Video: Joan Walsh Takes On Bill O’Reilly
Tweet
O’Reilly runs the microphones, lights, etc. so things are always going to be tilted to his advantage, but Walsh does a pretty good job in the lion’s den here. Especially notable is the quick silence when she notes the church killer that was inspired by O’Reilly’s rantings.
66 Responses to “Video: Joan Walsh Takes On Bill O’Reilly”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
Gun control? WTF.
Tiller was a hero??
This was a trainwreck for Joan Walsh. My guess is she won’t be able to sleep a wink tonight that performance.
And what gives with the threat she made ‘Don’t demonize me or you will regret it’?
“Don’t demonize me like I demonize you, Bill.”
My guess is, Dennis, even you may have understood the gun control analogy if O’Reilly had shut up long enough for her to get a sentence out.
And she did embarrass him with that last bit. Good for her.
Good on Joan. She stood her ground for women who need emergency late-term abortions — and her gun analogy made complete sense, despite O’Reilly’s angry outbursts attempting to assert the contrary. And Billo clearly was thrown off his game by Joan’s comments on the Knoxville church shooter — who owned O’Reilly’s propagandistic books. If anyone has blood on their hands, it is O’Reilly and his NewsCorp enablers.
Tiller was a hero?
You have a problem with that statement?
Yes, Tiller was a hero. He was a man who stood up for his principles, even when it was clear that doing so put his life and freedom in danger.
Yes, there are those who absolutely refuse to believe that another person can have another point of view, there are those who imagine him as a malevolent figure doing evil things for evil’s sake. But that speaks to their own warped view of the world.
The fact of the matter is, he cared, and he did what he thought was right. He didn’t pay attention to polls, or public opinion, and he didn’t care that some people despised him. But apparently, that only protects you if you start wars and torture people.
Tiller was a hero. He saved women’s lives when giving birth would have been a death sentence. How many women’s lives has O’Reilly saved? He obviously has a lot of respect for women what with the sexual harassment he has committed and the moral panics he’s always beating the drum for.
Only in Dennis’ world is this video an example of the eloquent, assertive Joan Walsh experience a train-wreck. I’m sure Dennis thought the braying, repeatedly shouting the same line over and over again O’Reilly was a poetic genius in this clip too.
The fact that she repeated over and over which COMPLETELY invalidates his rantings is the fact that what the doctor did was LEGAL. I know this burns up people on the right, but Joan Walsh isn’t inciting violence or wishing death and destruction to her opponents. Orielly can spit bile all he wants but does not want to answer for his rhetoric. We all know you are not personally responsible for Dr. Tiller’s death, but can you at least admit you encourage this environment?
What Tiller did was LEGAL. To murder someone doing something LEGAL is both a crime against the person and an inappropriate challenge to the law – IN A DEMOCRACY.
However, many people consider “abortion” just a form of infanticide – of killing babies. I understand their point of view – in fact I materially agree with it. BUT – I believe that a WOMAN’s
Tiller had the courage of his convictions. Was he a hero? He was to a percentage of Americans. How many? I don’t know. But he was a murderer in the eyes of many. Most people here will think poorly of the prolife folks, that is a mistake. They are your fellow countrymen and in general are upstanding people who make fine neighbors. They work hard and hold to traditional values.
O’Rielly comes across as loud and obnoxious. He is the right doppleganger of the left Chris Mathews for interviewing manner.
Joan stood up for herself well and scored points for keeping calm. Bill lost points for his typical loud rude behavior.
But on the merits of the topic being debated, thats another kettle of fish. Joan’s basic arguement was in Kansas killing a viable fetus is legal. Bill’s point was in 37 states its not, Joan would give no rights to fetus living outside the womb, and that he feels that is murder. She is using the same legal arguement that was used to protect the institution of slavery. It is ironic this takes place in Kansas, bloody Kansas as it was known 160 years ago, again over a moral question that divided the nation.
The blood on your hands issue is a bit more complicated. While Tiller did have the courage of his convictions so did his killer. While Tiller may have saved the lives of some of the women involved one must wonder what took them so long to decide. We have technology now than can point to these potential problems for the most part much sooner than the last minute. Tiller did have blood on his hands. He personally killed a large number of babies some of which could have survived.
Bill’s oft expressed opinion to keep the Kansas analogy going was preaching to the choir of John Brown. And just as it happened so long ago, John Brown acted. O’Rielly has no more blood on his hands that did the abolitionist newspapers of yore.
