Gabriel Winant writes:
This characterization of Tiller fits exactly into ancient conservative, paranoid stories: a decadent, permissive and callous elite tolerates moral monstrosities that every common-sense citizen just knows to be awful. Conspiring against our folk wisdom, O'Reilly says, the sophisticates have shielded Tiller from the appropriate, legal consequences for his deeds. It's left to "judgment day" to give him what's coming.So now that Tiller has been murdered, does O'Reilly have blood on his hands?
Joe Gandelman says:
This does not mean there is a cause and effect between O’Reilly’s rhetoric and Tiller’s murder...I think Joe is saying that O'Reilly has blood on his hands.... although Joe avoids using the "demonizing" rhetoric that in his calculation is what makes you responsible for the actions your words inspire. Perhaps he means to invoke the First Amendment idea that lets us punish speech that creates a "clear and present danger." "Vigorous, heated debate" is important and protected. But there is a line that can be crossed, and Joe says it's "demonization." And O'Reilly demonized Tiller. So, Joe, could you spell it out? You meant to say that O'Reilly is morally responsible for Tiller's death, right?
But... the over the top, demonizing rhetoric that has become the rage in 21st century America could have serious consequences....
Vigorous, heated discussion isn’t the same as demonization. And demonization has become the way to garner huge viewerships and readerships. But if issues are framed in terms of good versus evil some people could act.
Andrew Sullivan says:
O'Reilly demonized Tiller on 28 episodes of his show. I have no doubt his words wil be played endlessly on cable in some kind of hideous irony. This really could be the end to O'Reilly's dangerous, demonizing game.What exactly does Sullivan mean? That O'Reilly should be shut down? That people should hold him responsible for murder and — what? — stop watching? I doubt if he means that O'Reilly will see the light and, on his own, decide to tone his routine down.
Is there now to be an argument that decent people who are anti-abortion cannot make strongly passionate statements in support of their cause — that they are linked to murder if they do? I don't think that's fair.
But very strongly stated arguments often backfire. You might want to refrain from making them. Consider this pro-abortion rights argument by Ric Caric:
[G]ive credit to George Tiller for being a courageous man and making an important contribution to human welfare. Abortion is a crucially important social asset as well as a legal right in American society. The fact that women are not forced to carry pregnancies to term has helped open up tremendous new vistas of freedom for American women and has been an incalculable benefit to our society as a result.... Given that the material in a pregnant woman's uterus is a "fetus," a woman has as much right to control and/or dispose of that material as she has a right to contraception, regulating her periods, or anything else to do with gynecological health. As a result, there should be more abortions in this country rather than less....Caric's argument would be more effective without the extreme rhetoric about "that material" and Jesus. But, I assume, like O'Reilly he wants us to pay attention to him. And I just have.
George Tiller deserves a lot of credit for performing abortions at all.... But he especially deserves credit for continuing to perform abortions and late-term abortions after the first armed attack on him.... But he kept providing abortion services to women in Kansas despite the vigilante death sentence hanging over his head. It's significant that Tiller died while attending a Christian church, the Reformation Lutheran Church of Wichita, Kansas. Not unlike Jesus, he died for the benefit of others.
Posts
243 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 243 of 243Alpha
> The Iraqi regime possesses biological and chemical weapons, is rebuilding the facilities to make more and, according to the British government, could launch a biological or chemical attack in as little as 45 minutes after the order is given.
Except of course that isn’t an imminent threat to the U.S. so again, FAIL!
> In his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003,
Wow, that is ballsy lying right there. You cite the same speech I just did.
> Turns out that was based on a forged document.
Which demonstrates that Bush was the victim of a lie, as opposed to lying.
> In an interview with Polish television on May 29, 2003, President Bush stated: "We found the weapons of mass destruction." Bush was referencing two trailers or "mobile labs" discovered in Iraq.
Because that day he was told he found them. So repeating what you are told is lying?
Well, okay, then you were lying about iraqi casualties when you used lancet.
> Well the Kansas AG just prosecuted him
If true, I stand corrected.
> He was prosecuted for that and found innocent.
