Pharyngula

Justice!

The murderer of Dr George Tiller has been convicted and now faces a life sentence. The Kansas jury didn’t take long at all — it was an open-and-shut case of pre-planned assassination and terrorism.

Thank you, Kansans.

Comments

  1. #1 Flatland Nautilus
    January 29, 2010

    You’re welcome.

  2. #2 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    Justice served.

    Too bad the people that support the murderer now think he’s sealed his ticket to 77 virgins or Valhalla or whatever it is that particular cult believes in.

  3. #3 Maslab
    January 29, 2010

    *sigh*

    And now he’s a martyr. At least justice was served.

  4. #4 Dahan
    January 29, 2010

    Thirty seven minutes… well, I guess a couple people probably needed to use the bathroom and they would need to find some paper, etc. I guess I can see why it might take that long.

    Justice is done.

  5. #5 Dianne
    January 29, 2010

    One can hope that this will at least discourage the next lunatic.

  6. #6 lose_the_woo
    January 29, 2010

    Roeder admitted shooting Tiller in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church as Sunday services began. He testified in his defense Thursday that he believed he had to kill Tiller to save the lives of unborn babies. He said he had no regrets.

    “There was nothing being done, and the legal process had been exhausted, and these babies were dying every day,” Roeder said. “I felt that if someone did not do something, he was going to continue.”

    Such shallow, facile, corrupt, unreasoned ethics. Exactly the kind of ethics one should expect from someone blindly adhering to ancient dogmas professing the legitimacy of absolute morality.

    Religion is evil because it can make people act in evil ways and be proud of it.

  7. #7 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Hallelujah. Praise FSM.

  8. #8 JerryM
    January 29, 2010

    So this was the case the Law&Order SVU episode was based on.

    now I can’t remember how that ep ended. I watch too much L&O…

  9. #9 Moggie
    January 29, 2010

    Don’t read the comments on that article, unless you want to go into the weekend depressed.

  10. #10 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Justice is served but the damage will continue to go on. How many doctors have turned away from providing abortions out of fear from this murder and previous acts of violence and murder since Roe v Wade?

  11. #11 Michelle Nicole
    January 29, 2010

    For once I am proud of my state!

  12. #12 raven
    January 29, 2010

    Cue the xian terrorist supporters in 10 9 8 7….

    Wonder what they will say? Sometime it is hard to decipher the tiny minds of xian terrorists and their supporters.

    Probably just babble on about baby killers, evil Darwinists, and how evolution doesn’t explain the Big Bang and gravity.

    Who knows, maybe they will threaten to kill more people. Again. For xian terrorists, when your main tool is a gun, every nail is a target.

  13. #13 Jerm
    January 29, 2010

    We are getting better. First we make evolution mandatory again, then we convict roeder. We are even in the works of getting rid of the death penalty (even though it is for financial reasons.)

  14. #14 catalinsf
    January 29, 2010

    What is really worrying is that his lawyers tried to acquit him because Roeder had strong feelings about his religion and he felt a duty to kill Tiller…

    At least that’s what The New York Times has reported: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30roeder.html

  15. #15 Boomer
    January 29, 2010

    Oh thank god.

  16. #16 PaleGreenPants
    January 29, 2010

    @3…Martyr? Really?

  17. #17 Alverant
    January 29, 2010

    JerryM, it was straight L&O not SVU. I remember because the nurse who switched sides claimed the doctor forced the birth of a fetus after a botched abortion attempt then killed it. Everyone believed the nurse and no one asked for proof. The guy was still convicted but it was one of their more reich wing episodes.

  18. #18 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    One can hope that this will at least discourage the next lunatic.

    Dianne, I am afraid I am more pessimistic about this. While the defense failed in their attempt to have this tried as a justified homicide, that Scott Roeder was saving lives; Roeder will serve as a martyr and inspiration for similar ideologues. Roeder succeed in his mission. He has won his little battle in his war. Doctors have been intimidated.

  19. #19 raven
    January 29, 2010

    Justice is served but the damage will continue to go on.

    True. Third trimester abortions are only done in exceptional circumstances and there aren’t many of those, less than a thousand/year if I recall correctly.

    The usual reason is a pregnancy that threatens the life of a woman. A not uncommon occurrence. Women with PAH, pulmonary arterial hypertension are at high risk of dying during pregnancy, for example.

    Some of these women can no longer get late term abortions. And they just end up dying.

    google capture:

    by CA Elliot – 2005 – Cited by 22 – Related articles – All 6 versions
    Pregnancy and PAH are undoubtedly associated with a high risk of maternal death. Current practice is to advise against pregnancy giving appropriate …

  20. #20 lose_the_woo
    January 29, 2010

    Anyone who can say that a clump of cells is equivalent to a sentient independent actualized human is not thinking clearly. An apple seed is not an apple. Being human is much much more than just having human DNA. What exactly are those precious human fetuses think and feeling? How is their circumstance more important then that of the mother?

    Idiots.

  21. #21 Michelle R
    January 29, 2010

    @#16: Oh yes. Martyr big time. He’s being praised by a lot of nutcases. Read the comments of the article.

    But let’s face it… Crazy people will always find SOME justification to be proud of their evil actions, religion or not.

  22. #22 SteveM
    January 29, 2010

    from the NYTimes article:

    Mr. Roeder?s lawyers had called for acquittal. Mark Rudy, a public defender, told jurors that Mr. Roeder had developed such strong feelings about his religious faith and against abortion that he had ultimately felt compelled to shoot Dr. Tiller, who had performed abortion for three decades and was a focal point for controversy nationally.

    Isn’t he essentially admitting that Roeder is dangerous and would most likely continue to hunt down and kill abortion providers? And because of this he should be released?

  23. #23 Thunderbird 5
    January 29, 2010

    The jury were directed that the decision was between murder or acquittal. The judge concluded that the jury could not consider a verdict of manslaughter as there was no imminent danger and what Dr Tiller was doing was legal in the state. Neither could 2nd degree murder be considered given the obvious premeditation and planning.

    I’m delighted by the verdict but what is worrying in this case is the fact that, despite his reasoning and plea that he not stand trial for murder being ultimately rejected, the murderer was allowed to present his justification – the first time an anti-abortionist killer has been allowed to do so in US legal history. Not a good development.

  24. #24 lose_the_woo
    January 29, 2010

    And because of this he should be released?

    Well, but he really really really really really really really really really really really really really really believes he’s doing the right thing though.

  25. #25 hznfrst
    January 29, 2010

    This guy went medieval on Dr Tiller, so perhaps it would be an appropriate punishment to go medieval on him…crucifixion? first door on the left, one cross each…

  26. #26 nicole.
    January 29, 2010

    I am so happy he wasn’t let off with manslaughter. : )

  27. #27 Thunderbird 5
    January 29, 2010

    Roeder actually considered just cutting off Dr Tillers hands but decided that wasn’t good enough as he could ‘still teach or direct operation.’ Bit of Sharia logic there and all.

  28. #28 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 29, 2010

    Well, but he really really really really really really really really really really really really really really believes he’s doing the right thing though.

    Too bad he didn’t plea insanity then.

    …What? That shit tends to get you locked away much longer then an actual conviction, it just does so in an asylum, not a penitentiary.

  29. #29 Maslab
    January 29, 2010

    @#16

    He’s scared doctors and bolstered the confidence of idiots like him.

    That’s what a martyr is for. According to us, we win because justice was served and one man was put in jail.

    In their eyes, they’ve won because now they have abortion doctors running scared.

    How is he not a martyr?

  30. #30 DanielR
    January 29, 2010

    Thank you, Kansans

    That’s not something you will hear very often from a biologist.

  31. #31 Walton
    January 29, 2010

    This guy went medieval on Dr Tiller, so perhaps it would be an appropriate punishment to go medieval on him…crucifixion? first door on the left, one cross each…

    Sadistic comments like this really, really scare me.

    I do not understand the logic of punitivism. I just don’t get how people think that, where A has inflicted harm or suffering on B, it is somehow intrinsically “right” or “just” for the state to inflict a commensurate amount of harm on A. Making Roeder suffer won’t bring Tiller back from the dead. I can’t understand those who want to make perceived wrongdoers suffer just for the sake of it, as if there were some angry god who needed to be appeased with a sacrifice. It’s a primitive instinct, and IMO one that should be deprecated in a modern civilised society.

    Don’t get me wrong. Roeder absolutely should go to prison; he poses a serious and continuing danger to the public (since the evidence suggests that he’s likely to carry on killing abortion doctors, if released), and it would be dangerous for society if murder could be committed with impunity. But that doesn’t mean that he “deserves” to be tortured, as hznfrst seems to be advocating above.

  32. #32 NewEnglandBob
    January 29, 2010

    I hope he gets 50 years mandatory with no parole. Let him think about it for the rest of his life until he rots away.

  33. #33 Abdul Alhazred
    January 29, 2010

    “Martyr” he may be to some folks.

    Significantly they didn’t go easy on him for fear that would radicalize moderates.

    I like that.

  34. #34 Givesgoodemail
    January 29, 2010

    Dibs on the right to dig up the asshole’s dead body, taking his shin bone, and bashing his skull in…

    What? He’s not dead yet?
    Easily remedied.

  35. #35 raven
    January 29, 2010

    Roeder might be a xian death cult martyr.

    But he isn’t much of one. A cold blooded, premeditated killer. A life long loser with serious mental problems.

    These days, fundie xians have been reduced to scraping the bottom of the barrel for heroes. Sarah Palin, Scott Roeder, and Ben Stein. Pathetic.

  36. #36 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    Justice is done. Even if this were the opposite case – an abortion doctor killing a Christian – I would have been perfectly happy with a result of this sort.

  37. #37 gadfly47
    January 29, 2010

    Good to know there are still people in Kansas that believe in justice.

  38. #38 BAllanJ
    January 29, 2010

    I hope he isn’t put into the general prison population… those other inmates are already paying for their crimes, they shouldn’t have to listen to this guy preaching at them for years.

  39. #39 Michelle R
    January 29, 2010

    @Givesgoodemail: Dude. Don’t sink to his fucking level. You’re creeping the fuck out of me.

    Are you people really that much on eye for an eye?

  40. #40 Thorne
    January 29, 2010

    I do not understand the logic of punitivism. I just don’t get how people think that, where A has inflicted harm or suffering on B, it is somehow intrinsically “right” or “just” for the state to inflict a commensurate amount of harm on A. Making Roeder suffer won’t bring Tiller back from the dead.

    I don’t believe Roeder should be tortured, but he should be executed. He is a threat to more than just abortion doctors. He threatened those who followed him into the parking lot. If he had avoided being caught, what other whacko belief would he have used to justify yet more killings? And even now, with him in prison, who can guarantee that in two, or five, or ten years, some fundie governor won’t commute his sentence to time served, because “he just followed God’s law”?

    I say execute the bastard. As soon as possible. Preferably with a gunshot to the head.

  41. #41 Larry
    January 29, 2010

    Just one more xtian nutcase terrorist who believes in an all-powerful sky fairy but yet still felt compelled to take action into his own hands and commit murder because said sky fairy was not choosing to act fast enough for his tastes.

    All the more I continue to offer up the non-believer’s prayer: Oh lord or lords, protect me from your followers.

  42. #42 glenister_m
    January 29, 2010

    Perhaps we could diffuse the entire abortion debate by having the government add something to the water that prevents conception. If you want to have kids, you could apply for the antidote (if you are in a good situation to have kids – employed, psychologically stable, have a place to live?), which you take until you conceive. Helps solve the overpopulation problem at the same time.

    Then the only abortions would be for birth defects, severe health issues, etc. and we’d have fewer psychos stalking them.

    I know, major oversimplification, etc. However I’m somewhat surprized when I present this idea as a topic for debate in science class (when discussing ways of manipulating reproduction) and the majority (if not all) of the kids think it is a great idea.

  43. #43 raven
    January 29, 2010

    givesgoodemail:

    Dibs on the right to dig up the asshole’s dead body, taking his shin bone, and bashing his skull in…

    What? He’s not dead yet?
    Easily remedied.

    C’mon people. DON’T ACT LIKE FUNDIE DEATH CULT XIANS.

    Most of us are far better than them. Act like civilized, educated, human beings. If you aren’t any of those, just pretend you are for a day.

  44. #44 bulletproofcourier
    January 29, 2010

    Hasta la vista, crazy.

  45. #45 Dianne
    January 29, 2010

    I am afraid I am more pessimistic about this. While the defense failed in their attempt to have this tried as a justified homicide, that Scott Roeder was saving lives; Roeder will serve as a martyr and inspiration for similar ideologues.

    Sigh. You’re probably right. I do have some hope that the more rational pro-lifers will look at the level of ugliness in Roeder and move away. The militia movement lost some support after the OK City bombing. Admittedly, the “pro-life” movement is more deeplly committed to violence and has a longer history of it, but I hope at least some members can be reached.

  46. #46 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    Walton, your concern about the one post may be misplaced. He (or she) did include a Python snippet to provide some levity. I don’t think the poster was serious about crucifixion.
    Hopefully he’ll get a life sentence. Since he feels no regret for his crime, he’s a permanent threat to abortion providers.

  47. #47 boygenius
    January 29, 2010

    Walton, you need to watch more Monty Python. hznfrst was making a joke. Whether it was a tasteful joke may be debatable, but I don’t think one can infer that hznfrst actually endorses torture. IMO.

  48. #48 Shaun
    January 29, 2010

    Our church in Kentucky is already arranging visits and letters to this great man.

    Tiller is a hero and has saved more lives than any of you wack job scientists work has.

  49. #49 boygenius
    January 29, 2010

    Walton should turn his sights on Givesgoodemail.

  50. #50 Larry
    January 29, 2010

    #48:

    The odds Shaun is a hit-and-run troll: 100%

  51. #51 Shaun
    January 29, 2010

    That’s Roeder is a hero (typo).

  52. #52 JessT
    January 29, 2010

    I’m glad that justice is still alive and well in this country. I think I will celebrate with a donation to the local Planned Parenthood.

  53. #53 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    I agree Larry. Especially because it was Tiller who was the victim.

    Stupid fucking troll cannot even get it’s story straight.

  54. #54 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Not a typo, Shaun. Just that you are a dishonest and stupid fuck.

  55. #55 Orakio
    January 29, 2010

    @Walton,

    If you must, consider it an evolutionary remnant of the initial construction of a cooperative society. The punishment of members that free-load or actively attack the society places a certain, long term pressure to continue to cooperate. Not nice for the individual, but for the species… It’s fair to say we’ve domesticated ourselves.

  56. #56 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun, the next time you catch an upper respiratory infection, please refrain from taking any antibiotics. Really, God forbid you should use the products of science for your own comfort, health, amusement, or to post your thoughts on the science-made interwebs.

  57. #57 Rev. El Mundo
    January 29, 2010

    I have only one question left: Why wasn’t this freakazoid sentenced to be hanged, dismembered, BBQ’d, buried in a toxic waste site, exhumed, reBBQ’d, and then have his remains shattered in a waste water treatment facility? If left to their own resources over the years, Kansans would have exacted this very sentence for a heathen.

    Oh, sorry, I forgot; he was savin’ babies.
    ~Rev. El

  58. #58 Dianne
    January 29, 2010

    If I had the ability to make anything happen to Roeder-anything at all-I’d make him understand what he did and feel the consequences of his actions: the women who will die or be maimed because they could not find someone to perform an abortion needed to save their lives or health, the infants dying in horrible pain, having never known anything else rather than simply never having been, the pain of Tiller’s family. And I’d like him to have dreams. Dreams about what it’s like to be dying in labor. Dreams of being pregnant with a dead or dying fetus and unable to do anything about it. Dreams of being shot in church.

    Yeah, I know it’s probably more evil than anything anyone else has suggested, but if justice were truly done, that’s what it would look like. IMHO.

  59. #59 Shaun
    January 29, 2010

    Janine – Dishonest because I favor thousands of babies lives over one evil doctor ?

    Janine you are a supporter of a murderer and will burn in hell, for that reason alone , not even counting all your other sins.

    My great Pastor Tom Estes’ church will , however, pray for your salvation and all the other heathens here.

  60. #60 Dianne
    January 29, 2010

    No, Shaun, you got it right the first time. Tiller was a hero who resisted the worst terrorist a determined terrorist organization could throw at him. Who refused to stop his work even after he was shot. Who saved the lives, health, and fertility of women who had no other recourse. Yes, he was a hero.

    Roeder was an stupid loser who could find no better way to win an argument than violence. The “pro-life” movement in a nutshell.

  61. #61 Sanction
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun? Church? KY?

    Seems like the (banned) T.Estes smegma is back.

  62. #62 Sanction
    January 29, 2010

    Too slow with the typing.

    Thanks for confirming, though, Shaun. Now go away.

  63. #63 Abdul Alhazred
    January 29, 2010

    Janine you are a supporter of a murderer and will burn in hell, for that reason alone , not even counting all your other sins.

    Not a Christian then?

    If I understand Christian teaching correctly, Christ died for any and all your sins — unless you are not a believer. Then any sin is enough to go to Hell — the default destination of fallen Man.

    David Berkowitz (“Son of Sam”, now a jailhouse convert) goes to Heaven. Stacy Moskowitz (who he shot while she was smooching in a parked car), goes to Hell.

    etc.

  64. #64 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun isn’t a fan of modern medicine as it is created by these nutjob scientists. Modern medicine, of course, has saved more lives than these cultists could ever do.

  65. #65 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Thank you, Shaun. You just confirmed your status as a troll. You are neither funny nor clever. You are adding nothing. Now go play with your toys, the adults are talking. Come back when you are able to come up with anything one tenth as insightful as Dianne’s comment at #58.

  66. #66 Dianne
    January 29, 2010

    Why wasn’t this freakazoid sentenced to be hanged, dismembered, BBQ’d, buried in a toxic waste site, exhumed, reBBQ’d, and then have his remains shattered in a waste water treatment facility?

    Public health issues. Can’t have human remains in the water treatment facility.

  67. #67 tsg
    January 29, 2010

    Our church in Kentucky is already arranging visits and letters to this great man.

    Do us all a favor and move in with him.

  68. #68 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    You know what Shaun, nobody here cares about burning in hell, because it’s just a fairy tale told to impressionable children for the purpose of mind control an blind obedience. Your threats have no power, and only serves to make you an object of mockery. You want to threaten us with damnation? Go tell it on the mountain brother, because your fairy tales don’t frighten us.

    I find it endlessly amusing that you worship T.ESTES. Why don’t you bow down and worship MY testes? Come to my teabagging party…

  69. #69 Shaun
    January 29, 2010

    #62 go away – typical atheist likes to live in its echo chamber – any dissent not tolerated.

    We will pray for you too

    By the way nice to see that not only is the world a better place free of the Ted Kennedy catholic fool , but he has been replaced by a true believer. God’s hand at work again.

  70. #70 Tulse
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun, are you now going to turn your sights on all the cases of miscarriages, which make up over 60% of all pregnancies? Do you not care about the 200 million unborn babies who die every year from the scourge of spontaneous abortion? The number of babies who die this way is vastly larger than those lost in pregnancy termination procedures — surely you are therefore far more concerned about this issue, right?

  71. #71 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 29, 2010

    Ecochamber and I’ll pray for you?

    I’ve got BINGO!!!!!

    God’s hand at work again.

    Just like he was in Haiti.

  72. #72 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Shaun:

    Double standard? How is Tiller a murderer and Roeder a hero?

    Sorry, dude killed a man in cold blood in a church. It was premeditated murder, the jury agreed, and hopefully the guy’s gonna be locked up for life. Dude’s a murderer.

  73. #73 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    My great Pastor Tom Estes’ church will , however, pray for your salvation and all the other heathens here.

    Shaun, please pray for me. Pray for me all day and night. I need you to pray. I want you to pray. I want you and need you to go and gather all of your friends and family and church members who share your faith and start a prayer campaign that has you praying for me as many hours out of the day that you can.

    I need you to pray so that you are busy talking to yourself instead of doing harm in the world like you people are apt to do.

  74. #74 tsg
    January 29, 2010

    Janine – Dishonest because I favor thousands of babies lives over one evil doctor ?

    Janine you are a supporter of a murderer and will burn in hell, for that reason alone , not even counting all your other sins.

    So I guess “Thou Shalt not Kill” doesn’t mean what it says?

    My great Pastor Tom Estes’ church will , however, pray for your salvation and all the other heathens here.

    Please do. If nothing else, it will keep you busy.

  75. #75 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 29, 2010

    We will pray for you too

    Fuck you too, you delusional fool. Your deity exists only between your ears, and you believe that a 2000 year old book of mythology is inerrant. A double loser. And a liar to boot. What an idjit. Reality, something you need more of.

  76. #76 Sanction
    January 29, 2010

    #62 go away – typical atheist likes to live in its echo chamber – any dissent not tolerated.

    It puts the lotion on its skin, too.

    I prefer simple petroleum jelly, actually.

  77. #77 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @tsg:

    It’s “Thou Shalt Not Kill – Unless they’re gay, a baby-killer, a democrat, an atheist, or if they talk bad about Dale Earnhart”

  78. #78 raven
    January 29, 2010

    raven #12:

    Cue the xian terrorist supporters in 10 9 8 7….

    shaun the xian terrorist supporter:

    Our church in Kentucky is already arranging visits and letters to this great man.

    Tiller is a hero and has saved more lives than any of you wack job scientists work has.

    Got that one right. They are so predictable.

    They are also predictably stupid. Before modern medicine, the average life span was 30-40 years. Half of all children died before 5 years old.

    Blame science and modern medicine for our long, healthy lives, surrounded by real miracles like cars and computers, and the high rate of infant and child survival.

    Shaun and his wacko xian terrorists are just speed bumps on the road to a better future.

    Shaun: Our church in Kentucky is already arranging visits and letters to this great man.

    Your church is evil and supports xian terrorism.

  79. #79 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun,
    Who gave you or the murderer the authority to judge?

  80. #80 Shaun
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin # 72

    One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .

  81. #81 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    I bet Shaun can’t even maintain prolonged eye contact with an actual woman. Another scared little boy turned misogynist for Jesus.

    Here’s one for ya Shaun. Cite me even ONE biblical reference that mentions abortion. I’m aware of only one verse discussing it, and you wouldn’t like what it says. But humor me…show us where it’s against biblical teachings to terminate an unwanted pregnancy for any reason. Cite one verse. C’mon!

  82. #82 boygenius
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun, I have one simple question for you:

    What would Jesus do?

  83. #83 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun and his ilks have much in common with fundie Islamists. They essentially believe in the exact same thing.

  84. #84 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun the Islamic terrorist.

  85. #85 Ewan R
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun – how exactly do you manage to circumvent the whole turning the other cheek bit, and let he who is without sin cast the first stone?

    Or do you just choose to ignore the bits where Jesus might have been stoned?

  86. #86 Tulse
    January 29, 2010

    Do all aborted babies go straight to heaven? I was just wondering, since if so it seems odd that Shaun would hate a doctor for sending babies to heaven, before they have a chance to sin and damn their souls forever. See, Tiller is a hero — he saved baby souls from hell!

  87. #87 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun, your god loves abortions. He commits the most of anybody in the world. So if you oppose abortion, you oppose god’s will. What an unintelligent loser.

  88. #88 David Marjanovi?
    January 29, 2010

    I hope he gets 50 years mandatory with no parole. Let him think about it for the rest of his life until he rots away.

    He can’t think about it. He’s insane.

    And even now, with him in prison, who can guarantee that in two, or five, or ten years, some fundie governor won’t commute his sentence to time served, because “he just followed God’s law”?

    I say execute the bastard. As soon as possible.

    <sigh>

    See comment 58.

  89. #89 hoognu
    January 29, 2010

    By the way nice to see that not only is the world a better place free of the Ted Kennedy catholic fool , but he has been replaced by a true believer. God’s hand at work again.

    Gee, Shaun, god sure did take his sweet time to get around to that.

  90. #90 aratina cage of the OM
    January 29, 2010

    T.Estes is back to trolling Pharyngula again? Wha’ happened, Shaun T.Estes? Did everyone leave your churchy when they found out how much of a depraved bigot you were?

    Tiller is a hero and has saved more lives than any of you wack job scientists work has.

    Biggest laugh of the day. T.Estes/Shaun ironically praises the doctor who really did save lives but was murdered for it.

  91. #91 sqlrob
    January 29, 2010

    One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .

    So I can kill all the pro-lifers I want then since this is a war? Bonus.

  92. #92 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    I do not believe Shaun’s story. He is just here to stir shit up.

    Thank you for lowering the standards.

    Killfile.

  93. #93 raven
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun xian terrorist wannabe:

    Kevin # 72

    One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .

    OH!!! Sounds like shaun wants to be the next convicted xian terrorist killer.

    I”m sure he has the hate and twisted mentality to be a cold blooded terrorist killer. He just said so. I doubt he has the courage or ability to get it together to actually murder anyone.

    But, who knows? Maybe shaun will end up in the cell next to his hero, Scott Roeder, convicted killer.

  94. #94 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    @ 83: Ya got that right. American Xians are so shrill bitching about “madrassahs”, but they’re tirelessly working at hijacking public education without even a trace of irony.

  95. #95 Walton
    January 29, 2010

    Oh, come on. “Tom Estes” and his “church” have got to be an elaborate Poe. No one is really called “T. Estes”. It’s not like “Estes” is a really common surname (indeed, I’ve never known or heard of anyone of that name), so it’s unlikely to be an accidental unfortunate name (as, say, “Richard Head” or “Michael Hunt” can be). And Shaun is such a transparent caricature that I’m surprised anyone is taking him seriously.

    I’m not actually really convinced that Poe’s Law is true. I don’t have much of a natural sense of humour (as illustrated by my misunderstanding hznfrst’s joke on this very thread – sorry for that, btw), and yet even I can spot most Poes.