Well, that was a stirring defense of cold blooded murder. Way to go, Amused.
You know Fafaroo other than the legal travesty that is Rowe vs Wade from a Constutional standpoint, which I did not address at all, I don’t have a dog in this fight. I’m merely putting it into perspective. I find the Kansas flashpoint quite ironic from a historical viewpoint. This is a moral issue much like slavery was and Kansas, the midpoint of the nation, is centerstage. Just like before. Martyrs and vigilantes and more martyrs, dividing a nation.
“We have technology now than can point to these potential problems for the most part much sooner than the last minute.”
3rd trimester account for 1% of all abortions, which makes you a conservative lying-sack-of-shit, but I repeat myself.
elspi,
A pleasant good evening to you too. Tiller specialized in late term abortions, hence the noteriety. Other than a demonstration of poor reading comprehension and an out of context statistic What’s your point?
A few things:
1) The gun analogy made perfect sense to me.
2) Bill is a real slimeball, apparently unable to avoid looking foolish when he’s worked up.
3) It’s always interesting to me to hear arguments from conservatives – ostensibly small government types devoted to teh freedom and liberty – against the expanded definition of the due process clause. That it was also used to decide the Dred Scott case is of course irrelevant. Legal concepts, like guns, can be used for good or ill.
Wow, Amused Observer. You’ve successfully equated Tiller, who never broke a single law, to his own murderer. That’s the most twisted piece of logic I’ve ever seen. If that’s the kind of justification for vigilantism and terror from the right then it is going to be a long time in the desert.
The right loves to argue against Rowe v Wade as if the decision itself is ugly. It’s not. It’s solid as can be. People have a right to privacy and self determination over their own bodies. The alternative is an ugly world that sees back alley abortions and women condemned to death because your big brother mentality says that it’s better for her to die in labor than have an abortion. When Tiller performed late term abortions those are the reasons. And I want the ability to make that decision to rest only in one person, the woman who’s life and body are on the line. I especially don’t want it in your hands seeing how you conflate an honest man with a killer.
The foundation of the right to bear arms is an enumerated right specifically mentioned in the Constitution, found in the Federalist papers, and in British common law.
The Constitutional foundation for federally legalizing abortion is built upon sand. Rowe vs Wade is the poster child of judicial activism, legistlating from the bench. It is an illegitimate act of the court whick is my chief complaint about it.
Ms.Walsh was railing against the Constitution as it is written with her gun control analogy. Her defense that abortion is legal is weak on a federal level. Presumably Kansas state law codifies late term abortion in that state. I don’t really know, abortion’s not my thing. But the defense that it is ok because it is legal on such a devisive moral issue is similar to the justification of slavery at the time just before the Civil War. The whole point of the underground rairoad was to skirt Federal law. I fail to see your point about the 14th Amendment.
Bill O’Rielly is seldom a pretty sight when he’s worked up. I did very much enjoy him holding one of the architects of our financial unraveling, Barney Frank’s feet to the flame. I am willing to overlook some of O’Reilly’s shortcomings in light of that performance. But in general I agree with much of your feelings towards O’Reilly. Not so often the message as the presentation. I fail to understand how he gets anyone on his show. Ms. Walsh I understand, and she stood up well to the onslaught. But others? What’s the point.
Mike,
While I am a great proponent of the concept of privacy and indeed wish it was an enumerated right, it is not. The foundation for abortion based on an invisable right to privacy is very shakey. My opinion on abortion on the federal level is limited to the Constitutional aspects of it.
As for Tiller, he was a brave man who had the courage of his convictions. He also was responsible for the death of many fellow humans. For most it was a mercy killing. I imagine he would have continued to help women needing abortions if the law changed.
But what you will surely disagree with but is true none the less is his killer was also a man who had the courage of his convictions. Legalities seldom have much power over strongly held moral positions. Each man did what he had to do. Both men sacrificed themselves for what they thought was the greater good. I think I understand both thier motivations, at least as well as you can from the media stories. I’m not going to judge them.
The fact of the matter is, he cared, and he did what he thought was right. He didn’t pay attention to polls, or public opinion, and he didn’t care that some people despised him. But apparently, that only protects you if you start wars and torture people. –Long Haired Weirdo
If you applied the same standards to George Bush as you do to Dr. Tiller, logical consistency being a folly of an idea for you I know, then you should have no complaint against Bush, whatsoever. His war, nor his interrogation methods.
Right wing eliminitionist “Amused Observer” supports terrorism.
