"Culture of Life" - U R doing it rong
I cannot express in words the rage I am feeling right now.
Not just at the fact that Dr. George Tiller, an abortion provider specializing in medically-necessary late-term abortions, was murdered today. No, I am enraged by those who whipped the hatred against this man, who did everything to encourage his murder, are suddenly pretending they had nothing to do with it.
Damn them all. All of them.
Randall Terry. SUZANNE. The Catholic Church. The Army of God.
All of them. They are the same. They purposely espouse violent rhetoric, celebrate past perpetrators of violence and murderers as 'martyrs' and try to create false moral equivalence with a medial procedure and a planned premeditated murder of a 67-year-old professional, father and grandfather.
These people purposely took a procedure that represents less that 0.02 % of abortions, and always for medical reasons, and turned it into their main argument, that somehow Dr. Tiller was killing healthy, viable 8-month-old babies en mass simply because their mother's decided they just didn't want to be pregnant any more.
Lies! Disgusting, purposeful lies by authoritarians bent on controlling everyone's body and mind.
And they have the gall to call themselves "Pro-Life" and "The Culture of Life".
Let see how these people respect human life, shall we?
Pro-choice victims of anti-abortion murder:
Dr. David Gunn
Dr. John Britton
James Barrett, clinic escort
Shannon Lowney, clinic receptionist
Lee Ann Nichols, clinic receptionist
Robert Sanderson, off-duty police officer working as a security guard
Dr. Barnett Slepian
Dr. George Tiller
Add to the list above the numerous bombings, harassment campaigns, vandalism, threats of death and other crimes in which no one was actually hurt. Add to that the actual assaults committed by "Operation Rescue" folks at clinics across the US.
Anti-choice victims of pro-choice murder:
.
The "best" the anti-choice side can come up with of pro-choice violence is the assault on Ed Snell, who was attacked by the boyfriend of a woman he was verbally harassing from the top of his car...a woman who was not seeking an abortion. Add to that, pushes and shoves in self-defense.
Who, then respects life?
People who say this? -
I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you... I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good... Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called by God, to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want pluralism." Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue, August 16, 1993.[emphasis mine]
"When I, or people like me, are running the country, you’d better flee, because we will find you, we will try you and we will execute you." Randall Terry, head of Operation Rescue 1995.[emphasis mine]
There is no debate with these people. There is no reasoning with them. These are the people that wish to grant legal personhood to a blastocyte, but will not do anything to help already born children in poverty. These are the people that condemn women who make the choice of abortion, yet refuse to condone birth control to prevent unwanted pregnancy in the first place.
These are the people who wish to control every woman's body, to force them to give birth to unwanted children so they can then abondon both, as a punishment for having sex and or not believing in their religious teaching.
And they are prepared to kill to make it happen.
These people are the enemies of freedom and liberty. They are pure fascists and totalitarians through and through. And they will stop at nothing to enslave us all (and make no mistake, if a person cannot control or own their own body, they are in fact, a slave).
It is time for self-defense. I am in favour of abortion doctors, clinic staff and volunteers either being armed themselves for self-protection or to hire armed security guards and personell. The government obviously can't or, as evidenced in Kansas, won't help. Sometimes it is agents of the state doing the harrassing.
Am I over reacting?
But Warren Hern, a Colorado physician and close friend of Tiller's who said he is now "the only doctor in the world" who performs very late-term abortions, said Tiller's death was predictable.
"I think it's the inevitable consequence of more than 35 years of constant anti-abortion terrorism, harassment and violence. George is the fifth American doctor to be assassinated. I get messages from these people saying, 'Don't bother wearing a bulletproof vest, we're going for a head shot.' "[emphasis mine]
No, I don't think so.
I will not let my daughter be enslaved in a world run by these thugs.
I'm pro-choice and I shoot back.
Pants pissing update (June 5 2009):
From Patrick Ross in the comments -
"And by the way, Mike, you very much can be a co-defendant in a libel suit if you really want to.
If that's what you want, I suggest you repeat the latter of these two statements again."
So there you have it. When he can't instigate me by his over the top behaviour and misrepresentation of what I said, he threatens me with legal action. Will his next comment complain tha I am trying to stiffle his free speech? Only time will tell...
Labels: anti-choice murderers, fetus fetishists, Justice, Pro-Choice, terrorism
posted by Mike @ 4:15 PM
43 comments
43 Comments:
Great post, Mike, I can see you're at about the same anger level as I am.
Bad enough they want to enslave women to their reproductive systems, but they still think they can kill to make their point? They are fascists of the highest order.
I heartily agree, it's lock and load time.
