Abortion Doctor George Tiller Reportedly Killed at Church

[Harry Dresden]

Great example of rightwing religious tolerance! Hey, Cecilie, Againsheila, Diamond Dave, RGS, Amanda! Hey, come see why the left views your religion and your political spectrum as intolerant! I guess God doesn't love everybody...

Who the hell told you God loves everyone? They are lying feces eating fags. God turned the brutes into fags because the fags did not glorify God nor give thanks to Him. Don't believe me, check out Romans 1. I have no tolerance for fags unless they recognize what they are is sin. I have no tolerance for baby killers too. Got a problem with it sodomite from Colorado? IF YOU DO, go take a flying leap into the middle of lake faggot.

And he seemed like such a nice young man.

I dont think he likes the gays very much.....

 

[AllieBaba]

God loves everyone and wants everyone to join him in heaven.
Unfortunately, not everyone believes in him and refuse to follow him.

 

[Cecilie1200]

assholes with religion.

Good people can do bad things, but only with religion can good people do evil things.


sigh

Yet another idiocy spews from your keyboard. It doesn't take religion for good people to do evil things. All it takes is an overwhelming belief in their own goodness. Case in point: people who pride themselves on how "compassionate" and "caring" they are to protect the "right" of poor, troubled women to end their pregnancies.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Perhaps. But you can't start with a faulty premise and expect me to not notice.

Ok, so let's explore my premise and see if it is faulty.

You live in the US in 1850. Slavery is occurring in half the country. It is the law of the land, but you find this practice immoral and repugnant. Is it your position that you should MYOB, because you don't own slaves and you don't have to own a slave if you don't want to?

Or, do you think it is your moral duty to struggle against the unjust enslavement of a segment of the population?

Is see the dilemma here. One segment of the population views an unborn fetus within the first trimester as unviable life independent of the mother's body and so therefore the unborn fetus is neither alive, independent, and just a part of the mother's body. The other segment perceives unborn fetuses as babies which are alive, human, and therefore afforded human rights.

Should there be a definition of when life begins? Is there one already? Would it change anything?

There should be, there is, and one side of the debate is basing its arguments on debunked beliefs stemming from a lack of biological education in order to rationalize doing something they know deep down is heinously wrong.

What would change things is 1) education, and 2) honesty.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Seeing how we've progressed into the issue of slavery and it's relevance to abortion, I'd like to toss out an absurd comparison.

Abortion is like an eviction. If you owna house and you want soemone out, it's not your problem if they survive without your shelter. If they persih on the streets, you bear no responsibility.

So, if we allow people to evict living things froma house, certainly a woman has the right to evict an unwanted human from her womb. Right?

Abortion is only like an eviction if you evict people by breaking down their door, hacking them to pieces with a machete, and then dragging the bloody body parts out onto the porch.

No more than the ignorance I've come to expect from you.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, and she has to go through the 9 months to balance that out.

but in this hypothetical, the man didnt want the child
remember
where is his choice?

For a potential father to be able to impose a medical procedure on a potential mother, or to be able to withhold it from her, would in any other situation (excluding ones where she is incapable of making decisions due to unconsciousness or delirium) be just as wrong.

Pregnancy is a life threatening event, even in the best circumstances. In nearly all circumstances, it is severely debilitating. To allow any person or government to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will would be wrong.

For the vast majority of women, pregnancy is no more life-threatening than contracting the flu is. It's most certainly not severely debilitating. Get a freaking grip.

 

[Cecilie1200]

it wasnt against her will, unless she was raped

thats the thing where your premise fails

It becomes against her will the moment she no longer wishes to be pregnant. That's how consent works in civil society, no matter how much you would like to preserve pregnancy as a means to punish women for having sex.

So basically, the moment I don't want to be married, it's against my will, and I should have the right to kill my husband in order to avoid that? No, his right to be alive supersedes my lesser right to no longer be married, necessitating my temporary inconvenience in separating and getting a divorce instead. Likewise, a baby's right to live should supersede the egg donor's lesser right to not want to be a mother, necessitating her temporary inconvenience in giving birth and putting the child up for adoption.

