Video: O’Reilly and Salon editor scream at each other over Tiller’s murder
posted at 9:32 pm on June 12, 2009 by Allahpundit
Both clips are good but it’s the second that’s must-see. The money line: “You know who has blood on their hands? You!” Walsh is the one who wrote the chief hit piece blaming O’Reilly for Tiller’s murder, so it’s not a little surreal to see them squaring off on the Factor. Bill goes for the throat early, accusing her of ducking the central moral issue here and of being a pro-abortion zealot — and darned if she doesn’t prove him right, downplaying the evidence that some late-term abortions are performed for convenience, not medical necessity, and confirming O’R's suspicions that she viewed Tiller as a “hero.” In fact, this is nothing so much as the torture debate by another name. Walsh has her facts — late-term abortions are always performed in life-threatening circumstances, just like waterboarding never, ever works — and when those facts are challenged, well, those challenges must be wrong. Why? Because we “live in two different worlds” or something, that’s why. Good work, Joan.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
It would seem to me that the vast, vast majority of late term abortions medically necessary could and would be performed at a normal medical facility. The frivolous interpretation of medically necessary is the biggest crime. It only stands to reason that the convoluted stretch was made in the interpretation from the Constitution for abortion in the first place, likewise no shame for late term on a whim.
The reason slavery was legal was a mindset that they were not persons. Even though there is the obvious visible fact, people of convenience declared a perfect human being as not being one because of his skin color. Mind you now if he/she had papers he/she was a person. Look familiar? There yet may be hope that cigarettes will kill fewer than abortion. Wait, they are both legal. I am waiting for the idea that abortion will save Social Security.
sunnypa on June 13, 2009 at 11:09 AM
When any of these sick pro-abortion types scream about the millions of dead unborn I will care about their beliefs. These are our own kids. It is very simple. You can play mind and word games but deep inside we all (well most) know what is going on.
CWforFreedom on June 13, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Giving birth to a down syndrome baby, such as Sarah Palin did, was legal too. Why was she demonized, demeaned, polarized, villified, and hated by the left for that?
capejasmine on June 13, 2009 at 11:23 AM
What is with these ugly angry women?
grapeknutz on June 13, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Nope. the FIRST video is the “must see”. The second is just louder with simultaneous shouting. . . . Oh, that’s WHY you liked the second one better? Well, I still think everyone who skipped the first video should go back and watch it. Even the WWF takes time to set the stage for their . . . very realistic fights.
dullhammer on June 13, 2009 at 11:35 AM
I feel like saying something about that Feminazi, but it wouldn’t be printable.
WannabeAnglican on June 13, 2009 at 12:07 PM
Bill brings up valid points. However, ranting and raving while the lady tries to defend her side of the argument makes him out to be the bad guy. He needs to let her finish her sentence and then destroy her with facts. This segment had the potential to show liberals that they are indeed on the wrong side of this issue. Billo found it more important to scream, yell and degrade for entertainment purposes only.
DontTaseMeBro on June 13, 2009 at 12:25 PM
Here’s the problem: the third trimester partial-birth abortion procedure is just as graphic as abortions in the first or second trimester. We still see the abortion doctor stabbing the baby to death, and ripping apart its body parts.
If Mr. O supports abortion rights in the first trimester (I like he does), then I don’t see a big difference between abortions in the first trimester and the third trimester. Either way, abortion is still a violation of the 14th and 5th amendment.
Frank T.J Mackey on June 13, 2009 at 12:26 PM
Also the problem here is both sides keep screaming, “You have blood on your hands” over and over again and it gets annoying. No matter how much something is said over TV or raido it does not give one person the right to act in a violent way towards another human being, no matter what the cause may be. The only person who should be held responsible for Dr. Tiller’s death is the man who did it. Give it a rest with the “you have blood on your hands” slogan it gets old.
DontTaseMeBro on June 13, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Mr. O does, but Roe has taken the issue out of the legislative process. If Roe were overturned voters in most states would allow abortion up to the point of viability–which is when 90+% of abortion now happen. Additionally, non-surgical abortions would be almost impossible to stop regardless of the law.
