TheEgoist Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01til...ref=global-home Just lovely. What is it that compels someone to do such evil shit? Well I know what does, but damn. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
01503 Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 What is it that compels someone to do such evil shit? Well I know what does, but damn. I often find myself thinking "what is wrong with these people?!?" And then remember that I *do* know what's wrong with them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robert J. Kolker Posted May 31, 2009 Report Share Posted May 31, 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/us/01til...ref=global-home Just lovely. What is it that compels someone to do such evil shit? Well I know what does, but damn. No doubt God told him to shoot the doctor. Bob Kolker Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I have not read the whole story, but heard briefly on the news last night that this man has been shot before and had his clinic fire bombed. Did he not have any professional security?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brian0918 Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) Kelly: He did. His office building is more of a compound, with bullet proof windows and a whole security team. He also has a body guard that follows him to/from the office. Apparently, what he didn't expect was that someone would shoot him at his church where he was ushering at the time. Edited June 1, 2009 by brian0918 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 The lesson: don't goto church. LGF has a post dedicated to showing some of the most vile reactions from the far right online http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33...s_Not_One_of_Us Clearly the rhetoric of not just whacked out kooks, but also of mainstream figures like O'Reilly and others who refer to this man as a child killer fueled this flame, and they're to blame for feeding this scumbag's sense of righteousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 That doc was a brave. he was shot at once before. And, his local authorities were out to get him too, trying to prosecute him for what he was doing. Reminds me of Dr. Kervokian's defiance of his local county prosecutor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 Kelly: He did. His office building is more of a compound, with bullet proof windows and a whole security team. He also has a body guard that follows him to/from the office. Apparently, what he didn't expect was that someone would shoot him at his church where he was ushering at the time. It seems his security detail should've known better. Bad stuff always happens when you least expect it, ya know? Sad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 It seems his security detail should've known better. Bad stuff always happens when you least expect it, ya know? Sad. I wonder why he dind't wear a flack jacket everywhere he went. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 1, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 It's disgusting someone would be forced to live like that anywhere in this country because of the profession they choose. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I agree, Ryan. It's disgusting to have to live like that, but better than the alternative. I wonder why he didn't wear a flack jacket everywhere he went. I'm not sure if that would've done much good since last time he was shot in both arms, if I recall correctly. It seems like the "pro-lifers" were pretty determined to get him one way or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D'kian Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 I'm not sure if that would've done much good since last time he was shot in both arms, if I recall correctly. It seems like the "pro-lifers" were pretty determined to get him one way or the other. A shot to the arm is usually not fatal (though it can disable or maim permanently). If they shot him in the arms on purpose, that means he was either wearing a flack jacket at the time, or his assailants thought he was (and they weren't skilled enough to try a head shot). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-Mac Posted June 1, 2009 Report Share Posted June 1, 2009 (edited) I really don't want to get shot anywhere on my body for any reason, much less my profession. Edited June 1, 2009 by K-Mac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted June 2, 2009 Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 The psycho who killed Tiller is supposed to have had ties to the Montana Freemen militia group. The whole thing is disgusting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 2, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 2, 2009 I just saw an interview with another abortion doctor who performs late term. The term "Hero" really does pop to mind. There are only a few doctors in the whole country willing to perform this absolutely necessary procedure. This man who spoke on Anderson Cooper refuses to be bullied out of the job he has chosen and loves, and that should be commended. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I just saw an interview with another abortion doctor who performs late term. The term "Hero" really does pop to mind. There are only a few doctors in the whole country willing to perform this absolutely necessary procedure. This man who spoke on Anderson Cooper refuses to be bullied out of the job he has chosen and loves, and that should be commended. I don't know much about abortion, so don't take this as me being anti-abortion, but why is this procedure "absolutely necessary?" Can't they determine birth defects early on in the pregnancy? Why would someone need a late-term abortion? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fountainhead777 Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) Im not too fond of late-term abortions. In some cases the fetus is viable and can live outside of the womb depending on how late it is. I do believe women have a choice but I think it is far preferable to make that choice earlier, emergency cases such as late diagnosis of birth defects and danger to the mother excluded. To me the methods of late-term abortions are fairly graphic. They often involve ending the fetus' life early to allow easier extraction and in some cases the fetus is dismembered prior to extraction. Edited June 3, 2009 by fountainhead777 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 3, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 1. Discovery of birth defects usually can't take place until at least the second trimester. Even then, fetuses develop further. 2. Health of the mother. Health can be a big factor, and doctors are thankfully able to tell what kind of damage giving birth might have on the woman. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gags Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 My sister, who is married with three children, had to have a late term abortion due to problems with the fetus that also could have caused problems for the mother. I don't know much about the medical need for these procedures other than the fact that my sister needed one and I'm damn glad she was able to have access to a safe, legal procedure in a hospital setting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Ah, well, thanks for the info. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllMenAreIslands Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 My sister, who is married with three children, had to have a late term abortion due to problems with the fetus that also could have caused problems for the mother. I don't know much about the medical need for these procedures other than the fact that my sister needed one and I'm damn glad she was able to have access to a safe, legal procedure in a hospital setting. I'm glad she was, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jake_Ellison Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 Im not too fond of late-term abortions. In some cases the fetus is viable and can live outside of the womb depending on how late it is. I do believe women have a choice but I think it is far preferable to make that choice earlier, emergency cases such as late diagnosis of birth defects and danger to the mother excluded. To me the methods of late-term abortions are fairly graphic. They often involve ending the fetus' life early to allow easier extraction and in some cases the fetus is dismembered prior to extraction. I find a lot of things graphic, including someone slaughtering your next meal. Still, I don't go as far as to declare that I'm not too fond of you eating. I prefer instead to not watch cows and chickens getting slaughtered, and leave you to decide whatever you wish to do, as long as you don't encroach on other people's rights. And then, if you do encroach on someone's rights, I still don't declare my lack of fondness of your actions: instead, I insist that you be sent to jail. So which is it? Do you think third term pregnancy is murder, or none of our business? I really don't see a middle ground here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Lonely Rationalist Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I find a lot of things graphic, including someone slaughtering your next meal. Still, I don't go as far as to declare that I'm not too fond of you eating. I prefer instead to not watch cows and chickens getting slaughtered, and leave you to decide whatever you wish to do, as long as you don't encroach on other people's rights. And then, if you do encroach on someone's rights, I still don't declare my lack of fondness of your actions: instead, I insist that you be sent to jail. So which is it? Do you think third term pregnancy is murder, or none of our business? I really don't see a middle ground here. I think he's saying that he finds late-term abortion immoral, but doesn't think it should be illegal. Speaking of which, I was recently reading an article by Leonard Peikoff (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2404) and he says: "The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer. If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body." My question is... Rationally, why is it immoral to wantonly kill an animal or a fetus? is it because it is irrational and without purpose? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fountainhead777 Posted June 3, 2009 Report Share Posted June 3, 2009 I believe in women's right to abortion. A full grown living woman's life is of more value than a fetus. As I am not fond of them because of the lost potential of a human being and the graphic nature of its disposal i think it should be used as rarely as possible, but I do think it is a necessary procedure. Most likely all the restrictions placed on abortion by anti-abortionists cause the most increases in late-term abortions by making the process more difficult to accomplish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEgoist Posted June 4, 2009 Author Report Share Posted June 4, 2009 I think he's saying that he finds late-term abortion immoral, but doesn't think it should be illegal. Speaking of which, I was recently reading an article by Leonard Peikoff (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=2404) and he says: "The issue here is the proper role for government. If a pregnant woman acts wantonly or capriciously, then she should be condemned morally--but not treated as a murderer. If someone capriciously puts to death his cat or dog, that can well be reprehensible, even immoral, but it is not the province of the state to interfere. The same is true of an abortion which puts to death a far less-developed growth in a woman's body." My question is... Rationally, why is it immoral to wantonly kill an animal or a fetus? is it because it is irrational and without purpose? It depicts a rather psychotic and malevolent attitude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.