Pharyngula

Posted by: Felix | May 31, 2009 2:25 PM

Of course they will just print more copies and waste more resources, but don't let that get in the way of a healthy garbage throw.

Posted by: Owne | May 31, 2009 2:29 PM

Abortion provider George Tiller shot to death at church; police search for suspect

http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/833730.html

Posted by: Graham | May 31, 2009 2:43 PM

No doubt, the murderous scum responsible for this tragedy considers himself a good little Christian. Pro-life my ass.

Posted by: The Tim Channel | May 31, 2009 2:48 PM

Am I the only one who thinks the FBI is partly liable for this? I predict this will turn out to be a known crackpot with a long history. Super studly award bonus to the first person who finds a "Nobody could ever have predicted" reference attached to the circumstances surrounding this event.

Is it only terrorism when a Muslim is involved? Is the FBI so focused on entrapping the retarded and the desperate in an attempt to grab sensationalist headlines that they're not doing any real investigating? Willful neglect? Perhaps the FBI Training Academy is now a mirror image of The Air Force Academy? Wingnuts Uber Alles?

Enjoy.

Posted by: CSN | May 31, 2009 2:49 PM

Please don't encourage people to kill trees for a book they have no intention of reading. PZ, for some reason I had the impression you were a nature lover? If they were worried about the financial burden of having to print too many they wouldn't have made it free in the first place. They'll just use the inflated numbers as proof of their cause.

"For every one of these that reaches one of us, it's one less going to..." As was pointed out in the second post this is a pretty abysmal failure of logic Andrew.

All in all, this is not a good "poll" to Pharyngulize.

Posted by: Whiskers | May 31, 2009 2:56 PM

I'm tempted to do so as well, though I'm afraid they'll just think there's an increase in demand and make more/sequels or something.

Though I think you should recycle rather than trash; hopefully the resources will then be used for something more productive.

Posted by: FishyFred | May 31, 2009 2:58 PM

No kidding. Read this thread about it at Free Conservatives. There is exactly one commenter on there who thinks that there can be no justification for murder. The rest are bloodthirsty maniacs.

Posted by: Denis Alexander | May 31, 2009 3:12 PM

Horrible! ...and if we don't act fast, these events will also be paralleled by the animal liberation extremists as well.

Posted by: Felix | May 31, 2009 3:19 PM

Not very long ago, I viewed a video (YT?) about protesters in front of a clinic. The producer of the video just walked up to them calmly and asked what the punishment for the aborting women should be, as they were emphasizing the murder claim so much on their placards. Not one of the protesters had an answer. In fact, they admitted that they hadn't even thought about an answer. They were just mindlessly regurgitating the paroles of their leader - who when the producer was referred to him for answers didn't have any either.
We're dealing with drones here, brainwashed to the point of becoming an amoral input and recording device - in this case also becoming a homicidal action doll. The criminals are those who conspire to make such tools out of once potentially thinking human beings.

Posted by: GilbertNSullivan | May 31, 2009 3:25 PM

Answer in Genesis appears to have it all the wrong way round

Posted by: AliciaMae | May 31, 2009 3:39 PM

I went ahead and signed up for a free copy - I''m actually curious to read it. What is this conscience that doesn't allow a woman to make choices but allows a man to kill another man?

Posted by: Lynnai | May 31, 2009 3:42 PM

a quote from Morgantaller is bouncing around my head:

(paraphrased as I am unlikely to get it exactly just as I am unlikely to have the spelling of his name correct) "Making abortions illegal does not stop abortions, it merely stops safe abortions."

Sweet buttery fuck what are these bipeds thinking?

Posted by: Holbach | May 31, 2009 3:50 PM

Fishy Fred @ 14

Just read the religious maniacs comments. Scary, especially when you realize how many are out there to do it or to encourage others to do it. Time to find a "Nims Island".

Posted by: PixelFish | May 31, 2009 3:54 PM

Ugh. That thread at the Free Conservatives makes me want to shower. (And I'd even just barely showered for the day right before reading it.)

One thing that strikes me is they have a lot of rhetoric, but not a lot of reasons that pass deeper inspection. They literally won't accept any reason for abortion. Not health of the mother. Not the state of existing children. Not financial burden. Not genetic defects. Nada. No, you have to be a complete sicko, they say. There's no f'ing empathy there. None.

Posted by: Kingasaurus | May 31, 2009 4:00 PM

Remember that incident a while back when someone (James Cameron?) claimed they found evidence of Jesus' remains?

Despite the fact that those claims were media-fueled nonsense, Micheal Reagan was the idiot who, on his radio show, claimed that the only reason such things ever popped up in the culture was because people are so eager to deny god so they can give themselves permission to sin and live "the way they want."

Yeah, Mike. It's not possible that any human being out there is convinced your religious beliefs are wrong for decent, honest reasons. You dumbass.

Right out of the fundie-fallacy playbook. Michael Reagan is either Hall-of-Fame stupid; thinks his audience is; or both.

Posted by: The Science Pundit | May 31, 2009 4:05 PM

@FishyFred
So Out sight; out of mind is a legitimate excuse for inaction?

My disagreement is with t3's claim that people who say "abortion is murder" don't actually believe that it's murder because they aren't doing everything in their power to stop it. There's plenty of reasons why somebody would not want to do everything in their power to stop murders.

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 31, 2009 4:06 PM

Surfing the web, found this California pro-life activist, Gingi Edmonds, promoting violence:

In my time working for Survivors of the Abortion Holocaust, I helped organize and conduct a weekly campaign where youth activists stood outside of Feldkamp's mini-mansion in Redlands holding fetal development signs and raising community awareness regarding Feldkamp's dealings in child murder for profit. Every Thursday afternoon we called upon Bud and his wife Pam to repent, seek God's blessing and separate themselves from the practice of child killing.

We warned him, for his children's sake, to wash his hands of the innocent blood he assisted in spilling because, as Scripture warns, if "you did not hate bloodshed, bloodshed will pursue you". (Ezekiel 35:6)

http://www.christiannewswire.com/news/646579835.html

Sick.

Posted by: Naked Bunny with a Whip | May 31, 2009 4:11 PM

"anti anti-abortion."

How is "pro-choice" not truth in labeling, though?

Perhaps "pro-none-of-my-fucking-business" would be better.

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 31, 2009 4:20 PM

Apparently, 9/11 was Planned Parenthood's fault.

Operation Save America:

But God has not been silent about the slaughter of His unborn children. “"I will set My face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you."” Leviticus 26:17. Islam is that enemy God has allowed to be raised up to bring His rebuke to America. Bloodshed is pursuing us.

http://www.operationsaveamerica.org/articles/articles/wtc-anniversary.htm

Posted by: FishyFred | May 31, 2009 4:24 PM

@The Science Pundit #32

I was specifically referring to t3knomanser's observation that pro-lifers who see abortion clinics on a regular basis will definitely feel something on a personal level when they see them and will eventually be driven to do something about it by that feeling.

You brought up Darfur and I wanted to point out that it wouldn't draw the same feelings because we can't see the effects unless we are actually in Africa. It's not right there in front of you on a daily basis.

Posted by: Kingasaurus | May 31, 2009 4:29 PM

But God has not been silent about the slaughter of His unborn children. “"I will set My face against you so that you will be defeated by your enemies; those who hate you will rule over you, and you will flee even when no one is pursuing you."” Leviticus 26:17. Islam is that enemy God has allowed to be raised up to bring His rebuke to America. Bloodshed is pursuing us.

Funny how these nitwits quote Leviticus when it suits their purposes. When it doesn't, or makes them look bad, we get the usual "Jesus got rid of all that OT barbarism stuff.."

Posted by: CalGeorge | May 31, 2009 4:41 PM

I shouldn't surf the anti-abortion sites. It's sooooo disturbing and depressing.

Human Life International, 2006:

I am addressing Your Excellency on the question of the morality of married couples using condoms in situations where one member of a couple is infected with HIV/AIDS. I am bringing this matter to your attention on the basis of credible journalistic information, which states that a document is being studied on this question.

[...]

On the basis of the arguments put forward in this brief presentation, Human Life International is of the considerate view that the teaching of the Church with regards to the use of condoms should not be changed or qualified to permit its use by a married couples in the case that one of the spouses is HIV positive.

http://www.hli.org/press_releases_vatican_debates_condom_use.html

Posted by: St. Tabby Lavalamp | May 31, 2009 4:46 PM

I'm waiting to hear justification from the War on Terrorism right wing why these terrorists shouldn't be thrown into Gitmo.

Posted by: Archaneus | May 31, 2009 5:05 PM

When you request the book from that link you get an email that includes the link to request a copy all over again. Anyone think it's likely you can just keep requesting copies and they will keep sending them to you? It would be great if we all requested 50 copies, cost them all that money, and then just stored them for our own amusement.

Posted by: FishyFred | May 31, 2009 5:16 PM

@Archaneus #48

I love how much free religion-related stuff you can get online. Free rosaries; free Scientology stuff (because I did a presentation about Scientology for my student atheist club and received a box of cool stuff from them); free Book of Mormon delivered to you by missionary.

Posted by: Aconite | May 31, 2009 5:21 PM

B) Which choice? It's a euphemism, let's be honest.

When I say "pro-choice," that's exactly what I mean: The right of a woman to make whatever choice she decides is best. I want as many options open to her as possible, including, but not limited to, abortion. I oppose forced abortions as strongly as I oppose forced pregnancies, and I respect a woman's right to choose to continue a pregnancy as well as her right to terminate one. So it's not a euphemism for me, but an accurate description of my stand.

Posted by: Ktesibios | May 31, 2009 5:26 PM

I would advise against signing up to receive this book. Those who do will find themselves on every fucking wingnut mailing list in the USA and very likely some from abroad.

Mailing lists are a commodity item-they are bought and sold- and organizations with a political axe to grind buy and sell 'em with wild abandon.

Simply as a result of donating to the ACLU I found myself receiving appeals for donations from virtually every vaguely left-of-center organization in the country. Wingnut organizations are probably considerably more aggressive.

So if you want an endless stream of hatefreakery flowing from your mailbox, go ahead and order the book. If you don't like that prospect, either avoid doing so or go out and rent a mailbox to use which you can abandon after recycling this book.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 5:32 PM

I'm completely with you guys! I think abortion is an essential service, and I just can't stand these bleeding heart conservatives.

In fact, I think they should start providing post-term abortions. In, out. Fully developed, undeveloped, partially developed - there's no use trying to find a fuzzy line that doesn't exist. It's all irrelevant. A woman's choice is a woman's choice and just because the child is out of the womb doesn't mean it's any less her choice as when it was inside. It's all unhelpful semantics.

Right? Or have I gone too far?

I agree with most everything on this blog.. but this one thing has me in knots, I must confess. I'm really quite confused as to where my opinion lies. I don't ascribe to others' ideals just because I'm "left" or "liberal" or "naturalist" or a science-lover, or whatever. I like to consider issues for myself through careful and on-going consideration. Anyone have anything to contribute to my still-open ethical inquiry?

When does it go from being a convenient way out of a ball that's already started rolling, to something that should be a criminal and immoral act? When does it go from being a woman's choice to.. not. Does anyone here know? Do you differ in opinion between yourselves? Or is there consensus? Science can tell us about the nervous system of an unborn child, but it can't tell us how to proceed in these sorts of things. So there's no real right or wrong answer.

We seem to agree that killing this poor doctor is wrong. But is it because of his history of hard work? The fact that his name exists in lots of address books? That he has a social security number and a congregation? Is it because he will be missed? Does that make a life worth not snuffing out? When does a person go from being killable to not killable?

(Not a troll, pls don't treat me like one. I'm told I was almost aborted and I rather like the fact that I exist, so I have feelings on this one.)

Posted by: David | May 31, 2009 5:44 PM

One thing I'd like to point out is that if we're going to claim that the biggest difference between us and theists is that we use reason and logic, we shouldn't then sometimes throw out reason and logic in favor of ad hominem attacks and rhetorical vitriol just because we're so convinced of the rightness of our position.

If one accepts the premise that there is something innate about human beings which makes taking a human being's life wrong, and that that element is present immediately after conception, then there is absolutely nothing logically invalid about opposing abortion. Ultimately the debate comes down to these two premises, and so we really ought to focus on these two premises rather than:

engage against ad hominem attacks: "narrow-minded, puritanical enemies of human liberty"

engage in stereotyping: "suck the money away from these enablers of killers," (Ignoring the fact that there are certainly many people who both oppose abortion AND the murder of abortionists). I've also seen people attack the entire pro-life position by asking asking how pro-lifers could be pro-life AND support the iraq war (ignoring the fact that there are many pro-lifers who oppose the iraq war).

beg the question: "heroes are the doctors who sacrifice so much — privacy, security, and in this case, their life — to provide essential services to women"

And the thing that irritates me most of all, accepting the premises of pro-lifers, then using completely invalid logic to come to the pre-determined conclusion that abortion should be legal (which PZ at least does not resort to in this post). I cannot express how infuriated I am when someone says something along the lines of "I believe that abortion is wrong, I think a fetus is a human being, and I would never do it myself, but I accept that a woman has a right to choose and I have no right to impose my religious beliefs on her."

So in summary: If you're going to accept the premises of the pro-lifers then at least be logically consistent. If you don't accept the premises of the pro-lifers, then use that as the basis of the disagreement rather than do what too many theists do and abandon logic to resort to rhetoric and moral grandstanding. Because it does us no good to let the conflict devolve into one side calling the other "baby-killing satanists" and the other side calling the first "narrow-minded woman-hating puritans."

The greatest mistake one can make in any conflict is assuming that the other side is fundamentally irrational.

Posted by: Larry | May 31, 2009 5:56 PM

2:55PM PST: According to a news report on Yahoo, a suspect in the murder was apprehended in Kansas City 3 hours after the shooting. He is being brought back to Wichita and will likely be charged with the murder tomorrow.

Hurray!

Posted by: mjs | May 31, 2009 6:05 PM

It's not "pro-life" it's "pro-forced childbirth."

I don't know how much more cognitive dissonance it will take before religious extremists start shooting women who have had abortions. Their Old Testament tells them to stone women who have sex before wedlock (aside: my dad wouldn't have sex before Matlock). Maybe an enterprising gun manufacturer can produce a line of appropriate weapons.

