O'Reilly still falsely claiming he only "reported" groups calling Tiller "the baby killer"
SUMMARY: Bill O'Reilly again falsely claimed that he had only "reported" anti-abortion groups referring to George Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer." In fact, O'Reilly himself has repeatedly referred to Tiller that way.
In his June 3 column about the murder of Kansas abortion provider George Tiller, Bill O'Reilly again falsely claimed that he had only "reported" anti-abortion groups referring to Tiller as "Tiller the baby killer." In fact, O'Reilly himself has repeatedly referred to Tiller that way.
O'Reilly wrote that "far-left loons ... immediately blamed me and Fox News for inciting Tiller's killer. Even though I reported on the doctor honestly, the loons asserted that my analysis of him was 'hateful.' " O'Reilly continued: "Chief of among the complaints was the doctor's nickname, 'Tiller the baby killer.' Some pro-lifers branded him with that, and I reported it. So did hundreds of other news sources." However, O'Reilly has not only "reported" on the term's usage by "pro-lifers," but he has adopted it himself, repeatedly referring to Tiller as "the baby killer" on his Fox News show:
- On the May 15 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated that Kathleen Sebelius, who was then the governor of Kansas and is now secretary of health and human services, "is the most pro-abortion governor in the United States. Based upon Dr. Tiller, the baby killer in her state, and all of that. All right? So there's no doubt."
- On the May 11 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said Sebelius "is pro-abortion. She wants the babies done for. This is -- she supported Tiller the baby killer out there."
- On the April 27 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said that Sebelius "recently vetoed a bill that placed restrictions on late-term abortions in Kansas. The bill was introduced because of the notorious Tiller the baby killer case, where Dr. George Tiller destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000."
- On the April 3 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly said, "Tiller got acquitted in Kansas, Tiller the baby killer."
- On the March 27 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly stated: "Now, we have bad news to report, that Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas -- acquitted. Acquitted today of murdering babies. I wasn't in the courtroom. I didn't sit on the jury. But there's got to be a special place in hell for this guy."
As Media Matters for America noted, since Tiller was shot to death on May 31, O'Reilly has attributed the term to others and claimed he only "reported" it. For instance, on the June 2 edition of The O'Reilly Factor, O'Reilly read an email from a viewer who asked, "Mr. O'Reilly, how can you be sure that reciting 'Tiller the baby killer' over and over again did not inflame the assassin?" O'Reilly responded, "The doctor was involved in a criminal case. I reported what groups were calling him. I reported accurately." Similarly, on the June 1 edition of his program, O'Reilly stated that Tiller was "nicknamed 'The Baby Killer' by pro-life groups."
I shouldn't have to say this but I will...no matter which side of any issue that you come down on...murder is never the answer.
Tiller was murdered by a lunatic...who should be given the death sentence...and yeah, I'm ok with that...even as a pro-lifer.
So it was suicide.
That's not pro-life. That's pro vengeance. There's a big difference.
Btw, O'Reilly has not brought up Roeder's Operation Rescue connections at all. Looks like O'Reilly is provideing some cover for the organization.
Anti-choice. That's what this is REALLY about. Conservatives love to spout about 'freedom' but their idea of freedom is very constrained, it can only fit within THEIR worldview. It's about CONTROL.
Oh, and what about those 'innocent lives' conceived as a result of rape and/or incest? Do they count?
It is those consequences that people try so hard to avoid.
Can't be done.
NONE!!
I don't know if you're really serious about using that term, but if you are, it's a very dangerous idea.
If NAMBLA wants to be known as the "Cuddly Puppy Coalition", then that's what they're called. Nobody else gets to correct it, no matter how disgusting you think they are (and I'm not comparing abortion opponents to child molesters, I'm exaggerating to demonstrate a principle). It's an integral part of the packaging in the political system, and it can't be changed by opponents anymore than a baseball team can pick the color, style and fabric of their opponent's uniforms.