Um, case dismissed doesn’t mean “found innocent.” At best it means “not guilty.” You know, like they said about OJ Simpson. And before you have a snit, I am not comparing Tiller to OJ. I am just making the point that very often the “not guilty” are not at all innocent.
Here is another example of the propensity for violence on the right. they have similar "jokes" about killing journalists and Supreme Court Justices.
They're very pro-life that way.
Interesting piece at the Booman Tribune showing some of the conditions that lead women to late-term abortions.
It would seem AL has turned to avoidance, Aaron.
Mcg,
If i was him, i would avoid me, too. :-)
Exactly, MCG. Discussions about love and hate are romantic and/or philosophic and generally lengthy efforts. Neither on my to-do list.
But you answered one of my questions, however unserious, so I will answer yours.
Hate is the sum total of intense feelings of dislike that go beyond rational to emotional.
In a political sense I do not consider discussion of policy differences to be hatred.
Constantly lying about people, calling them derogatory names, dehumanizing them, etc, qualifies as acts of hate.
For example, pointing out that the Bush Admin linked 9/11 and Saddam is not hate, it's a simple statement of fact.
Now, how much time would you give a woman having an abortion?
What do you mean "unserious?" My answer to your "love" question was entirely serious. OK, maybe not Definition 2, though I did use that at my wedding.
But a deal's a deal, and here's my answer: zero. I would give no jail time whatsoever to women who undergo an abortion. That's been my longstanding belief, not just something I made up on the spot.
Alpha, meet alpha
Personality #1:
> Constantly lying about people, calling them derogatory names, dehumanizing them, etc, qualifies as acts of hate.
Personality #2:
> For example, pointing out that the Bush Admin linked 9/11 and Saddam is not hate, it's a simple statement of fact.
Bwahahaha. We already demonstrated that your attempt to say Bush said Saddam was involved in 9-11 was a lie. But its cute.
You have been caught calling me derogatory names, lying about me, lying about bush, etc. and even lying about our troops, saying they killed hundreds of thousands of iraqs. whether you were dehumanizing me, the ex-president and our soldiers, I will leave to others’ judgement.
And, by the way, that is a terrible definition of hate. A con man doesn’t necessarily hate his targets; he just feels like fleecing them.
And calling people derogatory names? Hell me and my brother do all the time, and we smile as we say it. I always say you know you are really close to someone when you can mock them without them thinking anything of it—because they know implicitly that you don’t really mean it.
Aaron, you're a hard case and will deny all evidence showing Bush and his Admin lied us into Iraq and conflated Iraq and 9/11.
Here are more Bush lies.
Bush:
President Bush addressed the threat in October in Cincinnati, making his first big case outlining Iraq's defiance.
"We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical and biological weapons across broad areas," Bush said in preparation for a congressional vote authorizing the use of force against Iraq. "We're concerned that Iraq is exploring ways of using these UAVs for missions targeting the United States."
The president noted, however, that sophisticated delivery systems aren't required for a chemical or biological attack. "All that might be required are a small container and one terrorist or Iraqi intelligence operative to deliver it," he said.You can also see the "aluminum tubes" controversy for examples of more Bush lies.
Yes, your continued denial is tiresome. More Bush and Bush Admin lies:
Bush: "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent., State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 .
U.S. intelligence indicates that Saddam Hussein had upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents. State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 .
We have also discovered through intelligence
that Iraq has a growing fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas." State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 .
"Our intelligence sources tell us that he (Saddam) has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production." State of the Union Address 1/28/2003 .
"Satellite photographs reveal that Iraq is rebuilding facilities at [past nuclear] sites." Bush speech to the nation 10/7/2002 .
"We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." VP Dick Cheney Meet the Press 3/16/2003 .
This list goes on and on. As does Aaron's denial.
Aaron, you're a hard case and will deny all evidence showing Bush and his Admin lied us into Iraq and conflated Iraq and 9/11.
That's because you have presented exactly zero evidence, AL, to back up your original claim that Bush said Saddam was involved in 9/11.
Put up or shut up.
What do you mean "unserious?" I meant my question to define love. That was tongue in cheek. (need to use these more: :^)
So, you think abortion is this big evil thing but people doing it, making the decision that it will happen, should not be punished.
