Cheat Sheet
The Best In Brief
O’Reilly: No Backpedaling Here
Oh what do you know, Bill O’Reilly isn’t sorry. Responding to criticism that his attacks on George Tiller—he aired 29 segments about him in the past few years—may have helped incite his killer, O’Reilly said “No backpedaling here … I report honestly. Every single thing we said about Tiller was true, and my analysis was based on those facts.” While O’Reilly said that “Americans should condemn the murder,” he went on to say that “When I heard about Tiller’s murder, I knew pro-abortion zealots and Fox News haters would attempt to blame us for the crime. … Those vicious individuals want to stifle any criticism of people like Tiller. That — and hating Fox News — is the real agenda here. Finally, if these people are soooo compassionate — so very compassionate, so concerned for the rights and welfare of others — maybe they might have written something, one thing, about the 60,000 fetuses that will never become American citizens. Or am I wrong?”
Partner Sites: Expedia| Hotels| Hotwire| Urbanspoon| Vimeo
"my analysis" sounds a bit over the top technical just like "vicious individuals want to stifle any criticism of people like Tiller" protests a wee bit much!! O'Reilly can't even just say sorry and leave it. No, he not only can't, he must also rub salt in the wound... a really mean guy!
This user is no longer registered.
He could not have anticipated that when he publicly and repeatedly called a doctor a "government sanctioned murderer of innocent children" that someone would take action? Check the law. If you incite violence, you are responsible for it.
Doesn't he have an obligation to say something such as:
if anything that I said or did caused this guy to think that shooting a person you do not agree with is appropriate, then I am truly sorry.
A little sense of remorse would be correct. Why do all these people on TV think that they should be paid a lot of money, spew a bunch of crap (such as the investment shows, for example), but not be held accountable for anything? If they aren't influencing anything, what the hell are they doing having these opinions and rants?
Yea exactly. Hitler had nothing to do with those that followed him either. Or Jim Jones. Jim Jones didnt 'make' those people drink kool aid and die.
O'Reilly shaped and supported the mindset of the killer and other unstable militants like him by saying the doctor was a murderer and a nazi. O'Reilly's kind of rhetoric will inveitably lead the crazies to take action, it's just too harsh.
O'Reilly wanted the abortion doctor to be stopped by legal means, but his rhetoric implied that a different action be taken. Do I think he should be sorry for this? I don't care about O'Reilly himself but I'm just sick of politicans and pundits who abuse their station with rhetoric that far exceeds the situation.
I disagree.
i think the issue of late term abortion is a festering sore even without religious considerations of which i have none. anyway i watched the big O last night and have seen his show from time to time. i'm not qualified to declare him mean but boy oh boy there is some one who is a bit more than a wee bit full of himself! it's all about fox and him. have they gotten that big? i must have missed that memo.
Yes, Fox is that big. Ratings for April:
1. "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News): 3,498,000 total viewers
2. "Hannity" (Fox News): 2,566,000 total viewers
3. "Glenn Beck" (Fox News): 2,230,000 total viewers
4. "On the Record with Greta van Susteren" (Fox News): 2,173,000 total viewers
5. "Special Report with Bret Baier" (Fox News): 2,047,000 total viewers
6. "The Fox Report with Shepard Smith" (Fox News): 1,915,000 total viewers
7. "The O'Reilly Factor" (Fox News, repeat): 1,723,000 total viewers
8. "Your World with Neil Cavuto" (Fox News): 1,520,000 total viewers
9. "America's Newsroom" (Fox News): 1,505,000 total viewers
10. "Studio B with Shepard Smith" (Fox News): 1,314,000 total viewers
11. "Happening Now" (Fox News): 1,247,000 total viewers
12. "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" (MSNBC): 1,237,000 total viewers
13. "The Live Desk" (Fox News): 1,210,000 total viewers
14. "Larry King Live" (CNN): 1,093,000 total viewers
15. "Anderson Cooper 360%u2033 (CNN): 1,058,000 total viewers
Even an O'Reilly re-run had 70% more viewers than Anderson Cooper.
I've always wondered about what percentage of those viewers of each show are watching other shows on the same network. If those viewers are only watching each show and no others it's, what, 20 million people watching Fox give or take? Most likely they're watching multiple shows so it's really fewer than 20 million. There's 300 million people in the US. Either way the overall percentages are really very small (a minority of Americans, if you will...and from the sounds of it Fox News personalities would feed off the idea of being/becoming the minority). So would it be safe to say that more people wouldn't even know what Big O, Hannity, and Beck were saying if Fox News weren't news itself? Gets me thinking about the number of people crossing between Rush and Fox too...