++++

Posted by: Keanus | May 31, 2009 6:08 PM

I'm a long time patient escort at a Planned Parenthood clinic that performs abortions. The patients, their companions, staff, and my fellow escorts (including myself) are insulted regularly, and often threatened with violence. In six years, I've seen no threats carried out. But our doctors live with real threats. They get their homes picketed, have had paint poured on their cars, had their homes vandalized, receive death threats by phone and are called every foul mouthed name one can think of by self professed "Christians." Most doctors lease their cars (so their home address does not appear on their registration), must have unlisted phone numbers, and hire security. At the clinic where I escort we have a full time armed (the pistol is concealed) guard. He also carries a Taser, but in my six years has yet to unholster either, thank goodness. The threats make life interesting. But in recent years, outright assassination, like that of Dr. Tiller, have been absent. But we've witnessed an increase in anger and threats since Obama's election, so in a sense I'm not surprised. But ever vigilant we'll be.

Posted by: rnb | May 31, 2009 6:21 PM

CW,

You mention you were almost aborted.
My younger sister was also unplanned, if my parents had used
a birth control method that worked they would have killed her as an ovum. How do you feel about birth control?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 6:25 PM

Notice who never shows up in Davey's "confusion": women.

Sperm magic is all that matters, apparently.

Posted by: Keanus | May 31, 2009 6:27 PM

A collection of reports, some of which I know are authentic, regarding anti-abortion protesters who sing a different tune when faced with the need to consider one themselves or in their family can be found at this this web page . What they have in common all too much is the utter and consistent hypocrisy.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 6:34 PM

CW: I didn't say that. You have the wrong name. I think you meant "David".

You're posilutely correct, sorry about that.

Posted by: Keanus | May 31, 2009 6:43 PM

Glenn Davey #65, your position is not all that different from Planned Parenthood (PP). I sit on the board of a PP affiliate and I can tell you that neither staff nor supporters want people to have abortions. And contrary to what the anti-abortion crowd pushes, abortions account for only around 5% of patient visits annually nationwide, although individual clinics can vary. Abortion is not funded by the government but it is subsidized, for those who have no third party insurance or can't afford to pay full ticket, by an anonymous (for obvious reasons) but generous donor who provides money (lots of it) to reduce the cost of it to patients without means. The clinic to which I contribute my time receives a good six figure sum annually and we're well down the list of large PP clinics.

PP does not encourage or promote abortions. They simply offer them, subject to legal and ethical constraints depending on the state, as an option to carrying a pregnancy to term, then either keeping or giving it up for adoption at the end). The patient makes the decision, not PP.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 6:47 PM

Again, Davey, not a word about women. Not one word.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 6:58 PM

"There is a failure of imagination on the part of Americans who have forgotten the horrors of the anti abortion past."

But it's a past in which women were dying, so it's a past that doesn't matter. Women aren't ethical agents capable of making decisions about their sexuality, their reproduction, or their medical care. They need the state to protect them from themselves (right, Justice Kennedy?) and they need men to protect their babies from them (right Davey and German Guy?).

If you bitches would just accept that you are nothing more than vessels and accede to the powerful magic of the sperm and its ability to merge with an egg and create a clump of cells with more value than you...well if you could finally get around to accepting that, everything would be ok.

*shudder at myself*

Posted by: JThompson | May 31, 2009 7:02 PM

Glenn@75: The reason there's a difference is because it's in the woman's fucking body. That's the difference.
If it's in the woman's body and she wants it out, that's her right.
I notice the vast majority of people that believe there's no difference between abortion and drowning a six month old seem to be men. Funny, that.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 7:20 PM

You guys (JThompson and MAJeff) are fundamentalists minus the scriptures. You're cunts and you fail at helping someone to understand something they genuinely want to. I hope you aren't educators of any sort.

I don't hate women. You make me want to cry. I hope you're not representative of this blog's attitudes. Yours are ugly and obscene.

I'm so fucking offended right now. I kinda wish you were aborted...

Posted by: C | May 31, 2009 7:24 PM

Aaaaand . . . with commment #82 Glenn Davey proves himself to be the troll he said he didn't want to be treated as. Nice job, scumbag.

Posted by: dkew | May 31, 2009 7:29 PM

I requested the Reagan trash with an alternate email, and under a name similar to my real one. I'll know who sold the info, if I start getting winger spam and junk mail. It occurred to me later that a wrong or non-existent street address might have been a good idea too. I feel that I'm supporting the publisher, printer, USPS and my city recycling program.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 7:32 PM

What gets me is that when I was part of a church (cult?) it was a big no-no to ever express an alternative opinion.

Is there a Pharyngula cult? Cos I came here, hat in hand, asking for comments. I never said I was right. I'm probably wrong on a lot of things. But you've responded in a way that you ABSOLUTELY KNOW you're right and I'm wrong. You're not concerned if I get your message. You don't care. You've just bullied me, completely. Does PZ condone this? I'd like to think not.

And I get that women's bodies are oh-so sacred and they are ethical agents. I get that. Really. Everyone has their dramas in life and we all gotta deal with em to the best of each's ability. But I don't think I deserve abuse for suggesting that the child - a future adult, like you have the priviledge of being - is also an "ethical agent", and .. well you already know where I'm going with this.

It's just a toss-up between the rights of mother and child, and I'm just at a loss as to how it should go down. Obviously each case is different, and if the mother's life is in danger or the baby is all fucked up for some reason then of COURSE abortion is a great thing to be able to do.

Ugh. All of a sudden I feel like I'm wasting my breath. You people are just thugs.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 7:36 PM

Davey,... What gives you the right?

Testicles (apparently).

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 7:39 PM

And I get that women's bodies are oh-so sacred

Yeah, that just sounds oh-so sincere.

Posted by: "anti-choice" female atheist, lulz | May 31, 2009 7:40 PM

Yep, fundamentalists. In fact, I'm reading these posts and envisioning PZ's grouchy old crank image that's the background for creationist quotes. If fetuses aren't "living human beings," then they're either dead, and abortions aren't necessary, or they're a different species, which would be pretty interesting. And it's not part of a woman's body, because it has different DNA. So rant about how you don't give a crap about them all you want, but don't be so ironic as to ignore scientific facts when commenting in this blog.

Posted by: Meta | May 31, 2009 7:45 PM

David @ 58:

If one accepts the premise that there is something innate about human beings which makes taking a human being's life wrong, and that that element is present immediately after conception, then there is absolutely nothing logically invalid about opposing abortion.

What in the world makes you think that the majority of Pharyngula commenters, or atheists in general, believe those two premises? I myself believe neither.

And the thing that irritates me most of all, accepting the premises of pro-lifers, then using completely invalid logic to come to the pre-determined conclusion that abortion should be legal (which PZ at least does not resort to in this post). I cannot express how infuriated I am when someone says something along the lines of "I believe that abortion is wrong, I think a fetus is a human being, and I would never do it myself, but I accept that a woman has a right to choose and I have no right to impose my religious beliefs on her."

I don't think this is what usually happens, because the people saying that sort of thing don't usually include the statement "I think a fetus is a human being". It is possible, and consistent, to think that something is wrong, but not so seriously wrong that it should be outlawed. For example, I think adultery is wrong, but I don't think it should be illegal.

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 7:50 PM

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama says he is shocked and outraged over the killing of an abortion provider at a Kansas church.

Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed Sunday morning while he was serving as an usher at a church in Wichita, Kan. The White House released a statement from the president Sunday evening.

Obama says violence is not the answer to resolve differing opinions on abortion and said the shooting is a murder. Tiller was one of the nation's few providers of late-term abortions. He was the object of decades of protests and attacks.

emphasis mine.

i'm sorry, but that fact that the fucking president has to clarify that when an unarmed, law-abiding citizen is shot and killed, in a church, and probably in front of at least some of his family and friends, for no reason other than he did something some felt was against their own interpretation of a personal religion, that yes, that IS a fucking MURDER, it means something much larger is really, deeply wrong with this country.

i'm happy he said what he did, it's the fact that he needed to.......

i'm so angry at the fundie hate-mongers right now, if any of them were truly "pro-life" they would care about what happens to children after they are born, not just fetuses before hand. and they wouldn't shoot, kill, bomb, vandalize, or otherwise terrorize anyone at all.

the term "pro-life" is an insulting lie, they are "pro-birth" and "pro-control" and "pro-hatred" and that is all.

Posted by: Brandon | May 31, 2009 7:57 PM

I just ordered mine. It will go promptly into the recycling bin as well as all the additional propaganda that I'm sure will follow it.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 7:59 PM

There's a reason why some people are popularizers of science and spokespeople for humanism - they have the deft ability to explain things to large audiences in a way that convinces, cajoles and informs to ultimate benefit of the listener.

There's also a reason you fellas are permanent fixtures in blog comments, sitting around agreeing with each other and BLASTING anyone who comes in with a mis-understanding or idea that you don't agree with. Taking glee in picking out a phrase that presses your buttons and making a meal of it, like dogs. Rather than taking the more honourable care to inform my opinions, like educators.

You surely admire the writing of people like PZ and their ability to convey the right amount of forcefulness of message married to well-considered and rational arguments. Unfortunately in your attempt to emulate the devastatingly effective manner of ones like PZ you fall into this ugly, intolerant hate-speak.

I've never been on the receiving end of it. But ouch.

There's only so many times "wow... just wow" can work. I know it's a funny turn of phrase, but it's tired! In fact, I don't think you really care if it "works". You're not interested in helping anyone understand. I've probably been making the mistake of imputing motives to you folks that you don't actually have. Perhaps PZ is somewhat to blame for cultivating a sort of "culture of ridicule" on this blog.

*perception adjusted*

Posted by: strange dogs before me | May 31, 2009 8:01 PM

There's also a reason you fellas are permanent fixtures in blog comments, sitting around agreeing with each other and BLASTING anyone who comes in with a mis-understanding or idea that you don't agree with. Taking glee in picking out a phrase that presses your buttons and making a meal of it, like dogs. Rather than taking the more honourable care to inform my opinions, like educators.

Woof!

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 8:10 PM

*sigh* No mate, I'm not familiar. What does that label mean? Obviously I am one. Does it mean: person who comes for a conversation and gets the shit blasted through them? If so, then, hey, I must be a "concern troll". Sign me up, or, whatever.

*sigh* Shit, I'm exhausted from this crap. I'm going to give the benefit of the doubt and assume that I'm bearing the brunt of a lot of emotion today that is better aimed at people who go and shoot abortion doctors. Yes, that must be it.

Meta: I like your last paragraph.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 31, 2009 8:17 PM

You've just bullied me, completely

No, they didn't. In fact, Jeff was VERY patient with you, and pointed out several times, without yelling, that you were missing the most important point while asking your questions.

You continued to ignore this time after time.

Then, several yelled at you for missing the obvious.

stop playing the fucking victim and admit you were being entirely oblivious, and maybe people would feel more empathy for whatever questions you might have.

Posted by: Noni Mausa | May 31, 2009 8:18 PM

"...it will be increasingly difficult to find heroes brave enough to step into this role…"

...which is, of course, the pattern of endemic terrorism within a society. It's the pattern that makes constructive co-operation and reasonable accommodations impossible in the face of disproportionate, irrational destruction.

It takes a lot of time to build a society, no time at all to destabilize it through destruction. One child's tantrum can ruin a birthday party for everyone else -- this sort of thing is the same pattern.

Of course, the resultant society does not stabilize along the pattern desired by the destroyers -- it stabilizes, if at all, at a far poorer level of function, with the sane middle hollowed out (through death or departure) and the remaining stubborn partisans likely to renew the destructive actions should the society begin to settle into a pattern they differ with.

It strikes me that these maniacs only want to "protect" absolutely helpless or even imaginary persons -- fetuses, people in irreversible comas, or hypothetical children suffering emotional trauma for seeing a breast for a second or two on television.*

Which tells me this is all about control, not compassion.

Noni

* I have always wondered -- why are TV tits, a pattern of photons with no smell or substance, more dangerous than the ones that the child actually had in his mouth for his first two years of life? What's the loopy reasoning for that one?

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 8:21 PM

astrounit: Thanks for throwing the balance back the other way a bit. You clearly have a grasp on "effective communication".

Now run. Run from this blog as fast as your legs can carry you. Don't stop, Charlie, don't stop until you get home!!

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 31, 2009 8:26 PM

Now run. Run from this blog as fast as your legs can carry you. Don't stop, Charlie, don't stop until you get home!!

Yes. That.

You do understand concern trolling after all.

feel free to run away, don't let the door hit you, etc.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 8:29 PM

From Wikipedia:

The concern troll posts in web forums devoted to its declared point of view and attempts to sway the group's actions or opinions while claiming to share their goals, but with professed "concerns". The goal is to sow fear, uncertainty and doubt within the group.

As if that's me. I stated up front my dilemma and invited responses. I never made out I was on anyone's side or tried to subvert anyone. I'm not trying to sow "fear" or "uncertainty". None of that bullshit.

And in MAJeff's first response he was fucking rude. I was polite for so long. "Cunt" is the only word I could think of that accurately reflected how insulted I was.

No, I reject that label. No-one was patient. I was told to "fuck off".

The internets is scary these days... Shit. "ohh see now he's playing the victim. classic concern troll behaviour". What a head-fuck.

Posted by: THINK! | May 31, 2009 8:36 PM

I love this thread. It's a beautiful combination of well-reasoned debate, verbose and florid posts, interesting and divergent points of view, and the word 'cunt'.

Posted by: strange dogs before me | May 31, 2009 8:40 PM

We can see in the dark, Glenn.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 8:43 PM

The recent shooting is ghastly. The pinnicle of hypocracy and altogether disgusting. Its also terrorism.

However, I'm also an atheist, 'liberal', 100% supportive of science - and against the principle of abortion. I dont believe we should hold the principle of human liberty above the life of a child. And theres no way to try and justify whether a unborn child is a 'person' or not. They WILL be, and thats all that matters. Theres no one time when they suddenly transform into a person.

Of course theres exceptions, and this should be a debate. If the life of the mother is in jeopardy, theres justification. Theres various justifications, in my opinion, but general human liberty of the mother probably isn't - because thats ignoring the liberty of the child, who has no voice.

And the recent shooting IS terrorism, and murder. What a disgrace.

Posted by: mjs | May 31, 2009 8:48 PM

Cussing. Misogyny. Repetition. Sigh.

Let me jump in: either a woman has sovereignty over her body or she does not. If she doesn't, and cannot make choices about her own health and reproductive organs, then she is not free. If we are to believe in basic tenets about civil rights then we must leave women to their own decisions. It isn't pretty, it isn't easy, it's life (and sometimes death). No one has to like it. I can't imagine that many do.

As to the Unconcerned Troll--resorting so easily to swear words betrays too much about you. As in golf so with the messy democracy of the Internets: the game does not build character but it can reveal it.