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 12:42 PM
I prefer O’Reilly to remain calm & civil. However, in some instances – to finally arrive at exposing the truth – there is no substitute for heated, emotionally charged exchanges in order to break down weakly constructed facades which are reinforced by simple talking-points. O’Reilly drove hard & Joan Walsh folded, but only after the heated questioning pushed her out of her comfort zone.
Exposing Walsh’s views was probably an unintended consequence of O’Reilly’s posturing, but, in this instance, the emotional hammering was highly effective.
I thought it reminiscent of the climactic scene in the motion picture A Few Good Men.
ReagansRight on June 13, 2009 at 12:55 PM
It feels so good to be in the sane, reasonable and safe(literally) middle these days.
beekiller on June 13, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Bullsh*t. I read it and while the article may be claiming that, it is a fat load of steaming Bullsh*t in the form of using suffering to play on the emotions of the readers in order to justify the unjustifiable. Tiller a saint? You must be insane. That man bragged that he had aborted a child a day before its due date. Have you read the procedure for that sort of thing? So rather than a short, questionably painful life the child gets a short, undeniably incredibly painful death? You must be some sort of ghoul, yourself. If you really cared about the child’s physical discomfort, why not let it be born and see how it tolerates any possible pain and then drug it up with pain killer and let it die naturally? Wouldn’t that be the more humane/HUMAN thing to do?
I’m truly sorry for women who find that their child is less than perfect. I can think of nothing more painful, but having known a number of them who have suffered watching as their child succumbed or who have struggled to give a severely abnormal child as good a life as he/she can have, and as the aunt to a beautiful little girl who happens to have a chromosomal abnormality, I will never accept the ‘choice’ to intentionally kill a child, for any reason. There is none good enough to justify playing God with another’s life. These people choose to kill their children for themselves, so they don’t have to watch and suffer, and claim that it is out of mercy for the child. God have mercy on them.
Tiller a saint? May God have mercy on his soul, but I fear he is far more likely suffering unimaginable torment.
pannw on June 13, 2009 at 1:09 PM
It’s SIMPLE. Abortion and SLAVERY are exactly the same.
The “LAW”, in both cases, incorrectly decided that what was obviously a human being, really wasn’t a human being. Therefor, in both cases, it gave no rights to either the slave or the unborn child. In addition, both the slave, as well as the unborn are legally treated like chattel. A possession. As a possession, in both cases, the slave and the unborn child can be tortured or killed. So once again, just like 150 years ago, the Democrats are on the “legal”, but immoral side of a controversial question.
Jeff from WI on June 13, 2009 at 1:13 PM
Slaves had more rights than the unborn. In most cases it was illegal to kill a slave, though enforcement of the law was doubtful.
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 1:17 PM
What does this have to do with Mr. O’s double standard on abortion? And it is a double standard, because he’s saying, “brutally killing an unborn baby in the first trimester is ok, but further down the development stage, killing an unborn baby is wrong.”
Frank T.J Mackey on June 13, 2009 at 1:17 PM
SCOTUS says something along those lines, and most Americans have a view that legal protections for the fetus should increase as it gets closer to birth.
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 1:25 PM
You may or may not be right on that one, but where is the consistency? The concept is still the same. You’re killing an unborn human life.
Frank T.J Mackey on June 13, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Just to clear up something for the non-Catholic readers…
Okay, I’m not sure what the Revolution, anti-Vaticanism, and national interest have to do with Catholic heresy/apostasy/schism on abortion. Frankly, it sounds like a load of obfuscation to me and I really don’t care what you are trying to say.
The fact of the matter is, no faithful Catholic can support abortion or abortion ‘rights’. NONE. Not for any reason. If there is any sort of ‘divided loyalty’ for faithful Catholics, it can only be on matters of prudential judgment, ie. the war on terror/in Iraq and even the death penalty, but not on any intrinsic evil, which abortion is, ALWAYS. It is a doctrine of the faith. Christ said, “Whatever you hold bound on earth shall be bound in heaven…” Divided loyalty on doctrines of the faith? That is like saying you are divided in your loyalty between a nation and Christ, a very poor position to take for one who truly believes.
Furthermore, even if the Church does not demonstrably excommunicate these people, they are still excommunicated.
From the Code of Canon Law:
Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272)
The intrinsic evil of abortion occurring at any point after conception is one of the constant Truths of the faith. That means including first trimester for Mr. O types. It can not be approved or supported.
