How do you get promoted in a Barack Obama administration? By hating white people or even saying you do, or that they're not good or put 'em down, whatever...make white people the new oppressed minority and they're going right along with it because they're shutting up. They're moving to the back of the bus and I can't use that drinking fountain, okay. I can't use that restroom, okay.Anyone who knows anything about American history knows what lies at the end of this kind of rhetoric. Anyone who knows what "Redemption" is all about knows where this goes. We don't have the luxury of thinking about these bilious hate-mongers as loonies running off the lip. People are dying. And these shameless goons are cashing checks. Disgusting. I'm sick over this.
« Echoes Of The Crack Age | Main | The Pervasive Fear That Minorities Are Getting Away With Something » Abortion Doctor, And O'Reilly Target, Assassinated31 May 2009 01:27 pm
Courtesy of Andrew, I just read that abortion doctor George Tiller was murdered inside his church this morning. This was the second time he'd been shot. Andrew has the info on all of this--including the role that an odious Bill O'Reilly (he accused Tiller of running a "death-mill") played in this. I couldn't even bear to watch the first O'Reilly tape, where he
interviews one of Tiller's ex-patients. I've been thinking so much this past week about the right's rhetoric, in relation to Sotomayor--especially toward the end of the week when Rush Limbaugh said the following:
Comments (76)Post a comment |
Today's Headlines From The Atlantic |
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I am so sad and angry over this. There isn't much to say.
Shit like this is why shit like this: http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20090530_Paper_runs_ad_urging_Obama_s_assassination.html scares the hell out of me.
So where is DHS in all of this? It's a terrorist attack, isn't it?
You should see the freeper joy over at free republic...half the people are talking about how this guy deserved to die, got what was coming to him, the killer was justified, etc. - the other half is getting half a hard-on talking about how this is (hopefully) the first shot in the 2nd civil war between the American States. Our country affords them the right to say that bullshit but it's almost worth catching the charge just pop one of the those assholes in the mouth...
As a historian, I'd say the analogy with "Redemption" is right. White folks from 1876 to Plessy-v-Ferguson were in their own blind eyes the victims of oppression by Black Folk, and were gonna lynch their way to some security and assurance that they'd never be so "unnaturally" dominated again... It was all bullshit, but bullshit pitched at such an extreme level as to control the media, the political debates, etc.
Cheney, Limbaugh, Gingrich...not to mention Hannity etal...clearly feel they are the decent knights who have been brought down by ground-crawlers who've slashed the tendons of their mounts...
How easy, when even a little pressure or even resistance/refusal is thrown back at them, knighthood shows it thuggish face...
Limbaugh's quote sounds like the same identity politics that he often criticizes. Is O'Reilly going to take responsibility for this? Like others of his ilk expect the likes of Marilyn Manson to take responsibility for Columbine?
I meant to write O'Reilly, not Hannity....I think....
Per The Wire, even the game has a Sunday morning truce. And those who violate it soon find themselves facing down not one, but two implacable avengers.
Whoever did this had better hope for a more merciful Judge than they themselves have been. When Operation Rescue is running away from you as fast as they can, you are off the deep end.
Sick and troubling. Freepers are dancing in the streets.
But as to the larger cause, so many questions.
What do you do? Is it going to get worse as the right gets more disaffected? Has it always been thus? Is this a price you pay for free speech? Should the law kick O'Reilly & co. off the air? Would a private boycott work?
This is the price you pay for free speech; it always has been. When you allow people to say things you may not agree with because you think it's their right, you accept that they might influence someone. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
In this case it's undeniably tragic.
So we mourn the victims and we punish the murderers, and we remember. Then we tell the loonies to keep talking, because the fact that they can means that liberal democracy is winning and the paternal, theocratic loons aren't.
I've been hearing more and more about free speech rights as they pertain to corporate employee speech (ie: Fox), and how no business owner has to support such speech from their employees. If O'Reilly, Rush, et al, want to wear a sandwich board in Union Square and spout off, more power to them, but are they really journalists? Why doesn't this argument gain more traction?
Technically, they could easily be considered journalists. The definitional bar of journalism isn't that hard to clear. But that's really neither here nor there. Most journalists (who are employed on a full time basis) would qualify as corporate employees. That doesn't mean they are not members of the press.
At any rate, you're right, an employer is not bound to uphold the constitutional rights of its employees as they pertain to company business. With free speech, for instance, an employee may very well be protected from federal prosecution, but is not (as we all know, at least intuitively) free to say whatever they want without fear of corporate reprisal. A lot of radio personalities have been sacked for crossing a perceived line of indecency causing advertisers to jump ship (e.g. Don Imus in 2007), but somebody like Rush (and to a lesser extent, O'Reilly) is pretty well immune to that kind of thing. Grassroots boycotts are fairly difficult to organize to the point of having any real impact, and for somebody who has tens of millions of listeners a day who expect and lap up his incidious drivel, the impact of a boycott would have to be implausibly severe to have advertisers pulling away from Rush or even O'Reilly.
I think you should tell the Fox advertisers that you're sick of this crap being spread on the air and you`ll boycott their products, thats the price they pay for working in a capitalist system. OR you can try to get the higher ups at Fox's email addresses together and blast them until they admit they can control these dangerous clowns and tell them what to and what not to say on their station. You don't have to sit back and be a victim while people who say this kind of stuff take no responsibility for the murders committted in part because of their actions. It's not just censorship vs. free speech. If Bill and Rush and Sean really want to say this stuff they can get their own radio and tv stations.
I listened to the O'Reilly clip, and to be honest, I'm just not sure that, other than being a generally objectionable character, he said anything particularly bad here. He didn't incite anyone to violence by pointing out that he believed this Dr. Tiller was running a death-mill. The way he said may have been crude, but nowhere does he condone violence against this man.
Stuff like this makes me not only for Obama and his family, but also Judge Sotomayor. When people say she is not qualified and a racist that could really drum up hate against her. I wonder if she will need a bodyguard and how many death threats she has already received.