Right winger “Amused Observer” complimented a terrorist assassin, claiming that the terrorist was “a man who had the courage of his convictions” who “did what he had to do.”
“Amused Observer” encourages terrorism, describing a terrorist’s act of terrorism as being a “moral” position.
Right winger “Amused Observer” uses celebratory martyr language, referring to a terrorist as having “sacrificed” himself for what he believed “was the greater good”.
Right winger “Amused Observer” even says of the terrorist that he “understand[s]“ … “thier [sic] motivations” and he was “not going to judge them.”
I imagine he would have continued to help women needing abortions if the law changed.
I’m sure he would appreciate you speaking for him in this regard. With no evidence to back it up even. Pretty scummy.
He also was responsible for the death of many fellow humans.
Yep, scummy. He preformed abortions to save lives of women. But I’m sure O’Reilly and company have told you all you need to know about Tiller and so you’ve judged him already.
I’m not going to judge them.
You have. You’ve repeatedly equated Tiller, who preformed abortions to save women’s lives, to a man who broke a law and killed another man. In fact you keep using little hedging words to keep from judging a murderer. This is where you show yourself to be a loon. You refuse to condemn murder because the man killed an abortion doctor who saved women’s lives. You keep calling Tiller a murderer but that doesn’t make it true. He saved women’s lives completely legally. You can’t make the distinction between him and his murderer. Stupid or evil or both, I don’t know what you are.
Mike,
I told you abortions not my thing except for the Constitutional aspect of it. I believe Tiller felt strongly enough about the subject he would have still done that if the law changed. I have no evidence to prove it but so what, it is an opinion, stated as an opinion and I don’t think less of him for it.
But in the same vein he was killing humans. As I said most were mercy killings so to speak but some of those babies were viable and could have lived. He was a man who had the courage of his convictions and I admire and respect that. I am disturbed by his specialty but that is his cross to bear.
Likewise with the man that killed him. By his lights he stopped a murderer. He sacrificed himself to do it. He too had the courage of his convictions.
Legality has little to do with morality. I can respect a man who has the courage of his convictions. I may not agree with him, he may even be my mortal enemy but I can respect courage.
As I said earlier I don’t particularly have a dog in this fight. Right or wrong, fucking with seriously held moral values can be dangerous. If you’re going to do it you’d best be able to defend yourself. Tiller knew what he was up against and had the balls to carry on. That is what having the courage of your convictions means. It didn’t work out for him because he ran across a man with similar fortitude who got the drop on him.
AO,
Are you suggesting that everyone has the right to kill people they disagree with over legal acts such as providing abortion services or putting money in a parking meter, as long as they are willing to do the time or die in a hail of bullets? That if a person is crazy enough, he has the right to do any damn thing he wants if it fits a personal version of morality that opposes civilized society?
Anarchy good, laws bad. I get it.
“why can’t you be more like Kirsten Powers?”-billo to Joan
That’s not what I said as you well know Repack. I said I thought I understood both mens motivations. They were both driven by what they thought was the greater good. Both had the courage of thier convictions and in the end both had blood on thier hands.
You know as well as I do that you fuck around with deeply held moral convictions at your own risk. Thats a global phenomena and it is as impersonal as the weather. I am merely making observations on the universal human condition. I didn’t say anyone had the right to do anything. Other than the Constitutional aspect I don’t have deeply held feelings towards abortion. I think its done too frequently but I wouldn’t outlaw it. I think it messes with a lot of girls heads, at least that is what they tell me.
Deeply held moral convictions? No, anti-abortion kook farts don’t have morals–they’re sublimated by their weird superstitions about the meaning of life. You don’t know diddly about the constitution.
Both had the courage of thier convictions and in the end both had blood on thier hands.
No. They didn’t both have “blood on their hands.” Only one of them did.
I did like the way Bill-O pulled a Stephen Colbert at the end there: she nails him with a question, he squirms a little and then says “Thanks for coming on the show, that’s all the time we have.”
Or is that where Colbert got it?
Amused Observer:
Exactly my point about those who refuse to admit to another view.
He saw an issue: there is a need for certain late term abortions. He chose to fill that need when only two other doctors in the entire country are willing to do so.
He did so in a climate of hatred against him, and legitimate fear for his life. That makes him a hero, and should do so to anyone who is unwilling to demonize him.
But then, too many are unwilling to dig in to the issue.