++++

Posted by: strange dogs before me | May 31, 2009 8:49 PM

However, I'm also an atheist, 'liberal', 100% supportive of science - and against the principle of abortion. I dont believe we should hold the principle of human liberty above the life of a child. And theres no way to try and justify whether a unborn child is a 'person' or not. They WILL be, and thats all that matters.

An acorn is not an oak tree.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | May 31, 2009 8:54 PM

Poor Glenn, nobody loves him, everybody hates him, he's gonna eat a worm.

You started out poorly in #56 with:

We seem to agree that killing this poor doctor is wrong. But is it because of his history of hard work? The fact that his name exists in lots of address books? That he has a social security number and a congregation? Is it because he will be missed? Does that make a life worth not snuffing out? When does a person go from being killable to not killable?

In 1624 John Donne answered this question:

No man is an island, entire of itself; every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main. If a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, as well as if promontory were, as well as if a manor of thy friend's or of thine own were. Any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee.

If you don't understand why anyone's death, especially anyone's murder, isn't important, then there's reason to believe you're sociopathic.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 9:01 PM

Again from Wiki:

Application of the term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used as an ad hominem strategy to discredit an opposing position by attacking its proponent.

Yeh, I invited responses. No-one invites abuse.

I don't think of women as ambulatory incubators, or sperm as "magic". You're imputing attitudes ("mysogonist") to me that I just don't have, or if I have them I don't mean to, but still don't deserve the crap hurled at me on here. I'm guilty of placing more weight on the child's welfare than you do, but that that doesn't mean I completely disregard the woman. You make out like I do. Like I treat sperm as "magic", or whatever. I don't even much like men, they scare me a little bit. It's males on here who've been aggressive towards me. I actually think women would have approached it a little more tactfully. Even if they are just ambulatory incubators. (That's a joke.)

Getting back to it: beating a kid up or touching them or indoctrinating them could be said to be forms of child abuse. Forgetting abortion for just a moment: If a woman intends to keep a baby, is smoking during pregnancy child abuse? When it's likely that it will harm that child's future health and well-being?

What I'm highlighting here is that even though the child is in-utero and is a foetus and still at the mercy of the woman's choice, the actions of the mother have an impact on its future, just as if it were newborn, a toddler, or a teen. So while the mother IS an ethical agency, and has ultimate rights of her own as a person, my position is that so too does the little squib inside her. Because no matter how you want to frame it, one day he or she will have to live with the actions of the "ambulatory incubator".

Posted by: Meta | May 31, 2009 9:05 PM

MAJeff: Holy shit, Massachusetts is one of the 24?! I was not expecting that at all.

I also found some pretty goofy shit from pretty recently about "criminal sexual misconduct" laws in Michigan. Apparently it can get you up to a life sentence there, although it hasn't been interpreted that way for a long time, obviously.

Ev @ 122:

However, I'm also an atheist, 'liberal', 100% supportive of science - and against the principle of abortion. I dont believe we should hold the principle of human liberty above the life of a child. And theres no way to try and justify whether a unborn child is a 'person' or not. They WILL be, and thats all that matters. Theres no one time when they suddenly transform into a person.

I don't think this makes sense. There are times when a fetus definitely does not have the characteristics required for personhood, and times when a child (and maybe a late fetus, but I'm not convinced) definitely does have those characteristics. And then there are times in between when we just don't know if it's a person or not. But during the time when the fetus is definitely not a person, abortion should be permitted.

The idea that the mere potential for personhood is sufficient for... well, personhood, has always struck me as odd. It is normally asserted by anti-abortionists without argument. I see no particular reason to believe it.

Posted by: Bridget McKinney | May 31, 2009 9:09 PM

A tragic and unconscionable crime, and for an ultimately fruitless and misguided cause.

As a society, we should be asking ourselves why people don't make better choices to begin with, and there are numerous reasons.

The focus shouldn't be on legislating morality, but rather on equipping, enabling, and encouraging people to make good choices. If people made better choices, hopefully people would have to make fewer HARD choices.

http://sharethegood.wordpress.com/2009/06/01/making-good-choices-rather-than-hard-choices/

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 9:13 PM

Yes, listen to Ev. I'm not alone! Whoop. And he or she is far more eloquent than I.

I'm not letting a couple of people make waste of an hour of my time, cos I can see some thoughtful comments amongst the bile (some of which may be mine - I apologise unreservedly for the c-word. Way out of line. But I was told to "fuck off" and it bit. The c-word to me has nothing to do with a woman - to me it's always a derogatory term for a MAN. I would never think of saying it to a woman.)

'Tis Himself: I think I caused some confusion by not continuing my point, which was: Why is it NOT OK to kill a grown man, but it is OK to kill a foetus? And is it because the man has a life already, and the foetus has no-one? And can a mother, for argument's sake, "abort" her child after it's born? And if not, why not, seeing that just a month or two back it was entirely her choice?

(I'm a sucker for punishment, what can I say...)

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 9:16 PM

"Matters more than the person who is."

"An acorn is not an oak tree"

Nup... sorry I don't agree with that at all. Since when does the birth of a child make it human, but when it is in the mother's womb it isn't? This is important, because an unborn baby WILL be born - and therefore its human. I'm against abortion, in general, because it takes away a life that WILL exist.

I can't believe we're here on this blog debating the philosophical idea of being human. I'm not talking about souls or some vague concept of being human. I mean that when a baby is on the path to being born, its already human.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 9:19 PM

...Huh. Is there some legal distinction between "prison" and "jail"?

Usually, state (prison) vs. county (jail).

Why is it NOT OK to kill a grown man, but it is OK to kill a foetus?

You really see no distinction? Really?

And can a mother, for argument's sake, "abort" her child after it's born?

Pregnancies are aborted, not fetuses. At least learn what you're talking about.

It's not a child before it's born.

Posted by: NewEnglandBob | May 31, 2009 9:21 PM

Glenn Davey keeps on talking about an unborn fetus as if it is a person. It is not for many months after conception. It has no nervous system, no brain, no capacity to feel any pain or other sensations, no capacity to think. It is not a human being and is not equivalent to a grown human or even a six month old child.

You last post, #130 contains a bogus argument. By your 'logic' anyone who ever smokes or drinks alcohol or takes drugs in their whole life and then conceives a child is guilty of child abuse.

Posted by: CSN | May 31, 2009 9:22 PM

You don't think adultery should be illegal? Isn't it kindof... breach of contract? (Not technically correct obviously, but what do you think marriage should be, legally?)

And as Glenn Davey is getting completely shit on here (somewhat undeservedly) and I oh so love the underdog I'll throw my hat into the arena here as well. As Glenn mentioned, a fetus should be an "ethical entity" but exactly when and to what degree it starts gaining equivalence with the mother's worth isn't entirely clear. It's not as clear cut as either side's loudest proponentists (hey, ID has actually produced something, keep using it and it might make it into the OED!) would like us all to think. Personally I think The Line lies somewhere between conception and birth which I think many intuitively believe, although much of that could just be the "it's cute now" effect and I don't think it's that simple.

There are numerous criteria available, from sperm-enters-ovum, baby-has-fingernails (thank you Juno), neurological function (after all that's how we decide what's okay to eat, right? or is it...), ability to live outside the womb (w or w/o technological assistance?), to actually popping out of the womb(natural, induced, Cesarian?). I think any serious ethical questions stop at that point, and I think conception is the earliest bound worth even considering (the Catholics can suck it). The mother and her health and the effect pregnancy and the possibility of child care will have on her life are very much central to the question but to pretend that the "blob of cells" (after all, what are we all?) is a complete NON-issue until it sees fresh air is disingenuous unless that arbitrary criteria is backed up with some serious reasoning.

For the record I think abortion is often the right choice, despite being an abhorrent thing in itself, when the consequences to all are considered. I absolutely do not share Glenn's opinion that pregnancies begun by rape should be kept, any more than I think a victim of a gunshot wound is obliged to bleed to death.

"So if I scrape a little squamous epithelium from the inside of my cheek is that a living human being too? It's alive, it has the same DNA as I do. Or can we maybe agree that what makes a "living human being" is more complex than merely any random blob of cells with the proper genome."

Exactly, but how much more complex? As Noam Chomsky said in the documentary Lake of Fire (a thought provoking film if you haven't seen it), "abortion lies somewhere between washing our hands and murdering your three-year-old." If we can agree conception to birth is a more realistic span as I outlined, where do we proceed from there? We must consider the three most important words in real estate (location, location, location) too, but I repeat myself.

Firstly, I think this is an important part of developing a criteria of The Line: what role, if any, does "potential," i.e. for development of an embryo into a human being, play in ethical considerations? What other ethical situations exist where "potential" is a factor and what implications of those may be applicable to the matter at hand?

You may reserve the right to scream at those who are screaming at you but, please, let's take the Daniel Dennett approach here ("BtS:RaaNP" -> "Abortion as a Rational Ethical Choice") and give this subject its due diligence to see what we can learn, if someone out there is willing.

Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2009 9:28 PM

You don't think adultery should be illegal? Isn't it kindof... breach of contract?

Do you really want a person to be able to involve the police and the court system when their spouse gets drunk at the office Christmas party and snogs a co-worker? If that's breach of contract, then so is looking at a spouse during an argument and thinking "God, you're such a jerk". After all, that's not loving and cherishing.

Posted by: Ichthyic | May 31, 2009 9:30 PM

And theres no way to try and justify whether a unborn child is a 'person' or not.

suggest you read the decision in Roe V Wade.

too many have not.

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 9:34 PM

tiller update:

the AP has released that the suspect in custody 51-year-old Scott Roeder of Merriam, Kansas.

what follows is more internet "suspicions" than proof of anything, but sounds plausible:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/5/31/737357/--Suspect-Identified-in-Tiller-Assassination

if this stuff linked to that name turns out to at all accurate then "a bomb-maker, tax protester, member of the "sovereignty" movement, anti-abortion zealot and Operation Rescue member" has now become a murderer as well.

and if this is the guy who killed tiller, no one should be surprised this happened.

if this turns out to be correct, and he really is the shooter i hope he takes "operation rescue" down with him in the legal system.

Posted by: Sniper | May 31, 2009 9:37 PM

A very very psycholical event because we view the child for the first time. but its still the same human that was inside the mother's womb. Its no different!

Except to that thing containing the baby. I'm still waiting for someone on the anti-choice side to grant personhood to that.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 9:40 PM

"Except for the 50-80% of pregnancies that end in miscarriage. Bit of a practical joker that way, God is."

Give me a break. That is irrelevant. We're not talking about miscarriages here - we're talking about abortion. We can't make an assumption or a prediction that the baby will be born or not - we can only make the assumption it will. Every mother that is pregnant BELIEVES they will birth their child - if not, then theres no issue with abortion. Do you think the woman who gets an abortion thinks 'well theres a 50-80% chance that it might be a miscarriage - maybe ill play the odds'.

And I don't care about Roe V Wade. An unborn child WILL be born, therefore its already a person. Or if you wish, it becomes a person at birth - but it will be born, therefore it doesn't really matter when we finally describe it as human.

Posted by: Sniper | May 31, 2009 9:42 PM

Every mother that is pregnant BELIEVES they will birth their child - if not, then theres no issue with abortion.

Ah, yes. Referring to all pregnant women as mothers - the sure sign of someone who sees only incubators.

Posted by: Mary Kay | May 31, 2009 9:46 PM

#157 is mine.

Posted by: CSN | May 31, 2009 9:47 PM

Carlie@146:"Do you really want a person to be able to involve the police and the court system when their spouse gets drunk at the office Christmas party and snogs a co-worker? If that's breach of contract, then so is looking at a spouse during an argument and thinking "God, you're such a jerk". After all, that's not loving and cherishing."

I was being purposely over the top with the "breach of contract" phrase, I just think it should have legal ramifications as marriage is a legal institution. I.e. if my (hypothetical) wife were to divorce me after discovering I'd been "snogging" my (hypothetical) co-worker, I don't think I should be getting 50% of what is hers whereas in other situations I may be granted that. I don't think it should be a criminal offense by any means. My understanding of the law is weak-ish so please excuse my imprecision. Anyway... back on topic...

To sum up my entirely-too-long post: Can we try to formalize this discussion and wring some of the extraneous emotion out of it, or is that unrealistic in the realm of blog-comments?

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 9:49 PM

"WTF? Birth is the point, where if the woman dies, the baby doesn't. To say that isn't significant is a lie about the biology of the situation. Of course, idiots like yourself never look at biology, only your religion/ideology. "

Ok, I wasn't saying anything about if the woman dies during pregnancy. I'm just making the point about the birth having nothing to do with the identity of the child as human

I do believe that abortion is justified if the woman's life is at risk. You've exposed your subjectivity in this matter, because I said NO statement about the life of the mother, I was only talking about the idea of being human.

WTF are you doing bringing up religion? It has nothing to do with what I was saying. I'm an atheist, and my point was about the identity of the child.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 9:52 PM

"Ah, yes. Referring to all pregnant women as mothers - the sure sign of someone who sees only incubators."

Only incubators? My POV was that a pregnant woman will be a mother - under the assumption of a normal birth. I dont see the issue with that. They're still a human being? They're also a mother - someone who gave birth (or will).

I dont know wtf you're talking about.

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 9:54 PM

Ev 154-

that was not at all smart.

you do know that a more medical term for a "miscarriage" is "spontaneous abortion"? right?

if your argument is "An unborn child WILL be born, therefore its already a person."

then the fact that 50-80% of all human eggs that get fertilized actually DON'T get born, with no intervention from anything other than human biology is highly relevant to your argument! following your logic, they were never "people" as they weren't, apparently, destined to be born. what the heck were they? what made them different in this respect from any other fetus or embryo? if you take this line of reasoning these things matter.

you don't get to ignore both logic and reality here, sorry.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 9:56 PM

"Well, you are missing my point where birth has everything to do with being human. It is now separate. Period. End of story. Prior to that no."

Ok, I see you're point. but I also respectfully disagree :)
IMO, the birth has everything to do with being human - to everyone else. but the child being born is physically the same from the minute before they were born, when they were inside the womb. Is there really a difference?

Posted by: hje | May 31, 2009 10:01 PM

Re: "We can't make an assumption or a prediction that the baby will be born or not - we can only make the assumption it will. "

We can say the probability of going from conception to birth is rather small--about 33% by some estimates.

This must be somewhat disturbing to many of the religious right who are pro-embryonic/fetal life***--who have this idea that every zygote is a person. Heaven--by their thinking--must be filled with individuals with no past, no experience of life whatsoever (assuming their God does not send them to suffer in limbo or hell). Add to this, the lack of evidence of divine concern for humans in the Old Testament (see: divinely-ordained genocide, by flood or by sword) or New Testament (see: divinely-ordained genocide, apocalypse-style), and you got to wonder just what *is* the basis for their belief in the sanctity of life from conception. It certainly does not find a lot of support either in nature or in their sacred books.

