Report: Abortion doc attacks pro-life activist
Reader Steve sends a tip about this story in the OC Weekly covering an abortion doctor’s reported assault on a pro-life activist at a shady clinic. Steve writes: “[T]he Weekly’s a pretty liberal publication, but I think they deserve a bit of credit for outlining some of the shocking deficiencies of care that have been brought to light at several Los Angeles area family planning centers.”
Props to the Weekly for risking the wrath of the abortion racket and shining light on these murderous thugs:
An anti-abortion activist taking photographs outside a controversial Santa Ana family planning clinic suffered minor injuries Saturday afternoon after being attacked by a physician who obviously did not appreciate having his picture taken.
According to Santa Ana Police records, Howard Tendai Pfpajena, 66, was arrested on suspicion of assault and battery about 12:30 p.m. near Fourth and Sycamore streets. Online Christian and pro-life news services that earlier today reported [here and here] on the incident had “Pfupajena” as the spelling of the suspect’s last name and claimed he is a physician at Clinica Medica Para La Mujer at 120 W 5th St., which is about a half block from where the suspect was arrested.
An unidentified receptionist at the clinic confirmed Tuesday evening that “Dr. Pfupajena” works there on an on-call basis. She said he was not present at the time the Weekly called, and she did not know about Saturday’s arrest even though she was working at the clinic that afternoon. “Is he still in jail?” she asked.
Police cited and released the suspect at the scene. According to the rabid anti-abortion organization Operation Rescue and the online news reports, the Orange County District Attorney’s office is weighing whether charges will be filed against Pfupajena.
The 31-year-old victim, Tim Nissen, is an anti-abortion protester who was photographing people going into Clinica Medica because of fears unlicensed or unsafe abortions are being performed there. The clinic’s owner currently faces charges that could put her behind bars for nearly 20 years after allegedly performing abortions and doling out medication without a medical license.
The Santa Ana clinic is part of a chain of Southern California abortion centers. A Los Angeles District Attorney’s statement refers to offices in Baldwin Park, Huntington Park, Los Angeles and Panorama City, operating either under the name Clinica Medica Para La Mujer de Hoy or Community Women’s Medical Clinic. Public records contain references to four more locations, in Chula Vista, North Hollywood, Torrance and Santa Ana. One clinic doctor said in a deposition for a 2002 malpractice suit that there were nine clinics.
A California Medical Board complaint accused Dr. Phillip Rand of having performed a “barbaric” abortion at the Santa Ana location in the summer of 2004. Then in his early 80s, Rand administered no anesthesia or painkillers to a woman identified as Angela P. before he performed a vaginal suction procedure. Paramedics later arrived at the clinic to find Angela lying in a pool of her own blood, her pulse racing and her blood pressure dangerously low.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Gagging pro-lifers in New York City
November 19, 2008 10:30 AM by Mich
Cool, so when Roe v Wade is eventually overturned you’ll be an ardent supporter of the law and abide by it? Sweet. Thanks man.
atheling #48, thank you for sharing your story. It brought tears to my eyes.
I’d abide by that law by personally offering road trips to women who want abortions in abortion friendly states.
You wouldn’t be the only one demon-puppet. As sad as that is. But if the democrats have their way you’ll need to charge a whole lot for gas money to cover your expenses.
You should have been arrested for assault.
And I’m the one who hates women? A woman made a choice, a choice you disagreed with. So instead of trying to convince her you physically intimidated someone who I assume was smaller than you. Real classy, guy.
The irony is, if a loved one got pregnant, I would offer my help. Ask her about adoption. Do what I could to know that no matter what I would help her out.
But when she made that decision, I’d take it like a man instead of resorting to physical intimidation.
Actually she’s a woman, and she showed more compassion and self sacrifice than you ever will in your whole life.
I’ll make sure to fully inflate my tires first. Saves 3-4% on gas mileage, don’tcha know.
Fixed it for ya
#89 rusty said:
Rusty, as stated earlier, and as evidenced in the article itself:
Rusty said:
Again, from the article and mentioned earlier:
This place is hiring everything from doctors with revoked medical licenses to freaks who have histories of sexually molesting their patients. Hells bells Rusty, even the owner and her sister are alleged to have performed abortions and administered prescriptions without medical licenses and are out of jail on a combined $600,000 bail.
Now, the same kid who has been photographing the doctors who come in and out of this mess of an organization, to verify if they are even doctors, gets assaulted by one of these doctors?
With six fraudulent doctors at this chain of clinics already bagged and tagged, the entire media world should be outside of this place with cameras, no less one guy named Tim.
Rusty said:
That’s speculation on your part, but with a deplorable history like that of the Clinica Medica abortion chain, every woman walking towards those doors should be strongly advised to get the hell away from there.
You’re saying that protecting an unborn child’s life without physical harm to the mother is bad, but killing same child by physically harming the mother is good. OKAY, gotcha.
Agreed. Perhaps I am being too paranoid.
