SCOTT ROEDER AND BILL O'REILLY ARE TERRORISTS

Scott Roeder who murdered the Kansas physician who performed late term abortions is every bit as much a terrorist as anyone who flew into the twin towers on 9/11. So is his mouthpiece Bll O'Reilly. As long as Gitmo is open, I say we send them down there, waterboard them and find out who their other allies are.

After I heard about this assassination, my immediate thought was: Did this assassin realize he was making a martyr that will hurt his cause badly in public?

I mean an assassination in the church lobby of a mainstream protestatnt sect....didn't that killer realize one of his bullets could have harmed or killed one of the by-standers?

Anyway, that assassin wrote on the ultra-pro life website for Operation Rescue:

Bless everyone for attending and praying to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp.

Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.

and

It seems as though what is happening in Kansas could be compared to the “lawlessness” which is spoken of in the Bible. Tiller is the concentration camp “Mengele” of our day and needs to be stopped before he and those who protect him bring judgement upon our nation.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/arti...eration_Rescue

Of course the same Operation Rescue that wrote this about the slain abortionist: "You may be the difference between life and death for a child." Real vigilante-friendly language, isn't it?"

As for O'Reilly, I always thought of him as a blowhard idiot, like every other TV news pundit, then I read this from a 2007 episode of his about Tiller:

""Yes, I think we all know what this is. And if the state of Kansas doesn't stop this man, then anybody who prevents that from happening has blood on their hands as the governor does right now, Governor Sebelius.""

and variations on 27 other episodes. Can't wait for his response tonight.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/05/31/tiller/index.html

Again...they are TERRORISTS and should be treated as such.

bill o' reilly is a fucking prick...and as much as i dont stand for the late term abortion (unless it is necessary)killing a man in church who is doing something that is legal deserves nothing, but hate. i espically hate those fucking idiots who speak of the doctor like he is satan...the man was killed in church for fucking god sakes.

I pretty much stopped listening to O'Reilly after he made his comment that kidnapped teen Shaun Horbeck may have enjoyed his experience, in part, because he didn't have to go to school and when he allowed the inference that he had been in the US military because he had covered a battle in Columbia as a reporter.

Ed Shultz replayed a collage of O'Reilly's comments about Tiller. They are inflammatory. Of course, since the 1st amendment only constrains government infringement of speech, I wouldn't mind popping O'Reilly for some of his comments and paying the statutory price. Nevertheless, it's important to "hold your enemies closer." So, listen to him at least once in awhile.

i wonder why nobody has ever popped him in the face?

Tiller killed 60,000 babies. 60,000! Do a search of late term abortion pictures to get a sense of his handiwork. The outrage over his murder but the acceptance of the murder of 60,000 people disgusts me. But he was just doing his job, right?

Murder in this country is defined by federal or state statute and not by individual subjectiveness.

Whatever you want to call it, Tiller killed 60,000 human beings. Think about how many that is.

How can one be "pro-life", yet advocate murder? It is YOUR opinion that they were human beings. It is YOUR opinion that it was murder.

According to the law, this doctor did nothing wrong, and this shooter is a killer. If you disagree with the current laws, then work through the LEGAL system to get them changed. Elect representatives that will do so. Get petitions signed; march on Washington. Hold a vigil.

I don't like the lack of gun control, and think it's advocating murder how ridiculously easy it is to buy a gun at a gun show. Should I show up at one with guns blazing??? Should I kill the president of the NRA?

How is it an opinion that they were human beings? What were they then? Cows? Fish? Chickens? Do a google image search of "late term abortion" tell me what those "things" look like.

I'm not advocating his murder, but I think it's hypocritical to be outraged at his single death and just ignore that fact that he had been responsible for 60,000 deaths.

And have you ever noticed how all the people who are pro-abortion have already been born?

There is a difference between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion". And, by the way, it's not hypocritical to advocate vigilantism while claiming to be pro-life??

What exactly is that difference? It seems like the same exact thing to me. But fine, "Have you ever noticed how all the people who are pro-choice have already been born?

And what are your thoughts on those late term abortion pictures?