One reason for this is that it's fair and objective. Discuss the issue and not the name, because trying to redefine your opponent comes off as petty and divorced from what's really important. Consider the Republican effort to label the Democratic party "socialist". Even Cavuto couldn't swallow that pill.
The other reason is that it's reciprocal. If we don't engage in this sort of thing, then any such efforts by conservatives can be met with genuine moral indignation. But if we do try this sort of argument, we validate the same behavior on the other side and lose any and all rights to criticize it. And the fact of the matter is that this would be like bringing a knife to a gunfight. Not only are conservatives better at controlling the message in general, but "anti-choice" is weak tea compared to the connotations of the phrase "pro-abortion" or especially "pro-death".
I don't think it is actually going to catch on. I was making a point about wesley's attempt to suggest such brutal "honesty" when using certain terms. I do, however, believe there is an absolute dishonesty in the use of the term pro-life in this country. I think it says alot about your comparison that the perverts are so much more honest in their choice of name than the "pro-life" movement who seem to nearly always support the death penalty and wars of choice.
Also, the Democratic party (which I have never and will never be a member of) is no more socialist than the Republican party (which I used to be a member of). So if that term were to be used in the description of one for the sake of honesty it would only be fair if it were used to describe the other as well.
Lastly, pro-death and pro-abortion would only apply honestly to people who are actually pro-death or pro-abortion. There are not many around. Anti-choice on the abortion issue certainly does apply to those who favor outlawing the option.
Looking back again at what Wesley said, that makes it much clearer. I didn't want to misinterpret your intended meaning, and I understand the reaction better in that context.
He didn't fall off a cliff, he was murdered. But the rationalization is sadly predictable. So do you think Roeder would have done all of his own detective work without Bill O's help?
Wichita, KS — Producers for Fox News host Bill O’Reilly were in Wichita last Friday where they confronted late-term abortionist George R. Tiller as he visited a Quick Trip gas station. Operation Rescue assisted the O’Reilly crew in locating Tiller for the impromptu interview.
O’Reilly’s staff used the Tiller Report II, produced by Operation Rescue, to learn more about the infamous late term abortionist. Read the Tiller Report II online.
http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/video-o%25E2%2580%2599reilly-confronts-tiller-the-baby-killer-in-wichita/
Dr. Tiller's job, as a physician, was to assist WOMEN in their reproductive CHOICES, PERIOD!!!!!
Women, are the ONLY ones with a uterus.
When YOU get one, YOU can CHOOSE whatever you want. Otherwise, you're just background noise!!
After a woman is convicted of murder by abortion, what would be the preferred "pro-life" punishment? Hanging? Electrocution? Lethal injection?
It must be tough, as a pro-lifer, to advocate bombing cities and killing people who are not involved in combat. Do you feel regret that dumb people occasionally get in the way of a good military conflict? Or are you "pro"-life but sometimes those lives for which you are pro belong to people who just won't come around to our way of thinking and leave us no choice?
I'm sure that as a a pro-lifer you've helped deliver mosquito netting to Africa, fed the starving, and made a career out of medical research. I would love to hear some of your stories...
Be sure to inform Bill O'Reilly that he doesn't have to run away from it and lie about his own usage of it. Tell him that his fellow pro-lifers have got his back, and that he can be honest, and that he can continue to refer to George Tiller as 'Tiller the baby killer.'
A "description" that happens to rhyme, thus having a 'ring' to it.
Meanwhile in reality, such a "description" is known as an epithet. In this case, an epithet that's clearly meant to convey hostility.
I'm not an O'Reilly supporter or responsible for his actions...only my own.
While I don't personally use the term "baby killer", it's still a correct definition...albeit rough and ungainly.
One who kills babies can quite correctly be referred to as a baby killer.
By the way: an 8 month old baby is a baby who has lived for 8 months outside its mother's womb. I don't know about you, but I don't add 9 months to my age. Age, according to everyone I know, is clocked from something called a "birth-day". You may have heard of it. Apparently it's significant.
See? Easy, when you stop and think.
That's good advice for you:
Stop.
And
Think.
