A prominent US abortion doctor has been shot dead at a church in the city of Wichita, Kansas.
Dr George Tiller, one of the few US doctors who performed late-term abortions, had been vilified by anti-abortionists in the US. The gunman fled in a car, but officials say a suspect is now in custody. US Attorney General Eric Holder said the US would offer protection to “appropriate people and facilities” in the wake of Dr Tillers’ killing.
Dr Tiller’s clinic – called Women’s Health Care Services – had often been the site of demonstrations, and he had been shot and wounded by an assailant 16 years ago. Questioning of the suspect, a 51 year-old man, is continuing. Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said he was likely to face one charge of murder and two counts of aggravated assault for allegedly pointing a gun at two other men.
Dr Tiller, who was 67, was shot just after 1000 (1500 GMT) at the Reformation Lutheran Church. His lawyer, Dan Monnat, said his client was killed while serving as an usher during a morning church service. His wife was in the choir at the time.
- BBC News
H/T to Hoyden About Town
UPDATE: 11/6/09.
From Little Green Footballs:
As we noted last Sunday, when murder suspect Scott Roeder was arrested, the phone number of Operation Rescue was discovered on a Post-It note in his car.
Now it turns out that this wasn’t just the phone number of the Operation Rescue office, but of a specific person: Cheryl Sullenger, the senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue — who was herself convicted in 1988 of conspiring to bomb a California abortion clinic, and served two years in prison.
Sullenger’s name even appears on the Operation Rescue press release about the murder of Dr. George Tiller.
So now we learn that one of the senior officials for Operation Rescue (who are spinning like crazy to portray themselves as a non-extremist group with no connections to violence or to Scott Roeder) is a convicted felon in an abortion clinic bombing plot. Isn’t that lovely?
It’s going to be a little harder to convince people that Scott Roeder is a lone gunman when one of your organisation’s three authorised spokespeople has been acting as a spotter for the sniper.
160 Comments
I’ve noticed an odd dichotomy. Some people who support late term abortion don’t support the death penalty, some people who support the death penalty don’t support late term abortion. As far as I’m concerned, it’s all on the same spectrum of behaviour. The question is the same – in what circumstances is it lawful to kill a human being? and for what reasons?
I don’t understand how the person who killed the doctor justifies his or her behaviour. Particularly given that the doctor was in a church at the time?
Arguments both in favour of the death penalty and against abortion are often shaped around whether the victim “deserves” to die. Capital punishment is just that, punishment/revenge for a particular crime, usually involving the unauthorised taking of life (there still seems to be a lot of debate about how much of a disincentive the example really is for others though proponents hold it up as such). Anti-abortionists wail at the slaughter of “innocent” babies who’ve not had a chance to sin, unlike their slutty mothers who should be forced to be accountable for their choices and made to carry to term regardless of the circumstances.
You’re right in that both circumstances are baldly about ending life and not surprisingly the law is pretty clear about the circumstances when this does and does not have state approval (after due process of law within the appeal system in the case of the death penalty, and when two doctors have agreed that there is a risk of harm to mother or child in the case of abortion).
As always, law attempts to balance the competing rights of those concerned: criminal/victim/society in the case of the death-penalty and mother/child/society in the case of abortion. The issue of relative right and wrong is one of morality and ethics which is the purview of religion and politics rather than law.
The killer will justify his behaviour the way people always do, by re-drafting the definition of who does and does not qualify as ‘human’ (tip: people who agree with you are human). The church was just a low-security place to approach his target. If Tiller had been a “real” christian he wouldn’t have made his living killing babies, of course. A “real” church wouldn’t have welcomed him as a member of its congregation.
Ah yes, so the resident pretend Christian, the quivering Quaker – Ms DIY Religion herself who goes by the moniker DeusExMackintosh 0 has nothing to say about the 60,000 children Tiller murdered over three decades, but his murderer – a lone vigilante, a conspiracy theorist with a criminal record and a history of dubious associations, perhaps some mental instability, is suddenly indicative of what – anyone who is pro-life? Pathetic. Why didn’t you just copy out the Huffpo talking points memo and call them all terrorists or something? It’s not like we haven’t come to expect your lack of moral clarity.
Yes I am a quivering Quaker (it’s the nerve damage, I can’t help it).
What do I have to say about 60,000 dead babies? That I’m pretty sure they were a tragic loss to every one of their mothers.
That they weren’t the victims of “murder” as “murder” has a very specific criminal definition their deaths did not meet. Dr Tiller worked in a state where late-term abortions are legal when supported by the opinion of two doctors that continuing the pregnancy to term risked permanent damage to mother or child (other states expect a woman to carry a child older than 23-26 weeks to term regardless of the harm or suffering it might cause either of them).
Bitch all you want about whether the second opinion doctor was independent enough, or that the definition of “harm” should be more strictly defined but don’t call it murder because that’s factually incorrect. Walking up to a middle aged man and blowing him away with a gun … that’s murder, because the law says so.
I haven’t called him a terrorist because I don’t know whether his motivation was truly “kill one, scare a thousand” or because he used an “ends justify the means” argument and decided that as Dr Tiller was operating entirely within the law only killing him could stop his work. Dubious associations? Yes, I’d consider the pro-life movement a dubious association…
Oh, and it’s macintosh with a ‘c’ like the computer. DeusExMackintosh sounds like a divine flasher!
I have to say that late term abortion bothers me. My discomfort comes down to the fact that I was born very prematurely and survived.
I can see there might be reasons why a mother might want a late term abortion (eg, the child has massive congenital deformities and cannot survive long outside the womb without immense pain and medical intervention).
But what if the child could survive outside the mother’s womb? What is the distinction between a late term abortion because a child is deformed, and killing a baby at birth because it is deformed? The only difference, as far as I can see, is that the child cannot be seen in the former instance. Why is one allowed and not the other? Peter Singer’s arguments on this topic come to mind.
I think these kinds of questions need to be addressed, uncomfortable though they are.
I am laughing at the divine flasher line. It’s a good one.
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, developed systems of law are ‘kinder’ when parents (usually a mother) has killed a child under the age of 12 months. This is the substance of the UK’s Infanticide Act, which was drafted in response to the repeated refusal of juries (at that time all male) to convict parents who killed very young children for whatever reason.
This, I suspect, is a very primitive impulse and not one where the law could be expected to do much useful work (other than bring itself into disrepute). Late term abortion — even if hedged all about with fever trees, as it is in the UK — falls to be addressed in much the same way. I think the hedging is right — in repeated conversations about this issue on Catallaxy, it became very clear that it should get harder to obtain an abortion as time passes, but it should never actually be illegal: the law simply will not work.
As to the fear of non-existence, I think Tom Shakespeare addresses this thoughtfully: you can only fear non-existence if you, in fact, exist. His arguments have their origins in Lucretius, who points out that a dead person cannot miss being alive.
For Lucretius, fear of death is a projection of terrors experienced in life, of pain that only a living (intact) mind can feel. Lucretius also puts forward the ‘symmetry argument’ against the fear of death. In it, he says that people who fear the prospect of eternal non-existence after death should think back to the eternity of non-existence before their birth, which they probably do not fear.
There, that’s my dose of philosophy for the day!
As a reasonably religious and quite disabled person I’m understandably not much into utilitarian arguments like Singer’s, but I also have a basic question…
WHY do these questions need to be addressed? Why is it a public debate conducted by large groups? If a woman is a mentally competent adult, why isn’t she deemed morally or intellectually capable of taking the decision to abort or carry a pregnancy to term based on her own needs, opinions and circumstances?
I’m not saying that Society(TM) doesn’t have major issues with disability – I have a shelf full of research materials on eugenics and the Nazis T4 program to suggest otherwise – but a woman is likely to end up as the primary caregiver in any case. She is surely the best judge of her own abilities, financial position and personal circumstances? If in her moral or religious opinion it is more appropriate to put the interests of the child before her own needs then she is free to do so, but why is it acceptable for the law to impose those beliefs onto another woman who doesn’t necessarily share them?
Why DON’T we have abortion on demand? Why do women still have to grovel to two professional authorities (usually men) to seek permission for a procedure they’ve decided best suits their needs? Why can a Cairns teenager be charged with a criminal offence for “procuring her own miscarriage” by taking a smuggled drug that is legal for a doctor to provide for exactly the same purpose. (Note: she’s not charged for smuggling the drug, just ending the pregnancy).
Would it mean more discrimination against disabled people with fewer being born? The complaint is that even minor disability is sufficient grounds to get you killed in utero RIGHT NOW, so I can’t see we’d be any worse off. Some mothers will still choose to continue a disabled pregnancy and some conditions simply can’t be detected until AFTER birth (some are a result of birth). Changing the law on abortion doesn’t reduce the legal protection any disabled baby has once it is a living child.
Would it mean a reduction in state support for the care of disabled children because their birth was then perceived as a matter of choice rather than an unfortunate accident? Regional authorities are already failing to provide adequate care and educational support for children with disabilities despite being required by law to do so. Changing abortion law wont alter anti-discrimination laws.
In your discussion on Catallaxy, why was it decided that obtaining an abortion should be harder the longer a pregnancy went on, SL?
I too am uncomfortable about late-term abortions, but would rather err on the side of the health of the mother, mental or physical, because of the more significant human attachments (“chattels”) the expecting mother has.
My feeling is that the degree of any moral or legal crime is proportional to the ability to participate in mutual human interactions (to give and receive love) and the degree of realized attachment by other humans (rather than the abstract love one has to an unborn child). One analogy worth considering here is the moral difference between shooting a feral cat, with no human attachments, versus shooting someone’s dearly loved pet.
While if there is nothing abnormal in the foetus, I’d much rather adoption than a /third/ trimester abortion, but if continuing to term was associated with a significant probability of suicide by the mother, then I think termination is the least worst option.
It’s worth remembering that with severe (or even mild) congenital abnormalities, the probability of adoption is minimal.
The other reason I see that can justify late-term abortion is the same reason that justifies euthanasia: to decrease intolerable suffering. Back in the early net days, on my home page below "Favorite Books" I had added "Favorite disease: Lesch-Nyhan Syndrome" (because of the weird biochemistry, the surreal results, and it’s rarity – 60 cases all up recorded when I was studying) – and was taken aback when a carer asked me for information as this was the only highly-visible mention of that horrible disease on the net at the time. After pointing to Stanley M. Wyngaarden’s “The Metabolic Basis of Inherited Disease”, and apologising profusely, the carer wrote back saying (paraphrased): “Understandable – the main thing the victims are aware of is the misery of their affliction. It’s a blessing they rarely get past adolescence” If I was a sufferer (severe gouty arthritis, retardation, coprolalia and constant self-mutilation – including biting your fingers, half your own lips, teeth, cheeks and even jaws off, even though pleading to be restrained), and had the wherewithall to self euthanaze, I’d do it in an instant.
The other thing that has influenced my thinking (and goes to the issue raised by DEM@3), was an encounter (when I was 16 and on work experience with a doctor) with a severe microcephalic aged 10. With a cranium little bigger than a cat’s, there would have been no ability to give or receive human love, and less awareness than that of a dog. I was confronted (even without the doctor asking me provocative questions) by the disturbing thought – though this had human chromosomes, I didn’t consider it held the spark of humanity, and could have given it an overdose of barbiturates with the same degree of emotional discomfort as I would a a dog or rat: I’d hate doing it, but not feel like I’d done anything heinous. (And yes, I hated sacrificing rats and such, which I why it was appropriate I did it, rather than someone who wasn’t troubled by it).
And I’ll go with SL@7: all set about with fever trees, it’s a great grey-green greasy mire and difficult to know exactly where to take a stand.
I don’t condone Tiller’s murder DEM. Murder is murder and always and everywhere wrong. But to suggest Tiller was not a murderer because what? He happened to live in Kansas where the state law says he’s not? This is why people travelled from around the world to his clinic – so they could kid themselves they weren’t murdering their children because Kansas law and the unscrupulous and wierd Tiller told them they’re not?
Nothing like a seared conscience. Consider the sort of man you are defending DEM.