You're a bit incoherent there.
I deleted my link to the Playboy site above. If you want to know what the fuss was, click here (safe for work HotAir synopsis).
So, you think abortion is this big evil thing but people doing it, making the decision that it will happen, should not be punished. You're a bit incoherent there.
I'm not surprised that this surprises you but it is hardly incoherent. You just don't have all the information.
Yes, of course abortion is a big evil thing, which means I want it stopped. That is the paramount goal---stopping abortion. But there are a variety of ways to go about that, and they do not all require throwing pregnant women in jail.
Where I would apply the most legal pressure is with abortion providers. Doctors should lose their license to practice medicine, for instance. Existing laws against the unlicensed practice of medicine should be strictly enforced. Egregious violators should be prosecuted criminally.
The purpose of the law ought to be to curb evil, not to punish evildoers. Sometimes, nay often, they are synonymous---sometimes they are not.
MCG, I said this:
And Bush lied about WMD, about an imminent threat to the USA from Iraq, about Iraq being involved in 9/11. And much much more. And I showed where Bush, himself, said that Saddam was in league with al Qaeda.
Did Bush come right out and say "Iraq/Saddam were involved in 9/11?" I don't think he's on tape saying that so blatantly. he usually said "blah, blah 9/11," ...short segue... "Iraq/Saddam."
Example:
But the decision to remove Saddam from power cannot be viewed in isolation from 9/11. In a world where terrorists armed with box cutters had just killed nearly 3,000 people, America had to decide whether we could tolerate a sworn enemy that acted belligerently, that supported terror, and that intelligence agencies around the world believed had weapons of mass destruction. It was clear to me, to members of both political parties, and to many leaders around the world that after 9/11, this was a risk we could not afford to take. .
I also posted a study from the Center for Public Integrity that shows many cases of his officials saying as much, and of how they created that impression to a point where a majority of Americans in numerous polls thought Iraq was involved in 9/11.
I could also point more blatant comments from Cheney, Rumsfeld (Mohammed Atta in Prague ring a bell?) But you'd just deny that anyway, so why bother?
Alpha
So having not disputed that I proved that your claims as to Bush’s lies were, well... lies, you plow ahead:
> Here are more Bush lies.
Well, a lie is a falsehood stated with knowledge that it was false. So even supposing we know he was wrong, and we don’t, that doesn’t mean he was lying. Notice that you do not once manage to prove that. Indeed, the only proven liar between me, you and Bush, is you.
So you take the aerial drones example. You don’t prove its wrong, let alone that he knew it was wrong.
> Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent
Which was undoubtedly true, as declared by the UN. Unless you want to say that the UN was lying, and Bush knew it. The next line was to say saddam hadn’t accounted for it, and provided no evidence of its destruction. Saddam did indeed have it, according to the UN and Bush’s point is that we have no idea what happened to it.
And this one is an outright lie:
> We know he's been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons, and we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons."
Actually, Cheney corrected himself and said he misspoke, and did so within the hour. To call that a lie is in fact to lie.
I have been doing this for six years now, playing this game. The left has never demonstrated a bush lie. And indeed now the left has everything it needs to prove bush lied, all the intelligence Bush found, and so on, and... they are eerily silent on the subject. Where is President Obama coming out and saying, “now I have seen what Bush saw, and I can tell you for a fact that he lied!” In fact, now that Obama is seeing what Bush saw, he is changing his policies to be more like Bush’s. Heh.
By the way, we did find 500 tons of uranium yellow cake in a facility under a river. I am sure they were intended for peaceful uses, right?
Here are some more Bush (Cheney) quotes for your denial:
“We know that Iraq and the Al Qaida terrorist network share a common enemy: the United States of America. We know that Iraq and Al Qaida have had high-level contacts that go back a decade.” [Bush, 10/14/02]
“The use of armed forces against Iraq is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or person who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” [Bush’s Letter to Congress, 3/21/03]
“If we’re successful in Iraq … we will have struck a major blow right at the heart of the base, if you will, the geographic base of the terrorists who have had us under assault now for many years, but most especially on 9/11.” [Cheney on NBC's Meet the Press, 9/14/03]
Alpha... did you provide the example of appropriate "toned down" rhetoric that would not risk inducing some crazy person to violence?