  96. #96 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 29, 2010

    Why does Shaun worry about innocent babies? In the bible there is no such thing! It says all men are born sinners, and it further says all sin is punished with death unless you confess to Christ. Since a fetus cannot confess to Christ, by christian logic, it deserves to die anyway.

  97. #97 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Shaun 80:

    I’m semi-pro-life, I think abortion as birth control is bad. Adoption should be the prefered method – though I say this without knowing the cost or red tape involved. Abortion in the case of danger to the mother, or rape or incest is perfectly fine.

    Roeder killed Tiller in cold blood. He is a murderer. The only thing Tiller was ‘guilty’ of was providing abortions to women who felt it was their choice (which it is by law) to do what they want with their bodies.

    Roeder is guilt of first-degree murder of another human being, premeditated, cold-blood, public murder. He is a murderer, and deserves the worst the law will give him.

  98. #98 Ben in Texas
    January 29, 2010

    What sort of “christian” comes to a thread like this and taunts people? Shaun, if I understand your deluded mythology correctly, you’re doing it wrong. Not surprising, though. And this bit about “god’s hand” playing a role in elections? If your god can do that, why didn’t he strike Tiller dead himself? Don’t you ever start to think it’s all just a bunch of BS your parents likely forcefed you as a kid? I was lucky enough that I never bought into the fairy tales, so I can only imagine how fucked up the inside of your head is.

  99. #99 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    Well, back when you could get to his blog it seemed fairly real. I know it feels poe-ish and maybe it is, but what hell.

    he does have a twitter page.

    And he is definitely a Twit poe or not.

  100. #100 Dianne
    January 29, 2010

    Adoption should be the prefered method – though I say this without knowing the cost or red tape involved.

    Adoption has serious, serious bad side effects on the relinquishing mother. Like lifelong depression and unending grief. Over and above thr non-trivial risks of pregnancy. If a woman who is pregnant understands these risks and is willing to take them then good for her. But it is by no means the best option for every or even most women and sugar coating the problems by saying that it’s just “red tape” involved isn’t doing anyone a service.

  101. #101 Maslab
    January 29, 2010

    “#62 go away – typical atheist likes to live in its echo chamber – any dissent not tolerated.”

    I lol’d. That’s hilarious coming from you.

    “We will pray for you too”

    Again, lol.

    The hypocrisy here is overwhelming.

  102. #102 aratina cage of the OM
    January 29, 2010

    Walton, Tom Estes is real. He stalked our tentacled overlord back during the CreoZerg if you will recall and then later was caught sockpuppeting between his real name and the name of “Shaun” who we have the displeasure of hearing from today.

  103. #103 tsg
    January 29, 2010

    One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .

    Aren’t you supposed to be praying?

  104. #104 David Marjanovi?
    January 29, 2010

    Hey, Shaun, have you ever thought about what makes women consider an abortion?

    Hint: it’s not bloodlust or something.

    It’s not like “Estes” is a really common surname (indeed, I’ve never known or heard of anyone of that name)

    Search for Richard Estes on Google Scholar.

  105. #105 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 29, 2010

    Janine you are a supporter of a murderer and will burn in hell, for that reason alone , not even counting all your other sins.

    Let me get this straight: If you support murder, you go to hell, yes?

    Our church in Kentucky is already arranging visits and letters to this great man.

    So you and your church are going to hell? Thou Shalt Not Kill. Not “Thou Shalt Not Kill (unless he’s an abortionist)”.

    You guys are weird. I’ll go back to playing games now; Fiction is the only place where Satan and Gods exist.

  106. #106 Maslab
    January 29, 2010

    “Adoption has serious, serious bad side effects on the relinquishing mother.”

    And the child. My sisters went through, literally, seven mothers before we adopted them at eight.

    Both are psychologically scarred for life.

  107. #107 raven
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun, I have one simple question for you:

    What would Jesus do?

    Wrong question. In shaun’s twisted, perverted version of xianity, the question is:

    Who would Jesus rape, torture, mutilate, and kill?

    It’s not a rhetorical question either. The fundies have a long list of groups that they would eliminate if they could. Most of the US and world population just to get started.

    PS Shaun isn’t a poe. He has been here many times before. He is what he seems, a twisted, hate filled, and not very sane fundie xian. A potential next xian terrorist killer. There is always a next Paul Hill or Scott Roeder in some wacko church, skid row, or mental hospital.

  108. #108 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Aren’t you supposed to be praying?

    For some funny reason, like a lack of a listening deity, if that deity even exists, their prayers aren’t working. The religious are deluded by thinking that prayer is anything more than mental masturbation.

  109. #109 dinkum
    January 29, 2010

    Apologies for interrupting the game-in-progress, but what about Operation Rescue? Since Roeder got good ole Murder One, and they fucken helped him track Tiller, aren’t they culpable for…I dunno, but fucken something?

    I can try to track down the links if anybody gives a shit…

  110. #110 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Dianne 100:

    Like I said, I don’t know the costs or red tape or even side effects. I think my preference comes from knowing that there are couples who are unable to have children. I just see abortion and think if one of these women who went through an abortion instead gave the baby up to adoption, those couples could have a family.

    I also didn’t mean to imply that physical / emotional side effects of adoption are red tape. I meant actual red tape – the legal and financial stuff related to adoption. I’m sure there is some legal documentation and services and things that need to be paid for by the pregnant woman and the receiving family.

    I’m ignorant (not the bad ignorant) of what the ramifications of adoption are. I’m also not about to go out and say abortion is wrong, not my place to tell anyone what they can or can’t do.

  111. #111 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 29, 2010

    Apologies for interrupting the game-in-progress, but what about Operation Rescue? Since Roeder got good ole Murder One, and they fucken helped him track Tiller, aren’t they culpable for…I dunno, but fucken something?

    Only if you can prove with video/audiotape that they knew what Roeder was going to kill. Then it falls under most existing accomplice law.

  112. #112 Peapoh
    January 29, 2010

    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&ref=search&gid=275201739916

    This is old but nevertheless, creepy.

    One member is too many.

  113. #113 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 29, 2010

    The religious are deluded by thinking that prayer is anything more than mental masturbation.

    How’s it like masturbation? Prayer is meant for a person to feel satisfied by getting worked up and excited until it release in a warm gooey mental feeling of relaxation.(sarcasm)
    :-D

  114. #114 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    @ Kevin: The “abortion as birth control” thing is a red herring that the women-hating religious liars trot out all the time. I’m not going to say that it has never happened, but I will say that it is very, very rare. And third trimester terminations are absolutely never for the purposes of birth control, despite the liars endlessly insisting it is so. You sound like a thinking person whose mind isn’t set in concrete, so I would just urge you to dig deeper into the issues about how this the anti-choice movement is more about controlling and dominating women’s lives than it is about “saving babies”. I recommend the Pandagon blog for a deeper reading of real feminist issues and reproductive rights.

  115. #115 Holytape
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun,

    But my God told me that Tiller was to aborte the future Hitler this year. So it’s really is killing one to save a thousand to kill a million. But my God also told me that the future Hitler now kills the future Mao, so it’s actually killing one to save a thousand to kill a million to save ten million. But then again God told me that now that the future Mao was supposed to kill the future Stalin. However, now that the future Mao was killed by the future Hitler who was supposed to have been aborted, hundreds of millions will die. So it is actually killing one to save a thousand to kill a million to save ten million to kill a billion. I forgot, is that a just war?

  116. #116 sqlrob
    January 29, 2010

    Like I said, I don’t know the costs or red tape or even side effects. I think my preference comes from knowing that there are couples who are unable to have children.

    The foster system is already overburdened, and people aren’t adopting who’s there. Why add to it?

  117. #117 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    those couples could have a family.

    Dude. There are lots of kids sitting in foster care waiting to be adopted.

  118. #118 SaraJ
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin, I’d also point out that you’d have to PROVE (most likely in a court of law) rape and incest in order to have an abortion if such restrictions were in place. And by then it may be too late. It is why open and easy access to abortion should be available to ALL women. We can’t know what really went on behind the scenes and caused the pregnancy, and we don’t have the time (in the sense that the fetus will be growing the whole time the court is looking into the matter) to explore it in a court of law. Not to mention the fact that we have no right to pry into the private life of the woman seeking the abortion.

  119. #119 Richard Smith
    January 29, 2010

    Personally, I’d like nothing more than to put Estes on a post, set it alight, and watch Estes ascend into heaven.

    Sadly, with all my other passtimes, I haven’t been able to get into model rocketry in quite some time…

  120. #120 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Mike in Ontario 114:

    Yeah, being raised Christian, and calling myself a Christian up until September, I still have a few of those old religious thoughts in my mind. I do understand third trimester is for the safety of the mother – recent discussions over the Tim Tebow commercial have been talking a lot about it.

    I’m learning still. In the last year or so, I’ve gone from being ‘God is great’ to ‘I don’t believe in god,’ with all the ramifications therein. I’ve always been of the mind that we should treat people like people, so seeing a church hell-bent on making sure gay people can’t get married caused me to seriously question them.

    I still have it hard wrapping my mind around the abortion issue. Potential life is a hard thing in my mind, I understand the arguments, but every time I try to tell myself ‘it’s a woman’s body’ my Christian upbringing always retorts ‘think about the children!’

  121. #121 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 29, 2010

    To add to SaraJ’s comment, some women may be ashamed that they were raped and won’t come out about it. They have a right to privacy, and they shouldn’t be made to feel humiliated any more than they already feel. So the option to a private safe abortion should be available to any women, even if we don’t know the circumstances of the conception.

  122. #122 Ichthyic
    January 29, 2010

    One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .

    but wait, a doctor isn’t murdering anybody or anything…

    he does not take away a fetus by HIS choice, instead it was the mother’s choice. He is simply a means to that end.

    so, Shaun…

    shouldn’t your target have been all the mothers who chose not to carry to term?

    Shouldn’t Roeder have murdered all the mothers that have ever even considered abortion, to protect the as yet unconceived babies that potentially might be aborted?

  123. #123 Endor
    January 29, 2010

    “One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .”

    The perfect distillation of religious misogyny. Tiller performed the late term abortions on women for whom pregnancy was potentially lethal. But, the religious misogynist doesn’t even MENTION the women whose lives were saved. Lives were saved, by Dr. Tiller, but not the IMPORTANT ones. Females are just incubators, expendable and replacable.

    You’re a psychotic sicko, Shaun.

  124. #124 MAJeff, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Don’t be so hard on Shaun, folks. He can’t help it his mom couldn’t finish the job and the hanger only gave him brain damage.

  125. #125 jessimuhka
    January 29, 2010

    I’m semi-pro-life, I think abortion as birth control is bad. Adoption should be the prefered method – though I say this without knowing the cost or red tape involved. Abortion in the case of danger to the mother, or rape or incest is perfectly fine.

    See, what you’re saying here is really “I don’t trust women to make difficult decisions about their own bodies.”

  126. #126 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    To add to SaraJ’s comment, some women may be ashamed that they were raped and won’t come out about it. They have a right to privacy, and they shouldn’t be made to feel humiliated any more than they already feel. So the option to a private safe abortion should be available to any women, even if we don’t know the circumstances of the conception.

    While I agree, even making this argument makes me a bit upset.

    We shouldn’t give a shit about what the reason is. There should be private access period regardless of how she got pregnant.

  127. #127 MAJeff, OM
    January 29, 2010

    I just see abortion and think if one of these women who went through an abortion instead gave the baby up to adoption, those couples could have a family.

    So, in other words, you want women to put their health and lives at risk in order that someone else can raise a baby?

    Oh, yeah. I keep forgetting. For anti-choicers, bitches ain’t shit.

  128. #128 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @sqlrob, Rev. BDC:

    Ah, well, ignorance still holds in my mind for that information (thank you, RBDC for that graph, does help seeing a visual representation.) I think I have some silly idea in mind of a woman giving birth and the baby being passed off to a waiting family, rather than the reality of being passed into foster care – which I have heard bad and good about.

    (Oh, and Rev: You mentioned some delicious enchiladas in a recent post, but never supplied the recipe.)

    @SaraJ:

    Noted and understood. I could see how that could be a serious concern. Like I mentioned in post 120 (forbidding any alteration of numbers,) my until-recent Christianity kind of puts a bad spin on abortion, and I’ve still found it hard to get myself past the completely incorrect image of a selfish woman getting pregnant and having an abortion rather than using birth control.

  129. #129 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    Before anything else, good for you Kansas! A little bit of my faith in humanity (Which has been waning a lot of late.) has been restored today. It is pleasing to see that some sense of real justice still exists in a place so notoriously backwards and religious as Kansas. Even when the execution of that justice might seem to go against the prevailing values. Way to step out of the box and do something with some true moral value.

    Now. Let’s get to the meat of the issue here this morning, (Also something I planned to comment on in the Ted Haggard thread, but this seems more appropriate.)the moral status of abortion. The position of ‘its killing babies’ seems to me to be a little bit on the simplistic side. There are very few moral absolutes in this world, and this is no exception. To begin with, how are we defining ‘baby’ or ‘human’? Is a little hollow ball of cells considered human? Despite the fact that it has no nervous system? No brain, or spinal cord or even any nerves at all. If THAT counts as a baby, then how far back do we regress? Ovum? Sperm?

    If you’ve ever masturbated, Shaun, then by your own logic you have committed a veritible genocide of potential babies. Millions of them, for even one little wank. But, of course, a good little christian boy such as yourself would never jerk off. That would be wrong.

    But CLEARLY there is no cognitive dissonance involved in the murder of a grown, thinking, feeling, doctor, versus the abortion of fetuses who may very well not have come to term even if the abortions had not occurred. Morality is not binary, jackass. There is, at least to me, a sliding scale of wrong and right. A fuzzy logic. Circumstance and even, to some degree, intent play a large role in my determination of whether an action can be considered moral or immoral. But when you have the ultimate in moral certitude handed down to you on a golden platter from heaven, then you don’t really have to think about it do you?

    It is ignorant CumBubbles like you Shaun, that make that aforementioned faith in humanity wane. But once again, preaching to the choir. Thanks Pharyngulites, for letting me flail and froth. ;)

  130. #130 Tulse
    January 29, 2010

    every time I try to tell myself ‘it’s a woman’s body’ my Christian upbringing always retorts ‘think about the children!’

    Kevin, there are far more spontaneous abortions than there are abortion procedures — if one really thought that embryos were “children”, one should horrified that 200 million such children die each year from miscarriage, and be working tirelessly to prevent such a horror. Ask your Christian upbringing if it sees spontaneous abortion as a far worse tragedy than medically induced abortion, and if not, ask it why not.

  131. #131 Ichthyic
    January 29, 2010

    It’s not like “Estes” is a really common surname (indeed, I’ve never known or heard of anyone of that name)

    there goes Walton again, assuming that his young age and lack of experience means he knows all there is to know about a subject.

    You’ll be interesting once you age about 10 years, and hopefully drop that projection habit you have.

  132. #132 Alverant
    January 29, 2010

    “One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .”
    Except abortion isn’t murder. If it was, Shaun would be worshiping a mass murderer since his god is responsible for billions of spontaneous abortions and miscarriages. So what is it Shaun, is abortion murder or is your god good? Can’t have it both ways.

  133. #133 Gyeong Hwa Pak, the Pikachu of Anthropology
    January 29, 2010

    We shouldn’t give a shit about what the reason is. There should be private access period regardless of how she got pregnant

    Isn’t that what I said?

  134. #134 MAJeff, OM
    January 29, 2010

    You’ll be interesting once you age about 10 years

    evidence required for any kind of support for this hypothesis.

  135. #135 raven
    January 29, 2010

    “One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .”

    The perfect distillation of religious misogyny. Tiller performed the late term abortions on women for whom pregnancy was potentially lethal.

    Yes. Third trimester abortions which Tiller did, are heavily regulated and there aren’t many, maybe a thousand/year in the USA.

    One common reason is if a pregrancy is threatening the life of a mother, not common but not unknown either.

    Another is if the fetus is severely malformed, sometimes dying, or likely to be born dead or die shortly afterwards.

    Shaun is just Making Stuff Up. One of his least malevolent characteristics.

  136. #136 Jadehawk, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin, think of it this way: imagine you had a family and one of your children got a hideous disease they were going to die from unless they got a bone-marrow transplant, and the only donor was your wife.

    Your wife is scared and doesn’t want to do the bone marrow transplant.

    Such a situation brings up a million ethical, moral, and personal dilemmas. But from a legal point-of-view, you CANNOT force your wife to donate the marrow. It’s her decision, and she has the legal right to it even if it results in the death of your child.

    Abortion is the same. Whatever you may feel about it on a personal level, you mustn’t ever consider forcing a woman to go through with a pregnancy.

    That’s what bodily autonomy means.

  137. #137 Strangest brew
    January 29, 2010

    #45
    “Admittedly, the “pro-life” movement is more deeplly committed to violence and has a longer history of it, but I hope at least some members can be reached.”

    Nope methinks no chance, these fools for jeebus are all mentally unstable and incapable of rational thought.
    Basically they are xian say no more!

    #80

    “One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war”

    So this is how they they do the hokey cokey rapture waltz.

    A just war, and they have the sheer stupidity to claim they are a religion of love.

    Just more xian hatreds, violence, bigotry, intolerance and cowardice poking out from under their stench ridden tatty petticoat of dogmatic cultism.

    How they can look in a mirror in the morning beggars belief, they even smile at themselves.
    Monsters, fucking evil monsters that are an abomination to humanity.
    No wonder the religion is failing, it is full of ignorant pompous losers like the murdering sicko Roeder and his sycophantic cronies in the local church and Shaun riding shotgun.

    Hopefully they might start on each other one day properly when they get bored with being pricks against the atheist horde or others that piss them off, when all else fails they can always play holier then thou with fellow believers!
    Then watch the body count!
    Well apparently Tiller was an xian, made little difference though!.
    Beggars the question where was god in this debacle…prevalent by his absence certainly.
    Fucking lazy, gutless, craven, lilly livered, piece of crappy fantasy drool!

    Saving lives to be slaughtered by an xian crusade, well they do need someone to be the smiteeed, they are just thinking ahead, tis what jeebus would do!, (although that did not work out quite as well as might have been hoped, given his supposed advantage)

  138. #138 Capital Dan
    January 29, 2010

    You know, I wonder if there was a copy of the Ten Commandments hanging in that Kansas courthouse anywhere.

  139. #139 SaraJ
    January 29, 2010

    Rev. BigDumbChimp @126

    I agree completely with you. The only reason I brought it up was that we have no idea what it is like for a woman making that decision and because of that all women should have safe and private (and I would argue either free or significantly reduced in cost) access. I also think that is what Gyeong was trying to say.

  140. #140 alysonmiers
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun, I’m afraid it’s too late to save all those fetuses’ lives (most of whom would never be viable outside the womb, but anyway!) that Dr. Tiller would have terminated if Roeder hadn’t shot him at church. You see, another doctor has already replaced Dr. Tiller’s practice. He’s under constant harassment from the same assholes who terrorized, attacked and ultimately murdered Dr. Tiller, but last I heard he was still alive and still providing abortions to those women who request them.

  141. #141 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    @ Kevin:
    I’m even okay with women using abortion for birth control, for the simple reason that sometimes the birth control they were using failed, even when used properly. Too often we get suckered into thinking that all abortions are sought by single women, but many married women don’t want a(nother) child for their own reasons.

    Christian writer Randall Balmer, in his essay “Jesus is not a Republican”, stated that he’s not interested in making abortion illegal, but rather making it unthinkable. He suggests that to make a world where every baby is welcome, we need to address poverty, hunger, homelessness, a broken health care system, and so forth.

    You mention that sometimes you can’t help the scripting in your head from saying “think of the children”. It’s interesting that so little thought goes into thinking about those children once they’re born! I don’t mean so little of *your* thought, just overall Xiandom. They only seem to care about a fetus until it’s on this side of the vagina, then they’re all “personal responsibility” and “bootstraps”. They want every child to be born, but they don’t give a crap about them once they’re actual people.

  142. #142 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @jessi, MAJeff:

    Hey now, don’t put words in my mouth. I never said anything about prohibiting women from having abortions. Only what I said – read the very end of my post at 110.

  143. #143 ilgreven
    January 29, 2010

    This is a clear-cut call-out to Republicans: If Kansas can handle a domestic terrorist, then New York can handle foreign terrorists. Stop worrying about Gitmo and let ‘em handle it.

  144. #144 Sven DiMilo
    January 29, 2010

    Diploidy is sacred.
    Mostly to people who don’t know what it means.

  145. #145 realinterrobang
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin, I’m an adoptee, and abortion wasn’t legal when and where I was born. My biological mother was 16 when I was born, and my biological father was in his 30s. I am the product of a statutory rape. I am in my 30s now, and these facts bother me — a lot.

    I expect part of the reason you’re having these difficulties with abortion, frankly, is that you will never, ever be in a position to have a pregnancy scare. A sane person’s viewpoint solidifies pretty quickly into the absolute hardass pro-choice stance after their first pregnancy scare.

    My adoptive parents are wonderful people, but there is no reason, none, why anyone should have to risk their lives to have a baby, just so that someone else can get to raise it. After all, either we all own our own bodies, or none of us do, because owning one’s own body is a privilege and can be taken away at any time.

  146. #146 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    (Oh, and Rev: You mentioned some delicious enchiladas in a recent post, but never supplied the recipe.)

    Oh! If my feeble mind remembers when I get home I’ll post it in the never ending thread.

    I agree completely with you. The only reason I brought it up was that we have no idea what it is like for a woman making that decision and because of that all women should have safe and private (and I would argue either free or significantly reduced in cost) access. I also think that is what Gyeong was trying to say.

    Yeah I know and I’m sorry if that came off like a direct complaint at either of you. That wasn’t the intent.

  147. #147 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Tulse 130:

    Well, my current mind is completely understanding about it. I’m well aware of spontaneous abortions. I’m an atheist now, and have been for several months. I was a Christian for just about 13-14 years, so my mental state is a bit conservative.

    I’m seriously trying as hard as I can to see every side of the issues that I was so adamantly Christian about in the past, and the more I look at it all, the more I realize that point of view is bigoted, misogynistic, and full of logic-fail and irrationality.

    While my Christian upbringing says ‘it’s a baby’ my rational mind says ‘it’s not, so stop worrying about it.’

    @Jadehawk 136:

    And I agree fully. I would never advocate forcing a woman to go through a pregnancy if they didn’t want it. I agree with pro-choicers that it’s a woman’s right to choose, I just still feel that bit of Christian irrationality that tells me that it’s a poor little baby that’s being killed.

    @Mike 141:

    Well, not being a Christian myself, I can’t really speak for Christians, but having been only recently deconverted, I can clearly see that problem existing.

    @all:

    Like I said a few times already, in my Christian family, I’ve been told by pastors about selfish women performing hideous abortions on adorable little babies for years and years. It kind of gets pounded home and becomes a part of your mindset when that happens – mini-brainwashing.

    It’s taken me 14 years to accept the truth of evolution, so maybe it’ll take a few more months to realize the reasons for the pro-choice movement aren’t as evil as my pastors have been telling.

  148. #148 frankosaurus
    January 29, 2010

    what would you expect? This is clearly against the law, so there is no moral victory here for atheism. In other words I saw some cops nab a shoplifter today. JUSTICE!

  149. #149 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 29, 2010

    what would you expect? This is clearly against the law, so there is no moral victory here for atheism. In other words I saw some cops nab a shoplifter today. JUSTICE!

    Meds. Take them.

  150. #150 Ichthyic
    January 29, 2010

    In other words I saw some cops nab a shoplifter today. JUSTICE!

    you missed the point.

    what would you be saying if the cops had simply let the shoplifter go, saying that he probably meant no harm?

    what would you be saying if they let Roeder off with “justifiable homicide”.

    that they didn’t is a good thing, and reason indeed to celebrate given the mass lunacy the right has inflicted on much of the justice system.

  151. #151 Naked Bunny with a Whip
    January 29, 2010

    not only is the world a better place free of the Ted Kennedy catholic fool , but he has been replaced by a true believer.

    Scott Brown is the hero of all Republican closet cases, Shaun: rich, white, and naked. Enjoy your fapping.

  152. #152 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    … I’m not 14, I’m 26. So it’s taken me 26(!) years to accept the truth of evolution… oy.

    @realinterrobang 145:

    Pretty much. I don’t have any authority to say what a woman can or can’t do with her body. I’ve never and will never be in that kind of situation. I can’t even begin to imagine the fear and worry that has to go into it.

  153. #153 Ibis3
    January 29, 2010

    A couple of other things, Kevin (not to gang up on you, but hopefully you’re open to changing your mind based on the evidence):

    *There is no scientific reason to equate a foetus with a human being (at least not until quite late in a pregnancy when it becomes a greyish issue).

    *A woman should not be forced to bear a child to provide someone else with a child to raise. The planet is overpopulated as it is, and there are plenty of abandoned or ill-cared for children out there who could use a good parent.

    *As things stand, it is almost invariably the woman who is left to be the primary caregiver. The sperm donor can much more easily walk away without providing care or monetary support. This leaves women with the burden of the resulting poverty.

    *All abortion is birth control. That’s the point. Who are you (or doctors, or legislators) to judge when a woman is doing it for the “right” reasons? This is just patriarchal control of women (or religious “morality”) under a different guise.

    *Until there is a viable, breathing child outside of the womb, it makes no difference to society if the foetus is never conceived, not implanted, naturally miscarried, or aborted through a medical procedure. The only actual living breathing person truly involved is the woman. Therefore it’s no one else’s business but hers.

  154. #154 amphiox
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun, your math is wrong.

    It’s not one vs a few thousand.

    Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions, and the most common indication for late-term abortions are complicated pregnancies where the mother’s life is imperiled. (By the way, in many of these, the fetus is doomed no matter what is done or not done.)