**After birth, you're on ypur own. Especially if you are a child in Iraq or Afghanistan or some other unfortunate place where you are considered collateral damage in a just war.

Posted by: llewelly | May 31, 2009 10:02 PM

If someone has already mentioned this, I apologize, but I thought you all should know, Pastor Fred Phelps has already said GOD SENT THE SHOOTER!

Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2009 10:04 PM

My POV was that a pregnant woman will be a mother

Will be =/= is.

An unborn child WILL be born,

And some of them will be born without brains. Some will be born without fused spinal columns. Some of them will be born without necessary internal organs. And maybe some women want to spare their fetuses that agony of being born to have a few short days in constant unrelenting torment. And never mind the few short days of life - also the remaining weeks in utero, developing nerve endings that will grow and mature only to be bombarded with messages of unending pain. Or is that too icky to think about? Easier to pretend that the "parents" are taking the easy way out?

Some of them will also be born without mothers at all, as pregnancy and childbirth are fatal for women with certain conditions. Maybe those women would like to live longer. Maybe those women would like for children they already have living to continue to have a mother.

Life isn't as easy and neat and tied with a bow as you'd like to make it.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 10:05 PM

"Ev 154-

that was not at all smart.

you do know that a more medical term for a "miscarriage" is "spontaneous abortion"? right?

if your argument is "An unborn child WILL be born, therefore its already a person."

then the fact that 50-80% of all human eggs that get fertilized actually DON'T get born, with no intervention from anything other than human biology is highly relevant to your argument! following your logic, they were never "people" as they weren't, apparently, destined to be born. what the heck were they? what made them different in this respect from any other fetus or embryo? if you take this line of reasoning these things matter.

you don't get to ignore both logic and reality here, sorry.'

First off: 'spontaneous abortion' is just a name given. just because it used the word abortion doesn't mean its the same. its not the same, imo, as the 'abortion' we are talking about here because miscarriage is a natural occurance - it happens without human intervention.

In reality, what I'm talking about here are the babies that WILL be born. how long until these embryos are 'spontaneously aborted' anyway? I believe, not based on my expertise however, that its often before the woman even knows they're pregnant! in the early early stages. the abortions we're talking about are most definitely after that fact.

So in theory, these miscarriages are irrelevant because they have happened already, and we're talking about the unborn that passed this and are destined for birth.

I do believe that I never once mentioned fertilisation. I mentioned those unborn that are on the way to birth. Maybe I was too vague, but theres a difference. And abortion, in the context to which we're speaking, is nearly always towards the latter.

please bring in something I'm missing.

Posted by: astrounit | May 31, 2009 10:07 PM

Glenn Davey #112?

Fuck you.

Is that communication clear enough for you? Is that much understood?

Posted by: Kel | May 31, 2009 10:09 PM

If I get 15 copies I'll be doing good no?

Think of all the trees that have to die...

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | May 31, 2009 10:14 PM

In reality, what I'm talking about here are the babies that WILL be born.

Oxymoron asshole. They are only babies once out of the womb and breathing on their own. By law and by biology. Prior to that they are parasites on the womans body. Also called fetuses. If you can't get the science right at a science blog your chances of winning the argument are zero. Which is what you shown so far.

Posted by: hje | May 31, 2009 10:15 PM

Re: "they were never "people" as they weren't, apparently, destined to be born."

What does "destiny" have to do with personhood? Destined by what?

Posted by: CSN | May 31, 2009 10:17 PM

Nerd of Redhead: "Well, you are missing my point where birth has everything to do with being human. It is now separate. Period. End of story. Prior to that no."

You're viewing birth as simple-mindedly as those who think "personhood" pops into existence at conception. As I listed in my post @ 144 there are many criteria possible, and if "seperateness" is what you're going to choose (although I think that choice needs some amount of justification beyond "Period. End of story."), doesn't that mean that a baby that is still in the womb but capable of surviving without the mother has gained personhood also? The actual birth can occur in a span of many weeks or can be induced or there's always C-section. It seems that the actual birth event is a bit arbitrary. (Although it must be survived but so must the first few weeks out of the womb which are also treacherous.) And if the ability to survive separately is the appropriate condition for personhood that pushes the timeframe back quite a bit, especially with the help of incubators, etc. (Google says 5 1/2 months is the most premature surviving baby.) Are you happy with that or do you find some way to define "seperateness" other than being an independently living organism?

Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2009 10:20 PM

its not the same, imo, as the 'abortion' we are talking about here because miscarriage is a natural occurance - it happens without human intervention.

What if it happens because the woman is accidentally exposed to a toxin? Does that count? Is it still "natural", or human intervention? What if she trips and falls down some stairs? What if she trips and falls down the stairs when she's 7 months pregnant? Still natural and doesn't count? I'm really confused about your distinctions here.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 10:25 PM

Man I'm exhausted.

"Oxymoron asshole. They are only babies once out of the womb and breathing on their own. By law and by biology. Prior to that they are parasites on the womans body. Also called fetuses."

I've said a few times - is there really a difference between the human a minute before theyre born and the minute after? Theyre the same human physically, theres no real difference.

By law, whatever ok... but its just a WORD. Calling something a 'baby' when they're born, and a 'fetus' when theyre pre-born, is just language... scientifically, whats the difference?

I like the tactical words you've used. 'Parasite' and 'fetuses'. They might be scientifically correct, but you're using it to get a reaction. It conveniently removes any humanity from an unborn human by calling it a parasite. hey, if it works for you...

"Ev, for an atheist, you sure talk about destiny a lot. Why does human intervention in abortion/miscarriage matter at all? If two parents don't give their five-year-old any food, and the child dies, then he died without human intervention. But the parents are still guilty of first-degree murder.

You also seem to be missing the point that if a woman has an abortion, the fetus will never be a person. The victim of the crime is a person who never existed. Why should I care about that?"

I dont believe I actually said destiny. But even if I did, I really do mean it in terms of a biological 'destination'.

That whole arguement you just said relies on the fact that a human becomes a person when they're born. But what do you mean they dont exist before they're born? Are you serious? A human being becomes a person when theyre born - fine, lets say that - so what in fact the victim is a human, not a person. And thats easy for you? Go ahead, justify that all you want.

Posted by: Sniper | May 31, 2009 10:29 PM

It conveniently removes any humanity from an unborn human by calling it a parasite. hey, if it works for you...

You have conveniently - for you - removed any humanity from not just pregnant women by all women for the sake of your arguments. And you still haven't explained why one human being should have the absolute right to another's body.

You're approaching black hole density.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 10:36 PM

luna1580:

I guess because you can't tell them apart early on before that miscarriafe, you can't make the judgement. if you make the call to abort based on the possibility of a miscarriage - then what about if its not 'destined' for miscarriage?

I totally agree with later miscarriages. I believe I'm mentioned that issues with preganancies later in the term can be justified for abortion.

I'm really not saying anything about 100% never abort. but if theres no apparent problem at the point in a pregnancy that an abortion is considered, then personally I dont have any moral justification for it.

And: "Sorry EV, you are a proven liar and bullshitter, so nothing you have to say is of interest. Learn some real biology and come back."

how about a bit of civility? I'm just stating my opinions, trying to argue here a bit. And theres nothing proven yet at all, jsut people saying 'nah'.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | May 31, 2009 10:40 PM

MaryKay should be here soon cutting and pasting her most recent trollishness

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 10:40 PM

OK, cool. Well this is so much better. I'm not calling anyone baby killers. It's interesting hearing everyone's thoughts on the "line", if there even is one.

Sniper: "Atheist" is not synonymous with "agrees with you on everything". Neither is "rational". Rationality (at least to me) is the ability to consider something from more points of view than one, and alter one's position based on such consideration. It is a process, not a destination.

Meta:

The idea that the mere potential for personhood is sufficient for... well, personhood, has always struck me as odd. It is normally asserted by anti-abortionists without argument.

The idea is: if you do nothing, random natural events ("natural abortion") and complications notwithstanding (Carlie), will the child go on to progress through development to birth, and presumably to live to be a human with a life and social network and societal contribution and all that? It's kind of a like the doctor's oath: First do no harm. Without intervention WOULD it become an adult with all the rights that we say one of those should have? If the answer is the same as if the foetus were actually a 10-year-old then the argument goes that we should apply futureactive rights to that productive-member-of-society-to-be. It's what we would probably like to have afforded to us, and in that way it is an application of the golden rule. This ideal does not preclude for a moment all the very good reasons for using abortion in those unfortunate cases where life or limb is truly at stake. It's a similar "how would you like it?" argument as animal rights activists use when making the case for animals whose lives could be spared by tweaking the way we do things. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by it either, but it does appeal to that "do unto others" empathy we all have to some extent (and that, incidentally, we tell the religious we don't need God to have).

Anonymous: I agree with the psychological aspect of what people can SEE versus what they can't see often determines how easy something is to do.

Fiisii: First off, thank you for taking pride in manners. To your comment, no foetus is responsible or could be held responsible for a) its own conception, b) complications that arise from its time in-utero, or c) the method of conception. Test-tube, natural, petri dish or (here I go again) rape - the foetus is not accountable for variables outside its control in regards to how it came to exist. On the other hand, a mother-to-be is as in charge of her actions in relation to her unborn offspring as a mother is who tries to treat her diabetic child with homeopathy. Neglect or outright poisoning (via cigarette smoking, for example) is abuse.

strange dogs before me:

An acorn is not a tree

... and poetry is not an argument.

hje: sorry for saying "cos". I'll try not to get caught up in what I'm trying to say, and focus on the important stuff like proper grammar.

MAJeff:

Pregnancies are aborted, not fetuses. At least learn what you're talking about.

True, thank you for correcting me, but it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about. In fact, clearly you also know what I'm talking about, but want to focus on syntax. You don't suggest at what point the thing IS a child, and whether you think a born child still falls under the mother's sphere of "choice".

CSN: Thanks for the input. I don't know that a bullet is on quite the same path as a foetus. It would seem that once a bullet has caused someone to start bleeding to death its purpose is all but fulfilled. The same cannot be said for a foetus.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 10:44 PM

"You have conveniently - for you - removed any humanity from not just pregnant women by all women for the sake of your arguments. And you still haven't explained why one human being should have the absolute right to another's body."

Hmmm... have I? I'm not so sure. But lets say that the humanity of the pregnant woman and her unborn fetus/human/whatever are the same, in terms of humanity (something that I've been arguing). if thats true, then i dont think we can make a choice between the 2.

Sigh, forgetting all the stuff about a woman's life being at risk.

Posted by: Carlie | May 31, 2009 10:50 PM

Without intervention WOULD it become an adult with all the rights that we say one of those should have?

Well, no. A fetus requires constant 24/7 intervention, in fact. It requires oxygen, and food, and raw materials for making body parts, and all sorts of things that have to be supplied to it in an unending stream from another person.

Posted by: Cerberus | May 31, 2009 10:52 PM

@200

Actually it's easy.

In fact, I'll one up you. Let's assume that every fetus is not only a person, but the last son of Krypton, whose potential birth will bring world peace and joy to everyone and that every mother is a combination of Skeletor and Hitler whose very piss is pure malevolence.

Okay? Ready?

No one. And I mean no one has the right to someone's body without consent. Period. We don't let people rape people to save lives. We don't let people still the kidneys out of people to save lives. We don't force people into slavery to save lives. If the choice is between death and upholding the principle of body autonomy, death is the answer.

So even if you were right. You're wrong and morally abhorrent because what you support is nothing less than slavery AT BEST.

Luckily, for everyone, you're not only wrong on that score, but every other score as well. By every rubric by which we denote a person, a fetus isn't and furthermore to try and place it's value ever earlier in a pregnancy, you strive to erase the very real humanity and value undergone by the mother to instead turn her into a meaningless void for sperm magic.

Glad to help.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 10:53 PM

Without intervention WOULD it become an adult with all the rights that we say one of those should have?

Putting WOULD in caps doesn't make the answer YES, it remains maybe. The point, though, is that unless and until that potential is realized it is only potential. The distinction between the actual and the merely possible is not some weird artificial aberration of law, it actually exists. There is actually a very real difference. Why would you expect us to pretend otherwise

Posted by: hje | May 31, 2009 11:01 PM

Re" "I'll try not to get caught up in what I'm trying to say, and focus on the important stuff like proper grammar."

Yes, and after that, logic.

Posted by: Snoof | May 31, 2009 11:06 PM

There's an analogy I've seen used before regarding the ethics of abortion -

One morning, you wake up. For some reason or other, you discover that a fully-grown adult human being has become attached to you. They're connected via the circulatory system - extracting oxygen and nutrients from your blood. They're also unconscious - unable to communicate with you or anyone.

Being attached to this person puts a tremendous strain on you, physically and psychologically. Your mobility is impaired, your hormone levels fluctuate and your immune system is compromised, not to mention the emotional effects - in the very least, people are going to treat you differently. Plus, if something goes wrong, you could well die. This condition is going to last for approximately nine months. The separation process at the end of this time could be extremely traumatic, including an additional risk of death or permanent maiming.

On the other hand, if you disconnect this individual, they will die. No questions.

Under what circumstances is it ethically acceptable to disconnect the person?

(For the chronically dense, this hypothetical situation is roughly equivalent to the one in which a fetus is given the same rights as an adult human being. If there's any circumstances under which you would allow the hypothetical disconnection to take place, isn't it ethically equivalent to allowing abortion under those circumstances?)

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 11:09 PM

sniper:

"without a coherent opinion on this issue, the ethics of any form of elective medical abortion cannot be discussed."

Sigh. Only if you assume that assigning person-hood to a fetus entitles it to live in the body of another.

well, i didn't say i necessarily did, but i feel that is another component to the discussion. a separate component.

but to my way of thinking determining if the fetus did indeed have person-hood it would influence the answer to the argument you raise for most people, so if we want to understand how people other than ourselves view the entire issue of elective abortion we cannot completely ignore it.

of course, your goal may not be to understand anyone else's perspective and that's your right, but it interests me.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 11:09 PM

luna1580:
Agree to disagree? Lol. Thanks for the nice response.

"do we achieve "person-hood":

when an egg is fertilized? when a heart beat develops? when brain activity is detectable? when a specific type of brain activity is detectable? when the fetus is medically viable outside the womb? when it first breathes on its own?"