The weaseling is completely disgusting. The anti-choice crowd -- all of them, every last one of them -- are responsible for this. And they must be made to wear it.
I hope USian pro-choicers make good use of this horrible event. Dr. Tiller, I'm sure, would be good with that.
This is just madness, I'm at loss to characterize these assassins any other way. The man was at church for fuck sake.
Damn... I wish I'd written that.
Methinks I'll be sending all my readers here... including HERSELF.
Very well said especially the concluding words:
"I will not let my daughter be enslaved in a world run by these thugs."My feelings exactly.
It's cute, Mike, but you clearly want to overlook the fact that the assault on Ed Snell -- a 69-year-old man -- by a man 46 years his junior was one thing.
The applause of people like yourself of those actions is another.
See, Mike, you may have some credibility on the lunatic fringe, in an extremely closed-loop political environment.
The rest of us live in the real world. And in the real world, people are disturbed by all politically-oriented violence, regardless of who it's perpetrated by or against.
We also know that you -- far from the "rational" individual you'd like people to believe you are -- are not only the least bit concerned by violence perpetrated by people who share your political views and in support of those views, but are also not even slightly reluctant to engage in or threaten that violence yourself.
You are, after all -- no matter how much you lie and try to deny it -- the individual who responded to someone offering rational debate on the topic of abortion with a gun threat.
You are, after all -- no matter how much you lie and try to deny it -- the individual who responded to someone offering rational debate on the topic of abortion with a gun threat.Really? REALLY?!!! Enlighten us, Patrick, who was this grand debater and elocutionist who offered a rational debate on the topic of abortion?
Yes Patrick, please post a link to the comment where you allege I threatened you or anyone else with a gun. I will let the readers form their own opinion on what I said. It was over at JJ's place a while back wasn't it?
As for your faux moral equivalence, well if you think that laughing at the misfortune of an old man who harassed women ad nauseam for is the same as condoning the murder of a man performing a legal and medically necessary procedure, well, I'll let your own asinine comment speak for ti self.
Seriously, post the link to the comment. I don't mind.
Thnaks for stopping by.
Heh, so Patrick, you're implying equivalence between shoving and a premeditated gunning down of someone in their place of worship in front of friends and family. Look, I'm not advocating violence but I've yet to see any pro-choice assassin squads operating.
Ask, Mike, and you shall receive.
And no, I won't be shocked at all when you and your cohorts here embrace dishonesty in attempting to deny the threat you made -- one that was actually unprovoked, but we all know you won't admit to this either. If there's anything one expects from a dishonest ideologue, it is lies. Your lies haven't shocked me for a long time.
Even then, Mike, at the end of the day, the crux of the matter is this. You insisted that certain individuals were applauding and encouraging the killing of abortion clinic doctors, it turns out that they weren't. As a matter of fact, SUZANNE denounced the murder of Dr Tiller in no uncertain terms. I believe she and I actually share the same opinion of violence perpetrated against abortion clinic doctors -- that it is terrorism, and that it is reprehensible.
As a matter of fact, I believe that the full scope of anti-terror law in Canada and the United States -- in fact, anywhere -- should be used to preempt violence against abortion clinics. This, I'm not sure if SUZANNE would agree with.
That being said, SUZANNE denounced the murder. All you could do was peddle garbage rhetoric trying, somehow -- but in vain -- to erase that denunciation for ideological purposes.
See, Mike, here's the hilarious thing about the entire affair. We know you don't care about abortion-centred violence. You've applauded it in the past, and you've threatened to engage in it. In fact, you threatened me simply because I insisted -- quite factually -- that there very much is a debate on abortion.
You lie about this every opportunity that you get, but you very much did it, and you know it.
That was all it took to elicit a threat of gun violence out of you. Not very rational, I'd add.
You don't care about abortion-centred violence. And we all know you couldn't give a good goddamn less about Dr Tiller, either.
All this is about to you is an opportunity to seize upon a tragedy for maximum rhetorical advantage. It's actually extremely disgusting.
But then again, that is in no way out of character with your typical behaviour. While your fellow fascists may eat this nonsense with a spoon, just remember this:
In the mainstream public debate cretins like you have no credibility. None. Zilch. Nada.
Have fun playing with your fellow brownshirts. At least then you can pretend to have a little bit of credibility.
Thanks Patrick. I now invite any and all readers to read not just my comment, but the entire thread and form their own opinion as to the nature of my threat.
As for the rest of it..blah...blah...blah.
Same old nonsense. I stand by the same argument I made back then - no one has the right to tell someone what they can and cannot do with their body. To allow this is to allow slavery. And so, their is NO debate about slavery - it is evil and wrong in all circumstances and should be fought.