A pregnant woman certainly bears some level of responsibility for the child she’s carrying in the third trimester. The question is, how much risk to her own life and well being does she owe that child?
That is the moral question that should be left to the woman and her doctor. If they both agree that the risk to continuing the pregnancy is too high, then we have to ask ourselves, who should make that choice?
The legislature, miles away and completely unaware of the people and the circumstances involved, without any idea of the actual human cost?
Or the woman and her doctor?
(Or a televised asshole who all-but asks “will no one rid me of this turbulent abortion provider?” and a gunman?)
I know there are a lot of people who’d rather the moral decision be left to a legislature (and in most cases, only if the legislature forbids the procedure completely). But I see the wisdom of the courts in recognizing that the law can be a very blunt instrument, and that only the people who are on the scene, and able to process all of the information that’s available, should be able to make this decision.
Strange that it has stood so long when it was built on such an incredibly weak foundation. The court is not bound by stare decisis; it’s merely an excellent idea. Had it truly been “built upon sand” it would have been overturned.
But it isn’t. It is built upon the principle that people have rights, and the government exists to protect them… the very principle upon which this country was founded.
I am, of course, unsurprised to know that you enjoy arguing from ignorance.
But you’re clearly not a very deep thinker. While trying to separate law and morality, you keep referring to enumerated rights, as if the 9th and 10th Amendments did not exist.
Dennis:
I did not suggest those standards were sufficient; I merely noted that they had been so applied to George W..
Please learn to read more effectively before trying to join a discussion of this nature.
don’t you just love it when some asshole tells you what you believe?
LongHairedWeirdo, you’ve stated everything I wish I would have eloquently and thoughtfully.
I did not suggest those standards were sufficient; I merely noted that they had been so applied to George W..
Please learn to read more effectively before trying to join a discussion of this nature. Long-haird
I did read what you wrote, Long Haired. Those standards were not applied to Bush by you, or by anyone from the Left. But judging from the comments in this thread, they should be to Dr. Tiller. I just wonder if Dr. Tiller had been found guilty, would he be even more of a hero by the likes of Ms. Walsh and the same people who think he’s a hero now.
I just wonder if Dr. Tiller had been found guilty
Wonder away, jackass.
The legal determination that makes makes abortion legal is the same as the one that made it legal for slaves to be whipped, abused, and yes even killed. The slaves just like the unborn were declared nonpersons and as such had NO rights. So when the owners had their slaves punished or killed it was legal but it was still murder.
Wonder away, jackass.
———-
I’m sure Dennis thought the braying, repeatedly shouting the same line over and over again O’Reilly was a poetic genius in this clip too. –Michael Over Here
Funny that you’re sure about that when I’ve never said anything of the sort about O’Reilly. It wasn’t a good performance by either one of them, but the fact that you make a definitive statement out of pure speculation, notwithstanding the fact that you’re completely wrong, is evidence that you’re not at all above making things up to make a point.
So, jackass, you wonder away too.
Regardless of my personal feelings on abortion, late-term in particular, she was right. What Tiller did was clearly legal as put down in statute. Obviously his assailant was breaking the law, and there are still undefined areas where I think Pro-Life people are breaking laws when they target people like Tiller.
Hopeful:
Incorrect.
What was determined was that, until viability – until the fetus can survive on its own – there is no strong basis for the government declaring an interest in the life of the developing fetus.
Let’s be clear here: pregnancy starts before the embryo has any brain matter at all (IIRC… and if I don’t RC, then there is still no well-developed “brain”). No brain = no personhood. If you cut my head off, and keep the rest of me alive via some complicated contraption that keeps my cells from the neck down oxygenated and working properly, *I* am still dead. If there’s any part of us that matters, it’s the brain.
(I’m struggling to avoid making any jokes about brainlessness here, and I’ll appreciate responders showing the same restraint.)
At the beginning, there is no person to protect. The court decided that this is not an issue that the government can regulate.
It decided the same thing holds true through the second trimester, because until the third, the fetus is not viable. (Later advances in medical technology have changed this. However, you’ll note that there’s not a strong movement to change the ruling to account for pre-third-trimester viability; the fight is to make all abortions, including the earliest ones, illegal.)
The court decided that, at the third trimester, due to the general question of viability, the government now had an interest in protecting the baby as a person. However, it also noted that this interest is not so high that it can demand a woman put her health at risk to continue the pregnancy.