As opposed to the tyranny of enforcing your religious beliefs on a woman who doesn’t share them? Perhaps you consider it generosity to deny an abortion to a woman whose pregnancy has developed in such a way that completion and/or delivery is liable to either kill or cripple her because you can make sure she fulfills her proper maternal function as a woman (before she dies, at least). Personally I’d say forced birth is slavery of the worst possible kind, but then I’m a woman and therefore might actually have to face the prospect.
Sorry saint, murder is a specifically defined criminal charge not just any killing you don’t personally agree with. Your Bankstown piece is full of sh*t on this – though credit where it’s due, surprisingly well written and emotionally persuasive. Off the top of my head (and I’m the NON-lawyer administrator here) there’s murder 1, murder 2, manslaughter, unlawful killing, lawful killing (usually by an armed police officer in the course of his duties but also the reason you don’t see soldiers in court) and in fewer places capital punishment and euthanasia. SL can probably expand that list even further. Abortion is lawful killing, not murder. If you’re going to use legal terms then you need to make a legal argument. If you’re simply using them to provide additional “gravitas” for what is actually a religious argument then you are being intellectually dishonest.
I followed your link. So you have a problem with the “sort of man” who provides grief counselling and emotional support to his patients? Who helps them openly acknowledge that a life has been lost and allows them to see the child they have lived with for so many months and had expected to keep? Who keeps a chaplain on staff for their pastoral care? (The site author doesn’t consider them “real” chaplains of course – quel suprise. Yep, those Episcopalians are the lunatic fringe.)
His clinic helps to organise funerals, baptism and cremation for what has clearly been a baby – kind of like those bigger medical facilities these days, what are they called, oh yes, HOSPITALS – rather than treating the remains as medical waste and incinerating it with the other rubbish. You’d prefer that he pat parents on the head and say “don’t worry, it wasn’t REALLY a human life anyway”?
Am I willing to defend a doctor for providing consolation and support to parents who’ve exercised their legal rights in making one of life’s hardest choices and experienced one of its biggest losses instead of treating them like murdering scum?
You bet your ass!
DEM, I don’t know about the thread on Catallaxy, but my take on why abortions are harder to get the longer a pregnancy goes on is that a foetus progresses further towards a viable human being. This is why also we do not generally sanction the killing of a newborn – because at that point the child is a viable human being, capable of surviving without its mother. It’s not just a question of the mother’s rights then – once the foetus becomes a separate entity with a separate consciousness, we regard it as person, not just a person in potentio.
WRT to the point about lawful killing – my question is – why does the law say that killing within the womb is sometimes lawful yet killing once the child is born is generally not lawful?
Saint: Ah yes, so the resident pretend Christian, the quivering Quaker – Ms DIY Religion herself… has nothing to say about the 60,000 children Tiller murdered over three decades,…. It’s not like we haven’t come to expect your lack of moral clarity.
.
With such Emersonian eloquence I can see that the anti-abortion crew have produced an advocate who vanquishes the sterotype to which you refer forever.
why does the law say that killing within the womb is sometimes lawful yet killing once the child is born is generally not lawful?
.
I think because you have to draw the line somewhere and that’s a pretty clear place to draw it.
I only found out about late term abortions a few years ago. I stick to my opinion that a fetus is a guest at the pleasure of its mother until it starts breathing on its own but, I think, if I were a woman I’d have a real problem terminating a pregnancy at such a late stage unless there was some strong medical reason to do so.
Still it’s not my call.
I think I’d have a problem terminating a pregnancy at an early stage too unless there was some kind of medical problem. But other people are different to me: in unstable relationships, drug addicted, in violent relationships where the child is at risk of being physically or sexually abused, physically or medically incapable of carrying a child to term, victims of rape etc.
As I’ve said over at Saint’s place, I’m really wary of moral absolutes either way. I can always think of exceptions to the rule..
Adrien@14 says on differentiating between terminating before and after birth:
The Vatican draws the line before conception.
If there is a guideline I’d offer, it would be functional, based on cerebral integrity, moderated by a number of other factors, including an apparently cold calculus of love and suffering. I’m very hesitant to draw a line in the sand because if there is rule of thumb in biology, it is that almost everything (including deciding whether a single autocatalytic molecule of RNA is alive or not) is a grey area.
Nature culls most concepti before reaching maturity, the most significant being whether or not implantation occurs (about 80% I think, making up many instances of a woman having unprotected sex, with usually regular periods, and without a cause of disturbance such as an infecion, being “a few days late”). If each conceptus is sacred, then why don’t anti-abortionists blame their deity as the most significant killer of concepti?
At least Saint’s post on this subject shows some consistency by condemning Tiller’s murder as strongly as Tiller’s work.
Perhaps the Dutch legal approach to euthanasia is also appropriate for late term abortions: doctors and patients make decisions before the event, and society makes decisions about legality after the event as the doctors are under an obligation to report the case and are automatically charged with murder, although most investigations clear the doctor very quickly on confirmation that “all the boxes are ticked”.
I cannot imagine that any woman would terminate in the third trimester without compelling reasons, as anyone who would make such a decision would almost certainly terminate earlier with even less compelling reasons.
If each conceptus is sacred, then why don’t anti-abortionists blame their deity as the most significant killer of concepti?
Because as the nappy heads said:
Well they’re not all fascists but a lot of them are not doing it for life but something else. In the Church’s case it’s the production lots of l’il Cath’lics + keeping women busy so they don’t realize they’re being conned.
Adrien @14:
Here is the bit that annoys me – to the best of my knowledge late term abortions aren’t legal anywhere UNLESS there are really serious medical reasons. It’s a total Aunt Sally of an issue.
Dave@16:
I know what you want…
I had assumed this was because traditionally an individual prior to birth had no recognised legal rights or recourse – which was why compensation couldn’t be claimed when a pregnant woman lost her child as a result of an accident (traffic or industrial) or criminal assault. She could claim for damage done to herself but the foetus was considered a seperate entity and couldn’t have a claim made on its own behalf because it didn’t wasn’t recognised as having a legal interest. I imagine there will be judicial rulings that explain exactly why this was decided.
And to move away from the Catholic-bashing, whilst I agree with Adrien that institutionalised control of female sexuality has a LOT to do with the Vatican’s anti-abortion/anti-contraception stance, I don’t doubt that there are also genuine moral issues of right and wrong informing the debate. The reason I am refusing to engage saint on that level and sticking to legally defined right and wrong is that our moral understanding is largely shaped by our religious upbringing and beliefs. This is a perfectly acceptable way to construct the debate (though it seems to foster a certain carelessness in terminology) but the ‘principles’ which issues like abortion violate are highly subjective and their authority is limited to the faith/denomination/sect from which they arise. There is no such thing as a universal moral consensus – everyone “draws the line” differently – and achieving one would involve the imposition of one person’s religious belief onto someone who didn’t share it. This is largely why I think abortion should be freely available on demand, trusting the moral competence of women to make up their own mind.
Yes, you then face the possibility that a woman might get eight months in and decide “I’m fed up with being pregnant” and want an abortion, but it’s still an elective procedure and I doubt she’d find a doctor willing to perform one in those circumstances. In licensing drivers we face the possibility that one might go straight out and play a real life version of Carmageddon … it could happen but strangely, it hasn’t.
Any argument of the moral rights and wrongs of abortion with saint would inevitably amount to a “my religion is right and yours is wrong” stance which is one I’m not willing to take, and with the idea of “natural law” well and truly debunked philosophically, this leaves only the legal system as the valid arbiter of any emerging social consensus.
I don’t doubt that pro-lifers have a genuine and passionate belief in the principles they espouse, but as Dorothy L Sayers said “the first thing a principle does – if it really IS a principle – is kill someone”.
And in Dr Tiller, it has.
These days recompense can be recovered negligence resulting in a child born with disability. Even if the negligence is that of the mother. (The names which float into my head from the dim distant past are Watt v Rama and Lynch v Lynch).
Oh spare me the violins DEM. Tiller never took on emergencies. He was one of three doctors who were willing to perform late term abortions in a state with lax laws – he performed abortions illegal in most other parts of the U.S. and elsewhere around the world, because they are deemed infanticide. He’d kill a kid to relieve the mother of “temporary depression”. He’d kill a kid for having CF even though they had a sibling living with CF. He’d prey on the emotionally distraught, the cowardly and the self-centred
The ghoulish “funerals” he offered (with a chaplain who had been dead for four years) were no more than emotional blackmail of women or couples still in shock. Like I said, I don’t condone his murder, but the idea that you who claim to be a Christian would defend such scum says to me more about you than him.
The question is, why you do call yourself a “Christian” when you hate the church, hate what she teaches, can’t stand to live the life of holiness demanded of us by Christ because it impinges on your ass-betting and makes you so unpopular amongst all the lefties you so earnestly desire to please. Why do you call yourself a “Christian” one who supposedly worships the living God – the author of life – when you advocate for death and injustice – the wilful murder of an innocent child. You’d sit there and scream blue murder should anyone defend others against a tyrant who gasses and bombs his own people, runs rape squads and yet, kill your own kid? Sure honey. Go ahead.
I can only wonder DEM, at what has transpired in your life to make you so bitter, so hateful, so lacking in moral vision, so joyless. Only a misanthrope would murder, much less kill their own child.
And sorry DEM if you define morality by statute books and geographic location. So much for the spirit-led Christian you purport to be.
You’ll be in my prayers this week DEM.
That’s a poor argument LE. A baby cannot live independent of another even after it is born. Ditto us at various points in our lives for various reasons. Some people spend their entire lives utterly dependant on others and/or medical intervention. Are they any less human because of it?
In any case, to judge abortion on medical viability is once again to make an arbitrary wilful choice as to who lives and who dies, and impose that choice imposed on the human beings who cannot even protest much less defend themselves – an unborn child. And it is no wonder that some advocatefor murdering children after they are born, while they are yet infants or the seriously infirm. They are just as defenceless. It’s so easy to kill someone who cannot protest or defend themselves. But not what I call justice.
Here’s what I mean about arbitrary cutoffs based on ‘viability‘
Like you, I can’t be sure of much about Tiller’s practice because medical records are confidential. I don’t know what proportion of his work was late term, as your site materials clearly show that his clinic provided termination procedures throughout all stages of pregnancy from the morning-after pill onwards. I’d be genuinely surprised if he never took on emergencies as you claim, but then we probably define “emergency” differently.
As there’s no such thing as 100% effective contraception (and before you start, what’s the failure rate of abstinence attempts again?) I have no personal problem with a woman obtaining an abortion prior to foetal viability simply because she doesn’t want to be pregnant. Forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy against her will WOULD cause harm. If I were really cynical I might suspect that what you’re really suggesting is that some women deserve to be harmed.
Because when your family life already revolves around the care of one severely disabled child, how hard could it be to add the care of a second?
Because what rational, noble or decent person would consider an abortion in the first place?!
About the only place it seemed clear that Tiller WAS failing his legal obligations was in not automatically reporting the abuse of those patients who were made pregnant under the age of 16 – its statutory rape in Kansas. I understand his stated concerns about privacy and consent, but if the law says you have to report it then you should. You don’t like the law, get politically active and campaign to change it (which your site shows he did, dwelling on his political contributions at some length).
I’m curious, saint. Are you in fact an anti-abortion absolutist or are we just arguing over definitions and spin? I believe that some things CAN be more important than the the potential life of an unborn child (the continued life of its mother for example). Do you?
No saint, I think morality is defined by religious belief. I also believe in the doctrine of free will and the human right to freedom of religion, which means I never consider it appropriate to impose the demands of my personal beliefs on those who do not share them. I also tend to resent it when others try to do so. [In placard terms: keep your rosaries off my ovaries].
Thank you for the prayers. As a Quaker I believe there is “that of God in everyone”, even people I find tiresome so you’ll be in mine also (mainly in the bits asking for more patience but also for your general welfare). I don’t mind that you don’t believe God will hear me – I do, and that’s what matters.
But a child can live independently of its mother after a certain point of gestation, and I think that is one of the key things which informs the division (whether one agrees with it as a dividing line or not).
Personally, I think of contraception as different to the morning after pill, and different again to abortion. I have absolutely no problem with contraception, and very little problem with the morning after pill, because these only involve (a) the prevention of possibility of conception or (b) the prevention of a possible implantation at a very early stage. The further along a child gets in development, the more uncomfortable I am with that pregnancy being ended.