    Many pregnant women are now going to die because Dr. Tiller will no longer be available to save their lives (This was the majority of Dr. Tiller’s work, by the way – saving women’s lives). Their fetuses, of course, will die with them.

    All these women, every single one that Dr. Tiller might have saved for the remainder of his career if he had lived, and every single one who might have been saved by a student that Dr. Tiller might have taught in the future, if he had lived, but who will now not be taught at all (some might get training from another source, but not all), have now been murdered by Roeder.

    So what is your metric Shaun? How many women for how many fetuses? One for one? Five for one? One for a hundred?

    How many, Shaun? How many?

  155. #155 frankosaurus
    January 29, 2010

    how has religious belief ever turned killing a doctor into justifiable homicide? The only doubt in the outcome is whether they caught the right guy. Motive, as we know, is not an element of the offence.

    In other news, I saw a dog being scolded for barking at the mailman. JUSTICE!

  156. #156 Brownian, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Oh, come on. “Tom Estes” and his “church” have got to be an elaborate Poe. No one is really called “T. Estes”. It’s not like “Estes” is a really common surname (indeed, I’ve never known or heard of anyone of that name), so it’s unlikely to be an accidental unfortunate name (as, say, “Richard Head” or “Michael Hunt” can be).

    Sorry Walton, but Estes is both a common name–it’s even English–and a model one. I see why you’d think T. Estes is a made up one, though.

    Ask your Christian upbringing if it sees spontaneous abortion as a far worse tragedy than medically induced abortion, and if not, ask it why not.

    More simply, ask God why He puts hundreds of thousands of women and children at risk through bad reproductive design. Imagine: if pregnancy didn’t put women’s lives at risk, those tax-and-spend femicommie liberals wouldn’t have a single reasonable argument behind which to hide their true desire of thumbing their noses at God.

    I don’t think competency is too much to ask from an omnipotent deity, do you?

  157. #157 Ichthyic
    January 29, 2010

    how has religious belief ever turned killing a doctor into justifiable homicide?

    you must not be very familiar with many trial cases.

    suggest you try looking up the history of trying to convict lynching cases in the South.

    or, go on ahead and wave your ignorance like a flag.

    It’s ok, we’ll just mock you for it.

  158. #158 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    #155

    Ok you have a point. And you’ve made it. I suppose we’re being a little melodramatic with the whole justice thing. It was, after all, clearly an illegal act. I think many of us are just used to expecting the very worst possible case from yahoos.

  159. #159 Ichthyic
    January 29, 2010

    Ok you have a point.

    no, he doesn’t, unless you both want to claim complete ignorance of the application of law.

  160. #160 Jadehawk, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin, I made the previous post precisely because I too ocassionally have moments of being squicked-out and having mixed feelings about this. But the argument I posted reminds me that my personal feelings don’t have anything to do with the law (it also helps that in my case these feelings are entirely hypocritical, since I’d be running to the nearest abortion clinic at the first signs of pregnancy, without any doubts or moral agonizing).

    Basically, it’s a way to get over one’s own stupid feelings about an issue: thinking about it rationally, and sticking with the rational decision. It’s an excellent shield against Appeals to Emotions used as arguments in such conversations.

  161. #161 Randomfactor
    January 29, 2010

    If I believed in such things as saints, I would nominate Dr. George Tiller.

    Rest in peace, sir.

  162. #162 Jadehawk, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Motive, as we know, is not an element of the offence.

    you’re not a lawyer, are you.

  163. #163 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Ibis3 153:

    I certainly am open to changing my mind, that’s why I’m an atheist now.

    *There is no scientific reason to equate a foetus with a human being (at least not until quite late in a pregnancy when it becomes a greyish issue).

    This point here is probably the one that I continue to struggle with. Being raised Christian, and being told constantly that a life begins at conception, I will always struggle with it. The scientific definition still seems almost heartless to me, but I understand it, and struggle to try to reconcile it.

    *A woman should not be forced to bear a child to provide someone else with a child to raise. The planet is overpopulated as it is, and there are plenty of abandoned or ill-cared for children out there who could use a good parent.

    This I actually was ignorant about. I have never been truly aware of the numbers of abandoned children, to the level where I’m actually quite surprised that so many people do use this argument (and one I will cease to use, myself due to learning about it.)

    *As things stand, it is almost invariably the woman who is left to be the primary caregiver. The sperm donor can much more easily walk away without providing care or monetary support. This leaves women with the burden of the resulting poverty.

    Sadly understood. I know a woman who is a single mother (and her daughter is frickin’ adorable) and I see the hardships she’s been put through. It makes me boil in anger at how heartless some men can be.

    *All abortion is birth control. That’s the point. Who are you (or doctors, or legislators) to judge when a woman is doing it for the “right” reasons? This is just patriarchal control of women (or religious “morality”) under a different guise.

    Agreed, again as I’ve put, I am in no position to tell a woman what she can and can’t do with her body.

    *Until there is a viable, breathing child outside of the womb, it makes no difference to society if the foetus is never conceived, not implanted, naturally miscarried, or aborted through a medical procedure. The only actual living breathing person truly involved is the woman. Therefore it’s no one else’s business but hers.

    One more hard thought that I’m pushing through into this thick head of mine is that an aborted child is no different from a miscarried one, except the woman has a choice in the matter, which is the big issue in the end.

  164. #164 zpmorgan
    January 29, 2010

    I disagree… Justice is not this, and locking this man up doesn’t target the root cause.

    After all, what is the only reason to hate on abortion doctors? Do you think this won’t happen again?

  165. #165 Brownian, OM
    January 29, 2010

    So what is your metric Shaun? How many women for how many fetuses? One for one? Five for one? One for a hundred?

    How many, Shaun? How many?

    That’s just rude amphiox, asking a fundamentalist Christian to do math. You know the word “thousands” is just a catch-all term for “many more than two” to them. Why, you couldn’t have embarrassed the poor savage any worse if you’d put a bible in his hand and asked him to “read” his favourite passage. They may be a preliterate and prenumerate culture, but that doesn’t make them any less deserving of our respect.

    I think you should apologise. Remember to use soothing tones and avoid making gestures that could be construed as menacing. Toss him a treat as well so he knows you’re sincere.

  166. #166 Capital Dan
    January 29, 2010

    The problem comes with these screeching lunatics who demand that America is a “Christian nation,” and begin to think that the Bible supersedes the nation’s laws.

  167. #167 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    #159

    Well I certainly don’t claim to be familiar with many trial cases, not being an attorney and all. Perhaps it is misguided to assume that an average juror would see, like I do, that a defense based on religious conviction is not a defense at all, particularly in a case where guilt is so obvious. I would like to think otherwise. Maybe I should just continue to expect the worst. :P

  168. #168 Ibis3
    January 29, 2010

    I see that you posted while I was composing. Hope I’ve given you more food for thought without being too harsh. It took me a while to get to this position (even without being indoctrinated into Christianity), so I get where you’re coming from.

    I do have a couple more things to add:

    *The whole idea of legislating about abortion is really about infantalising the woman (ironically enough). She is the best person to predict what the eventual child’s life might be like, and to weigh all the factors involved (financial, family, community, personal). Why do legislators (or complete strangers with no individual stake!) think that they’re better equipped to make such a decision? Because she’s irrational? because she doesn’t realise that if she carries to term there would be a real person alive (her *own child*) at the end of it?

    *There are very few “late term” abortions, and those are almost exclusively for medical reasons, whether to save the mother or to spare the child a life of suffering. It would be a very bizarre occurrence for an eight-months-pregnant woman to wake up one day and change her mind on a whim (not that I feel that she wouldn’t have the right to do so, I just think it’s extremely unlikely to happen in real life).

  169. #169 triskelethecat
    January 29, 2010

    @Kevin: I can see you are trying. It is very difficult to move from “Abortion Is EVIL” to a woman’s right to choose.

    Since I think you came late to the story, to help you visualize more clearly:

    Almost all elective abortions are done in the first trimester (conception to 12 weeks). The fetus is completely non-viable…it would not live if born. For several of those weeks, you would not even recognize the fetus as human (we look remarkably like fish and other animals early in our development). Whether you agree with it or not, this is the most common time and the safest time for termination of pregnancy.

    Second trimester (12-24 weeks) abortions are less common. Most commonly they are done because a birth defect is found in the fetus that was not diagnosed earlier (Down’s syndrome used to be the common reason for 2nd trimester terminations. Now that we can diagnose it even earlier, the terminations are being done late 1st trimester). Whether you agree or not that a defect like Down’s is a cause for termination, it was (and may still be) the main reason. However, other genetic defects such as Trisomy 18 (invariably lethal, usually within the first year of life) also are in this range. Fewer doctors do 2nd trimester terminations. And very few of these are totally elective (as in “I don’t want to be pregnant). I’m not saying they don’t happen, but they are pretty rare.

    Third trimester (24+weeks) are extremely rare. Again, they are becoming rarer because we can diagnose fatal birth defects earlier on (i.e. diaphragmatic hernia, which kills almost all fetus’ who develop it). They are also done on women who are developing a life threatening illness (eclampsia), Pulmonary Hypertension, etc. They are not done lightly; these women usually want their babies very badly but either don’t want to die themselves or don’t want to give birth to a baby who will suffer and die within a short time. Very few doctors in the US will do 3rd trimester terminations. It is a risky procedure. No one is doing this because a baby would interfere with their lifestyle.

  170. #170 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    Previous post had quote fail… but all Asterisked portions are Ibis’s statements.

    @Jadehawk 160:

    Appeal to Emotion is why I’m in the mindset I’m in currently. People say it, and it’s true that it’s hard to lose your faith and have your world-view change.

    It’s a bizarre funk that my mind has to work itself out of. I understand the arguments, and I’m working on rationalizing them into my mindset, but every little argument I’ve heard keeps coming back. Every time I think of a question I have of science – something I don’t understand – that Christian manchild in me cries out ‘see where science fails!!!’

    I think I just need to keep asking and keep learning, that’s the most important thing I can do. It’s questioning my beliefs that got me where I am, I just need to keep on going.

  171. #171 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 29, 2010

    Motive, as we know, is not an element of the offence.

    Um. Yes, it is. It almost always is. You have to have it for it to not be negligence..

  172. #172 alysonmiers
    January 29, 2010

    My favorite part in the trial was when Roeder said “it is not a man’s job to take a life,” when he has admitted to having killed a man. I think what he was trying to say was, “It is not a man’s job to take a life, unless that life is doing something I don’t like. Then it’s open season, mofos!”

  173. #173 frankosaurus
    January 29, 2010

    I don’t think you understand how the law works, jury instructions, and permissible findings. I suggest you visit a library sometime and look up the relevant jurisprudence Ichthyic. Even if they could entertain voluntary manslaughter, which they couldn’t, the requirements of unreasonable but honest belief would pose no victory for pro-lifers or pro-choicers either. Face it, this one’s above your paygrade, just leave this issue to people who know a thing or two about criminal law.

    In other news, a fly just tried to land on my cracker. But I got him just in time. JUSTICE!

  174. #174 Endor
    January 29, 2010

    “Being raised Christian, and being told constantly that a life begins at conception, I will always struggle with it. ”

    An apple seed is not an apple.

  175. #175 DominEditrix
    January 29, 2010

    Many years ago, an acquaintance expressed surprise that I was pro-choice. Why? Because I was trying to adopt. Wouldn’t I prefer that abortion be illegal, so there’d be more babies available? I explained, rather angrily, that I’d never want any woman to be used as a brood mare for my convenience.

    That said, not every birth mother has issues with giving up a child, nor does every adoptee have issues. And yes, I know several women who had babies before abortion was legal, who did not want to raise a child and who are happy with their decisions. Given that half my family is adopted – my son, my ex, his two sisters, my stepbrother and a bunch of cousins, none of whom are bent out of shape because of it, a blanket “all adopted people feel X” simply isn’t true.

    And FSM, yes – the “pro-life” faction doesn’t give a damn about children post-birth. Pro-lifers, good xians that they are, overwhelmingly vote against efforts to ameliorate the lives of the born.

    FWIW, I’m pretty sure the judge allowed the justifiable homicide defence to a) remove a cause for appeal and b) so that, by giving the jury instructions that they were not to consider that defence, allowing them the choice of first degree homicide or nothing, set a bit of precedent.

    Executing Roeder would make him a martyr; locking him away will eventually cause him to be a lesser figurehead.

  176. #176 Killua
    January 29, 2010

    Speakkking of justice, [virtually entirely tangential]I just across this article on cnn

    http://money.cnn.com/2010/01/29/news/companies/mancrunch_ad_super_bowl/index.htm?cnn=yes&hpt=T2

    A gay dating site is crying injustice because CBS rejected their add spot featuring two guys making out. Has yet another injustice been committed against gays in the US, is this another case of discrimination… or does CBS just not air spots of people in general making out?[/virtually entirely tangential post]

    PS. 37 minutes. I wonder why it took them that long, perhaps there was tea in the box? Cookies maybe?

  177. #177 Brownian, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Appeal to Emotion is why I’m in the mindset I’m in currently. People say it, and it’s true that it’s hard to lose your faith and have your world-view change.

    It’s a bizarre funk that my mind has to work itself out of. I understand the arguments, and I’m working on rationalizing them into my mindset, but every little argument I’ve heard keeps coming back. Every time I think of a question I have of science – something I don’t understand – that Christian manchild in me cries out ‘see where science fails!!!’

    I think I just need to keep asking and keep learning, that’s the most important thing I can do. It’s questioning my beliefs that got me where I am, I just need to keep on going.

    You seem pretty honest and self-aware to me, Kevin, two qualities that are essential in the kind of questioning process you’re talking about. All the best.

  178. #178 frankosaurus
    January 29, 2010

    “Motive, as we know, is not an element of the offence.
    Um. Yes, it is. It almost always is. You have to have it for it to not be negligence..”

    Intention is a separate concept from motive

  179. #179 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 29, 2010

    Face it, this one’s above your paygrade, just leave this issue to people who know a thing or two about criminal law.

    The guy just got found guilty of Premed, and you said motive wasn’t an element of the crime.

  180. #180 Sioux Laris
    January 29, 2010

    Nothing but religion creates human monsters like this guy. That anyone praises his false pride and viciousness – stupid, ugly, gutless little cheerleaders of evil (may they live long enough to engage in even ten minutes of untainted sense, and thereafter a lifetime of shame and repentance) – reveals the absolute uselessness and falsity that such Xians make their real sacraments.

  181. #181 phantomreader42
    January 29, 2010

    Shaun the Death Cult Terrorist Troll @ #80:

    One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .

    So, Shaun, you freely admit that Roeder, who your cult celebrates as a hero, is in fact a murderer. Wasn’t that imaginary god of yours supposed to have some sort of problem with killing people? Oh, yeah, that’s one of those rules that you only care about when it’s convenient. There’s religious “morality” for you, nothing but double standards and outright lies.

    Thank you, Shaun, for publicly declaring your cult’s support of domestic terrorism. Hopefully Homeland Security will be by to pay your cult leader Tommy the Testicle a visit next Sunday.

  182. #182 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    STFU Frank. Your little quip wasn’t funny the first time, and it’s only gotten more tiresome with every iteration. Unless the only thing you’re trying to convince us of is what a boring, tedious, and repetitive douche you are. “Frank slipped on some black ice and took a fatal head wound. JUSTICE!”. See how *funny* it is?

  183. #183 Bone Oboe
    January 29, 2010

    Maybe, hopefully this will put any future nut-bags on notice that juries won’t care what he thinks (the defendant’s) invisible sky-monster
    told him to do.

    I’m actually surprised that the trial took so little time.

    “Roeder testified that he shot Tiller in the head May 31 in the foyer of Tiller’s church in Wichita because he believed Tiller posed an ‘immediate danger’ to unborn children”

    So, by the defendant’s badly twisted rationale, hypothetically (And in some alternate universe), doctors would be justified in burning down churches full of parishioners; because anyone of them could go off the deep end and pose an “immediate danger” to certain members of the medical profession.
    That’s a similar slow coach towards the defendant’s position, yes?

    And, for a moment, let us leave and heave aside the arrogance of these people. God says that he wants abortion doctors killed; and I’m (the suspect, in this case) the man for the job. No. No, no no no no no no no…Let God take care of these matters. Do not step in to do God’s will, as in that too often recycled email trope about the pious Marine punching the atheist professor: “God was busy, so HE sent me to knock you off the podium.”

    Hey there Mr. Faith, is your confidence in your deity so pale that you feel the need to take actions on his behalf? Sit back, crack a beer and wait. There’ll be a storm or a volcano or a spasm at some random subduction zone that will level a city or inundate a coastal village with sea-water or lava on the other side of the planet; and then you can jump up and down, proclaiming that God has meted out his retribution for America’s continued tolerance of the practice of abortion, or homosexuality or Family Guy what ever is gnawing at the believers that week.
    And after that, the other caste of Christians will come out of the wood-work and sleaze en masse to the disaster zone to help*, just to show off how nice they are; “See? We’re helping. We’re nice and doing God’s will.”
    Wait, what?
    What’s with this schizophrenic shit? Is it wrath, or is it an opportunity to polish apples of biblical proportions?

    *Which isn’t to say that help isn’t needed and shouldn’t be rendered by any and all capable of doing so after a tsunami or earthquake; it’s just that you can pack for food and medical supplies if you leave the bibles at home.

    As someone said above, sorry, and thanks for letting me flail and froth.

  184. #184 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    #182
    Aaahhhh haha ha ha ha ha! Ha ha ha! *Tear of mirth* I dunno. >I< found it pretty funny.

  185. #185 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Ibis3 168:

    Thanks for understanding (and others who understood this and didn’t judge me without reading my posts.)

    As per your first point, I think the best legislation is already in place. Safe, private abortions are definitely what they should have. As I have said, in my own mind which will never be in this situation, I’m pro-life. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, and I can only say that because of how I’ve been taught. I do not think any pro-life legislation should be passed, because it is not anyone but the woman’s decision as to what to do.

    Second point, I totally and truly understand this now – having been reading Tim Tebow stories. It seems a bit on the heartless side (in my ‘Abortions Are Evil’ shouting crying Christian manchild brain) to terminate at that time, but I understand that at that point, it’s life of the woman versus life of her child.

    @triskelethecat 169:

    Putting it in the timeline like that actually helps a lot. With the whole Christian teaching thing, it’s hard to reconcile viability. I know that a child in the first trimester is a fish (kinda?) and will die if taken out, but once more Christian manchild shouts ‘it’s a baby!!’

    Second and third trimester has the same shouts of ‘it’s a baby’ with a bit more of that silly manchild winning me over. It’s hard to reconcile scientific understanding, but I’m slowly understanding. Takes a bit, and I get distracted easily, but as long as I keep learning, I think I will come over to the side of rationality.

  186. #186 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 29, 2010

    Frankosaurus

    how has religious belief ever turned killing a doctor into justifiable homicide? The only doubt in the outcome is whether they caught the right guy. Motive, as we know, is not an element of the offence.

    ..oh goody, an armchair lawyer. Stand aside folks its MY turn to play with this one.

  187. #187 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    Well that didn’t work out too well. Let me try that again. Ahem.

    Ahhhhhhhha ha ha ha ha ha! *Tear of Mirth* I dunno. I found it pretty funny.

  188. #188 frankosaurus
    January 29, 2010

    “The guy just got found guilty of Premed, and you said motive wasn’t an element of the crime.”

    Again, Intention is different from motive. If you don’t believe me go to law school. And I’m Sorry Ontario Mike for not tickling your funny bone. It was quite rude of me not to consider your feelings in what I posted. Thank you for correcting me.

  189. #189 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 29, 2010

    Maybe in your state, but not in the MPC, or in a loose general sense.

  190. #190 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Endor 174:

    14 years of ‘it’s a baby’ versus 3 months of ‘it’s a fetus.’ I’ll come around in time, just gotta struggle with it for a while and beat that idiot manchild into submission.

    @Brownian 177:

    Thanks to websites like this, I’ve definitely grown in maturity from the self-doubting, unquestioning religious manchild I was growing up to me. Hard to lose what you’ve grown up thinking, but I’m sure I’ve got plenty of allies in this battle.

    Thanks.

    @all:

    Anyway, work is almost over and I’m going to happy hour, so – I close this off now. Keep posing responses, and I’ll get to them when I get home – might be slightly drunnkedly incoherent, but I’ll try.

  191. #191 https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893
    January 29, 2010

    Yeah, the comments on that article are truly scary.

    As noted before, I used to work for Corrections, and have visited multiple “Administrative Segregation” units in at least 6 California state prisons. With this guy’s attitude, that’s where he’s going to end up.

    You do not want to end up in Ad Seg at CIM. It’s probably the least-fun place I’ve ever been. I’ve seen so many people say prison is a country club that after a while, I just want to scream at ‘em.

    Anyway, I’m also reading conservative reactions to James O’Keefe’s actions, and I’m still not impressed at all with the Teabagger movement. Check the latest reactions to this.

  192. #192 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 29, 2010

    Frank

    Face it, this one’s above your paygrade, just leave this issue to people who know a thing or two about criminal law

    ..ok sunshine, I know a thing or two about criminal law, lets play.

  193. #193 phantomreader42
    January 29, 2010

    Killua @ #176:

    A gay dating site is crying injustice because CBS rejected their add spot featuring two guys making out. Has yet another injustice been committed against gays in the US, is this another case of discrimination… or does CBS just not air spots of people in general making out?[/virtually entirely tangential post]

    Is this the same CBS that’s airing an ad from Focus on the Family during the Super Bowl? Why should the frauds and theocrats at Focus on (your own damn) Family get ad time when others can’t?

    I vaguely recall some troubles with a church advertising their acceptance of everyone having an ad rejected (possibly during the Bowl), and also the Freedom From Religion Foundation being repeatedly denied the opportunity to advertise in some fora, and I wonder if these incidents also involved CBS or the Super Bowl. Is this policy an official endorsement of right-wing death cults by CBS, or just a cynical way of whoring themselves out to religious nuts for money, and denying opposing viewpoints for fear of pissing off the pimp?

  194. #194 Brownian, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Executing Roeder would make him a martyr; locking him away will eventually cause him to be a lesser figurehead.

    With any luck, he’ll find god in prison. Of course, since he already has one, he’ll have to find a totally different one. I can see him before the parole board now: “Sirs, I realise now I was a very bad man. I lived only for what I thought was Yahweh’s will, and I hurt a great many people throughout my life as a result. I see clearly that I’d been denying the will of Mawu-Lisa. If you could only see into my heart, you’d see I am a changed man and am deeply sorry to the friends and family of Dr. Tiller and and everyone I hurt through my selfish desire to get into heaven. If you grant me parole, I sincerely promise you the only ones I’ll hurt will be the sacrifices during the Annual Customs.”

  195. #195 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    Frank, an underdeveloped sense of humor Your sarcastic non-apology is further evidence of your impairment. You have my sincerest pity.

  196. #196 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 29, 2010

    Note: Frank is technically correct. In terms of legal definitions, motive isn’t intent. It’s just useless to be that specific without going out of your way to reframe the context of what you’re saying. That’s just playing the “Haha, laugh at the plebes who don’t know my field” game. I don’t know if that’s a game you want to play with career scientists, though.

    Of course, I’m not sure you can still say motive isn’t an element to an offense when it’s become more strongly actionable (Hate Crime legislation) in recent years, but it wasn’t, legally, here.

  197. #197 alysonmiers
    January 29, 2010

    Many years ago, an acquaintance expressed surprise that I was pro-choice. Why? Because I was trying to adopt. Wouldn’t I prefer that abortion be illegal, so there’d be more babies available? I explained, rather angrily, that I’d never want any woman to be used as a brood mare for my convenience.

    Another issue with the what-about-adoption argument is that a pregnant woman doesn’t just “carry” the fetus to term. That’s too passive. If the fetus is to be considered a separate person, then a pregnant woman eats, sleeps, breathes and exercises for two people. Everything she puts in her body, she shares with the fetus. If women are forced to endure full-term pregnancies, how can we really expect them to eat properly, sleep adequately, abstain from alcohol and other substances that are dangerous to a fetus, and generally keep themselves away from avoidable harm?

    I certainly don’t think that all or even a majority of unhappily pregnant women will put their fetuses at risk, but if they’re “irresponsible” for wanting to terminate their pregnancies, then how can they be trusted to make healthy babies?

    It is futile to protect a fetus from the woman who is gestating it. She can’t simply leave it alone, she has to adjust her life according to its needs for those 40 weeks. I don’t think anyone can realistically demand that of her if she doesn’t have a choice in the matter of maintaining the pregnancy to term. A nation full of forced pregnancies is going to be a nation with a lot of sick babies. Having them adopted (that is assuming there will be enough parents to adopt all those children) doesn’t change the fact that they will never recover from the circumstances of their births.

  198. #198 SteveM
    January 29, 2010

    franosaurus:

    what would you expect? This is clearly against the law, so there is no moral victory here for atheism. In other words I saw some cops nab a shoplifter today. JUSTICE!

    Where was any mention of “moral victory for atheism” in PZ posting? Yes he was clearly guilty, how is it NOT justice that he was convicted? What the fuck is your point?

  199. #199 A. Noyd
    January 29, 2010

    Tulse (#86)

    Do all aborted babies go straight to heaven?

    I think we decided in the Thread Unending, that only Mormon babies do (and thus, as Miki Z pointed out, abortion and infanticide should be encouraged). Other Christian fetuses and babies are generally doomed to hell. Those vile little sinners. They have to be given a chance to grow up and worship the Asshole of All Assholes who would sentence them to that.

    ~*~*~*~*~*~

    David Marjanovi? (#104)

    Hey, Shaun, have you ever thought about what makes women consider an abortion?

    Excellent question, actually. Points out the sexism inherent in focusing on killing abortion doctors as though they are the ones who decide for the women.