We on the left have our flaws, but I have never once read liberal bloggers inciting violence toward people we disagree with. Our rhetoric is not nearly as heated.
oops, forgot the word FEAR before Obama.
It was there without you having to type it.
Knew exactly what you meant.
This may sound a bit crazy, but I'm surprised this kind of thing doesn't happen more often. I'm pro-choice, but I think it's not that hard to imagine how someone who is pro-life might come to choose this kind of radical action.
What if you knew of a doctor who was terminating babies right after birth? Would it be that much of a stretch to imagine that you could do a sort of moral calculus and arrive at the conclusion that killing the doctor might be the right thing to do?
Of course, I don't agree that a 7 month old fetus is the same thing as a post-birth baby (although I am opposed to late term abortions just as I am pro-choice) -- but if I did believe they were equivalent, then I could certainly understand this kind of act occurring.
People on the left (myself included) often spend a lot of time having to convince conservatives what it's like to be in someone else's shoes in order to truly understand an issue. I know it won't be popular, but I see this in a similar way, and when I put myself in someone's shoes who truly believes that aborting a 7 month old fetuses is just like murdering a newborn, I have to admit that things get a heck of a lot murkier.
It did happen already, to Dr. Tiller even.
This is going to mortally wound the pro-life movement.
I don't know. Because to a certain degree, it's working. There are now, at most, two physicians in this country you can go to for the kind of abortion Dr. Tiller often provided.
This is how terrorism works: It doesn't matter how many people are 'on your side' as long as people are afraid to oppose you.
All of these folks are supported by advertisers. They say these things because they get rich saying them.
O'Reilly isn't going to change. But advertisers ought to be held accountable for what they're keeping on the air.
TNC, here is something I learned here at your blog -- to get all the information before rushing to judgment. That is to say, at this point we can surmise that Dr. Tiller was assassinated by a pro-life supporter, but we don't know that. Yes, that is most likely the case but not definite.
I've been sitting reading all the coverage trying not to hate on those involved, directly and indirectly, in this tragic and awful situation because of what I think is going on. You taught me that.
That is why his advertisers must be boycotted.
Fair Enough.
Triple threat, tax protester, bomb-maker, abortion-doctor-murderer.
Tie to Operation Rescue.
Roeder had a sticky with the local Operation Rescue number on it in his car when he was arrested.
He's like a parody of a card carrying rightwing extremist.
Trifecta right out of the DHS report.....perhaps he's a white supremecist and gun-nut too?
Thanks for the link. Hicks, I still take your point.
Tiller's murder is a financial boon to both sides of the abortion debate. People are angry, touchy, defiant, "empowered." Probably a nice audience driver for blogs as well. I'm exhausted just thinking about the clips of outrageous comments that will emerge from cable news and talk radio this week.
Let's all listen to Hicks and tone it down.
It may be a 'financial boon' to abortion rights, but it certainly won't help access to late term abortion services. Why the hell should people not be angry about this?
It's populist right-wing terrorism. Read (or remember) the history of the 90's. We know what happened when Clinton got elected, and we are seeing similar phenomena here. Any decent sociologist can tell you it's more likely now and that we will see more in the coming two years. But what is the best analysis of it? Blaming it on the Becks and O'Reillys and Limbaughs? You don't think there would be four more of them tomorrow if they all got canned? These our outrage peddlers, and there will always be someone else to deal if they go. Seeking the most obvious target is cathartic but ultimately leaves us caught in the same impulse whirlpool the media wants us to inhabit.
The anti-abortion movement will be defeated not by shutting down the loudmouths but by really forcing the American people to look at how people live this question. The pro-lifers don't really, in their hearts, believe fetuses are exactly the same as human beings. They believe they are close enough not to be killed as a form of birth control, close enough to be considered sacred-- but they don't, in their lives, consider fetuses human beings. They want to, out of fundamentalist fear, because birth and maternity and women's bodies are messy and scary-- but they actually don't. They wouldn't peacefully protest outside a day care as three-year-olds were being slaughtered inside-- people would die fighting with their hands to save them. None of us really, on a gut level, can treat fetuses exactly like human beings. But in our rage to pretend that we can, some of us will shoot a doctor down. Others will realize that you can't obscure the fragility of human birth with fanaticism.
I think prolife is done for.
This will set back the prolife movement at least 10 years.
The MSM is just going to superglue Roeder onto the prolifers.
In 10 years the J-womb will be operational for humans...right now it is functional enough to gestate goat embryos to full term. Ectogenesis will destroy the prolife cause...any fetus can be aborted and just gestated to term in our swell new Bene Tleilax host-womb-vats.
In ten years SSM will be legal everywhere, and abortion won't be a problem.
Will there still be a GOP?
If you think pro-life is done for you're dreaming. Remember the '90s? We've been down this road before.
I think you're treading on shaky ground when you say "but they don't, in their lives, consider fetuses human beings." and "None of us really, on a gut level, can treat fetuses exactly like human beings.".
It seems pretty arrogant and potentially destructive to tell people how they think/feel about something. Not everyone has your world view (even as I agree with your world view).
Imagine for a second that someone told you that you really weren't upset about something you perceived as a true tragedy - how pissed off would you be?
You also don't want to fall prey to the idea that people must feel/think in terms of fetuses as "people" or "not people", because it kind of looks like people are pretty committed to stop abortions even if they would be more committed if three-year-olds were being slaughtered.
When women miscarry at 8 weeks, or 10 weeks, or 12 weeks, or 16 weeks, is there any denomination that thinks that calls for a funeral? A memorial service, burial in consecrated ground, all the ritual that normally attends the death of a human being? No. None.
They really, truly, do not believe that a fetus is the same as a human being.
They do really, truly believe that women's bodies are community property, that it's up to society to allocate our parts as it sees fit.
They're deeply committed to the idea that women who have sex must then let nature take its course.
A memorial service, burial in consecrated ground, all the ritual that normally attends the death of a human being? No. None.
It's actually fairly common. Google up.
No they don't Steve.