People can claim to be Catholic all they want, but it does not mean they are in communion with the Church. So, I hope that is cleared up.
pannw on June 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Most people believe there is a difference between a few undifferentiated cells and a 35 week fetus. They feel differently about life that is at the cellular level and life that can dream and feel pain.
Protection for cellular life moments after conception isn’t going to gain voter support. Enforcement wouldn’t be achievable anyway.
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Using Obamas view on abortion rights and the non-rights of the unborn. If a cat had kittens, or a female lab had puppies, using Obama logic, the vet could lock the litter of kittens, or of lab puppies, away crying in a closet to starve to death because he didn’t consider them “viable”. He could do that as a regular every day practice for people that decided they didn’t want the new litter. Day after day, small cries for their mother, starving to death. People MIGHT call that vet heartless. People MIGHT be upset that a kitten or puppy is killed, because after all, in what Micheal Vick did, at least one of the dogs survived, and at least the other dog had a “sporting” (bad way to put it) chance. In Obamas case, we’re talking a PERSON not an animal. So in reality, Micheal Vick is a much better, kinder, more humane person than Barrack Obama.
Jeff from WI on June 13, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Cells? If you think a fetus is a clump of cells, then you obviously have not researched this issue very closely. A fetus has arms, head, a body, a spinal cord, legs, organs, and its own DNA composition. It is small and not fully developed to life without his/her mother’s direct assistance, but you can’t possibly call an unborn human life a clump of cells.
And I don’t think you can claim majority status on this issue. It is pretty over the map.
Frank T.J Mackey on June 13, 2009 at 1:54 PM
It isn’t obfuscation, but can be restated more simply. Calling on Catholics to vote according to Vatican instruction is asking them to act in a manner that caused significant discrimination against them for much of the nation’s history.
How can there be religious freedom in the US if enough voters of a single faith enact laws binding people of different faiths?
How many intrinsic evils have been identified by the Vatican? Which of those should be codified in US laws?
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 1:54 PM
No, there is one world, and there are some dishonest people living in it, this woman is dishonest.
Dr Evil on June 13, 2009 at 1:56 PM
Moments after conception there are no arms. The question is where do people draw the line. I agree people are all over the map but they are somewhere between conception and birth.
SCOTUS would allow restrictions going to the point of viability–around 24 weeks. Getting voters to approve restrictions between weeks 24 and 40 is available but so far hasn’t been very successful.
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 2:02 PM
I am not all over the map. It isn’t even that difficult an intellectual exercise. If something isn’t alive you wouldn’t NEED to perform an abortion to 1., kill it, and 2nd., remove it. Otherwise if it isn’t alive, nothing need be done to it right, no life no need to terminate life.
Dr Evil on June 13, 2009 at 2:08 PM
When a human woman has yet to give birth to anything but a human …No birds, dogs, cats, goats ect…the only thing that comes out of a human woman is another human.
Dr Evil on June 13, 2009 at 2:09 PM
So what are you saying? That Catholics should reject Church teaching to avoid persecution? You don’t understand the faithful, do you?
Oh, come on. What laws are Catholics trying to pass that are denying the rights of another religion? Isn’t every law an imposition of some peoples’ beliefs? When we vote, is it only the religious, or specifically Catholics who have to set aside their views? Really, this is very weak. Now, when Catholic voters band together to vote to require all people go to confession, or deny a building permit to a group of Methodists, then maybe we can talk. Besides, wasn’t the Supreme Court established to prevent those sorts of things?
Well, the ones that have been actual issues in recent voting are
1. abortion
2. euthanasia
3. Embryonic Stem Cell Research
4. Human Cloning
5. Homosexual Marriage
Personally, I believe they should all be codified in the US law, because like all good law, they are grounded in natural law and truth. At any rate, Catholics should feel free to vote on them in accordance with their consciences formed by the guidance of their faith, should they not?
pannw on June 13, 2009 at 2:56 PM
Wow, I hadn’t watched this yet because I knew I had it on DVR, so I just now watched it. Now, aside from the obvious take-aways, my biggest was when she threatens Bill with “you’ll be sorry”. WTF does she mean by that? She’s going to get even nastier in her attacks at Salon.com?