    ~*~*~*~*~*~

    Maslab (#106)

    And the child. My sisters went through, literally, seven mothers before we adopted them at eight.

    This is certainly a consideration for why I would never go through with a pregnancy. Knowing any child of mine would probably inherit some degree of mental illness, it would be cruel to it to force it to grow up in a family that likely wouldn’t know how to deal with that.

  200. #200 Mike in Ontario, NY
    January 29, 2010

    WTF happened to my post? It was supposed to read:

    Frank, an underdeveloped sense of humor is evidence of an underdeveloped mind. Your sarcastic non-apology is further evidence of your impairment. You have my sincerest pity

  201. #201 Ibis3
    January 29, 2010

    @ Endor #174

    An apple seed is not an apple.

    Or perhaps even more appropriately: picking up an acorn off the ground isn’t the same as chopping down an oak tree.

    @ Kevin I admire your open-mindedness and willingness to challenge yourself and your beliefs. That takes guts.

    Another way to look at this is to accept that life begins at conception as you were taught. But what does that actually mean in real, objective terms? Take a one day old embryo or even one one week old. It’s just a collection of cells, hardly distinguishable from the gamete cells that created it. Barely distinguishable (for us non-scientists) from the bacteria in your gut or your kitchen sink. For most of the gestation period, it’s far less sentient (not to mention less sapient) than most of the animals you eat for dinner (assuming you’re not a vegetarian of course). It’s much more “heartless” to eat a burger than to abort a foetus. As a society, the only option that is defensible is to trust each woman (and her heart) with making the best decision for herself, her potential child, and for society at large.

  202. #202 Celtic_Evolution
    January 29, 2010

    frankosaurus –

    look, if you came in here to wave your dick around, you’ve succeeded… it’s very cute and I’m sure you’re quite proud of it… now zip it up, sport, and let the adults have a conversation.

  203. #203 A. Noyd
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin (#128)

    I’ve still found it hard to get myself past the completely incorrect image of a selfish woman getting pregnant and having an abortion rather than using birth control.

    Too bad you can’t sue those who gave you your religious upbringing for warping your understanding of women, eh? Now, when you’re thinking of women and issues with disproportionate consequences for women, ask yourself “how much time have I spent listening to what women say about these things?” And if your answer is “not much” or “none at all” or “lots, but only the women I grew up with,” maybe go fix that problem before commenting. (I write up comments sometimes, realize I don’t know enough to honestly support what I’m saying, and spend an hour or six educating myself instead of posting.) You seem to understand this at some level, so I’m only suggesting you make it even more deliberate.

    (#147)

    While my Christian upbringing says ‘it’s a baby’ my rational mind says ‘it’s not, so stop worrying about it.’

    I think the point is to ask, “What is ‘it’ and what are its rights in comparison to the woman?” You don’t have to stop worrying about abortion just because you decide a fetus is not a baby and the woman’s rights should come first. Don’t deny your feelings; inform them instead.

    (#163)

    Being raised Christian, and being told constantly that a life begins at conception, I will always struggle with it. The scientific definition still seems almost heartless to me, but I understand it, and struggle to try to reconcile it.

    Here’s my take: “Life” is a vague and overly inclusive category. One could just as easily argue that life started billions of years ago and hasn’t stopped since. It’s much more productive to concentrate on “personhood” and “humanity.” Focusing on “life” waters down and cheapens not only abortion issues but the human experience in general.

  204. #204 Tulse
    January 29, 2010

    Other Christian fetuses and babies are generally doomed to hell.

    I can guarantee that most Christians wouldn’t say that about poor innocent babies — I mean, they’re babies!

    Would that response be consistent with their theology? Probably not.

  205. #205 hznfrst
    January 29, 2010

    Since abortion was legalized in 1073 there has been a significant reduction in crime committed by young males from broken homes (sorry that I don’t have the citation). The conclusion is that have been fewer unwanted children born because of Roe v. Wade, and that has made life better for everyone, including the children who were never born into a life of deprivation.

    Shaun, your mother smells of elderberries and I fart in your general direction, you slimy, misbegotten *freak*!

  206. #206 catgirl
    January 29, 2010

    I wish Roeder could also be tried for the future deaths of women who have life-threatening pregnancies but won’t have access to a safe abortion because of Roeder’s actions. I’m thankful that he’ll be kept away from society for probably his entire life, but I wish he would face the full realization of the harm he has done.

  207. #207 tsg
    January 29, 2010

    frankosaurus, that whooshing noise was the point going sailing over your head.

    This was a jury trial in a state where a good number of his peers believe the murder was justified. There was a good chance justice would not have been done, law be damned.

  208. #208 Killua
    January 29, 2010

    @phantomreader42,

    Still, focus on the family would probably not have been able to get a graphic ad on the superbowl. I still wonder if dating sites have been able to feature make out sessions, since it was deemed “content inappropriate”. Regardless, I doubt this is showing a conservative company, nor the religious ad spots, it probably is just their fear of controversy, and targeting the most profits. Network execs don’t get to be network execs by worrying about the morality of their decisions, they get to be network execs by worrying about the profit and losses of their decisions.

  209. #209 Endor
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin: apologies if that came off as if I was criticizing you, or something. Not my intention. I commend the changes you’ve made.

    I was just offering another way to look at it.

  210. #210 dustycrickets
    January 29, 2010

    “One murder to save thousands of future murders – as in a just war .”
    Shaun @82

    Hmmm….I feel strongly that Christians that support and even help finance settlement expansion in Palestine are accessories to murder, but I have never once considered using violence against them.
    I might go as far as to call them War Pigs to their face..and I do help to finance Peace activist focused on Palestine, but violence…never.
    It’s makes more sense to out smart these crazy fools than to try and out gun them anyway…

  211. #211 Celtic_Evolution
    January 29, 2010

    Just wanted to sound a small “clap clap” for Kevin… I’ve enjoyed his intellectual honesty and willingness to accept difficult truths that go against a lifetime of indoctrination. As one who’s gone through the same thing, I know how difficult it is and I just want to say “well done”, without sounding too patronizing.

  212. #212 Strangest brew
    January 29, 2010

    #156

    “I don’t think competency is too much to ask from an omnipotent deity”

    No indeed…almost obligatory I would have thought.
    Tis but passing odd then that out of all the presumed supernatural traits that laud his infallibility that his competency seems somewhat challenged…if not actually non-existent.

    Kindda throws the rest of his supposed skills into some doubt then.

    Funny thing being that would seem to correlate quite close with observational evidence!

    The dude is a complete jerk off…or he is just imaginary…now that would be a perfect fit for the evidential profile…

  213. #213 akshelby
    January 29, 2010

    I’d like to thank Kevin for his honest inquiry, too. I used to be one of those rabid pro-lifers and even participated in an Operation Rescue in my early twenties. Luckily, I managed to open my mind and now believe it’s up to the woman to determine what is best for herself. I also donate to Planned Parenthood whenever I can to try to make up for my earlier assholeness.

    P.S. – Fuck you, Shaun.

  214. #214 CalGeorge
    January 29, 2010

    “Mr. Roeder told jurors that he had a growing sense of his own faith and opposition to abortion in the 1990s after watching ‘The 700 Club,’ the evangelist Pat Robertson?s television talk show.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/us/30roeder.html?pagewanted=2&hp

    It takes a village – of idiots.

  215. #215 Ulgaa Nator
    January 29, 2010

    @Capital Dan for comment 138..
    Never seen a list of the 10 commandments in that court house. Though I couldn’t say that someone doesn’t have it somewhere on their own desk or what not for their own viewing. Having lived in Kansas for most of my life I was relieved that the judge dropped the manslaughter option.

    For those that worry about the death penalty being given. In Kansas that just gives you different accomidations. Kansas sentances people to death but it doesn’t actually kill them. At least not yet.

  216. #216 Walton
    January 29, 2010

    Since abortion was legalized in 1073

    Not long after the Battle of Hastings.

  217. #217 phantomreader42
    January 29, 2010

    @Killua

    I am not able to review the video on this computer at this time. But just how “graphic” is this ad? More so than the other Super Bowl ads, at least one of which is likely to feature beer-guzzling guys leering at near-naked women with huge fake boobs? More “graphic” than the makeout scenes in countless movies and TV shows CBS has shown without complaint (you can’t honestly expect me to believe there has NEVER been an onscreen kiss on CBS)? Surely it can’t be as graphic, nor as tasteless, as that idiotic incident with Janet Jackson’s nipple at a previous Super Bowl. Or is the only thing that makes this ad too “graphic” the fact that it includes two men?

    And the other ads I mentioned could not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered “graphic”, yet they were also rejected. It’s not about the appropriateness of content. It’s about cowardice and stupidity, bending over backwards to keep fanatics happy.

  218. #218 Killua
    January 29, 2010

    phantomreader42
    The ad isn’t graphic at all, I was just saying focus on the family couldn’t get anything graphic, because the company strives not to piss people off. The ad is mostly just one guy jumping on the other, with some cheesy 80s rock music “I wanna kiss this guy I really wanna kiss this guy” playing as they’re making out. You don’t see anything. But as far as the company goes, that’s still more than a casual look of “I’m clearly into you”, so it’d had to be axed. (Actually, truth be told though, a straight dating website would never have an ad like this. It’d had the perfect setup for an ironic beer commercial. Rock music and all.)

    I see no malice in this, I see mostly a company concerned with maximizing profits on their most profitable day.

  219. #219 Killua
    January 29, 2010

    (I’m also still mildly high since I finally, after a sleepless night, finished and turned in my assignment, and decided to celebrate. So forgive me if something I say isn’t entirely clear)

  220. #220 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Surely it can’t be as graphic, nor as tasteless, as that idiotic incident with Janet Jackson’s nipple at a previous Super Bowl. Or is the only thing that makes this ad too “graphic” the fact that it includes two men?

    Janet Jackson’s nipple did not bother me at all, I skip halftime for the game. But the set of commercials were vile. The worst was for Bud where a woman holding a candle while on a cart polled by a horse lights a horse fart. It still bothers me that people were more upset by a nipple than really unfunny humor.

  221. #221 Doc_Murray
    January 29, 2010

    Reminds me of that other crazy Kansan all those years back… does a John Brown ring a bell? He also had no regrets. (He was from Kansas, yeah?)

  222. #222 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    Re: Everything Posted about/with/by Kevin.

    I would also like to offer some applause. I too found my way out of the mire of fundamentalism, and struggled for a very long time with those conflicting ideas and emotions. Its tough, but its not impossible. Good luck to you dude, and keep up it up.

  223. #223 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    So, Doc, are you saying that you approve of Roeder’s action?

  224. #224 frankosaurus
    January 29, 2010

    “Where was any mention of “moral victory for atheism” in PZ posting? Yes he was clearly guilty, how is it NOT justice that he was convicted? What the fuck is your point?”

    hey, if we’re here to celebrate justice, I’m all for that. Which is why i mentioned the example of the nabbed shoplifter. That’s good too. But if we want to single this verdict out because we’re pissed off at the pro-lifers / fundies, then I’m calling attention to the fact that that isn’t the spirit of the judgment at all. If everything about the situation were the same, except the person was a pro-choicer killing an anti-abortion activist, then this factor wouldn’t have changed the verdict one iota, or the “justice” of the situation. So yes, I’m mocking people’s understanding of the legal system. But I know that this is such an intellectually proud bunch, that, once mocked, you all soon quickly educate yourselves so as to avoid further mocking. Whether you do or do not, you’re welcome, and you may now go back to your echo chamber.

  225. #225 Jadehawk, OM
    January 29, 2010

    hmmm yes… because performing medically necessary operations on women is exactly like slavery.

  226. #226 Jadehawk, OM
    January 29, 2010

    point still flying way over frankie’s head. but hey, it does that every time he decides to show up on this blog.

  227. #227 Ibis3
    January 29, 2010

    @Kevin (even more stuff to think about)

    (#128)

    I’ve still found it hard to get myself past the completely incorrect image of a selfish woman getting pregnant and having an abortion rather than using birth control.

    There are so many things to deconstruct here. The “selfish woman” in this scenario sounds like she “got pregnant” by herself. There is no responsibility on his part for the situation that caused her to become pregnant. This smacks of the (judeo-christian/patriarchal/Victorian/puritan) “morality” that says sex is evil unless it is done by a suitably married couple trying to procreate–especially if you’re a female. So is it the sex that’s selfish? The lack of contraception (why is it only her job to ensure that?) — which is, by the way not 100% effective no matter what method is being employed. Or is she selfish for choosing not to carry this particular pregnancy (which was only “successful” by sheer chance)? And spend the next 20 years of her life nursing, caring for, paying for, being legally and morally responsible for another human being?

    (#185)

    As per your first point, I think the best legislation is already in place. Safe, private abortions are definitely what they should have. As I have said, in my own mind which will never be in this situation, I’m pro-life. I cannot speak for anyone but myself, and I can only say that because of how I’ve been taught. I do not think any pro-life legislation should be passed, because it is not anyone but the woman’s decision as to what to do.

    This is the essence of the pro-choice position. In other words, most humans would generally say they support (under the best circumstances) letting a human embryo grow to full healthy development and be born and go to college. It’s the legislating part that is at issue. That’s why only anti-abortion rights people use the word “pro-life”. Their opposition is not “anti-life”. If you hold that “it is not anyone but the woman’s decision as to what to do” you *are* pro-choice.

  228. #228 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Yet, more echo chamber bullshit. Listen, dipshit, did you miss out on those of us who pointed out that the damage has been done, that Roeder achieved his objective. That the terrorizing of doctor continues.

    Frankosaurus, you are so busy making out with your own self perceived brilliance that you have no room for what anyone has to say.

    How long before the old fuckface, dendy, shows up and those two can have a smug off?

  229. #229 lose_the_woo
    January 29, 2010

    “There was nothing being done, and the legal process had been exhausted, and these babies were dying every day,” Roeder said. “I felt that if someone did not do something, he was going to continue.”

    It’s a telling perspective of religionists. According to the secular laws of the United States of America – a secular nation, of which he is a citizen, nothing the good doctor’s practice was doing was illegal in any way.

    Apparently, that’s not good enough. Religionists take matters into their own hands and will not only break laws, they will commit cold blooded premeditated murder to uphold their sectarian laws. They will force their laws unto others, and breaking any laws of the constitution to do so is trivial.

  230. #230 mothra
    January 29, 2010

    Frankosaurus, the whooshing sounds you are unaware of are all of the points you have missed. 1) Motive is a factor. 2) The convicted murder was a member of a death cult. 3) He tried to use his membership as a defense. 4) The victory for justice is that, because motives are considered and despite the significant fundie minority which were no doubt represented in the jury of his peers, this killer was convicted.

    ps- 5) Your sophistry needs work- based on your blog name which ‘brain’ were you using?

    pss- 6) People who are not integral participants in death cults do not see others with opposing views as evil that must be killed. Your ‘reverse situation’ would not occur because motivations are different. If a pro-choice advocate did kill a an anti-woman’s rights activist (lets get our terms straight) then, the murderer would be deranged and there would NOT be atheist ‘cults’ protesting that injustice was done.

  231. #231 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    #229.
    Unfortunately youre aboslutely correct about that. There is no respect for secular law if it contradicts what BigDaddy has to say.

    When I was doing my whole bible thumping fundy thing we were taught that, to paraphrase, the laws of man are inferior to the laws of god. If a secular law does not conform to what your particular interpretation of scripture says on the topic, then fuck it. The perceived laws of god trump society’s rules and it is better to be a good little soldier for Jeebus, even if it means going to prison. This is what people like Roeder are being taught.

    Sometimes, I wish I believed in a god so I could thank him for having escaped that nutjob mentality.

  232. #232 dustycrickets
    January 29, 2010

    Dr. Tillers sometimes life saving procedures helped women with complications like these….

    Anencephaly
    Trisomy 13
    Trisomy 18
    Trisomy 21
    Polycystic kidney disease
    Spina bifida
    Hydrocephalus
    Potter’s syndrome
    Lethal dwarfism
    Holoprosencephaly
    Anterior and posterior encephalocele
    Non-immune hydrops

    info on each here:
    http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/6/1/05557/09911

    example:

    “Anencephaly is a cephalic disorder that results from a neural tube defect that occurs when the cephalic (head) end of the neural tube fails to close, usually between the 23rd and 26th day of pregnancy, resulting in the absence of a major portion of the brain, skull, and scalp[1]. Children with this disorder are born without a forebrain, the largest part of the brain consisting mainly of the cerebral hemispheres (which include the neocortex, which is responsible for higher-level cognition, i.e., thinking). The remaining brain tissue is often exposed?not covered by bone….”

    Of course rich conservatives can just fly to Europe to receive the kind of life saving care Dr. Tiller provided…..the rest of us are screwed.

  233. #233 frisbeetarian
    January 29, 2010

    I don’t understand why the anti-choice people are not raving against women who get artificially inseminated. There are quite a few ‘abortions’ in that procedure usually. The few anti-choice people I’ve talked to are always against birth control too. I would love to see the media ask anti-choicers what their view is on birth control. Of course, Roeder should kill his god because he cause many spontaneous abortions a year and miscarriages. So go shoot your god first.

  234. #234 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    But dustycrickets, babies with defects are a sign of love from god. By placing those burdens on the parents, god is showing that they can handle the trial and tribulations.

    I am just not very good at this kind of snark.

  235. #235 Rawnaeris
    January 29, 2010

    @Kevin:

    I can understand how going from “whoo-hoo God” to ‘god, screw that bastard’ in a few months can mess with your head.

    I went from being a die-hard god lover to atheist in a very short period of time, not unlike yourself. Keep thinking and have fun here.

  236. #236 mothra
    January 29, 2010

    @ Janine- I see no snark, I see no snark. With Pat and Jerry, D. James and Oral, Jimmy and Billy at my side- I see no snark.

  237. #237 raven
    January 29, 2010

    frankosaurus the lying xian idiot:

    how has religious belief ever turned killing a doctor into justifiable homicide?

    Well, idiot, just read this thread. Shaun thinks Roeder is a hero and hopes when he kills some MD he gets to be in the cell next to him.

    The Death Cultists call these loser killers heroes and great inspirational figures. Never mind that Roeder was mentally ill and unemployed for decades or that Tiller saved the lives of women at high risk of dying.

    More to the point, xian religious belief is responsible for tens or hundreds of millions of homicides over 2,000 years. The crusades, Inquisition, witch burnings, heretic hunts, Reformation wars, and on and on. The Catholic Protestant wars wound down in N. Ireland a whole 9 years ago. Around a thousand people are hunted and killed by xians as witches, mostly but not always in Africa, not a thousand years ago but this year.

    Religion has always been a source of mass murder and always will be. The bible is saturated with the genocides of Canaanites, Amelikites, Philistines, and anyone else who got in the way.

    The difference between xian fundie extremists and Moslem extremists is….nothing. Nothing at all. We just don’t let our xian kooks run around loose. A hallmark of a civilized society is how tight the leash is around the religious fanatics who think murder is their god given right.

  238. #238 lose_the_woo
    January 29, 2010

    @ Mothra #230

    (lets get our terms straight)

    That would require them to have a legitimate rational position and an earnest desire for honest exchange and discourse.

    When you don’t have reason on your side, dishonesty is the way to go. They twist and contort language for their purposes all the time – as you so concisely pointed out.

    They think they are so “moral”, yet they are morally and intellectually bankrupt, and as demonstrated by Roeder, a danger to civilized society when solely motivated by their dogma.

  239. #239 raven
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin totally confused:

    I’ve still found it hard to get myself past the completely incorrect image of a selfish woman getting pregnant and having an abortion rather than using birth control.

    That is a fundie xian thing. They won’t use birth control, won’t plan on having sex, but will get an abortion without a second thought.

    No one from my background would ever do something like that. I know that because I’ve seen damn near everything and a lot more. Never seen it.

    So today at lunch, we all talked about Scott Roeder and the xian terrorists.

    One of my friends said she saw a lot of women who wouldn’t use birth control but would get abortions. The difference. My friend is from a fundie xian background.

    I challenged her on it and she explained that in fundie xian circles it is considered more of a sin to have premeditated sex than to get an abortion. Using birth control implies that one might actually, you know, have sex sometime.

    It is a death cult xian thing that only makes sense to kooky religious fanatics.

    And for the evil xian cultists here is the truth. The abortion rate for fundie xians is higher than the national average. A well known hard statistic. Fundie xians lead the nation in many measures, ignorance, abortion, teen pregnancy, and hypocrisy.

    My friend long ago dropped the fundie xian religion without anything good to say about it. She is involved with teaching high school students about birth control methods. She has prevented more abortions than Scott Roeder or Shaun the wannabe killer ever will.

  240. #240 'Tis Himself, OM
    January 29, 2010

    I’m glad Roeder was convicted and will spend most if not all of the rest of his life in prison. Unfortunately Tiller’s replacement’s life is not made any safer by Roeder’s conviction.

  241. #241 lose_the_woo
    January 29, 2010

    @ Raven #239

    Using birth control implies that one might actually, you know, have sex sometime.

    It’s curious why they are so uncomfortable regarding sexuality. Very strange.

    “Of the delights of this world, man cares most for sexual intercourse, yet he has left it out of his heaven” -Mark Twain

  242. #242 raven
    January 29, 2010

    @ Raven #239

    Using birth control implies that one might actually, you know, have sex sometime.

    Lose the woo:
    It’s curious why they are so uncomfortable regarding sexuality. Very strange.

    Yeah, it is a total mystery.

    My ex-fundie friend said something about spontaneity.

    I said spontaneity sucks and premeditated sex with birth control is the best. She mumbled something about one night stands, too much alcohol, and agreed.

    The birth control classes she is involved in teach girls to confront their value systems, face reality, and learn to be assertive and take control of their lives. It is more than putting a condom on a banana although they do that a lot as well.

    It also very effective. Depending on political vagueries, sometimes they can teach it, sometimes they can’t.

    Well fuck the fundies and their sexual hangups. If they really wanted to lower the abortion rate, they would be teaching birth control and real sex ed all through grades 1 to 12. This is something they oppose strongly. It isn’t about abortion, it is about toxic perverted cult religion.

    Instead of teaching kids to think about what they are doing and taking responsibility for their actions, they have one solution to any problem. “Let’s go out and shoot someone in the head.”

  243. #243 SaraJ
    January 29, 2010

    Apparently the murderer’s attorney equated what Roeder did to Martin Luther King, Jr.:

    Rudy mentioned leaders who stood up for their beliefs, including Martin Luther King Jr. They were “celebrated individuals (who) stood up and made the world a better place.”

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100129/ap_on_re_us/us_abortion_shooting_trial

    Um, yeah, Rudy, except MLK never MURDERED anyone.

  244. #244 otrame
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin, I’d like to suggest you watch a series of videos on Youtube by a guy named Evid3nc3, who was raised Assemblies of God and who became an atheist. Among other things, he is currently working on a beautifully done explanation of how he became an atheist. He is dealing with many issues and I think you will find those videos inspiring.

  245. #245 https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawnyw4VN5OIqKHaxVAWwFaykHTZDKJrDcI0
    January 29, 2010

    I’m very glad to see that we did something right here in Kansas. I was especially glad that the judge threw out the manslaughter defense so clearly and firmly by pointing out that there was no threat to Roeder, and more importantly, that abortion is legal in Kansas. To have ruled otherwise would have been a travesty.

  246. #246 jenigray
    January 29, 2010

    @Kevin I just wanted to applaud your efforts to reexamine your beliefs. As a former Christian myself, I know how hard it is to get out of the habit of black-and-white thinking. Keep learning about the issues and thinking for yourself.

  247. #247 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    Tiller may be gone, but abortions remain.

  248. #248 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @all:

    Thanks for all the encouraging words.

    Happy Hour was fun :D Now I’m going to make myself a rum and coke and talk to friends online.

    @otrame:

    I’ll watch that video series, thanks for the link.

  249. #249 Twin-Skies
    January 29, 2010

    There’s something about Tiller’s murderer that reminds me of this conservative I’m arguing with at the moment. He asserts that human life begins right at conception, and that any form of contraception is basically murder. I really want to disagree with him, but he’s backed up his claim with several sources:


    On the other hand, manslaughter is the unjustifiable, inexcusable, and intentional killing of a human being without deliberation, premeditation, and malice.

    Please make the connection because i can?t.

    The problem with today?s society is that we change definitions of terms in order to suit our own needs and beliefs. Life has always been considered as to begin from the moment of fertilization until the advent of the contraceptive movement in the 1950s-60s when they moved to define life as starting from the moment of implantation to make them feel less guilty. However, changing a definition does not change the scientific fact that at the moment of fertilization, a new human being is formed.

    The questions i pose to you are these:
    1.Is a fertilized ovum alive (i.e. has life) or dead (i.e. has no life)? Surely there is no ?in between? answer.
    2. Is a fertilized human ovum by a human sperm (zygote) already ?human??

    Also, this definition of the beginning of life is not merely a definition of the Church c/o Humanae Vitae. The Philippine Constitution Article II, Section 12, recognizes that human life must be protected from the moment of conception.

    Numerous embryology textbooks also define the beginning of life at the moment of fertilization. To quote:

    ?Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ?fertilized ovum? refers to the zygote.?
    - Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th ed. 1993, p. 1

    ?The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are?respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.?
    - Human Embryology. 2nd edition. 1997, p. 17

    ?Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed?. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.?
    Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. 1996, pp. 8, 29.

    ?In this text, we begin our description of the developing human with the formation and differentiation of the male and female sex cells or gametes, which will unite at fertilization to initiate the embryonic development of a new individual. ? Fertilization takes place in the oviduct ? resulting in the formation of a zygote containing a single diploid nucleus. Embryonic development is considered to begin at this point? This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.?
    Essentials of Human Embryology 1998 1-17.

    ?[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ? unites with a female gamete or oocyte ? to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.?
    The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. 1998, pg. 2-18.