This does have the side effect of saying that if a doctor will certify that an abortion is necessary to protect a woman’s health (even if an argument can be made that it is not), the abortion must be legal per Roe vs. Wade. This is, however, a consequence of living in a free society. Yes, if people have rights to exercise, they may exercise them in ways in which we do not approve. But the alternative is to give the government power to intervene in matters like health care.
If you, or someone you loved, faced a health crisis due to pregnancy in the third trimester, and came to the agonizing decision that an abortion was the best of terrible options, would you want government bureaucrats able to dig through your life, just to make sure you weren’t seeking an elective abortion? Would you want some cold-hearted asshole yelling that this particular risk, which is real and meaningful to you, is one that any person should be willing to accept? Would you want a bunch pro-life picketers to have a chance of being able to veto your heart-wrenching decision?
As “happy” as it might make folks like you to believe otherwise, the battleground over abortion has nothing to do with slavery of human beings who have been born, but merely over the questions of development, and recognition of the rights of one person to protect their own life and health.
Dennis:
Or – this is where the “reading effectively” part comes in – I brought up that idea to mock those who use such standards to excuse George W., but refuse to do so to excuse Dr. Tiller. Clearly, their respect is not, in fact, for taking a principled stand. If it were, Tiller’s risk – being killed – should have overshadowed George W.’s – being unpopular with people he doesn’t care about anyway.
Good readers recognize this possibility, rather than resting on their preferred assumptions.
Good readers recognize this possibility, rather than resting on their preferred assumptions. Long Haired
Respectfully disagree. You can read ones statement, comprehend, and then be the devil’s advocate and question the accusers motives in the same regard. Everything you wrote about Tiller in that post, everything, could’ve been applied to George Bush regarding his stands on both the war and his stance on EIT’s. To say that he was protected is fallacious. There is little doubt that had Bush gone attended a regular church without protection that someone would’ve used the opportunity to do him harm; whether or not it was an anti-war nut or someone passionate about not using what he knew in his mind was torture was just a matter of getting to him first. To say the media protected him when he had an approval rating in the 20′s is also fallacious. So my point, Long Haired, is that the prism you use to call Dr. Tiller a hero and a man of conviction is not something you would use to judge George Bush, and your views could easily be viewed by even the most objective of thinkers as being just as warped as you claim people are for believing Dr. Tiller was evil even though he held to his personal convictions despite what people thought of him.
Do you think George Bush and Dick Cheney were evil? If you don’t, I think it’s a fair assumption to say you are in the minority of those who opposed the war and what they declared was torture, both of which were ‘legal’. It’s the same flaw in Joan Walsh’s argument here, even though O’Reilly didn’t call her out for that. Her views on Tiller’s late-tem abortion as asked by O’Reilly were in no way consistent with the logic she would use to dispel the notion of the effectiveness and necessity of the ticking time-bomb scenario for using aggressive interrogation techniques.
I don’t know why you feel defensive about a rebuttal to your claim. Good writers recognize that their preferred assumptions are subject to critique without getting bent out of shape about it.
Ah, the ever so popular “making shit up” method of argument.
By the way:
Do I need to explicitly state that I do not judge Dr. Tiller by the standards I as mocking? Okay: my reasons for judging Dr. Tiller well have nothing to do with the standards I was mocking.
One might guess that there is a reason I held those standards up to mockery.
As a side note: I do prefer to be referred to as a noun, rather than as an adjectival phrase – “Weirdo” is so much more person-place-or-thingish than “long-haired”.
Now, you have two different things for which, in your imagination, I am “bent out of shape”. Please enjoy.
So, jackass, you wonder away too.
So now you’re equating my drawing a conclusion from your non-criticism of O’Reilly to your wondering about whether a man who was shot in cold blood would have broken the law had it been changed, which it never was?
Classy. Next you should equate yourself to Jesus or MLK.
You should equate yourself to a fruit loop.
Joan Walsh is a moron. She openly admitting a baby killer was a hero in her eyes and she did more talking over Bill than he ever did over her!!! Funny thing is its always the “baby killers” that cry about things like gun laws and wars. Kind of ironic…….nothing but a bunch of hypocrites.
Repeat offender
And as for Tiller, I am sad that he was murdered. I think he should have stood trial for murdering all those children. Sad to stay but I don’t think he will be missed much.
Repeat Offender, you’re a moron. He did stand trial! He was acquitted for not having broken any laws! How stupid are you? You pass judgement and know none of the facts.
Tiller will be missed every time a dangerous pregnancy puts a woman in to a position to make the decision to not risk death.