You're not going to impress anyone with the "terrible hardship" of having to finish out a pregnancy that no one but the egg donor herself started when the alternative is someone's bloody, horrible death.

 

[Cecilie1200]

One doesn't have to be raped to become pregnant "against their will."

LOL
yeah, sure

if she was willing to do the act, then she should have been willing to accept the results
if she wasnt willing to do the act, then she was raped

By that logic, if you were willing to step into a car, you should have been willing to accept the results of an accident. And therefore should have no right to be treated for wounds incurred in one.

A baby is not a "wound". And to a certain extent, you ARE signing on for the consequences of a possible accident when you get into a car, because it COULD happen. And once it does, you don't get to say, "Psych! Do over!"

 

[Cecilie1200]

One doesn't have to be raped to become pregnant "against their will."

LOL
yeah, sure

if she was willing to do the act, then she should have been willing to accept the results
if she wasnt willing to do the act, then she was raped

Humans don't have sex simply to procreate.

You don't get to decide what consequences other people should be willing to accept.

Actually, we do. That's a big part of the law, in fact.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Humans don't have sex simply to procreate.

You don't get to decide what consequences other people should be willing to accept.

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

Sorry, that don't fly with me.

You are trying to dictate what others should or shouldn't do with their bodies and in the bedroom.

Nope. Just what they get to do with someone ELSE'S body once their actions create that someone else.

And "in the bedroom"? Give me a break. What's so fucking sacred about a bedroom? As if you're allowed to kill someone, molest a child, or hide money from the IRS, as long as you do it in the bedroom.

 

[Cecilie1200]

You're telling people not to have sex if they aren't willing to have a child. That square peg doesn't fit in a lot of people's round hole.

no i'm not

Yes, you are ...

This is what you said:

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

That is saying don't have sex if you aren't willing to have a child.

i just saying they should know that no precaution is 100% effective and if they engage in the activity there is a chance that a child will be created
once that happens your choices are made

People are aware that no precaution is 100% effective. It doesn't change the fact that WAY more often than not they are having sex for pleasure. People fuck for fun. There is a clear intent to not get pregnant thus the pregnancy would be "against their will."

And your choices don't end there. At that point the choice can be made to continue the pregnancy or not. And it's their decision to make, not mine nor your's nor the government's.

So your position is that the government should attempt to remove all the possible negative consequences that nature attaches to sex simply because people want to irresponsibly treat it as a form of recreation?

Personally, I'm ready to be bold and say "against their will" doesn't mean shit to me, and I don't care if it is or not. Lots of things about life and reality are "against one's will", and that makes no difference whatsoever. So why should it here? When did we start deluding ourselves that we were gods and could remake the universe to suit ourselves?

 

[Cecilie1200]

when you have intercourse, there is ALWAYS a chance of creating a child
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep your pants on

When you ride in a car, there is ALWAUS a chance of getting injured in a crash
even if you take precautions

if your not willing to take that risk, keep on walking

I am willing to take that risk. That is why I buy insurance and pay for my medical and repair expenses in advance. I cannot wait until after I get in an accident and then pay for my insurance. Abstinence and Birth Control are forms of insurance against pregnancy. Abortion is like buying insurance after the "accident".

You want to insure against pregnancy? Then don't have sex. If you decide to have sex then put on the insurance before the act. But you take the risk of having your insurance plan fail. Either way, you cannot go back and buy insurance after the act is done.

Immie

But that's what abortion is all about, Immie: the belief that they can demand a mulligan from the universe and make it as though it never happened.

 

[Cecilie1200]

again, that is a FALSE analogy and it will still be one no matter how many fucking times you use it

Do the CAPITAL LETTERS make it false? They do seem to be the entire substance of your argument.

In both cases the person involved ends up in a situation they knew there was a chance of when they got into it.

And in both situations, if the undesired outcome is what results, the person involved can go to a doctor and be treated.

The difference is that if I get in a car accident, I don't think it's an appropriate response to get out and kill the other driver, or an innocent bystander on the street corner.

