Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Over HIS Dead Body
Mr. O'Reilly, folks - he wants to know why the New York Times has never had a problem with the fact that this Tiller fellow has allegedly aborted some 60,000 fetuses over the years (this, I'm saying, as a counter-balance to the outrage over Tiller's murder). He apparently sees this as yet another example of liberal bias in the media......................................................................Of course, what Mr. O'Reilly has conveniently left out is the fact that abortion is currently legal in the United States. So, the fact that Dr. Tiller performed up to (according to O'Reilly) 60,000 of them, all that that means is that this particular doctor has taken part in 60,000 STILL LEGAL acts (Mr. O'Reilly's and others' opposition to abortion, notwithstanding)..........................................................................I mean, sure, the fact that Dr. Tiller apparently had had a cottage industry performing all of these later term abortions, too - that has undoubtedly created (perhaps deservedly) some nausea/yuck here. But, yes, me-buckos, even here, the doctor was seemingly operating within the laws of Kansas. It's like, what, what does Mr. O'Reilly want the Times to do here - change their position on abortion, just so that they can be more in sync with him? I don't think that they're going to be doing that, I want to tell him. I mean, think about it. There's probably about as much of a chance of that happening as O'Reilly changing his views. Irresistible force - meet Mr. Immovable object.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
EXACTLY right abortion is legal............NO ONE was MURDERED except Doctor Tiller..............You right some good stuff every so often and this is a GREAT piece its spot on.
I try to hammer both sides, Mike. I'm obviously not perfect but I try to be fair.
It's not a question of legality Will. It's a question of morality.
Yes his performing these abortions MAY have been legal in Kansas. (although we'll probably never know for sure because of the groups trying to obfuscate the full accounting of what Dr. Tiller actually did)
AND his murder was certainly illegal.
However BOTH sides here are without a doubt immoral.
Interesting how at Lydia's Mike likes to argue the spirit of the law rather than the letter, while here he's the champion of the inverse.
One person's morality, though, Volt, is often another person's immorality. And if what Dr. Tiller was doing was wrong (and I'm certainly persuadable here), then I think that the critics needed more to lobby the courts/legislature than to vilify this one particular guy. But, yes, a difficult issue, no doubt.
Voltron said...
It's not a question of legality Will. It's a question of morality.
Yes his performing these abortions MAY have been legal in Kansas. (although we'll probably never know for sure because of the groups trying to obfuscate the full accounting of what Dr. Tiller actually did)
AND his murder was certainly illegal.
However BOTH sides here are without a doubt immoral.
Interesting how at Lydia's Mike likes to argue the spirit of the law rather than the letter, while here he's the champion of the inverse."
Another straw dog Volty..............what it is, is YOU and those like you trying to CONTROL and inflict YOUR self righteous "morality" onto others and deny them their legal rights and freedoms.............its really pretty elementary Simple Simon..... if YOU arent gay and dont believe in gay marriage then dont become gay and try to marry a man............and if YOU are against abortion then dont have an abortion or knock anyone up that might choose to have one.
but you have absolutely NO RIGHT WHATSOEVER to deny those choices to others who would choose to do so.
See The Right Wing preaches all that flowery freedom and democracy stuff and small unobtrusive government but thats all YOU CLOWNS WANT IS TO CONTROL OTHERS, DENY THEIR FRREEDOMS, CHOICES AND LEGAL RIGHTS YOU SELF RIGHETOUSLY DONT APPROVE OF AND USE BIG INTRUSIVE GOVERNMENT TO PUSH YOUR AGENDA.
Fetuses are not people. They are only prospective people. Potential people. They don't have right to life. Their prospective mothers have dominion over them, not God.
I love it when you guys fight with each other and not with me! LOL No, seriously, though, good discussion. P.S. My solution (tongue firmly planted in cheek)? Birth control in the water supply. And then take a pill if you WANT to get pregnant (or at least increase the odds). That would really fix the problem. Or not. LOL
Will's "Final Solution" would destroy almost all animal life.
As for rights for the unborn - there are no Social Security numbers issued until after birth.
And we are a nation of laws... we don't put "moral" laws above the laws of the nation, we are not Taliban.
I repeat, "tongue firmly planted in cheek". I actually tend to agree with you on abortion, btw. But, yeah, when it comes to partial birth abortion and stuff like that, I can definitely see the other side.
What side, pray tell, would that be Will?
I don't know, Vig, I guess it's the fact that the baby at that point is viable. And then if you kill it for a trivial reason (not that most women do, of course), too. I certainly can understand the moral dilemma involved.
Post-viability abortions have to be medically indicated.
That's all you have to remember.
Post a Comment