Well as far as I can tell he was charged with 19 misdemeanors……I said he should stand trial for “MURDER”. Learn to read you idiot.
As far as the “dangerous pregnancy” defense. Bull!! There is a substantial amount of evidence that has shown he did not run his practice by these standards otherwise I am sure he would have not taken it upon himself to play God and decided if the fetus was viable or not. Tiller sited “temporary depression” as a reason to perform the abortion. Notice the “temporary” for those of you that have trouble reading. 90 % of women suffer from some sort of anxiety or depression during the gestational period. I know my wife did, but it was no reason to kill our baby. I am not saying all of the women that he performed abortions for were wrong in doing so, because if a womens life is at risk you have to make that almost impossible decision, but when their life is not definightly at risk, there should be no abortion. Considering that “temporary depression” hardly seems like a life and death situation.
And you’re right; he will be missed, missed by irresponsible parents who would rather abort their child than take responsibility.
Kansas law prohibits aborting viable fetuses, which is generally midway through the second trimester, unless two doctors certify that continuing the pregnancy would cause the woman “substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function.”[27] Tiller went on trial in March 2009, charged with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly “independent” as required by Kansas state law.[28][29]
There is a substantial amount of evidence
Source? Someone who is not Bill O’Reilly.
taken it upon himself to play God
Who should have made the decision on whether it’s a dangerous pregnancy or not? You? Should the Republican congress Terri Schiavo every single woman’s dangerous 3rd trimester dangerous pregnancy and tell them whether or not they should risk their lives? Or should we create a bureaucracy of some sort that would go around adjudicating it? I believe that we should just let the woman carrying the child decide whether or not it’s the right thing to do, so did doctor Tiller.
Tiller sited “temporary depression” as a reason to perform the abortion.
Citation please. Someone besides O’Reilly because my quick google on this brings up only stories that quote O’Reilly accusing Tiller of this.
because if a womens life is at risk you have to make that almost impossible decision, but when their life is not definightly (sic) at risk, there should be no abortion.
Again, who makes this decision? I’ve yet to see a reliable source for the “temporary depression” accusation, and I wouldn’t be surprised if it was one of many issues listed on a single patient’s justification. I don’t want some high barrier of what is “definightly at risk” because I don’t want some woman with a rare disease not on the books or with an unpredicted circumstance having to jump through your hoops to prove that her life is at risk.
And you’re right; he will be missed, missed by irresponsible parents who would rather abort their child than take responsibility.
You’re incredibly judgmental of his thousands of patients. Is that really the accusation you want to make? If there was even a small chance that my wife could die or be seriously injured giving birth I would be relieved if she chose to have an abortion, I love her too much. But they’re all irresponsible, not taking on the responsibility of death!
Tiller went on trial in March 2009, charged with 19 misdemeanors for allegedly consulting a second physician in late-term abortion cases who was not truly “independent” as required by Kansas state law.[28][29] (sic)
And was acquitted.
Just becasue somone thinks their dog should die because they don’t want it anymore or they are “temporarly depressed” and I have a gun doesn’t mean I should do it, IT STILL MAKES ME THE DOG KILLER. Now if the dog has rabies, then there is an exception and it is nessicary, but all the same very unfortunate.
Poor analogy I know. Forgive me.
Anyways I realize I am being very critical of some of these people who chose to abort, and I realize that there are exceptions to any case, but I don’t believe there are as many as some would want us to believe.
And again…….he never stood trial for “MURDER” which is what I believe would have been a more appropriate charge. He was aquitted for 19 “Misdamenors”, not a Felony.
Last time I checked that makes a difference.
So a rabid right winger who names themselves “Repeat offender” decides to moralize about the behavior of others and expects to be taken seriously.
It’s always fascinating to hear right winger’s claim that government dictate taking away someone’s most personal decisions, even taking away a woman’s right to choose her own reproductive decisions.
It’s as if right winger’s think women are property.
What other rights would you take away from women, “Repeat offender”?
I’ve been trying to wrap my head around Exodus 21:7-11
” [7] “If a man sells his daughter as a servant, she is not to go free as menservants do. [8] If she does not please the master who has selected her for himself, [a] he must let her be redeemed. He has no right to sell her to foreigners, because he has broken faith with her. [9] If he selects her for his son, he must grant her the rights of a daughter. [10] If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights. [11] If he does not provide her with these three things, she is to go free, without any payment of money.”
http://google.com/search?q=Exodus+21%3A7-11
What do you think, “Repeat offender”, since you brought up God, do you support child sex slavery or don’t you believe in the God of the Bible?
