one last thing for today.

I won’t say much about the shooting of the abortion doctor yesterday, because that subject makes religious debate seem downright reasonable and pleasant by comparison, and I have no interest in kicking over that particular bucket of ill-tempered worms.

I will, however, say this:

A genuine apology doesn’t have a “but” in it.  When you say, “I’m sorry, but…”, you automatically negate the apology.  You’re either sorry, or you’re not, and when you try to justify yourself in the same sentence as your apology, you’re not really apologizing.

On the same note, when you say “I’m sorry/appalled that he was shot to death, but…”, you render everything you said before the “but” invalid.

About these ads

48 thoughts on “one last thing for today.

  1. boditree says:

    You couldn’t have worded this any better.

  2. Not sure I agree. I can be sorry that somebody took his life, really. I can also not give a rats ass that he’s dead. As in, I wouldnt have been sorry if he was struck by lightning, instead of shot.

  3. Aaron says:

    Weeell, I’m as opposed to abortion as anyone can be, and I’m sorry he was murdered. Sure, I think what he was doing was bad (not trying to get into a debate, sorry), but that doesn’t mean I think he should have been gunned down.

    He certainly didn’t see himself as evil, and he acted within the law in his practice. People like me should do the same, and, if so inclined, try to change the laws.

    There is certainly no justification to commit the same crime his opponents accuse him of.

  4. theflatwhite says:

    Not sure of the target audience to which this sermonette is addressed.

    However…

    I’m sorry this event casts a shadow of extremism over all who do not support the murder of unborn children.
    I’m sorry this church was not better prepared to protect her members.
    I’m sorry this man was murdered in a place of sanctuary, much like the unborn children in the wombs of his patients.
    I’m sorry this man was murdered.

  5. MarkHB says:

    Ooops. I fear I may have helped kick this one off. So I’ll say my bit.

    The only moral stance it is possible for a man to take, in my opinion, is pro-choice. Men will never have to carry children. End of. So for a man to have anything but a pro-choice attitude is to stand for removing women the right to decide the fate of their own bodies. That stinks to high heaven, and I’m having none of it. If a bloke thinks that the murder of this doctor is in any way his business, then he needs his internal wiring peered at.

    As to the triggerman himself? Irrevocably fucked in the head. I’d shoot him myself with a by-your-leave for two reasons:

    1) Murdering, interfering bastard.
    2) Actually doing huge amounts of harm to the pro-life movement.

    I don’t have a problem with a pro-life movement – of women. Men ought not be allowed a voice in this, reasons stated above, but if enough ladyfolk get together to say “No, in the face of disease, rape, or just a balloon burst without the economic wherewithal to support and nurture children it’s Still Wrong”, then c’est ça, the People Have Spoken and that’s all you can say ’til the next time the vote comes ’round.

    But when some bloody-eyed wronghead decides his hobby horse rides higher than the law, that disgraces everyone who his diseased brain momentarily slewed into alignement with, regardless of the validity of their point.

    • Wild Deuce says:

      I must disagree. As a former fetus, I not only have a right to voice an opinion in this debate but an obligation to all humans born and preborn.

  6. well, maybe we can turn that apology on its head…

    i’m glad he’s dead, but i’m sorry it wasn’t by “natural” cause.

    if the wackjob that shot the doc claims he’s doing God’s work in the big Guy’s own house, he’s in for a rude awakening when he meets up with ol’ lucifer. and he’ll have all eternity to discuss the distinction between premeditated murderer and paid killer with ol’ doc, who’ll be waiting right there for him.

    while i’m not sure where i stand on abortion per se (where do you draw the line? thirteen weeks? detectable heartbeat? morning-after pill?), i am sure that the good doctor’s specialty, the clinical-sounding late-term abortion which actually is the practice of snuffing the life from babies who can live independent of their egg donor, then reaching in and dismembering their bodies into convenient fragments to be easily extracted from the womb, is murder by any definition but the legal one.

    i’m not sorry that the one will (or should) get the needle, but i am sorry that the other will get martyred…not that it will matter in the long run.

    i.t. worm

  7. williamthecoroner says:

    Mark–

    I hear what you say, it pains me because I see one of the duties of society is to protect the weak, the elderly, and the powerless. I’d be happy to talk with you in another venue–so as not to hijack Marko’s hall. I hear and I disagree.

    I do not disagree with Marko’s conclusion, that a but mitigates the apology. I’ve thought about the use of force to protect myself and others–if there is no immediatedanger to ones self or others, force is off the table.