    ?Fertilization is an important landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed? Fertilization is the procession of events that begins when a spermatozoon makes contact with a secondary oocyte or its investments? The zygote ? is a unicellular embryo??
    Human Embryology & Teratology 1996 pg. 5-55.

    To these I add this one:

    Developmental Biology by Scott Gilbert is arguably the leading text in the field. Gilbert is on faculty at Swarthmore College.

    ?Traditional ways of classifying catalog animals according to their adult structure. But, as J. T. Bonner (1965) pointed out, this is a very artificial method, because what we consider an individual is usually just a brief slice of its life cycle. When we consider a dog, for instance, we usually picture an adult. But the dog is a ?dog? from the moment of fertilization of a dog egg by a dog sperm. It remains a dog even as a senescent dying hound. Therefore, the dog is actually the entire life cycle of the animal, from fertilization through death.?

    If that can be said with such certainty of one vertebrate, it can be said of all vertebrates.

    I’m no medical expert, but I was hoping the more veteran guys here could help me rip his argument apart with solid, rational rebuttals.

  250. #250 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    @PeterH

    Tiller may be gone, but abortions remain.

    Why don’t you leave too, and pronto. You’re only going to get your ass handed to you here.

  251. #251 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin;
    I think I’ll join you with a rum and coke of my own when I get home from work.

    The jack and cokes, by the way, completely hijacked my intended posts from last night. Fuck you Jack Daniels. Fuck you.

  252. #252 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Posted by: Peter H| January 29, 2010 8:27 PM

    Tiller may be gone, but abortions remain.

    That is not accurate. This is closer to reality. Tiller was murdered and an safe abortions are now more difficult to get.

  253. #253 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    #249

    It helps, a little for me to look at it like this. Now, I’m paraphrasing Michael Shermer a little bit here, so forgive me, questions of morality in general come down to questions about suffering. It is, obviously a lot more complex than that, but its a good rule that if you’re causing more suffering than you are alleviating, your actions might be reasonably considered immoral. Fair enough? So the question, at least in my mind, comes down to this. How much suffering, exactly, is a blastocyst, or a zygote, or what ever capable of experiencing? Weigh that against the suffering that the mother is capable of experiencing and you have yourself an answer. Obviously there are other factors to consider, and we’re back to the fuzzy logic model of morality again. I like to think of it as a moral gradient. *Shrug* I’m really horribly ineloquent in writing, so I apologize for the semi incoherent rambling, and I hope it contributes at least something to the discussion.

  254. #254 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    Janine, Mistress mine, that wasn’t nearly harsh enough. Pray thee, unleash a torrent of foul scorn up on him.

  255. #255 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    Josh, I have just noticed PeterH. I want to see where he is coming from before I get nasty. Perhaps there is no need.

  256. #256 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    Janine, you are a wise and benevolent M of FMA to conserve your scorn. My natural sourness (and my crankiness at having my ears plugged up over a cold) too often get the better of me.

  257. #257 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Killjoy:

    Jack Daniels is a king among men.

  258. #258 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    @Kevin

    Truly! But he DOES have a nasty habit of distracting me from things like commenting on blogs and..you know..forming an articulate sentence. ;)

  259. #259 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    Oh, good, Kevin is back. I wanted to add that I’m also pleased to see you deal so reasonably with the conflict between your emotions and religious upbringing, and the facts that contradict it. We rarely get any religious (or converting) people here of your intellectual integrity Kevin, so cheers.

  260. #260 Twin-Skies
    January 29, 2010

    @KillJoy.

    Thanks for the help, although I was hoping to find a way to rebuke him strictly on the definition of when to consider a fertilized egg “human life.”

    Morality is muddy territory I’m hoping not to engage him in :(

    And on that note, how the heck do I block quote?

  261. #261 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Killjoy:

    Currently Captain Morgan is having that effect on me – and NO, I didn’t buy cheap, I have 26 dollar rum!

    @Josh:

    Thank you. It’s still quite hard to reconcile the nature and the science that I know to be true, having had so long being religious.

  262. #262 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    Twin-Skies:

    To blockquote – use the < and > characters to open and close the command. Within the first set of <>, type the word blockquote. Then type the text you wish to blockquote. Close it by typing <>, with the word /blockquote inside those characters. Note the “/” slash – you need that.

  263. #263 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    Damn it, damn it! The characters I typed didn’t show up. Arrgh. They are “< " and ">“. Have no idea if they’ll make it.

  264. #264 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 29, 2010

    On reading PeterH’s comment at #247 I think it could be interpreted another way. Maybe he was saying that even though the Dr Tiller is gone, the fundies haven’t won and abortions are still being performed. So maybe he just wasn’t articulating very well and his comment came out askew.

    …of course if he turns back up and really is a troll I’ll starfart all over him.

  265. #265 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    OK, I totally fail in terms of making html characters show up here. So frustrating – how about a native text-formatter on Scienceblogs?

    Twin-Skies, visit the following link to see how to blockquote:

    http://www.w3schools.com/TAGS/tag_blockquote.asp

  266. #266 Twin-Skies
    January 29, 2010

    Got it. Thanks.

    My next posts will be less convoluted :)

  267. #267 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    Bride comes the closest; I was too terse in my wording. My point in mind was that even though this one doctor is gone, the practice of abortions remains as one viable option for women.

  268. #268 KillJoy
    January 29, 2010

    #264

    The idea of starfarting just kind of disturbs me.
    I have enough trouble with indian food.

    Awww. Im sorry. That was in poor taste. :P

  269. #269 Twin-Skies
    January 29, 2010

    @Peter H

    Unfortunately, wouldn’t the crazies also see that as due cause for them to remain as violent and hateful as ever?

  270. #270 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    Bride comes the closest; I was too terse in my wording. My point in mind was that even though this one doctor is gone, the practice of abortions remains as one viable option for women.

    It still isn’t quite clear, Peter. Do you mean to say that, even though Tiller was murdered, abortion is still available, and that’s good,? Or, do you mean to say that, even though Tiller was murdered, abortion is still available, and that’s bad, so we must keep fighting on?

  271. #271 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 29, 2010

    PeterH, while it is true that abortions are still performed, how many doctors will not provide that service out of fear that ideologues inspired by Scott Roeder are going to come gunning for them. I will say this, doctors who provide these services in many parts of the US have more courage than me.

  272. #272 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    I assume many of you have seen this, but if you have not, it’s utterly compelling. Read The Last Abortionist about the last doctor in America who will perform late-term abortions, the threat he lives under, and the desperation of the women who come to him.

  273. #273 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    Twin-Skies,

    I think the fundies think that way and always will think that way regardless of my comments. I find it unfortunately a fact of life that equating fundamentalism with lunacy is seldom mistaken.

    Josh,

    You may feel somewhat less alarmed if I state that while choosing to have an abortion must be a soul-searching experience, I would never deny a woman that option.

  274. #274 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    Josh,

    You may feel somewhat less alarmed if I state that while choosing to have an abortion must be a soul-searching experience, I would never deny a woman that option.

    I do feel less alarmed, thank you. In my opinion, it’s always better to state where you’re coming from, even if it exposes you to harsh critique. The way you phrased your first two responses seemed coy, and if I hadn’t asked, surely others would have. Uncomfortable topic? Yep. But that can’t be avoided.

  275. #275 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    I can see that in these postings the tersely clipped comment, sometimes recognized by those around me as a family trait, can foster misunderstanding rather than the desired verbal impact. Yankee dryness is often misinterpreted; I should have thought to give my original post a broader context.

    People like Shaun are to be pitied; people like Kevin are to be encouraged; one can learn from both sorts. Exchanges such as the foregoing 270+ are a source of insight & meaningful exchange.

  276. #276 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    Yankee dryness is often misinterpreted; I should have thought to give my original post a broader context.

    Ah, don’t be too hard on yourself – it’s Teh Intertoobs that give no context. And it runs both ways – blabbermouths like me get in just as much, if not more trouble. I missed the Yankee dryness gene, despite being a Vermonter.

  277. #277 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    Josh & others,

    I don’t mind harsh critique – if it’s merited, and it sometimes is. I regularly shoot from the hip and the recoil might have me stepping in something. But it’s never such that rational discourse can’t clean things up. I’ve been banned from more than one site where an accidental slip in wording or another’s deliberate “misunderstanding” put their panties in a knot, even when with verifiable quotes I proved a site administrator to be a bigot and a liar.

    Uncomfortable topic? Them’s often the best to rassle with. Clean, clear, thoughtful exchanges is where we learn from one another and all together. Magic finger writing from the sky helps none of us. It would be well if folks here point out – simply – whenever my penchant for dry wording seems not to come across properly.

  278. #278 triskelethecat
    January 29, 2010

    @Josh (272): No, hadn’t seen that article. Thanks for posting the link. How brave that doctor is. But, he is 70…who will ever replace him? The antiabortion freaks have scared most OB/Gyn residents so much that no one will ever replace him. And the rich women will fly to Europe or Canada and the poor will suffer.

  279. #279 Thunderbird 5
    January 29, 2010

    Props to Kevin from me too. I’m revisiting this thread and reading through what I’ve missed and I’m impressed with his reasoning and honesty – and pleased for him that he’s getting rid of that poisonous pile of piffle he was raised on. I was lucky, coming from a domestic enviroment that nurtured the good atheist I am.

    And re the legal ‘arguments’ that were being tossed about:
    as I posted up in #23, what is a scary precedent was that the judge allowed Roeder himself to explain to the jury his reasoning and justification for what he did. The defence lawyer was always going to try it on with as much religious-flavoured save-teh-babies pleading as he could get away with but to give the accused a platform to do likewise is really asking for trouble.
    This judge ultimately directed the jury to a murder-or-acquit verdict by disallowing voluntary manslaughter and 2nd degree murder pleas. Another one might not…and so a future case scenario could plausibly see some presentable young BJU-type blast away an ob/gyn and have a sympathetic Bible Belt jury let him off with 5 years or so.
    And that is what could really encourage similar-minded fuckups to do another doctor/nurse/bomb a clinic.

  280. #280 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    Inuring minds (at least my own) want to know, what’s with the “PM” which appears immediately under “Posted by….” in some posts’ title bars but not all?

  281. #281 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    It would be well if folks here point out – simply – whenever my penchant for dry wording seems not to come across properly.

    As I tried to do. I was too hasty, too, in my original posts responding to yours. I apologize.

  282. #282 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Peter H:

    PM – Post Meridian. Heh, it’s cause their names are slightly longer, and pushes the PM to another line.

  283. #283 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    We each have learned a thing from the other.

  284. #284 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    We each have learned a thing from the other.

    Yep, you are dry. Soon, you’ll be reduced to a simple “ayuh.”

    (that was meant as affectionate humor, mind)

  285. #285 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    Kevin,

    How fearsomely droll! I never would have thought it to be simply a matter of format! (To borrow – at my own peril – from The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy, it must be because my mind’s too highly developed! I most CERTAINLY hope folks see the dryness in that one!)

  286. #286 Kevin
    January 29, 2010

    @Peter:

    Haha, it’s okay. I’ve done sillier.

  287. #287 Peter H
    January 29, 2010

    Josh,

    Ayuh. And so to bed.

  288. #288 raven
    January 29, 2010

    Josh:

    I assume many of you have seen this, but if you have not, it’s utterly compelling. Read The Last Abortionist about the last doctor in America who will perform late-term abortions, the threat he lives under, and the desperation of the women who come to him.

    That isn’t quite the case but it is close.

    There are a few docs who will perform third trimester abortions under some circumstances. BTW, third trimesters are heavily regulated by laws that vary a lot from state to state. It has never been the case that a woman can just get one for any reason. It is usually life of the mother or a severely malformed and/or inviable fetus. It is also uncommon, IIRC around 1000/year in the USA.

    Nowadays, those docs simply don’t make it known. You have to have a referral from another physician and that doc has to know who to call. It’s gone underground because no one is going to risk their lives anymore. Life is getting harder for xian terrorists.

    In practice, some women not in the loop or poor who need them aren’t getting them. Sometimes they simply die.

    The well educated and well off have other options. They can go to Canada or fly to Europe.

    It’s not fair but blame the fundies if and when someone you know needs one and can’t get one.

  289. #289 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    That isn’t quite the case but it is close.

    There are a few docs who will perform third trimester abortions under some circumstances.

    Thanks for clarifying that for me, Raven. I should have known the reality was more complicated that what I gleaned from one article.

  290. #290 raven
    January 29, 2010

    Thanks for clarifying that for me, Raven. I should have known the reality was more complicated that what I gleaned from one article.

    Really, you shouldn’t know and have no reason to.

    These docs are underground for a compelling reason. They have a realistic fear of getting killed.

    I sometimes wonder how many MDs have to be assassinated before people start shooting back. We are up to 8 plus 150 wounded now. I’m guessing 50 but who knows how much xian terrorism our society will tolerate before cracking down.

    I also think this is counterproductive for the US xian religion which is on the downhill slide lately. But historically xians have always tolerated huge amounts of killing from their ranks.

  291. #291 Josh, Official SpokesGay
    January 29, 2010

    These docs are underground for a compelling reason. They have a realistic fear of getting killed.

    Too true. I was hopping mad today listening to NPR, who gave Randall Terry of Operation Rescue all kinds of time to make his statement about his disappointment over the verdict – without mentioning the more controversial things he’s been involved with. NPR merely described him as an “anti-abortion activist.” WTF? Srsly. What does a white Christian have to do in this country for even the fabeled “liberal” public radio to call him out?

  292. #292 Pacal
    January 29, 2010

    Regarding: No 249

    The arguements that this person is using are of course wonderful examples of quote mining. Biology books are talking about biology. I notice that most of the comments talk about the “beginnings” of human life, in other words a embryo as the potential to turn into a full human. These texts are not saying that a embryo is not different from a 30 year old. It would be easy to find all sorts of quotes indicating a fundemental distinction between a newly fertilized egg and a newborn. But of course what we are talking here is biology and genetics. Given that a fertilized egg as a complete set of chromosomes it is human and it is alive. just like the cells on your skin but is it a human being? That is a lot dicier. Will this person allege that a clumb of skin cells killed when I scratch myself a human being? The quotes used and i’ve read texts like it are simply using a shorthand to describe something that can become a human being. I should also point out that about 1/2 of the fertilized ovum becomes the planceta. As for this:

    The problem with today?s society is that we change definitions of terms in order to suit our own needs and beliefs. Life has always been considered as to begin from the moment of fertilization until the advent of the contraceptive movement in the 1950s-60s when they moved to define life as starting from the moment of implantation to make them feel less guilty. However, changing a definition does not change the scientific fact that at the moment of fertilization, a new human being is formed.

    If this person is talking about whether or not a human life begins from conception he is simply wrong. That is false. In common law abortion was not considered murder of another human being, even when it was illegal. Further traditionally abortion was often considered alright beforer “quickening”. It is interesting that in the 19th century many people who campaigned against abortion did so not because of the alleged murder of unborn children but because aboortion was then very often extremely dangerous to the mother! In campaigning against abortion in the 19th century because it was murder of a human being was apparently very rare.

    The arguement that the deffintion of when life began changed with the contraception movement of the 1950′s – 60′s is false. Aside from the fact that a contraception movement had been going on for a long time before than. To say nothing of the fact that methods of contraception had been practiced for thousands of years. In fact in the 19th century one of the chief reasons for the slowness of Frances population growth compared to other European countries was the very widespread use of contraception techniques.

    Of course this person is a nut anyone who asserts that any form of contraception is murder can be described as both stupid and evil. Since when is wearing a condom murder or getting your tubes tied. Since when is not concieving children murder. I wonder does this person consider not having sex murder. After all that prevents conception.

    Basically this person wants as many children as possible to be born and to subjugate people to a dictatorship that forces them to have the maximum number of children.

  293. #293 david.utidjian
    January 29, 2010

    I have been reading some of the spittle on this incident on various conservative forums. Many of the cons’ are comparing O’Keefe & Co to Michael Moore. I don’t follow Michael Moore much so I was wondering… Has Michael Moore, in any and all of his “investigative films”, interviewed people under false pretences, gathered film footage under false pretences, used a disguise to gain access to an office or building, or misrepresented himself in any way as someone in an official capacity other than himself? Just asking.

    I also read the FBI affidavit:
    http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/012610_affidavit.pdf

    and if O’Keefe is to be taken at his word that he was only trying to uncover the “truth” about Senator Landrieu’s office phone system being tied up for weeks then, according to the affidavit, he got his answer on page 2, item 6 of the affidavit it says:

    BASEL also tried to call the phone [office phone] with a cellular phone in his possession. He stated that he could not get through.

    So, from the affidavit, it appears that the senator was telling the truth about her office phone system being “jammed up” (or whatever.)

    Again, if he is to be taken at his word, then why would his accomplices then want access to the connection closet and senators PBX system. Do they know what they are doing with PBXs? Why didn’t they just use that request as an exit from the office since they got the information they needed (but not what they wanted)?

    In a morbid sort of way it will be interesting (to me anyhow) how O’Keefe and friends spin this story out.

    -DU-

  294. #294 david.utidjian
    January 29, 2010

    Agh… thread fail in post # 294.

    -DU-

  295. #295 Miki Z
    January 29, 2010

    Twin-Skies,

    I didn’t see this point made, so I’ll add it:
    Being ‘human’ is not the same thing as being a ‘person’. Strands of hair can be identified as ‘human’ under a microscope, as can skill cells, etc. Even sperm (only haploid, not even full diploid) can be identified as ‘human’ under a microscope.

    Personhood is an ethical (and sometimes legal) question, not a biological one. Witness, for example, the inclusion of corporations as persons under many systems of law.

    I think this is also part of the reasoning of the ‘animals are people too’ crowd. I doubt any of them really believe that animals (other than humans) are indistinguishable from humans on a genetic level. I’d be very interested to know if there are those who believe them indistinguishable.

  296. #296 KillJoy
    January 30, 2010

    Kudos to Pacal and Miki Z.

    I think I have been too caught up in the rather vague issue of morality. But that’s sort of my thing I suppose. Being a ScienceGroupie and not an actual scientist, I sometimes throw down the philosophy a little too easily. Sorry if my comment wasn’t exactly appropriate, Twin Skies.

    And Kevin, I am now several drinks deep and having trouble forming coherent sentences myself. Hooray alcohol. ;)

  297. #297 raven
    January 30, 2010

    The problem with today?s society is that we change definitions of terms in order to suit our own needs and beliefs. Life has always been considered as to begin from the moment of fertilization until the advent of the contraceptive movement in the 1950s-60s when they moved to define life as starting from the moment of implantation to make them feel less guilty. However, changing a definition does not change the scientific fact that at the moment of fertilization, a new human being is formed.

    That isn’t true. The bible defines personhood as starting 1 month after birth. This is because neonates were at high risk of dying. No point in getting attached to them right after birth. This is still the custom in many third world countries. They won’t give a baby a name until one month after it is born because so many die before then.

    In the middle ages in Catholic countries, personhood was considered to be quickening and early state abortion was common and legal.

    Someone is changing definitions to suit their ideology. The xians of course.

    Of course this person is a nut anyone who asserts that any form of contraception is murder can be described as both stupid and evil.

    Some fundies are anti-contraceptive as well. At some point, people just give up and label them nutcases and tune out. The fundie leaders don’t walk that talk. Robertson has 2 kids, Dobson 3, Falwell a few, Terry Randall 1 biological kid, and so on. They have better things to do with their time and money than be baby factories.

  298. #298 Twin-Skies
    January 30, 2010

    @Pacal and Miki Z.

    Oh, those explanations do nicely for ammo.

    Granted a bit of time will be needed looking for statements from credible sources that explicitly state the difference between a fertilized embryo and full-fledged human being (Uh, can you recommend any names?) , but at least I’ve something to stand on.

    I appreciate the help :)

    @Shaun

    Justifying the killing of an innocent man with another fallacy – a just war – speaks volumes about your (in)ability to reason.

  299. #299 A. Noyd
    January 30, 2010

    Josh (#266)

    OK, I totally fail in terms of making html characters show up here.

    Ampersand entities are your friend.

  300. #300 Cactus Wren
    January 30, 2010

    I can only assume that the other thirty-six minutes were devoted to coffee and Danish?

  301. #301 Aquaria
    January 30, 2010

    I think my preference comes from knowing that there are couples who are unable to have children.

    1) Nobody’s entitled to a child.

    2) Those people who can’t have kids can just learn to accept it or work within what’s available, because they have ZERO rights to commandeer a woman’s womb for their own selfish purposes. Women certainly are not brood mares to the hysterical baby fetish people can have.
    And it is a fetish, otherwise,

    3) If people who can’t breed wanted a child because they truly love kids so gosh-darn much, they would adopt one of the tens of thousands of kids who are right now in orphanages and foster care. There are tens of thousands of kids needing homes, right now, and not all of them are crack babies. Just ask a social worker in your town if any children are available to adopt. And wear a hazmat suit to endure the bitter laughter that will be heaped upon you.

    The point? Most of the “I’m entitled to your womb and its contents” crowd make not one effort to adopt a child in foster care or an orphanage. Why? Because they want a BAAAAAYYYYYYBEEEEEE, or else they’ll take their parenting toys and go home.

    Here’s what would be an equal trade to forcing women to give up their wombs to the childless: Give your brain to an anacephalic baby, and you can have my womb. Otherwise, shut up about telling women to cede control of their own bodies just because someone else lost the reproductive lottery.

  302. #302 mick.long
    January 30, 2010

    Ten bucks says the supporters of the murderer think that Obama is “soft on terrorism”.

  303. #303 Miki Z
    January 30, 2010

    Ten bucks says the supporters of the murderer think that Obama is “soft on terrorism”.

    In contrast to Obama’s softness, they have a hard on for violence.

  304. #304 Timaahy
    January 30, 2010

    “There was nothing being done, and the legal process had been exhausted, and these babies were dying every day,” Roeder said. “I felt that if someone did not do something, he was going to continue.”

    Hang on… I’m confused now. Is he talking about the abortion doctor or the Pope and his African condom policy?

  305. #305 vireoibis
    January 30, 2010

    i just need to post this.

    “This right of privacy, whether it be founded in the Fourteenth Amendment’s concept of personal liberty and restrictions upon state action, as we feel it is, or, as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment’s reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman’s
    decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. The detriment that the State would impose upon the pregnant woman by denying this choice altogether is apparent. Specific and direct harm medically diagnosable even in early
    pregnancy may be involved. Maternity, or additional offspring, may force upon the woman a distressful life and future. Psychological harm may be imminent. Mental and physical health may be taxed by child care. There is also the distress, for all concerned, associated with the unwanted child, and there is the problem of bringing a child into a family already unable, psychologically and otherwise, to care for it. In other cases, as in this one, the additional difficulties and continuing stigma of unwed motherhood may be involved. All these are factors the woman and her responsible physician necessarily will consider in consultation.”

    - Justice Blackmun, for the majority, Roe v. Wade

  306. #306 ermine
    January 30, 2010

    @Twin-Skies #249:

    He asserts that human life begins right at conception, and that any form of contraception is basically murder.

    Most contraception works to prevent conception. A condom prevents the fusion of egg and sperm. Spermicides kill the sperm to prevent conception. Sponges do a little of both. The Pill prevents ovulation. Even the ‘morning-after’ pill prevents ovulation rather than conception. There may be one that prevents implantation, (IUDs – not sure if that’s how they work or not, but they’re not exactly in vogue these days anyway. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong on that one.), but even that isn’t an abortion. Pregnancy doesn’t occur until after implantation, and you can’t abort a pregnancy if you never had a pregnancy implant to begin with.

    If preventing sperm and egg from combining is murder, God murders uncountable trillions constantly. Any male who doesn’t either have regular sex or masturbate regularly will end up losing millions of sperm anyway in the seminal emission (Wet dream) that is -sure- to occur once enough of them are backed up and not provided release. Any woman who doesn’t conceive when she’s ovulating will have the unfertilized egg flushed from her body with her next period. All of those things prevent the union of eggs and sperm constantly, and have gone on since the dawn of humanity. Now if masturbation is a sin, and sex outside of marriage is a sin, AND preventing (in any way) the union of sperm and egg is a sin, then it’s a catch-22. You’ve been set up to fail by Gawd Hisself in a situation that is impossible to win! What kind of loving, caring parent does something like THAT?

    Matter of fact, the newer and safer the method of contraception is, the less likely it is to be something that would affect the embryo after conception. Why is it that so many anti-abortion people are also anti-contraception? Contraception. Prevents. Abortions. It’s proven scientifically, and far better and more measurably than Abstinence Only, I guarantee!

    This claim that ‘Human life begins at conception!’ is shown to be a lie every time a pair of identical twins is born. Do you know how identical twins develop? A single egg cell is fertilized – that’s your moment of conception there, the moment that a ‘unique human life’ begins, right? And then, after conception the cell divides again, maybe once, maybe several times – And then something happens that splits one cell or group of cells from the other(s), whereupon the single, unique human being merrily continues fetal development as two separate embryos. There’s really nothing special about the moment of fusion.

    The problem with today?s society is that we change definitions of terms in order to suit our own needs and beliefs. Life has always been considered as to begin from the moment of fertilization … However, changing a definition does not change the scientific fact that at the moment of fertilization, a new human being is formed.

    What in the world are you talking about? I think you (or your friend) are trying to change a much older definition to suit your own needs and beliefs, aren’t you? Have you OR your friend actually done any research at all into when earlier cultures thought that life began?

    The questions i pose to you are these:
    1.Is a fertilized ovum alive (i.e. has life) or dead (i.e. has no life)? Surely there is no ?in between? answer.

    Is an UN-fertilized ovum alive? How about a sperm cell? damned wriggly for dead things, aren’t they? How are they any less alive than the fertilized cell? Just because they don’t have a full complement of chromosomes? Does that mean that red blood cells aren’t alive? They don’t have nuclei, so I don’t believe they have any chromosomes at all, (correct me if I’m wrong!), and yet they are still living cells.