And what about toning down "forced pregnancy" which is obviously over the top demonizing of those who disagree with you since no one is at all interested in *forcing* a woman to bear a child. My equating it with rape is entirely reasonable because that's what "force" is.
The only way to take away a woman's right to control her own reproduction is to rape her.
If she hasn't been raped, she is the one in control of her reproduction and her reproductive behavior.
No one can "force" a pregnancy on her.
This rhetorical demonization of the opposition has to stop.
Again, AL, as I have said, I do not deny (nor do I believe Aaron does) that the Bush administration brought Al Qaeda and Iraq together under the banner of the War on Terror. If you wanted to move the goalposts there, fine, you could have just retracted your original claim. But don't expect me or indulge your silly dishonest game. If you are going to pretend to offer "proof" that Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11, then by golly it needs to be evidence that, uh, Bush claimed Iraq was involved in 9/11.
I mean, it's really rather simple for anyone else to comprehend. I think you get it too, but you prefer being disingenuous because you think it makes it easier to win the debate. Feel free to concede that your original claim was false, however, if you wish to clear your good name of that charge.
Alpha
Btw, by your logic, YOU have said bush was involved in 9-11. After all you said:
> For example, pointing out that the Bush Admin linked 9/11 and Saddam is not hate, it's a simple statement of fact.
See that? you said Bush near 9-11, so that means you were trying to make us think Bush was involved in 9-11. You're a troofer! a troofer!
And if that sounds stupid to you, well, that is my point. Most sane people say you can talk about two different things without being charged with saying one was involved in the other. Like I can say "Just the other day on The Soup they were talking about Jon and Kate plus 8" without implying that the Soup is involved in that train wreck. Sheesh.
the entire claim that bush lied to get us into war is itself a lie. This "proximity" argument is just the left's bogus, silver-tongued, attempt to dodge that reality and to pretend they were not caught in a lie. Its pure clintonism of the "depends on what the meaning of is, is" variety. you defamed our country and our president, about a war, during that war.
Its not just unpatriotic, its hypocritical. You, by your own logic, then, incited violence against our soldiers. O'Reilly, who spoke truthfully about Tiller, was responsible for Tiller's death, in your mind and shoudn't have said anything.
And then you have the nerve to claim that liberals are principled and conservatives are not. Sheesh, look in the mirror buddy.
Alpha must be into S&M because he is getting beaten to pulp and asking for more. Thank you sir, may I have another?
And please, Alpha... you've been digging holes lately. Aren't you tired?
Abortion and birth control are conceptually linked in the way I stated and as much by pro-abortion as by pro-life advocates.
To imagine that means that pro-life is typically against birth control is the same stretch you're trying to make with the Al Qaida - Saddam thing.
REAL LIFE is connected in a variety of ways and pointing out one connection and relationship, or more, does not logically or reasonably demand agreeing to all connections or relationships.
Thus...
Saying that Saddam and Al Qaida are related in a meaningful way does not AT ALL equate to a claim that Saddam was behind 9/11 or even approved of it.
Nor does noting that there is, in fact, a anti-life cultural connection between abortion and contraception equate to any sort of claim that anyone pro-life must also be anti-contraception.
Ah, time to shove off this virtual coil. My better half is home with our precious offspring and it's time to indulge them. Aaron, I have enjoyed watching your filleting technique.
Aaron:
So having not disputed that I proved that your claims as to Bush’s lies were, well... lies, you plow ahead:I posted numerous of Bush's lies. If you want to have your own personal reality, I cannot be responsible for that.
You are deep in denial. To quote DP Moynihan, "You're entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts." Here you are simply brandishing your own partisan "facts."
------
I'm outnumbered, gls13. I know that. That's not the same as being wrong.
------
And if that sounds stupid to you, well, that is my point. .
It is.
Bush made a clear insinuation of a connection between Saddam and 9/11. He and Cheney continue that to this day. I remember arguing over these links with people after 9/11 who insisted Saddam was involved and we had to invade and occupy Iraq.