  8. ChrisB says:

    MarkHB,

    Who, exactly, will “allow” or “not allow” people to have a voice in the abortion discussion?

    Last time I checked I don’t officially have a different legal status as a woman, and from what I remember in biology class no pregnancy can occur without a male, it seems abortion is a very complicated subject and probably will be for a while. If I have an opinion on the issue I am going to voice it.

    All that being said, the guy who shot the doctor should be put on trial and have the book thrown at him.

  9. MarkHB says:

    William, I hear what you say – and of the American women it’s been my pleasure to meet, I’ve yet to meet weak or powerless. Elderly, well I knew my grandma and she was a dab shot with a hogleg I could barely lift when I was 15 and saw her last. Again, Marko’s hall for Marko’s topic – say venue, and I’ll meet you with open mind to hear how these people are weak or powerless.

  10. MarkHB says:

    ChrisB,

    At which point, exactly, does the bearer of your doner gamete become your slave? The moment of conception? Four weeks? Eight? Ten? Forty? At which point, in your eyes, does she become subordinate to your will, regardless of her own decisions as to what happens to her body?

    Riddle me that one as a lover of fredom. When does the woman lose the right to run her body the way she sees fit? When does she have to only answer to you, instead, as though she were bereft of self-knowledge, of sentience, of independance?

  11. MarkHB says:

    Okay. Yeah. I said that. ChrisB, never mind – but do me a favour and think on it. I wasn’t specifically attacking you, merely stating the case baldly.

  12. ChrisB says:

    MarkHB,

    Those are legitimate points, but there is also another side, if that fetus is human, which we can tell via DNA, at what point is it a life that must be protected under the law?

    You claim to be in love with freedom, but why would rights ONLY be limited to the woman? How much difference is there in the fetus the day before birth and the day after? So should a fetus that is completely healthy and capable of surviving outside the womb be able to be killed?

    Don’t try to personalize this by saying that she has to ‘answer to me’, making me out to be some wannabee tyrant. If there were restrictions on abortion a woman wouldn’t answer to me any more than she would for violating any law. Nice try.

    I don’t have the solution to this debate, I’m not sure there will be one until medical technology allows the harmless removal of the fetus at whatever point, but we don’t need Clintonian “the debate is over” type tactics to stifle discussion.

  13. vinnie says:

    I oppose abortion. Not choice. Prohibition never works, it just drives the activity underground. Two things:
    1) At least one male should have at least some say i any abortion(how much will be a greater debate than the current one i am afraid).
    2) Why are most pro-life advocates so dead set against doing anything useful to prevent unwanted pregnancy?

  14. Mark HB

    My contact information is on this post, as is my website–which you can get by Googling that.

    The weak and powerless I am concerned about are the fetus. And the elderly. People who cannot take care of themselves, who are dependent, as dependency is dangerous.

    At what point does a person have the right to life? (liberty, etc.) Birth? Viability? If it is a bright line at birth, then why are malpractice awards so high for OBs?

    It would be nice, really, I’d like there to be some form of barrier that would prevent the sperm from reaching the egg. Or some form of hormonal treatment that could either prevent the egg from being released or could cause the lining of the uterus to be shed, preventing a pregnancy from implanting or going further. Or some form of way of making the uterus inhospitable, to prevent implantation. It would be very nice to give these medications as either a depot shot, or have the drug diffuse out of some sort of polymer. And if people were sincere in their desire not to have children, perhaps some sort of surgical procedure could be done so that they wouldn’t conceive. Maybe multiple methods could be used, as a sort of belt-and-braces approach.

    You know, if those methods existed, it would be very irresponsible of anyone to consensually engage in sexual activity without them when they didn’t want to get pregnant. Now, it is difficult to mandate personal responsibility. I don’t think it should be the part of laws to do so, but sarcasm is quite useful.

  15. perlhaqr says:

    Yeah, it’s a sucky debate.

    The women shouldn’t be forced to provide shelter and food, any more than I should be forced to provide helter and food for some random homeless dude.

    Likewise, the life of the fetus, at whatever point it becomes a “life” should be protected as much as possible, just like that homeless dude. (And I say that fully acknowledging that I have the right to shoot the homeless dude if he presses his case too far, on the shelter and food bit.)

    I’ve argued 15 sides of this debate, and not found a philosophically consistent answer. (Consistent with my “market anarchist” philosophy, that is.)