I can't believe that many people still watch television. That's 60,000 fetuses who will never become American cannon fodder.
Your friend ruppert sure gave erroneous numbers maybe he needs to use a truthful Poll about fix news numbers--MSNBC IS WIPING THEIR NUMBERS OUT !
Everybody Loves Keith, Rachel & Chris for truth in journalism--Not that ego-maniac idiot oreilly or hannity and his hannidates........
Well that just means that we have 70% of the American viewers that are stupid or just can't believe that he is so stupid.
My Gods, that is terifying!
Just goes to show you how many right wing zealots are out there waiting to pounce.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
1% of America watch O'Reilly. Ooooo......
This just shows how ignorant O'Reilly is. The abortions that Dr. Tiller preformed were on women who would either have died in birth, or on fetuses who would not have survived (missing brains, spinal cords, or with other terrible deformities). Dr. Tiller provided a vital service to American women who had no other option. I don't understand the abortion argument to begin with. To say that a fetus that is not viable to begin with has more rights to my body and as an individual than I do, is ridiculous and insulting. I hate it when men try to force their insight and beliefs on womens bodies.
When we go down the path of "The end justifies the means"
we are in serious trouble. America is slipping down that path and I fear that religious right wing nuts will stop at nothing to push us farther along it. Bill O'Rielly, with is constant critizing and complaining, is like a rotten apple in a barrel slowly, ever so slowly making sure the whole barrel is rotten.
Any barrel that has a so called doctor killing hundreds of babies just before they are born is pretty rotten to begin with.
fan-
You speak out of ignorance.
You don't know the circumstances
Of these abortions.
If you did you would regret
Your most uninformed opinion.
Most of the circumstances
Are not in your realm of
Experience or comprehension.
What a statement coming from someone who cares more about taking care of the unborn and killing the born. Even the bible ask, when talking about love: How can you love me whom you have never seen/met, and hate your neighbor who you see everyday?" Why is it necessary for people to determine what is best for people that they don't even know? You are no better than the radical muslins that you rail against.
The murder of Tiller is a terrible thing. I am religious and politically I am of the right. I am not a nut, and neither are my friends and family. We prayed for Tiller and his family; may they have comfort, and may the infinite mercy of God be enough to protect his eternal soul.
If I am not mistaken, Khrish, MUSLIN is a fabric!!!???
Ah the right. Get Fox and O'Rielly to do your dirty work and have B O put ideas in idiot's heads, have him kill the doctor then.......pray for the doctor. What is wrong with the country??
Well, I hope the old man is happy now. He finally got someone killed.
One has to wonder if he will put it on his resume.
O'Reilly didn't get someone killed. If Rush loses his kidney should we go after Wanda Sykes?
Tiller, a late term abortion doctor has for years been a target. His then biggest supporter was KS Kathleen Sebulis, now O's health queen bee.
We're a free speech country; people, on air personalities, journalists report their views and it is just that "their views."
If someone shoots or stabs him in the kidneys... perhaps.
O'Reilly has crossed a line. He doesn't have a right to go on television and target a human life. That doctor was doing a legal medical procedure. (Whether we like it or not.) Late term abortions, in this case... were performed in the instance where the life of the mother was at risk. It was not a form of birthcontrol.
Just because you disagree with someone, doesn't give you the right to kill them.
While the free speech thing is true, O'Reilly is living proof that evolution fails every once in awhile. Him and that limburg guy are just hate mongers. They rarely say anything of substance and seem to appeal to the lowest common denominator.
Hmm...someone else used that same kind of free speech expressing "his views." His name was Adolf Hitler.
Rust Limpballs didn't lose his kidneys and the went after Wanda Sykes anyway. Before the dinner could end, the reporter were spewing how she stepped over the line. I have yet to hear them say that Limpballs or any of these other blowhards that spew their venom, have stepped over the line. What more do they have to say to be considered "stepping over the line"? We have all found the weapons of mass destruction.
This user is no longer registered.
Bill O'Reilly sounds like the rap stars he criticizes. For years he's has been commenting how much rap causes violence. He blames that rap artists have a direct affect on violent actions in society. Now that someone blames O'Reilly on a violent actions, what's the first thing he says? "Don't blame me." He has just as much influence, directly or indirectly, on society as the group he criticizes. We will always voice our opinions whether people are listening or not. Why not, we all have the right to voice what is in our minds whether we're rappers, the media, or just the average Joe. Violence is a product of society and we are all to blame. I just can't stand a hypocrite.
