Should We Waterboard the Domestic Terrorist Who Shot Dr. Tiller? | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)
To Freedom Momma, atraindust, Red Neck (3.80 / 3)
and MarkDotThat:

Please understand our anger with what Scott Roeder did.  We're trying to understand your anger with and fear of people who want to allow abortions.

But you're scaring the hell out of us.  We really don't understand your reasoning, and we don't see you making any attempts to understand ours.  And while you claim to value the unborn, we so often see your disdain for the already born, such as adult women.

You say that you're "pro-life", as if we are "anti-life", but all we hear when one of your number commits a murder like this is your "Tsk, tsk, the victim shouldn't have been performing abortions."

And while you claim to be appalled at what Roeder did, very often you sound like you support him, like Freedom Momma does when she talks about blowing the brains out of someone who was holding a gun to your daughter's head, a comparison that we believe is completely illegitimate, and dishonestly prejudicial.

We simply do not see the comparison as legitimate, and people on your side are killing people who clearly do have lives and consciousness, who have families, children of their own.  These acts which are designed to terrorize people into not performing or not obtaining abortions, are definitely, to us, acts of terrorism.

We do understand that you see a fetus (and some will say even a zygote) as a person endowed with rights by their creator.  We disagree, although we're willing to place some restrictions on the practice of abortion, especially after a fetus has become "viable".

I don't think you'll ever be satisfied with that, and I don't think it's reasonable to believe that our policies will ever change significantly.  That makes me concerned with whether or not you can accept that, or if we might have to take stronger action against you.

I know that we will never persuade you to our point of view.  Our educational system has failed to teach some essential realities about nature and our relationship to it, and has allowed various sets of fantasies to go unquestioned.  This causes a lot of people to suffer a lot of unnecessary distress.

Nevertheless, we do want to know what you will do, since it should be clear to you by now that abortions will be allowed, and there's nothing you can do about it.

by AnEngineer on 06/09/2009 02:46:03 PM EST

Pro-Choice is amazingly arrogant... (2.67 / 2)
A lot of pro-choice people are completely missing a very basic point that most in the pro-life movement (the man who shot Tiller did a great disservice to his cause) realize.

I am aware that the life movement has been hijacked by religious radicals, and I'm aware of how absurdly ignorant many of them are.

I hate that I can't express my views without having a bunch of false labels thrown at me.

There was a time (back when childbirth was more deadly to the mother, and back when christianity was more powerful) that abortion had little stigma attached to it.

The truth is, abortion gained it's stigma to a great extent due to a better scientific understanding of pregnancy.

Single-celled organisms are considered life.  Parasites that rely entirely on the host for survive are considered life.

So why not a human embryo with a unique genetic code that is developing seperate from the mother?

Anyone who's taken eighth grade biology knows when life begins.

Here's a concept for you.  I'm gonna throw scripture at you so you can scoff at it.

Thou shalt not kill.

I know... it's horrible of me for trying to impose such arcane and out-dated beliefs upon you.  So let me modernize it so we can justify your position

Thou shalt not kill unless it is more convenient to do so.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 01:37:34 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I am pro-life. (4.80 / 4)
I like life.  I think life is a great thing and should be encouraged.  I'm amazed at the continuum of the phenomenon of Life that had one beginning and hasn't stopped yet.

I loathe murder and war.  I despise the death penalty.  I abhore the unnecessary deaths of mothers who discover late in their pregnancies that carrying the fetus to term would kill them, but who are forced to carry them anyway because of some ridiculous religious idea that "God", whatever that is, supposedly cherishes every fetus, embryo, and zygote -- but not necessarily the mother.

Arrogance?  What is more arrogant?  To think that a bare coupling of a sperm and an egg has more rights than an adult woman, or to respect that woman's right to decide what to do with her body?

You have chosen to assign characteristics and meaning to a biological agent that is less valuable to me that the woman who carries it, you demand that I agree with your characterization and definition, and you call me arrogant?

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 02:18:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I'll simply respond to your points... (2.75 / 2)
I abhore the unnecessary deaths of mothers who discover late in their pregnancies that carrying the fetus to term would kill them, but who are forced to carry them anyway because of some ridiculous religious idea that "God", whatever that is, supposedly cherishes every fetus, embryo, and zygote -- but not necessarily the mother.

I had an aunt go through exactly that.  She didn't die. She had the abortion, and to be honest I respect that decision.  A situation like that is really lose-lose.  A life was preserved.  As a pro-lifer I can't say I'm opposed to that.

I'm not as heartless and fanatical as you think I am.

I just think in the vast majority of abortion cases, nobody has to die.  I'm not asking people to give them voting rights.  I'm just asking people to end the pattern of death!

To think that a bare coupling of a sperm and an egg has more rights than an adult woman, or to respect that woman's right to decide what to do with her body?