For someone accusing someone of being an accomplice to Tiller’s murder, it’s probably not wise to threaten that person in the same breath.
RightWinged on June 13, 2009 at 3:30 PM
You could guess at my experience with the faithful, but it’d just be conjecture. For many of the most devout that I’ve known their individual lives in Christ and acts of charity are more essential than the results of an election in one country.
You’ve list 5 intrinsic evils. There are many others including contraception and torture. War and the death penalty are not intrinsic evils but the Vatican has provided guidance on those areas. Catholics might weigh the Vatican’s opinion more heavily on some of the evils while deferring to the US government or voters on others.
The Church’s position on abortion is clear. However, US law might be better served by Catholics and other Christians first trying to change minds rather than trying to change the laws.
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 3:45 PM
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/on-line/lifecycle/images/1-2-3-1-5-0-0-0-0-0-0.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/Embryo_9_Wochen_mit_Groessenvergleich3.JPG/703px-Embryo_9_Wochen_mit_Groessenvergleich3.JPG
Isn’t that a John Madden like quote? You know, “the team that wins the game, is the team that scores the most points.” When you’re talking about unborn children, you’re referring to conception up until birth.
Mr. O is not consistent on this issue.
Frank T.J Mackey on June 13, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Honestly, the weirdest part was where she directly threatened him. Where did that come from? One minute they’re snidely talking over each other, she’s blathering ‘don’t demonize me, my friend’, and then she just comes right out and threatens him?
Creepy.
“You’ll be sorry.” To me, it sounded like more than some crappy article. Remember, these progressives are much more interconnected than they reveal. They’re also getting much more emboldened.
It almost sounded like they were going to get a hitman or something to take out O’Reilly.
“You’ll be sorry…”
Really creepy.
Sixth Guard on June 13, 2009 at 4:00 PM
I’d guess your photos are about 7 weeks after conception. That is much later than just after conception when it is a few cells.
My statement isn’t Madden-esque. But to go with the Madden thing. Right now one side is saying that life has to be protected from conception and the other is saying it should be protected at birth. That’s akin to saying a football game is decided either at the moment of kick-off or at the final whistle. Most who watch football would say it is decided somewhere between.
Unfortunately the conversation on abortion is often divided between two positions that most people don’t agree with. Partial birth should be outlawed but the hours and days after conception are a part of the reproductive process that the state won’t be able to get involved with.
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Thank you Thuja, and likewise for your rational response.
I did read the article pretty carefully, and while he did give a couple of anecdotal examples of late-term abortions that were due to fetal health issues, the actual survey data (and yes, it is over 20 years old, though I see no reason why it isn’t still valid for the present day) indicates that very few later-term abortions occur because of any health problems, either with the fetus or with the mother, which is my main point.
His point was that the reasons women gave for having the abortions later in their pregnancy can be attributed to “pro-life” policies or attitudes, that caused them to delay having an abortion for various reasons, which is arguable at best, and at any rate, a different issue entirely.
Dreadnought on June 13, 2009 at 4:14 PM
when she kept saying, “its legal Bill, but its legal…its legal”
O’Reily really dropped the ball by not simply saying: “So What, Slavery use to be Legal…doesn’t mean that its Right!”
jp on June 13, 2009 at 5:00 PM
It was nice to see O’Reilly (I’m not a big fan) wring the ‘hero’ thing out of that harpy.
What Tiller did in Kansas WAS NOT LEGAL!!! This story is very old and if you want the true story dip your feet into the writings of Jack Cashill who has been on the case for years.
http://www.cashill.com/index.htm
Reposted to encourage people to read up on the way Tiller did business. It was despicable & illegal.
http://www.cashill.com/index.htm
thegreatbeast on June 13, 2009 at 5:06 PM
Yes, I am familiar with the Lutheran Churches of the Reformation and Rev. Kenneth Miller but that was a blog by Uwe Siemon-Netto I quoted, and his first language is German.
OmahaConservative on June 13, 2009 at 5:59 PM
O’Reilly stuffed up. All he had to say was the instances cited by the professor showed Tiller was breaking the law.
davod on June 13, 2009 at 8:24 PM
what does that even mean? would you rather he just let her refuse to answer the question while calling him an accomplice in murder? if someone accused you of being responsible for murder, im sure youd want to force them to answer basic questions to back up that horrible assertion, yeah?