It's emerged recently that their goal in torturing KSM and was to create "proof" of a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
All you've proven, Aaron, is that you're a reality denier. Got it.
Well, that and that you're a liar.
Two men were shot, one killed, at an Army recruiting center in Arkansas.
The obvious result of the demonizing of our military by the anti-war left?
Do those who spoke so intemperately in opposition to the war carry the blame?
Perhaps they should tone down their political speech to a level less likely to incite violence. Not be silenced! No, just not say that war is bad or anything like that.
Wow, just because you are outnumbered doesn't mean you are wrong. Just because you can't use facts doesn't mean your wrong. I am now officially scared, really scared. If this represents the thought on the left we have no hope. I'm in the nursing home business, we are trained in dealing with people with alzheimers. We don't argue with facts, ie, "your parents are deceased and you are 94 years old" because facts don't matter to them. They live in their own world. Alpha reminds me of this. "Nevermind the facts, I know what I know"
Synova:
To imagine that means that pro-life is typically against birth control is the same stretch you're trying to make with the Al Qaida - Saddam thing.This is crazy. I posted above a quote from a "pro-life" group that is anti-contraception. Many (see, that means "not all") of this movement want to restrict both abortion and contraceptives.
The Catholic Church, a big force in the the anti-abortion movement, takes a similar position.
I am not saying "all people who want abortions made illegal seek same for contraceptives." I said there are many within the anti-abortion movement who also want to restrict contraceptive use.
That you deny that simple fact doesn't speak well to your credibility. You actually sound like them, Synova, equating contraception and abortion:
"We see a direct connection between the practice of contraception and the practice of abortion," says Judie Brown, president of the American Life League, an organization that has battled abortion for 27 years but that, like others, now has a larger mission. "The mind-set that invites a couple to use contraception is an antichild mind-set," she told me. "So when a baby is conceived accidentally, the couple already have this negative attitude toward the child. Therefore seeking an abortion is a natural outcome. We oppose all forms of contraception.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html
gls13, you have yet to make a statement containing "facts." All you did was make charges.
I posted facts, links to other stories. There's a difference.
------
More inconvenient history on Bush's lies that got us into Iraq:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3119676.stm
You've got a lot of whitewashing to do, Aaron.
Synova:
The obvious result of the demonizing of our military by the anti-war left?No-one I know of is "demonizing" the military.
Do you have a campaign akin to the campaign against Dr Tiller that you can point to?
Didn't think so.
Here's yet another Bush quote equating 9/11 with the invasion and occupation of Iraq:
President Bush in his speech to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia, September, 2003.
For America, there will be no going back to the era before 11 September 2001, to false comfort in a dangerous world. We have learned that terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength.
They are invited by the perception of weakness. And the surest way to avoid attacks on our own people is to engage the enemy where he lives and plans.
We are fighting that enemy in Iraq and Afghanistan today so that we do not meet him again on our own streets, in our own cities.
Why am I not surprised to come back to find you arguing things that nobody is disputing, and claiming they prove something completely different.
Back to playing fairies with my daughter. Unlike AL's fantasies they are fun.
What about the women that have an abortion?
What should happen to them?
Aren't they just as responsible for killing the fetus as the doctor?
Alpha
> I posted numerous of Bush's lies.
Only in your mind. But even where Bush was wrong, you haven’t proven he knew it wasn’t true when he said it. Which is the definition of lying, you idiot liar.
I mean literally you have not offered a scintilla of evidence, when bush was wrong, that he knew he was wrong. In most cases you have trouble even proving he is wrong, let alone that he knew he was wrong, or even reasonably should have known he was wrong. All you have on that point is a bare assertion. You guys have all three branches of government and you STILL can’t prove your case. Did it ever occur to you to wonder why?
> Bush made a clear insinuation of a connection between Saddam and 9/11.
No, he made an argument that we should learn from history rather than repeat it. You are trying to pretend he had an intention that is only in your fantasies. Who exactly do you think you are fooling?
> It's emerged recently that their goal in torturing KSM and was to create "proof" of a link between 9/11 and Iraq.
Well, first, he was waterboarded, not tortured. Second, I assume you have proof of that claim? Yeah, I am betting not.