Anyone that would dare debate enslaving someone else is morally reprehensible and dangerous.
I am prepared to live and let live. If you wish and abortion, have one and if you think it is wrong, don't. I may not agree with the particular decision, but so long as it is not my body, it is not my decision to make.
SUZANNE and her ilk (including the assassin of Dr. Tiller) are prepared to, on the other hand, use any amount of violence, including all the coercive power of the state and to commit murder to enforce their decisions on other people. THAT is fascism.
And yes, Patrick, I am prepared to use any means necessary, including deadly force, to DEFEND myself and my family from those using force and aggression against us, to stop people from trying to enslave my wife and daughter.
If that makes you queasy, then frankly that's your problem not mine.
If you WOULDN'T, that makes you a coward and frankly I don't give a damn what you think about me.
I'll let the other readers here weigh what was said.
Oh and SUZANNE and Randall Terry and Bill O'Rielly and all the rest of them go on and on for years calling a man who performed medically necessary and legal procedures "Tiller the killer" and calling abortion "murder". None should be surprised when someone believes them and acts on their rhetoric. They are all as guilty of Dr. Tiller's murder as of they pulled the trigger themselves - and their post hoc condemnation of the murder mean nothing considering how they did everything to ensure that it happened before hand.
They are liars and hypocrites and deserve nothing but contempt.
There is no debating with people like that.
Yeah, Mike, I remember the last time you tried to use that weak excuse.
The simple fact of the matter is that all I had said is that there very much is a debate on abortion -- again, a fact.
I had not claimed any right or privilege to tell anyone what they could or could not do with their bodies.
So, once again, I'd ask you precisely what I asked you the last time you offered this excuse: if you weren't trying to intimidate someone into silence regarding their views on abortion -- we both know that you were, so we're strictly pretending here, but let's indulge you -- then why did you threaten the use of deadly force?
If your rationale rendered you as innocent as you'd like to insist, you'd have been better served waiting until someone had attempted to claim such right or privilege before threatening them.
At the very least, perhaps your threat was better saved until someone had given a better indication that they felt they could claim such right or privilege aside from simply noting that there is an abortion debate. (Again, this is a fact.)
Beyond that, your allusion to slavery is beyond ludicrous.
In modern history, slavery has only been legally permissable in situations wherein those enslaved were not regarded as persons under the law.
The argument used so often in defense of jungle law abortion policy has been that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that an unborn child is not legally a person.
Your rationale in favour of unrestricted abortion on demand is the same as the slaver's rationale. It's identical.
I certainly don't agree with everything the anti-abortion lobby has to say. But one thing they have to say on this topic, I will agree with.
Just because the law didn't consider blacks to be persons under the law didn't mean that was correct. Likewise, just because the law doesn't consider unborn children to be persons doesn't make that right, either.
Mike, those like yourself who have gleefully applauded assaults on anti-abortion activists are as hypocritical as anyone.
Do you not believe that your applause of the assault on Ed Snell wuldn't encourage future attacks? By the rhetorical standard you're setting with your argument here, you would be every bit as responsible as those you accuse.
To make matters worse for you, you won't even denounce the violence you, by your own rhetorical standard, encourage. You applaud it.
Even if one were to accept the argument that the anti-abortion lobby is responsible for the assassination of Dr Tiller, at the very least they're willing to denounce that violence.
You, on the other hand, refuse to denounce the violence that your side of the debate perpetrates because if you did you'd have to surrender a rhetorical advantage that you've worked hard slandering people to attain, and would have to surrender your sense of moral self-righteousness.
You live in a glass house and you throw stones.
Gotcha. Pushing an an annoying old man is THE EXACT SAME, morally, as assasinating a doctor who performs legal, medically nescessary operations in his church.
Thank's for playing Twatsy. We now know clearly that you opoenly support the murder of abortion doctors.
Mike, no one's actually saying these two things are the same.
But, Mike, if you happened to decide to use deadly force on someone because they refuse to be silent regarding something so simple as the fact that there is a debate on abortion, it certainly would be.
As I'll remind everyone here, you yourself have threatened to use deadly force against someone simply for pointing out that there is a debate on abortion.
So even on those grounds alone you're hopelessly hypocritical.
As it regards the age-old Ed Snell tale, all I'm doing is pointing out to all the fine folks at home that, while you sputter in outrage everytime violence is perpetrated against an aboriton provider or any member of the pro-abortion movement, you've applauded that violence against anti-abortion activists.
Worse yet, you applauded violence against elderly anti-abortion activists.