I think my own attitude to abortion changed when I first saw an ultrasound of my daughter at 12 weeks, and she had limbs, fingers, toes, eyes. Somehow I’d thought she would be a “blob” (like she was at 6 weeks). I know that after that experience, personally, I’d find it very hard to terminate a pregnancy in most circumstances. But I don’t feel comfortable imposing my views on others.
I can see that people might be in a situation where an abortion is necessary. For example, I was told of a friend of a friend who was a Type 1 diabetic. She could not get her blood glucose levels under control. She was in a loving marriage, and would have loved to have had children. However, she took contraception because her own health and the health of any child would be at extreme risk if she conceived. Unfortunately, at one point, the contraception didn’t work. She would have loved nothing more than to bear that child, but with her blood glucose levels fluctuating so badly, there was a high chance the child would not survive, and also a severe risk to her own health. So she had an abortion, which must have been utterly heartbreaking.
Thoughts from an ex-fetus
And why accept the professional judgement of two doctors on the medical necessity of abortion when you can rely on the self-appointed morality police of the pro-life movement.
Hang on, I thought you said only feckless, self-indulgent sluts wanted abortions?
(H/T to TigTog at Hoydens for the link)
“He was one of three doctors who were willing to perform late term abortions in a state with lax laws”
.
Of course, if you didn’t have religious right-wing nut jobs with guns, he might have been one of 3000 for all we know.
Perhaps a blast of lightening would have been too obvious? This fits into ‘the Lord works in mysterious ways’ category.
oh dear, lightning not lightening.
Saint, that’s the way the law operates – we have draw arbitrary lines where we don’t really know when life begins. Similar things happen with death, for example – there’s a murder case from recollection where a man was stabbed by two spears in PNG – whose spear cause the death?
I didn’t really like that article to which you linked – a lot of hyper-emotional rhetoric. I feel the same way about people who describe foetuses as just a “bundle of cells” BTW.
If a friend of mine wanted to have an abortion because the child was “inconvenient”, yes, I personally find that very problematic. And if they asked me what I thought, I’d tell them. But ultimately, I’m not the one who has to bring up the baby. And, if they don’t want a child so much that they’re willing to go through that, I don’t know that they’re ready to bring up a child.
Never mind Sinkers, we all get struck by lightning from time to time…
In response to an earlier request:
The argument for making abortion harder to obtain as pregnancy progresses is that aborting very late begins to resemble unlawful killing rather than management of fertility. The Infanticide Act preserves this distinction when it comes to infants: there are circumstances where what looks like murder should be treated as unlawful killing. Similarly, late term abortion can look like unlawful killing. I think that’s a legal distinction worth preserving (the law can draw fine distinctions, but only if the fine and sometimes porous boundaries it assays are respected), especially as it makes a realistic attempt at ‘balancing the justice’.
Just out of curiosity, could the rules applied to lawful killing (such as those applied to police marksmen) be similarly applied to abortion providers or are they specialised on a profession by profession basis?
DEM @ 27 – fascinating link.
DEM, I think they’re kind of profession by profession. And then there’s the whole self-defence thing as well. But then criminal law’s not my speciality (SL – any ideas?)
LE@31
The term "foetus" is often misapplied by anti-choice advocates, when blastula (ball of cells), blastocyst (hollow ball of cells), gastrula (bundle of cells with differentiation into three layers and preliminary creation of what will become the gut), embryo (up until 2/12), foetus – afterwards (after 2/12).
It should also be noted that when fingers can be noted (a feature often used by anti-choice advocates), it’s pretty hard (for laypersons especially) to tell the difference between a human foetus and that of other primates – especially apes. If those advocates want to grant human rights to a foetus based on external appearance, then those of non-human anthropoid apes (and certainly adult non-human anthropoid apes) should be given similar rights.
This is why I think it’s useful to consider something functional (and correlated with structure) based on the organization of the brain – proper separation into lobes, grey and white matter, etc. This too is problematic, as the cognitive capabilities of neonates aren’t up to those of an adult sheep. How many anti-choicers eat animals that by the time they get to the abbatoir, have a much more sophisticated brain than a fingered human foetus?
I guess that a prerequisite for anti-choice views is speciesist human exceptionalism, probably because they believe in an immortal and indivisible souls, and wonder in what species they’d grant such souls and rail against termination (especially late-term): chimps? australopithecines? H. erectus? H. neanderthalensis? H. floriensis? Even if using membership of genus Homo, we still get into near-arbitrary dividing lines.
More critically, how would they pick which is worse, a second-trimester human, a near-term chimp abortion, or the killing of a chimp mother that has a dependant infant?
And what about abortion of any extraterrestrial space travellers that happen to come visiting (if they have interstellar travel, they are obviously more advanced than we are)?
So… with any criminalization of abortion (regardless of developmental stage), or indeed contraception (which is still an offence in some jurisdictions), yet disregarding the same killing of beings with higher cognitive abilities, does that mean that the law is implicitly bowing to one (Abhrahamist) theological position and accepting an unsubstantiated claim about the existence of a soul?
Finally, I think there has been a case where someone with a considerable congenital problem sued the parents for pain and suffering because they WEREN”T terminated. I don’t know if the action was successful or not, and I don’t know any more details. Does anyone else remember this and what was the result?
Dave, obviously a conceptus is a bundle of cells at some point. But it’s when people talk about a later foetus as a bundle of cells that gets my goat. It conjures up a vision of a big blob, whereas that’s not the case.
Re chimps and abortion – do humans administer abortions to chimps? I can’t really think of any situation where this would happen. I know that poachers kill chimp mothers and the like, and I tend to think they should be treated harshly when they kill another highly sentient primate.
But of course there’s always a dividing line – I eat meat, and I’m happy about that, even though I’m sure some of the animals I eat are sentient, and probably most of them feel pain and discomfort.
One thing which distinguishes human fertility from almost all other animal fertility – human females don’t have obvious fertile times where they are on heat like other animals (think of those baboons with the colourful bottoms, for example). So we cannot control our fertility as much as we might like to – some women can conceive at different times in their cycle or release eggs at different times. Seriously, if there was some outward sign of the fact we were fertile at a particular time, it might be easier. But then again, I’m glad humans don’t have baboon-like bottoms.
Sad to say, it made me laugh like a drain.
DEM – it’s the whole but the rules are different for us thing. The way people distinguish their own behaviour from the behaviour of others is psychologically fascinating.
And that these are people who lay particular claim to the inheritance of a man who said “do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
Since your position DEM and LE is that the decision to abort is entirely predicated on the mothers right to choose, would you agree that if a mother chooses to give birth but the father chooses to have no further involvement with the mother or child then the father should logically not be required to provide any financial assistance?
I’m sure your answer will be of course, that the right to choose applies equally to the mother and the father. In which case, since you are both ardent proponents of ‘choice’ will you support publicly a change to the maintenance laws in Australia to reflect the equal right of all to their own choice?
I’d agree with a version of that, Pat — but then I’m a libertarian.
As with abortion, timing is the key. The longer the father ‘holds out’ and fails to make up his mind as to whether he provides support during the course of the pregnancy, the harder it will be for him to avoid the provision of financial support. However, if his position is made explicit from early in the pregnancy, I don’t see any problem with it. Just as I find some of the anti-abortion arguments close to hysterical, I also find the whole culture of ‘I’m looking for someone to slap a paternity suit on’ pretty cheesy as well.
Obviously any such agreements would be subject to pre-existing contractual arrangements: are the parties married? Are they defacto? Is the woman his mistress? (I personally think allowing concubinage and forcing these kind of informal arrangements into the cold clear light of day would be a good thing). Are we dealing with a one night stand? etc etc.
Well that sounds consistent to me. I’d like to see the law changed to reflect the father’s right to not support the mother or child if he so chooses.
I’m not sure why you introduce contractual arrangements for consideration as these would not negate a mother’s so called right to choose (but then you are a lawyer
As stated at Saint’s I also would like to see abortion funding changed to only apply to those situations where a mother is directly at risk of death or serious health issues or if the pregnancy resulted from rape. This is a compromise for utilitarian purposes as neither situation is logically consistent with my position.
I’d also like to see the single mothers pension removed.
I’m sure DEM agrees with us both.
btw it is not inconsistent to be a proponent of the death sentence and pro-life, as I am. As you are also aware I am quite comfortable with the actions of Roeder as being a moral decision that will benefit the community, though no doubt illegal if he is proven guilty.
Well at the moment Pat the decision to abort is NOT predicated on a woman’s right to choose, it’s predicated on the agreement of two doctors that it is medically justified in preventing harm either to the mother or child. I certainly wouldn’t agree that the community has been benefitted by reducing the number of doctors willing and available to provide a necessary medical service from three to two.
To be honest I’ve not really considered the child maintenance issue. Subject to Skeptic’s qualifications about prior agreements/expectations and legal status and assuming that “no further involvement” means just that, with no demands for access or influence then yes I’d agree with you that pursuit isn’t logical. A man who doesn’t even want to see his child is hardly going to be willing to contribute to its upkeep.
Most of the current government hype about making fathers more “responsible” is in fact just a cynical excuse to reduce the amount of benefits they pay out to support some of those mothers (and if they’re not willing to pay single parents benefits then don’t, or limit the number of children eligible for support to 1 or 2 – and accept the social consequences of that decision).
I do think there are responsibilities that emerge from being a father even in its biological sense (if you don’t want kids, take responsibility for your own contraception and don’t demand unprotected sex) but whether they are financial or not I’m not sure.
As a woman, I can see both sides but that’s not relevant to this thread or your question.
Open any medical or biology text book LE. Life begins at conception. You know it, I know it. The difference is….
Refer to those same text books about the percentage of conceptions that fail to make it through even the first trimester and answer Dave’s question at @16. (For athiests there is probably a joke here somewhere about giving imaginary beings rights over actual ones.)
Yes, preventing harm to a child means dismembering it while alive, boiling it alive in saline, injecting poison into its beating heart, sticking a pair of scissors in its head and sucking its brains out, Pat. Let DEM convince you that’s harm prevention.
The thing is if you ask obgyns, there are precious few cases where pregnancy actually endangers the life of the mother. IThe way some people carry on these days you’d think pregnancy was a disease. IT IS NOT. Even the most “common” but still relatively rare cases of difficult pregnancies – ectopic pregnancies – resolve themselves naturally (and yes, in the case of one Aussie woman last year, sometimes the baby is carried to term and delivered healthy and well). There the doctor’s attitude will determine the course of action. Some will just move immediately to kill the child while others will place the woman under close medical supervision and only intervene if there is a rupture. The child’s death will be an unintended consequence of that intervention, but it is not the intention.
DEM to equate a miscarriage with the wilful destruction of a human life is like comparing a natural death to murder. But I guess I should expect that from someone with such blinkered amoral reasoning as yourself,
Read again, saint. Harm to child OR mother. Surgical abortion is obviously harm to the child and a nasty process that gets worse for both parties the longer the pregnancy progreses.
Leave an ectopic pregnancy and there is a small chance the result will include a live child, there is a small to medium chance the result will include a dead mother, there is an all but guarantee that it will result in a woman who’ll never have children again. You’ve already said @21 that the inability of a family to cope with a second severely disabled child isn’t a good enough reason to obtain an abortion (IYHO) so you’re certainly not going to give a damn about preserving a woman’s fertility. But THINK OF THE FUTURE IMAGINARY BAYBEEZ!
Oh Noes! Ectopic pregnancy is supposed to be the only legitimate grounds for an abortion! And you were doing so well following the manual, saint.
More in Salon…
Wrong DEM. It is not a legitimate grounds of abortion. As I said – and obviously beyond you – the child’s death will be an unintended consequence of that intervention, but it is not the intention. Abortion – the wilful and intentional kiling of a child – is everywhere and always wrong.
It is highly unusual for a woman with access to modern medical facilities to die from a rupture due to an ectopic pregnancy. All the more reason to get those services to women who don’t have access to it. And infertility is not a given – even if she loses an ovary, she still has another. All the medical evidence is against you there.
Nothing in life is without risk. But that’s how life is. It doesn’t mean one should live recklessly nor does it mean one lives their life as pantywaists. But of course you are so scared of life, so bitter and terrified about it…you don’t want others to know the joy of life for a start.