I believe in the woman's right to choose what to do with her body.  But not necessarily her right to choose what to do with someone else's.

You have chosen to assign characteristics and meaning to a biological agent that is less valuable to me that the woman who carries it, you demand that I agree with your characterization and definition, and you call me arrogant?

First of all, these characteristics include "living" and "human."  You have refuted neither.

Second of all, I demand nothing from you but acknowledgement that reasonable people can disagree, even on this subject.

I never mentioned god in this discussion because it's really not relevant.  Like I said, It really bothers me that this movement has been hijacked by a bunch of religious nuts and killers. 

I'm a 20 year old college student from Massachusetts, I support gay marriage, extensive use of contraception to prevent unwanted pregnancy, and Education about safe sex.  I just happen to be pro-life as well.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 02:32:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Refute what? (5.00 / 4)
"...these characteristics include 'living' and 'human'."

Those characteristics aren't reasons to prefer an unborn fetus over a person.

"I believe in the woman's right to choose what to do with her body.  But not necessarily her right to choose what to do with someone else's."

You're contradicting yourself.  You apparently view even a zygote as a person.  I do not -- not in the least.  You want to weaken a woman's right to choose what to do with her body by assigning rights to that zygote, embryo, or fetus that I do not recognize.

It's this conflict of rights that is at the root of our disagreement.  We can either go to war or we can compromise.  I'll go along with restricting late-term abortions unless the mother's life or health is at risk if you will leave her alone at all other times.  Short of that, this conflict will continue.

Abortions are legal, and that is not going to change.  You should find a way to get over it.

And I do not grant you the exclusive right to the term "pro-life", as if I am "anti-life".  It makes me think you are a very disingenuous person.  You are merely anti-abortion, and no more "pro-life" than I am.

And, by the way, I am not "pro-abortion", but I'll skip explaining the nuance.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 02:53:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
point for point again (3.00 / 2)
Those characteristics aren't reasons to prefer an unborn fetus over a person.

Are you going to give me a good reason to think that an unborn fetus isn't a person?  Other than the fact that it hasn't developed as much as an infant?

  You want to weaken a woman's right to choose what to do with her body by assigning rights to that zygote, embryo, or fetus that I do not recognize.

Give me a good reason why an embryo or fetus isn't human.  An embryo is less developed than a fetus, a fetus, less developed than an infant.  A baby is less developed than a kid who is in puberty, a kid who's in puberty is less developed than a 30 year old.

Aside from how easy it is, is there a reason to think this is any different?  Am I less human than I will be when I'm 21?  What's the cutoff?

How is killing okay?

Abortions are legal, and that is not going to change.  You should find a way to get over it.

Well it can't be banned now.  There's too high a demand for it.  It'd just go underground, which could get ugly.

The key is to decrease demand.  Contraceptives, sex education, all those things that the religious right cringes about need to be let in because they work.  The US is more religious than France and has a much higher abortion rate.  That's a sign our sex education isn't enough.  Abstinence doesn't work.  We need to try harder to prevent this from ever happening.

Maybe we can agree on that?

As for the pro-life, pro-choice thing.  That's just what they're called.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 03:27:36 PM EST

[ Parent ]
This is old ground. (4.00 / 4)
"Are you going to give me a good reason to think that an unborn fetus isn't a person?"

A "person" is a legal construct, defined by law.  Look it up.  Words matter.  Neither a zygote, and embryo, nor a fetus are persons.

And even if you want to use a looser, colloquial definition, I still will maintain that they are not persons.

Sorry, but purely emotional appeals aren't going to work here.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 06:10:23 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That is obsurd (3.00 / 2)
A "person" is a legal construct, defined by law.  Look it up.  Words matter.  Neither a zygote, and embryo, nor a fetus are persons.

I'm sorry, but if a person is nothing more than a legal construct, why do we care about the holocaust?  Why do we care about the destruction of the native americans?

By your definition anyone can be denied the right to live if the law says so.

US law used to say that African Slaves count as 2/3 of a person.  Even if the law says it's so, that doesn't make it true.

And even if you want to use a looser, colloquial definition, I still will maintain that they are not persons.

Like Hitler and the Jews.  Like Cortez and the Aztecs...
You can deny and deny all you want.  You haven't made a LOGICAL case.

Sorry, but purely emotional appeals aren't going to work here.

All I've seen out of you are emotional pleas.  I haven't heard an ounce of logical discussion out of you.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 09:24:38 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I looked up the definition of person (2.67 / 2)
http://www.thefreedictionar y.com/person
1. A living human.

http://dictionary.reference .com/browse/person

1.  a human being, whether man, woman, or child: The table seats four persons.