And that's why you're wrong and disgustingly so.
If you are asking me if it was a crime yes, it was. If I were on a jury however, I would not vote to convict.
Two things:
1) Don't ever criticize what you call judicial activism again. If you would be unwilling to enforce the law as a private citizen due to your interpretation of the law, don't ever criticize a judge who votes his or her conscience.
2) I asked above and I'll ask again, is it not murder to kill someone to save innocent lives? And, whose morality do we listen to? Our own?
So fertility doctors who perform in vitro fertilization and abort multiple fertilized eggs are murderers, too, yes?
Now if you want to say that Tiller was a "fetus killer", it would still be harsh but correct. Baby killers go to jail. Tiller was operating within the law.
I never accused you of supporting O'Reilly or being responsible for him or any other right-wing professional liar.
Besides, O'Reilly does not share your dismissive assessment of the epithet, otherwise he'd still be proudly using it instead of distancing himself from it.
Your haughty definition may be of interest to people who are fascinated with how you choose to define or describe people or things, but in the scope of this item, I'm not one of them.
It also doesn't offend me that you're not interested in my "haughty definition"...it takes two to converse...feel free to participate or not.
Once it leaves the womb, if it's a viable fetus in the womb, then it's a baby. But it's not a baby inside the womb. It's still a fetus.
The more you quote Obama, the smarter you'll look.
If you agree with what you quoted (and why wouldn't any rational person agree with that articulate statement of common sense?), then you'll refrain from calling fetuses "babies."
Glad you've learned something here today.
that O'Reilly LIED about his use of the term (hint: that's the point of this item)?
If not, then as others have pointed out, why isn't O'Reilly (or anyone else) railing against the women who seek abortions? After all, aren't they even more responsible than Tiller?
Why is it that pregnant women who seek abortions always seem to be judged incapable of exercising agency over their own bodies by so-called "pro-lifer"s?
Seriously: if "pro-lifer"s end up having their way, really, will you investigate every miscarriage as a potential murder? What will be the penalty for a women who seeks an illegal abortion?
Life begins at conception. Abortions should be legal in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother. It does not include abortions of convenience or mental distress for the mother.
When a woman willingly participates in sex...both she and the man have every responsibility in seeing that the child has the opportunity of life...even though they hadn't planned it that way.
Obviously you're not a woman.
And, as always, you're free to not have an abortion.
In the case of rape, the woman had no control over the pregnancy.
In the case of mental distress, she and her male accomplice, forfeited the right to take the unplanned life when they willingly had sex. Their actions were the sole reason for the pregnancy...and that life is now their responsibility.
Or maybe a better solution...to avoid responsibility or having to make hard choices...is to just flip a coin for each unwanted pregnancy. Then no one has to be responsible one way or the other.
I take it that for you, ideally a woman would have to prove than she had been raped prior to having an abortion, yes? So she would have to go to trial. And the defendant would be entitled to appeals. And if the entire process happened to last more than nine months... tough luck for the woman who had been raped and forced to give birth to her rapist's child, huh?
I stated to you previously that I believe that there are cases where abortion is viable and those cases where I think it is not.
But in your case...evidenced by your affinity for dragging up every extreme case and scenario...you seem to profess that a woman's right trumps all else...she should be able to abort a baby in any possible scenario.
Have I got that about right? Abortion is always available to a women to abort a pregnancy for any reason?
But to answer your question: Do I think abortion should always be available to a woman for any reason? Honestly, with few qualifications, I can say yes. So long as a fetus is within a woman's womb, as far as I'm concerned, the decision is up to the woman. And the women I know wouldn't take that decision lightly.
Fair enough...but just one more question...what are those "few qualifications"?
I think what it really comes down to is the con nutjobs want to use pregnancy and birth as a bludgeon to punish those they think are wicked, namely fornicators. Sex is bad after all and should not go unpunished, right? Whether they want to admit it or not, I think that's at the root of the bizarre psychology of the pro-fetus crowd.
In my view the answer is yes. Abortion is only ok if the life of the mother is at risk. In that case, the pre-existing life takes priority.