Everyone facing the prospect of raising a disabled child DEM is scared. And even parents with kids who are not disabled go through periods where they think they can’t cope. What are you going to suggest next? Kill Johnny because he’s been playing up at school and mum and dad are to frazzled to cope?
But to go to the example above I don’t consider CF as severely disabling nor reason to abort a child. Neither does my friend with three kids – and guess how many of them have CF? And if people can’t cope there are others who can and want to.
I love the way you like linking to Tigtog et al DEM. Tigtog is a God-hater. And God-haters tend to be misanthropes. So I don’t expect anything but twisted reasoning from her.
What I find especially repugnant about your view DEM, and yours in particular – is that you are so willing to support and advocate for something as morally abhorrent as abortion yet dare, dare to call yourself by His name. But then, as it is said: by their fruits you shall know them.
Saint now says:
“I don’t condone Tiller’s murder DEM. Murder is murder and always and everywhere wrong. ”
But here is what our bodily function obsessed friend had to say a few months back:
“Aussie Dave at Israellycool, with occasional help from friends, has been blogging Operation Cast Lead non-stop. I for one, am hoping that Israel will keep to their side of the bargain: to bitch slap Hamas should they fire so much as a fart.” http://dogfightatbankstown.typepad.com/blog/2009/01/cast-lead.html
Operation Caste Lead killed and maimed hundreds of innocent Palestinian women and children but on this occasion our stoic defender of human life could only muster a fart joke.
Saint old son, you’ve discredited the Christian brand far more than one thousand Piss Christ exhibitions ever could.
Sorry Mel. Israel was acting in self defense against a barrage of missiles (every single one an international war crime) aimed at innocent Isreali civilians. That hundreds of Palestinian women and children were killed or maimed when Israel went after Hamas is also a blatant lie. As was the cutting off of supplies, widespread destruction yada yada. Pure Pallywood.
Glad to see you read my blog. Pity about your mendacious cyberstalking but.
“Surgical abortion is obviously harm to the child and a nasty process that gets worse for both parties the longer the pregnancy progreses.”
.
I wish you guys could stop using the word “child”. You’re just pandering to Orwellian religious nutters.
DEM, when the community has had the doctors available reduced from three to zero, then it will truly have been served.
The Weld Angel has spoken to me and I see that activism is the only legitimate form of protest that will ever get a hearing, that will ever have a pragmatic response. Therefore I endorse, entirely and without reservation every Pro-Life effort in that regard. This is a position very much at odds with the vast majority of pro-lifers (like Saint and CL for your records) but one that I have given much thought to and one that I feel firmly convicted in.
I sincerely hope and pray that every abortionist and their adherents, as well as all their apologists, suffer the very same justice that they themselves inflict.
There is no inconsistency in my position. No innocent life is taken.
A man who doesn’t even want to see his child is hardly going to be willing to contribute to its upkeep. Doesn’t even want to see his child hey? That’s a good one DEM. A man should feel shame about not wanting to give maintenance but a woman’s “choice” to kill is not given such pejoratives, in fact is applauded by you? Why the two facedness?
And yet you “do think there are responsibilities that emerge from being a father even in its biological sense”. Odd indeed. Some would say inconsistent to the point of being a complete and utter, unabashed, shameful and rank hypocrite.
Face it DEM, your position is based on a personal situation stemming from a sense of hurt and loss. Overcome by this emotional angst you are lashing out at the world by sustaining a cruel attitude to life at its most vulnerable. There is no logic to your position, no consistency except for a desire to retaliate at for things that you grieve for and will never overcome until you accept accept yourself.
You think I’m a God-hater, saint so it wouldn’t surprise me if you thought the Hoydens were running Lucifer’s local branch office. Disagreeing with their point of view does not devalue the relevance of some the resources they’ve dug up, hence my links.
You’ve asked a couple of times how I can justify disagreeing with you so just this once I will TRY and explain how my religious understanding informs my morality as it relates to abortion (everyone else who is not a habitual god-botherer might want to look away now). This is an attempt at clarification, not persuasion. We obviously have VERY different beliefs.
This is what I have observed:
It used to be that women lost any right to self determination on marriage, your argument seems to be that they should lose the right to self determination the moment sperm hits ovum, with the cottees topping on this shit sandwich being the claim that it’s “what god wants”.
My suspicion is that you want to set yourself up as the morality police and see the laws controlling access to abortion as a convenient way of achieving this.
You also seem to think that my personal beliefs require your validation. They do not. Further attempts to tell me my religious business on a thread I control will be Sooned.
It now seems clear that you are indeed a “God’s Will-er” in refusing to accept any valid grounds for interfering with conception: rape, incest, death, suffering … it’s all God’s will, our job is to eat the shit sandwich and like it. I don’t agree with the Hoydens that this is the inevitable position of ANY member of the Pro-life movement but you’ve certainly proven that it is present at the extremes.
Deliberately concealing a “no abortion, no question” attitude in order to maximise support for your preferred restrictions is patently dishonest, hence my doubts about your repeated claims to moral superiority. If your morals truly are superior, why is it necessary to lie about them?
Where my morals come from:
The primary belief of Quakers is that there is “that of God in everyone”, so I believe that there is “that of God” in both the mother and the potential life in her womb. Secondary to this are the four testimonies of simplicity, equality, truth and peace which inform our understanding of right and wrong. The arbiter I trust to determine right and wrong is my conscience, that “still, small voice” Emerson referred to that I personally believe to be the way that God communicates with me.
[Yep, I think God talks to me. Short pause whilst Skepticlawyer goes into woo-overload
]
Quakers are honest enough to admit that personal interests can cloud our interpretation so “leadings” of this kind and importance are double checked by seeking a meeting for clarity with others in the Meeting who don’t have a personal stake in the issue. We sit together, asking silently for guidance and see if the group obtains a clear response and whether this concurs with that perceived by the individual (this “sense of the Meeting” is even sought when we do business).
You may regard this as “making your religion up as you go along”, I prefer to think of it as referring directly to the spirit of the (religious) law rather than engaging in endlessly technical arguments over the letter of it as detailed in scriptures (this is because I personally feel that what does and does not constitute ‘orthodox’ religious authority has historically been decided on its political value rather than spiritual accuracy).
There is nothing in my experience of Quakerism that suggests the amount of God in everyone is variable so I don’t buy an argument that the interests of an ‘innocent’ unborn child somehow deserve more protection than those of its mother even if she were ‘guilty’ as sin. I place equal value on both lives but acknowledge that circumstances can and do arise where their relative interests may be in direct competition with each other. I then refer to the Testimonies.
Access to Abortion can be supported by Simplicity – it’s legal. Law can’t be the sole arbiter of human action and Quakers have always been big on civil disobedience (George Fox and his movement seem to have spent most of their first century in jail while refusing to fight the English Civil War) but it has a right to inform your personal decisions.
Access to Abortion can be supported by Equality – my opinions about abortion are mainly informed by my religious beliefs. The testimony of Equality tells me that a mother’s religious values and moral decisions are as valid as my own so I don’t have the right to impose my decisions about what circumstances are and are not acceptable on her.
Access to Abortion can be supported by Truth – it’s not necessary to deny that when conception occurs a potential human life exists so I wont try to minimise the impact of late-term abortion by refusing to say ‘baby’. I also wont pretend that forcing a woman to carry an unwanted child to term isn’t going to cause her long term psychological or physical harm (even a wanted pregnancy can do that). Truth is actively required in order for women and their physicians make the best possible choices on what is morally appropriate and medically necessary in their individual case.
Access to Abortion can be supported by Peace – no one has the right to use campaigns of violence, threat, intimidation or harassment against a woman who might seek it, those who might help her or a doctor who might provide it.
Accepting that abortion will happen does not require you to like it. A peaceful approach will not prevent the work of activists who wish to reduce the number of abortions that happen, it’s just becomes a matter of changing people’s minds with persuasion rather than blowing their brains out with a gun.
YESSSSSS! We finally got to Trotting Out the Toddler (or page 37 of the manual). I’ve been waiting for that since we started.
Conrad, I am amazed that clusters of cells like yourself can even formulate sentences. Some even grant the likes of you the nomenclature “human”. Myself, like you, I’m not that charitable.
Good Lord. I thought Quakerism was some sort of Protestant joke and now I realise the very seriousness of the proposition.
DM, what’s the difference between Quakerism and Uniting Church? I know that sounds like the lead in to a joke but I am seriously puzzled.
Is it like you find the idea of a resurrected Christ too unfathomable (understandable) yet kinda like some of the ideas and rituals surrounding the concept too hard to relinquish? If so, be honest and give it up mate.
You cannot in all seriousness call yourself Christian no matter what denomination and be simultaneously pro-abortion.
Uh, Pat that may have been the response you were expecting but that wasn’t the one I actually gave. I was clarifying that by “no further involvement” you meant literally, a man whose choice was to walk away completely and have no contact with or interest in the child ever again. I also pointed out that I felt the government rhetoric about “shaming” fathers into “taking responsibility” was utterly bogus.
If a man refused to share responsibility for contraception and demanded to “ride bareback” (so to speak) then turned around to his pregnant partner and said “Tough titties, luv. You keep it if you want to but I can’t be assed” then I’d consider him an asshole but I wouldn’t expect him to feel ashamed. Nor would I expect him to have any input if her decision was to opt for a termination because she didn’t want to bring the child up on her own.
Make up your mind, mate. You seem to be arguing that men should be able to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy physically, emotionally and financially unscathed whilst women should be legally forced to complete it regardless of the personal cost.
Hypocrisy much, yourself?
Hey DEM, I’m saying that your mother should have aborted you with extreme prejudice. You will understand that this statement bears no malice but the logic of your own sentiments.
[YOU ARE NOW SUBJECT TO MODERATION. WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THIS A POLITE BLOG. IF YOU CAN ONLY MANAGE CIVILITY WITH THOSE WHO ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH YOU, THEN GO PLAY WITH SAINT OVER AT BANKSTOWN WHERE THEY TEND TO CONGREGATE.- DEM]
No wait, I’ve got it figured. You were ridden bare backed, fucked and chucked, stuck with the baby you had it aborted and to this day you’re going to make everyone else pay just like you did. Am I correct DEM?
A bit like Lutheranism was a Catholic one.
/sarcasm
Well Penfold, it’s like this…
Quakerism developed out of the non-conformist religious movement during the English Civil War of the 1600s. The Uniting Church was formed in 1977 by the union of the Congregational Union of Australia, the Methodist Church of Australasia and the Presbyterian Church of Australia.
I’m assuming you’re actually asking about the UNITARIAN Church (wiki here) which in the UK evolved out of the same non-conformist movement as Quakers but whose principle difference from Anglicanism is non-acceptance of the divinity of Jesus. This is not a requirement of Quakerism – as I’m sure saint will point out, nothing is a requirement of Quakerism.
You have the internet, go google it.
I aspire to follow the example and leadership of Jesus. Therefore I am a Christian.
As pointed out previously, my religious beliefs don’t require your validation and any such comments will be Sooned. This is a thread for discussion of simple matters such as abortion.
No Pat, I am in fact the living reincarnation of mother Mary herself, morally perfect amongst women. Can’t you tell?
Or am I Spartacus? {scratches head}
Oh dear, I may well be Sooned. Is this something Quakers do to arguments that explode their brains? I’ve got so much still yet to learn the world is such a wonderful place that I thank God that my Mum “choiced” (TM pending) me alive (no thanks to God).
I aspire to follow the example and leadership of Jesus. Therefore I am a Christian.
Allright I accept that you are indeed quite serious with this claim that you are Christian. What is your biblical or ritual foundation for abortion being consistent with Christianity?
Don’t get me wrong, I’m Catholic and as Protestants well know we are far from perfect, which I will readily attest to, but I like to know my benchmarks.
I’ve got plenty of beer here and am ready to listen, read and learn.
Not relevant to the thread, Pat.
[Sooning - named after its creator Jason Soon of blog Catallaxy, is the administrative process of replacing vile abuse with outrageous flattery as a treatment of persistent attempts to derail discussion threads off topic. TigTog and Lauredhel over at Hoyden About Town prefer to "disemvowel" their victims.]