I basically feel that we can't answer that question. Really not at all. I've said so far that they're always a person. Maybe thats not right. but whatever it is, I dont think we can answer it. We're trying to apply a moral, philosophical idea onto an scientifically unanswerable question.
When the egg is fertilised? Maybe not because so many of those dont make it. The first breath or outside the womb? I guess you know that I dont think so.

Because we can't answer when someone 'becomes' a person, we're in dangerous territory when we impose it subjectively onto an unborn child.

Nerd of Redhead, OM:
"Try an educated opinion, not based on religion or ideology, but biology. Religion and ideology are scorned off the bat. And you have presented no real science. So, what is your problem?"

You're just as biggoted as I supposedly am. I not once mentioned religion or ideology. not once - you're just using that because you dont agree with me. i have a moral opinion about when a fetus becomes a person. from my understanding of science, I dont believe the difference at birth to be enough to justify an abortion unless theres a danger on the mother (rape might be similar, its not all black and white).

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 11:11 PM

sorry about messing up my blockquote at 212.

p.s

i feel no one stands a chance of ever changing anyone's opinion if they can't understand why that other person really holds that opinion, so i'm interested in understanding things.

Posted by: Sniper | May 31, 2009 11:13 PM

of course, your goal may not be to understand anyone else's perspective and that's your right, but it interests me.

It used to interest me as well, until I realized that most so-called pro-lifers are represented by the likes of Ev and Glenn. Stupidity and hatred of women aren't really worth delving into too deeply.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | May 31, 2009 11:16 PM

CW: should I, in turn, take issue with your usage of italics? I don't believe important things can be decided based on a freeze-frame snapshot in time, neglecting to use the powers of prediction that we possess as large-brained mammals. NASA couldn't do what it does without taking into account the effects of intertia.

There are surely many instances completely unrelated to the abortion debate where the same people who insist on ignoring the potential future of an untampered-with foetus will quite happily discuss the fall-out of decisions - perhaps economic fall-out from political decisions, or the like.

Nerd from Redhead: So far as I can see, and this is for anyone else posting at the moment, there are no religious currently commenting on this thread. A few of us have stated repeatedly that we are a-theist. That means WITHOUT theism... don'tchya know? As I have said "atheist" does not equal "agrees with you".

We CAN have opinions that differ from yours without them being informed by scripture, and we can even feel very strongly about them. Mine are informed by a (some would say misguided) sense of the golden rule.

I suspect all of us here operate by this, but as I noted by way of response to MAJeff much earlier: some of us place different weight on who we're applying the rule to. There are some of us here who feel that the offspring/potential adult/foetus/squib/parasite is under-represented in the name of maintaining the rights of women. The rub is in the balance of potential vs existing adulthood.

Those like MAJeff really don't think we're serious, but deadly serious we are, even if some can't understand. He is welcome to that opinion (and he does not deserve names for it).

Cerberus: Enough with the sperm magic stuff. I think most, if not all, of us here are in agreeance that abortion works and is useful and right in many practical instances. I think there are some of us that perhaps feel that it is used in non-life-threatening, non-rape cases where there exist alternatives. It's just a notion, we're not god botherers, and we don't want to restrict anyone's rights. It's probably more of a desire, or suggestion.

People don't have to have sex, but they do anyway because, well, it's fun. And there's good evolutionary reasons for it. If a woman and man fail to prevent pregnancy, and there are no extenuating circumstances, it would be nice if they could give the foetus a break and let it have a life. Seeing as they themselves generated the situation in the first place.

I'm pretty sure that's the only argument some of us are making, although I can't speak for everyone. I don't think it makes us bad people, and we're not against the rights of the woman.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 11:18 PM

So basically pregnancy is an intolerable burden?

Sometimes, yes. I'm glad to see you're finally getting it.

Posted by: Sniper | May 31, 2009 11:20 PM

Those like MAJeff really don't think we're serious, but deadly serious we are, even if some can't understand.

Yes, I'm sure Dr. Tiller's family realized just how deadly serious you are, asshole.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 11:22 PM

#217:
"More that you don't understand the idea of consent AND personhood. More specifically that of women."

Wheres the consent of the unborn human? They have none because they can't speak for themselved. Again, we're getting into the argument of when someone is a 'person', as if thats different to a 'human'.

This is not a religious argument.

A women gives consent as soon as she chooses to have unoprotected sex, and all the details that follow. If she becomes pregnant as a result, then I dont abortion is morally right.

Posted by: Cerberus | May 31, 2009 11:23 PM

@220

But Glenn, what you just described is sperm magic. It takes way more than fertilization to form a child and the amount of time, effort, sanity, income, work record, and health invested by the woman is non-negligible and cannot be dismissed because you want to punish people for being sexual...sorry, feel that sexual people owe it as a consequence of their actions as a thought experiment, not as a rule, etc...

The woman and her autonomy is either important or it is not. Period.

Posted by: Ev | May 31, 2009 11:30 PM

#227: Well yes, thats what I thought we were doing here. But instead its become: a human is a person when theyre born, and thats it.

To me, 'person' is indistinguishable from 'human'. Its almost like 'civilised' and 'uncivilised' when people are racist. They're both human, and deserve the same rights of humanity.

Posted by: Meta | May 31, 2009 11:31 PM

I've given up on Ev. S/h/it has been saying very little that's coherent, and frankly Glenn's post is a lot more interesting.

The idea is: if you do nothing, random natural events ("natural abortion") and complications notwithstanding (Carlie), will the child go on to progress through development to birth, and presumably to live to be a human with a life and social network and societal contribution and all that? It's kind of a like the doctor's oath: First do no harm. Without intervention WOULD it become an adult with all the rights that we say one of those should have? If the answer is the same as if the foetus were actually a 10-year-old then the argument goes that we should apply futureactive rights to that productive-member-of-society-to-be.

First off, I don't think you can just discount Carlie's 50-80% of all pregnancies. More than likely, "natural processes" will not result in a birth.

And pregnancy isn't some passive thing. Childbirth, like Carlie said, is even less so. Hell, a human baby's head can't even get out of the pelvis without twisting 90 degrees.

Second, you and Ev seem to be trying to answer the question by asking, "What Would The Natural Processes Do?", whereas I don't think "natural processes" matter at all. Since you read a blog by an evolutionary biologist, I'm guessing you know that natural processes are brutal and cruel more often than not. They do not have our best interests in mind. In the case of pregnancy, the "natural processes" result in weight gain, vomiting, backache, cramps... and then there's childbirth, which is tremendously difficult and painful, as Carlie has repeatedly said. I don't think there's anything virtuous in sitting back and letting nature run its course.

Once you strip away the "natural processes" stuff, all you have left is an argument that failing to bring a person into existence is harmful because it deprives society of a contributing member. By this logic, people who choose not to have children should be forced to do so against their will.

It's what we would probably like to have afforded to us, and in that way it is an application of the golden rule. This ideal does not preclude for a moment all the very good reasons for using abortion in those unfortunate cases where life or limb is truly at stake. It's a similar "how would you like it?" argument as animal rights activists use when making the case for animals whose lives could be spared by tweaking the way we do things. I'm not sure I'm entirely convinced by it either, but it does appeal to that "do unto others" empathy we all have to some extent (and that, incidentally, we tell the religious we don't need God to have).

I'll admit that my empathy is limited, and its limitations depend on psychological characteristics of the thing I'm supposed to be empathizing with. I know I'm glad I exist, but I can truly say that if my mother had aborted me before I even realized I existed, she would not have done anything wrong.

If conservative religious people nag at me, I can content myself that I am much more empathetic toward women who are scared, confused and pregnant. Also gay people who want to get married, people who can't afford health care... you know, the people who actually deserve empathy.

Posted by: luna1580 | May 31, 2009 11:33 PM

lest we forget what prompted this whole discussion, remember that the man who died in his church this morning (while volunteering as an usher, to help a community he cared about, not just attending) was a true hero.

despite all aperson's earlier woes about possibly executing his killer and making a "martyr" for the anti-choice idiots, Dr. George Tiller is a kind of martyr -one to the cause of women's rights to health and freedom.

i know most people commenting at this moment probably realize this, but the kansas city star has posted a nice write-up specifically about this:

http://www.kansascity.com/657/story/1226353.html

today is such a sad, sad day.

and the general media is starting to jump all over "Scott Roeder -crazy extremist, totally did it" i'm inclined to agree, but the man hasn't even been charged yet, and certainly not publicly confessed or been tried for it, so maybe he didn't. more on that should come out soon.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 11:39 PM

Re: "To me, 'person' is indistinguishable from 'human'. Its almost like 'civilised' and 'uncivilised' when people are racist. They're both human, and deserve the same rights of humanity."

A cheek cell I scrape out of my mouth is human, no? Is it then a person? Via cloning or re-programming, this human cell could even become another adult human. So then again, is it a person? Should it be afforded civil rights? If so, I'll take more care with the sloughed human cells.

Are you insinuating that anyone who disagrees with your definition is just like a racist?

Sloppy language, sloppy logic.

Posted by: Turnus | May 31, 2009 11:41 PM

Men who terminate the lives of viable fetuses based on something as tenuous as the mother being depressed are not heroes; they are practitioners of infanticide. Tiller should have been wearing an orange jump suit a long ass time ago.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 31, 2009 11:48 PM

Ev 226-

"A women gives consent as soon as she chooses to have unoprotected sex, and all the details that follow. "

but what about the women who consciously choose to use birth control and it fails?

it may only be like 1% of pregnancies, but it happens. if she did everything she could not to get pregnant, knowing she didn't want to carry or birth a child just then in her life, but technology simply failed her, why make her carry the child?

the only other available model is that all reproductively adult humans -men and women- who don't want to be parents just now must be totally celibate, as contraception isn't totally 100% always fail-safe. is that what you're proposing? because otherwise we're just back at "punishing her for having sex" and that's not a place i think you want to be.

Posted by: Snoof | May 31, 2009 11:50 PM

@233

A fetus is not a parasite. The relationship of the fetus to the mother is one of commensalism.

"...commensalism is a class of relationship between two classes where one benefits and the other is not significantly harmed or benefited..." -- Wikipedia, because I'm too lazy to dig up my ecology textbooks

Are you seriously suggesting that pregnancy is not a significant harm?

One look at pregnancy-related mortality rates should rebut _that_ claim. And that's ignoring all the other nasty stuff that being pregnant does to a body.

Posted by: CW | May 31, 2009 11:52 PM

Men who terminate the lives of viable fetuses based on something as tenuous as the mother being depressed

And there it is again, it's all about those damn weak, emotional (hysterical?) women and the evil men who enable them.

Always comes back to misogyny doesn't it?

Posted by: Cerberus | May 31, 2009 11:56 PM

237-

Glenn. You say people anthropomorphize things to reflect their desires and wants?

You don't say.

I have strong feelings about the Master's degree I'm seeking. The pills and therapy for transitioning represent freedom from a sex I don't belong to. These things have power, strong power and resonance to me. The latter especially is a bit like birth. The person I will be, the body I will have, I don't know it yet, but I love it, I treasure it, I want it to be. Doesn't make it any less than the image in my head at this point.

And if I should change my mind and decide that body isn't really what I seek (unlikely, but we'll use it for sake of analogy), that image doesn't gain sudden rights because of how I've personified and talked to it. My future vagina is just that, a future potentiality. Just because it's emotionally resonant doesn't make it more than it is.

A fetus is a clump of cells, parasitic in nature. We tolerate it because when wanted, we celebrate what we dream it will be, what we envision it bringing to our life and the joy we will shower it with when it becomes a ze. Doesn't make it any less an it in the interim, just as my vagina doesn't exist until the day I save up enough money and spend enough time on hormones to do the ol' rearrange.

Posted by: Cerberus | May 31, 2009 11:59 PM

@241

Then you are more than welcome to implant it in your scrotal sac and bring it to term you women-hating pile of shit.

Posted by: Cerberus | June 1, 2009 12:05 AM

243-

There are two viewpoints, those who view women as human beings with full rights of autonomy and those who view it as conditional and prerequisite on them not having sex.

No one has the right to someone else's autonomy. And that's even if they are pathetic. No one can be forced to take care of a starving man on their porch. No one can be forced to allow a man to rape them if that man will die if he fails to. No one can be forced to raise a child against their will.

You want to give a fetus an incubator, implant it in a man and let him take the thing to term, by all means, go ahead. Until that day no one has the right to use someone against their will and consent, even if they will die without that aid.

And frankly, the fact that you really want to use "cunt" is not helping your attempt to paint yourself as not a woman-hater.

Posted by: Turnus | June 1, 2009 12:09 AM

No, but your implication that depression is the reason women abort pregnancies is.

I did not claim that is the sole reason for all late term abortions. But if Tiller performed even one for that reason, and I believe he did, then he is a practitioner of infanticide and should be locked up for it.

Posted by: hje | June 1, 2009 12:12 AM

RE; "Yes. In the majority of pregnancies there is no lasting harm to the mother. "

Well as long as she survives. Even in the modern era of medicine, this is still not a given, e.g., pre-eclampsia (10% of pregnant women are at risk for this potentially lethal condition).

BTW, is the doctor-killer/terrorist is a hero to you?

Posted by: Turnus | June 1, 2009 12:14 AM

Then you are more than welcome to implant it in your scrotal sac and bring it to term you women-hating pile of shit.

I am only a "misogynist" when it comes to warped, pretentious pieces of shit like you who happen to be women.

In those cases where a woman cannot be bothered to terminate a pregnancy within the first two months and the only reason given for seeking a late term abortion is depression (or something equally as tenuous or vague) then I say "tough shit."

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 12:15 AM

Turnus is the first truly disagreeable person on the thread, I think. The rest of us have some common ground in that we really do think abortion is useful and right in many practical situations.

Cerberus: take note. I do not think it is right to punish women. If you follow my comments I've suggested that there are alternatives that should be strongly considered in certain circumstances. I'm not suggesting the taking-away of women's rights (as this Turnus bundle of hate is) I'm hoping that women will exercise their rights in a way that minimizes the deliberate and nasty exercise of terminating lives unnecessarily.

I was almost aborted, but was too far along, and was subsequently given up for adoption. I've had a good life thus far, and the thought that I might not have existed horrifies me, as it does everyone who is a part of my life. Of course it could not have happened any other way for this is how it happened. Anything else is speculation.

I flirt with accepting abortion unconditionally via Meta's observation that a foetus never knows the life it will not have, and of course this is a valid point.

But my fatalism and personal experience has me desire for as LITTLE abortion as we can get away with, while still maintaining the woman's right to choose, keeping in mind all the possible circumstances in which know a pregnancy can exist.