    2. Is a fertilized human ovum by a human sperm (zygote) already ?human??

    What a fertilized ovum ISN’T is a human being. A potential human, maybe even two or more human beings, certainly, but still just a single cell, a microscopic blob of cells, a tiny blot of jelly, mindless, heartless, boneless for the first several months of pregnancy. They are no more a human being than an apple seed is an apple, or an acorn an oak tree, as has been mentioned several times above. Would you prosecute someone who ground acorns into flour for the crime of chopping down a forest of oaks?

    It is ludicrous to continually equate the two. For the first two-thirds of the pregnancy, the fetus is no more than a parasite. Brainless, eyeless, limbless, it has absolutely no chance of life without a constant supply of nutrients drained directly from the gestating host.

    Meanwhile, the woman who owns the body that this clump of cells is siphoning nutrients from, she IS a full human being, with full powers of reasoning, desires she can communicate, and a personality that has been developing for decades. She has the potential to rear a dozen or more babies over her lifetime, but that potentiality means nothing against her rights to her own body. Forcing her to gestate and birth -this- potential life could easily jeopardize all the ones that she might have in future if she’s not forced to birth one now. Until it is a lot more than just a potential human being, her rights far outweigh any possible claim to rights by the developing fetus.

    Also, this definition of the beginning of life is not merely a definition of the Church c/o Humanae Vitae. The Philippine Constitution Article II, Section 12, recognizes that human life must be protected from the moment of conception.

    And you’re going to try to tell me that it wasn’t religion that pushed that article into the constitution? In the Philippines? Come on! This isn’t an argument.

    Numerous embryology textbooks also define the beginning of life at the moment of fertilization. To quote:

    Actually, not one of those says anything about the ‘beginning of life’. I see ‘Zero time point of embryonic development’, ‘beginning of a human being’, ‘critical landmark’ of ‘genetic unity’, (whatever -that- means), ‘beginning as a unique individual’ (Which I pointed out above is false), and again, ‘important landmark’ marking the formation of a ‘genetically distinct human being’. ‘life’ is not mentioned even once in any of the quotes you’ve provided. There has to be some point at which the process of development begins. ‘life’ or not, ‘human being’ or not, the creation of the zygote is an important landmark in the process of embryonic development.

    That does not make that newly-formed cell into a feeling, reasoning human being, and to give it rights that outweigh the rights of it’s mother is to make her a slave to it. How much simpler does it have to be for that to make sense?

  307. #307 ermine
    January 30, 2010

    My last post was getting too long for me to want to just add this at the end. I’m another one who’s glad to see you here, Kevin – Don’t ever stop THINKING and you’ll grow out of those ‘manchild moments’ soon enough. :)

    I was right where you are when I was 26. It’s almost 20 years later, and I have only learned more and more that I made the right choice then. Keep reading, keep learning! There’s an incredible universe to take in once you can get the God-blinders off of your eyes and your mind.

    People here may be curt at times, and even downright rude when we get someone who’s obviously dishonest or a godbot (why do those two always seem to occur at the same time?), but most of us will bend over backwards to try and answer an honest question. I can only wish I’d had the resources that I have now when I was growing up.

    Welcome to the pool – C’mon in, the water’s fine!

  308. #308 Twin-Skies
    January 30, 2010

    @ermine

    And you’re going to try to tell me that it wasn’t religion that pushed that article into the constitution? In the Philippines? Come on! This isn’t an argument.

    Actually, one of the creators of our 1987 constitution is Father Joaquin Bernas S.J., although even he was critical of the Catholic Church’s demonization of reproductive health.

    He doesn’t speak for a lot of Catholic here either, which is unfortunate since he was one of the few people here who was willing to give fair criticism of our pending RH Bill.

  309. #309 Sven DiMilo
    January 30, 2010

    epic comment, ermine

    explicitly state the difference between a fertilized embryo and full-fledged human being

    zygote (aka fertilized ovum): one single cell. Can’t do a damn thing.

    full-fledged human being: something like 75,000,000,000,000 cells functioning together as a single organism with a nervous system and everything. Can do, for example, this.

    Hope this helps.

  310. #310 Twin-Skies
    January 30, 2010

    @Kevin

    Kudos for being honest with your views, more so in admitting that your upbringing and your current thought processes is causing a degree of inner conflict.

    Not everybody can be upfront about their doubts, especially since it’s seen by many as weakness, but it’s exactly this sort of internal friction that leads one to sharpen their wits, honing it to a polished edge that allows you to to cut down bigotry and ignorance.

    Of course I’m borrowing some cheesy concepts from martial arts make my point, but you get the idea :P

    @Shaun

    Tom Estes… Oh I get it. Haha.

  311. #311 Jadehawk, OM
    January 30, 2010

    IUDs – not sure if that’s how they work or not, but they’re not exactly in vogue these days anyway. Someone will correct me if I’m wrong on that one.

    the copper coil can do that. the hormonal one works like the mini-pill and prevents ovulation primarily. It can’t cause a failure to implant either, because that’s just not what progesterone does. IIRC, progesterone is something given to pregnant women who have repeated miscarriages to make the embryo “stick” better.

    And they’re fairly popular. the mirena coil is, anyway; dunno about the copper coil.

  312. #312 Dyslexic Insomniac
    January 30, 2010

    (Apologies for being somewhat off-topic)

    I’ve noticed some of you commenting that you had been raised Christian, and at a fairly advanced age have lost your faith — I have a question I’d like to ask you folks.

    First some personal background for context: I was raised Quaker (Friends), but by the age of 8 I had become so disillusioned with the hypocrisy and immorality of my fellow parishioners that I lobbied my mother to stop attending church and Sunday school. Luckily my father was non-religious, or at least minimally religious (ostensibly Catholic, I suppose), and didn’t often attend church, so even though my mother was fairly fundamentalist at the time, this wasn’t a total shocker for her and she handled it pretty well. In the following years, I continued to question religion and, largely due to my enthusiasm for everything science, ended up deciding I was agnostic, and then later realizing that I was just being timid about it all, and that I was actually an atheist. This all occurred before I was a teenager. It seems, in retrospect, like such a natural progression to me.

    So, for the question(s): How do you think it is that you late-blooming atheists made it through so much of your life not questioning your respective religions and yet still managed to have the necessary epiphany at a relatively advanced age? Was there a specific catalyst involved, perhaps an event?

    I ask largely because it seems to me that your experiences might lead to a workable method of de-programming others who are still trapped in their religions (setting aside for the moment the ethicality of doing so). I have a close friend who is still fairly deeply religious and, as I already mentioned, my mother is as well. Most of the time it seems innocuous enough, but there are times that I see their religiosity causing pain to them and those around them, and I struggle with the desire to talk them out of their beliefs, but don’t really know how I would go about that in an effective manner.

    For the rest of you on here: what do you think about the question of whether it’s ethical to argue someone out of their religion? I realize that’s probably a silly question for most of you, but consider that these are people I care deeply about and I’m not positive that their beliefs are doing them more harm than good. My mother especially seems to get a lot of comfort from her beliefs. Neither of them proselytize much, so I doubt they are doing much harm to others, either.

  313. #313 shonny
    January 30, 2010

    #313 Dyslexic Insomniac January 30, 2010 3:59 AM

    Try to get them to read Darrel Ray’s The God Virus!
    It is not as blatant as other books, and treat religion as what it really is, a virus that attacks the afflicted’s mental capacity.

  314. #314 John Morales
    January 30, 2010

    Insomniac,

    For the rest of you on here: what do you think about the question of whether it’s ethical to argue someone out of their religion?

    It’s not really on-topic, you should really ask this on the Endless Thread, which is an open thread (see the link in the upper left of the page).

    That said, (IRL) my personal rule is that I won’t try to argue someone out of their religion unless I consider it’s harming them or others.
    This has never happened.

    I will, however, engage with them on the topic if they bring it up, and try to get them to justify their belief.
    This hardly ever happens.

    I should add that I take this line with all sorts of woo, not just religion.
    This happens fairly regularly.

  315. #315 echidna
    January 30, 2010

    It all boils down to the fact that I don’t like being lied to, especially lies that are used to keep people ignorant, and to whip up hatred.

    I was kicked out of my first Sunday school lesson, because I had read the bible from cover to cover (at age 8), and was naively correcting the Catholic nuns when they misrepresented stories. But Australia being what it is, religion didn’t impose many restrictions, so there was nothing really to kick against, and so I didn’t question much further until much later.

    I wanted to find out more about the historical context of Christianity. I found that the church (catholic) had lied about so many things (such as the fact that the concept of heaven and resurrection pre-dated Jesus), and the role of Paul and James (let alone the paucity of evidence for Jesus).
    My faith vanished much later when a relative started to sabotage my kids’ education by making disparaging remarks about evolution (and science that worked against a young earth) in front of them. He knew what he was saying was not true, but that didn’t stop him from trying to “make room for God”.

    Toss in other things associated with religion, such as child-molesting priests, the long history of whipping up hatred against the Jews in Europe by the Catholic church, and fundamentalists out to destroy education – and religion gets pretty easy to turn away from. Throw in Pharyngula, where the idea is reinforced that empty rhetoric is worth nothing, and thinking about the world is best based on evidence, and atheism becomes the world view of choice.

    I wouldn’t actively try to argue someone out of their religion, because their private beliefs are none of my business. At the same time, my own life is definitely my business, and I have no compunction about pointing out when someone tells a lie (especially when it’s unwitting), or when they try to impose a non-evidence-based view or ritual on me or mine. Mine also extends to include the broader community – no one has the right to impose their lies, ignorance or hatred on my world.

  316. #316 shonny
    January 30, 2010

    Although against death sentences there are the occasional exception, and this is one of them.
    Since the assassin is religious, maybe apply ‘an eye for an eye . . .’?

  317. #317 Dianne
    January 30, 2010

    The questions i pose to you are these:
    1.Is a fertilized ovum alive (i.e. has life) or dead (i.e. has no life)? Surely there is no ?in between? answer.
    2. Is a fertilized human ovum by a human sperm (zygote) already ?human??

    I’m late to the party, but just in case it still helps…

    1. Yes. But the answer to that is “so what” on several levels:
    a. The unfertilized gametes were also alive. And human. Why should the fertilized oocyte (it’s not an egg until slightly after it is fertilized in fact) be more “human” than an unfertilized oocyte. Life began in the precambrian and all life has come from other life since then.
    b. The vast majority of cells in the body of a person who is brain dead but being kept “alive” on life support are alive. But is the person? No. Legally and morally s/he is dead. Why should a zygote without any neurons at all, living or dead, be considered a living human when a brain dead person isn’t?

    2. Yes. Again, so what? All cells in the body are human. Including, for example, the intestinal cells that are sloughed off by the body every day, digested (still alive) and the remains added to the fecal material you expel every day. Does that mean you’re killing people every time you poop? Furthermore, human cells are used in labs around the world every day. Is the biomedical establishment guilty of slavery (and mass murder) for the use of Hela and Jurkat cells? What about the mass slaughter of living, human blood cells in routine testing?

    Basically, the core argument is that the brain is considered the central characteristic making us living people. If it is dead-or has never formed as in anencephaly-then there is no living person. Why make an exception for this one cell?

  318. #318 Pierce R. Butler
    January 30, 2010

    raven @ # 298: The bible defines personhood as starting 1 month after birth.

    Chapter ‘n’ verse, please.

  319. #319 gladiatrix
    January 30, 2010

    @Killua (Post #208)

    @phantomreader42,

    Still, focus on the family would probably not have been able to get a graphic ad on the superbowl. I still wonder if dating sites have been able to feature make out sessions, since it was deemed “content inappropriate”. Regardless, I doubt this is showing a conservative company, nor the religious ad spots, it probably is just their fear of controversy, and targeting the most profits. Network execs don’t get to be network execs by worrying about the morality of their decisions, they get to be network execs by worrying about the profit and losses of their decisions.

    It is very possible that this ad is not completely truthful (quelle surprise! NOT). The veracity of the story is being questioned:

    From Gloria Allred Threatens CBS For Allowing Tim Tebow Anti-Abortion Super Bowl Ad

    . . . .
    In the controversial ad, Pam reportedly shares the story of her difficult 1987 pregnancy which occurred when she was working as a missionary in the Philippines. In her harrowing tale she says she fell ill with amoebic dysentery while pregnant and was treated with robust antibiotics, which she says doctors told her had caused fetal damage, prompting them to urge her to terminate her pregnancy, but she refused their advice that she have an abortion for her own safety. Going on to give birth to Tebow, the now-famous quarterback who went on to become a Heisman Trophy winner, leading the Gators to two BCS wins.

    In her exclusive interview with RadarOnline.com Allred slams the ad and CBS’s decision to air it, pointing out factual inconsistencies with Pam’s story. One glaring one is the fact that the act of abortion is totally illegal in the majority Catholic country of the Philippines – under all circumstances including rape and incest, and even without a provision in the circumstance that the mother’s life is in danger. The law has been in effect since 1930.

    Allred says she believes it an impossible scenario to believe that Philippino doctors would of ever suggested abortion as a viable option for Tebow in the first place. And when you learn that physicians and midwives who perform abortions in the Philippines face six years in prison, and may have their licenses suspended or revoked, and that women who receive abortions – no matter the reason – may be punished with imprisonment for two to six years, it’s easy to see why.

    Allred shares an open letter she has written to Les Moonves, the President and CEO of the CBS Corporation, where she urges him to re-think his decision to air the controversial ad, and questions his decision in light of the fact that CBS have turned down other advocacy ads in the past.

    It’s a shocking turn around on policy for the network, who in 2004, were criticized by many liberal organizations for rejecting an ad by the United Church of Christ highlighting the UCC’s welcoming stance toward gays and others who might feel shunned by more conservative churches. CBS cited at the time their strict “no advocacy in advertising” policy. Something that has obviously changed for some unapparent reason.

    Allred asks Moonves to get a clear grasp of the correct and true facts in this case, and asks if he will still air the anti-choice commercial “if it turns out to be misleading advertising”.
    . . . .
    She says that she hopes she never sees the ad on air, but if she does she “hopes that the Federal Communications Commission and the Federal Trade Commission will be watching it and evaluating it for misleading advertising too.”

    Allred warns, “If this ad airs and fails to disclose that abortions were illegal at the time Ms. Tebow made her “choice”, then I intend to file a formal complaint of misleading advertising with those federal commissions.”
    (emphasis and link to letter added to the original)

    If Allred is correct, then this would be yet another example of anti-choicers “embroidering” on the truth (to put it mildly) to further their agenda (all they need is a CEO who will whore for money to air the ad, regardless of it’s accuracy).

  320. #320 badgersdaughter
    January 30, 2010

    Dyslexic Insomniac, I was raised Christian and didn’t become an atheist until well after 30, about 7 years ago. I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what led up to my “deconversion,” because at the time it seemed sudden. But it was so easy and obvious that I eventually realized there was more to it than that.

    Kevin, twenty years ago, while I was in college, still a Christian (and a fairly devout one, too) I was a birth mother and I gave my baby up for adoption. My case was very much a best case scenario, but even I have had outrageous repercussions. I felt like you, in that I would stand up for the rights of other women to choose abortion but felt it was out of the question in my case. Now I am entirely pro-choice and have even considered trying to become a doctor in order to serve women in need. It’s not something I would be good at, though, I have no patience whatsoever with sick people.

    I don’t want to make a spectacle of myself in a public forum unless the posters here express a wish to hear my story (stories), but if you really want to have a thoughtful chat, you and anyone else may e-mail me at my username at gmail.com. (I’m not afraid of e-mail trolls, I know where my delete key is, lol.)

  321. #321 ianmhor
    January 30, 2010

    Dianne: Having spent my PhD doing terrible things to Hela cells that idea brought me to a sudden halt!

    But do like the point about intestinal cells that particular line of reasoning has more impact that talking of skin cells dying. Will remember that for future use.

    Is it not that when we talk about a person we are talking about a complete system? It is also a system that has to grow and learn and in the end degrade and finally fall apart. At both ends of that the person doesn’t exist. When the person first appears is one of the questions being asked and certainly that must require the existence and full functioning of all the important parts of the system and the brain is pretty central. But it isn’t just a living brain it must also be one that has learnt to be a person. My opinion is that has to be significantly after birth but concede that for many important reasons sticking with around the time of birth is reasonable.

  322. #322 Draken
    January 30, 2010

    In a normal prison, he might be treated too well, yet I’m against death penalty. No, I have a much better idea:

    Put him in a female prison, between all these uneducated young women who got knocked up and were forced to have an abortion, or compelled to have a child they could hardly care for.

  323. #323 Thorne
    January 30, 2010

    [blockquote]And on that note, how the heck do I block quote?[/blockquote]
    Using Firefox, pressing Ctrl+U will bring up a source page, showing all the HTML codes being used on the page. With IE, click the View menu, then click Source. That’s how I learned.

  324. #324 Thorne
    January 30, 2010

    Damn! Blockquote fail!
    Replace the brackets with the “greater than” and “less than” symbols, SHIFT+period and SHIFT+comma.

    Still learning, I guess!

  325. #325 Sven DiMilo
    January 30, 2010

    Is it not that when we talk about a person we are talking about a complete system?

    Yes. Of course; that’s it, exactly.

  326. #326 blf
    January 30, 2010
    The bible defines personhood as starting 1 month after birth.

    Chapter ‘n’ verse, please.

    raven’s possibly referring to the well-known instructions to Moses of the worth of people in terms of money:

    Leviticus 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver.

    In summary:

     *  Males (20 - 60 years old) are worth 50 shekels. Females are worth 30.

     *  Males (5 - 20 years old) are worth 20 shekels. Females are worth 10.

     *  Males (< 5 years old) are worth 5 shekels. Females are worth 3.

     *  Babies less than one month old are worth nothing at all. So are fetuses.

    And not to mention the multiple places where babies are deliberately killed because the same dude who gave the above to Moses said to do it.

  327. #327 Thorne
    January 30, 2010

    @Dyslexic Insomniac:

    I’m game. I can’t really point to a specific time when I realized I didn’t believe. I have always, as far as I can remember, questioned what others told me, not generally willing to take much on faith. I was raised Roman Catholic, and my parents still are, though nowhere near fundamentalists. I do know that even before high school I was cutting masses, spending the money I was given for the collection plate on candy.

    Twelve years of Catholic schools may have been what turned me around. (No, I was never molested.) By the time I graduated I had given up on church and simply ignored any religious activities. When asked I would generally say I was Catholic, but not practicing. Then I started to say I was agnostic. I always liked the term “Apathetic Agnostic”.

    It’s only in the last 5 or 10 years, though, that I’ve admitted to myself that I don’t believe in God, or any gods. I’ll be 60 this year and find I still have so much to learn. But it’s sites like this one that have helped me so much to focus my understanding.

    The only advice I have for those struggling with religion is to do the one thing that religions universally seem to abhor. Think for yourself! Question everything. Especially those who claim to have a pipeline to the Almighty.

  328. #328 Pierce R. Butler
    January 30, 2010

    blf @ # 327: … the well-known instructions to Moses of the worth of people in terms of money…

    Fascinating, even if that’s not what raven had in mind. (Commoditization ? personhood, unless of course Ceiling Cat says so.)

    According to “the world’s favorite currency site“, I can buy (hey, the bible is True for All Time, iznit?) a 5-year-old girl for $1 and have change coming. For $3 I could get a significantly-more-useful 20-y-o, and still have a shekel left over.

    Wait a minute, though. Is there anything in Leviticus like a Lemon Law?

  329. #329 Pareidolius
    January 30, 2010

    Do any christians using the bible as some kind of authoritative text re human conception think that carries any weight here? Really,save your biblical biology lessons for hapless christians who may be teetering on the edge of reason. We all pretty much understand that the bible is a broze-age, goat-herder’s hygiene manual. And, if by any chance you cling to biblical authority regarding, say, abortion or marriage yet eat shellfish or wear mixed-fiber clothing, then you’re cherry picking, in which case you’re not a very good christian in the eyes of your bellicose sky fairy. And you know what that means . . .

    “StyxAir Super Concorde service to Hell, now boarding at gate 666. We will be pre-boarding passengers with unsaved children and passengers who wore-mixed fiber clothing or picked their noses in church . . .”

  330. #330 raven
    January 30, 2010

    religioustolerance.org:

    Leviticus 27:6 And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver and for the female three shekels. A child was only given a value after the age of one month; boys were worth five shekels; girls were of less value at three shekels; below that age, (and presumably before birth) they were assigned no monetary value.

    An alternate explanation is that there was such a high infant mortality rate that one could only be confident that there was a reasonable chance of a newborn surviving after the first month had passed.

    Numbers 3:15 Take a census…including every male a month or more old. Only male babies over one month of age were considered persons for the purposes of enumeration. One explanation of this policy was that an infant under one month of age and a fetus were apparently not worthy of being counted as a human. Another is that the death rate among newborns was so high, that one could not have a reasonable certainty that the child would live until it was at least a month old.

    The bible doesn’t have any specific prohibitions on abortion. Personhood for many purposes started 1 month after birth, probably because the infant mortality rate was very high.

    This is still done in some third world countries. They flat out say it is because a high proportion of neonates die.

    There are many bible verses that bear on the issue indirectly and obscurely. In general fetuses were given little value in the OT.

  331. #331 Grumpy1942
    January 30, 2010

    Love your blog. Read it every day. But…
    Pre-planned? There is no post planning.
    You may have meant premeditated. Pre-planned is used often and always nettles us grammar nazis.

  332. #332 frankosaurus
    January 30, 2010

    “The Death Cultists call these loser killers heroes and great inspirational figures. Never mind that Roeder was mentally ill and unemployed for decades or that Tiller saved the lives of women at high risk of dying.”

    you guys just don’t get it. So what comes from your moral censorship? I’d wager the majority of people here are statists, wanting to centralize and administer values over the union. Lets all hold hands and, all together now, OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!

  333. #333 aratina cage of the OM
    January 30, 2010

    fuckosaurus, why do you keep coming back to spew your venom all over the place?

  334. #334 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Ah, mindless trolls prove themeselves to be mindless trolls. Fuckosaurus must stay true to his nature. Mindless after mindless post, full of sound and fury, meaning nothing. Maybe in twenty years or so he will mature enough to make a semi-cogent post…

  335. #335 Ichthyic
    January 30, 2010

    fuckosaurus, why do you keep coming back to spew your venom all over the place?

    Venom? is that what it is?

    Frankly his spewings are so inane I am unable to categorize them.

    e.g.:

    Lets all hold hands and, all together now, OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!

    WTF?

    I say to the dungeon with him on the grounds of extreme Insipidity.

  336. #336 Rutee, Shrieking Harpy of Dooooom
    January 30, 2010

    you guys just don’t get it. So what comes from your moral censorship? I’d wager the majority of people here are statists, wanting to centralize and administer values over the union. Lets all hold hands and, all together now, OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!

    What the hell are you babbling about? The only coherent sentence is “you guys just don’t get it”, so on that note I’ll agree, but seriously, what the hell do you think you’re saying?

  337. #337 Dianne
    January 30, 2010

    But it isn’t just a living brain it must also be one that has learnt to be a person. My opinion is that has to be significantly after birth but concede that for many important reasons sticking with around the time of birth is reasonable.

    In fact, humans don’t definitively pass the mirror test until about 15-18 months of age. This is usually not discussed because it freaks people out too badly. But an infant is not dependent on anyone in particular and threatens no one’s life, unlike a fetus, so the arguments for abortion fail completely for infanticide.

  338. #338 Rev. BigDumbChimp
    January 30, 2010

    you guys just don’t get it. So what comes from your moral censorship? I’d wager the majority of people here are statists, wanting to centralize and administer values over the union. Lets all hold hands and, all together now, OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!

    Was there anything in this quoted passage that doesn’t point to the questionable mental health of frankosaurus?

  339. #339 Ichthyic
    January 30, 2010

    Was there anything in this quoted passage that doesn’t point to the questionable mental health of frankosaurus?

    cherry picking for all I’m worth…

    Lets[sic] all hold hands

    ?

    holding hands is fine, yeah?
    ;)

  340. #340 frankosaurus
    January 30, 2010

    FUN! it’s like throwing meat to dogs. Okay, since it looks like you’re hungry, here’s another sentence for you folks to rip up…

    “Anyone hear an echo?”.

    Just Joshin, you guys are all right. Especially Nerd. That guy cracks me up. Peace out.

  341. #341 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    “Anyone hear an echo?”.

    Only from your empty head fuckosaurus. Want to play some more?

  342. #342 aratina cage of the OM
    January 30, 2010

    I see fuckosaurus’s guardian returned home and now it was “all a joke” to save face.

  343. #343 frankosaurus
    January 30, 2010

    I hate to ruin my exit, but don’t you think that my having a girlfriend proves there is a God?

  344. #344 aratina cage of the OM
    January 30, 2010

    don’t you think that my having a girlfriend proves there is a God?

    Well, she got you to shut up last time you decided to troll but I don’t see how that proves there is a god. I’d wager that you have more redeemable qualities in meatspace than you do while you are trolling here.

  345. #345 Ichthyic
    January 30, 2010

    I hate to ruin my exit, but don’t you think that my having a girlfriend proves there is a God?

    depending on how long you’ve been dating, one could construe that all kinds of ways.

    do you feel like you’re being punished yet?

    no?

    should we ask again in a few months?
    :P

    FUN! it’s like throwing meat to dogs.

    we prefer: chum to sharks.

    and yes, your comments are nothing more than chum.

  346. #346 Miki Z
    January 30, 2010

    It only proves that if there is a God, he is just as cruel and misogynistic as the Bible says.

  347. #347 MAJeff, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Hell, Lynn and Dick Cheney each found someone as evil as themselves.