It's not my fight. I'm pro-choice. And the difference is that while I may not consider abortion a choice for me PERSONALLY, but I believe that it is a choice that is not mine to dictate.

And Roe v. Wade is not the point. The point is that the law is the law. Dr. Tiller didn't break the law. The crazed gunman did.

freddie by reports he only did the late term if the woman's health is in danger...so really that is one reason of why they have them...and that should be the only reason why they should have late term. regular abortion should just be used for rape victims.

It wouldn't matter if he performed them because the woman's health was in danger or not. While I don't agree with late-term abortions personally, it's not my choice to dictate. Dr. Tiller broke no laws. He performed a legal medical procedure. And was slaughtered, in God's house no less.

As for rape victims, who are you to say? Do you know how many rapes go unreported? How many are date rape? How many are a case of "he said, she said"? Do you know how difficult it can be to prove rape?? And yet, you are asking a rape victim to survive a humiliating, degrading and violent act and then have to PROVE it before she's allowed to make a choice about whether she wants to carry this animal's child??????? What if the rapist decides that he always wanted a kid, the burden of proof hasn't been met, and, using his parental rights, he forces her to have it? What then? No rape victim should have to survive only to be forced to go hat in hand to some judge or jury to beg.

I don't believe there is any woman alive who says to herself, "I think I'll go get pregnant and then have an abortion just for the hell of it." The choice is a hard ne and should be left to the woman. Period. It is not murder as the crazies say.

And as for the righties who are excusing Bill O'Reilly, I am unsure how they can claim (as he does) that rap music is responsible for violence, but that hi rantings are not.

Again Freddie, federal and state statutes define murder.

But Babe, I'm surprised at you: "she wants to carry this animal's child???????" It's her child too and she had it killed because she (and you) devalued its life. She (and you) decided that a child's life is not as valuable as your life. What devalues a human life Babe? What makes a child's life less valuable than any other life? You try to balance (as if you could) someone's emotions against a human life. How stupid!

I've seen better FX. Like IT'S ALIVE that was pretty awesome.



Then why defend the murder? Unless of course you dont mind people getting murdered in a church lobby. Do you?



And why is it that most pro-lifers are men?

With your knee-jerk logic, you should be anti-Death Penalty.

Thankfully I am pro-choice and pro-Death Penalty, so I am Pro-Death.

Scott Roeder: "Tough Luck Lady!"

Hey, olivant, you bend over for some stranger and then tell me how much you would want to bring his child into this world. Oh, that's right, you never have to make that decision, because you're a MAN.

I'm not saying I would abort a child conceived in such a way. I'm not saying I wouldn't. I'm saying that it's a woman's CHOICE. It's up to HER. She's been violated ENOUGH. To say that she has to prove that she's been raped before she can make that choice is beyond cruel.

That's what I was responding to, if you go back and reread my post. What I said was, "...you are asking a rape victim to survive a humiliating, degrading and violent act and then have to PROVE it before she's allowed to make a choice..."

Pro-Lifers like Freddie C. assume Pro-Choice folks like killing babies or something. Maybe that's what FC and DoubleJ talk about when they get together, how those feminists love to abort for kicks on their free weekends or some shit like that.

Then again, if you think about it, Pro-Life as such folks propogate, is anti-religion.

Religion in itself, specifically Christianity, is about your choice to follow the teachings and gospels of Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, or you cast your lot with the Devil and the armies of Hell. You choose the glory of Heaven, and you get to go there and be graced and so forth.

But if you're forced to worship "God"...then how legitimate and honest is your spirituality and faith?

Prove what Babe and prove it to achieve what? A choice? A rationale to destroy a child for your own convenience? You're humiliated, so it's okay for you to arrange to kill a child. So, I still ask you: what devalues a human life?

Or not.

Although I'm amused I'm still being brought up in these discussions. I guess it's true - old soldiers never die.

beer gut?

He doesn't count. He used to be a she.

Has the fetus murdered anyone?

Men should have a say, it's the woman's body but it's also the man (and woman)'s child.