I've people like Meta and Carlie to thank for giving me some food for thought, and anyone else who didn't resort to abuse to drive home their point.

Posted by: Fiisi | June 1, 2009 12:18 AM

"Men who terminate the lives of viable fetuses based on something as tenuous as the mother being depressed are not heroes; they are practitioners of infanticide. Tiller should have been wearing an orange jump suit a long ass time ago."

Pro-life terrorist propaganda.

Posted by: Turnus | June 1, 2009 12:20 AM

Pro-life terrorist propaganda.

Fiisi is one anencephalic who beat the odds!

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 12:25 AM

Fiisi is one anencephalic who beat the odds!

projecting already?

...and here you just got started.

Oh, and die in a fire.

seconded.

Posted by: astrounit | June 1, 2009 12:26 AM

Genn Davey # 136 said,

"Why is it NOT OK to kill a grown man, but it is OK to kill a foetus? And is it because the man has a life already, and the foetus has no-one? And can a mother, for argument's sake, "abort" her child after it's born?"

For argument's sake? Okay, buster. Deep thinker. Erstwhile defender of the rights of the living. Let's take a good look at this one more time so even a jackass like you can understand it:

1. The shooter murdered. (Whoa. can't exactly worm your way out of that argument, can you?)

2. When it comes to a situation which pitches the life of a mother against that of the baby she is pregnant with (no doubt about it, an extremely horrible situation requiring some pretty decent and sometimes even fast thinking - have you ever had the pleasure of being in that spot???) the life of the MOTHER IS, AS A MATTER OF ABSOLUTE UNEQUIVOCAL FACT, MOST IMPORTANT. In most cases, if the properly indicated MEDICAL procedure was performed in time and the abortion was performed, the mother might live to reproduce and squirt out more babies. Yet you in your sanctimonious nitwittery would deny her that right, and in doing so abort more potential babies than you can imagine? Nice.

3. A sufficiently severely malformed fetus, although it may carry human genes or even a passing resemblance to what anyone would consider a "human being" (oh yes, nature makes mistakes...and if "GOD" is responsible, you'll have to explain how a Perfection of Being is capable of such monstrosity) isn't much of a human being, any more than a tumor is.

Either we grow the hell up and accept what medical science indicates (that is, what NATURE indicates - remember? "GOD'S putative CREATION? Which must be as Perfect as He is?) or you must accept that every cancerous tumor that appears in the population must be preserved on the very same premises that you apply to every fetus, no matter how malformed. If you check their genetic composition carefully, you'll find every one of them remain emphatically "human".

And while your at your ridiculous crusade, you can protest against all forms of amputation as well...right down to nail clipping or haircut. That's all sacredly human too.

What really bugs me is that you have the temerity to speak in favor of any anti-abortionist claims at all in the face of the tragic MURDER of a person who actually helped people, young mothers and society by providing his services. A person who was a husband and a father of kids..who didn't get a chance to finish that job.

The word "shame" isn't nearly enough to convey my utter contempt for you.

Posted by: Turnus | June 1, 2009 12:28 AM

Don't take your inability to get laid (or currently publish) out on me, Icky.

Posted by: llewelly | June 1, 2009 12:31 AM

Turnus | June 1, 2009 12:05 AM:

In the majority of pregnancies there is no lasting harm to the mother. We don't make definitions based on exceptions.

By that logic, if someone attempts to cut out another person's heart with a spoon, it's not a crime, on the grounds that the attempt will probably fail.

More importantly, this is just another lame red herring. If you have a 9-foot tall rhinestone covered flamingo on your lawn, I don't have the right to take it and have it ground up and recycled, even though I'm probably doing you a favour.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 12:31 AM

Don't take your inability to get laid (or currently publish) out on me, Icky.

I would anyway, just for the fun of it, regardless if that were accurate or not. You make yourself quite a good target.

so about that whole "law" thing...

not too interested in it after all?

Posted by: Cerberus | June 1, 2009 12:32 AM

Glenn-

I'm very sorry for your existential crisis. I too could have been aborted. Who knows, if my biological had left before birth, rather than after, I could very well have been. My partner's existence is requisite on an abortion her mother had, without it, it was very doubtful she would have long survived.

Contemplating non-existence is scary. It is why we fear death. I don't envy you that existential terror. But what it is does not depend on what you wish it were because of that. We all were at one times possibility possibly discarded, possibly not, with no guiding hand making sure our particular unique personhood came into being.

If you or I were aborted, we would never have been sentient beings to regret that, to mourn that. That is scary yes, I'm not denying that. But that terror does not trump anything or remove agency of the women involved. You didn't really exist as a full human being until your release from the womb, you didn't have thoughts to consider yourself until a couple of months at least after birth.

You exist now and you should treasure that without letting your anxiety of what could have been negatively color your weights and considerations. I'm not trying to be sarcastic here, in case you're wondering. I genuinely understand the fear inherent in considering non-existence. I wish you luck on your personal growth from this point.

There is a world outside of yourself and instead of stressing about chance and a desire to game the odds, let yourself instead just accept the chances as they were without judgment that allow you to consider the game at all.

Posted by: Turnus | June 1, 2009 12:35 AM

By that logic, if someone attempts to cut out another person's heart with a spoon, it's not a crime, on the grounds that the attempt will probably fail.

More importantly, this is just another lame red herring. If you have a 9-foot tall rhinestone covered flamingo on your lawn, I don't have the right to take it and have it ground up and recycled, even though I'm probably doing you a favour.

You can tell that llewelly is the product of generations of Mormon credulity and a genetic bottleneck. His post is too stupid to merit any other response from me.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 12:44 AM

astrounit: I'm not replying to anything in your last post as it is clear you have not read my last half dozen or so comments. Do so and you will find that every one of your arguments against me are better aimed at someone like Turnus.

Posted by: Cerberus | June 1, 2009 12:47 AM

It's really interesting this week in a morbid sort of why realizing just how alien the concept of consent is to so many of our opponents (anti-gay, anti-choice, etc...). They just can't parse it. They think they've got us on the ropes when they say "what about pedophilia or bestiality" or "what's different about the moment after birth versus the previous time". They just seem fundamentally unable to grasp the ideas that people can consent and then revoke consent to the use of their body and that is actually something really important.

My question because the ghouls are tiring is this:

Is it because they are fundamentally unable to view as human classes of people such as (and chiefly) women or is it because the idea of interacting with another human being in a non-coercive manner is something which has never been deliberately considered on any wavelength?

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 12:48 AM

Cerberus: Cheers mate, I'm getting there! I appreciate your considerations.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 12:52 AM

Tiller was acquitted by the jury of not consulting an independent second physician but was still being investigated by the Kansas Board of Healing Arts.

IOW, he was found completely innocent.

In any event, that has nothing to do with whether or not he performed abortions based on the mother being depressed or other, similarly tenuous and vague, reasons.

ROFLMAO.

Uh, that's EXACTLY what it has to do with. That's WHY there is supposed to be a second physician involved, and exactly what he was found innocent of.

so, you don't believe in the rule of law?

Posted by: Cerberus | June 1, 2009 12:58 AM

282- Good luck. :)

Posted by: Fiisi | June 1, 2009 12:59 AM

Pro-life terrorist is frustrated that he doesn't have the right to abuse his mother's reproductive organs without her consent.

Posted by: CW | June 1, 2009 1:01 AM

If a woman can't be bothered to abort the fetus within the appropriate window, her life is not in danger, and the fetus is viable then "tough shit."

What exactly does that little rant have to do with anything at all? Did you suddenly feel the need to just invent a (misogynistic) cartoon scenario to publicly swear at?

Well, I'm sure we're all suitably impressed.

Posted by: WordSpinner | June 1, 2009 1:05 AM

I like my cunt, actually. I don't see why vagina should be an insult.

Posted by: Anri | June 1, 2009 1:08 AM

Ev-

If, in fact, we are unable to distinguish between a fetus and a full human being (as you seem to be asserting),

...and if the premeditated killing of a full human being is a crime, generally referred to as murder (please correct me if you disagree with that),

...then you presumably must believe that all women who have had abortions after deliberating, are criminals, in specific murderers. (Or at least accessories to such a crime.) And presumably should be dealt with as such. If you do not agree, please explain.

Likewise, if you assume the above two points, than Dr. Tiller was an unrepentant serial killer, and the person that shot him was taking a heroic stand against a corrupt and horrible injustice in him being free. Again, if you do not agree, please explain.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by: Turnus | June 1, 2009 1:10 AM

Did you suddenly feel the need to just invent a (misogynistic) cartoon scenario

Excerpt:

MORE than 20 babies have been aborted in advanced pregnancy because scans showed that they had club feet, a deformity readily corrected by surgery or physiotherapy.

According to figures from the Office for National Statistics covering the years from 1996 to 2004, a further four babies were aborted because they had webbed fingers or extra digits, which are also corrected by simple surgery. All the terminations took place late in pregnancy, after 20 weeks.

Last year, according to campaigners, a healthy baby was aborted in the sixth month at a hospital in southeast England after ultrasound images indicated part of its foot was missing.

News of the terminations has reignited the debate over how scanning and gene technology may enable the creation of “designer babies”. In 2002 it emerged that a baby had been aborted late
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2087-2200495,00.html

I believe the appropriate rejoinder at this time is, "How do you like me now, bitch?"

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 1:10 AM

I never use that horrible word to actually refer to a woman's privates, and certainly not to a woman herself. Like "gay" the word has new meaning, and is more powerful referring to someone you strongly dislike (I never hate). I remember being called that in my first year of school, as a 6 year old, and it having no effect on me whatsoever. It has developed more kick with each passing year, but I would never think of it as anything other than a man I didn't like.

If you are female I apologise for calling you that.

My foot is positive and my mouth is negative :/

Posted by: Autumn | June 1, 2009 1:14 AM

I jerked off into a wad of toilet tissue today, and I was horrified to see that I tossed it into the trash next to one of wife's used tampons.
I am an uber-abortionist. (It's viable sperm in proximity to a possible ovum- we could just jam it back into the baby-machine and see if it took)

But seriously, as a man, I used to claim that I suported whatever a woman supported, as I thought that I had little on the line; but being a father, and having experienced pregnancy and birth, I have to say that, as much as I loved my soon-to-be-son, I was much more concerned with my now-wife, and our now-children, and how I could help get the little parasite that would be my son out of her. I never had a single moment of hesitation about which I would choose in an emergency.
Also, I cut the cord. If anyone has not who has not done this is spouting ignorant crap about there not being a difference between baby and fetus, they need to fuck off right now. That placental cord is thick and meaty. It is not a little snip of inconsequence. It takes sawing to get through that attachment. I've sawed through the life-support system. It unequivicably separates the born from the unborn.

Also, your baby is just a little stimulus/response machine for a few weeks.
You might think it's a cute one, but the whole Teat/No Teat angle gets old quick.

Posted by: Scott | June 1, 2009 1:17 AM

Davey,
If it's not too late to interject here: I agree. I don't think anyone actually tried to answer your question. They answered the question they thought they heard.

Let me give it a try. I don't think anyone is seriously advocating abortion as a the preferred alternative. From Keanus, it sounds like PP has the right perspective.

But to your question of when does abortion become murder? The answer is, when the ball of cells becomes a human being. Prior to modern medicine, the only two possible "bright lines" defining that moment were at child birth and at conception. Clearly, the "pro-life" crowd believes that the ball of cells becomes a human being at the moment the sperm fertilizes the egg. At the other extreme, one could argue via child development psychology that children don't develop all the cognitive abilities of adult humans for many years after birth. However, no one seriously believes that children are not human.

Personally, I would say that a ball of cells becomes a human being when it becomes viable outside the womb. Obviously, as medicine advances, that line gets pushed back earlier and earlier, and as each situation is different, the line can be rather broad. I would say that if the ball of cells has become viable, then a cesarian is the only allowable form of "abortion". Prior to that, it should be the woman's choice. After viability, if the woman doesn't want either the pregnancy or the child, there are lots of other, more "moral" alternatives. Late third-trimester abortions of viable fetuses should be off the table, and that restriction should not represent a "slippery slope" in either direction.

But my position may not be the same as the majority here.

Posted by: astrounit | June 1, 2009 1:20 AM

Turnus # 273:

"That datum, if correct, only establishes that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him under the laws of Kansas."

Oh? Is that how it works now in this country?

A person can only be considered innocent (or acquitted) of charges (um, maybe false) because there was insufficient evidence?

Otherwise none of that means anything anyway, the guy is guilty, because of some peculiar shortcoming you perceive in the laws of Kansas?

Thou art a jerk of the first order.

Really, a prime jerk-off.

Posted by: CW | June 1, 2009 1:22 AM

Like "gay" the word has new meaning, and is more powerful referring to someone you strongly dislike

Jesus (allegedly) wept. So it's OK to co-opt a term for female genitalia as an insult because it's also OK to co-opt a term for homosexual into an insult? And you wonder why people go off on you! Do you even listen to the shit that you're saying?

Posted by: Krubozumo Nyankoye | June 1, 2009 1:24 AM

I will not presume to address this discussion from the view point of women because I am a man and therefore cannot understand or imagine their viewpoint.

One further disclaimer, I haven't read most of the messages in the thread so if I repeat something already stated I apologize.

The question I want to pose is a kind of Dawkinsian thought experiment. If I am a male of the species Homo sapiens sapiens what are the evolutionary pressures, the selective constraints placed upon my choice between two simplified strategies, let us say 1) impregnate every woman you can and force them to carry the progeny to term, vs. 2) selectively impregnate only those women who a) are willing to undertake the risks and b) are possessed of those traits you think your progeny should inherit. Admittedly this is not even close to an actual evolutionary situation that involves populations, however, what I am trying to get at here is how does a sentient being respond to evolutionary principles in a manner that has predictable effects.

Genetics and biology are not at all my field so I may be entirely talking out my nether orifice here but I do recall something in the Selfish Gene to the effect that we are the first organism to evolve that is capable of directing our evolution, perhaps.

There is one more interesting case that arises when one applies a kind of 'reasoned' approach to the question of breeding, and that is to choose to breed not at all.

That then leads to the further and truly vexing question, if
the father of a child has the right the *force* the mother to bear the child to term, does he also have the right to *force* the mother to abort the child if he doesn't want it?

I think that put puts the argument about as clearly as it can get. Now clean up and go to bed and don't forget to wash behind your ears!

Cheers,

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 1:29 AM

I can seperate my word usage from my attitudes to women. You can't. That's cool. I can live with that. You don't know me, I don't know you.