If the prolifers really cared about embryos they would protest the icy holocaust of terminal cryostasis for the snowflake embryos and try to stop fertilty therapy multi-embryo procedures. Or they would volunteer their wives and daughters as host wombs to stop the "genocide".
They are fakers.
But its over.
In ten years abortion protests and those obscene prolife whited sepulchres will just be a bad memory, exactly like the GOP.
Totally wrong, Steve. Gramsci is quite right to point out the fact that in every other sphere 'pro-lifers' (some of whom now seem to be 'pro-deathers') act like everybody else when confronted by the death of a fetus - they will feel sorry for the mother, and whilst feeling sad will not treat the death as that of a natural person. A miscarriage caused by the mother, say, over-working, is not treated as a death caused by the negligence of the mother for which she may be held accountable. Fetuses are not given names, they are not baptised (even by those who believe that death before baptism risks damnation), and after death they are not given a funerals.
Ignorance, hypocrisy and posing are the only reasonable explanation for the people who claim that abortion is murder. They cannot in their heart of hearts really mean it. I have far more time for those who wish to limit abortion to early pregnancy, or ensure that women considering abortion get to hear all the angles, or who fear that abortion is being used as post-facto contraception.
Actually, there was a woman not long ago in Oklahoma who was convicted of murder of her stillborn baby because she was a drug addict. A little research shows this has happened to about 200 other women. Of course, they were all poor and mostly women of color.
"The pro-lifers don't really, in their hearts, believe fetuses are exactly the same as human beings."
This is a fairly foolish statement. One could easily make the inverse argument with regard to "pro-choicers." Watch, "pro-choicers" understand that at moment of conception, a new human genetic code is created, to understand this is to carry also the implicit understanding that a new human being has also been created. "Pro-choicers" therefore carry on an intellectually dishonest argument about the moment life is created to rationalize a personal and philosophical belief that we should treat a fetus at 19 weeks of development differently than we treat one at 21, or 26, or 28, or 30, or 40 weeks. Indeed, that we should treat a "fetus" at 40 weeks differently than a baby born at 38 weeks.
There's a fanatacism associated with all beliefs. There are "pro-choice" fanatics. And frankly, it's not very difficult to argue that the man who was tragically murdered yesterday, whose clinic is one of three in the country who would perform abortions after the 20 week mark, qualified as a "pro-choice" fanatic. It obviously doesn't remotely go to justifying him being murdered. But it can go to rationalizing the act. And to pretend, on the day that a man was murdered because he performed late-term abortions, that people don't really believe this sort of thing, seems kind of stupid to me.
It's sort of like claiming a suicide bomber is not really a Muslim, because Islam is a religion of peace.
Bullshit. If you knew anything about late term abortion, you couldn't call Tiller a "pro-choice fanatic" and expect anyone but ignorant wingnuts to take you seriously.
Either way, find me a "pro-choice fanatic" who walks into a church and shoots a person, and then we'll talk. Or find me a "pro-choice fanatic" that bombs clinics, makes death threats, or any of the violent acts perpetrated by "pro-life" terrorists. Any will work.
Dude, I'm not calling him a fanatic. I am saying that it's not that difficult to make the argument that somebody who performs the service of late term abortion (beyond 21 weeks) in cases that are not being limited to those that seek to avoid the extreme physical harm to the mother, is running the risk of doing greater harm than they are preventing. Once you cross beyond 21 weeks, you are at the blurry line of plausible viability. At 24 weeks, the fetus has a 50% chance of survival outside the womb with months of neonatal intensive care.
Now, again, I am not calling the man a fanatic. I am saying that it's not at all difficult for a person who accepts the fundamental "pro-life" perspective as truth (as it's clear his murderer did) to reasonably look at the procedure this man performed as being, objectively, the killing of babies. And that being the case, as they clearly believe it to be, it's not difficult to make the argument that the man who would perform such horrific acts was a mass murderer and a fanatic.
Again, I am not calling him a fanatic; I don't know whether he was one or not. All it takes to be a fanatic is to express ones belief with uncritical zeal. Was he critical of the procedure he performed? Did he ever question whether he was doing the right thing? I have no way of knowing. I do know this: his murder, like all murders, is an atrocity. It's also an ugly act that is going to do great harm to the common ground reasonable people on both sides of the debate are seeking.
It is rather difficult to make the argument if you have any conception of the dozens of congenital birth defects that lead women to seek a late term abortion.
It is rather difficult to make the argument when you realize that there are less than a handful of doctors in the US who will perform a late term abortion, even in cases when a fetus has been dead in the womb for weeks.
It is rather difficult to make the argument when one realizes that because there are less than a handful of doctors to perform thousands of such procedures a year, there are virtually zero cases of a woman "changing her mind" all willy-nilly in the third trimester. It. Just. Doesn't. Happen.
I understand what the so-called pro-life argument is. I don't agree with it. I don't agree with it because I know of what I speak. Unless there's a compelling medical reason, it's rarer than rare that a viable fetus is aborted. Less than 1% of abortions are done after 21 weeks, and the vast majority of those are under the most heartbreaking of circumstances.
So, rather than run up and down this thread and the other playing devil's advocate for terrorists, do some research and educate yourself on the matter. Maybe then you'll see why it's real difficult to make that argument and expect anybody except for ignorant wingnuts to take you seriously.
Micah,
I recognize the horrific realities of the procedure, and the circumstances that can make it an terrible necessity. I don't question them. As I've said, I don't know much about Tiller's specific practice, but as a borderline obsessive/compulsive father of two small children, I can assure you that I am familiar with most of the terrible ways that a pregnancy can go wrong from week 1 to week 40 and beyond.