Perhaps you’d like to spit out a Fatwa against some other Doctors like some right wing Muslim Mullah?
Personally I think that Murdoch’s thug O’Reilly’s Fatwa against Tiller was despicable and directly contributes to the terrorism against women’s right to choose their own reproductive decisions.
And while we’re at it, any other patriarchal moralizing you’d like to decree while you are at it, “Repeat offender”?
Would you put women in a Burka or just make sure they show modesty in their dress? Deny women the vote? Stop providing women with basic reproductive education? Perhaps even stop providing women with education at all, like the Taliban extremists?
Well I am not entirely sure why you think trying to give an unborn child a shot at life means I think of women as property, but to each his own I guess. I can’t say for sure, but if males were the ones who carried the child I don’t believe I would change my view. My wife shares my beliefs on abortion while disagrees with me on many other things, and guess what; she does that all on her own!!! I believe if I had to risk my life to save my child I would without question.
Terrorism on women’s rights?……Really? Murdering an unborn, innocent child doesn’t bother you at all huh? Who is really the despicable one in all this?
To be honest I am not familiar with the biblical passage sited above. I will get back to you on that.
Well as far as the passage, you convieniently left out the part where it talks about male servatute as well. Considering it was a common practice to own MALE AND FEMALE servants in those days, the whole chapter is how to treat servants, both male adn female. Never the less I don’t believe it makes it right to have slaves either. Nothing in what I wrote indicated that. What I did indicate was that I thought a child, even though not able to talk or tell you they want to live, still deserve that right to.
Take it for what you want.
The problem with the right wing, “Repeat offender” is that the right wing simultaneously wants to use the power of government to force strangers to have children but then that same right wing walks away from their responsibilities of the child that they forced on that stranger.
How many unadopted children are there? Nationally? Internationally?
How many children go without health care?
How many children go without enough food or decent nutrition?
Right wingers are deadbeat parents.
If you want to make a difference go adopt a few children, don’t force a stranger to have a child that you wouldn’t take responsibility for.
If you want to make a difference, demand health care be provided to every child (and mother) in America, don’t force a stranger to have a child that you wouldn’t take responsibility for.
If you want to make a difference demand that every child in America get enough nutritional food to eat, don’t force a stranger to have a child that you wouldn’t take responsibility for.
To me, “Repeat offender”, if you think it’s right to force a stranger to have a baby than that child is YOUR responsibility.
And if you want to demand that the force of government be used to force a stranger to have a baby don’t whine when I demand that the force of government be used to demand that you stop being a deadbeat parent and support that child’s health care, and education, and nutrition, and even demand that you at least help get that woman a decent job and not leave her and the baby you forced on her in poverty for generation after generation. I’d add that you also owe that child a decent education up through at least a four year college degree.
But the truth is that right wingers are deadbeat parents.
Right wingers expect to force a stranger to have a child and then demand that they have no responsibility for the child they forced on that stranger.
“How many unadopted children are there? Nationally? Internationally?
How many children go without health care?
How many children go without enough food or decent nutrition?”
So any child that was adopted, without healthcare, or didn’t get nutrition is disposable? Sounds pretty despicable!
As far as I can tell you have NOT put any responsibility on the actual parents, and that is what makes it okay for the real deadbeats to abort children without a second thought. Stop the problem at the source and make them take the responsibility of being a parent, especially considering they chose to perform the act that creates a child by their own free will (not taking rape into account).
It is just like you people to push the real responsibility off on someone else. SO TYPICAL! Put the responsibility where is belongs, that is the only thing that will make a REAL difference. Stop making it so easy!
If wanting a child to live makes me wrong then fine, I sincerely chose to be wrong…….…by your standards anyway.
Sources? Citations? Do you have anything to back up O’Reilly’s claims? Do we know anything about this “temporary depression” claim at all besides what O’Reilly brayed on his show? Do we know if it was just one of many justifying reasons for an abortion? Do we even know if it was related to a late term abortion?
You know nothing about the circumstances these women were in and yet you’re more than happy to judge.
You keep harping on him being charged for murder but by your own quoted Kansas state law Tiller was acquitted by a jury of his peers of violating the statute, and the statute just prohibits it, it doesn’t even claim it’s murder!
He did stay within the scope of his states law. That only means the states law is flawed as far as I am concerned.