[COMMENT REMOVED BY ADMIN-DEM]
Oh dear.
It appears that once again I will have to do the libertarian property dance and remind punters that this blog is MINE. People post and comment here entirely at my whim and the whim of those I have made admins.
Tempting to say go play in the traffic, but whatever happens, you’re not welcome to play here any more.
Disappointing, as your first question was a good one.
“Conrad, I am amazed that clusters of cells like yourself can even formulate sentences. Some even grant the likes of you the nomenclature “human”. Myself, like you, I’m not that charitable.”
.
Now that’s a great argument — I point out the Orwellian nature of language usage loved so much by pro-lifers (let alone the constant evocative desciptions of various things), and all you can do is come back with an insult. I might go get that child liquid nitrogened off my arm next time I go to the doctor, then get a vaccination for the child which makes me sick, and then hope the 1.5 kilograms of children in my intestines keep digesting food properly.
There’s a reason the rest of the world uses terms like egg, embryo, foetus, infant, child, teenager, adult etc. to describe different things. It’s because they are.
It’s your own argument applied to you you twit. I merely used your own supposedly Orwellian doublespeak and applied it to you. It’s a simple device, but obviously went right over your head.
There’s no help for you being a [GENIUS OF GLOBAL PROPORTIONS]* now is there Conrad.
Lets hope this comment breaks through the impregnable barrier to fair comment that is this blog.
*[SOONED BY ADMIN-DEM]
Umm Saint, your attack on Quakers is pathetic. Quakers were at the forefront of the anti-slavery movement at the same time as the Catholic Church in the US Confederacy was staunchly pro-slavery along with most of the protestant denominations. They showed true respect for the dignity of human life while most other Christians demonstrated their moral emptiness.
Quakers were risking their lives to free slaves at the same time the nutty Catholic head honcho Pope Pius the Poofteenth was sending the President of the Confederacy poems and bible quotes for inspiration.
Quakers like DEM are better human beings, and probably better Christians, than a mendacious poser and snake charmer like yourself will ever be.
Can I emphasise the word FAIR above? Pat, fair does not include abusing people personally in an unpleasant manner. I recognise that this is a very emotional topic, but there’s no call for that kind of behaviour. If you can’t say it nicely, don’t say it at all.
Personally, I try to give time to everyone’s beliefs, and to recognise that no one belief system is perfect. I understand where Saint and CL are coming from, and in a perfect world, I’d prefer no abortions either.
But human beings are infinitely variable and certainly imperfect. On a pragmatic level, I think there will always be situations where pregnancies can’t proceed for health reasons, and even if abortion is banned, it will still occur on the street (with an attendant risk to mother which wouldn’t be present if done properly). For me, it’s about trying to minimise the negative consequences.
I also respect DEM’s beliefs, and have a great deal of time for the Quakers generally – as Melaleuca says, they stood up against slavery when many others did not. And, like many other Christian individuals (Catholic, Protestant or whatever), they stood up against the policies of Nazi Germany.
I want to be able to have a civilised discussion of this, where we can agree to disagree, but still have respect for one another.
Although I’m not a Christian, I’ve been re-reading the New Testament recently for a variety of reasons. I note that Jesus said:
“Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you.” If I seek to convince others of my point of view, surely it’s better for me to engage rather than abuse them (which convinces no one and if anything makes them more convinced in their resistance, if they are anything like me!)
Obviously, there’s limits to turning the other cheek, but I do think Jesus recognised that if others disagree with you strongly, the best course is not to abuse them on a personal level.
“It’s your own argument applied to you you twit”
.
The argument is one way unfortunately — the Orwellian manipulation is mainly done by the right to lifers unfortunately. Just look at the comments and creative writing by Saint on this thread alone.
I agree with LE incidentally — spurting out personal abuse doesn’t exactly constitute a great intellectual move forward. Given that abortion laws are going to become more and more liberal into the future as more women get into parliament, societal views become more liberal, and religion plays an even less important part in people’s lives than now, you are really going to have to stop getting so wound up.
Pat, fair comment is welcome and will survive. Vicious spite (telling someone they should have been terminated with extreme prejudice) and plain abuse (calling someone a fuckwit) is not and will be removed by an admin.
When the fair comment is interlaced with toe curling invective then its “death will be an unintended consequence of that intervention, but it is not the intention” as saint puts it @47.
Correspondence on my personal beliefs will not be entered into (though I appreciate the defence, Mel). I don’t want this thread to turn into a religious pissing contest. My post @56 was for the purpose of clarity to explain how as a Christian I could continue to justify the availability of abortion.
I haven’t actually said that my beliefs say abortion is right – what I’m arguing is that any opinion I have on if and when the availability of abortion should be restricted tends to be based on religious reasoning. Therefore as others HAVE decided that abortion can be justified (whether from a moral, medical or rights-based approach) I have no right to prevent it being available to them.
It took a couple hundred of years of bloodshed in Britain to finally establish the constitutional principle that no-one has the right to impose their religious beliefs on someone who doesn’t share them. I’m quite curious as to what scriptural/theological justification supports the kind of religious chauvinism that drives saint and pat’s social paternalism.
Jeepers DEM, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read your posts.
Here you are advocating for children to be dismembered, cooked or have their brains sucked out while alive, just because mummy and daddy couldn’t work out that if you have sex, you might get pregnant and you cry when, in the rare case where one has to intervene to save the mother, a child’s death is consequential even if unintentional? What would you prefer? That both die? No wait, you prefer that child is intenionally killed before you even know if it will survive naturally, or even be born (because children ARE born from ectopic pregnancies)
The thing is too DEM, women who survive rape, incest, don’t die, and they don’t deserive to have one injustice compounded by encouraging them to complete a greater injustice: kill any innocent child that has been conceived. The child is not guilty nor is it at fault. You’d have a hissy fit if someone hauled you off to the gallows because some other guy murdered someone, so why are you advocating for punishing the innocent – with death?
If I believed you, I would think women were some poor little petals who needed smelling salts every time an insect farted. Women have been bearing children and raising families for thousands if not millions of years without blinking and in far harsher circumstances then your soft little life here in the 21st century west. You and those who think like you are the ones who denigrate women, who tell them they can’t cope, can’t take responsibility for their actions, can’t raise a child, can’t survive, can’t even overcome some of the cruellest injustices. When did women become the pathetic little creatures of your imagination DEM? When did you become such a misogynist?
Or in the alternative, render under to Caesar that which is Caesar’s…
Saint, you really need to leave Aunt Sally alone, you’ve wheeled her out so often the poor old dear is exhausted. Just try focusing on an argument I have made for a change.
My response was going to be that I’m not the one presuming to impose my preferences onto other people but it made me wonder…
Do you consider choice to be just another preference? Do you feel choice is being unreasonably imposed onto those who don’t want it and would prefer to be told what to do by their designated source of authority? (Only problem there would be that the designation of which authority they recognise is a matter of, umm, personal choice.)
Much earlier on you asked if religious belief could condone abortion in any circumstances – apparently the answer is yes.
DEM, I don’t understand your objection to my statement that “… your mother should have aborted you with extreme prejudice.”
It is totally in accordance with your own argument. It is therefore apparent that you object to the logical outcomes of your own moral positions. Given this fact I sincerely recommend that you re-examine your argument for abortion.
I believe that your argument is born of good faith, but poor logic. I recommend Peter Singer’s Practical Ethics to you. In it he himself dismisses the “choice” argument. Once you have examined the basis for your argument and see that you have no basis then perhaps you might re-approach the topic with fresh eyes.
Again, there is nothing in my statement that you should object to. It is perfectly in accord with your own beliefs.
PS. I note that my perfectly reasonable and explanatory comment of yesterday evening has disappeared. I note it, that is all.
I make no apologies for my “preferences” DEM, because they are more than “preferences”. If someone was drowning in a lake I would try to save them. If someone wanted to shoot themselves in the head, I’d try to stop them. If a kid ran out infront of a car I would try to grab it to get it out of harms way and I couldn’t give a toss if the child’s mother or father was going hysterical that I had dared to lay a finger on their child or someone was screaming wait the walk sign is red. Their life is more important than their circumstances, their will, their naivite and all the hand wringing you can muster. So yes, DEM even if you were drowning, I’d still come after you, whether you liked it or not and no matter how pathetic and cowardly and repugnant I find your whole outlook to be. Because your life like very human life has intrinsic value. You might want to toss it away, but don’t expect everyone else to succumb to your joylessness and hopeless stupidity.
Ah I see. The selective termination of my prior comments and the outright termination of my last two is a dleiberate policy. I think I know understand the Sooning of which you speak: dishonest and malicious argumentation that is no more than the worst kind of sophistry.
You truly are a pro-choicer. My initial instrincts were correct.
A bit like Lutheranism was a Catholic one.
So whose joke was Catholicism? Come on. That wasn’t funny man.
It was the Jews right? Revenge for Masada yeah? I always knew the conspiracy stories were true. All that arguing over every little thing in creation stuff they do is just smoke.
Ran into a Jewish friend of mine a while ago. His grandma’s stuck into the Israeli blogosphere. Makes Catallaxy look like tea n’ biscuits at the Vicar’s.
You were ridden bare backed, fucked and chucked, stuck with the baby you had it aborted and to this day you’re going to make everyone else pay just like you did.
Yikes!
Why is it that so many people think that a woman having sex is submitting to abuse and degradation?
You probably won’t get to read this Adrien but here goes anyway.
My comment was in reference to DEMs as follows:
“If a man refused to share responsibility for contraception and demanded to “ride bareback” (so to speak) then turned around to his pregnant partner and said “Tough titties, luv. You keep it if you want to but I can’t be assed” then I’d consider him an asshole but I wouldn’t expect him to feel ashamed. Nor would I expect him to have any input if her decision was to opt for a termination because she didn’t want to bring the child up on her own.”
Adrien your question has no relevance to my comment and is not what I was asserting. DEM is the one that used shaming language against men for doing in theory what she adulates for women in practice. See, it is called hypocrisy.
Not serious about brain scans. They’re unreliable as a determinant of sociopathology and will be abused.
They’ll use it to eliminate anything the least bit capricious. Get rid of the eccentrics and we’ll be back living on some French farm c. 1100.
You really have had a manners by-pass, then. My actual argument is more along the lines of: “There IS no should. Do, or do not.” (and personally I think Peter Singer is also a muppet.)
As your comments continue to make clear, we have a very different definition of what is and is not “perfectly reasonable”. Your comment @78 I have let through because it wasn’t abusive in itself, though the technique of misrepresenting my arguments rather than addressing them is getting a bit tiresome. When I get really bored I may decide to stop those too but until then you’ll be moderated on a comment by comment basis which means there may well be significant delays in their appearance as I’m admin-ing from overseas and am juggling with other responsibilities.
pat@80:
Hooray… {waves a streamer weakly}. You just noticed.
and again@83 :
See, it’s called illiteracy. Or you simply didn’t bother to read my response @59. You’re certainly trying to make the word “even” carry a lot more meaning than it can bear, pat.
Coz that’s the way (u-huh, u-huh) they like it (u-huh, u-huh)…
saint@79, no apology is demanded or expected for having preferences, beliefs and convictions. We ALL have them. What I do find distasteful is the presumption that you have the right (or worse, the duty) to force them on others because only your judgement could possibly be correct.
I don’t assume that my OWN beliefs are 100% correct, which is why a pro-choice position is the only one I can support in good conscience. It’s the only one that can be established without compulsion.
You’re a very very naughty girl DEM.
Pat – Adrien your question has no relevance to my comment
Well no relevance to that comment. I was responding to #61.
For some strange reason having read #61 I felt that exploring the wealth of insight therein a mite beyond my capacity amd went no further.
…and is not what I was asserting.
No? Well I thought it was a bit over my head. I’m really not sure how I could’ve gotten the impression from #61 that you thought sex was degrading to women.
DEM is the one that used shaming language against men for doing in theory what she adulates for women in practice.
DEM adulates women for being sexually irresponsible?
If a man refused to share responsibility for contraception …then I’d consider him an asshole but I wouldn’t expect him to feel ashamed.