What does going all Paul Kersey on a rapist have to do with the abortion debate? Now you are just plain nuts.
Oh, I don't know. Why would vigilante justice be insane? Now that's a really good question. It would be like asking, what's wrong with a man killing another man in a church if he was convinced that his victim had murdered thousands of babies?
Yeah, nothing insane about that at all.
"Religion is the most dangerous energy source known to humankind. The moment a person (or government or religion or organization) is convinced that God is either ordering or sanctioning a cause or project, anything goes. The history, worldwide, of religion-fueled hate, killing, and oppression is staggering."
What in the world do you mean by "the pre-existing life"? The dictionary says pre-existing means "to exist earlier or before", and that would apply to both the mother and the fetus. Unless you're suggesting that the life of the fetus is somehow less entitled to legal protection than that of the mother, and that would be quite a difficult claim to reconcile with a pro-life position.
They write novels with steamy subject matter like "getting pipes up" and "pouting sex kittens."
An abortion doesn't kill a baby. It's a legal medical procedure that removes a fetus from a woman's body.
Once a viable fetus leaves a woman's body, it becomes a baby, and then there's a problem with allowing it or making it die. Unless that fetus is old enough to survive outside the womb but suffering from severe and terminal birth defects, or if the woman's health will be severely affected by continuing the pregnancy, then an abortion won't happen.
Dr Tiller didn't kill babies. He wasn't a baby killer, and for O'Reilly to use other people's epithat for Tiller, or to take it on as his own smear, is never going to be justified.
Ah, so statutory rape doesn't count? Cases in which it could be proven that there was a measure of potential 'choice' don't count?
But all of that really doesn't matter. Again: why should rape if protecting life is paramount and life begins at conception?
This is about punishing the adultresses, isn't it?
"One of the most remarkable cases was a woman who came [from another part of the state] and said she was the Right-to-Life president in her county. 'But,' she said, she 'had become pregnant and had to have an abortion.'"
And other interesting cases here: http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
Real life is indeed hard. Even the anti-choicers seem to get caught up in it.
There is an answer, of course, but it has nothing to do with a supreme protection of all human life beginning at the moment of conception. I'll give you a hint: it rhymes with 'begulating bemale bexuality."
You're on fire, vysotsky. Good work.
Actually, no. Just a moment ago you wrote: "Since only 1/2 of one percent of all abortions are due to rape or incest, lets make a law and allow them..."
Why would you agree to make a law allowing something you deem murder?
Because being a con means being a hypocrite. It goes with the job.
1:Abortion is only ok if the life of the mother is at risk. In that case, the pre-existing life takes priority.
2:I was one of the only to say its wrong in rape and incest questions. You have shown neither courage, nor convictions.
3:abortion is killing.
Read the prior posts.
For the mmfa legions wetting their drawers over the outrages of O'Reilly or the legions of O'Reilly fans who without conscience, defend his every statement...Have fun...I'm not interested.
Does it concern you that Politifact has documented a public official...namely Pres.Obama...making 29 false public statements? Now that's a horse of a different color.
I looked at the false public statements on their website. Some are disturbing, yes, but all but 2 were made during the campaign which does not excuse him, but shows you that either the website is behind, or he has done a remarkable job of being honest with the American people. One of the others was about 8th grade math, the other was about government action and the stimulus when he said there is no division about people wanting the government to jump in. Wow.
If you're not here to debate talking heads, why are you on this website?
Why do I frequent this site? Easy. I don't need O'Reilly or KO or any other talking head to tell me how or what to think.
I come here for the latest political topics. While I rarely agree with mmfa's take...the articles are well sourced. I like to read the background material provided by mmfa and the other posters on the site.
So I come here and speak my mind when I choose to...or just read the articles and comments and go on with my life.
If you don't like my viewpoints...speak up...it doesn't bother me. I'm just here doing what I've been invited to do...to click on the button that says "add comment".