  16. Kaerius(SWE) says:

    “Why is it that most people who are against abortion are people you wouldn’t want to fuck in the first place?” – George Carlin.

    http://www.funnyordie.com/videos/80fc8238cc/george-carlin-pro-life-is-antiwomen-from-classicstandupfan

  17. Sara says:

    To go off-topic on the comments, and on-topic on Marko’s post, I recently received one of the “I’m sorry, but…” apologies. As in “I’m sorry I said something incredibly offensive to you, but other people in the room were saying it too, so it wasn’t just me”. Honestly, it was such a weak and self serving apology, it would have been bettter to say nothing at all.

  18. Robert says:

    I’m sorry, but I don’t agree with the point of your post.

    *laughs*

  19. Anna says:

    For those who don’t understand that late term abortion is, in reality, ONLY done to save the life of the mother or to remove a dead or dying fetus, here’s a story you should read:

    “Colleagues said Tiller’s office walls were lined with letters from patients expressing their thanks.

    One woman who turned to him was Miriam Kleiman, of northern Virginia. Nine years ago, a routine sonogram revealed her 29-week-old fetus had major brain abnormalities that prevented the baby’s heart and lungs from functioning properly.

    Doctors told her the baby would die in utero or soon after birth. Kleiman’s doctors told her a third trimester abortion was not possible.

    Kleiman says she could not bear a two-month death watch. “There was a baby dying inside of me, and it wasn’t if, but when,” she says.

    After desperate pleas, she says, a doctor scribbled Tiller’s name on a scrap of paper. She and her husband flew to Wichita and drove through a gauntlet of protesters to the fortress-like clinic.

    She remembers Tiller and his staff as kind and compassionate. She had the abortion and brought home her baby to be buried.

    Kleiman, who now has two sons, says she cried when she heard of Tiller’s death while watching her son’s soccer game.

    “I fear,” she says, “that other people might not have this option in the future – to have a medical option that was safe, that was legal and allowed us to say goodbye with dignity.”

    http://www.wtop.com/?nid=104&pid=0&sid=1687414&page=2

    NO ONE should have the right to make a medical decision for a person but the patient and his/her doctor.

  20. anna, your story reads much like an npr feature, and it certainly had its intended effect on me; i feel great compassion and empathy for that lady and her family.

    but anecdotes are sterilized and one-sided: her baby was ripped into bits and pieces for her to bury, because delivery by idx (partial birth abortion) is illegal in most instances. and your statement that only cases of imminent death of mother or child qualify for “d&e” is not supported by the known facts of this case, let alone the many of these procedures performed by tiller and others where only his or the mothers’ opinions or statements regarding the mothers’ physical or mental health were cited as proof of necessity.

    this doctor was in the business of providing a high-risk service at five thousand dollars per; how many were done pro bono, and if none or few, does that not belie any noble intent as it excludes those with few or no assets? he and his staff were well paid for their kindness and compassion as well as the assumption of known risk.

    lastly and most importantly, while i agree that no one should make a medical decision other than a patient and his/her doctor, doesn’t the baby qualify as patient too? who is making the decision for him/her? and of course society does impose control and protection when a child is born prematurely regardless of medical condition. how exactly is a viable life within the womb not afforded that protection?

    this is not to say that ms. kleiman didn’t do the best thing for all concerned in her particular case. but let’s not pretend that the *thousands* of babies legally killed and ripped to bits within the womb had their best interests at the heart of those making the decision and carrying out the act of killing them and “evacuating” their remains.

    jtc

  21. btw, marko:

    “I have no interest in kicking over that particular bucket of ill-tempered worms.

    (but) I will, however, say this:…”

    ironically both proving your point and disproving its basis. awesome.

    jtc

  22. Anna says:

    The Pawnbroker:

    “anna, your story reads much like an npr feature, and it certainly had its intended effect on me; i feel great compassion and empathy for that lady and her family.”

    I’m sure in your mind “reading like an NPR feature” is supposed to be some kind of put-down, but it’s an AP wire story, published widely because it’s what is known as “good journalism”

    If you have great compassion and empathy for that lady and her family, why do you assume they are in the minority? Do you really, honestly believe the anti-abortion propaganda that there are thousands of women out there who just decide to carry a fetus for 8 months and then have it painfully ripped out of their bodies for no reason?