I think our court system must look in to Billy O'Rielly reports. I beilieve his "outrageous report' has inspired this killer to kill a law abide citizen. After all, he did not break any law. What is our country came down to? A law abide citizen goes to church and get killed - because he had a different view point? The doctor did not break any law. I believe under the name of "first amendment" rights - some of these tv and radio reporters and stirring up lots of hatered in our society. I hope we all should stand up together againt this kind of propaganda and proper authority should take actions. One day people will start fleeing America - because no one stopped this.
I think legislation should be introduce to ban this kind of "Bully and trash" reportings.
O'Reilly and other choice foes are calling scores of millions of their fellow citizens murderers or condoners of murders. Sow the wind and inherit the storm. Of course, some weak link in their chain of hate broke and killed. It happens with regulatity.
Mr. O'Reilly and his boss Mr. Murdock should not be allowed to spew this hate without the law requiring an opportunity for a response over the public airways. Reinstate the fairness doctrine and at least the public airways will carry countering information and argument. Murdock's desire to make optimal profits is not the highest value involved in public airways.
Public policy is supposed to be based on rational discussion, not the most horrific name-calling that can be mustered--and decades of it. If you accuse somebody of a profound crime, you should be responsible enough to fix a defensible principle to homicide laws. That I don't agree with them that life begins at the formation of the zygote makes me a murderer in their eyes. Why not on formation of the gametes? The Bible says masturbation is a sin. Why aren't these fanatics calling for the criminalization of masturbation as destruction of life? They completely disregard the woman's privacy and autonomy in order to vindicate their policy preference. The law is supposed to be rational. Where is the rationality to just arbitrarily fixing a point in time in a biological process and then criminalizing everybody who disagrees. The law now considers when life if viable and the rights of the mother as against the impulse of some to draft her uterus into national service.
They are reckless extremist, haters, zealots who hope to impose their preference on all of us through the coercive power of the state by bullying and hate.
Bill O'Reilly shouldn't be shut up, but his boss should have to make room for countering reason and facts. We've traded Jefferson and J.S. Mill for Dr. Goebbles and the ad man Harry Morgan.
God damn them all. They are no more religious that the other Jihadist who also would govern by hate and certainty that they and they alone know what God wants our laws to be.
"God damn them all"? Which is worse, to lose your life, or to lose your soul? Aren't you glad you don't actually have the power to pull _that_ trigger!
Yeah, I don't claim the authority to damn people from a hereafter. Actually, those people are neither good Christians nor good citizens in a republic. The former requires (consult the Book of Job) some modesty. Those claiming that they know what God wants American laws and policies to be are lacking in the necessary modesty to be truly religious. Person's claiming to know that answer to policy question by special godly revelation has been the plague on human society for six thousand years. I don't God hangs with those folks in the afterlife. If they read their Bible's with less than a self-glorifying viewpoint, they'd understand that they lack the requisite modesty toward God to be acceptably religious in his own biblically expressed eyes.
Their lacking in citizenship in a republic results from the requirement that one participating citizens accept the notion that reasoned good faith discussion of policy choices will most likely result in the selection of the best policy and acceptance of it by all. Those who have God's instructions whispered into their ears cannot participation in good faith in reasoned discussion of policy. If you know God's will, any acceptance of a different perspective is compromise with apostasy--at best.
Our tens of millions of religious zealots are a danger to democracy itself: they place their god-given instruction above any respect for the process of self-government. In a republic, power and policy originate from the people: Lincoln's "Government of...the people." In their view, the policy question is determined by God, communicated to them and must be imposed on civil society. Those who disagree are murderers.
I don't think reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will have much effect. Most people these days get their TV over cable. The FCC only has legal control of over over-the-air broadcasting, which is a public medium. Cable networks are under no obligation to provide "fairness". My local cable provider (Comcast) broadcasts CNBC and Fox News but doesn't even offer MSNBC (which, according to Fox pundits is left wing) as a choice.