And then they want us to detail why we are here then? As if we have to explain or answer that to anyone. Newsflash, we don't. Intolerance never shines any brighter than it does around here at times.
You really want to get into a discussion of intolerance?
Oh I think intolerance shines a wee bit brighter when a man is targeted for murder in his church for performing legal medical procedures, and the man who spent years calling him "the baby killer" on a primetime national cable 'news' program lies about having done so.
You seem to have a lot of time to peruse and contribute to this thread.
Apparently you are, ergo, you continue to post.
Let's make it simple for you teabaggers:
Abortion is legal.
Killing is not legal.
Thanks for playing. Now get out and leave the grownups alone. Go back to your ward.
If you killed someone while in the act of attempting to kill another, you would be a hero. Surely, you think these "babies" deserve the same protection, no?
Are there any lawyers around that could shed some light on this?
October 30, 2007:
June 15, 2007:
March 26, 2009:
That's two minutes' work on Lexis Nexis, MMFA. These examples aren't cases of merely "reporting" on what other people called Tiller -- these are cases of O'Reilly and his colleagues themselves calling him a baby killer. (And furthermore, since when has it mattered what "some" call anyone? A lot of people call Obama the n-word. That doesn't mean O'Reilly should adopt the name himself or even report on it.)
Bill O'Reilly is just a pathological, self-aggrandizing, violence-inciting ass.
But seriously, who cares about Bill O'Reilly? He's like a dumb farm animal. He's too stupid to know what he's doing. Fox News, on the other hand, pays his salary, and bears responsibility for putting a liar on the air night after night. They need to be help accountable.
MMFA is also saying that Bill O'Reilly is lying.
O'Reilly lies again. Kansas law prohibits late term abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy unless medically necessary. Dr. Tiller needed 2 other physicians to sign off on the procedure saying that the late term abortion was needed. Dr. Tiller was accused of providing illegal late term abortions but he was acquitted of all charges.
If by "they" you mean Michael Savage and his listeners? Even in that case, I'm afraid you're wrong. "They" call liberalism a mental disorder because "they" don't know what "liberalism" is. "They" may want to try a dictionary or an encyclopedia.
Good luck with you & your voices getting that straight.I'll help you get started, an unborn baby is like an unwritten book. It doesn't exist.
------------------------------------------------
In 2002 I found out I was carrying triplets. My husband did not want me to have them. The day of my appointment I was scared and not sure this was the right decision. They took me back and did an ultrasound. I asked if they all had heartbeats and the nurse said yes. I asked if I would have the chance to talk to the doctor and right away she went and got Dr Tiller. He came in and looked at my babies on the screen.
Then he looked at me and said “God gave you these babies, it’s not my job to take them away.” He asked if I agreed and I immediately said yes. He told the nurse to take me to the counter and have them give me my money. You know that day was a turning point for me. I ended up having a great pregnancy and three healthy baby girls. I can never thank Dr. Tiller enough for sending me away that day.
------------------------------------------------
My wife's older sister, (and the firstborn to my mother-in-law and father-in-law,) recounts the story that the doctor came to my father-in-law during the delivery and said, "I can save one, but not both. Which will it be." My father-in-law said, "Save them both!" and you know the rest of the story. My mother-in-law went on to have five more children all whom have survived to this date.
My daughter was born with CP. Her birth-mother knew her baby would be handicapped. Even though the birth-mother was unmarried, had one child already, and abandoned by her fiance, she chose life for my daughter.
I cannot imagine not seeing my daughter's smile every day and the full life she leads even though she is handicapped. I thank God that I was blessed to be my daughter's Dad.
I beg anyone who is contemplating aborting their baby to consider entrusting their baby to parents who will love and cherish that child as their own through adoption! Depending on the laws of the state, there are many financial options available to birthmothers that will allow them to carry their baby to term. Also, as in our case, the birthmother and/or birthfather if available, can chose the adoptive parents. We have an open door policy of letting both our adopted children's birth-relatives visit them anytime.
How interesting that in your narrative the mother had no say.