  348. #348 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Girlfriend? Even a dweeb like me had a girlfriend. (Now wife of 35+ years.) Meaningless, except your girlfriend might also be a delusional fool.

    *No RH, I don’t mean you. Ouch. Ouch. My spleeen!*

  349. #349 Walton
    January 30, 2010

    frankosaurus,

    I hate to ruin my exit, but don’t you think that my having a girlfriend proves there is a God?

    No, it just proves that life is unfair. Considering my conspicuous and continuing lack of a girlfriend, boyfriend or paramour of any kind, the logical conclusion of your argument would be that if there is a God, he (or she) doesn’t like me very much. :-)

  350. #350 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Walton, I strongly suspect you will find your girl (if that is your real inclination). Like Jadehawk says, hang out with people including single women. Sex might happen. Repeated sex equals committed relationship. Even a dweeb like me figured that out (funny how the Redhead was in those groups).

  351. #351 Sioux Laris
    January 30, 2010

    Frank, Your “girlfriend,” being an three-holed inflatable doll (Lucille Ball milf edition: remaindered), is clearly as much as girlfriend as a fetus is a person. Or the Bible a reasonable source of history or morality.

    Now, admit you are a stupid troll (Lucille Ball “attention-seeking” edition) who has been outed and outshone. Do this tiresome routine at someplace like Free Republic.
    And feck your un-funniness.

  352. #352 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 30, 2010

    I hate to ruin my exit, but don’t you think that my having a girlfriend proves there is a God?

    No. It means that you are a kidnapper and that you are holding her against her will.

  353. #353 ianmhor
    January 30, 2010

    #338 Dianne: Correct. Language a bit loose when I used “around birth”. Didn’t wish to use “at birth” given the broad range of efforts necessary to support premature births – but not sure now why I thought that was relevant!

    Fair waabit so now to bed.

  354. #354 frankosaurus
    January 30, 2010

    “No. It means that you are a kidnapper and that you are holding her against her will.”

    Offside. though if you tacked a y on the end of “will” you’d be close. JUSTICE!!

  355. #355 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Yawn, Franky sore eye loses because of stoopidity. What a loser…

  356. #356 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 30, 2010

    I am not off sides you stupid fuck. You came here to play a fucked up game. I am just gining some back, luv. Deal with it.

    I sure as shit do not say things like this to civil people.

  357. #357 Miki Z
    January 30, 2010

    I don’t know why frank emailed me his schedule for tomorrow, but for those who are interested:

    see a therapist, answer mail, play my guitar, listen to music, play pool, watch television, eat lousy food and take delicious medication.

  358. #358 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    see a therapist,

    So, as I said, maybe in 20 years he will be semicogent….

  359. #359 frankosaurus
    January 30, 2010

    you forgot wanking. And church. Though not necessarily in that order

  360. #360 Miki Z
    January 30, 2010

    try a google search, frank.

  361. #361 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Poor Franky, still wanking at the idea of his church (not GF or wife). Good enough for you?

  362. #362 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Damn, Miki Z! That was even meaner than my insult. Nicely done.

  363. #363 Miki Z
    January 30, 2010

    Thank you, I’ll be playing all week, proceeds to go to the Diagnose Lynna fund.

  364. #364 frankosaurus
    January 30, 2010

    I didn’t know that a participant in these discussions needed to be boned up on the daily lives of famous mental cases. A list would be helpful so that next time you use psychopathic references, I will more easily catch and commend you on the subtlety of your humour.

    If you really want to hurt me, why dance around the bush. Why not just mock my small genitals?

  365. #365 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Why not just mock my small genitals?

    That would be cruel. Your small intelligence, cogency, and lack of morals on the other hand…

  366. #366 Miki Z
    January 30, 2010

    I didn’t know that a participant in these discussions needed to be boned up on the daily lives of famous mental cases.

    Feel free to use the term “peer group”.

  367. #367 Anri
    January 30, 2010

    (At the risk of engaging with someone who might not be willing to argue in good faith, or hang around long enough to argue at all…)
    frankosaurus sez:

    you guys just don’t get it.

    Please be more specific.

    So what comes from your moral censorship?

    Please be more specific. And coherent.

    I’d wager the majority of people here are statists, wanting to centralize and administer values over the union.

    Values like individual freedom and suchlike, yes, I imagine we’d like valuing rights such as that to be passed into law.
    Or, rather, we have understand they have been passed into law, we’d just like them applied a bit more evenhandedly.

    Lets all hold hands and, all together now, OBAMA, OBAMA, OBAMA!

    No, thank you. He’s on the record as being on the wrong side of this issue too.
    Serious disappointment there, but still better than the alternative.

  368. #368 John Morales
    January 30, 2010

    frankosaurus:

    Why not just mock my small genitals?

    TMI.

  369. #369 frankosaurus
    January 30, 2010

    re your requests for specificity, i will be glad to furnish you with particulars if you are specific about what particulars you’d like. I feel privileged to be in the presence of one who, without doubt, will criticize me with the utmost objectivity, and without a trace of personal feeling, bias, or bravado. However, if your beef is me not dressing up all assertions into easily debatable points, I would recommend you tailor your reading strategies to more quickly spot distinctions between style and substance.

    “Values like individual freedom and suchlike, yes, I imagine we’d like valuing rights such as that to be passed into law.
    Or, rather, we have understand they have been passed into law, we’d just like them applied a bit more evenhandedly.”

    unclear what the relevance of this statement is. If you think of the Bill of Rights as a value-endowed document and not just another ho-hum limited government instrument, then that’s what I consider the particularly modern version of liberal statism to be, in which case thanks for helping me out. And of course, I hope you spot the quirkiness of celebrating individual freedom in the instance of a criminal sentence.

    “He’s on the record as being on the wrong side of this issue too”

    What issue? He doesn’t agree with the judgment? Perhaps the incoherency of this claim is meant to be ironic or a parody of me in some devilish way, in which case…zing? If what you mean is that you aren’t an Obama fan then fine, I didn’t mean you then.

    and apologies if this doesn’t come across in good faith. Though I will say that if your post anticipated I was incapable of it, then I’m happy to have satisfied your expectations in at least one way.

  370. #370 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    and apologies if this doesn’t come across in good faith.

    No, it doesn’t come across as being clear and cogent. You tried to be erudite, but since you lack the intelligence to be erudite, you merely sound confused. That is your problem, you lack the ability to be clear, which does require intelligence. Blockquoting compared to quotes would also help. If you can’t be clear as to what you want to say, why bother posting? It just makes you look and sound stoopid.

  371. #371 frankosaurus
    January 30, 2010

    Relax Nerd, I’ve said before you’re smart and funny. No further need to fish for compliments.

  372. #372 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 30, 2010

    Relax Nerd, I’ve said before you’re smart and funny. No further need to fish for compliments.

    I’m not fishing for compliments, I’m giving you reasons why you are not treated well here. If you don’t like the treatment, you do have the option of not posting here. You should seriously consider that option.

    Or, if you want to be taken seriously, be more serious and provide actual evidence to back up your opinions. A general pattern would be “this is what I believe, and this is the evidence to back it up”, with the evidence actually backing up what you say. So, decide what you want. If you just want to troll, take your lumps gracefully. If you have a message to get across, learn how to refine and properly explain your message. If you realize you don’t really have any cogent message, stop posting.

  373. #373 Ichthyic
    January 30, 2010

    and apologies if this doesn’t come across in good faith. Though I will say that if your post anticipated I was incapable of it, then I’m happy to have satisfied your expectations in at least one way.

    I think you should just cut to the apology stage, and then exit, stage right.

    Insipid.

    a one word description of just about every post you’ve ever made on Pharyngula.

  374. #374 Ichthyic
    January 30, 2010

    …JUSTICE!!

    Move Zig!

  375. #375 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 30, 2010

    Good grief

    I’ve been over at other threads for a day and I come back to find you have all got Frank to ADMIT HE HAS A TINY LITTLE DICK.

    Champion effort my friends. I vote you all for Mollies this month. That was ten shades of awesome.

  376. #376 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 30, 2010

    Is it just me or is anyone else imagining Frank sweating away screaming “JUSTIIIICCCCCCE” at the computer screen kind of like Mel in Braveheart?

  377. #377 monado
    January 30, 2010

    NONE of the 3rd-term abortions were elective, in the sense that women just decided they didn’t want to be pregnant. When you’re unwillingly pregnant, you want an abortion today! And no medical standard would condone late abortions without a good medical reason: unlike early abortions, they are more dangerous than childbirth.

    These were women who wanted to give birth but who found out that something was very, very wrong–either the fetus was doomed to a short and painful life or it would die before birth and possibly kill the mother, too–or their own medical condition made them very likely to die during pregnancy.

    Often there was a wait from second to third term was to confirm a diagnosis — some things can’t be diagnosed until third term — do a little research on severe birth defects. Or there was a wait for a test appointment. Or the doctors think something is wrong but they don’t know how severe it is. In about 5% of cases, parents delay a few weeks and reach the third trimester because they just can’t believe it, are hoping it’s a mistake, or they’re just plain praying for a miracle. We all know how well that works.

    Sometimes the fetus is already dead and must be removed to prevent massive and fatal infection in the mother. That is still classified as an abortion or a stillbirth, depending on fetal age. And Dr. Tiller did so many of those very sad abortions because in most states, there was not a single doctor who would do them.

    Some anti-abortion folks claim that they’re all elective. No–the surgery is scheduled as Urgent Elective, just like any other life-saving surgery except for cases that come in via the Emergency Department or develop as emergencies in the hospital. They are no more elective than any other surgery your doctor seriously recommends to extend your lifespan.

    It was extremely wrong-headed of the murderer to think that he was saving babies. Dr. Tiller was saving women, saving mothers who might have another baby next year, saving marriages from being broken by death, and saving born children from becoming orphans.

  378. #378 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    happy to give evidence for what I say. Instead of vaguely saying my style of argument isn’t to your liking, point to where you need assistance and I’ll see what I can do. Though I’m mindful that I’m probably not persuasive more for being unliked than nebulous…(does this sentence require evidence?)

    if you must know, I only said my genitals were small. I didn’t say my dick was. In fact it is disproportionately large compared to my shrunken testes. But the main point is that I don’t satisfy women.

    Now I’m going to pour myself a scotch, and you know what I’m going to cut it with? JUST ICE!!

  379. #379 Sven DiMilo
    January 31, 2010

    “just ice”!
    Ha!
    Joni Mitchell did it already, but still.

  380. #380 Ichthyic
    January 31, 2010

    point to where you need assistance and I’ll see what I can do.

    nope, too late.

    just… go.

  381. #381 Rorschach
    January 31, 2010

    if you must know, I only said my genitals were small. I didn’t say my dick was. In fact it is disproportionately large compared to my shrunken testes. But the main point is that I don’t satisfy women.

    Maybe franky could contribute the money he would otherwise have to pay a shrink to listen to his confessions of inadequacy to the Lynna health fund.

  382. #382 monado
    January 31, 2010

    Arguments for the It’s Alive! crowd:

    • Life: Continuous from the Precambrian. Germ cells (ovum, sperm) are alive.
    • Complete set of DNA: A blueprint is not a house. It takes time, work, and materials as well.
    • Personhood: no brain, no person.
    • Legal personhood: only one person per body, Someone has to steer.
    • Control over your own body: no one can make you donate a kidney or give blood to save someone else’s life. Why a different law for women?
    • Privileges of a later stage of life being given to an earlier one: unborn child, unborn driver, un-aged senior citizen.
    • Innocent life: it has no opportunity to choose to refrain from crime or evil and no volition to choose good.
    • Heart already beating. Heart cells and tissue beat from the moment they’re formed. Irrelevant.

    It’s not about reproduction. It’s about controlling women and punishing them for having sex. And fantasizing about all those women carrying on if Godly People weren’t around to make the rules for them.

    A woman must have the moral autonomy to make the decision that affects her more than anyone else.

  383. #383 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    Arguments for the It’s Alive! crowd:
    Life: Continuous from the Precambrian. Germ cells (ovum, sperm) are alive.

    Irrelevant. The argument in support of granting a fetus rights (which, note, is only one form of anti-abortionism) is that a human begins at conception. Life is not a sufficient but it is a necessary cause to be borne of rights.

    Complete set of DNA: A blueprint is not a house. It takes time, work, and materials as well.

    ?? I don’t understand what your getting at. Are you saying that a person needs to be fully physically developed to have rights?

    Personhood: no brain, no person.

    Which is why comotose people can be killed? Or how about just sleeping people. We’re not persons when we sleep by this definition.

    Legal personhood: only one person per body, Someone has to steer.

    I’d like to see this turn into an argument rather than an observation. Legal status is precisely what’s at stake if one wants to use the machinery of government to enable or retract abortion legislation/jurisprudence.

    Control over your own body: no one can make you donate a kidney or give blood to save someone else’s life. Why a different law for women?

    There is, except in certain circumstances, no duty to assist another, that is correct. Though the law is used in some cases to compel people to give blood samples. Moreover the law can be used to kill someone (ever heard of execution?). The point you’re trying to establish is autonomy which, aside from being recognized on and off, is what’s precisely at stake for the rights argument for the fetus. But the easiest answer here is that a fetus is not a kidney.

    Privileges of a later stage of life being given to an earlier one: unborn child, unborn driver, un-aged senior citizen.

    nonsensical. The argument is that a zygote isn’t any less of a human than a teenager is. An unborn driver just simply isn’t a driver.

    Innocent life: it has no opportunity to choose to refrain from crime or evil and no volition to choose good.

    I think the “innocence” in modern secular society only comes in when we try to justify why we have capital punishment, but should disallow abortion. It is possible to keep these issues discrete. Nonetheless, this isn’t a good argument, as it just as easily permits infanticide as abortion.

    Heart already beating. Heart cells and tissue beat from the moment they’re formed. Irrelevant.

    true, heartbeat alone is a relative non-factor to deciding autonomy, if autonomy is the only thing we’re after.

    It’s not about reproduction. It’s about controlling women and punishing them for having sex. And fantasizing about all those women carrying on if Godly People weren’t around to make the rules for them.
    A woman must have the moral autonomy to make the decision that affects her more than anyone else.

    consequentialist reasoning. You’re basically hanging your hat on saying “if we don’t legislate x, y will happen.” The more compelling reasons against state-sanctioned abortion (as opposed to purely religious arguments or ethical arguments against abortion) are not that the state should dictate morality. Obviously this interferes blatantly with one of the basic premises of liberal society – that the good of persons resides in them authoring their own lives. (Though of course here it should be obvious that if a fetus is considered a person with its own autonomy, then the argument for saying the female’s autonomy trumps is harder to support.)

    But, in general, the more principled political view is that faith and family are central to the project of liberal governance because they are “subversive of state’s tendencies to imperial expansion and despotic consolidation”*. So when the state (especially through its unelected judicature) “discovers” its jurisdiction over such familial territory as abortion and marriage, then it has usurped its bounds. The majority of people have no problem with this, and may even be proudly for it, as the pitfalls of dependency on welfare statism are more than compensated by its frequent benevolence (think of the Pharyngula choir – many of whom studying in or receiving paychecks from government institutions).

    *http://www.marriageinstitute.ca/pages/DECOSTEJ2005.pdf

  384. #384 Bride of Shrek OM
    January 31, 2010

    Hi Frank

    Awesome post, must have taken you ages to compose that, I learnt so much.

    So how’s the little fella going?

  385. #385 Twin-Skies
    January 31, 2010

    Outside of Frank’s rantings that we’re mostly affiliated with big government, hes using the same arguments as the guy I’m debating with.

    Except the guy was a lot more polite.

    I’ll be looking forward to seeing how the vets here take frank down – it will make for good study :)

  386. #386 Miki Z
    January 31, 2010
    Personhood: no brain, no person.

    Which is why comotose people can be killed? Or how about just sleeping people. We’re not persons when we sleep by this definition.

    If you think sleeping people have no brains, the profundity of your ignorance has finally matched the vacuity of your argument.

    Does God put your brain back into your head every morning before you wake up and take it out when you fall asleep? How does this work?

    Is this why people with narcolepsy have trouble with complicated hairstyles? The constant removal/insertion of brain must be hell on gel.

  387. #387 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    okay Miki, so what’s the connection between brains and personhood? And indeed personhood, brains and legal rights? Think of my response as exposing the necessity for elaboration. Now that you’ve attacked me, I’ll be seriously disappointed if your purpose was more personal rather than seriously coming to the defence of an argument.

  388. #388 Miki Z
    January 31, 2010

    First, please explain how people who are asleep have no brains. You made that claim, not me. No moving goal posts:
    Explain how people who are asleep have no brains or STFU.

  389. #389 ermine
    January 31, 2010

    @frank #384:

    The argument in support of granting a fetus rights … is that a human begins at conception.

    And as I mentioned in my post earlier, this is quite obviously WRONG, given the very clear examples of chimera and identical twins. In the terminology of embryonic development, a chimera is when two or more individually-fertilized, genetically-unique embryos fuse, forming ONE single creature that shares the genes of both original embryos. In identical twins, a single fertilized embryo splits into two or more embryos, which then develop perfectly normally as individual beings.

    Both of those are clear examples that show that a fertilized egg is NOT always the beginning of a unique human being. Only after the embryo(s) have developed can you be sure how many individual beings you’ll actually end up with.

    ?? I don’t understand what your getting at. Are you saying that a person needs to be fully physically developed to have rights?

    I believe what Monado is getting at is that the claim that ‘It’s unique human DNA!’ means absolutely nothing. A single cell is still just a potential human being, like a recipe is a potential meal. You’ve got the instructions, but until you go through the process you don’t have a meal OR a human being yet.

    Which is why comotose[sic] people can be killed? Or how about just sleeping people. We’re not persons when we sleep by this definition.

    You should do at least a little bit of research into the differences between sleep, coma, and brain death. There is PLENTY of brain activity in a sleeping brain. If there is no longer brain activity, it’s time to pull the plug and go through the wallet for loose change. They’re dead. If there is no brain at all, as in the case of a young enough embryo, it’s ludicrous to call a brainless blob of jelly a full-fledged human being.

    Though the law is used in some cases to compel people to give blood samples.

    Which has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the discussion at hand. The laws dealing with blood samples for DUI suspects or DNA samples for convicted felons have no part in this discussion of ‘what is a human being’. Can you make your red herrings a little less obvious, at least?

    But the easiest answer here is that a fetus is not a kidney.

    You’re right! Without a working kidney, any human being will quickly die. Without a developing fetus, the mother will be far healthier and in less danger of death during pregnancy or childbirth. At no point is a fetus necessary for the life of the mother. It is however a distinct risk to her life and health, and she should have full rights to decide for herself whether or not to put her body through that strain and risk.

    consequentialist reasoning. You’re basically hanging your hat on saying “if we don’t legislate x, y will happen.”

    What the hell? No Frankie, if we don’t legislate X, Y will continue to happen, as it has been forced on women for ages.

    (Though of course here it should be obvious that if a fetus is considered a person with its own autonomy, then the argument for saying the female’s autonomy trumps is harder to support.)

    Autonomy? Autonomy? ‘Self-directed freedom and moral independence’ for a microscopic blob of cells with no eyes, limbs, or brain? A blob that would die in minutes if removed from its shelter within a fully sapient human’s body? A blob that lives entirely on siphoned nutrients, has no brain to be able to direct anything including itself, no morals to gain independence for, and no limbs or organs of speech to be able to communicate those desires if they did exist. Huh. Yeah, we’re just nuts, aren’t we?

    as the pitfalls of dependency on welfare statism are more than compensated by its frequent benevolence (think of the Pharyngula choir – many of whom studying in or receiving paychecks from government institutions).

    Aaannnd what exactly do you think those two things have to do with one another – The welfare system and the government institutions that the scientists here on Pharyngula may be receiving paychecks from? Are you -really- trying to insinuate some sort of link between those two here? That’s pretty pitiful Frank. Not surprising, but pitiful nonetheless.

    Please do us all a favor and kindly FOAD, would you?

    Thanks!

  390. #390 Twin-Skies
    January 31, 2010

    @raven

    I did a bit of digging around, and found this article that confirms what you said regarding the matter of abortions during the middle ages:

    http://www.h-net.org/~hns/articles/1998/012898a.html

  391. #391 Roameo
    January 31, 2010

    You’re basically hanging your hat on saying “if we don’t legislate x, y will happen.” The more compelling reasons against state-sanctioned abortion (as opposed to purely religious arguments or ethical arguments against abortion) are not that the state should dictate morality. Obviously this interferes blatantly with one of the basic premises of liberal society – that the good of persons resides in them authoring their own lives. (Though of course here it should be obvious that if a fetus is considered a person with its own autonomy, then the argument for saying the female’s autonomy trumps is harder to support.)

    But, in general, the more principled political view is that faith and family are central to the project of liberal governance because they are “subversive of state’s tendencies to imperial expansion and despotic consolidation”*. So when the state (especially through its unelected judicature) “discovers” its jurisdiction over such familial territory as abortion and marriage, then it has usurped its bounds. The majority of people have no problem with this, and may even be proudly for it, as the pitfalls of dependency on welfare statism are more than compensated by its frequent benevolence (think of the Pharyngula choir – many of whom studying in or receiving paychecks from government institutions).

    I’m sorry, what?
    So, the state criminalising(ie, not sanctioning) abortions would be an example of it not dictating morality, and allowing people more autonomy?
    What fucking planet do you live on? You seem to be lamenting the fact that the pesky guvmint is getting in the way of you forcing your morality down the throats of others. Is it just you, your militant christian buddies and your subservient family holding back a despotic government that, i dunno, frowns on people bombing abortion clinics and *gasp* doesnt get in the way of women having autonomy over their own bodies?
    man, you are a new breed of crazy.

  392. #392 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    News flash. Fuckosaurus is still crazy stoopid. Film at 11. Fuckosaurus, religious people like you are delusional fools, as they believe in imaginary deities and fictional holy books. That makes them not fully understand reality. It is obvious that reality and you are strangers. Hence your idjit, easily refuted arguments.

    Full human and legal rights should not be granted until the fetus becomes a baby, upon exiting the woman’s body and starting to breath on its own. It is only at that point you can say it is truly separate. Which means every use of separate in your arguments should cease. And something spectacular happened to confirm the transition, called birth. Up to then, it is not separate, as if the woman dies, the fetus dies. But if the fetus dies, the woman doesn’t necessarily die. Which is why the woman should always have greater legal protection that the parasite within her. Learn to analyze these situations with a clear, non-biased mind. But then, you are a delusional fool, so it won’t happen.

  393. #393 Miki Z
    January 31, 2010

    I’d still really, really, like to hear how sleeping people don’t have brains.

  394. #394 Dianne
    January 31, 2010

    The argument in support of granting a fetus rights (which, note, is only one form of anti-abortionism) is that a human begins at conception.

    I’m interested in this definition of “human”. Can you come up with a biology based definition of “human” that fits all of the following criteria:
    1. Defines “human life” as beginning at conception.
    2. Provides a rigorous definition of death since we obviously can’t use the current definition of brain death any more.
    3. Defines identical twins as two people and explains how the second person appeared when only one was conceived.
    4. Deals with the possibility of cloning from somatic cells (i.e. are all cells to be considered separate living human beings since they are each capable of becoming humans under the right circumstances, just as fertilized eggs are).
    5. Deals with the problem of chimeras-babies born after two zygotes merge during gestation. Is the baby guilty of murdering her/his twin? Is s/he really two people? Which person is the killer and which the victim?
    6. Defines non-fertilized gametes as not living humans and explains why.
    7. Deals with the problem of cell culture: autonomous living human cells which exist only in labs. Little people being exploited? Non-humans? Justify your answer.
    8. Cancer cells: they have different DNA from their hosts. Some types are even totipotent and can produce mature tissue such as hair or teeth and all of the basic types of germinal tissue (endoderm, exoderm, mesoderm). So, is chemotherapy murder?
    9. The hamster egg assay: A test in which human sperm is used to fertilize a hamster egg (testing sperm function). Is the result a human that must be supported as long as possible or not?
    10. Remember, your answers must be biologically based and not simply a list of conditions under which you consider a cell a person under the “I know it when I see it” rule.

  395. #395 Anri
    January 31, 2010

    frankosarus sez:

    re your requests for specificity, i will be glad to furnish you with particulars if you are specific about what particulars you’d like.

    Ok, to start with, who are “you guys”?

    I feel privileged to be in the presence of one who, without doubt, will criticize me with the utmost objectivity, and without a trace of personal feeling, bias, or bravado.

    (Re-reads my post) Um… ok, that’s clearly contained in line number…
    Nope, I’m still not seeing it. Could you quote the line where I said I would be doing this?
    Thanks.

    However, if your beef is me not dressing up all assertions into easily debatable points, I would recommend you tailor your reading strategies to more quickly spot distinctions between style and substance.

    Perhaps I’ll just stick to substantive requests in the future.
    Such as ‘please be more specific’ or ‘please clarify your question’.
    This will be in contrast to my being critical of your writing style, such as when I said…
    Heck, could you quote that for me too, I’m missing things today, apparently.

    “Values like individual freedom and suchlike, yes, I imagine we’d like valuing rights such as that to be passed into law.
    Or, rather, we have understand they have been passed into law, we’d just like them applied a bit more evenhandedly.”

    unclear what the relevance of this statement is. If you think of the Bill of Rights as a value-endowed document and not just another ho-hum limited government instrument, then that’s what I consider the particularly modern version of liberal statism to be, in which case thanks for helping me out. And of course, I hope you spot the quirkiness of celebrating individual freedom in the instance of a criminal sentence.

    Adult life teems with irony.
    For the record, I don’t believe the dichotomy you listed is exclusive (not certain I agree with ho-hum, though).
    I am curious as to your suggestion for an alternative, though.