I think it is safe to say that most rational people regardless of political leanings feel that abortion is not good or right. The difference is the right wing religious nuts want to oppress their agenda on everyone. It is amazing that most religious fanatics have this trait. It is of the same ilk that is going on in Pakistan with the reinstatement of Sharia law. Oppression and Terror are the tools of control that fanatics wield regardless if it is done in the name of Jesus, Jehovah, Allah, or and another figure. I wish the fanatics would just leave people alone but then they would'nt be fanatics would they? What do they care, in their minds, they are going to 'heaven' anyway. Let the non-believers' "burn" in hell as it were. I find it humorous that the same fanatics that oppose a womens right to choose also oppose the most logical and effective means of limiting abortions (i.e. contraception, sex education etc.) I wonder when are government is going to spend has much energy on domestic terrorists as it does on terrorists half a world away....
You're right. I can't think of any woman yelling, "Yippee! I get to have an abortion!!" Abortion is a painful personal decision, and the opinions of the unsympathetic, the self-righteous and the lowly evolved should not weigh in. This is particularly true with regard to the abortions Dr. Tiller performed - babies who were dead, or dying, and parents who were brokenhearted.
It's a control issue. The right wing doesn't want government interference, right? Listen to them whine about "big government" and "socialism". Yet they demand government involvement to control highly personal things, like who you can marry, whether or not you can easily obtain any information about how to conceive a child or the tools to prevent its conception, and whether or not you have any say in bringing the fetus to term.
So "Big Government" isn't bad when it's in your bedroom. It's only bad when it looks over your shoulder while you try to cheat and tries to regulate your irresponsible financial behaviors, or helps people who don't have the means to help themselves. It's only good when THEY say it's good.
Their platform is a form of insanity.
And you're right.
Excellent post.
You are soooo right on.
I could of written your post. In fact I say those things over and over and over again. Right on the money.... Good post indeed!
Well, thank God our enemies are insane. Otherwise we'd have to diaglogue with them.
Well said.
It's been that way for a long time -- "We're for less government, and at the same time, for having the government control those darn liberals in any way possible."
Yeah, right. What hypocrites.
I just wish news media commentators would call them on it more often.
Killing a late-term baby is wrong unless it's to save the life of the mother. It's murder. Not hard. Killing dying babies is murder. And control is the domain of the Left - control of schools, control of frikkin' carbon dioxide, control of GM and Chrysler, control of labor policy, control of wages, control of trade. Who is lowly evolved when one is so clueless and obtuse?
You guys are all nut jobs, except tankertodd. This article is about you wanting to blame O'Reily for the murder. Not big government vs small. And we are talking late term abortion. You know, turning the baby around backwards to it comes out feet first, and leaving the head in mommy. Then shoving scissors in the back of it's little skull, then sucking the babies brains out to kill it. PLEASE tell me when this HAS to be done to save mommy?
You are probably all the same crowd that does not believe in Capital Punishment becasue someone innocent may be put to death by accident.
Of course all those babies are guilty of trying to kill mommy, so they must die.
Do you still want to back up your argument under the context of "late-term abortions" and calling for O'Reilly to be responsible for the murder and this makes Conservative hipocrits because they want less government? Really?
Or will you continue to spout off how conservative all want less government until it comes to abortion?
It was not an excellent post Rita. It had nothing to do with the story. Its just your chance to bash the opposition yet again.
Wow, theopitt. Imagine you calling someone else a nut job.
Have you educated yourself AT ALL on late term abortions? The operative word is "educated". Late term abortions involve babies that are dead, or have no brain, or have health issues that guarantee death but the mother doesn't have the emotional or physical strength to carry the baby to term. It isn't a sudden change of heart at the last minute to rid oneself of a child. It's a medical issue that requires compassion from people like yourself, who have none.
Bill O'Reilly is just a shock jock who wants to stir up people who are UNEDUCATED about things like this, and push his ratings up. Some of the people who are UNEDUCATED about things like this get all worked up and kill people. There you have it. They did it again, and Bill O'Reilly was their cheerleader.
And someday when you're on death row for no reason, we'll let you die. Will that make you happy? I'd hate to think that we're saving capital punishment just for the guilty.
If christians are so compassionate, why are they going around shooting people for performing lawful medical procedures? That should be the issue at hand, not this scum f@cker's ill managed 'reporting'.
I find it so hard to understand how people who know nothing about the personal lives of others can demand what happens in other folk lives. I know noone who is pro-abortion. We are pro-choice. Just as you have the right to decide for your family, everyone else should be affored that right. No one who is Pro-choice has decided to come to you and tell you that you can't have a baby so how the hell do you decide you have the right to decide that someone else must have a baby. Get out of other folks lives and work real hard to better your own. Bet you won't have time to meddle with others' lives if you take the time to clean up your own.