But when you come somewhere like here, and open up an opinion that may not be popular and have people (who I won't name anymore cos it's not helpful to anyone) immediately, purposefully misunderstand you and tell you to "fuck off" and shit all over the honest enquiry you're trying to make... well you get pretty dern upset. In fact I was livid. I used a word I quite like for its strength and ugliness to match the crap I was on the receiving end of. When I reconsidered it I withdrew it and apologised.

The thread has been quite enjoyable since then.

Some people will say things you don't like sometimes. I think we can both agree that there are more important things to protest about.. for example, the murder of a doctor. I'd like to think that is a stronger force than the petty thing that divides us, such a silly penchant for sailor language.

Posted by: Fallsroad | June 1, 2009 1:38 AM

A women gives consent as soon as she chooses to have unoprotected sex, and all the details that follow. If she becomes pregnant as a result, then I dont abortion is morally right.

Hooray!

Slut shaming, FTW!

Posted by: WordSpinner | June 1, 2009 1:40 AM

"When I reconsidered it I withdrew it and apologised."

You used it twice, once on me. Look--that word horrifies me. It honestly makes me feel threatened, at least if it's used as an insult for its "strength and ugliness", because women are at risk for hate crimes and "cunt" taps into the feelings behind those attacks. "Gay" used as an insult taps into similar feelings, as well. I doubt I'm the only woman who feels that way. You didn't mean it that way? Fine. But did it come across that way? Hell yeah. I understand that sometimes we all use language that implies things we don't mean. I'm personally trying to stop using the word "bitch" even though its satisfying powerful because of the gendered connotations--I'm trying to use language that doesn't imply bad things about women who speak up. The fact that still defend your use of that language after being told that it really does horrify people makes me think that in fact, you don't care about what others, particularly women think.

There are plenty of other words that have power and don't make me feel personally threatened with rape. I use them too. Jackasses works well.

Yes, the murder is much more important. But when I hear cunt I hear echoes of other kinds of violence, too. You may not--you're a man--but I do.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 1:42 AM

I would never advocate forced birth. By the same token, I have a friend who had a forced abortion when she was quite young -- of twins. It was an awful, 18 hour long experience, that played out most of the gory details in a lousy hotel room, of all places. Just truly horrific. And she will probably never fully be the same again.

Anyone who thinks my position is one of removing rights from women has made a serious and concerted effort to misunderstand me.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 1:47 AM

I use the word, regardless of the fact that my natural father (I'm adopted) was abused by HIS father and that was the main word that he was called during his childhood years. He doesn't like hearing it, and I don't use it around him.

Am I going to stop using it because it offends some people? No way, Hosea. It's my body, my choice... bitch ;)

Posted by: luna1580 | June 1, 2009 2:06 AM

Glenn Davey-

in what year did your "young" friend under-go "forced" abortion? in what country? for what reason? and how old is "young"? and why the hell was it "forced?"

why -and how- was it "forced" upon her? and -as it took place in "a lousy hotel room, of all places" that means it wasn't a safe and legal medical abortion!

the reason "she will probably never fully be the same again," is because -for reasons you haven't yet disclosed- she basically had a back-alley abortion that wasn't safe or medically hygienic. and obviously didn't provide her with mental-health after-care resources. and many other emotional realities seem to have been in play....

how on earth can your poor friend's experiences be an apocryphal argument against safe, legal abortion?

yeah, regarding those "safe, legal, early-term medical abortions" i personally chose to have one when i was 20 years old. i am now 29, and have never, ever regretted my decision. if i hadn't been sure of all the factors playing into me making that decision the way i did, then perhaps i would have chosen differently. but i am still very happy i even got to make that choice right now, almost a decade later.

so what, exactly, did you mean to illustrate with your poor "pregnant-with-twins" friend story again?

Posted by: Susan | June 1, 2009 2:13 AM

Late-term abortion should be a surgery performed in a hospital with all the other surgeries that save people's lives-- liver transplants and appendectomies and heart surgery. Until it is, and available to all women through nationalized health care, we'll be living in the wild west here with Fundy the Outlaw. Get it together, America. Express your outrage to your representatives, and donate to the organizations that are holding things together until justice triumphs and we're as civilized as, say, Estonia.

Posted by: Jadehawk, OM | June 1, 2009 2:21 AM

the grammar in my last post sucked. *sigh*

Posted by: astrounit | June 1, 2009 2:33 AM

Glenn Davey #301,

Glenn? You haven't the grace and elegance to put on that sort of act.

It's hard on the eye's, man. Like looking at a woman with way too much makeup on her face. And trying to hide more of her wrinkles as she ages. You are disgusting like that.

Let me point out some of the items you've said, extracted from your first 8 postings, just to make sure we're all square on the same page here.

(The rest of Pharyngulites can pass over this reCRAPitulation without the slightest pain).

You provide a rousing start with:

#56: From, "I'm completely with you guys! I think abortion is an essential service, and I just can't stand these bleeding heart conservatives."

But then you summon up crap like this: "We seem to agree that killing this poor doctor is wrong. But is it because of his history of hard work? The fact that his name exists in lots of address books? That he has a social security number and a congregation? Is it because he will be missed? Does that make a life worth not snuffing out? When does a person go from being killable to not killable?"

and,

#65: "I do think abortion should be avoided at all costs. I don't think a child should be forced to bear the burden of how it is conceived, even in the case of rape. To do that sounds very much like the bible commandment that the sins of the father should be visited on the offspring. Innate ethics tell us that's just not right. We know that just because a baby is the product of rape does not at all mean that they are predisposed to rape. They may even abhor how they came to exist, regardless of the fact that they enjoy being alive. So should a rape pregnancy be aborted just because it is a rape pregnancy?"

Then you turn it right around 180 and in the very next sentence you say this: "On the other hand, I'm committed the idea of freedom of choice and if that means including abortion under that banner, then I think it should be legal."

#75: "But why is tearing out a foetus OK, but drowning a 6 month old in a bath-tub not. Both are choices. I'm using this kind of language on purpose, but not to raise hackles. I promise."

Oh yeah. Sure. Drowning a baby is now relevant...when compared - as it most certainly is in this thread context - to gunning down an adult. Where are

#79: "I think abortion should be like a last resort, like amputation or something."

Then after some utterly idle and completely irrelevant chatter about cigarrette smoke, you declare, "I hope I'm conveying a little how I feel about abortion. I don't think I'm deserving of abuse for having these conflicting thoughts and voicing them here."

I happen to disagree with you. I think you should be horsewhipped for being purposefully disingenuous.

#82, you whine: "You guys (JThompson and MAJeff) are fundamentalists minus the scriptures. You're cunts and you fail at helping someone to understand something they genuinely want to. I hope you aren't educators of any sort. I don't hate women. You make me want to cry. I hope you're not representative of this blog's attitudes. Yours are ugly and obscene. I'm so fucking offended right now. I kinda wish you were aborted..."

Uh huh.

#83, you directly follow up on that "you make me want to cry"..."I'm so fucking offended right now" schtick by saying this, "On a lighter note: If you love women so much then why don't you just MARRY one? Ner ner. Yeah, I crack me up.."

Ahh. Now, even though I'm heterosexual, even I can recognize a blazing anti-gay sentiment in an insult like that.

As I said before, Glenn? Fuck you.

#88: "What gets me is that when I was part of a church (cult?) it was a big no-no to ever express an alternative opinion."

You said it, not us.

But, that's not enough for you. You need to WHINE out MORE of your DISPLEASURE with OTHER PEOPLE:

"Is there a Pharyngula cult? Cos I came here, hat in hand, asking for comments. I never said I was right. I'm probably wrong on a lot of things. But you've responded in a way that you ABSOLUTELY KNOW you're right and I'm wrong. You're not concerned if I get your message. You don't care. You've just bullied me, completely. Does PZ condone this? I'd like to think not."

What you think means next to nothing. You come around with your "hat in hand" while simultaneously demanding credit for voicing an opinion you imagined to be totally sensible or even equitable. Except, it's not. What the fuck is the matter with you? Can't you even tell that your opinion is dictating to you what you should think? BEFORE allowing your thinking to inform your opinion?

#91: A WAILING SONG, WOE IS YOU, which concludes, "You're RIGHT! The woman is the most important factor in the picture. I accept that. But you don't have to beat me over the head with your opinion. Do you not get this? AT ALL??"

Then you would accept that you can't go around bopping people over the head with your "opinions" (as higgedly-piggedly as yours have been heretofore, what with one insinuation contradicting another, which when pointed out to you, motivates you into a snarky smart-ass mode most people are not likely to appreciate) and not expect some bops back.

"Do you not get this? AT ALL??"

Enough of this. That's only up to your comment #91. By then, everyone here easily appreciated how fulkl of yourself you are. That you actually need to defend your wasteful nonsense in favor of defending the dignity of a murdered human being - a good man who served his community and the patients under his care - says more than anyone can say.

Do I really need to repeat my refrain to you?

If you ask very kindly, I might think about it.

Posted by: strange gods before me | June 1, 2009 2:43 AM

Pity I couldn't keep up with both threads realtime. Some of you have been absolutely brilliant, and I'm only now getting to read it.

Posted by: Anonymous | June 1, 2009 3:20 AM

Jesus fish on the car: (picture at agnostichicagokie blogspot)

March, 1996: driving with suspended licence, illegal vehicle registration, failure to wear seatbelt, and no liability insurance. {research by the blogger who posted the photo)

April, 1996: driving with suspended licence, no insurance, and criminal use of explosives.

May, 1996: Found guilty on all counts. Gets a suspended sentence:

The Court finds the defendant's criminal history classification is I. Criminal history as shown in the P.S.I. is uncontroverted. Sentenced to custody of Sec. of Corrections as follows: Ct 1 a term of 16 months. Post Release supervision period is 24 months. Defendant shall receive credit for time served as provided by law. Departure factors: The Court makes durational and departure. Departure factors 1) defendant has indicated lack of respect for laws of State of Kansas, uncertain if will conform conduct and follow probation or direction of Court. 2) defendant poses significant threat to safety of community if he doe not conform behavior. The Court suspends execution of sentence of imprisonment and places defendant on 24 months supervised parole after serving timeserved days. Supervision by Community Corrections/ISP with the following conditions: a) You shall pay: Ct Costs $129.50, Probation $50.00, Atty Fee $500.00, Fines: Count 2 - $100; Couunt 3 - $100; Colunt 4 - $20. a) All supervised probation is subject to the District Courts Standard Conditions of Probation set forth in DCR 3.308 which the Court directs be incorporated into your order of probation, a copy will be provided to you by Court Services. b) Other Special Conditions: 1)ISP agreement; 2)not associate with persons or groups advocating violence and disregard or disrespect of laws of Kansas or involved in manufacturing of bombs; 3)obey all laws of State of Kansas, including drivers license, proper registration and insurance for automobile.

August, 1996: Convict has violated parole conditions:

The Court finds deendant(?) has violated the terms and conditions of probation, 1) failure to remain law abiding citizen, 2) failure to follow directives of probation officer and 3) failure to maintain full time employment. Probation revoked. SENTENCE: After hearing statements from counsel and defendant and offering allocution, the Court finds the deendant should be sentenced to the custody of the Secretary of Corrections for a term of 16 months. Defendant to receive credit for time served.

July, 1997: notice of appeal (to the Appellate Court)

The convictions were overturned on appeal except for the count of criminal use of explosives, which was dismissed. (I think: Judgment of District Court, REVERSED/REMANDED.)

03/02/1999 - Charge #1 - 1 counts of CRIMINAL USE OF EXPLOSIVES dismissed.

So there was a clue but not enough for conviction.

Posted by: Angel Kaida | June 1, 2009 3:37 AM

@Cerberus,
I'd just like to compliment you on your eloquence in this thread. I've been watching the trolling of this thread with anger and frustration; now I see that the trolls* (except that scumbag Turnus, who is irredeemable) were useful in their way, in that they brought out such fire from the more decent, humane commenters. :)

*I see that Glenn Davey is probably not intentionally trolling, but I will continue to use the word "troll" because I find his opinions and language offensive and therefore would not like to dignify him with the term "dissenter" at this point.

Posted by: Susan | June 1, 2009 3:56 AM

What Digby said.

Indeed, the murder of Dr Tiller in a demented defense of a "culture of life" should be all it takes for everyone to see that this is not the simple, straightforward issue they'd like to believe it is. And once you recognize that it's a unique circumstance in which the moral boundaries are blurry and indistinct, the only possible course is to trust the person with the most knowledge of the circumstances, the symbiotic relationship to the fetus and greatest stake in the outcome --- the woman.

Posted by: Monado | June 1, 2009 4:04 AM

Neither innocence (through lack of opportunity) nor personhood (from equating an acorn with an oak tree) matter. What matters is that no one may use your body against your will, even to save their life, even if they are born and educated and self-supporting. So it's not right to let a fetus do it.

It also matters that early abortion is much safer than childbirth. So unless the law condones forcing people to risk their lives (and even the U.S. army is a volunteer army now), it is not right to force women to risk their lives against their will.

It's also a good idea to remember that deciding to go skiing doesn't mean that you will forgo medical treatment if you break a leg.

Posted by: shonny | June 1, 2009 6:06 AM

Posted by: Whiskers | May 31, 2009 2:56 PM
I'm tempted to do so as well, though I'm afraid they'll just think there's an increase in demand and make more/sequels or something.
Though I think you should recycle rather than trash; hopefully the resources will then be used for something more productive.

Or are they, like the babble, so full of shit that they are not recyclable, not even as toilet paper?

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 1, 2009 6:17 AM

Those like MAJeff really don't think we're serious, but deadly serious we are, even if some can't understand

Your position isn't serious, child.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 6:44 AM

Carlie: I'll just correct you there - I never said to use "gay" as an insult. It just means something different now than it did 60+ years ago, ie. Happy.

Cuss words are just sounds we decided to get all huffy about whenever they're heard. It's social wiring, or memes, and it's amazing the reaction of some when they're used - both positive and negative. Across the board you find people more or less inclined to find it offensive, there's no universal reaction. I'm either getting cheered or booed for using some word or other.

The foot-stampers do make me laugh, though. "You can't say THAT!!!" :O

Posted by: Carlie | June 1, 2009 6:54 AM

I never said to use "gay" as an insult.

What you said was this:

Like "gay" the word [cunt] has new meaning, and is more powerful referring to someone you strongly dislike

If you weren't intending to make a direct comparison by the fact that it's used as an insult, you seriously miscommunicated, because you did exactly that.