What about the women that have an abortion? What should happen to them? Aren't they just as responsible for killing the fetus as the doctor?
I don't think so. Abortionists are repeat offenders; they know much better than the mothers about the development of the fetus; they are not suffering from the various psychological pressures mothers face. So mothers have more mitigating circumstances than the doctors. Even if we simply changed the law to make abortion illegal homicide, it does not follow that mothers should be charged at the same level of culpability (first-degree murder, second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, etc.) as the doctor.
But I believe that for a variety of reasons, including political and humanitarian reasons, that if abortion were made illegal that a special standard should be put in place for it. Again, our primary interest ought to be to end abortion, not to punish mothers who consider it. If we can do so without putting a single mother in jail, and I believe we can, I am all for it.
mcg
well, a simpler approach is who do you go after? the hookers or the johns?
The pushers or the users?
Which comes out about the same way.
Yeah, that's part of it. Look, homicide and murder are legal terms. Some homicide is legal, some is not; some illegal homicide is murder, some is not. We have constructed all sorts of categories of homicide tailored to fit specific circumstances, each with its own proof requirements and penalties. If we can have a distinct category for vehicular manslaughter, for instance, there's no reason we couldn't have one or more for abortion.
What about the women that have an abortion?
What should happen to them?
Burn them!
AlphaLiberal,
You are just ranting, because this opportunity is just too exquisite for you to ignore.
How many mosques do Bush and other conservatives have to enter, how many Eid dinners do they have to attend, how many speeches do they have to give to counteract all this "anti-Muslim talk" you are claiming?
Roeder was arrested for having bomb components in 1996, long before O'Reilly was around, and has been in trouble since for his extreme views and membership in extreme groups. Unless he cites O'Reilly or Fox, I think you're out of luck on that one too. But carry on, get it out of your system and it provides us with lots of softballs.
Oh come on. These are the same libtards who said "It's only a movie" when that Bush assassination fantasy movie came out.
Having both ways again, I see.
Which is why I could never be a libtard.
kentuckyliz
The funniest thing is early on Alpha said the difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals are... wait for it... principled.
Comedy gold.
Interesting comment. I don't get paired up with Bill O'Reilly very often. In using the term "the material" to refer to what's in a pregnant woman's uterus, I was not trying to be provocative. Instead, I was aiming for a term that's neither as a "neutral" starting point for my assertion that a pregnant woman is carrying a "fetus." I wasn't trying to be provocative with the Jesus comment either. Having lived in Bible-belt Kentucky for almost twenty years I've become comfortable with Jesus references even though I'm an atheist. Given that Dr. Tiller sacrificed a wealthy and cushy life as a rural M.D. for the all the traumas of being a late-term abortion provider and was still willing to do so after being shot in 1993, I believe that he is much more qualified for a Jesus analogy than a thug like Randall Terry.
Ok. Maybe I AM being provocative with the Randall Terry reference.
If my previous comment was posted, I want to replace it with a comment that does not contain a bad editing error.
"Interesting comment. I don't get paired up with Bill O'Reilly very often. In using the term "the material" to refer to what's in a pregnant woman's uterus, I was not trying to be provocative. Instead, I was aiming for a term that's a "neutral" starting point for my assertion that a pregnant woman is carrying a "fetus." I wasn't trying to be provocative with the Jesus comment either. Having lived in Bible-belt Kentucky for almost twenty years I've become quite comfortable with the Jesus idiom even though I'm an atheist. Tiller qualifies for the Jesus analogy because he lived a life of self-sacrifice and ultimately died because of it. I don't see how anyone can otherwise interpret the fact Dr. Tiller sacrificed a high paying, cushy job as a small-city M.D. for the all the traumas of being a late-term abortion provider and was still willing to do so after being shot in 1993. Certainly, Dr. Tiller is much more qualified for a Jesus analogy than a thug like Randall Terry.
Ok. Maybe I AM being provocative about Randall Terry."
Dr. George Tiller was shot dead as he was walking into his Sunday morning church services. Dr. Tiller was one of the few late-term abortion providers in the country.
Amanda
my site
Post a Comment