Don't lstereotype all Christians because one guy kills someone. What would happen if I commented on a black person killing someone by saying "if black people are so compassionate, why are they going around shooting someone?" It wouldn't fly, because it would be ignorant and bigoted, just like your comment. I hope you correct this.
Tiller's killer was a "right wing zealot"?
He was a "progressive" who simply was fed up w Tiller killing babies in near full term. Or maybe he was mad that the doctor performed a late term abortion on his wife, his daughter? This horrific killing is far more personal than a simple belief.
JackJack he was a right wing nutjob ,like you.
too bad your mom didnt decide to late term you, progressive
His assumption that the doctor assisting the woman's exercise of legal rights was a murderer was either a religious or a moral attitude held by him.
Calling murder for revenge "progressive" reveals that there is something very amiss in your moral and intellectual make-up.
You've earned a measure of the contempt that the murder himself earned.
Were they your babies he was killing? Then what business is it of yours. And besides why aren't some of you giving the insurance companies hell for not agreeing with you on the time of conception. They won't cover a child until it is born into the world.
Is there a double standard here? The holy right says it is murder to end the agony of a mother who is in jeopardy or a fetus that may be in jeopardy of not making to birth or one that may be deformed or handicapped in some way, yet how do they show their feelings? One of them kills a doctor. Obey our rules or die. Who are the animals....the killers or the group spewing out the poison?
This user is no longer registered.
It's not a baby until it's born.
Exchuse me JackJack....... Exactly what is it about this murderer that makes him "a progressive"?? I take offense. Or was that just your right wing zealot tit for tat?
And you know that it was "far more personal than a simple blief" how?
There seem to be a lot of people out here with no first hand personal experience in abortion or late term abortions... simply opinions or beliefs about it. So I guess that makes your theory BS.
JackJack, based on your argument it would be correct to attack people who have sex that doesn't result in a baby. You best not be having any kind of sexual activity. If you do, you are killing a bunch of potential unborn babies.
Memo to Bill: Yes, you are wrong.
Everyone is starting to seem really manic to me.Keep sanity in check everyone.It is a good thing.
Yes and giving O'Reilly more credit than he is worth. Everyone is as rabid as the shooter it seems.
It's insane to blame anyone in the media for this lunatics actions. I'm pro-life, but I would never kill someone who disagreed. This person has problems with the law going back to the mid 90's. O'Reilly didn't incite him to kill this doctor anymore than I could.
Why do the liberals want to blame everyone on the right for anything that goes wrong in their "perfect world"? How about some mourning for all the innocent children that this doctor murdered in the name of freedom of choice? Who speaks for them?
Come on rowdygirl. Nobody can make the argument for legal culpability. But what about social responsibility. The argument against choice has been framed as a campaign against murder--O'Reilly vends that argument out to millions every night.
If you let a blind man in a wheelchair push himself into traffic, you can foresee that he's going to get run over. You have a moral and civic responsibility to reduce the level of danger. O'Reilly must know that killings will result from labeling tens of millions of Americans as either murderers or condoners of murder.
The policy question is when does protectable life begin. There two viewpoints on this in America--the one embodied in law and the one you hold. Rather than discussing which principle best serves the law's need to protect life, individual rights and operate on a principled, rational basis, you guys are just pointing your fingers and shouting, "murderers!" You damn well know that the weak among you will snap and homicides will result, but you don't have the citizenship or religious discipline to participate in a civil debate.
Screw you and your like's dismissal of everybody who disagrees with you as either "liberal" or a "rightwinger." God gave you the light to think. Keeping a democracy requires you keep that light burning. Quote chanting team slogans and wrestle with the horrible thing that has happened and the horrible things that are happening with your participation.
Who speaks for them?
Your God I guess.. if there is one. Judge not lest you be judged.
Words have consequences... yours... O'Riley's.
Lets begin with the correct idea that anything written by Think Progress is only going to go one way. Even for this group to think that O'Reilly talking points had any thing to do with the killing of Tiller is disingenuous, stupid and their usual hate filled columns. I am surprised that they just didn't print the Olbermann rant from last night. Think Progress is one of the few sources that the sleazy Olbermann get his "news". This whole article is pathetic!
angst7
Slogan spouting team think expressed with painful redundancy does not address the serious issues suggested by this killing. Dismissing all that is said that you disagree with by ad hominem attack on the person making a point is not valid reasoning. In this case it is cheerleading, partisan--ideological group chanting.