They could murder their mother. Many of these late term abortions are because of this problem.

If a woman doesn't want to carry a fetus, she shouldn't and she wouldn't.

This is ridiculous. A zygote is not a child.

Ah but if that convicted murderer was innocent?

Thus with your own "innocent" logic, you should be anti-Death Penalty.

You're referenced because of your great history of hyperbole and impulsive emotionalism.

I'm the more refined and precision striking upgrade, I'm DJ 2.0

This is possibly the most misogynistic statement I've ever read. Go back and read what I wrote. My own convenience? How inconvenient of me to have been violated in a senseless, violent act! Humiliation? Really? Is that what a rape victim suffers? Just feeling like a little bit embarrassed? Really? You obviously don't have a clue.

When did the woman's life become so devalued? According to both you and Longneck, we're just vessels that should be used to propagate the human race.

I have children. I love my children more than my own life. However, if they had been the product of a violent and random violation by a stranger, instead of a loving partnership, I don't know what I would have done. And nobody should have the option of dictating those actions to me, not to any woman.

I'm touched.

I guess that makes me the Old Snake/Lee Van Cleef to your Raiden?

Predicated solely on paternity?

Exactly Babe. You've come up with a rationale to destroy a life. Of course, your rationale does not contain any reference to the life you would be destroying. It does not contain any reference to the right of that life to live. There's only your right, correct? You would be destroying a life because it is an inconvenient life. Plain and simple.

Regardless of whether a fetus is a human being, it depends on someone else's body for survival.

There is no situation where we force people to let another to make use of their body for survival even in less significant ways. We do not force parents to donate organs to their children (even if they match and no other donor is available), we do not force people who cause serious injury to donate blood to their victims or anything of the like. In some cases we might think negatively of a person who refuses, but we grant them the choice. And *legal* late term abortions are ALWAYS about saving the mother, or a nonviable fetus.


And does anyone even care what happens to these children after they are born? Did Tiller's murderer frequent adoption agencies and adopt children in need, who's parents made a tough decision to have the child rather than abort it, but were unable to care for that child? Are anti-abortionists donating money to poor mothers who have their children rather than abort? There are SIX MILLION children under 6 years old living in poverty in the US, growing by 10 percent a YEAR. Sure, it's easy to say stop killing babies and to hold signs - but do your own god damned parts and try helping the babies and the children and the families which are currently alive and dying.

If you REALLY REALLY want to reduce the number of abortions in America, rather than making it illegal and yammering about people killing babies, what about affordable prenatal care available to all women, regardless of income? If that means it's free, so be it. What about making birth control widely accessible and cheap, maybe FREE with insurance like effing Viagra? It won't end all abortions, but it's better than murdering a man.

Nice post, Salad.

No, it's not hypocritical. What this doctor did was (unfortunately) legal and, for the women who hired him to do it, safe (safe for the women, anyway).

I'm not nuts about abortion because over the past 30+ years it's sadly evolved into the very selfish issue of 'a woman's right to choose'. I also feel that life begins at conception. (And forget about that 'what about rape/incest' crap, because those scenarios probably make up less than 10% of the cases where abortion is chosen.)

However, it is quite possible to be appalled at BOTH what he did AND what happened to him because of it.

Apple

Does this mean we can euthanize the handicapped, invalids, and elderly?

How are they attached to someone else's body? Machines maybe in the worst case scenarios. Machines aren't people.

This is partly in response to some of Salad's statements posted above, so read those statements first:

FY 2009 - the Federal government has budgeted $216 billion for Medicaid. That amount will be matched by the 50 states. Texas alone has budgeted $20 billion.

FY 2009 - the Federal government has budgeted almost $40 billion for food stamps.

Again, some of the rhetoric typed on this Board seems to advocate the destruction of a child because, well, not destroying that child would, well, you know, make things tough for someone.

So attachment - perhaps even proximity - is the qualifier?