"My daughter was born with CP. Her birth-mother knew her baby would be handicapped."
does not hold water. And then, apparently, if you believe him, which one should do at their own risk, the doctor of his wife was wrong that he could only save either the baby or the mother. How does that relate to real life choices of a mother or the baby surviving. Of COURSE every doctor should try to save both mother and daughter, and every doctor WILL try to do that.
So, the implication that the doctor didn't intend to try his hardest to save both, and the suggestion that this behavior is relevant to this discussion, simply shows us all again how shallow and unimportant anything AA mentions is.
If you'll notice, I didn't say the birth mother knew my daughter would have CP, I said she knew she would be handicapped. The mother smoked, and told us she did not see a physician till half way through her pregnancy. She told us when we met her that she had a possible case of the measles somewhere around the 3rd month. Our baby was low birth weight and born premature.
My intent with the story is not to deceive. Why would I want to do that? I'm only relating the story that the mother told us. I wasn't there when the doctor told her of the chances of my daughter being handicapped, but only that the mother said it would be. That did not matter to us. We accepted the risk. We were delighted when our daughter was born as there were no obvious handicaps. As with other cases of CP, we noticed it as she developed.
You do not have to believe my story. It makes no difference to me.
With regards to my sister-in-law's story, obviously I was not there and her father has passed away so we cannot ask him. My sister in law was born during the Truman Administration. :-) I only read about it recently as she retold it in an email that included her mother on the distribution list. I have no reason not to believe her or question her account. You can take it or leave it. Again, I do not care.
Had the amnio came back as positive for Down's Syndrome we would have faced a tough decision. I had decided that I was in favor of termination if that was the case but I made it clear that it was my girlfriend's choice all the way. There's no way in hell that a government or society should insert themselves into that decision. They wouldn't be the one who would have to cope with a disabled child and the heartbreak and guilt that goes with it.
The pro-choice position comes down to this. You choose what you want to do, you can even have 14 kids if you want, but everyone else is free to choose what's right for their situation. We will never cede this right to you extremists. It's too important.
Don't like abortion? Don't have one.
I am very glad your child was normal and your girlfriend gave your baby the gift of life. I hope all is well.
Regarding your contention at the end, I disagree.
The extremist position is wanting the right to kill unborn babies.
AA,
If all abortion is outlawed, do you support manslaughter/murder investigations if a woman loses her child? Is there any other solution? If all abortion is outlawed, how will we keep track of every pregnancy in order to make sure no abortions are performed?
By the way, I don't care whether you are glad we kept the baby. It's none of your GD business, and had we decided to abort it would be no skin off of your disgusting teeth.
Tend to your own knitting, nutjob.
Apparently no one should believe you. CP is not always caused by the birthing process although many times that is the case.
Cerebral Palsy disorders are caused by faulty development of or damage to motor areas in the brain that disrupt the brain's ability to control movement and posture. A variety of conditions can lead to brain injury, including:
* Genetic conditions and problems with the blood supply to the brain can affect how the child's brain develops during the first 6 months of pregnancy.
* Oxygen shortage - if the oxygen supply to the brain is severely low at the time of birth, the infant may suffer a type of brain damage called hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy.
* Rh incompatibility - a blood condition that causes the mother's immune cells to attack the fetus, resulting in jaundice.
* Severe Jaundice in the child during the first weeks following birth.
* Toxicity - drug or alcohol use during pregnancy can result in brain damage.
* Kidney and urinary tract infections - these infections, if severe and prolonged, in the mother can lead to brain damage within the fetus.
* Exposure of the expectant mother to certain infections including rubella, toxoplasmosis and cytomegalovirus.
* Severe physical trauma to the mother during pregnancy.
http://www.consultwebs.com/cerebral-palsy-birth-injury-lawyers/cerebral_palsy_causes.html
Who doesn't hope that women contemplating abortion consider adoption? No one here is saying that women should in any way be pressured to have an abortion. But it is a choice women can make legally.
The point I was making that in these two cases, where the birthparents could have easily chosen a legal abortion, they chose life. Because of it, two beautiful and wonderful people are now alive because of it.