TheBlueSite on June 13, 2009 at 8:48 PM
Those who castigate O’Reilly for being a blowhard are only helping the pro-abort Obama lovers.
They are missing the point that O’Reilly should be hailed and celebrated for breaking the Media Code of Silence – the complete censorship on the truth of abortion, a blackout carried out since the time of Roe v Wade.
BOR exposed the entire culture of death and defended Tiller’s unborn victims by stating facts that have not seen the light of day in the media in 36 years.
Namely, Tiller was a baby killer; that these unborn children do have rights and that THEIR BLOOD is on Walsh’s hands because she promotes this atrocity, while claiming to be a “pro-choice Catholic”. Sorry, but that is a contradiction in terms. No such thing.
To my knowlege, no one on television has ever told the truth about abortion as Bill O’Reilly has regarding Tiller.
I hope he will also discover the power of the image in showing what aborted babies actually look like. Most people have no mental image whatsoever. This is normal; abortion is not a natural act and is not something we can visualize. However, we should know. Knowledge is power. When we saw what happened in Hitler’s death camps it brought many to justice at Nuremburg.
There are some powerful images (be prepared) at priestsforlife.org
tigerlily on June 13, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Why don’t you confront the mothers??
AprilOrit on June 13, 2009 at 11:07 AM
Sorry to reply so late. Haven’t been online all day. Have been painting – as in walls and ceilings.
Anyway, while I havn’t “confronted” the mothers, I have engaged in sidewalk counseling for more than a dozen years.
I have spoken to hundreds of mothers (and fathers) as they approached the abortion clinic to abort their child.
It is an intense and “touch and go” encounter, but by the grace of God a several hundred babies are alive today because I was able to be there “on the spot” where the killing happens.
I can tell you that the majority of abortion bound mothers are living a life far from God, and have swallowed the poison pill of this promiscuous culture. They also have no one in their life who has the strength or concern to pull them away from the abortion abyss.
When they see the light of Christ, and are offered real help in their despairing situation, some turn away from the planned abortion. I can tell you that crisis pregnancy centers and the free ultrasounds they provide are extremely helpful. But, the majority of pregnant and abortion minded moms don’t know hese places exist.
Anyway, I am just skimming the surface here – kind of tired.
I hope I have not done a disservice to your question by being brief, but for now I just have to “hit the hay” as my late father would have said.
God bless.
tigerlily on June 13, 2009 at 11:54 PM
And OJ was found not guilty too….just like Tiller the baby killer. I guess that makes killing an ex-wife ok too.
xblade on June 14, 2009 at 12:21 AM
Being a wuss and not knowing what you believe is always comfortable.
TTheoLogan on June 14, 2009 at 1:59 AM
THE 5TH AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION: “No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.”
If ANYONE can be charged with murder for killing an unborn child in the murder of that child’s mother, then willingly killing that child in ANY way should be murder.
EVERY law in the United States is supposed to be based on the Constitution…when are we going to demand that the Constitution be inforced?
nelsonknows on June 14, 2009 at 2:15 AM
Actually Tiller was NOT cleared of all charges as most charges by prosecutors Kline and Morrison against Tiller were DROPPED due to pressure by then Governor Sebelius.
nelsonknows on June 14, 2009 at 2:23 AM
Hmm..”Moments after conception” …as a man I wasn’t aware a woman could tell she’s pregnant “moments” after conception. I guess I learn something every day.
Jeff from WI on June 14, 2009 at 7:50 AM
It’s the reason there are drugs called the morning after pill.
dedalus on June 14, 2009 at 11:24 AM
Nice try, no cigar. Without Bill’s treatment of her, she would have never admitted her true beliefs. Good job by Bill.
Wade on June 14, 2009 at 12:30 PM
Just to clear up something for the non-Catholic readers…
dedalus on June 13, 2009 at 9:58 AM
Okay, I’m not sure what the Revolution, anti-Vaticanism, and national interest have to do with Catholic heresy/apostasy/schism on abortion. Frankly, it sounds like a load of obfuscation to me and I really don’t care what you are trying to say.