 

[Cecilie1200]

he takes the EXACT SAME RESPONSIBILITY.....

and, if both have the same responsibility, why is it only ONE has the right of choice?

Whose body is the baby in, again?

Whose wallet is the child support coming out of?

Biology sucks. On the one hand, it leaves the woman bearing the brunt of pregnancy. On the other hand, it leaves the man bearing the brunt of being totally helpless and out of control where his child is concerned.

Trying to make laws to even the playing field of human biology is a fool's game.

 

[Bullypulpit]

And what is the sperm donor's responsibility? Does the man bear no responsibility at all? Or does having a dick absolve him from responsibility?

Alright ... circular arguments never get anywhere ... they are both responsible and should be. Abortion as convenient birth control is wrong for many reasons, abortion for medical needs or because of rape is just well ... unavoidable most times. This isn't a black and white world, and neither is more guilty than the other when an unwanted pregnancy happens. Precautions however are just that, they are not 100% effective, nothing in the world is 100% other than your chance of dying. Here's the problem that you two are missing: You're BOTH right.

Indeed, abortion is not a sensible means of birth control...but that is seldom what it is used for in first trimester abortions and not at all in in second or third trimester abortions. It continues to puzzle me as to the insistence of the religious right wing-nuts insisting on the rights of a fetus, yet they fail to support social programs, or creating a uniform standard for adoption laws across the country...for these potential human live once they are actualized by birth. They continue to rail against safe, legal abortions but fail to support measures which would make them unnecessary...like sound, fact based sex education in schools, lifting restrictions on providing birth control to teenagers, and restrictions on access to emergency contraception.

Because it seems to me that those on the religious right are less concerned about the lives of the woman and the the potential baby than they are about controlling the lives of women. It is misogyny, plain and simple especially given the number of times they have tried to get laws passed banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threats to the health of the woman. Never mind that homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women, at the hands of their husbands or boyfriends. We don't see the religious right marching in protest against that.

The religious right wing-nuts in the "right-to-life" movement care fuck-all about women or the children resulting from unplanned pregnancies. It's all about control...power over the lives of women. They're hypocrites, the lot of 'em.

Let's try it again. Apparently NO ONE (KittenKoder ) from the RWN side of the issue cares to address the points and facts I presented above.

 

[DiveCon]

Alright ... circular arguments never get anywhere ... they are both responsible and should be. Abortion as convenient birth control is wrong for many reasons, abortion for medical needs or because of rape is just well ... unavoidable most times. This isn't a black and white world, and neither is more guilty than the other when an unwanted pregnancy happens. Precautions however are just that, they are not 100% effective, nothing in the world is 100% other than your chance of dying. Here's the problem that you two are missing: You're BOTH right.

Indeed, abortion is not a sensible means of birth control...but that is seldom what it is used for in first trimester abortions and not at all in in second or third trimester abortions. It continues to puzzle me as to the insistence of the religious right wing-nuts insisting on the rights of a fetus, yet they fail to support social programs, or creating a uniform standard for adoption laws across the country...for these potential human live once they are actualized by birth. They continue to rail against safe, legal abortions but fail to support measures which would make them unnecessary...like sound, fact based sex education in schools, lifting restrictions on providing birth control to teenagers, and restrictions on access to emergency contraception.

Because it seems to me that those on the religious right are less concerned about the lives of the woman and the the potential baby than they are about controlling the lives of women. It is misogyny, plain and simple especially given the number of times they have tried to get laws passed banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threats to the health of the woman. Never mind that homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women, at the hands of their husbands or boyfriends. We don't see the religious right marching in protest against that.

The religious right wing-nuts in the "right-to-life" movement care fuck-all about women or the children resulting from unplanned pregnancies. It's all about control...power over the lives of women. They're hypocrites, the lot of 'em.