Do you know the circumstnces for what all of these women got abortions? I would really like to know if you know something more than the next person. Do you have some special insite that you would like to share that nobody else has access to?
We only know what the media lets out 99% of the time and if only one of the horrible things that could have happened while he was practicing, did happen, that is enough for me. I only know what is reported same as you.
A woman who makes the very difficult decision to have an abortion is taking responsibility.
Right wingers like YOU, “Repeat offender”, want to force strangers to have a child and then claim YOU don’t have any responsibility for YOUR FORCING that stranger to have a child.
Right wingers like YOU evade your responsibility for forcing children on strangers. You even see that forced birth as some kind of sick PUNISHMENT.
Let’s hear the right wing start taking responsibility for all of the unadopted children in America.
Let’s hear the right wing start taking responsibility for the health care of every child (and mother) in America.
Let’s hear the right wing start taking responsibility for feeding the hungry children in America.
Let’s hear the right wing start taking responsibility for making sure every child in America has clean, affordable water in America.
Let’s hear the right wing start taking responsibility to see every poor child is decently clothed.
The left steps up to these responsibilities as a core part of their belief system.
The right wing, though, is riddled with deadbeat parents.
The left steps up by making it alright to kill children!? WOW you guys are real heroes. Real standup job your doing. “Liberals, always taking the easy way out.” I think I just came up with your new motto!
I don’t think a child is a punishment, I think a child is a blessing, not something to be thrown out like trash.
My child has all those things. You know why? I did what all the real deadbeats failed doing. I didn’t take the easy way out and that’s what sets the left and the right apart, the easy way or the right way. This just goes to show that virtue truly is dead.
and furthermore, I don’t want to force anybody to do anything. I want them to have enough humanity to do the right things by themselves.
Right wing deadbeat daddy “Repeat offender” and his deadbeat wife want government to force strangers to have children and then he expects to be allowed to abandon the stranger he forced birthing onto.
Why does the right wing abandon children?
Why does the right wing refuse health care for sick children?
Why does the right wing refuse to feed hungry children?
Why does the right wing refuse to provide safe drinking water to thirsty children?
Why does the right wing refuse to clothe poverty-stricken children?
Why? Because right wingers are deadbeats.
Well I am getting of this sad marry-go-round. All the lack of responsibility is making me sick. All I have to say is grow up. Take responsibility and don’t be so ignorant.
…..But if you did that you might be in danger of being a decent human being. I will come back tomorrow and see if any of you got any smarter. And if I am such a dead beat why is my child still alive instead dead in a dumpster? Kinda hard to shurk the truth that it IS YOU WHO ARE THE REAL DEADBEATS! You are just in denial. Mommy and Daddy never taught you how to take responsibility.
Right wing deadbeat daddy “Repeat offender” demands that GOVERNMENT FORCE STRANGERS TO HAVE CHILDREN and then he insists that those children HE FORCED onto strangers aren’t his responsibility.
Because of right wing deadbeat daddies like “Repeat offender”, children go hungry in America, children are refused health care in America, and children are homeless in America.
The left in America step up to those responsibilities even while right wing deadbeats evade their personal responsibility of forcing strangers into having children.
Deadbeat right wingers even taunt, ‘my kid’s fine’, and feel no responsibility or even humanity for the kids they force on strangers that go hungry and homeless and unclothed and are sick.
Right wing deadbeats turn their back on children that are hungry and homeless and sick and then moralize like Taliban thugs that they should be able to dictate that others reproductive freedom be taken away by government force.
And when right wing terrorists use violence, right wingers like “Repeat offender” shrug their shoulders and refuse to admit that their violent rhetoric is no different than a Taliban Fatwa that encourages terrorism.
I’ll only say this last thing to Amused Observer as he has clearly gone completely off the walls in his judgmental spree.
I know nothing about the situations these women are in but I’m not the one judging them, you are. You’ve been unable to provide any documentation for the claims you’ve made against Tiller. I researched on Google and could only find articles quoting O’Reilly with no backing up evidence. I’m glad I live in a world where a woman is allowed to make a decision about whether or not to sentence her self to a potentially deadly birth. We’re not even talking about all abortions here, just the ones that are necessary to protect the life of the mother and you start calling everyone deadbeats and killers. I’m glad you’re not the one making the decisions for these women because you are clearly deranged.
Repeat Offender:
Ah, yes, Argumentum Ad Bullshitum, the fallacy of argument by making shit up.
Yawn.
Go ‘way, kid, I think I hear your mother calling.