Abortion is the taking of a human life. Babies born with disabilities or Down's syndrome still deserve to live. Yes, some of them will lead harder lives, some much harder. It is unconscionable that 45 million babies have been aborted since Roe v Wade. 45 million innocent babies that deserved to live just like you and me but were denied that choice.
It is an unspeakable tragedy that so many mothers takes away that gift of life from their babies by making their own choice.
The so-called "pro-life" nutters seem to think the more people that are born, the better. It doesn't matter if there's resources to take care of the children. That's an ancillary concern.
Love the fetus, hate the child. This is the real slogan of pro-fetus nutters.
http://www.2think.org/abortion.shtml
From colonial times to the nineteenth century, the choice in the United States was the woman's until "quickening." An abortion in the first or even second trimester was at worst a misdemeanor. Convictions were rarely sought and almost impossible to obtain, because they depended entirely on the woman's own testimony of whether she had felt quickening, and because of the jury's distaste for prosecuting a woman for exercising her right to choose. In 1800 there was not, so far as is known, a single statute in the United States concerning abortion. Advertisements for drugs to induce abortion could be found in virtually every newspaper and even in many church publications--although the language used was suitably euphemistic, if widely understood.
Looks like we have a disagreement. I see you are using an article by Carl Sagan and his wife.
The following is excepted from How Abortion Became Illegal By Robert P. Lockwood
In eighteenth-century colonial America, social pressures in small communities generally forced a man to care for a child conceived without marriage. Abortion did quietly exist in at the time, though not as a surgical procedure—a guaranteed death for mother and child in the days before antibiotics—but with the use of potions. It was employed by young women who found themselves helpless and without familial or community support. But nowhere is it stated that the use of potions to induce abortions was an acceptable practice. In fact, counseling women on how to make and use such potions was a punishable act throughout most of colonial America and Europe. Additionally, courts were harsh on men who forced young women to attempt it. (Abortion was actually less of a social problem in colonial America than infanticide, which was a far more serious problem and the focus of early legislation.)...
...Some laws were vague on the issue of when the crime had been committed but not that a crime had been committed. The difficulty centered on the murky understanding of when pregnancy actually began, not as a sanguine response to abortion. Some states fell back on the point of "quickening," a medieval notion that attributed the beginning of pregnancy to the moment a woman could feel the fetus moving within her. In doing so, legislators were not making a pro-abortion statement concerning early-term abortions. Rather, they were attempting to define and restrain abortion based on the general knowledge of the time. The nascent American Medical Association was a major supporter of anti-abortion legislation and issued a strong denunciation of abortion as early as 1859.
During the 1840s and the 1850s, at least thirteen states passed laws forbidding abortion at any stage of pregnancy. Three additional states passed laws making abortion illegal after quickening. By the end of 1868, thirty states had passed anti-abortion legislation. The momentum against abortion continued in the post-war period, creating the virtually universal ban on abortion in the United States that existed from 1880 until the late 1960s.
Sorry for the length of the post. The rest of he article can be found at: http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609tbt.asp
I think it was you who posted the Carl Sagan link maybe a week ago, and I read through it at that time. Thank you for it, the article was well-reasoned and clear.
Here is a link with a different cut that I posted above someplace in this thread. It got rather lost at that location (and may well get lost here), but it could be worth your reading. I found it quite interesting.
http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html
If the broad issue covered on that page is seldom thought of, once it was brought to *my* attention, I realized what an inevitable, and stunning, consequence it was.
When I clicked on it, I remembered I had read it a while back, so I scanned the document for the part you posted here.
When I see pro choice articles cite facts, I generally like to double check them. However there were no citations in Sagan's article to check. Many times pro abortionists "paint" the facts to suit their outlook. That is why I posted, what I would call, the other side of the story.
It looks to me like the abortion issue was rare in the colonial days, therefore there was no need for any laws prohibiting it. However I thought Sagan's historical references were a too broad and felt his "facts" were such that I could not see the data or references from which Sagan drew his conclusions.