Again, I am not making the argument that the man was a fanatic. I'm not even playing devil's advocate. I'm saying what you're saying, it's a horrific procedure. Frankly, I am not comforted by the less than 1% statistic. Calculating the number of abortions that take place in this country in a single year, one would hope that it's far less than 1%. Something closer to 1/10th of 1%, or even less than that. Nor do I like the "vast majority" line. Why aren't all of them performed under the most heartbreaking circumstances? That may seem like parsing, but it's kind of important. To receive the okay for a late term abortion, all that is required is confirmation from two independent doctors that carrying the child to term will lead to irrepreparable harm to the woman. But it's sort of unclear as to what that means. There's no standard. And when you're dealing with such a horrific procedure (and it is), it's difficult to be comforted by that kind of ambiguity. And I do believe there are times of necessity. For those who do not recognize that kind of necessity, the argument is fairly simple.
By the way, as a simple statement of fact, 21 weeks just over half way term, making the third trimester, which starts at around 27 or 28 weeks, over a month and a half off. There is almost no reason for a third trimester abortion.
What a stunning display of ignorance, hypocrisy, and hyperbole.
"There is almost no reason for a third trimester abortion."
How many is almost none? Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 or 6 reasons why a woman would need to undergo a 3rd trimester abortion. Some of the fatal congenital defects aren't manifest until the end of the 2nd trimester.
Secondly, I'm not looking to comfort you. There are somewhere between 4 and 5 million live births per year in the US. There are around 1 million abortions. That, in my mind, is a serious problem. The 1% of those late term abortions, 10,000 or so out of 6 million total pregnancies looks like the law of averages playing out. You have 2 children? I hope that they were born whole and healthy, but you need to recognize that every year, thousands of embryos don't develop properly. Some of those defects will kill the child in the womb, some will kill the mother, and some will kill both.
"To receive the okay for a late term abortion, all that is required is confirmation from two independent doctors that carrying the child to term will lead to irrepreparable harm to the woman. But it's sort of unclear as to what that means. There's no standard."
No, it's real clear what that means. Do your research. Start with Trisomy 13, 18, and 21. Then, try renal agenesis, ancephely, encephalocele, and ARPKD.
You don't like the "vast majority" line? You are parsing. I say "vast majority" because even though I can't think of a situation that's not utterly heartbreaking, I'm not going to say that one doesn't exist. Generally, I tend to stay away from absolutist statements that I can't verify.
The fundamentalist pro-lifer's perspective is one built on falsehoods. They've been inundated with tales of loose women having abortions 3 days before the baby is due for no other reason than to go to a party or a rock concert. It's a perspective built on ignorance and selective reasoning. Again, if you really know anything about late term abortions, you'd see why it is difficult to make the argument. The argument is simple to those who are ignorant, genuinely or purposefully, of the facts. That's why I called it bullshit in the first place, and the fact that you continue to defend their ignorance by mixing their ignorance with your own makes your whole argument suspect.
“What a stunning display of ignorance, hypocrisy, and hyperbole.”
Hat trick!
“How many is almost none? Off the top of my head, I can think of 5 or 6 reasons why a woman would need to undergo a 3rd trimester abortion. Some of the fatal congenital defects aren't manifest until the end of the 2nd trimester.”
Two things: First, I am not sure what genetic abnormality you can come up with that is not manifesting itself until week 27 (the end of the second trimester). Second, even if we accept your formulation of 5 or 6, I think the key word is “need.” What signifies that need. No, you’re not here to comfort me. Nor, really, do you need to lecture me. I accept unquestioningly that instances exist in which an abortion beyond week 21 may become a necessity. But I do believe we must require a certain burden of proof with regard as to what qualifies as sufficient need and, more importantly, what does not. If we accept the need for restriction, which most people do, we should make an attempt to understand what constitutes that restriction. We cannot rely on this idea, as you seem to, that the procedure is always performed responsibly. That nobody ever changes their mind. Nobody every waits until it’s too late. Nobody ever goes into an abortion lightly. The simple, undeniable fact is that exceptions exist.
“No, it's real clear what [irreparable harm] means.”
Then what does it mean? In fact, “irreparable harm” is something that can be fairly widely interpreted. I mean, look at your examples. None of them pose serious physical harm to the woman. They are all about emotional burden and grief. When measuring irreparable harm, the physical variety would surely be the easiest to measure. I’m not at all sure what constitutes irreparable emotional harm. I have absolutely no doubt that such a thing exists. I just don’t know how we determine what does and does not qualify. And, that being the case, I can easily imagine an unreasonably wide interpretation.
“Trisomy 13, 18, and 21. Then, try renal agenesis, ancephely, encephalocele, and ARPKD.”
Trisomy 13, 18, and 21 are chromosomal abnormalities that the zygote has at conception. A probability is established through a multi-tiered screening process somewhere around week 12. If the probability is beyond a certain range, an amnio can be performed immediately to determine a definitive diagnosis on all potential chromosomal abnormalities long before the anatomy/anomaly scan at week 20. The developmental abnormalities you list (all of which are far more rare than the already rare Trisomy), if they were not spotted previously, would be observable at week 20 during the anatomy/anomaly scan. If they were not spotted then, it is unlikely they would be detected before birth.
“Generally, I tend to stay away from absolutist statements that I can't verify.”
But you can’t even verify the statement with the qualification attached. Your argument here is based in compassion, and I do commend you on that, and I do not take offense when you call me ignorant. Your opinion, though, it’s also based on faith. You believe and hope that these procedures are only carried out under the most extreme and heartbreaking of circumstances. I hope so too. But neither of us know this to be the case. Personally, I’m skeptical.
Listen, if you don't want to be lectured, get your facts straight. It really is that simple. My examples are hardly a comprehensive list. Any of them can kill a child in utero. If a child dies after week 20, it can be almost impossible for a woman to have it removed, thanks to our stupid, stupid laws.
Often, the mere fact that the child has died in utero is life threatening to the woman. Not to mention what physical abnormalities such as posterior or anterior encephalocele do to a woman's health. That's irreparable harm.
Babies strangled by the umbilical cord, developed without faces so they'll never breathe or eat, some develop without lungs or kidneys.
Maybe you want to force women to deliver these babies naturally so that those that survive birth can die soon after, but I don't see the utility. If there's a genetic problem, most doctors will not perform any type of surgery to prolong what promises to be a short and painful life that may also kill the mother.