That's absurd, olivant. Medicaid and food stamps? Do you know fucking POOR you have to be to obtain social services? So gut-wrenchingly poor that it's absurd. And if Medicaid is so easily available, how are almost 50 MILLION Americans uninsured?? And the great state of Texas, which is budgeting $20 billion for Medicaid, has almost 6 MILLION uninsured! (here's the website, if you want to check the figures - http://www.rwjf.org/files/research/20090324ctuw.pdf) Please tell me what the heck that has to do with the debate?

The working poor aren't offered insurance; they aren't offered affordable daycare. And if they somehow can afford to pay for daycare, what if the child is sick? How many days can a working mother stay home? Wake up and realize what it's like to be poor and have children in this country.

As for this selfish viewpoint I have about destroying an inconvenient life, that is NOT what I said! I have repeated myself over and over, but you seem to be as hard-headed as you accuse others of being. I didn't advocate for ANY position. It's not my choice to make, and it's certainly not yours.

I said that for those that say that only rape victims should be allowed an abortion, it's terribly cruel to ask a victim to prove that before they can make their choice.

Until some of you have been in the situation where you have to choose between being a single mom who can barely support herself, let alone a child.. and making the unfortunate decision to abort your baby, you should probably shut up.

Just sayin'.

And I'm saying that a child's right to life is not a function of the circumstances under which that child was conceived. Cruel to ask a rape victim to prove anything? What faux concern is that to someone who is willing to kill a child because the circumstances of the child's conception don't comport with that someone's idea of an appropriate conception. Would it be just as cruel or not to ask the child if he or she wants to live?

And federal and state appropriations of public funds for health care? Such appropriations don't have to exist at all; they are not entitlements. They are by statute mandated. That means that we the people have decided to provide them annually or biannually, but we can also decide to not provide them. How much are we taxpayers supposed to pay for other people's healthcare, childcare, food stamps, housing, and education? How much? Give us a figure. Texas appropriation of Medicaid funding alone is 21.9% of its annual state budget. How much is it in NY state?

I'll tell you what SB. Since you don't think we pay enough, why don't you try and make up the difference? And since Texas provides such inadequate funding for same, you are invited to seek out the poor in Texas and pay a month's worth of healtcare for them, or their rent, or a month's worth of groceries, or even just a week of childcare. In lieu of that, seek out the poor in NY and do the same. In fact, I'll bet there are at least a couple of Board members who qualify as poor. "Offer" to pay their healthcare or daycare premium. Since you are so offended by our Nation's and states inadequate compassion, try translating your pathos into tangible action.

Ontopic: Hmm, I don't have to shove a nail through my foot to know that it would hurt.

Offtopic: Howdy there, Bogey!

Ontopic: I'm just sayin sometimes people are so cut and dry on certain subjects, they never even stop to think about the situation.

Offtopic: What the fuck is up DJ??

Ontopic: I agree.

Offtopic: Well, when I last talked to you, it was the toilet paper.

Ontopic: Well... shit. I got nothin.

Offtopic: Haha.. that was like, 3 or 4 years ago. Lots happened since then. No more roommates

Ofttopic: Roommates are fail anyways, unless they're barely 18 and hotz0rz.

What have you been up to these days?

Oh, you know.. Got married in October, seperated in Feburary, more or less divorced now. I'm a 22 year old divorcee. Ha. I'm a social butterfly now. I work all the time, and get paid next to nothing. My boss is Lebanese, and hates women. So that's awesome. How bout yourself?

Want me to write your autobiography?

You can read about some of my exploits here.

Depends. Am I gonna get some royalties or some shit?

I knight thee, Lady of Sarsaparilla.

Boz It's good to see you here. You also DJ.

How are you, Mig?

Shh, don't let the word get around.

I'm great. I have a Son-In-Law now.

Remember to check the safety before you fire!

I'll tell the Col. you said that.

Somehow I suspect he knows already.

Thought about it some more and edited my original post.

You are missing the point JJ. As Apple correctly points out being opposed to abortion is one thing, killing an abortion provider is quite another, the difference being abortion is legal whether you like it or not. Killing handicapped, invalids and elderly is againt the law and IMHO morally wrong.

You must distinguih between what is legal and what you consider to be immoral.