Let's try it again. Apparently NO ONE (KittenKoder ) from the RWN side of the issue cares to address the points and facts I presented above.

uh, hint for you, KK isnt on the right side


you are more on the moonbat side

 

[Bullypulpit]

Indeed, abortion is not a sensible means of birth control...but that is seldom what it is used for in first trimester abortions and not at all in in second or third trimester abortions. It continues to puzzle me as to the insistence of the religious right wing-nuts insisting on the rights of a fetus, yet they fail to support social programs, or creating a uniform standard for adoption laws across the country...for these potential human live once they are actualized by birth. They continue to rail against safe, legal abortions but fail to support measures which would make them unnecessary...like sound, fact based sex education in schools, lifting restrictions on providing birth control to teenagers, and restrictions on access to emergency contraception.

Because it seems to me that those on the religious right are less concerned about the lives of the woman and the the potential baby than they are about controlling the lives of women. It is misogyny, plain and simple especially given the number of times they have tried to get laws passed banning abortion even in cases of rape, incest and threats to the health of the woman. Never mind that homicide is the leading cause of death among pregnant women, at the hands of their husbands or boyfriends. We don't see the religious right marching in protest against that.

The religious right wing-nuts in the "right-to-life" movement care fuck-all about women or the children resulting from unplanned pregnancies. It's all about control...power over the lives of women. They're hypocrites, the lot of 'em.

Let's try it again. Apparently NO ONE (KittenKoder ) from the RWN side of the issue cares to address the points and facts I presented above.

uh, hint for you, KK isnt on the right side


you are more on the moonbat side

I know...It was a reference to her "Who is Noone?" jibe. But, as expected, no takers from the so called "pro-life" side of the aisle. Perhaps because they don't want to be associated with domestic terrorism...You know, the kind the Bush administration report on right wing extremists warned of

 

[Hurricane Ike]

Who the hell told you God loves everyone? They are lying feces eating fags. God turned the brutes into fags because the fags did not glorify God nor give thanks to Him. Don't believe me, check out Romans 1. I have no tolerance for fags unless they recognize what they are is sin. I have no tolerance for baby killers too. Got a problem with it sodomite from Colorado? IF YOU DO, go take a flying leap into the middle of lake faggot.

And he seemed like such a nice young man.

I dont think he likes the gays very much.....

I do not like the hate crime bills in congress that will take my right to free speech as well as yours. In fact, I would rather see fags marry than see our freedom of speech killed. Go to truthtellers.org and Rev Pike will get you up to date on how the fags and ADL are killing this country.

 

[DiveCon]

Let's try it again. Apparently NO ONE (KittenKoder ) from the RWN side of the issue cares to address the points and facts I presented above.

uh, hint for you, KK isnt on the right side


you are more on the moonbat side

I know...It was a reference to her "Who is Noone?" jibe. But, as expected, no takers from the so called "pro-life" side of the aisle. Perhaps because they don't want to be associated with domestic terrorism...You know, the kind the Bush administration report on right wing extremists warned of

you must know that there was a report released on left wing extremists as well, right?

and the only reason the right wing one got any attention at all was because it had included vets as being potential terrorists

 

[Hurricane Ike]

uh, hint for you, KK isnt on the right side


you are more on the moonbat side

I know...It was a reference to her "Who is Noone?" jibe. But, as expected, no takers from the so called "pro-life" side of the aisle. Perhaps because they don't want to be associated with domestic terrorism...You know, the kind the Bush administration report on right wing extremists warned of

you must know that there was a report released on left wing extremists as well, right?

and the only reason the right wing one got any attention at all was because it had included vets as being potential terrorists

Ahhh, I see you boys and girls have been successfully brainwashed to use that buzz word terrorism. You commie bastard dems would love to see anybody with a pro life bumper sticker arrested for terrorism. Let's get back to discussion about this crime. This man broke civil law and unlawfully took a life. Do you want to see this man get bail? I am pretty sure he will kill again so as much esteem I do have for Mr. Roeder, I say no bail. Killer Tiller killed over 60,000. Viet Nam killed 58,000. Think about it and how many Christians think he is in heaven? After all he was in church. I would have rather Mr. Roeder tazed Killer Tiller and cut off his fingers because face it, Killer Tiller is in Hell and I really am only happy when people who rape and kill children receive the DP and enter Hell.