    “but anecdotes are sterilized and one-sided:”

    So is your anti-abortion propaganda. ALL surgery is violent and unappetizing. And her “baby” was already dead. Equating a hunk of flesh on life support with no chance at living independently or having any meaningful kind of life is disingenuous at best.

    “her baby was ripped into bits and pieces for her to bury, because delivery by idx (partial birth abortion) is illegal in most instances.”

    Which is the crux of the issue. Because the government decided to step in and deny these women rights, her very-much-wanted child was torn apart instead of the less-destructive IDX procedure. The decision wasn’t hers, the way it should be.

    ” and your statement that only cases of imminent death of mother or child qualify for “d&e” is not supported by the known facts of this case, let alone the many of these procedures performed by tiller and others where only his or the mothers’ opinions or statements regarding the mothers’ physical or mental health were cited as proof of necessity.”

    By state law, he was required to obtain the signatures of another doctor “who is not legally or financially affiliated with him” to perform these procedures. Your ignorance of the facts of this case are not proof of malfeasance.

    “this doctor was in the business of providing a high-risk service at five thousand dollars per; how many were done pro bono, and if none or few, does that not belie any noble intent as it excludes those with few or no assets? he and his staff were well paid for their kindness and compassion as well as the assumption of known risk.”

    Five thousand dollars for a risky procedure like a later-term abortion is CHEAP. How much is the average OB’s office paid for a complication-free delivery? And if you think only charitable acts are noble, that’s pretty sociopathic. I would say that good teachers are pretty noble too, and they still collect paychecks. As do the employees of nearly every charitable organization on the planet.

    The nobility of taking a risky job to help those who need it isn’t lessened by getting paid for doing it. Soldiers get paid, as do firefighters. Considering the cost of bodyguards for himself and his staff, let alone malpractice insurance, equipment and office space, I don’t begrudge him making some money.

    “lastly and most importantly, while i agree that no one should make a medical decision other than a patient and his/her doctor, doesn’t the baby qualify as patient too? who is making the decision for him/her? and of course society does impose control and protection when a child is born prematurely regardless of medical condition. how exactly is a viable life within the womb not afforded that protection?”

    Again, you’re assuming that the doctor isn’t making medical decisions with that in mind. Again, another doctor had to sign off on the procedure. And finally, you’re again assuming that there are women out there just lining up to have viable, full term, healthy fetuses removed painfully after carrying it uncomfortably for 8 months. It makes me suspect that you have a generally low opinion of women.

    “this is not to say that ms. kleiman didn’t do the best thing for all concerned in her particular case. but let’s not pretend that the *thousands* of babies legally killed and ripped to bits within the womb had their best interests at the heart of those making the decision and carrying out the act of killing them and “evacuating” their remains.”

    Why would we NOT assume that the very, very, very small percentage of women who choose to end a late-term pregnancy do so for legitimate medical reasons. Remember, there are literally millions of children born in this country every year, and only a small fraction of pregnancies are aborted, and of THAT, it’s estimated that 1% are late-term.

    Do you really think that women are rushing to have this done WITHOUT legitimate medical reasons? REALLY? Do we have THAT many psychopathic women in this country?

    If so, perhaps the issue is that the pro-lifers should go after these crazy, psychopathic women who choose to have nasty, unprotected sex just so they can let it gestate for 8 months, just for the JOY of spending $5k to have it painfully removed!

    Those women are clearly the problem. Please let me know if you ever actually meet one.

  23. from the wiki article:

    as to prevalence in the US: “In 2003, from data collected in those areas that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that 6.2% of abortions were conducted from 13 to 15 weeks, 4.2% from 16 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks. Because the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s annual study on abortion statistics does not calculate the exact gestational age for abortions performed past the 20th week, there are no precise data for the number of abortions performed after viability. In 1997, the Guttmacher Institute estimated the number of abortions in the U.S. past 24 weeks to be 0.08%, or approximately 1,032 per year”

    as to reasons: “In 1987, the Alan Guttmacher Institute collected questionnaires from 1,900 women in the United States who came to clinics to have abortions. Of the 1,900 questioned, 420 had been pregnant for 16 or more weeks. These 420 women were asked to choose among a list of reasons they had not obtained the abortions earlier in their pregnancies. The results were as follows:

    71% Woman didn’t recognize she was pregnant or misjudged gestation
    48% Woman found it hard to make arrangements for abortion
    33% Woman was afraid to tell her partner or parents
    24% Woman took time to decide to have an abortion
    8% Woman waited for her relationship to change
    8% Someone pressured woman not to have abortion
    6% Something changed after woman became pregnant
    6% Woman didn’t know timing is important
    5% Woman didn’t know she could get an abortion
    2% A fetal problem was diagnosed late in pregnancy
    11% Other

    i guess ms. kleiman is in the 2%. and if you think that a second doctor signing off on the opinion of the primary is not merely a formality, even just a professional courtesty, then you have no knowledge at all of the workings (and failings) of the medical profession. and the killing of thousands of children doesn’t matter because millions of others are born?

    tell you what, anna: we don’t know each other, so you don’t slap a catchall label on me and i won’t slap one on you. every decision of life or death for an unborn child has its own personal history and reasoning without activist “advocate” groups speaking for the individual and imposing its own partisan caricature; we have enough of that in politics without handing proxy of our most personal and important decisions to third parties with questionable motives.

    my own personal history, so painful still that i can barely stand to think of it, includes a decision that my wife and i made together in 1988 due to what seemed then to be circumstances into which we could not bring a fourth child. at eleven weeks most “experts” do not consider a fetus to be a child, but even that does not lessen the pain or regret. most abortions, yes even those at the latest stages, are done because the pain and expense is dwarfed by the (perceived) pain and expense of an unwanted child. but the pain that comes later is beyond description.

    jtc

    • Michael says:

      “most abortions, yes even those at the latest stages, are done because the pain and expense is dwarfed by the (perceived) pain and expense of an unwanted child. but the pain that comes later is beyond description.”

      An excellent point that is often not discussed. I too have a deep pain and regret that I encouraged a girlfriend to kill our baby rather than man up and take responsibility for an unwanted pregnancy. It was just so very easy. Planned Parenthood really should be renamed Planned Abortion. There was no real discussion of other options. I’m sad the doctor was shot, but I’m not sad he is gone.

  24. Kristopher says:

    I’m going to attempt an atheist and libertarian answer to this question about when abortion is murder ….

    Viability is my standard.

    If the child can live without being attached to the mother, and someone is willing to pony up themselves to raise said child, then killing it becomes murder.

    A third trimester pregnancy should be terminated as a pre-mature birth if at all possible, and the child moved to an incubator, provided some person agrees to immediately adopt the child and pay expenses.

    As for partial birth abortions … if the “doctor” simply leaves the room, the child can live, and the mother would be no worse off … this is simply murder, IMO.

    If the baby is on the way out of the womb right now, a third party would have the right to intervene to prevent the murder of that child, at gunpoint if needed. The mother has no rights here, she is in the process of ejecting the child, and has indicated that she wants nothing more to do with it. In fact, the doctor is deliberately holding the child partially into the vagina in order to have an excuse to kill here.

    Just my $0.02 … I’m not running for the position of Libertarian Dictator.

  25. ASM826 says:

    Do I condone killing the doctor? No.

    Can I see what line of reasoning gets the guy there? Yes.

    Once the guy decides this doctor is murdering babies, and the state is failing to stop him, at some point his morality demands that he act. I suspect that even now he feels justified, and will go to prison feeling the same way.

    If, for example, that doctor was killing two year old toddlers, and the government wasn’t acting to stop him, you and I (and 10 million other people) would decide on moral grounds that it was intolerable. We would stop him, one way or another. We would, in fact, kill, and believe that we did it because we were “pro-life”. In this guy’s mind, it was the exact same thing.

    If stopping evil is the moral thing to do, do you only do it when the government gives you permission?

    If you answer to the previous question is yes, ask yourself how you would behave if slavery was legal and this doctor was executing his slaves when they got to old to work.

    • williamthecoroner says:

      ASM86-

      The use of force is only justified when there is imminent danger. Someone who is just walking about is not committing the crime.

      You cannot pre-empt people, because of what they might do in the future.

  26. Kristopher says:

    William: I disagree, to a point.

    A slave or an abolitionist would be entirely justified morally to hunt down and kill a slave-owner. I personally don’t care how legal slavery was, or that the slave-owner was merely working his slaves to an early grave, and not killing them for sport.

    It would have been much more interesting if the person who did the killing had actually been brave, instead.

    Use the threat of deadly force to prevent the doctor from sinking the point into the skull of the “fetus”, and surrender to police without killing anyone. At which point, you now have a delivered baby, and a man to prosecute for preventing the death of that baby.