Most people are 100% right to denounce the murder of Dr Tiller. The violence perpetrated around the abortion issue is reprehensible, and it doesn't matter who is perpetrating it, or against which side.
Which is where the rub lies. You have absolutely no credibility on this issue. Not only have you in the past threatened to murder someone who disagrees with you on the topic of abortion on what amounts to a very thin excuse for provocation, you've applauded violence against those with whom you disagree.
You are not legitimately progressive. Nor are your reasons rational.
And by the way, Mike, you very much can be a co-defendant in a libel suit if you really want to.
If that's what you want, I suggest you repeat the latter of these two statements again.
Well, Mike, if you really want to be a co-defendant in a libel suit, all you have to do is lie again.
Or maybe you'd like to revert to your past behaviour and threaten me with a gun again.
Or maybe you can fuck off and start being honest about things.
It's your call.
For gawds sake, Patrick, stop spamming. Jeeeeeezus
Well, Mike, if you really want to be a co-defendant in a libel suit, all you have to do is lie again.
Or maybe you'd like to revert to your past behaviour and threaten me with a gun again.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
Irony is dead.
I'm curious...you say "co-defendant"...who else are you threatening with libel suits over what you have said in a public blog, in direct conversation with you?
Never mind. You might answer.
And speaking of "fuck off" - since this is MY blog and I have left to total of 1 comment on your blog over the entire time I have been blogging might I recommend you take your own advice?
Its clear you are only interested in being an asshole and I simply won't play anymore.
Are you trying to be the only person I have ever banned?
Patrick is like Neo Conservative, they are both so predictable in the answer and comments it like watching the same dumb movie over and over again,...
I'm shocked at Mike's lack of condemnation to the point where I'm going to refuse to address anything that he's said because he's the one saying it. In fact, my entire effort here is going to skip past discussion of the topic Mike raised and proceed directly to trying to disqualify him from saying it. Hey, it worked in elementary school!(/rossrhetoric)
Well, Mike, considering that I have not only never done anything other than condemn all violence perpetrated around the issue of abortion -- a feat that you won't replicate, by the way -- the comments cited here are legally perilous for you.
Like I said before, if you want to be a co-defendant in a libel suit, all you need to do is repeat them.
You've been warned.
Hey, Zorph, I still remember your mental meltdown over whether or not someone could believe evolution.
So when you're speaking of stupid, just remember that we've already long considered the source of that one, you fucking retard.
Lol, gun threat, Twatsy, you really are a lark. Having never seen the content before, nor taking a look at the "context" as Mike suggests the "threat" is very clear. Mike will defend his family as needed.. Duh, isn't that what you ilk goes on and on about....
Wow, just because lefties don't like violence doesn't mean they cannot defend themselves or are not strong.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.
Well, Mike, considering that I have not only never done anything other than condemn all violence perpetrated around the issue of abortion -- a feat that you won't replicate, by the way -- the comments cited here are legally perilous for you.
Like I said before, if you want to be a co-defendant in a libel suit, all you need to do is repeat them.
You've been warned.
10:06 PM
Blogger Patrick Ross said...
Hey, Zorph, I still remember your mental meltdown over whether or not someone could believe evolution.
So when you're speaking of stupid, just remember that we've already long considered the source of that one, you fucking retard.
10:08 PM
Well there's a witty, well thought out, logical refrain,...
Seems likes Patsy is having a hard time getting a summer job because of teh Google he?
Reap what you sow I suppose.
And since I won't be threatened by anyone, least of all a mullet sporting idiot who is clearly trying to change the channel on the discussion, on my own blog, let me send a hearty congrats to Patrick Ross. He is now banned.
Any an all further comments will be immediately deleted.
Bye Patsy...
(You'll notice, Patsy, that despite you lying about me threatening you with a gun, I have never threatened to sue you...just keep that in mind if you think my conclusion above is actionable...)
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
"Gotcha. Pushing an an annoying old man is THE EXACT SAME, morally, as assasinating a doctor who performs legal, medically nescessary operations in his church.
Thank's for playing Twatsy. We now know clearly that you opoenly support the murder of abortion doctors."
Sorry, which part am I supposed to repeat?
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Seems I may have a cyberstalker. Oh well the delete button works. Can't say he wasn't warned...
Heh. Sure, Mike, if you say so.
In this case, forcing you to confront the truth about yourself -- that you're every bit the crazed lunatic as Dr George Tiller's assassin -- is apparently stalking you.
I'd really like to know Mike: why can't you just tell the truth? You know you did it. I know you did it. Why can't you just be honest with yourself?
As you've noticed, your harpies have cleared right out of here. They realize you did it. They've cleared out of here so they may willfully ignore the truth and feign ignorance on another day.