This thread is getting old, but at some point perhaps we can continue our discussion.
And abortion was rare in colonial times? How do you come to that conclusion?
And who is this author of your article? I couldn't find any references to him or his credentials in a general or broad context.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan
WHO are the "pro abortionists"?
I and many others are PRO-CHOICE, but I've NEVER meet a "pro-abortionists". Would I find them with the ANTI-CHOICE, I WANT TO CONTROL ALL WOMAN'S BODIES, MY KNID OF MURDER IS OK folks?
Or just a complete idiot?
Three points for anyone who gets this far, or cheats and goes straight to the end.
1. The legal mess of abortion as murder would besides the woman and the doctor include all of their supporters as accessories to murder. Not a cheap legal designation. Its worth some hard time at a convenient private prison not of your choice.
2. For those so fasinated by life in a womb. I recomend a session or two in a sensory deprivation tank. I don't recomend you try it via the sevices of your local torture enthusiast. I sufficient time in one would have you in such a mental state that upon exit if you were told that you were Mary Queen of Scots, you would emediatly start to plot against Queen Elizibeth the First.
3. Nine to ten million children in the world under five years old die yearly. Too many of them due to easly treatable conditions. Too many in developed countries. Too many in this particular developed country. Our international rating for infant mortality is I believe 40th.
I would like to say my husband and I just got done watching "Sicko". You know the movie where Mihcael Moore shows all the cons shouting about socialism? Funny thing, about that infant mortality rate.
You'd think cons would be in favor of universal health care due to countries with it having much better infant mortality rates.
Pro life indeed.
Supposed to be some meetings on medical reform this weekend. I'm hoping to attend one. More Obama grassroots action with no support from faux gnus. Maybe we need a clever name. Perhaps it'll be worth a snear or two from Scan Sannity.
Can anybody find O'Reilly's address so it can be posted on as many blogs as we can all handle? How would he handle that?
Yet, regardless of what O'Reilly says now, Tiller was indeed a killer of babies--living human organisms, living human beings, in their early stages of existence. That is what Tiller did for a living. In performing late-term abortions, he killed about 60,00 babies and made millions of dollars doing so. That is accurate reporting.
I think it right and just to denounce his murder--but in the same way that one should denounce the murder of, say, Lee Harvey Oswald, John Wilkes Booth, or Jeffrey Dahmer. A civilized society must always denounce murderous crimes, even those committed against murderous criminals. And none of these men becomes a hero because someone murders him.
Accurate reporting my left rear anterior pinealbody.
More Straussian "noble lies."
As to belief, it seems that you would like to believe that fetuses--including fetuses in the third term of pregnancy, like those whom Tiller aborted--are not babies. So let's report accurately, beginning with an indisputable fact of biology: a fetus is a human organism. You began your existence as a human organism as a zygote, then a fetus.
You would like to believe that some humans--because of their size, or their stage of life, or their "unwantedness"--are non-persons whom Tiller and others should be allowed to kill for cash. Your baseless belief in a human non-person, killable for money,represents an ignoble lie.
Some persons--out of ignorance, perhaps, but more out of a desire to feel good about killing "unwanted" human beings--designate some human beings as non-persons.
To IGNORE the biological humanity of a human fetus, a human organism that is viable outside the womb--like the humans killed by Tiller--that is ignorance in every sense.
The coward is a traitor to his deeds. To Fox News, it is acceptable to throw, but not to catch. Is this fair and balanced? Mr. O'Reilly's cheer-leading, ad nauseam, is an existential part of Dr. Tiller's murder. It can not be, otherwise. Quoting is one, but he continuous chanting makes him a willing party. Fundamentally it is about male dominance. Ego is at play. A very frail ego.
Mr. O'Reilly, nor others knew the health of the mothers and fetus. In America we have individual rights, why deny a woman hers? His inept diatribes and hollow musings are simply insolence from a guarded cubicle. Contriving opinion, on the fly, does can not change the direction of fact.
*shrug*