No expecting arseholes to feel shame normaly entails disappointment. I have different expectations. Like I’d expect him to double over after a quick one to the yarbles.
Nor would I expect him to have any input if her decision was to opt for a termination because she didn’t want to bring the child up on her own.
No he’s pretty much forfeited the right. Okay. If he’s having sexual relations with a woman he can’t trust and she gets pregnant without his knowledge or consent than that ends up in the court.
I think it’s a shitty thing to do but it’s very difficult to prove what was said in bed and what wasn’t. And if the chap doesn’t know her that well and he’s not wearing a condom then he’s irresonsible and that has consequences. If neither of them are using contraception and pregnancy results that has consequences. And if a child is born to the unprepared, is not wanted and grows up in such an environment that has consequences too.
More…
Pat – Whilst I agree with some of your points – for example: that a double standard may obtain if a woman gets pregnant without the man’s knowledge and then demands patrominial support – I really don’t understand why you and Saint have to be so hostile.
What on Earth is the basis for Saint calling DEM “so bitter, so hateful, so lacking in moral vision, so joyless”? I’ve never detected the slightest sliver of such in her slovos.
And when you assert that she is:
Where the bloody hell does that come from? Seriously? One thing I’ll say for her i can’t say o’ th’ both of you is that she has a sense of humour!
She’s a Christian. I am not! I am ‘more antique Roman than modern Dane’ and I reckon that the sanctity of human life is actually a convenient and pleasant fiction that Nature regularly disrupts. But thankfully it’s scripted into the fabric of the State in this time and in this place.
I do however endorse many aspects of Christian ethics. Except for the anti-divorce mandate, the spurious claim that thoughts are as bad as deeds and the rather glazed eye’d admonitions viz who is and is not blessed I tend to agree with many of the principles proclaimed in The Sermont in the Mount at least according to Matthew.
And it is for that reason that I often find Christians irritating. How many street preachers do I see who approach me telling me they are going to ‘save’ me, calling me ‘my friend’ beaming at me with smiles so fake they’d even be out of place at a PR industry awards ceremony.
And I query this assumption of omni-virtue. You tell DEM she is lashing out at the world and yet it’s you who is abusive and you who “sincerely hope and pray” that some guy bombs a clinic or three.
But didn’t Jesus say:
And what about:
Mmmmm? Or are those non-core principles?
Well in my religion there are no non-core principles. Something is a principle or it isn’t.
And the first one is it “is not death that a man should fear, but he should fear never beginning to live.”
It seems to me that you are concerned with the beginning, middle and end of everyone’s life save yours.
Perhaps I’m wrong. After all it’s way above my head.
Adrien I actually answered the similar argument to yours from Legal Eagle @ 72 yesterday – which contained no abuse – yet it was deleted by the admin.
I explained that loving someone and doing good does not necessarily mean sweetness and light. I used the analogy of a parent giving their child bitter medicine. That the medicine was given out of love and is good for the child even though the child strenuosly objects.
That is how I position my “abuse”. btw Christians are prone to head explosions of the ranting kind just as non-christians are.
I also gave some of “the sword” quotes from the Bible for example where Jesus says he did not come to bring peace but a sword, that Jesus would seperate brother from sister and mother from child. The quote wherein Jesus said that it would be better if someone had a millstone tied around their neck and cast into the sea lest they cause a littleone to sin.
The Jesus you reference doesn’t exist. He is a leftist version that encapsulates hippy peacenick capitulation to anything bothersome or doesn’t make us feel nice. It is not a Jesus I subscribe to. I am not excusing myself as I know full well that I am belligerant and a bit of a f*whit as I have called others.
I read a good argument (I forget where) the other day that noted noted that if Christians are so opposed to abortion surely this type of shooting of abortionists would occur more often and on a vaster scale. The logic was that if say we knew down the road Jews or say Muslims were being persecuted, rounded up in trucks and taken to a slaughterhouse for execution then we’d take far greater action than attempts at legislative changes, political action, protests or debates. That argument (from a pro-choicer) hits the nail on the head. What sort of person would allow a class or race of people to be slaughtered just for their existence? Yet a Christian who doesn’t take violent action is really qualifying their judgement of the life of the unborn by the fact that no stronger action is in fact taken.
Yet I know orthodox Christians abhor the use of violence when it comes to opposing abortion.
I get wound up about DEM because she claims to be Christian and supports abortion with negligable qualification. The two are demonstrablt at odds. DEM is therefore the worse type of opponent, one that claims to come from your own team. It undermines my brothers and sisters strength in opposing the slaughter that is abortion.
I could go on but at the very real risk that this won’t be posted I’ll stop here.
btw I also stated in the deleted post from yesterday that I apologise for any offense given but that I don’t resile from my position.
My love extends to DEM and others but it isn’t a happy clappy love. I want DEM on my side and reserve my deepset love for those people who are on my side.
You do need to be aware that when directing this analogy at another adult you come across as both patronising and paternalistic, characteristics that are generally abjured in polite company. You have been very rude on this thread, and although you’re cleaning up your act now, may I suggest that some of your earlier comments haven’t done you any favours. It is probably in your interest that DEM deleted the most egregious comment you made.
I am — for want of a better word — a policy wonk with some influence as an advisor in areas of public policy to a British political party. I am generally very careful to give all comers fair play when they make arguments in response to calls for submissions from the public. However — when expressed abusively and paternalistically, as you have done — then it is harder to convince those who make the laws to take your position seriously.
In Britain, the worst offenders on this front are usually Muslim, although they are coming to learn that persistent rudeness (abusing soldiers on homecoming parades, for example) will see them abused and perhaps even beaten by members of the public, with the loyal British bobby doing very little to render aid.
Similarly, I have seen Christian inspired screeds on abortion that adopt a similar tone to yours (the law in this country was recently reviewed), and they also go to the bottom of the pile; no-one feels they should be taken seriously, and it makes the job of other pro-life organisations doubly difficult. The wonks and politicians are usually of a mind to stopper their ears rather than listen.
In short, manners makyth man (the motto of New College, Oxford). It is wise to remember that before entering the fray, and before making assumptions about people’s personal histories and motives. At least in DEM’s case, I can assure you that you’re completely wrong.
It is possible for people to believe the things they do in a way utterly detached from their personal history. In my own case, for example, if my political beliefs had their origins in my life story, I would be a socialist, not a libertarian.
I am arrogant that is for sure and certain SL.
My analogy was straight forward and uncomplicated so that it would be easily understood. Yet you have misconstrued it.
Let me rephrase then. Just because something doesn’t feel nice and loaded with sweetness doesn’t mean it isn’t good. I daresay that when Jesus called the Samarian woman at the well a dog that didn’t go over well either. Yet there is a good lesson there. Please don’t now assume that I am comparing myself to Jesus (I don’t mean to be patronising with that plea either), I am using this story as an example of my meaning.
As for affecting policy, lets face it, pro-lifers have no chance. We are but one cause of many in the silent majority that have been politically outmanoeuvred by the left. Look at your own country and how it has gone culturally down the gurgler. If you have been responsible for the policy that has led to your once proud nation’s now sad plight then you cannot blame me or my like.
One of the things that constantly amazes me is the proclivity of the Left to be offensive, nay claim it as an artistic duty even, and then cry foul when offense is served back in spades.
I have a complete record of my comments so I know exactly what was excised. If you are truthful when you say that it is in my best interests “that DEM deleted the most egregious comment [i]made” then present it as it will only embarrass me.
The truth is that you or whoever the admin is left the “most egregious” comments on display and out of context.
I even said so in another comment this blog which for some unfathomable reason was deleted as well. I quote it:
“I’m confused. The parts you edited were to my thinking aok and you left the parts I would normally find questionable, though given the argument justified for consistency and demonstrative purposes acceptable.”
It certainly appears to me that your manners must extend only to the lack of profanity you employ but not to your integrity. I know which I value more. But then I don’t know who was responsible for the deletions so I refrain from asserting that final judgement, in due respect.
Oh poor DEM. Saving a life is wrong is it? Or only sometimes right? Because oh wait, some wonk like SL or some handwringer like you gets to decide who lives and who dies? Because what? You can’t cope? It’s all a little too complex, and nuanced, and Oh. So. Painful.
Let’s see: if a train was bearing down upon you, your natural instinct would be to jump out of the way. Right? Of course if a toddler was playing on the tracks, and a train was heading for her you would….what? Wet your pants and think; ” I can’t impose my judgement on that toddler and snatch it away from the tracks?” What exactly would you do DEM and why?
Your incoherence and moral inconsistency – like those of most on this thread – is astounding to behold.
Yep, some wonk like me does get to decide… so be nice to the wonk
I am aware of British politicians who have changed their position from a pro-life to a pro-choice one based entirely on the behaviour of the propounders of the former position. Abusive letters in green crayon tend to do that to you.
I should also point that I am not of the left — I am a right-wing market libertarian. Libertarians, however, are opposed to government intervention both economically and socially. Not only would I have abortion available on demand, drugs would be legalised (and taxed, to pay for any harms produced), and gun-owners wouldn’t have to crawl up the government’s butt in order to own a firearm.
Governments and power are generally a pretty toxic mix. My distrust of the former I think is well supported by their frequent misuse of the latter.
I dunno, Pat, Jesus comes across as pretty bloody socialist to me — all that stuff about the meek inheriting the earth. One of the reasons why I’m not Christian is the attacks on what were probably perfectly reasonable money-changes in the Temple who were just responding to the laws of supply and demand…
It can be wrong. Specifically because wonks like SL and handwringers such as myself (or god-willing fundies such as yourself) DON’T get to decide. I’m sure you’d like to recriminalise suicide (because sticking a depressive in gaol is a great way of showing them how great life really is) but I’m pro-euthanasia because again, it is a deliberate and considered choice of an individual which I think deserves the protection of the law.
Your choice of examples is inconsistent. Obtaining an abortion isn’t a ‘snap’ decision made without lengthy and considerable reflection – the access laws have drafted so that abortion is conditional on patients being submitted to a careful counselling process. If they’re not entirely sure of their decision then the doctor wont perform the procedure. It’s this cool deliberation you seem to think makes the decision even more monstrous.
A toddler on the tracks isn’t making a decision a decision to die – they’re there because they haven’t realised the consequences of being there. As to what I’d personally do … well I’d scream for help. I have a physical disability so I couldn’t reach the tracks in time for the train to hit ME!
Correction pat@92, as far as you know that Jesus doesn’t exist. You weren’t around two thousand years ago and like everyone else who aspires to follow him, are reliant on years of institutional tradition and the few scraps of documentation that have survived. Since the discovery of the “lost gospels” in Nag Hammadi in 1945 it becomes clear that the orthodox Nicean tradition was itself imposed on a sea of dissenting opinion (I tend to be something of a Pelagian myself).
Obviously as you’ve said you are Catholic then you personally accept that the views of that church are the most accurate, it’s called freedom of conscience. But I still have to question exactly how this allows you to force the resulting conclusions onto others who don’t accept the authority of the church (or any religion) over them.
Thank you for the asterisk.
SL@96 said:
TINK OF THE MONEY CHANGERZ!
DEM you may notice if you look again I actually quoted the Bible. In the post that was deleted I gave the chapter references as well.
I assure you I am not making this stuff up, it is in the New Testament, but perhaps you are more familiar with the Nag Hammadi texts. I never claimed to have been around 2000 years ago but have cited quotes to validate my position. This is how one sustains a credible position in an argument.
I didn’t know that Quakers relied on NonCanonical gospels and had always understood those that did as being classified as Gnostics.
You are right that I accept the views of the Church as being accurate. This is normally known as having an orthodox faith and denotes us as Christian.
I know next to nothing about Quakers but am learning very quickly, that is if you are truly representative of an orthodox Quaker. So far it seems that Quakers are Gnostics which surprises me as I thought they were more about breaking down the boundaries between man and God. Certainly Quakers are against profanity but not abortion. Anyway, peace to you friend.
Pat @ 92 – I only got around to reading the Bible when I was an adult. The Jesus I’d heard about at school had always seemed pretty wet. I was really surprised that the Jesus I read about in the New Testament was not like that.