    That would have surely thrown the fox into the hen-house far more effectively than making some doctor a pro-choice martyr.

    • Tam says:

      Use the threat of deadly force to prevent the doctor from sinking the point into the skull of the “fetus”, and surrender to police without killing anyone. At which point, you now have a delivered baby, and a man to prosecute for preventing the death of that baby.

      …and then, moment of heroism accomplished, you ride off into the sunset, leaving the mother and newborn (who were really just props on your stage) to their fates.

      That’s some funky morality you got there, mister.

      • Kristopher says:

        Sorry … I wasn’t clear.

        If you look at my above post, I stated that you would need a volunteer to adopt the child ( and not a volunteer to go on welfare, thank you ) … The mother has a right to not be enslaved, as much as the child has a right to live. IMO, If you interfere, and don’t have a adopter handy, you have just volunteered to pay 18 years of child support to a foster-home or someone else.

        As for calling this a morality play … please answer these two questions:

        Is the threat of deadly force allowable to prevent a parent from murdering one of their children?

        At what point does abortion become infanticide?

      • Kristopher says:

        Of course, there may be a way out of this entire argument.

        Set the limit at the 19th year of pregnancy ( get off of my lawn, kid ).

      • Tam says:

        At what point does abortion become infanticide?

        Well, that’s the $64,000 question, isn’t it?

        You’d think that reasonable people could arrive at some point between “Every sperm is sacred” and “strangle ‘em in the delivery room” when it goes from medical procedure to infanticide, but the people at the extreme ends of the debate aren’t driven by reason.

      • Kristopher says:

        And, as usual, it’s the unreasonable people who cause the problems.

        But then, when has that been any different?

        Maybe we need to push that line up to age 100 for some folks …

  27. Tiffani says:

    I’m sorry that all of these men feel free to argue about what a woman can and should do with her own body.

    I’m sorry that some of them are sorry after the fact when they were faced with a difficult situation in their own lives.

    I’m sorry that they didn’t cowboy up at the time and try to “do the right thing” and now look back with 20/20 eyesight and use their current situation and feelings to condemn girls and women facing a difficult situation right now.

    I’m sorry that they think that the murder of an adult in cold blood–something illegal–is justifiable because they believe that abortion–something legal–is wrong.

    I’m sorry that they think that everything is in black and white, that there are no shades of gray when it comes to human behavior and consequences.

    I’m sorry that they are so concerned with “helping the helpless” (the unborn) that they are blind to the pain and tragedy that so many girls and women face in their day-to-day lives, girls and women walking the Earth right now, trying to figure out what to do in the face of problems that are insurmountable, even if in their own small lives.

    On second thought, I’m not sorry at all. I have personal experience that I won’t share here in details, but suffice it to say that you can never be in another person’s shoes. Never. No matter how much you think you understand, you don’t. So men, do what you can to understand, have some compassion, pray for guidance, leave the judgment and punishment up to your personal deity, and keep your morally indignant stances about reproductive issues to yourself unless they personally impact YOU and YOUR partner. Please.

    (And, Marko, I do apologize to you for ranting on your blog. Your blog, your rules, so delete this if you want. No worries.)

    • “keep your morally indignant stances about reproductive issues to yourself unless they personally impact YOU and YOUR partner.”

      i would say that is good advice to apply to yourself, tiffani, but of course that is the very worst thing to do…stifle debate about one of the most controversial issues on the planet? when did that ever settle anything?

      i will add that the attitude that women uniquely suffer and decide in the birth or not of a child of two people, and an argument entirely predicated on what a woman does with her body without regard for the body she incubates is the very crux of issue and quashing discussion is the very last thing that should (or will) happen.

      i’m sorry you feel the way you do, but you can count on the continued involvement of both sexes to continue, and that’s as it should be.

      jtc

    • theflatwhite says:

      Interesting how the woman, due to a personal decision she made with a man months before, is somehow victimized by her fetus. The nerve it had to spontaneously start growing in her uterus and ruin her life!

      Now _that’s_ some funky morality

      • theflatwhite says:

        Of course, we rightly condemn any man that would abandon a girl to bear the child, the responsibility, and decisions alone.

        Sort of odd that X cromosomal persons suddenly have no right to express an opinion on this.

      • theflatwhite says:

        Error: Make that Y.

      • Tam says:

        Thank you for saving me from having to make a snide remark. ;)

  28. dpatten says:

    Murdering Dr. Tiller was wrong. There is no excuse for it.