Did you say pathetic?
Well I suppose it makes you sleazy if you want to allow people the right to make their own decisions about what is best for their lives? O'rielly and his ilk are nothing but blowhards who do just what the hell they want with their lives and then reach out to control yours because you are dumb and backwards enough to let them. They are earning big bucks to keep you in the backward mode, even to having tea parties to beg the government to let you pay more taxes so that they (Rust Limpballs and the boys) so that you can allow them to continue to live in the style to which you have accustomed them. Idiots!
The nut job that killed Tiller attended Tiller's trial in Kansas. When Tiller was acquitted of all charges the guy went bazoony. What Tiller has done for the last 35 years is against the oath he took to became a doctor. In this day and age surely 60,000 women didn't have life threatening problems that weren't detected early and dealt with safely for both mother and child. The news was reported accurately, even though very horrific and sad.
60,000 includes ALL abortions performed at the clinic - early and late (the majority of those being very early term) over a 30-year timespan.
How did the media get these numbers? Interesting! Ashcroft sued clinics repeatedly to get not only the numbers of abortions performed nationally, but he also wanted the NAMES, SOCIAL SECURITY numbers as well! WHY? I imagine so at some, right-wing "utopia" of the future, they could come after all those "murderesses". Or, at the very least, to publish the patient's names in the papers/on TV like they used to do in the 1940s and 50s -- so that, while it might be legal to have an abortion, they could "encourage" their holy warriors to "visit" these "sinners" and give them their "due justice".
DISGUSTING!
I recall someone making a body count argument recently. A Roman Catholic Bishop got in hot water when asserting that the number of Jews killed in the holocaust was much smaller than 6 million. How ironic that you are making the same argument, like killing only 6,000 or 16,000 is much better than 60,000. When murder becomes a legal and streamlined process, does the actual body count matter anymore?
Tankertodd is using the tactics of the right. She didn't say the numbers not 60,000, but you ignore what she did say to spin it to your rightwing views. You ask does the body count matter, but I ask you, do facts and logic matter? Not in your world.
mskitee..first of all, agree with Katethegreat, where do you get off putting out those numbers, where is your source for this statistic? second, are you saying that we should let woman with life threatening situations die or that it is somehow YOUR decision to determine another person's medical care? Hope you never do anything that someone violently disagrees with because the line in the sand that you just drew could be used against you one day.
Don't believe I advocated letting a woman die with serious pregnancy complications or dictating another's medical care either. Every woman knows that it's the most heartbreaking decision they'll ever make to abort their child and some never get over their decision. It's a private moral dilemma between patient and doctor and has nothing to do with partisanship.
You need to do research as to why women get late term abortions. These are not decisions that were made lightly. Most of these pregnancies were wanted and due to some medical condition, many of the fetuses could not live outside of the mother's womb or the mother's life was at risk. The decision for an abortion should be between a woman and her physician. It is nobody else's business.
Very well said L1plo99 and miskitte. Thank you!!!!
But why do research when you have Bill O'Riley's version of reality? And we already know where his moral compas regarding respect for women points. YIKES!!!
It seems the term "late term" evokes cessation of logical thought in some brains... probably due to all of the unsolicited vivid graphic details the fanatics have provided.
Only lazy, ignorant and cynical people believe a woman would just casually lolly gag around until the last minute in a non-critical situation. Standards of practice don't allow for that scenario.
mskitee:
So you get to decide what the oath as a doctor means. So you get decide what professionally, legally and morally justifies exercise of a doctor's knowledge?
Your statement of the fact ignores three things 1) The truth, 2) the law, 3) that you do not get to arbitrate what the facts and the law are.
As a matter of truth, all the doctor did was lawful; the law does not limit abortions to situation where their lives are threatened and finally and most importantly, abortion is not murder. Assuming life at the time of zygote formation is no more principled than assuming at the time of gamete production--as the Bible does. I don't agree with you about when life begins and so you call me a murderer. I call you a totalitarian zealot!
God isn't whispering in your ear alone. Come to the debate about public policy with the principled reasoning and argument: don't just point your finger and yell "Murderer." Unless, you change you personal opinion about how this legal policy should be determined in this self-governing republic, you will adding to the chorus that inevitably results in the murder of the next abortion doctor by the most unstable among your zealous movement.
Calling scores of millions of Americans "murderer" for exercising their legal rights is zealotry that must result in homicides animated by your hate.
