will be true.
So now they go to fight President Obama by saying over and over, louder and louder, things that are not true. They prove that the false is true not with fact but with volume and the tenacity of those the scare into screaming.
The funny thing is they claim to be the best Patriots, but they try to rule the US by fear. A true Patriot knows that you can't scare an American into backing down or running away.
Oh my. I'm ranting. Sorry...rant off.
Mal, one question seriously. You specifically mention President Obama's appearance on Univision as something outrageous. Why is that? I know you have a strong bias against illegal aliens, but Univision is a Major broadcast network watched by millions of Legal Americans, who happen to be of Latin--American descent. Do you consider them less American than the average Fox viewer? Less deserving to hear from their president?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)