The arbiters of what is "irreparable harm" are doctors, men and women who have trained for years in their craft. All of them are not perfect, some aren't even all that good, but chances are, your average doctor knows far more about it than either of us. At the end of the day, are people supposed to trust your skepticism over the opinions of 2 trained professionals?
Faith and compassion have very little to do with it. It's common sense. I don't "believe and hope that these procedures are only carried out under the most extreme and heartbreaking of circumstances," I'd bet my life that you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence to the contrary. I sure couldn't, and that's how my opinion was formed. I was skeptical, and did my research. I'm not going to say that something inappropriate never happened, but until I can find such a thing, it doesn't factor in.
Because if there was any actual evidence of a doctor aborting a healthy, viable baby just because the mother "changed her mind," we'd never be done hearing about it. You know why we never hear about it? Because it just doesn't happen.
However, if you care to introduce said evidence, I'd be more than happy to look it over and if necessary, change or modify my opinion. Until then, your lazy, personal skepticism will only earn you anonymous lectures on teh internetz.
“If a child dies after week 20, it can be almost impossible for a woman to have it removed, thanks to our stupid, stupid laws.”
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s not true. In the event of a diagnosed stillbirth (which is to say, the natural death of a fetus after 20 weeks) women are given the opportunity to have an induction, but they do have the option to carry the baby until labor begins naturally. I looked around online for state restrictions of inducing labor following a stillbirth. I can’t find a single one. It may be hiding. If what you say is true, I would be very interested in you providing a link, as that sort of restriction is psychotic (which, I guess, does not mean it’s not true).
“Often, the mere fact that the child has died in utero is life threatening to the woman. Not to mention what physical abnormalities such as posterior or anterior encephalocele do to a woman's health. That's irreparable harm.”
I’m not sure who you’re arguing with. I spent the last post simply refuting your argument that genetic or developmental abnormalities often do not manifest until the end of the second trimester. I did not argue that your examples were not reasonable examples. Just that you have the chronology wrong. All of the developmental abnormalities you cite would be apparent at 20 weeks, if not before then. That is long before the third trimester, so none of your examples go to arguing in favor of third trimester abortions. As for umbilical asphyxiation, I’m not sure at what instances this would require an abortion. If the fetus is asphyxiated, it wouldn’t qualify as an abortion. It would be the induction or Caesarian removal of a stillbirth. And again, please point me in the direction of the states that restrict such a practice.
“Maybe you want to force women to deliver these babies naturally so that those that survive birth can die soon after, but I don't see the utility.”
It’s as if you didn’t read my post at all.
“If there's a genetic problem, most doctors will not perform any type of surgery to prolong what promises to be a short and painful life that may also kill the mother.”
It’s unclear to me whether you’re talking about surgery performed on the fetus, the newborn, or the mother. As a matter of fact, it’s not at all uncommon for newborns with genetic and chromosomal abnormalities to receive multiple open heart surgeries. But that’s not the point, as I never made the argument that chromosomal abnormality was not a potentially sufficient motivation for an abortion. You’re just arguing with somebody else.
“The arbiters of what is "irreparable harm" are doctors, men and women who have trained for years in their craft. All of them are not perfect, some aren't even all that good, but chances are, your average doctor knows far more about it than either of us. At the end of the day, are people supposed to trust your skepticism over the opinions of 2 trained professionals?”
I’m not asking anybody to trust my skepticism. Doubt is not something that requires trust to sustain or justify itself. Faith is. You, like most pro-lifers, seem to have faith. You place your faith in women and doctors. They place their faith in God’s law. Personally, I don’t trust any of them. Not uncritically. I do believe that abortion, even the horrific variety we’ve been discussing should be legal. I believe in that case, that the only people to make the choice to have one would have to be the woman. That’s how I understand the formulation of the phrase “pro-choice.”
“Faith and compassion have very little to do with it.”
Don’t sell yourself short. Those are good things.
“I don't "believe and hope that these procedures are only carried out under the most extreme and heartbreaking of circumstances," I'd bet my life that you'd be hard pressed to find any evidence to the contrary.”
Something tells me you’re a welcher. At any rate, you again misunderstand my perspective. I don’t BELIEVE this happens. I think it’s plausible that it happens. I’m not persuaded by a lack of evidence. Wrongdoing, in this instance, would be easily concealed through simple fraud, protected by privilege. My concern isn’t to find evidence. All that I said is that I am skeptical. I think I have good reason to be. Skepticism isn’t about knowing or proving. It isn’t the same as being suspicious. I recognize the existence of the plausible unknown. And in that recognition, and in what I think is a fair empathic and sympathetic understanding of people, I think there’s plenty of reason to doubt their good word and their objective powers of reasoning under certain circumstances.
“Because if there was any actual evidence of a doctor aborting a healthy, viable baby just because the mother "changed her mind," we'd never be done hearing about it. You know why we never hear about it? Because it just doesn't happen.”
Really? Is this your argument? “If it happened, I would know about it, and since I don’t know about it, it doesn’t happen.” Tell me again why that makes sense. I’ll submit to another lecture if you’ll simply explain why that isn’t a load of self-serving circular bullshit. That’s like telling somebody that the process of photosynthesis is proof of the existence of God.
Your limb is broken:
http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp
"That’s like telling somebody that the process of photosynthesis is proof of the existence of God."
This is so rich in irony. Yeah, I watch the Atheist Experience, too. What does Matt say all the time about believing as many true things as possible while sorting out the false? As far as my "faith," you're on the wrong train. I make my decisions based on the available evidence. My "belief" is that a woman should decide what to do with her body. All this "God's law" business you're trying to put on me, well, I'm an atheist, so whatever people believe is their own business, up until some people try to use their "faith" to deny women the medical treatment that they need. Again, so that you understand: "faith" and "belief," unless used in the broadest colloquial terms, have no bearing on my position.
When you make a claim, you need to back that claim up. It's not on me to prove that something inappropriate did not happen, as I can't prove a negative. The onus is on you to provide the evidence that what you are claiming did happen.