SL @ 96: The attack on the money changers doesn’t bother me so much. The incident which bothers me is where Jesus curses a fig tree for not bearing fruit, and the fig tree withers, but it wasn’t the season for figs anyway. Always seemed a bit harsh on the fig tree to me. Seriously.
Saint says:
“That hundreds of Palestinian women and children were killed or maimed when Israel went after Hamas is also a blatant lie.”
Even the Israeli Army concedes that it killed at least 300 innocent women, children and elderly men during Operation Cast Lead. See here: http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1233304788684&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Yet you treat such a tragedy as an excuse for a fart joke. The extent of your hypocrisy is so vast that it is clear to me that your anti-abortion stance is merely a pose and has nothing whatsoever to do with a respect for the dignity of all human life.
Saint old son, your halo is dangling around your ankles.
Pat – I explained that loving someone and doing good does not necessarily mean sweetness and light.
It does require kindness and consideration however.
I used the analogy of a parent giving their child bitter medicine. That the medicine was given out of love and is good for the child even though the child strenuosly objects.
Thank you Pat I do understand the concept of discipline and I’m able to exercise it without the need for some cosmic reward/punishment system too. In my religion we say: Virtus propter se. We don’t do it out of fear or greed but out of regard for the nobility and dignity of the human race.
Funny y’know. I’ve heard killers talk of love before. The killers who say they’re motivated by love are the worst ones of all.
I also gave some of “the sword” quotes from the Bible for example where Jesus says he did not come to bring peace but a sword,
And he also said he came in love. And he who lives by the sword and… Y’know Jesus was a little mixed up. Nice guy but not practical.
The Jesus you reference doesn’t exist.
So let’s just rip The Gospel According To St Matthew out The Book ‘ey? Okay. Any other passages inconvenient to your Theocratic Dogma?
He is a leftist version that encapsulates hippy peacenick capitulation to anything bothersome or doesn’t make us feel nice.
So taking responsibility for your own viture, being aware of your own sins and making account for them. Making a concerted attempt to be a dignified, noble self-controlled human being with grace who doesn’t give into the temptation to be a vulgar rodent, a gnave, a slave, a slug who points the finger at anyone else and never themselves…
.
That’s ‘leftist’? Okay. I dunno whether you know this but hippes and left-wingers didn’t exist then.
And Jesus doesn’t really mean it when he says love your enemies? Are we going to be editing the Sermont on the Mount shortly as well? Okay don’t love your enemies. Shoot ‘em. For love or whatever it was that Jesus was advocating. Cough medicine?
And may your enemies always be well armed.
Virescit vulnere virtus – go ahead make my day.
…the attacks on what were probably perfectly reasonable money-changes in the Temple who were just responding to the laws of supply and demand…
Beating the money changers up. Why did he do that? Maybe it was because the money was foreign and had the visages of pagan gos on it, maybe it was that Jesus was a bone fide Commie.
Or maybe the proper interpretations of the commandments that states that the Name not be taken in vain is that you’re not supposed to use religion to make yourself rich and/or powerful.
Yeah that’s it. So Saint and Pat it’s time to start blowing up Catholic Churches, TV Evangelists and Theocratic Spruikers. They’re the new money changes. Go on. It’s your solemn duty.
Please start with Ann Coulter.
I think the real reason that he beat up the money changers was that the Columbian Java Bar had gone out f business and the only thing there was was Starbucks. It just wasn’t good enough and Jesus always gets cranky without his three espressos in the morning.
“As for affecting policy, lets face it, pro-lifers have no chance. We are but one cause of many in the silent majority that have been politically outmanoeuvred by the left.”
.
At least in Australia, you are confusing the left with what is commonly known as the lunatic fringe — If you can’t get anywhere with a conservative government for a decade, that should tell you that the current status has majority support across the political spectrum and very little to do with left and right.
Good Lord, another comment deleted. I have no idea the criteria that you are using.
All my sincere best to the lot of you. See you on other blogs whereb we might enjoy each o9thers company.
No Mel, that you can bemoan the (accidental and unintende) slaying of innocent civilians while actively advocationg for the intentional murder of total innocents says to me you are incoherent and morally bereft.
And remember in Australia alone some 70,000 children are murdered each year. Each year.
Oh and thank you for the link demonstrating Hamas was grossly overexaggerating the death toll of “innocents”. That’s Pallywood for you.
Still waiting for you to bemoan the death of innocent Israelis killed by Hamas rockets…
Pat @ 99 – you were in moderation queue, not deleted. I haven’t been checking blog much this weekend because I have been enjoying a long weekend away with my family, although the weather left a little to be desired. My co-bloggers are in UK, so they check in our nighttime.
Saint,
You are something of a dim bulb, aren’t ya champ.
I haven’t stated my position on abortion on this thread, instead I’ve merely highlighted your dishonesty. As to Israelis killed by Hamas rockets, these are a tragedy and I’ve condemned them many times while noting they are a tiny fraction of Palestinian civilian deaths, even if we are dopey enough to accept Israeli army figures as accurate.
In regards to abortion well yes of course it is a moral failing. But far worse is the death of untold hundreds of billions of sperm spilled onto the bedsheets of teenage boys each night in otherwise good Christian homes. Sperm is a form of human life with as much intrinsic value as a fetus. We know this because Onanism is a sin according to the Bible. I want to know why goody two shoes types like yourself aren’t demanding something be done about this abomination. You have no excuse for inaction, do you. Again, sir, I must condemn your rancid hypocrisy.
We are under a fairly concerted spam attack at the moment and I’ve lost a comment each from Adrien, pat and JG. I think I’ve found most of the missing ones but as I’ve just got back from my morning run/breakfast/shower, that may not be certain.
Adrien: dog Latin but funny — ‘fabricati deum, punc’.
Well that just shows the paucity of their convictions SL But then, that’s why Britain is going down the toilet and fast.
Jesus was no socialist BTW, much as many like to make him out to be, especially those who like to cherry pick parts of the New Testaement out of context, just like the good little “right wing fundamentalists” they so despise.
Mel – if others want to pay attention to your lies let it be on their head. Your last comment reminds me why I don’t bother with twisted, mendacious cyberstalkers like you.
Yep you are back now trying to throw out bait thinking I am stupid enough to bite. No Mel, I haven’t forgotten your despicable attacks and scurrilous smearing of other bloggers for which you have never apologized – never retracted your statements – but for which you were rightly once threatened with legal action by one of them. You want to try that again here? Go ahead sunshine.
Saint says:
“Jesus was no socialist BTW …”
Well maybe not but he was definitely a psychotic pineapple. After all, he thought of himself as the son of God, attacked innocent traders with a whip (Mark 11:15-17), told us he came not to bring peace but with a sword (Matthew 10:34), told us we must hate our parents (Luke 14:26) and told us to bash up slaves (Luke 12:47-48).
Goodness gracious me, your hero makes Pol Pot sound like a model citizen!
But all that aside, what are you doing to protect the dignity of precious sperm murdered by the calloused hands of Onanites?
Saint and Mel, please play nice. People are not going to agree on this issue and abusing one’s opponents is not going to get anyone anywhere anytime soon.
I actually have other matters to attend to this afternoon and won’t be around to supervise very much; DEM is working, and I happen to know that LE has already wended her weary way off to the land of Nod.
Any ugly stuff will be summarily deleted on my return.
MEL AND SAINT: {flourishes yellow card}
This is NOT an Israel thread, take it elsewhere.
Pat, the previous post with the bible quotes you mention was indeed deleted because I’m not having this discussion become a religious pissing contest and as previously stated, correspondence on my own beliefs (Quakers are probably best known for their pacifism) will NOT be entered into. So it got canned.
My question remains. What exactly entitles you to force the beliefs of your chosen church onto those who have not voluntarily accepted its authority?
Pelagius by the way, was not a gnostic he was a contemporary critic of Augustine. I only claim to be a Quaker, I never said I was a good one. Generalise at your own peril.
70,000 Australians each year DEM. You support, advocate for and justify, the murder of 70,000 Australian kids each year. Now don’t tell me: heaven forbid that anyone should impose their views on Dr Mengele? Right?
Because what? The value of human life is determiend by your religion?
For all that inner light, you really are not that bright are you DEM.
I support, advocate and justify the right of (an estimated) 70,000 Australians to exercise their choice and opt for abortion in circumstances protected by law.
If you really want to reduce the number of abortions that occur in Australia (rather than using the argument over abortion as an opportunity to set yourself up as the morality police), why not try bribery rather than coercion? Worked for Peter Costello and harms no one.
I noticed you didn’t call them innocent kids this time. Got around to reading that Abortion and Personhood article, then? I was particularly interested in the bit about the original grounds for Catholic opposition to abortion…
Mind you, I have met some evangelicals who’d say that was irrelevant because Catholics aren’t “real” Christians…
The “was Jesus a socialist?” argument (or variations therein) has been going on a long time. I suddenly remembered the Franciscans, who thought that to truly follow Christ, one had to embrace poverty. A huge argument broke out on whether Christ owned property (jointly or severally). The Fransicans held that Christ owned no property, but this was declared heretical. Further detail about the controversy can be seen in the entry under Pope John XXII in the Catholic Encyclopaedia.
Saint my old swan, Jesus said nothing about abortion, at least according to the Bible, so what’s the big deal? I also note in passing that your wacky leader also supported slavery.
Pat – Viz moderation. Everyone on this thread is on moderation for some strange reason. Maybe you can explain why that is?
SL@112
hmmm. Knowing merely a little latin, and that rusty, it looks like “Make (a|the) god, prick!” or that there was a diem/deum typo.
I prefer the former as an insightful sociological statement, especially if we do the common schoolboy cheat by using the nearest word in English from the Latin root of each word we have to translate:
“(You) fabricate (a|the) god, prick!”
And by the way, on the “flagellation of the financiers”, see HCA Transcript where Kirby, Gleeson and Commonwealth Solicitor Bennett label Jesus a terrorist (Pilate would have ordered “Seditio” or something like it as a label for the cross) for such acts, and also, possibly, Tiller’s murderer:
That’s one of the reasons I’ll miss Kirby.
#97
And therein lies your incoherence, DEM. A baby in the womb is not making a decision to die and can’t scream for help. But yes, you would happy to allow it to be murdered. Not just allow it, actively advocate it. Bet your arse.
The only reason you are not a Christian SL is because you are too full of yourself and God is happy to oblige you. Oh wait, did you miss that part? Now you know why so many of us are amused at your and those like yours interpretation of Scripture. But do carry on.
Now let’s see how the lefties are going with all their tolerance and not imposing their views on others again…yep. I await the outrage.
Oh and one for the other -ism-ist on this thread:
When it comes the real world, libetarianism, like liberalism, is another epic fail.
When it comes the real world, libetarianism, like liberalism, is another epic fail.
Indeed. Liberalism which is what libertarianism actually means is a fail. I mean if we look at the world they way it was in, say, 1120 and then compare it to the world as it became after 8 centuries of humanists and liberals messing about you have to admit that it really is much worse.
All that ‘extended lifespan’ and ‘leisure time’ and ‘prosperity’ and ‘education’ and ‘pavement’ and ‘body lotion’ … what did it ever do for us?
We should go back to the days when the punishment for everything was gettin’ yer eyes and yer bollocks ripped out and people were good and happy with their daily turnip. Who needs science when you’ve got fear?
What’s Beethoven next to a little Morris dancing ‘ey? And all that education only contributes to people noticing just how badly Jesus’ four biographies contradict each other and leads to awkward questions like ‘who created God’ and who did Adam and Eve’s kids marry?
Yes the real world isn’t the place for ideas about progress and freedom. The real world is a place for lots of mud and setting your wife on fire because she turned you into a newt.
What’s needed is a New Jerusalem. A settlement of the righteous where the landscape reflects the joy and love in our hearts.
Ah yes, liberaliism. Meet the quintessential lefty woman of today.
That’s right Adrien, liberalism means “rape is respect” and “murder is compassion.” .
saint@129:
So for once you’re saying a rape victim wasn’t asking for it? How refreshing! The difference of course is in the pregnancy.
I mean, if the rapes had resulted in a pregnancy you’d argue she should then be forced to carry it to term because as a single woman journalist looking to interview the Taliban she was just ASKING for it.