Really this shouldn't turn into a language derail. The only point in bringing it up was to point out that despite your assurances that you're not sexist, all of the points you're making and even the language you're using to make them are all indeed quite sexist. Even when you're just trying to throw insults you resort to sexist terms. It's impossible to convince anyone that you care about women when the first thing you call someone in anger is a cunt. Again, the message you're sending is directly opposite than that you claim to. Either you're a piss-poor communicator, or fundamentally dishonest (whether self-deluded or willfully).

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 7:12 AM

Craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaap.

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 1, 2009 7:15 AM

A lot of people say that they're against abortion, but when I talk to them it turns out that they mean abortion is unpleasant and they wish people wouldn't choose it if they didn't have to. They don't want to make it illegal, which makes them pro-choice in my books.
This is me.

Who cares if you find it unpleasant? It's not your fucking body, misogynist.

Posted by: kev_s | June 1, 2009 7:28 AM

http://www.kansascity.com/934/gallery/1226775-a1226780-t3.html
Awful.
It should read, "God bent the shooter".

Posted by: MAJeff, OM | June 1, 2009 7:33 AM

MAJeff, OM: I find YOU unpleasant. But I still don't think you shouldn't exist. You are like a broken record. You only have one track...
What a dull, hateful person you are.

And what a tedious, self-centered, self-pitying little fuck you are.

Posted by: Carlie | June 1, 2009 7:40 AM

I'm not sexist, although you're entitled to ur view of me via one narrow thread.

"I'm not racist, I just like to use the word nigger".

See the problem yet?

It doesn't matter if you *think* you're sexist, the fact is that you're participating in sexism by using sexist terms even if you don't mean it "that" way. If you don't want people to think you may be sexist, you don't use sexist derogatory terms. There are other ways to insult people.

And still, that was just a tiny little accessory data point to the fact that all of your arguments are predicated on either women being too stupid or evil to understand what they're doing to the babeez, or simply dismissing their existence entirely.

Posted by: Cerberus | June 1, 2009 7:53 AM

345-

I'm for the what now? That's not my favorite thing to wake up to.

In case I have to spell it out, forced abortion is part of the same field. They are attempts to control women's sexuality and deny them the autonomy of their actions. In fact, many pro-lifers will easily switch to pro-sterilization when the topic is for instance mexican women on welfare (they should stop having so many kids, etc...). It really comes down to control.

As to the other issues. I think you have your heart in the right place, but will in the fullness of time need to grow more to understand fully what women's experiences are in this world. Does this make you a bad person or a harmful person? Not really, rather what most men struggle with as they try and unwrap the privilege they were handed at birth. I think you've started that journey and that is indeed commendable. I also think you are not quite finished, but then, it's a long journey. I wish you the best of luck and at least you are heading in the right direction.

In general though, I definitely need to second Monado. Abortion is a necessary medical procedure and should be treated as such socially including by hospitals. Moreso, I think part of what feeds this is the ghettoization of OB-GYN medicine in general. We have in our culture decided to demean and separate women's reproductive health in this country from the medical edifice its part of because of social issues our country has with independent sexual women. It is simply insane that in this country we stigmatize OB-GYNs, put forth hoops and condemnations for birth control, abortions, Plan B, while at the same time putting up a velvet rope for men's sexual health.

Proctologists aren't demeaned. There are no hoops for a colonoscopy and for god sakes, viagra an exceedingly elective only for sex medication can be gotten with medicare. But legal means for a woman to control her own sexuality, that are often necessary for reasons of health and never made lightly or without due consideration, suddenly we need to have a public freakout because sluts may end up not being punished.

It's obscene and it's more obscene that the garbage these terrorists spew have by compromise and coddling become more and more acceptable even by supporters to use to describe the event. Abortion isn't rats in your kitchen, it's a necessary medical intervention and biologically, medically, the consensus has already been made about the clump of cells that all too often is naturally aborted anyways.

As a final note, years ago they did a survey asking pro-lifers what if there was an invention of an external womb whereby women seeking abortions could transplant the fetus into one of those and let it be raised to viability. Would they support that? They answered overwhelmingly no.

Further about a year ago, the question started to be asked more and more of pro-lifers. How much time should a woman do for murder? Again, overwhelmingly most did not know how to answer and hadn't even thought about the question all as they called abortion murder.

In short, only a tiny minority of people genuinely believe in the real-life full personhood of fetal balls of cells. The medical consensus concurs and has concurred for centuries. Even the traditional biblical argument marks birth as the moment humanity begins.

And this is all before we touch the more crucial factor that no one has the right to someone's body without permission, even to survive. No matter how innocent. To give that right to a fetus is to make them more of a person than a person and to make a woman less of one.

These facts are all consistent with hatred of women. The latter especially is highlighted in that of course they think potential humans are worth more than women. Women are sluts who deserve it and fetuses don't yet have any messy physical humanity.

We should no longer lend credence to their beliefs because they are "heartfelt". They are not, they just want to terrorize women at the point of a gun and use that gun to try and roll back the massive progress towards egalitarianism that control over one's reproductive health promotes. They are a terrorist organization and it is time to stop humoring their talking points. And even more crucially, when being an ally, it is important to look at when we accept those talking points and what we are really saying and what issues we are airing.

Cause America really needs to grow the fuck up about gender just as we in the 60s needed to grow the fuck up about race.

Posted by: Carlie | June 1, 2009 8:25 AM

Partial review of how Glenn Davey has presented himself:

Very first post was this:In fact, I think they should start providing post-term abortions. In, out. Fully developed, undeveloped, partially developed - there's no use trying to find a fuzzy line that doesn't exist. It's all irrelevant. A woman's choice is a woman's choice and just because the child is out of the womb doesn't mean it's any less her choice as when it was inside. It's all unhelpful semantics.

Um, yeah. That kind of pegs the type of person you are right there.

I don't think a child should be forced to bear the burden of how it is conceived, even in the case of rape.

Equating embryo = child, check. Ignoring the woman bearing the burden of the conception, check.

But why is tearing out a foetus OK, but drowning a 6 month old in a bath-tub not. Both are choices. I'm using this kind of language on purpose, but not to raise hackles. I promise.

Absurd comparison, check. Disingenuous claim that you're not doing it to inflame, check.

Otherwise I think pregnancy is one of those situations in life that you should roll with if you find yourself in it.

Punishing sluts, check.

But should it be done, or is there a responsibility to the child once the situation arises?

Again calling an embryo a child, check.

And I get that women's bodies are oh-so sacred and they are ethical agents. I get that. Really. Everyone has their dramas in life and we all gotta deal with em to the best of each's ability

Sarcasm about bodily agency of women, check. Calling pregnancy a "drama", nice touch.

That's only in the first hundred comments. Glenn, if you think you're incredibly different than Turnus, I think you're really deluding yourself. You may be grudgingly going along with thinking that we have to allow a few abortions here and there, but your underlying viewpoints on abortions and women are very much the same.

Posted by: Carlie | June 1, 2009 8:50 AM

No, I want you to realize how you come off. You seem to think that you're a rational fabulous defender of women, but look over your comments. Really look at them and see how they will be interpreted. If you're serious that you are not like Turnus, you have really got to work on how you express yourself.

Thanks, guys.

Is that a flounce-off? Because you did the same thing only with more panache in 117, albeit with no follow-through:

I'm not letting the door hit me on the way out. Thanks for your "concern". But screw you guys, I'm not the last to leave but I'll turn off the light anyway. Ha. Take that.

Then there's the fact that you favorably compared yourself with Ev. I should have included Ev in my comments but forgot, and honestly Ev is more whacked than either you or Turnus.
Yes, listen to Ev. I'm not alone! Whoop. And he or she is far more eloquent than I.

Posted by: ChrisC | June 1, 2009 9:00 AM

Consider the following:

Two consenting adults of different gender engage in intercourse. They are "responsible" (if you will) and use contraception in order to prevent pregnancy. The contraception (or whatever) is successful, there is no fertilisation of an egg, and pregnancy is avoided.

Now consider a similar situation. Two consenting adults engage in sexual intercourse, and are not "responsible"... or contraception fails or something or other, and the woman falls pregnant. Assume further that she does NOT wish to carry the child to term, and had no intention to giving birth prior to having sex.

If the intention, prior to having sex, was not to fall pregnant, what, then, is the difference between the two situations I've described above if the woman decided to terminate the pregnancy? The obvious answer is that there is now a fertilised egg/fetus/baby Beethoven sitting in the woman's uterus that is soon to have its life ended. This is, exactly the same end result that would have occured should contraception had been used (or not failed). Daddy's sperm and mu(o)mmy's egg would have never met, junior would never have been conceived and the primary difference would be saving mummy a trip to the doctor. The "potential" life of the egg/fetus/baby is primary governed by the initial intent of the sexual act.

I would see a difference in these two situation if suffering of the egg/fetus/baby were involved. However, but it's well known that prior to the third trimester, it's unlikely that the fetus can feel any pain at all, let alone think, feel and have wishes. However, even in the most benign situation, it's likely that the woman could be suffering (physically or mentally) from the pregancy. As such, particularly before the third trimester, the argument is pretty open and shut for me. I struggle to see how other people, with a modicum or though, can come to another conclusion.

Posted by: ChrisC | June 1, 2009 9:07 AM

@362

Oppps...

*thought (instead of through). I need to learn to use the preview button.

Posted by: llewelly | June 1, 2009 9:52 AM

Carlie, etc, Glenn Davey is a troll.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 10:21 AM

llewelly: I don't like what you say. Therefore, you = troll. See, we can both play that game. It gets us no-where.

I've learned a bit from these guys. And if I'm sexist or whatever then maybe I can learn to be... not.

I'm just listening to P.Z. on Point of Enquiry podcast. He's such an incredible mind to listen to. I'm gunna have to find more of this stuff.

Posted by: SteveM | June 1, 2009 10:39 AM

Why is it NOT OK to kill a grown man, but it is OK to kill a foetus?

Why is it not OK for a grown man to medically attach himself to woman for 9 months against her will, but it is OK for a fetus?

That is, even if you accept the blastocyst as a fully adult human with all the rights and privileges thereof, it does not have a right to attach and feed off the woman's body without her consent. Your right to life does not give a right to my life. If you need my kidney to live, I have the right to choose to give it to you (regardless of how perfectly safe the procedure is). All the debate of when the fetus becomes a human or acquires rights and if it is "ok" to kill it fundamentally ignores the woman completely and her rights and her life.

As for why it is not okay for her to then have the right to choose to drown the newborn 6 months later, it can be reasonably assumed that by bringing the child to term and giving birth to it, she has chosen to accept reponsibility for it. That she has in effect entered into a de facto contract with the baby to take care of it.

Posted by: SteveM | June 1, 2009 11:07 AM

Not sure. Maybe.... because that's just what naturally happens in animals? It's a natural process? So.. it's assumed that it's the 'correct' way of things?

Disease is a natural process also. Maybe it too is the "correct way of things". Let me know how that works out for you.

Posted by: Carlie | June 1, 2009 11:23 AM

But, isn't disease destructive, whereas child-birth is, for wont of a better word, creative?

Depends on your viewpoint. From the disease vector's point of view, it's very creative.

Posted by: Glenn Davey | June 1, 2009 12:01 PM

Carlie: Hmm true again. OK...

Posted by: BobbyEarle | June 1, 2009 12:34 PM

OK, I managed to go through all 376 comments. I will never know the pain and anguish that must accompany the decision to abort, mostly because I male. And being male makes me unqualified to judge whether abortion is right, or not. It is not my decision, and it never will be. I am pro-choice, but I am more pro-women, and as such I will never presume to decide what is best for them. Ever.

As far as when personhood/humanity is attained by the yet unborn, well, I don't know. Seems more of a philosophical question to me. But I do know one thing for sure:

Dr. Tiller's personhood/humanity was taken from him, and his family, and it is not a philosophical question open for debate; it is a fact. I even know when it happened: a split second after the trigger was pulled. Not a lot of ambiguity there.

Posted by: Hypatia's Daughter | June 1, 2009 5:34 PM

Using the rhetoric of the anti-choice crowd, abortion is called "murder" because it is killing a full person, even if they were conceived only a few minutes ago.
But killing a born-person is NOT always "murder". We define different reasons and different levels of consequence to killing the "full-born" - manslaughter, criminal negligence (i.e. drunk drivers), self-defence,......
If I kill a stranger on my doorstep, I would face no criminal charges at all (especially in the Texas). I am allowed to assume the worst - he is going to break in to rape my daughter and kill my son - and defend myself accordingly.
I can accidentally kill my child, thinking they were a burglar, and face no consequences.
I can swerve my car up on a sidewalk to avoid a head-on collision with a dump-truck and take out a pregnant woman pushing a baby stroller - no charges, because I have a right to protect myself from the potential harm from the accident.
If you are gong to allow abortions to protect the life of the woman, then is is not murder but self-defence. All this rhetoric about abortion is "murder" is emotive b.s., especially coming from those who think they have a right to kill a person whom they PERCEIVE is a threat to their safety & security. Many SAY they believe in abortion to protect the life of the woman, but then call the women who get them & the drs who perform them "murderers".

Let us imagine a country where the anti-abortion crowd had their way. The wet-dream was that Bush would be able to appoint enough arch-conservatives to control the Supreme Court. Many states have anti-abortion legislation already written which they would then enact. Someone would fight the state's legislation up to the SC, where the SC justices would amend or overthrow Roe vs Wade, making the state's abortion laws legal.
All it would take, IMO (but I'm not a lawyer), would be one justice in that state to declare non-barrier birth control methods "abortificants" to make them illegal.
A minority of the nutjobs would cheer this - but many fervent anti-abortionists would be horrified. "But I didn't mean for ALL abortions to be stopped, just the bad ones I don't agree with." "I didn't mean that they should make birth control illegal."

These people suffer from cognitive dissonance - and they can't think beyond the ends' of their noses.

Posted by: Ichthyic | June 1, 2009 8:36 PM

But, isn't disease destructive

did you ask the organism causing the "disease"?

I'm sure the parasites that cause malaria wouldn't "think" themselves destructive.

In fact, just the opposite. They are creating.

Posted by: Yolanda Forst | January 2, 2010 7:01 AM

I would hint arranging cognitive content marketing, let me explain. You can get a video professionally created for about $47.00 97.00 (30-60 seconds) pointing your outstanding desk drawer slide. You can even try how delicious it is to destruct your challengers and blast it around over 100 internet video sites for as little as $5.00 per site to be done manualy!You can get keyword inquiry done for you professionally, identifying the keyword words that will get you a sufficient amount of search volum, yes with lower competing pages. Thank you for this article! I've just discovered a decisively amazing news site about advertising Adjudicate it!

Posted by: qupall | March 10, 2010 7:00 PM

Dugun Organizasyonu
Cam Balkon than