    “He’s on the record as being on the wrong side of this issue too”

    What issue? He doesn’t agree with the judgment? Perhaps the incoherency of this claim is meant to be ironic or a parody of me in some devilish way, in which case…zing? If what you mean is that you aren’t an Obama fan then fine, I didn’t mean you then.

    Sorry, I had a (slightly) premature senior moment – I was thinking about a different thread (same-gender marriage).
    I have no idea what Pres. Obama’s stance on this issue is (if I had to guess, I’d assume he’s in favor of the verdict, but I’m too lazy to find out).
    I think you’ll find most of the regulars here (correct me if I’m wrong, guys!) are disappointed in the sitting president, but feel he is capable of doing better, and is miles superior to the alternative we were offered.

    and apologies if this doesn’t come across in good faith. Though I will say that if your post anticipated I was incapable of it, then I’m happy to have satisfied your expectations in at least one way.

    Again, my apologies if you were offended.
    I’m a pretty slow poster around here, and all too often, the person I am responding to is a drive-by-troll and never responds.
    Clearly, you’re not that, for which I thank you.

  396. #396 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    Thanks for the responses. I’ve culled through them and will address what I think to be the more serious objections:

    First, Diane wrote some nonsense about wanting rigorous biologically based definitions of human. I hope she sees the irrelevance of this. If there is something that needs to be killed, it is one stage among the pathway of human life, like adolescence.

    So, the state criminalising(ie, not sanctioning) abortions would be an example of it not dictating morality, and allowing people more autonomy?

    welcome to a world where we have criminal law, where the state says certain actions have consequences. Perhaps you’re the kind of person who would wish us to dispense with laws against murder for being oh so moralistic. Why is abortion different from murder – the intentional snuffing of human life. Dictating morality is more like “not only can’t you kill someone, you have to be Christian too.”

    Look, it’s apparent that if we disagree about whether a fetus is human or Ermine’s “blob” will get us tied up in all sorts of places. Don’t get me wrong, if the fetus jeopardizes the life of the woman, then yank it out and shoot it between the eyes. But don’t give me that crap about how legislating against abortion seriously impacts the moral autonomy of women. It’s always the same thing — please mister government, spare me this burden, now where’s my welfare cheque. Abortion is an abdication of autonomy, not an assertion of it.

    Anri: re-read your last post and you’ll see that there is nothing for me to respond to.

  397. #397 A. Noyd
    January 31, 2010

    Bride of Shrek (#376)

    I’ve been over at other threads for a day and I come back to find you have all got Frank to ADMIT HE HAS A TINY LITTLE DICK.

    Maybe his girlfriend’s dick is even smaller? Janine said “It means that you are a kidnapper and that you are holding her against her will.” And frankosaurus corrected it thus: “Offside. though if you tacked a y on the end of ‘will’ you’d be close.” Hm. “Her willy.” Nothing wrong with that, of course, but I wonder if she gave permission for him to share that detail with everyone.

  398. #398 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    irst, Diane wrote some nonsense about wanting rigorous biologically based definitions of human. I hope she sees the irrelevance of this.

    No Franky, you don’t see the relevancy of it, since you have made up your miniscule mind on the subject. In truly thinking about the whole picture, you need those definitions. But then, they probably will refute your claims.

    Why is abortion different from murder – the intentional snuffing of human life.

    Human life is defined as being after birth. What part of that don’t you understand? Oh, yes, it would require knowing reality.

    Abortion is an abdication of autonomy, not an assertion of it.

    What a fuckwit of a sentence. Abortion is taking autonomy, making decision, and living with the consequences. What a shallow thinker you are. Again, basic definitions of reality are required, no presupposed idiocy you keep putting forward.

  399. #399 Knockgoats
    January 31, 2010

    Abortion is an abdication of autonomy, not an assertion of it. – frankosaurus

    OK, own up now, before I get really cross! Who stole frankosaurus’s brain and replaced it with a cauliflower?

  400. #400 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    if you must know, we don’t really believe it’s her willy. Its OUR willy.

  401. #401 Dianne
    January 31, 2010

    First, Diane wrote some nonsense about wanting rigorous biologically based definitions of human. I hope she sees the irrelevance of this.

    Translation: “No, I couldn’t come up with a rigorous definition of human life so I’m hoping that I can dismiss it as irrelevant.” You don’t even know what it is you’re claiming to be protecting and you see that as IRRELEVANT? That’s…well, to be honest, it’s no worse than the average anti-abortion response to the question, so I’ll give you partial credit. Keeping in mind that a grade of 50% is still a fail.

  402. #402 Dianne
    January 31, 2010

    Its OUR willy.

    Maybe they bought it together? Very egalitarian of them, I’m sure, but really TMI. Also, in this case it should be “it’s” since you’re using the contraction for it is.

  403. #403 Anri
    January 31, 2010

    frankosaurus sez:

    Anri: re-read your last post and you’ll see that there is nothing for me to respond to.

    True.
    Perhaps I should have asked some questions, such as:

    Ok, to start with, who are “you guys”?

    or

    Nope, I’m still not seeing it. Could you quote the line where I said I would be doing this?

    But I didn’t.
    Or, maybe, instead, I could have requested some general information, like:

    Heck, could you quote that for me too, I’m missing things today, apparently.

    or

    I am curious as to your suggestion for an alternative, though.

    But I forgot.

    You could have also offered an opinion on my suggestion:

    For the record, I don’t believe the dichotomy you listed is exclusive (not certain I agree with ho-hum, though).

    If only I’d actually posted it.
    Heck.

    BTW, frank, remember earlier when I said I was concerned about possibly engaging someone who was unwilling to argue in good faith?
    Yeah.

  404. #404 Knockgoats
    January 31, 2010

    “Why is abortion different from murder – the intentional snuffing of human life… Don’t get me wrong, if the fetus jeopardizes the life of the woman, then yank it out and shoot it between the eyes.” – Frankosaurus

    But according to your own stance, that would be murder. Well, we knew scum like you were OK with murder, but it’s nice to have it from your own keyboard.

  405. #405 Ichthyic
    January 31, 2010

    Personhood: no brain, no person.

    Which is why comotose people can be killed? Or how about just sleeping people. We’re not persons when we sleep by this definition.

    OK, that is the stupidest thing I’ve seen so far today.

    congratulations!

    it’s a baby moron!

    Franki, you’re simply too stupid to stay here.

    move along.

  406. #406 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    Thank you for your concern about my position knockgoats. Rest assured your concerns are unfounded. And Dianne, thank you as well for the correction. I only hope you didn’t report this breach to the grammar police. Maybe you two and Icky-Stick should make like a tree and stop being weird all the time.

  407. #407 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    Maybe you two and Icky-Stick should make like a tree and stop being weird all the time.

    No, maybe you should. What is your point? If you don’t have one, like your last post, you shouldn’t post. That has been our (several other regulars too) point ever since you started. Then you would stop embarrassing yourself.

  408. #408 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 31, 2010

    According fuckosaurus, trying to have an intelligent and honest discussion about abortion makes one ‘weird’. No wonder he wants these people to be like trees, it is his idealized mental state.

    Assclam.

  409. #409 raven
    January 31, 2010

    Preacher: Bible Mandates Execution Of Rebellious Children (Forum …William O. Einwechter’s article, “Stoning Disobedient Children,” appeared in the January issue of Chalcedon Report, a monthly journal published by the …

    wikipedia:

    Ahmanson has funded the magazine Chalcedon Report, the magazine of the Chalcedon Foundation.

    Ahmanson also funds the Discovery Institute and Exodus International, xian Dominionist fronts.

    The goal of the xian Dominionists is to set up a theocracy with Biblical law. Biblical law is like the Islamic Sharia law but far more homicidal. Stoning to death is prescribed for disobedient children, gays, adulterers, Sabbath breakers, blashemers, atheists, and a huge number of similar offenses.

    It is estimated that under Biblical Law, 99% of the US population would be executed. Can’t see it becoming too popular but who knows, the world is a strange place.

  410. #410 raven
    January 31, 2010

    That last entry was posted on the wrong thread.
    Ignore it.

  411. #411 Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM
    January 31, 2010

    I guessed that it was meant for the Wheels Within Wheels thread.

    When you say ‘Ignore it.’ it should be in a huge booming voice.

    IGNORE IT!

  412. #412 ermine
    January 31, 2010

    Let’s see..
    Can’t answer direct questions: check.
    Makes up the opponent’s position: check.
    -in direct opposition to what they’ve actually said: check.

    … You know what? Never mind. I could go on listing Frankie’s faults, but why waste the time? He’s either a troll or an idiot. – (Or a troll AND an idiot, which is where I’m placing MY bets!)

    You’ve shown that you cannot communicate honestly or coherently, and I’m not going to waste any more time on you.

    *plonk!*

    Buh-bye Frankie.

  413. #413 Ichthyic
    January 31, 2010
  414. #414 Twin-Skies
    January 31, 2010

    @Miki Z, Pacal, raven

    Thank you again. I’ve already replied to the guy’s post, based on the info you provided.

    http://www.rickycarandang.com/?p=460#comments

    Now that I think about it, what’s wrong with society changing its definitions of terms – it’s because of change that women are finally allowed to vote, and racism isn’t as prevalent as it used to be, or is at least being looked down upon more and more.

  415. #415 Miki Z
    January 31, 2010

    frank,

    Please explain how sleeping people do not have brains.

  416. #416 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    Miki, let me lead you through it. THe claim is no brain, no person. What’s the rationale? And does it apply to sleeping people?

    You miss the point if you think I think this is a knock down argument against abortion. Similarly no brain, no person is not a knock down argument for it.

    I will await your nonsensical response in earnest.

  417. #417 aratina cage of the OM
    January 31, 2010

    THe claim is no brain, no person. What’s the rationale? And does it apply to sleeping people?

    ROFLMAO fuckosaur. You are extremely inane. Do us a favor and return to the fringes of the Web.

  418. #418 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    put up or shut up. Give the rationale behind no brain, no person. Or does this require too much thought, and too few labcoats?

  419. #419 aratina cage of the OM
    January 31, 2010

    put up or shut up. Give the rationale behind no brain, no person.

    We are not interested in babysitting you any further, fuckosaur. Run along now.

  420. #420 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    Fuckasaurus, still no point to your posts. You are just angry, but stoopid angry. You are also wrong. And you have a record for being almost invariably wrong. For example you need to put up evidence to back up your claims, or shut the fuck up. But we both know you can’t do either. What a pitiful stoopid insipid loser. Prove yourself right with real evidence, or go away. Welcome to science, which you fail.

  421. #421 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    I say bad form – called to answer a direct question, then shunned (irrationally, surprise surprise) as soon as it is answered. Sigh. Typical enlightenment fundamentalism. But I’m curious since, as I mentioned elsewhere, I have this atheist=insufficient fiber theory. On a scale from 1 – 10, how God awful do your farts rank?

  422. #422 Dianne
    January 31, 2010

    Give the rationale behind no brain, no person.

    The definition of death is brain death. Not stopping of the heart (which can be reversible in some cases) or lungs (same) or kidneys (can be faked with dialysis) or any other organ but the brain. Why? Because without the brain organizing the function of the body and producing the personality-the soul if you will-there is no person there. It’s over when the brain is gone and there’s nothing left to do but recycle the organs and bury the unusable bits.

    But back to this claim about sleep. Do you really think that a sleeping person has no brain activity? How do you explain dreams? Magic sendings from god?

  423. #423 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    On a scale from 1 – 10, how God awful do your farts rank?

    Ours don’t rank, yours does. As we have repeatedly told you, you are invariably wrong, as with the farts. On an 1-10 scale your insipidity rates a 20. I foresee a banning in your future, since you can’t do anything other than insipid insults. So, why not show some maturity for a change, and just go away on your own? But then, you are a loser, so we can’t expect that.

  424. #424 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    Dianne, you are having a serious mental meltdown. I don’t deny that without a brain, people don’t work so good. But if you’re saying that the importance of the brain on the issue of abortion is that it produces personality, then what personality is produced during sleep? How often do you encounter sleeping strangers and draw conclusions on their personality?

    you have not linked the importance of brain activity to personhood (perhaps because you yourself lack both?), aside from the obvious point that unsustained humans without brains tend to fizzle out. Big fuckin duh

  425. #425 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    p.s. Diane

    Ours don’t rank, yours does

    Should we tell Nerd he has a grammar problem?

  426. #426 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    you are having a serious mental meltdown.

    Wrong, you are having the meltdown. You have nothing cogent to say on abortion. You can’t examine your fallacious presuppositions. You can only parrot other idjits thinking. No evidence, just meandering word salad. Try the peer reviewed scientific literature.

    ou have not linked the importance of brain activity to personhood

    There is no importance. Inside the womb, not a person. Outside, a person. You are insipid idjit if you think otherwise. Do your meltdown elsewhere.

  427. #427 Pygmy Loris
    January 31, 2010

    Where is everybody? I was gone all day and y’all talked about socks and stuff. Now that I’m back, no one seems to be around :(

  428. #428 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    Should we tell Nerd he has a grammar problem?

    I know I do. You have comprehension, logic, and delusions of adequacy as your failures. I would rather be poor in grammar than an insipid idjit like you.

  429. #429 aratina cage of the OM
    January 31, 2010

    Trolling, trolling, trolling,
    Frankie keeps on trolling.

    How long has this sucker been trolling Pharyngula now? Far too long, I think. My two cents: It is pointless answering his inane questions because they are only there to get a reaction, not for him to learn. It doesn’t matter what you say, he will twist your words around into another dripping spoonful of alphabet soup with meatballs. We are his sick form of entertainment (as with Dendy).

  430. #430 frankosaurus
    January 31, 2010

    “Inside the womb, not a person. Outside, a person”

    Oh great. So if seconds before delivery the baby was killed in utero, it would not have been a biological person? Yes, I wouldn’t mind if you directed me to the scientific literature on that, Nerd. Afterall, we want evidence. (don’t bother, but sometimes you need to be confronted with your inner tool-ness).

  431. #431 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    So if seconds before delivery the baby was killed in utero, it would not have been a biological person?

    Now you get it. Except no woman would want an abortion at that point, and no doctor would provide it. But then, you are too stoopid and insipid to realize that all you presented was a non-occurring strawman. You are good at killing straw, but not giving cogent arguments. What a loser.

  432. #432 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    January 31, 2010

    Biological person is an oxymoron. It is either a full human person or not. That transition occurs at birth. Anything can be biologically living, even a tumor. Inside the womb, not a person.

  433. #433 Pygmy Loris
    January 31, 2010

    Thread fail there at #427. Sorry ’bout that.

  434. #434 Miki Z
    February 1, 2010
    Personhood: no brain, no person.

    Which is why comotose people can be killed? Or how about just sleeping people. We’re not persons when we sleep by this definition.

    frank,
    This is a specific claim from post 383 of yours that sleeping people have no brain. Not no brain activity, not an analogy, just that sleeping people have no brain.

    Please, point me to some explanation of how sleeping people have no brain. Trying to pretend you didn’t say it now is just silly — this isn’t a Christian blog where you can get inconvenient comments deleted.

  435. #435 frankosaurus
    February 1, 2010

    if you can’t wrap your head around the fact that I didn’t mean that sleeping people literally don’t have brains, but that the implications stemming from brainlessness on personhood are probably similar to the same implications of sleeping, then I don’t know what to tell you. If you want to refute this, clearly explain the implications of brainlessness on personhood. If you say that it’s because without a brain a fetus can’t live independently, we shit, that’s what a fetus is. No need to bring brains in at all — sounds like your life motto, doesn’t it?

  436. #436 Kausik Datta
    February 1, 2010

    If you say that it’s because without a brain a fetus can’t live independently, we shit, that’s what a fetus is. No need to bring brains in at all — sounds like your life motto, doesn’t it?

    WTF?

    Did anyone make any sense out of that last couple of statements?

  437. #437 aratina cage of the OM
    February 1, 2010

    If you want to refute this, clearly explain the implications of brainlessness on personhood.

    More laughably asinine trolling from fuckosaurus.

  438. #438 Miki Z
    February 1, 2010

    If you get to insist that you didn’t really mean things when you say them as soon as they’re shown to be absolutely fucking wrong, you’re not being honest in your discussion.

    Please, defend your statements or go away. You said sleeping people have no brains. Defend your words or shut the fuck up.

  439. #439 Ichthyic
    February 1, 2010

    You said sleeping people have no brains. Defend your words or shut the fuck up.

    really?

    can’t we just have the STFU part instead?

  440. #440 Kausik Datta
    February 1, 2010

    … you’re not being honest in your discussion.

    Come on, you’re not seriously expecting him to be honest, are you? Goodness gracious!

  441. #441 Miki Z
    February 1, 2010

    No, I don’t expect him to be honest. I already gave him the STFU, he’s gotten FOAD from elsewhere, I suspect he’s headed for DIAF pretty soon…

  442. #442 frankosaurus
    February 1, 2010

    I meant what I said, Miki. I didn’t REALLY mean you to be such a fuck up at literacy. You really are a moron, perhaps someone should have warned you that all those peanut butter blumpkins your dog gave you could diminish your thinking power. Go on fuckface, tell me where I said “sleeping people have no brains”

  443. #443 aratina cage of the OM
    February 1, 2010

    fuckosaurus, you don’t get to call other people “fuckface” or “moron” when you are a living, breathing example of both of them. Move along, troll. The Internet is a vast place and you are not wanted here.

  444. #444 frankosaurus
    February 1, 2010

    Your opinion is noted, aratina. You still haven’t answered my question about fart rankness though. I’ll tell you that my farts are about a 9 – 9.5. But that’s because I eat atheists for breakfast.

  445. #445 Kausik Datta
    February 1, 2010

    tell me where I said “sleeping people have no brains”

    Man, you are a tool and a fucking useless one at that. These are your words in the context, aren’t they?

    Personhood: no brain, no person.

    Which is why comotose people can be killed? Or how about just sleeping people. We’re not persons when we sleep by this definition.

    You are the flaming idjit who averred that when you sleep you have no brains.

    Hey, wait-a-damn-minute! By George, you are half right! You do have no brain!

  446. #446 frankosaurus
    February 1, 2010

    Quite right, thank you for correcting me Kausik. My problem was that I thought you guys were capable of digesting an argument. Little did I know that to understand where you are coming from, I have to read what I wrote through the eyes of a 5 year old. And I take offence at the slur of “flaming” you just hurled at me. You can leave my partner and her willy out of this

  447. #447 aratina cage of the OM
    February 1, 2010

    fuckosaurus, no amount of rank humor will change my opinion of you: a bigoted, incendiary, brainless troll. The sooner you leave and don’t come back, the better. Hopefully your guardian will revoke your intertubes privileges permanently when she sees the shit you have been writing today.

  448. #448 WowbaggerOM
    February 1, 2010

    Comment by frankosaurus blocked. [unkill]?[show comment]

    What a crushing bore.

    Please tell me frankosaurus is the last of this recent influx of uninspiring blatherers. I’ve killfiled more people in the past week than I did in the previous six months.

  449. #449 frankosaurus
    February 1, 2010

    mmm, rah-ther. What ghastly conversation. And in all this fluster I appear to have spilled brandy on my ascot. How gauche!

    *polishes monocle*

    But you’re all right, instead of merely amplifying all your enlightenment fundamentalist, constitutionally nationalist screeds, or in the case of Wowbagger, killfiling (which I assume to be the nerd-tech equivalent of holding one’s ears while shouting “LA LA LA”) I’m sure we can stop this mindless mudslinging and engage ourselves in activities more dignified. Who’s for wist? For you, my dear aratina, heartless bitches are trumps.

  450. #450 ianmhor
    February 1, 2010

    frankosaurus: thanks for a good laugh early in the morning!

    But I suspect not for any of the reasons you are thinking. A better example of totally missing the point has not passed my eyes for, well, days at least!

  451. #451 John Morales
    February 1, 2010

    frankosaurus, your trolling is feeble and your attempt at aping erudition is risible.

    BTW, that’s ‘whist’, and Aratina ain’t female.

  452. #452 badgersdaughter
    February 1, 2010
    So if seconds before delivery the baby was killed in utero, it would not have been a biological person?

    Now you get it. Except no woman would want an abortion at that point, and no doctor would provide it.

    OK, so if I was in labor and having a baby, and it got stuck disastrously in the birth canal, or something else went wrong before the baby’s natural birth, I would of course expect my doctor and his surgical team to do anything within reason to save the baby. But I would not expect, and would not want, them to save the baby’s life at the expense of my own. I might be devastated at the loss of the baby, but I don’t fucking want to die.

    As for being able to have another baby later, that’s not really in the question in my case; I’m scraping the bottom of the barrel for eggs as it is.

  453. #453 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 1, 2010

    Yawn, Fuckosaurus is still proving he is incapable of cogent thought, or indeed, any thought. Nothing but attitude, and delusions of adequacy. And he thinks he is funny. Reminds me of some banned trolls. PZ, please take a look at this sorry case.

  454. #454 Walton
    February 1, 2010

    Frankosaurus is not trolling. This is not what trolling means. Engaging in an argument, and being wrong, do not in themselves constitute trolling.

    There are only two people who have trolled Pharyngula in the last year: Mabus/Markuze, and “Global Warming is a Scam” (et autres pseudonyms). They are the only two commenters I can remember who genuinely had nothing useful to add, and were just here to abuse people and cause trouble. No one else who has been labelled a “troll” has actually been one. I say this as someone who was, once upon a time, frequently labelled a troll myself.

    Frankosaurus is wrong, and is fighting a losing battle. However, that doesn’t make him a troll. And people do learn things, and change, from participating in arguments on the internet; I certainly did. It would be a travesty if he were to be banned.

  455. #455 Stephen Wells
    February 1, 2010

    I’m pretty sure that Frank’s recent tapdancing and deliberate idiocy on the brain issue counts as trolling. Unless he really does believe that your brain doesn’t work when you’re asleep, which is kind of too stupid for words.

  456. #456 aratina cage of the OM
    February 1, 2010

    Frankosaurus is not trolling. This is not what trolling means. Engaging in an argument, and being wrong, do not in themselves constitute trolling.

    The crap he has been throwing out could hardly be called “engaging in an argument”. Look at how he treated Dianne and Miki Z after their thoughtful responses. And I’m sorry to break it to you, Walton, but you did fit the definition of a troll when you wouldn’t stop bringing up you-know-what back in the days. Please read up on trolling: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29

  457. #457 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 1, 2010

    Walton, from PZ’s dungeon thread on trolling:

    Making comments intended only to disrupt a thread and incite flames and confusion.

    Yep, Fuckosaurus is a troll. Also, the crimes of insipidity, slagging and stupidity are applicable. The banhammer could legitimately be applied to him.

  458. #458 frankosaurus
    February 1, 2010

    Nah, PZ issues his rules of civility which have obviously been breached on both sides, but he’s too much a liberal to enforce the banhammer. What a sadistic bunch you all are though.

    As for you Walton, my fine libertarian fellow, I expected you to be on the southside of reason once again. Any head on complaints with arguments, or are you just always radically in agreement with the rest of the choir?

  459. #459 John Morales
    February 1, 2010

    Walton:

    Frankosaurus is not trolling. This is not what trolling means.

    In your opinion.

  460. #460 Anri
    February 1, 2010

    frankosaurus sez:

    Nah, PZ issues his rules of civility which have obviously been breached on both sides, but he’s too much a liberal to enforce the banhammer. What a sadistic bunch you all are though.

    Yep, terribly sadistic.
    Some people put mean words on the internet where poor frank had to go look for them, find them and then read them and be all bruised.

    Should we summon the whaambulance?

    Oh, and because you seem to have trouble picking them out in my posts, that sentence with the question mark on the end of it – that’s a question.
    One you can answer, but only if you want to.

  461. #461 Nerd of Redhead, OM
    February 1, 2010

    but he’s too much a liberal to enforce the banhammer.

    Dungeon containing the last idjit who tried that BS. A little hammering music maestro.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lUKB3PxG-0E

  462. #462 Twin-Skies
    February 2, 2010

    Well, it looks like the guy (aben cruz) finally replied to my statement. The quoted lines are what I said to him the last time:

    ????The problem with today?s society is that we change definitions of terms in order to suit our own needs and beliefs.?

    Well yes, that?s true, and quite frankly, I don?t see what the problem with this.?

    Then where is the sense of order? of truth? i hope you can see the implications.

    ?? According to their definition of a human being, even my skin cells and hair would be ?human life,? given they also contain complete chromosomes. While a fertilized zygote is human being, it?s not a person. For the first two-thirds of the pregnancy, the fetus is no more than a parasite. Brainless, eyeless, limbless, it has absolutely no chance of life without a constant supply of nutrients drained directly from the gestating host.?

    you and i both know that a zygote is vastly different from your skin and hair cells. You yourself described a zygote as a human being and intrinsically ordered to develop fully.

    at the moment of fertilization, even before implantation, the zygote divides and differentiates into specialized cells and tissues.

    Then you bring about the issue of personhood. This is a largely debateable issue, the definition of which is context-dependent (law, medicine, philosophy).

    The questions are:
    what is your definition of personhood in this context?
    Does human life, or, is a human being required to be a person first before it needs to be protected? Our Philippine Constitution does not make that distinction.

    fully developed limbs and organs do not make a ?person?.

    Also, a pregnancy is considered term at 38-42weeks age of gestation. The age of viability (the fetus can survive outside the uterus with intensive care if facilities are available) is 20 weeks (midway through the pregnancy).

    May i warn you that your line of thinking of a ?fetus, for the first 2/3 of pregnancy is a parasite? is very dangerous. i urge you to rethink your stance.

    With your definition, we will inevitably see the legalization of the morning after pill (which is designed to prevent implantation) and of 1st and 2nd trimester abortions (which is what we see in the US today). what will then be the distinction for the 3rd trimester?

    let us remember that life is life, whether at fertilization, implantation, fetal growth, or at birth.

    our mothers did not consider us as parasites in their wombs. we were their children.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.