Comments on: Murdered for Defending Women’s Rghts

By: Harry Canary

Harry Canary — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 16:41:09 +0000

Avenger, Avenger, Avenger!! If that is indeed your real name. (It probably really is Sydney Dweeble) Murder is murder is murder. Those making excuses for murders are no better than the murderers themselves. As much as it makes you feel superior to be a Christian with a capital C complete with brass bands, patriotism, wars and murderers of doctors you condemn yourself with your two faced, weaselly words and hypocritical actions. Think of the Savior driving out the money changers from the temple with knotted cords. He would surely be equally outraged at todays TV preachers with their silk suits and prosperity gospel let alone the anti abortionists pretending to be pro life while supporting murder and war.

By: Avenger

Avenger — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 13:15:06 +0000

Nicole, Nicole, Nicole!! Tiller was murdered because he murdered countless thousands of little human beings! Think of one of your loved ones, and imagine them still in the womb. Then imagine a monster like Tiller ripping their little arms and legs off as he performs his brutal assault on their little defenseless body! Tiller was a cold, vicious murderer. I’m quite sure he is now reaping the results of the evil he has sowed.

By: Barry99

Barry99 — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 00:43:32 +0000

All societies now and since the beginning of human time have made decisions about the worthiness of lives. We send our youths off to war, execute those found guilty, and expect people to work dangerous jobs. So life is not so sacred after all. So when it comes to human fetuses, I have to side with the right of women not to be forced to carry a pregnancy to term. Besides, that’s what American women want – the right of reproduction when and if they choose. What, I’m going to be some guy telling women that their uterus does not belong to them? The termination of pregnancies is a small price to pay in a society that expects sex of us all.

By: lichen

lichen — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:43:45 +0000

Yes, when unwanted children are forced to be born, the child, both parents, and society as a whole suffers; abortion should be universally available, and so should contraceptives/education about them.

By: Tyrvald

Tyrvald — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 22:27:41 +0000

When a woman consents to sex with a man, she is not agreeing to create a human being from his genetic material. Should not irresponsible people who accidently get pregnant choose not to irresponsibly bare children?

By: Suthiano

Suthiano — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 20:30:43 +0000

Tyrvald,

I agree,

however,

Many should choose not to have unprotected sex but do. Not just those without access to protection. PPL are generally irresponsible when it comes to pleasure, myself included, and (un)fortunately that’s how babies are made.

By: Tyrvald

Tyrvald — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:53:48 +0000

If you would have the government deny women access to reproductive choice, you are a misogynistic sadist! Forced pregnancy is rape and rape is a form of torture. Would you vicariously rape someone to death? No woman should ever be assaulted, arrested, imprisoned or institutionalized for choosing not to experience the physical changes, agony and mortal danger of carrying an embryo and giving birth to a child!

By: bozh

bozh — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:17:35 +0000

it seems that people who oppose all abortions attribute only one reason for it: since fetus has a soul, it is murder to perform abortions.

once again one reason or one cause justifies killing a doctor for doing abortions. Causes/reasons for not killing a doctor who does abortions do not exist to these people.
they also do not believe in multiple causes for abortions. Theoretically speaking, causative factors in need or must to abort one fetus may differ from causative factors for most other abortions.

in fact, anti-abortionists do not allow even one [justifiable or otherewise] cause for abortions let alone a multitude.
such thinking represents an absolutism. One of the causes for such absolutism is the teaching by the bible. Another is reinforcement of the absolutistic attitude by other absolutists.
clergy is also responsible for that attitude. Believing that bible was a dictation from god, is the largest reason for wrong thinking. tnx

By: Michael G.

Michael G. — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:27:59 +0000

I am a member of an organization, Consistent Life. We oppose all forms of violence, including the taking of human life, which abortion does. I invite everyone to visit our site at http://www.consistent-life.org. I host a radio program on a low power fm station, WVLP. The program is quite Left, and is wryly named ‘The Liberal Bias Media Hour’. Podcasts can be accessed at http://www.wvlp.org. The program champions GLBT rights, No wars, economic justice, No death penalty, and virtually every NOMINALLY Left or Liberal cause. Strictly non-violent, I oppose killings by abortion. I very strongly support women and their born childrens’ right to economic opportunity, right to the best healthcare, and dignity. This is not a contradiction as you suggest at the end of your piece. I also suggest that you check out the organization Democrats For Life (although my politics run left of theirs), they are but one of many groups who are not at all conservatives and are pro-life. Of course, there are even more individuals who are not members of anorganization who are also pro-life and quite progressive.

Bill O’Reilly disgusts me, as does his ilk. Many other anti-abortion people that I have met over decades abhor the ugliness of the rhetoric of such voices that claim to be pro-life, but that I agree with you are actually only anti-abortion.

Your stereotyping of people of nonviolence who believe in reverence for all life, especially human life, as right-wing bullies does a great disservice to their cause, which is a good one. Why do you think that I’m a reader of your site in the first place?