That said, for years the pro-lifers have been telling horror stories, and once someone goes to verify said stories, the truth turns out to be quite different than what some would have you believe. So, it is my belief, and my argument, that if they had any real proof that something other than a legal procedure occurred, they'd use it as a cudgel.
Since I'm not suffering any blunt trauma, my natural assumption is either such evidence does not exist, or such evidence does exist, but it's so safely guarded that no one has yet found it. Now, for anything to remain a secret, the persons involved would have to keep it a secret. If they're bothering to keep it a secret, then they must know they violated the laws of the land. If they did that, then we're not even talking about the same issue.
Now, you may want to bring up doctor/patient confidentiality, but the pro-lifers bomb and routinely vandalize clinics. I can't see them having a problem stealing medical records. They've been working tirelessly for 30 years, and if all they have are easily debunked anecdotes, then they're not worth taking seriously.
Now, you can choose to hold on to your Rumsfeldian "the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" skepticism, but that places you firmly in conspiracist territory. Are you also skeptical of the charge that extra-terrestrials are not poisoning our water supply? I mean, I can't prove it never happened, and it is plausible, if you look at it in a certain type of way.
So, the argument is not "since I don’t know about it, it doesn’t happen." (Curiously enough, that seems to be the position you went out on a limb for). The argument is unless you can prove it happened, I'll continue on as if it didn't and doesn't happen. I can make that argument because anytime I've ever asked anyone to prove that it did happen, all I get is either crickets or some weak-assed bullshit rationalization like "My concern isn’t to find evidence. All that I said is that I am skeptical. I think I have good reason to be. Skepticism isn’t about knowing or proving. It isn’t the same as being suspicious. I recognize the existence of the plausible unknown."
Since there is no evidence, what exactly are you skeptical of, and what is the basis for that skepticism? I also recognize the existence of the plausible unknown, but when I exercised that recognition by saying "vast majority" you treated it like I committed a crime. From my research, I've yet to come across such a case. If you can provide that case, please do so, otherwise you're arguing a non-existent exception, kind of like saying that because I can't prove that God does not make the sun rise everyday, then God must exist.
As to the link, I suppose I misunderstood what you were implying initially. I took you as to saying the law was preventing doctor’s from performing inductions of stillbirths. Rereading your comment, I see that your wording is a bit more ambiguous. Still, I’m not convinced that it’s nearly impossible to have the procedure done but, thankfully, I have never been in that position. I did know a woman several years ago who had a stillborn induced, though. This was in New York City, and it would have been 2004, I think. Maybe 2005. For whatever that anecdote is worth.
I’m straining to see the irony. I’ll try not to hurt myself.
I’ve actually never even heard of the Atheist Experience. I’ve Googled it and determined it to be some kind of public access broadcast out of Austin. Still, never heard of it. Is it good? At any rate, I am not putting any “God’s law business” on you. I am saying that most “pro-lifers” have faith in something that could loosely referred to as “God’s law.” This is to say that their belief in “abortion as murder,” whether or not it is supported by scientific fact is supported by their faith. My use of the phrase had absolutely nothing to do with you, except to say that you allow lack of knowledge to the contrary, as well as what I would only hope is a desire for it be so, to allow you to state unequivocally that something has not happened when, in reality, that’s an assumption based on limited evidence.
My feeling on the matter is that when you get into a subject so rife with moral and ethical rationalization, it goes without saying that instances do occur and decisions are made (perhaps, with the best of intentions of one or more parties) the ethics of which are a bit murky.
If we are to imagine, for instance, a spectrum of irreparable harm, then we could easily determine death of the mother the most irreparable. Likewise, moving away from that pole we could put various of the conditions you named toward that end. Of the conditions you named, let’s say that Trisomy 21/Down Syndrome to be of the least irreparable. Down Syndrome should be identified well before the end of the 20 week late term cutoff, pregnancies involving Down Syndrome babies do not normally end in stillbirth, and while some surgery may be required later on (oftentimes to the heart), the average life expectancy of an individual with Down Syndrome is deep into their forties. One could argue that if irreparable harm only pertains to physical harm to the woman, a Down Syndrome pregnancy comes very close to not qualifying. But let’s accept that it does qualify, simply that the circumstances are not nearly as dire as some of the more extreme developmental abnormalities. Let’s assume further that there are exist even less dire cases than Trisomy 21 cases, but for each of which an argument for irreparable harm can be made. Does it not go without saying that while the arguments may remain reasonable as you move toward the other end of the spectrum, the ethics become less clear? I think that clearly goes without saying. And that being the case, and with it being the case that we lack a clear division between harm that is reparable and that which is not, I think it’s perfectly plausible, even inevitable that cases have occurred, do occur, and will continue to occur in which the prognosis of “irreparable harm” could reasonably called into question.
As to whether a woman is “changing her mind” or she was simply slow in her deliberations with regard to the pregnancy, or whatever reason, I don’t believe it’s a terribly farfetched scenario to assume a pregnant woman with an otherwise healthy pregnancy could present with symptoms of emotional distress to degree that could persuade two sympathetic doctors to agree to prescribe an abortion.
As to the horror stories of “pro-lifers,” I’m most definitely skeptical of those too. But both they and clinic personnel have similar interests in perpetuating whatever narrative they wish to have out there. As with most cases of polarized debate, it's a pretty safe assumption that both sides are lying to some degree. Again, I have no interest in proving that they’re lying. But that they would lie, that they do lie, that they are lying, seems obvious. They are people: People lie to protect themselves; people close to them; and causes important to them. People lie to themselves. They rationalize. They pretend. There are a lot of “pro-choice” folks who would take great exception at your constant reference to the unborn as a “child.” I’m not sure I’m altogether comfortable with it, but that doesn’t mean I don’t recognize it as being accurate.