    I’m an atheist, but I seem to remember a scripture from Sunday school that went something along the lines of, judge not lest ye be judged and another that concerned worrying about the mote in your brother’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own.

    Thou shalt not Murder. Its pretty simple.

    That being said, The radicals on either side of this debate keep it from being settled in a common sense fashion.

    On the left you have those who shriek that people who own a Y chromosome should have no voice in what happens to a potential person who carries 1/2 of their DNA. They also defend any and all types of abortion procedures under a fallacious slippery slope argument that any restriction will lead to complete restriction. In their minds something as barbarous as partial birth abortion of a healthy 9 month full term infant is the moral equivalent of a woman aborting a first trimester fetus with anencephaly.

    On the right you have those who shriek that all abortions are unnecessary. That women who have abortions because their children would be doomed almost immediately after birth are murderers. They rant on and on about lazy women who use abortion as birth control, when those sorts of admittedly odious people are almost vanishingly rare.

    I’m not sure where the happy medium lies. I do know that the US has some of the most liberal abortion laws in the world. European abortion laws are generally stricter.

    I think if I were Supreme Emperor that I would restrict abortions after the first trimester to cases where the child has a birth defect that would prevent it from surviving, the mother’s life was in imminent danger or if the child was the product of a reported case of rape or incest.

    If the woman were married or in a civil partnership then the spouse and/or biological father should be notified and (s)he could either consent or request counseling or something along those lines before the procedure could be performed.

    If the woman was single the biological father should be notified, but barring a marriage or something similar would have no recourse.

  29. MarkHB says:

    If I were Supreme Emperor, I’d work very hard to make fusion power a reality, thereby dropping the cost of living to cents on the buck. Then the whole “Abortion for Standard of Living” thing could go take a whistle and we’d be down to simple Survival of Parent, Disease and Rape Babies. Most of the latter would hopefully be solved by all schools offering firearms training, paid for my the Gubment, with funds raised from voluntary contributions, partial-ownership patents from Goddard and the like, and selling hooch and lotto tickets.

    As it stands, we live in a scarcity-based, energy poor economy (compared to how it would be if we could turn a ton of water into terawatts of electricity, and we could even recycle concrete and rust without breaking a sweat) so we have to do what we can to be compassionate and supportive with other people who live in the same sucky, 20th century system.

    ‘Til we get a better, anyway.

  30. i’m down with the hydrofusion, but when it goes mainstream it’ll come with a profit motive, as it should.

    mangy mutt or pampered pooch, as long as you’re looking to .gov for sustenance, you’re still just somebody’s bitch.

    jtc

  31. MarkHB says:

    This is lovely. How many posts concurrently have I been called a name by you?

    Amazing how thousands of miles and the anonymity of an internet connection bring out the remote courage in … let’s just say “some people”.

    I’m comfortable in being able to do the math running Dr. Bussard’s WB-series fusion reactors. You can image how I feel about being called names.

    • you’re right; i can see how insecurity could make my comment about the public/private nature of research, discovery, and the distribution of the spoils seem directed at you, but that was not my intent, and the mongrel/pooch/bitch thing was just coarse apropos humor in my mind.

      but of course you will agree that as for pointless (attempted) put-down without pertinent subject comment, you are king, as a read back through this and the prop.8 posts will verify.

      as for (another) veiled threat; if you cannot have an exchange of written disagreement or even dislike without the need for an in-person confrontation, then let’s just say that “some people” make their real-world location very clear (that would be me) and other people don’t (that would be you). but if you find yourself in my neck of the central fla woods (or i’ll be in north ga next month if that is more convenient), stop on by and we’ll have a beer or three and see if we make any more sense to each other in real life. or if you feel the need to test the physical application your own “remote courage” without the benefit of thousands of miles of separation and internet anonymity…well, it’s been a while, but the results of past interpersonal relations with those imbued or imbibed with false bravado and empty threat have had favorable outcome.

      but all that dumb shit aside, and in respect of mw’s virtual home here, if you cannot use your vaunted intellect to confine your battle to verbiage without resorting to personal threat, then i’ll ignore you here (as i tried to do before), if you do the same.

      jtc

  32. MarkHB says:

    Can someone please let me know what the veiled threat was, ’cause I’ve managed to hide it so well I don’t even see it.

  33. Kristopher says:

    I think we all need a timeout.

    Nothing like this topic to get folks to draw knives.

Comments are closed.