Wanting to be able to say, “There are no enemies on the Left!”, I will continue to work for peace and justice, and truly with no violence, trying to keep an open mind and engaging in intelligent discourse.

Michael G.

By: Michael Hureaux

Michael Hureaux — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:17:24 +0000

Yes. The pro-lifers are all so pro life that no child in this country does without shelter, nutrition, health care, or basic education. I stopped listening to them years ago. It takes a special breed of sociopath to build a “pro-life” movement that preys on the emotional stress any woman who decides to abort experiences in making such a decision. Most pro-lifers are obdurate, dogmatic people who think the complexities of life can be shuffled into neat little categories, and the fact that their more ardent supporters resort to violence so often should surprise no one at all.

This country talks about individuals, but has no commitment to making sure every individual grows up with the rudiments of life guaranteed. So long as there are throw-away people, there will always be throw-away fetuses. No level of life is important enough to us that we’re willing to uphold the sanctity of life over the imperatives of profit and production. And until we reach that place, abortion will be a regular part of our lives. Given that, it has to remain safe and legal. As the pro-choice movement has always asked, if you can’t trust a woman with a personal choice, what makes you think you can trust her with a child?

By: Melissa

Melissa — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 14:08:23 +0000

Anti-abortion and pro-life? What a twisted play on minds and words. The two are mutually exclusive it seems.

Why are the unborn more valued and worthy of lobby $ than the born, living, children? It’s just wierd.

Peace, Melissa

By: Tyrvald

Tyrvald — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 10:21:20 +0000

The government wouldn’t be able to gain access to patient records to see who required an abortion, let alone the reason for it. You’d just report operating costs and statistics, which couldn’t be audited in such a way to deny some of the women an abortion while allowing it in other more gruesome situations. I don’t see how they could get away with underfunding a clinic that offered more abortions than another. Medical privacy would almost certainly win in this battle!

By: Tyrvald

Tyrvald — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 09:43:34 +0000

I’ve had a lot of arguments with supposed “libertarians” (Republicans?) who frankly don’t like they idea of paying for heart disease treatment if someone ate hamburgers. I’m a vegan, but I don’t support the death penalty for eating meat! Medical treatment should be provided by doctors and the government should pay these non-profit hospitals and clinics for providing care to all who seek it.

Poor women would have their right to control their reproduction. There would be no question about that here in California if we ever get single-payer, state or federal. It’s not Communist healthcare, unless you believed President Reagan! The taxes pay the bills, the physicians care for their patients {period}

By: Deadbeat

Deadbeat — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 03:53:11 +0000

Speaking of women’s health, there seems to be a disconnect with women’s health and the demand for single payer. The Hyde Amendment has been voted on every year since 1978 denying poor women their right to an abortion. If there is a struggle going on for single payer how will abortions be handled under this system of federal guarantees.

In other words I never hear single payer advocates address this contentious issue. Are they fearful they would lose support for single payer because abortions then would have to be covered? Will this remove the obtrusive Hyde Amendment? It is an interesting question that I haven’t quite seen addressed.

By: Tyrvald

Tyrvald — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:43:34 +0000

It must also be noted that late-term abortions are the result of medical necessity or grim circumstance. We must not allow an inquisition against women’s health and medicine! To the supposedly pro-life an egg with sperm around it is a human being, a clump of growing cells is a human being, a fetus that never grew a brain is a human being… but a child is nothing but property and an adult is nothing but a consumer.

By: lichen

lichen — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 20:08:56 +0000

No, it is murder to bring more unwanted children into our overpopulated world; especially if they will be raised by child-beating christians.

By: BARB

BARB — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 19:25:35 +0000

Tiller’s killer murdered one man. Tiller became a millionaire by murdering thousands. He got what he justly deserved.

By: Jim K

Jim K — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 18:17:57 +0000

Here’s some opinions from different sources on the horrid shooting:
http://www.newsy.com/videos/free_speech_or_sparking_violence

Notice the gist? The thing that strikes me is the debate that video tries to frame: are we going to let murder be turned into an argument over free speech? Let’s not get sidetracked on laying the blame on different sources, let’s focus on the fact that a man was murdered for performing his job. Tiller is a martyr and this is about the dangers of fundamentalism, not that hack Bill O’Reilly. If we let him become a lightning rod then we’ve lost focus of the real target, the religious right like Operation Rescue.

By: Tom Hodges

Tom Hodges — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 17:33:55 +0000

Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center successfully sued the KKK for their compliance in the death of Michael Donald. He also successfully sued several other neo-Nazi groups and won large monetary judgments resulting in their bankruptcy. In lieu of Dr. Tiller’s assassination, I feel it would be appropriate for some entity to sue Bill O’Reilly and Fox News, as well as Randall Terry and Operation Rescue. I think you would agree that both individuals and their organizations are responsible for spewing forth HATE, and I feel a good case could be made in court that they contributed to Dr. Tiller’s death, in the same way the United Klans of America, White Aryan Resistance, and other neo-Nazi groups contributed to hate crimes against minorities.