As to issues of evidence: Again, making the assumption that “late term” procedures are performed on women for which the arguments favoring irreparable harm are questionable, all involved would have social, ethical, and legal motivation for remaining quiet. Putting aside whether or not they recognized they did anything “wrong” or potentially illegal, it would not be difficult for them to understand that they had done something that would not be, let’s say, understood out of the context of circumstance. In that case, it is not an unreasonable assumption that the thought would occur to doctors involved to either falsify or destroy medical records. But again, given that a broad interpretation could be applied to “irreparable harm” one wouldn’t even need to necessarily falsify records. After all, who but the doctors involved is to say what is and is not irreparable?
Mind you, I am not a conspiracy theorist (and I assure you that I will not take offense to your consistent practice of name calling; I’m rubber, you’re glue, etc.). A conspiracy theorist considers a lack of evidence as a de facto form of evidence. Likewise they dismiss evidence to the contrary as being part of some nefarious plot or cover up. While I do accept that cover ups do occur, and would imagine that it would occur to anybody perpetrating what could be construed as a crime to make some attempt to cover it up. But this is a logical deduction. This is not an accusation. My whole point is that it simply stands to reason that when the line you’re not supposed to cross is both murky and considered to be at your own discretion, that line is going to be moved, even crossed, now and again.
You reject that irreparable harm is unclear. I say that it is not only unclear, but that it is intentionally so. I say that it is ambiguous to reaffirm choice and to provide deference to the doctor’s interpretation and discretion. Note, for instance, that it doesn’t say irreparable physical harm. This is not an accident. Note also that I do not view the formulation as nefarious, either. I simply think that it is intentionally open to an interpretation that is far broader than your various posts seem to imply that you accept. Forgive me if I misinterpret your posts (as you have, from time to time, misinterpreted mine).
What you claim to be a rationalization is, instead, a basic explanation of what it means to be skeptical. It was never my intention to prove anything. I simply thought your statement that something "Just. Doesn't. Happen." was pretty flimsy. If it involves people making questionable judgments, in all likelihood, it happens. To be clear though, the changing their mind willy nilly were you stipulations, not mine.
“I also recognize the existence of the plausible unknown, but when I exercised that recognition by saying "vast majority" you treated it like I committed a crime.”
I did not. All I did was to say that the “vast majority” is not remotely good enough. It’s like saying, the vast majority of the people the state has put to death over the last 50 years were guilty. I’m confident that it’s probably true, but I don’t find it all that comforting.
“If you can provide that case, please do so, otherwise you're arguing a non-existent exception, kind of like saying that because I can't prove that God does not make the sun rise everyday, then God must exist.”
No. I am arguing a hypothetical exception. One that is inevitable based on the open-ended phrasing of the law. “Abortion on demand” as pro-lifers like to call it, was inevitable with Roe. It was inevitable, that “health of the woman” would receive a broad interpretation to mean “nearly any reason at all.” Likewise, “irreparable harm” while clearly more narrow than the wording in Roe can and, really, must be interpreted broadly. That means the line moves. If the line moves, there might as well be no line at all.
As to your God example: It’s cute. But again, I am not trying to prove anything. I am not even trying to convince you that something definitely happens. By your vast majority phrasing, you imply a recognition of more than just plausibility. You imply probability. Which is really all I’ve been trying to say: that it probably does happen. That it shouldn’t happen. But that there’s not really much we can do about it.
Micah,
Apologies. I went on for far too long. It was late. I rambled. Feel free to read it; you don't have to.
Further apologies about the typos. I just read it for the first time. Christ. It's as if I was asleep while writing it.
Read over at Balloon Juice for a first-person narrative about how this 'fanatic' did. Money quote: The nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff.
I am not calling him a fanatic. I am saying that it is not very difficult to argue that anybody who willfully performs an abortion past the stage of viability when the life of the mother is not at stake is a fanatic. Regardless of how compassionate they are.
Breaker, you're calling him a fanatic, and you're paying very little attention to the medical services he actually provided.
I'm not though. I'm just saying that I understand the argument that he is.
And Persia, you’re absolutely right. I don’t know much of the details with regard to his particular practice. I accept that there are horrible instances that make this procedure a tragic necessity. I don’t want to know about them. But I do know they are out there. Rare cases. But real cases that make the procedure, if not justifiable, then necessary all the same. But you’re right, I know enough about them to know I don’t want to know anything more about them.
O'Reilly does not bother to hide his desire to protect what he calls the "white, Christian, male power structure" and he will say anything he has to in order to keep it in force. As far as O'Reilly is concerned, black folks can disappear into the ghetto, Hispanics can take a long hike south, and women can get back in the house to tend their babies, so that the white men can continue their rightful rule.
Strangelet, If this'll hurt the pro-lifers so mortally, how come Eric Rudolph or James Charles Kopp didn't hurt them?
Steve, I've heard enough pro-lifers say "The doctors should be punished, not the women who get the abortions" or even admit that they haven't considered the question of punishing the women, that it seems reasonable to speculate that they don't think of abortion as equivalent to murder in any consistent way. But maybe they just don't believe that women are capable of being held responsible for their decision?
There will probably be some backlash, and most of the anti-choice groups know it, which is why they're falling all over themselves to condemn the killing. Even Operation Rescue sort of distanced themselves, though the way the statement reads you can take it as though their only regret is that Dr. Tiller hadn't had the chance to get his soul ready for departure before he died. The hardcore won't be ashamed by it at all, as can be seen in the above-referenced Free Republic threads, but the groups will take some heat if they're not really careful about it. I hope they let their freak flags fly, to be quite honest about it, and I hope some news organizations bust them in the chops in the coming days.
This a PR disaster because of the reaction. Even Dr. George can't just deplore the murder....he has to imply Tiller deserved it, say Tiller "had blood on his hands."
Rightside blogs have tried policing comments and shutting down threads but there is a torrent of the "bad crazy" out there.
Prolife was gaining traction in the american electorate.
I think that will be whiped out now.
Scott Roeder is like a trifecta parody that utterly validates the DHS report; bomb-maker, tax-protester, abortion doctor murderer....belonged to the Freeman and had posted on the Operation Rescue site, and had OR's number on a sticky in his car when arrested.