But you -- you don't have that luxury. You know full well what you did, and you know full well why you did it. There was nothing great or noble about it, you just did so you could intimidate someone and make yourself feel like a little more of a man.
And, at the end of the day, Mike, you failed. I'm not afraid of you. Not one little bit.
And yet you're so terrified of me that you'd try to refuse me the opportunity to speak my piece. Not that it matters. I know full well you're reading these comments, and they aren't going to stop.
Bwhahahah...ok I have to leave that one up...its hilarious.
Sure, Patsy, whatever you say.
Well, Mike, considering that you can't manage a coherent argument in defense of your threat -- you can't seem to explain why you couldn't be bothered to wait until someone had suggested they had the right or privilege to "tell your wife or daughter what they can or cannot do with their bodies" before making that threat.
This has been the defense that you've used -- that you would use deadly force to prevent the enslavement of your wife or daughter.
But simply noting that there is a debate on abortion -- again, Mike, a fact -- is nothing like this. Debate doesn't enslave anyone, and it never has.
What debate does require is that you defend your expressed views on the matter -- such as your repugnant view that unborn children are simply parasites, or your actually-quite-hilarious claim that an unborn child is an entity alien to its mother.
Interestingly enough, Mike, you insist that your gun threat was made simply to ensure the freedom of your wife and children.
You and I both know differently. You and I both know that your gun threat was made to free yourself from the imperative to defend your repugnant views regarding abortion.
It's on that note that I understand fully why you refuse to be honest about this; why you refuse to publicly admit the truth about it, although you and I both know you've privately admitted it to yourself.
It's because you're a moral and intellectual coward. Worse yet, you're a coward in every sense of the word.
Mike, my refusal to threaten to kill someone for simply noting a fact -- that there is a debate on abortion -- suddenly doesn't make me a coward.
But the fact that you have to resort to a gun threat to make yourself feel like a man? Mike, that speaks volumes about you. You and I both know this.
Comedy GOLD!
Whatever you say Patsy....
See, Mike, you keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true.
Rather, what we have here is clearly on display even within this very comment thread.
You claim that you were merely telling someone how you'd respond to someone telling your wife or daughter what they could do with their bodies.
Yet you refuse to explain precisely why it is that you issued that threat to someone who in no way had suggested they had any right or privilege to tell your wife or daughter what they can or cannot do with their body.
Moreover, you issued that threat to someone who had simply stated a fact -- that there very much is a debate regarding abortion. And there is. You cannot deny this fact -- at least not while attempting to enjoy any amount of credibility on this topic.
Why'd you do it, Mike? If the reason really were as you insist it is, anyone capable of logic will immediately recognize that this threat was better saved for someone who claimed such right or privilege, or at least had indicated that they intend to claim such right or privilege.
Merely stating that there's a debate on abortion is not tantamount to that statement. One can debate from either side of the issue. One can even debate from a position that is the middle between two extremes -- something that, factually, I have done, arguing against those with extreme anti-abortion views, like SUZANNE, and arguing against those with extreme pro-abortion views, like yourself.
What I want to know, Mike, is this:
Why are you so threatened by the notion that there would be debate at all? Why, when someone simply stated the fact that there is a debate on abortion taking place, did you threaten them with a firearm?
At some point, Mike, you have to realize that there's no one here to preen to. There's no one here to impress. Your harpies have deserted you.
All you're really doing is demonstrating to me the sheer extent of your bad faith. The remarkable thing about it is that this really is nothing new. I'm well acquainted with the breadth and width of your refusal to discuss this issue in good faith.
"you keep saying that, but it doesn't make it true."
Something Mr. Ross would do well to learn. But the hectoring is funny, so do continue.
Well, then, David, perhaps you'd like to try your hand at trying to explain away Mike's thuggery, since he can't do a passible job of it himself.
Mike insists that he was merely "stating what he would do to someone who tried to enslave his wife or daugther". Yet he directed his threat at someone who had merely stated the fact that there is a debate on abortion.
These two things just don't mesh with one another.
Feel free to make your best attempt.
Another day, another example....
"Feel free to make your best attempt."
Oooh! Really! I get to have my ass kicked too! You are such a pet Patrick. But, I think I'll pass. While you might find Mike passable, you are simply risible. Fight on Hector, for all of Troy is watching.
Well, Audrey, since you apparently want to wade into this, perhaps you'd like to try to justify Mike's gun threat for him.
Seeing as how he stopped pretending it wasn't a threat a long time ago.
And just for the record, Audrey, your little tirade has been done before, and done far more accurately.
In other words, better in every way imaginable.
Post a Comment
<< Home