"Euthanize? That's a bad word to use: Euthanize! Get this guy. Watch out we don't euthanize you."

Ditto what Don T said. As a Catholic, I'm against abortion on a moral basis. But as a matter of law, it's a no brainer. The court's have no right to decide what a woman does with her body.

I thank God that as a young man, I was never in a postion where I had take part in a decision like that. Quite frankly, I don't know what I would have suggested. But that's just the thing. As the man, I could only suggest. The ultimate decision is up to the woman. It's her body.

As Don T suggests, morality and legality are two quite different terms; the very basis for the separation between Church and State (which Jesus was fervently in favor of: give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's).

I predicated my response to Salad not based upon legality, but simply upon her rationale, which, if you'll remember, was that a fetus could be destroyed because it relied on another person for survival.

Therefore, based upon that logic, we could (should?) also kill the handicapped and the elderly.

DT makes a good point about the difference between that which is a transgression of the law and that which is considered immoral. DJ makes a good point about killing the handicapped. To that I would add that a newborn baby is quite dependent upon its mother for survivial. Should it be disposed of because it is inconvenient for the mothert to care for it?

By the way PB, do you know what Jesus really meant by those words? The Jews of Jesus time believed that everything in Israel belonged to God. Thus, he was telling Jews to give nothing to Caesar.

But I am still surprised at you PB. "...what a women does with her body." There's another body involved, isn't there? In fact, it's more than that; it's another life which is entitled to the protection of our governments and society's members. As a Catholic, you know that the child in the womb has a soul which is God's breath which gives life, right?

Yes on both counts, Olivant.

Abortion is something which gives me great pause to speak about and a lot to think about. As I said, I'm grateful that I was never in a positon where I had to help make that decision. I realize that's a cop-out, because what if I had?

I just try not to get political about it. It's a subject that I prefer to (and do) speak about with my Priest.

But again, in all honesty, the answer is yes to both of your questions.

wo points here:

1. The notion that a fetus is a human being from the minute it is conceived is contrary to early church teachings. No less than Thomas Aquinas believed that there was no soul until the fetus "quickened," i.e. couild be felt moving around by the mother.

2. When JJ talks of "the handicapped" he does so with a brod brush. I blew out an ACL about 14 years ago in a ski accident and I cannot run, ski or put much stress on it without having great pain, and often for no particular reason it hurts badly enough that I limp. I also have to be careful going down stairs. This is a mild "handicap" but nothing compared to Stephen Hawking. Accordingly I believe JJ's inclusion of "handicapped". in his analysis is imprecise at best .

POPPIE: Yes, but we cannot give the people the right to choose any topping they want! Now on this issue there can be no debate!

KRAMER: What gives you the right to tell me how I would make my pie?

POPPIE: Because it's a pizza!

KRAMER: It's not a pizza until it comes out of the oven!

POPPIE: It's a pizza the moment you put your fists in the dough!

KRAMER: No, it isn't!

POPPIE: Yes, it is!

Aquinas was referring to "ensoulment" which takes us into the fifth month or so. However, in the 21st century, the Church's position is unequivecal:

The Catholic church regards the fifth of the Ten Commandments ("Thou shalt not kill") as governing in most instances where the life of an embryo or fetus is artificially and directly terminated. (This is the sixth commandment according to the numbering system used by most Protestants and Eastern Orthodox churches.) They teach that a human person comes into existence at conception, perhaps two weeks before pregnancy begins. (Physicians regard pregnancy as beginning after conception, when the fertilized ovum implants itself in the wall of the uterus.)

Again, I'm defining handicapped as someone who is wholly dependent upon others for survival, as per SB's abovementioned post. Obviously, DT, you're self-sufficient in spite of your injury. I think we're talking about more serious cases, such as the mentally retarded, the brain damaged (i.e. Terri Schiavo), the elderly, etc.

It is fortuitous that you should mention Steven Hawking, because he is exactly why these sort of issues of defining "life" are extremely delicate. By and large, he is not self-sufficient, yet we know that he is one of the most highly significant, and scientifically productive, figures in the late 20th century.