Now let’s see how the lefties are going with all their tolerance and not imposing their views on others again…yep. I await the outrage.
Lovely. So as well as being a misogynist to whom the harm or suffering of a woman can NEVER be more important than the continuing life of a fertilised ovum, you’ve now confirmed that you’re a homophobe as well.
This may be a bit subtle for you to grasp saint, you strike me as a big print/primary colours (possibly green crayon) kind of guy, but fostering a catholic child with a male homosexual couple is NOT a demonstration of “the left” using the power of compulsion, it’s a demonstration of the law using the power of compulsion.
The Law has this power because it is the one universally accepted authority in the UK. The Law is exercising it in this case because it now accepts homosexuality as part of the normal range of human sexual behaviour and protects the human rights of gay people by making discrimination on the basis of sexuality, illegal.
Yes, the law has changed (homosexual acts were illegal until the 1960s) but it did not do so because of a violent campaign of terrorism and harassment against straight people. It changed because gay people were able to convince the wider public that their arguments had merit and thus the wider social consensus changed.
Here’s a free tip: “because I know better/am morally superior to you” isn’t an argument that’s going to sway many people. In fact I’d go further and suggest that the reason the US right-to-life/pro-life movement has resorted to harassment and terrorism is BECAUSE their views are not representative of the wider social consensus and so they’ve been unable to wield sufficient political power to change the law to match their convictions.
The law doesn’t decide what is right and wrong, it decides what is and is not permitted. I’d agree that Nazi Germany’s pre-genetic racial purification drive that resulted in the compulsory sterilisation of disabled people and the later extermination of disabled people, homosexuals, jews, gypsies and poles was wrong but I also acknowledge that this is me applying 20/20 hindsight. If the german public hadn’t indeed believed that there was some “life unworthy of life” the law wouldn’t have been enacted. Public opinion can be shaped – the nazis were incredibly skilled propagandists – but not created, and certainly not created by force because you end up with a one policeman per citizen situation which is unsustainable.
If the law permits it then that’s the end of it. Countries do not have the authority to impose their own laws onto other states which is why international law is based on the administration of voluntary treaties and agreements. If you don’t accept the authority of an international body (I’m thinking of America and the international criminal court) then it is not empowered to sanction you.
This principle was even acknowledged at the Nuremberg trials. Doctors weren’t prosecuted for the forced sterilisation or extermination of German patients – this was legal – they were instead prosecuted for doing exactly the same things to patients in the occupied territories.
“Here’s a free tip: “because I know better/am morally superior to you” isn’t an argument that’s going to sway many people.”
.
I can add another free tip to that. All of the constant hyperbole being written about the ins and outs of abortion don’t sway people either (it’s possible to describe innumerable medical procedures in this sort of way). This is evidenced by the fact that even when all those in-utero pictures of foetuses sucking their thumbs, scratching, doing the can-can etc. came out, it didn’t sway public opinion in the slightest. Similarly, we must be pretty close to the day when you can go from sperm/egg to 9 months out of the womb. But that doesn’t sway people either. Thus, people that think abortion is fine simply don’t care about those arguments and graphic descriptions, and hence spending so much time pushing them is essentially a waste of time.
DEM says:
“This may be a bit subtle for you to grasp saint, you strike me as a big print/primary colours (possibly green crayon) kind of guy …”
If Saint wasn’t so obtuse he’d realise he is the best advocate the Devil has ever had.
Saint – Meet the quintessential lefty woman of today.
Sounds like a classic case of Stockholm Syndrome to me. And there’s a certain malevolent relish in that comment. From whence such hostility?
That’s right Adrien, liberalism means “rape is respect” and “murder is compassion.” .
What an outstanding argument! How could I ever assail such monumental rhetorical brilliance? You’re a regular Simone Weil.
Saint – Meet the quintessential lefty woman of today.
Would it be unfair to describe Saint as the Sir Les Patterson of Christianity?
What a liar you are DEM. When have I ever said a rape victim was asking for it. Go on, show me you liar.
#132 The law permits DEM, but that doesn’t mean compel. But as the article noted the council refused to indicate if there were a couple that would meet the mother’s – the MOTHER”s wishes – and be in the best interests of the child, already being raised in the Catholic faith.
Once again you demonstrate that you are more beholden to your leftist ideology than to either a parent’s rights or the welfare of a child.
I remain astounded that you can look yourself in the mirror with a clear conscience.
[DELETED BY ADMIN -DEM]
Your opinion of my religion is not relevant to this discussion.
The law permits saint, and it also has the power to compel. This power is exercised through the police and through the court system in the form of imprisonment (in criminal cases) and fines (both criminal and civil cases). Having chosen to comment on a lawyers site I’d assumed you had SOME knowledge of the legal system.
Once again you demonstrate that you are more beholden to your leftist ideology than to either a parent’s rights or the welfare of a child.
Once again you demonstrate your ignorance. Where a child has entered the care system, a parent no longer HAS rights – the welfare of their child becomes the responsibility and judgement of the state. Despite this, local authorities usually go out of their way to consider the family traditions that children have come from, especially their religion. (A foster mother was struck off by a council in February because a muslim girl in her care converted to Christianity.) The article doesn’t say that the fostering will involve his removal from Catholic school or that he will be prevented from attending a Catholic church – in fact in the UK his foster fathers will be contractually obliged to ensure this will happen. (I grew up around kids from catholic families whose real fathers drove them to church every sunday then sat outside reading a paper until the service was over!) All that will happen is that he goes home at the end of the day to be cared for by {gasp} a GAY couple! Quel horreur!
Here again, you are suggesting that religious convictions [that God hates homos] should or do have the authority to override the law [which prevents the council from discriminating against employees based on their sexuality]. So yet again, I’ll ask the question you can’t seem to answer…
What exactly gives you the right to impose your religious conclusions onto people who don’t share them?.
The council hasn’t mentioned whether a shortage of places with more “suitable” foster parents influenced their decision, but I’d not be surprised. There’s a serious national shortage of foster places. If preserving a negative attitude towards homosexuals is such an important issue, perhaps the child should be placed with an asian muslim family for fostering?
But that’s not really the problem is it? You’re worried that someone ELSE thinks they have the right to impose their subjective beliefs onto people who don’t share them.
I remain astounded that you can look yourself in the mirror with a clear conscience.
I remain astounded that you can express outrage about this with a straight face. Projection, much?
Yet more bad news for Saint:
“Evidence is reviewed pointing to a negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief in the United States and Europe. It is shown that intelligence measured as psychometric g is negatively related to religious belief. We also examine whether this negative relationship between intelligence and religious belief is present between nations. We find that in a sample of 137 countries the correlation between national IQ and disbelief in God is 0.60.”
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6W4M-4SD1KNR-1&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=82c88cd709652a9a24d1a902d8106a8f
Saint old son, if you want more people to share your religious beliefs you’ll have to make us dumber
Saint old son, if you want more people to share your religious beliefs you’ll have to make us dumber
.
Mel old son. We can and we will.
(Sound of diabolical laughter bouncing off the walls of a Medieval castle in north-west Romania)
Mel {wags finger}. Naughty. Opinions about religion in general are ALSO not relevant to the thread.
Melaleuka@141, DEM@143.
Yes Melaleuka. Naughty naughty. You mustn’t be so (pardon the pun on your name) black-and-white. (However, as I have the SL comments feed in my reader, it made it into my shared items feed. If you put these sorts of comments in your own blog, I’d like to read it. I don’t mind if LE/SL/DEM pass you my email if you request it)
Back on-topic, there was another Tiller-like case today or yesterday: a holocaust-denier who went gun-happy in a US holocaust museum. Luckily, gunman and guard were only injured. It seems like a “You don’t suffer violent discrimination, so I’ll subject you to do” line with some similarity to “I’m pro-life so I’ll kill you”.
Even more on-topic, I saw a good cartoon unholy trinity which contrasts militant islamist (girded in “suicide” bombs), a militant christianist (with a smoking gun outside an abortion clinic), and a militant atheist (standing at a bar, beer in hand, weilding nothing but a look of ennui).
Dave, the cartoon is funny – although perhaps it should be Richard Dawkins boring a person to death (he gives me the irrits).
Unfortunately, the guard has since died.
DEM@146 Thanks for finding the link.
NOW the compare and contrast between the murders of Johns and Tiller gets interesting.
“Joseph Persichini, assistant director in charge of the Washington FBI field office, said the shooting was being investigated as a possible hate crime or a case of domestic terrorism.”
Does anybody know if the murderer of Tiller is being investigated in a similar manner, or if there are politically-motivated kid gloves being used? And what of the press in the US?
It just gets better. I’ve updated the post and added a second funnie.
Off topic for a minute, and because of all the ad hominems/{feminems?} around, and of all the “saints” here, I thought I’d give everyone, including “saint”, a giggle with this vid of a lots of saints sung to G&S, and obviously inspired by Tom Lehrer’s “Element Song”.
And yes “saint”, I honestly do think you’ll enjoy it – as long as you don’t feel forced to “fiddle with your rosaries, bow your head in deep respect and genuflect, genuflect, genuflect”. (Because G&S is so fast you’ll do your cruciate ligaments if you did)
(DEM etc…. no offence taken if you delete this for being too off-topic)
[OH, WHAT THE HELL... ADMIN MAGIC-DEM]
(LE: You heresy-phile you, have fun counting those with views now considered heretical. Urbertino was mentioned, but I dunno if U of Casale ever got his heavenly gong)
#140
But the article DOES say that the council wouldn’t comment if a more suitable couple was available and that the child was placed in an environment which is considered detrimental to a child by not just Catholics but the overwhelming majority of people, religious or otherwise in the entire world. For the religious alone, that would be an effrontery to Muslims, Buddhists, Christians, Jews alone let alone just about eery other religion. And yes I can imagine a Muslim boy being placed with a gay couple. Not.
[YOUR OPINON OF MY PERSONAL BELIEFS ARE NOT RELEVANT TO THIS THREAD AND HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THE REMAINDER OF YOUR COMMENT THAT IS ON TOPIC, REMAINS -ADMIN DEM]
Lovely- not content to claim merely to speak for God, you now claim to speak for the entire WORLD in expressing your homophobia. Nice one, saint.
(Any chance of your answering that question yet?)
Any chance of you withdrawing and apologizing for your lies DEM?
DEM if I were you I’d be getting rather concerned by Saint’s stalking and threatening language. He is now using his site as a platform for those who advocate the murder of those who oppose his views on abortion:
“As far as the death of the abortionist goes I personally don’t find it evil…. In times gone by Roeder’s alleged act would be seen by Christians as morally good. Today I agree with them still. Though today the majority, and of course the state, would declare his actions criminal. ”
http://dogfightatbankstown.typepad.com/blog/2009/06/im-way-too-tired-and-too-numb-to-be-blogging-about-this-now-but-perhaps-something-needs-to-be-saidwhenever-you-hear-such-st.html#comment-6a00d8341c890353ef011570105882970c
As a “pretend Christian” with “lack of moral clarity” who “hate[s] the church, hate[s] what she teaches, can’t stand to live the life of holiness demanded of us by Christ because it impinges on [my] ass-betting and makes [me] so unpopular amongst all the lefties [I] so earnestly desire to please”; who “advocate[s] for death and injustice” and is “so bitter, so hateful, so lacking in moral vision, so joyless” while possessing “such blinkered amoral reasoning”…
…that’ll be a no, then.
Thanks for the quote, Mel. Not quite in keeping with his comment @10 over here that “murder is murder and is always and everywhere wrong”, is it?
I’ve not been following Bankstown as I expect they’d be like pat@92:
These are people who think the principle of Freedom of Religion is a “negligible qualification”. Taking religion as seriously as I do, that’s an environment a little too scary for me.
I love the Saint Song, Dave.
My favourite saints are the ones who were heathen gods and goddesses but got inducted into Christianity. Eg: Saint Bridget – turned some Irish monks’ bath water into beer. That’s my kind of saint.
And yes I can imagine a Muslim boy being placed with a gay couple. Not.
Maybe the kid’s from Morrocco. The fags there are legendary.
What did I do? I’m in moderation. Don;t you guys like me anymore?
Sorry Adrien, the spam filter’s gone a bit silly, and right now it’s picking on you.