And by the time the prolife movement gets back their traction, which I don't think will happen until after Obama's presidency, (which will be 2 terms I predict), functional ectogenesis will make the prolife cause of overturning Roe obsolete.
But maybe they just don't believe that women are capable of being held responsible for their decision?
I think that's a big part of it. Remember the 'oh, the poor woman might regret her decision' in the late-term abortion ruling? There's a whole lot of paternalism going on.
I can't recall ever hearing about the KKK, or other white supremacist idiots, deliberately going after someone during a church service.
Uhm....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16th_Street_Baptist_Church_bombing
This was not an isolated incident by the way. The Klan, especially in the late 19th century, routinely directed their terrorist violence toward churches.
Ahh. I'd thought that was intended to go off before the church service, not during it. I didn't realize that the Klan had been in the habit of blowing up or burning down the churches during the services, and that this (assassinating someone in church, during the service) was therefore somewhat different from previous terrorist attacks.
"I'd thought that was intended to go off before the church service, not during it."
Is that so? I actually didn't know that. Of course you wonder how much of that was what was said to cover the bombers asses.
I wonder how much they actually cared whether the service was there or not. Let's face it, none of these guys had wireless triggers or really precise tools.
TNC,
You say "Anyone who knows anything about American history knows what lies at the end of this kind of rhetoric. Anyone who knows what 'Redemption' is all about knows where this goes."
But it's important to remember that that's not true. Lots of people don't know where that goes. On another day, on a day when violence isn't in the air, lots of people wouldn't know where that rhetoric leads. Especially white people, even liberal white people. If you asked me on Saturday, I'd say it was bad to get people to hate each other. I wouldn't say that the rhetoric would lead to murder.
I need people to spell out where the rhetoric leads; I need people to translate the rhetoric. I'm not from the South and I don't have a strong knowledge of the history of violence to which you're referring. I don't know what "Redemption" is. My own ignorance, I know. But I don't think I'm uncommon. That's part of why I'm here -- to learn a little bit. So keep spelling it out for us.
I wouldn't say that the rhetoric would lead to murder.
I dunno. I'm a fairly liberal white dude, but it didn't surprise me. Heck, Law and Order has had scripts based on assassination of abortion providers for years. And of course 9/11 was a strong reminder of where rhetoric can lead.
He'd been shot already years ago. Apparently he thought about trying to run her down in his car but then said to himself, 'she already shot you twice.'
Robert C.,
Since you asked: Redemption was the roll-back of black civil rights in the South in the 1870s, driven by terror, vigilante violence and appeals to the racial fears of whites. It spelled the end of Reconstruction--an attempt to give freed African Americans the basic rights of citizenship--and the beginnings of nearly a century of racial segregation and white supremacy in the South.
Here's a cartoon from the 1860s from Pennsylvania criticizing the Freedman's Bureau, which was the federal agency protecting the rights of freed blacks in the South:
http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/reconstruction/section4/section4_11b.html
The rhetoric of the cartoon is really no different from Rush Limbaugh's today: the federal government, led by radical liberals, is taking money from hard-working white people and giving it to indolent blacks.
People during Reconstruction who actually believed this joined the KKK and the White Liners, and systematically used violence and terror to strip African Americans of their rights. Northerners looked the other way while all this took place, because they either believed the message themselves or didn't want to rock the boat.
Alouette, thanks.
First, I want to say that anti-abortionists have the right to express their views, even if those views are irresponsible at best and exhortations to murder at the worst.
But words are ideas; as we learned from the last election, they are possibly the most powerful force that a human being can bring to bear, even moreso than armed forces. The systematic de-humanization of minorities by rhetoric is allowed under our laws, but should be universally reviled by people of sound mind. The same should be said for the demonization of individuals or groups who perform functions for society that are controversial.
The fact that O'Reilly and those like him are able to say these things with impunity—without the thorough societal censure that is necessary when people spew such vitriol—is the real problem here. Words can, and often do, kill. Tiller's murderer thought he was putting down a man who had slaughtered thousands of innocents. James Byrd's killers thought they were having fun with an animal. Violence against hispanics crossing the border is justified under grounds that they are less than human, as is violence against numerous minorities across the world.
We will continue to face the irrational violence of the ignorant until we are willing to roundly, universally decry their ideas and eject them from civil society. There is no place among us for people who incite murderous violence against our friends and neighbors; they certainly have the right to say what they wish, and we certainly have the right to exile them for exercising that right.
Many people don't understand pregnancy and fetal defects. Women who opt for late-term abortion are not doing it for fashion, vanity, a little depression, or any of those female-denying putdowns. Almost all go through with it because of very severe fetal defects, such as fatal left ventricular maldevelopment or neural tube defects. Their problem is that diagnosing such problems and assessing their severity only becomes possible later in pregnancy. The parents must weigh neonatal death in pain and suffering or surgery with high morbidity rates against a more peaceful death. Clinics willing to assist them often let the child be held so parents can bid it goodbye, offer psychological support, and help in funeral planning. I have personally known two women whose fetuses died in the womb and saw them have to carry the dead child until labor began months or weeks later. Pregnancy is no day in the park.
O'Reilly and Terry are indulging in blood libel when they work up their followers against a man who believed sincerely in the rights of women. And, ultimately, I believe that's the opinion they really want to defeat. Remember, the big three monotheistic religions all blame women for introducing sin to the world.
They NEVER EVER accept reponsibility for the climate they create. That's one of the main reasons why I depise these mofos. They create the climate, and then when something happens, it's like
" I dunno how that happened."
Nothing happens without cause.
Remember the Oklahoma City bombings, the Unabomber and the militia movements of the 1990's? At the time these nutjobs were a growing threat to the stability of the country. I think 9/11 temporarily short circuited any momentum these groups had built up, but now that the Arab terrorist fervor has dissipated a bit, the right wing extremists are picking up right where they left off. Of course now, they have an increasingly extreme and popular Fox News as an echo chamber for their thoughts and actions.