Well appreciate your reply. For myself abortion is not my answer but I will be damned if I would be willing to take that decision from someone else - ever. Life and death go on all around us and the same decision that goes into someone becoming a policeman, joining the army or becoming a doctor, airline pilot or any job that involves a risk of loosing or causing someone to loose his life is not to be taken lightly. It cannot be anyone else's decision. It must be made by the person who has to ultimately live with the choice.
Dr. Tiller is 100 times more of a patriot than any of the religious right nutcases who accost MDs, patients, and their families at clinics and at these private-individuals homes! If ANY of you knew ANYTHING about Dr. Tiller, you'd know that is was with GREAT RELUCTANCE that he continued his father's practice of helping women get abortions...he originally wanted to open a dermatological practice. Dr. Tiller had a woman come to him in the early 70s who desperately wanted to end her pregnancy (very early term mind you) but he refused. The woman later had a procedure done by a lay-person and died of sepsis. After a few years, and listening to thousands of female patients/their stories - Dr. Tiller vowed to never let a patient down again. He risked his life for years to protect women's rights to self-determine their own healthcare, and to protect the lives of women in danger of dying or having monstrous still-borns. Shame on all of you who condemn this man, he was a true patriot and American!!
O'Reily and his ilk might SAY they don't condone murder of MDs...they DO CONDONE it, all of them. They mouth PC BS to the news, but they all want a holy jihad against anyone/everyone who doesn't agree with them...if that isn't a totalitarian police state, what is?
Wow Kate! Your last two posting just prove what you said in the last paragraph about anyone. You do no have to agree with O'Reilly but to think the killing was his idea puts you in the same class/less arena as Olbermann. What a hypocrite you are!
Kate is smarter than that and no hypocrite. I appreciate her postings. I also want to add that Dr. Tiller's father stated that as long as there is pre natal testing there should be pre natal choice. Otherwise the practice of medicine would be a fraud. Very wise words.
So angst7, is is foreseeable that some nut job will kill a doctor for performing doctors if he hears over and over that the doctor is a "murderer?" If it is then the utterer of the "murder" accusation is culpable--maybe not legally, but we are vested with the reason to understand the foreseeable we are charged with the duty to act on that understanding. The guy doesn't set his parking break at the top of the hill because he doesn't like the the "murderer" who lives at the bottom doesn't do the killing, but he put the murderous car in motion.
Oh yeah, proves just that *rolls eyes*...You should read "Crazy for God: How I Grew Up as One of the Elect, Helped Found the Religious Right, and Lived to Take All (or Almost All) of It Back" by Frank Shaefer...he was instrumental in the formation of the Radical Right -- and if you think these people don't advocate for murdering MDs, you are ignorant.
The near quote from the WashPost is attributed to Dr. Tiller himself not his father.
And make that prenatal choices plural. My mistake in restating Dr. Tiller.
Tiller preformed 60,000 abortions, many as the child was taking it's first breath. Sounds Hitler like to me...
This user is no longer registered.
I'm sure several universities has given Hitler a doctorate in something by now..
Malicious-
Hitler Hitler Hitler Hitler
Get a vocabulary.
I was public schooled
I don't know what is more repugnant: Tiller's actions or that so many people would blindly defend it. I mean, just visualize the procedure. How can you see something like that and think it's EVER ok? It's murder at worst, and absolutely tragic at best when saving the life of the mother.
It's really disgusting how many people think killing a late-term baby is ok. These are the same people who get pissed when a woman's neonatal insurance coverage isn't adequate. The baby they thought was ok to kill at 8 months now has a universal right to super medical neonatal treatment at 6 months?!? This is what happens when one doesn't have a clear moral compass.
"I mean, just visualize the procedure....". ???
Try visualizing the hundreds of thousands of back-alley illegal abortions before Roe v Wade! How about a body count on that? Oh... and visualize scores of those women being sexually assaulted by their abortionists! Reality check....
"These are the same people who get pissed .....".
And you know this how???? Typical disgusting twisted logic of a reactionary fanatic.
This user is no longer registered.
O'Rilleys, don't kill people, guns don't kill people, people kill people.
So you lwl's(left wing Loonies) need to deal with it, why do think Fox networks are watched by so many people compared to it's competition?
because people don't like the ilks like Olberman.
A murder has ocurred, the guy was a whacko, trying to cast
responsibility on someone besides the killer doesn't pass the common sense test.