2. a human being as distinguished from an animal or a thing.

http://www.merriam-webster. com/dictionary/person
1. Human, Individual

I'm starting to suspect that you made up a definition of "person" to suit your argument.  I couldn't find anything about a person being nothing but a legal construct.

Like many who hold the pro-choice view, there's a huge gap between the facts and whatever comes out of your mouths.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 09:43:15 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Legal vs. Colloquial Definitions (4.20 / 4)
http://legal-dictionary.the freedictionary.com/Person

Note that corporations are "persons", but that an unborn fetus is not a legal person.  A "person" is an entity that has certain rights that are recognized by all.

It seems that only anti-abortionists think of zygotes, embryos, or fetuses as persons -- although the number broadens when a fetus becomes "viable".  And although I think that a viable fetus that doesn't threaten its mother should be allowed to be born, I still don't really care that much because it doesn't think, it doesn't have emotions, it isn't conscious, makes no intentional attempts to communicate, and I can't shake hands with it.

It isn't a person, as I understand the word.

But I might be wrong once it becomes viable, so I'm interested in seeing that pregnancy proceed normally.  Nevertheless, I'll give the person, with whom I can shake hands, the benefit of the doubt in all other situations.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:27:46 PM EST

[ Parent ]
P.S. (4.20 / 4)
The category "human being" also be used to include creatures that have such deformities in the womb that they stand no chance of living after they've passed through the birth canal, possibly killing the mother.  "Human being" is not a sufficient categorization to prohibit abortions.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 10:32:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The Arrogance I refer to (2.00 / 1)
Is the arrogance the pro-choice people show when they take the worst examples, and assume that is the same for everyone.

I don't pretend to know you.  Don't pretend to know me.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 02:43:25 PM EST

[ Parent ]
The arrogance that I refer to (4.00 / 4)
is the arrogance the anti-abortion people show when they demand to take control of what women do with their bodies.

I'm telling you that is what you are doing.  Is there anything else I need to know about you that is relevant to this discussion?  If so, I'm listening.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 02:59:24 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's because too many pro-lifers (3.00 / 1)
Don't know what they're doing.  Like the idiot who shot teller.  Did he really think killing him would help things?

All it does is give people an excuse to avoid discussion about a topic that deserves serous consideration.

And like I said, let's try to stop the problem before it starts.

by BJ2727 on 06/10/2009 03:30:40 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Ummmmm Pretty Damn Presumptuous AnEngineer (2.00 / 3)
I am pro choice.  Why did you make all of those assumptions about me?  Wow, you are a defensive person, aren't you?  My post just states that there is NO comparison to this murderer and the terrorists.  Apples and oranges my friend.  Actually, more like apples and steel ball bearings.

by MarkDotThat on 06/10/2009 10:53:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Sorry for the misunderstanding (4.00 / 4)
Of course, your criticism of the obvious and simple comparison of Roeder to other terrorists made me think that you wanted to minimize what he'd done, and... well, like I said, I'm sorry for mistaking your position.

But wait a second.  "Steel ball bearings" and "NO comparison".  You do want to minimize it, after all.

Well, on the other hand you seem to think that such a simple comparison is "convoluted".  It may be merely lack of mental acuity rather than denial.

Yes.  That's it:  You claim that there are only three "Islamic fundamentalist terrorists" and, naturally, offer no evidence to support such a ridiculous claim.

(I'm a "defensive" person?  You should try to avoid irrelevant mischaracterizations of others in the future.  It's a two-edged sword that more often than not ends up wounding an unskilled owner such as yourself, and derails what otherwise might have been a good conversation.)

Have a nice day.

by AnEngineer on 06/10/2009 12:18:37 PM EST

[ Parent ]
More presumtions (none / 1)
Mr Engineer, by pointing out that the comparison is like apples to steel ball bearings, I am in NO way minimizing this horrid act of murder.  I am just pointing out that it is not terrorism for political, ideological gains like, say bombing a wedding reception, flying a plane into an iconic building or severing the head of a reporter on camera.  The murder of the doctor was horrid.  It was a hate crime of the first order.  It was not terrorism.  It was not conspiratorial in nature.  It was not meant to deter a culture, subculture or society from their way of life.  It was the heinous act of a sick individual filled with hatred for the doctor because of his individual profession.

Secondly, I did not claim that there were only three terrorists.  I stated that only three were water boarded.

by MarkDotThat on 06/11/2009 02:42:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Bad Spelling--Sorry (none / 0)
Sorry, mispelled presumptuous AND went back to read my original post.  My bad, it DOES read like I was stating that there were only three terrorists--I apologize for not being clear the first time.

by MarkDotThat on 06/11/2009 02:49:53 PM EST

[ Parent ]

Should We Waterboard the Domestic Terrorist Who Shot Dr. Tiller? | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 hidden)