The fact of the matter is, no faithful Catholic can support abortion or abortion ‘rights’. NONE. Not for any reason. If there is any sort of ‘divided loyalty’ for faithful Catholics, it can only be on matters of prudential judgment, ie. the war on terror/in Iraq and even the death penalty, but not on any intrinsic evil, which abortion is, ALWAYS. It is a doctrine of the faith. Christ said, “Whatever you hold bound on earth shall be bound in heaven…” Divided loyalty on doctrines of the faith? That is like saying you are divided in your loyalty between a nation and Christ, a very poor position to take for one who truly believes.
Furthermore, even if the Church does not demonstrably excommunicate these people, they are still excommunicated.
From the Code of Canon Law:
Canon 751: “Heresy is the obstinate denial or obstinate doubt after the reception of baptism of some truth which is to be believed by divine and Catholic faith; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Supreme Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.”
Canon 1364 §1: “an apostate from the faith, a heretic, or a schismatic incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.”
The phrase “latae sententiae” means a judgment or sentence which has already been brought, in other words, a sentence or judgment which does not need a future additional judgment from someone in authority; it refers to a type of excommunication which is automatic. Such a sentence of excommunication is incurred “by the very commission of the offense,” (CCC 2272)
The intrinsic evil of abortion occurring at any point after conception is one of the constant Truths of the faith. That means including first trimester for Mr. O types. It can not be approved or supported.
People can claim to be Catholic all they want, but it does not mean they are in communion with the Church. So, I hope that is cleared up.
pannw on June 13, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Thanks for the great post, panw. dedalus speaks in circles and makes no sense.
Also, dedalus is barking up the wrong tree when he says the the American Revolution was motivated by a fear of the Vatican.
My goodness – it was not the Vatican, but King George of England who was the threat to the 13 colonies. In fact, the majority population of the colonies was protestant, including our Founding Fathers. I don’t recall any of them ever writing that the Revolution was necessary to free them from the Vatican – even if the Vatican had any influence in England – which it most assuredly did not.
England, which was once a devoutly Catholic land, was, since the time of King Henry VIII and to the time of the Revolution (beyond that I won’t go, for now), incredibly and many times murderously, anti-Catholic.
Also, I did not know that O’Reilly was OK with abortion in the first trimester. He gets a thumbs down from me now. Perhaps he is the pinhead.
As for dedalus. I don’t know if he is a Catholic, but if so he does not represent what science teaches – Human Life Begins at Conception; Nor what our Faith teaches – All Human Life is Sacred at All Stages.
That was held here in our once great country until 1973 and dedalus’s arguments about the fact that most people won’t fight to protect human life in it’s earliest stages do nothing to change the fact that IT IS human life, therefore we must do all we can to protect it, regardless of “popular” opinion or just plain apathy.
dedalus would do well to get himself to Vatican.va and read “The Gospel of Life” by John Paul II.
tigerlily on June 14, 2009 at 12:33 PM
The Church’s teaching on abortion is clear. JPII’s teaching reinforces that. I said as much in an earlier post.
Regarding the impact of the Quebec Act and other influences on the American Revolution, much has been written about anti-Catholicism by historians. Here is something on the topic from Beliefnet.
dedalus on June 14, 2009 at 12:57 PM
The Church’s teaching on abortion is clear. JPII’s teaching reinforces that. I said as much in an earlier post.
Regarding the impact of the Quebec Act and other influences on the American Revolution, much has been written about anti-Catholicism by historians. Here is something on the topic from Beliefnet.
dedalus on June 14, 2009 at 12:57 PM
Thanks for the link. I stand enlightened.
I still think, however, that you have not made clear whether your previous posts have you taking the position of devil’s advocate against the rights of Roman Catholics (who happen to be Americans, or any other nationality or citizenship) to fully advocate for laws which protect and defend the dignity of the human person, or whether you are a merely another “cafeteria Catholic”, picking and choosing which doctrines you will hold and which you will cast aside.
tigerlily on June 14, 2009 at 5:41 PM
It’s odd that you think that’s what’s at issue. In fact, those concerns are irrelevant compared to these:
Late-term abortions are legal.
Waterboarding is torture under US law, and under US law torture is illegal.
Those are facts. They are not challengable.
orange on June 15, 2009 at 2:29 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3