Where was the outrage when the police officers were killed in Oakland, and the community rallied behind the killer?
This country is dieing from lack of personal responsibility.
It's all the left wingers fault......see how easy it is to blame someone else?
"why do you think Fox networks are watched by so many people compared to it's competition?"
Easy. Fox is the only news right wing propaganda channel. Everyone else can watch numerous other channels that are not. It's a matter of concentrated viewing habits. Right wingers can't watch any other channel because the truth is too painful for them. The rest of us can have a remote control (and know how to use it) and can change the channel because we are not knuckle dragging idiots who think the world is flat and is only 6,000 years old. Fox news is designed for a certain audience and only they watch it. NORMAL people with half a brain can see it for what it is and that's why we (I) do not watch it. It's full of wing nut idiots and it's viewers are brain dead people who are unable to think for themselves, and I think this incident is a perfect example of that.
Every society has its own intellectually and culturally retarded people, and that may not be their fault, for I'm sure most of them were subjected to some form of harsh abuse as they were growing up, be it mental, verbal, physical or sexual, that made them so full of anger and hate. There's no other logical explanation. I'm yet to meet a FOX viewer who is an emotionally balanced and intelligent person. This is the typical profile of FOX viewers - so, I wouldn't brag if I had millions of those. We should be more understanding and appreciative of the circumstances that led to them being so tormented, demented and screwed up.
This user is no longer registered.
This user is no longer registered.
Divorced from reason, one is free to conclude anything.
I have a question. If O'Reily is to blame for this murderer, who is to blame for Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad killing the Soldier in Arkansas and wounding a second? Are we going to blame Olbermann for his hatred of George Bush and his war on terror. Did this cause AMM to kill our soldiers?
It was olbermann who killed the soldier....
This user is no longer registered.
Not Oberman, but whatever zealot pumped it into Mujahid's mind that American soldiers are murderers of the truly faithful followers of Islam.
It is one in the same, pump hate as religion and you can foresee that the unstable will act on it and commit homicides.
Calling scores of million of Americans murderers because the differ with you on a legal principle will inevitably result in homicides.
Sadly theirs a lot of hate coming over the tube.
I guess that anti-military killing in Arkansas was motivated by Olberman and HuffPo.
I hope this author is not paid for this article, GM could use the money.
This user is no longer registered.
As ususal the left wing extremists are exercising their right to free speech by calling prolife advocates hatefule names and actually trying to lay the blame for the murder of Dr. Tiller on media commentators and pro life demonstrators in an effort to deny others their right to free speech. Are free speech and demonstrations by advocacy groups only appropriate and allowable if someone agrees with them? Hate speech is as prevelant on the part of the extreme left wing as it is on the part of the extreme right wing or isn't calling someone a racist or bigot simply because they disagree with you not as damaging as calling someone a killer. The only difference is that the extreme left wing actually sees itself as proponents of free speech and do not even recognize their hipocracy. That's what keeps most of us in the center whether right leaning center or left leaning center.
What kind of reason believes it's o.k. to pull a baby part way out of the womb and stab its brain to kill it? There is no reason among abortion fanatics -- this is not murder to them.
By the same "reasoning" then, one could say it's not murder when one of their own becomes the victim. Both these men are perverted crazies. However, this sick society only recognizes one of them.
GrRo... Everything is very black and white in your world isn't it? How would you like, for example, have to carry a deceased fetus around in your womb for a month or more? (if you insist upon being graphic about this) ... or one that had been determined unable to survive upon birth? And how many unwanted crack babies or babies that will require multiple surgeries and intensive medical care for the span of their lives have you adopted so far? None? Ok.. how about a healthy rape or incest baby then? Your type talks the talk... do you walk the walk? And if you think "God" planned those scenarios you're nutz.
Every situation is different and all procedures and terminations should not be lumped into the same pile... even if it WERE any of your personal business... or you were the boss of anyone besides yourself.
Yes, you're wrong.
One that incites violence, in any civilized society,is culpable and should be held responsible for the consequences resulting from his extremely irresponsible talk - and that is exactly what Fox and its sociopathic maniacs have been doing for so long. They should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. It's no less than another form of terrorism that mustn't be tolerated in a civil society that is governed by the rule of law, not by extremist fundamentalist crazies. These people are no different than Al Qaida with their blood-thirsty mentality. They are an American fundamentalist version of Al Qaida, but with suits and polished shoes. They are a disgrace to any decent and civil society!!
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.