Paging Michelle Malkin,
I don’t know if it’s live or taped, but you are about to be on the Mark Levin radio show (77 WABC Radio, 6:30 EST) in 5 minutes.
Exactly Brian NY,
It’s much easier to continue a distasteful or abhorrent practice by dressing it up in prettier clothing, than it is to constantly have to defend it. “Pro-Choice”
If they called it what it is, would they have the same amount of customers?
An industry has grown up around vacuming a woman’s womb.
Never thought I’d see Michelle cite an OC Weekly story for a positive reason.
Oops. The reason isn’t positive. I meant that I never thought she’d give props to OC Weekly.
Rusty:
My pregnant friend, who I “assaulted”, thanked me and the other girl for preventing the abortion, after her baby was born.
You can call it “assault”. Technically, it could even be called “false imprisonment”. But I don’t care what you think, you misogynistic murderer. It’s scum like you who promote the damage done to women in our society for the past 60 years. It’s scum like you who are responsible for the millions of murders committed against the unborn each year.
You claim to be a Christian. Well, you better be trembling in your shoes, because if you got hit by a bus and died tomorrow, you will have a lot to answer for to your Maker.
Yes, that is exactly how I felt. To see her alive and well, and to know that she was hours from being killed, well, it still brings tears to my eyes.
Not ardent… I really don’t care one way or another. It is just fun jerking the chain of religious nuts and libtards.
Atheling:
That’s along the lines of what I was talking about ref. a developed CNS.
StanW:
You misread me. As I said, it’s not “digital.” I am against late-term abortions.
Reductio ad Hitlerum.
From the POV of the mother, but not “in fact.”
That was not the only part of my argument.
EQ: So where do you stand on the idea that one could grow an arm for an amputee by manipulating an egg cell, for example?
BrianNY:
I think that there is a respect for dead bodies more so than a blastocyst (for example) because a dead body was once full-fledged human. I am curious, where do you stand on culling during IVF, cloning, and stem cell research?
Good bye IUDs and Plan B.
Good point, I forgot about those.
Sorry, the following:
above should have been blockquoted as well.
You really are an asshole, Rob.
And I’ve noticed that you get told that on this blog at least once a week. Next week, I’m sure you’ll not have changed.
atheling, I think you should mind the terms of use.
I’d hate not to have you around to provide us with such stirring insights.
I think the word you want is “infidel“, that is the word that the other anti-abortion countries use… lol
You know…
Now that I think about it Rob listed a lot of countries there.
So Rusty, isn’t it the duty of the judges to look to international law for their inspiration to override the will of the people?
That’s your arguement on the gay marriage issue. Surely you should apply it here for the pro-death faction.
And a baby is decidedly less than an adult despite the fact that some people call it a human being. So, what’s your point?
A baby may be outside the womb but it cannot survive on it’s own. It has to be fed and cared for. Does that make it less human? Maybe parents should be allowed to abuse infants or sell their organs to older, more developed humans. Would that meet your standards of decency?
This, my friends, is a perfect example of a strawman. Take note because so many of you use the term incorrectly.
Thank you, Papa, for showing us all how its really done.
Piss off, asshole.
While it seems overtly ridiculous, it is the logical extension of embryonic stem cell research.
atheling…
Careful….we have heard nary a word from Goldwater knight since his last profanity laden tirade in a thread a couple weeks ago.
Word on the street is that some MM
stormtroopersmoderators dragged him off the board in the middle of the night for some “reeducation” as to the TOU.As it has been said, strawman. In any case, a baby is still a conscious human being with a developed CNS and the ability to feel pain, (among other things), as is an adult. A fetus (or zygote or blastocyst) is not.
It does seem ridiculous, because it is not the logical extension of embryonic stem cell research.
Following my rationale, it would make sense, for example, to sacrifice (for the sake of argument) 5 blastocysts (a thing about as alive as an amoeba) to be able to create (again for argument’s sake) a liver to save the life of an adult (or a child).
By your rationale, IUD / IVF / stem cell research / cloning research is on the same moral plane as shooting a man in the head because he is inconveniencing you.
I think most clear thinking people would see who the zealot is.
Atheling:
Honestly, this is beyond the pale. You are claiming to speak for the creator of the universe now?
Thanks, Zero. BTW, in order to go along with your scenario, one would have take the leap of faith with you to believe that clump of cells is “about as alive as an amoeba.” YOU were once that clump of cells that you are now so quick to dismiss. And you said you had no faith.
MtsEdge:
The cells that make up my body are the result of a blastocyst that once resided in my mother’s womb undergoing Mitosis. This blastocyst is the result of gametes of my mother and father combining. They are the result of cells in my mother and father… and so on. This I do not dispute.
However, *I* was never to be found in that blastocyst or those gametes. My conscious feelings and emotions (my self) are the sum of my experiences and memories which formed well after that blastocyst.
By saying I have no faith; I am assuming you are referring to me being an atheist. To that I say this: how do you know “God” doesn’t place a human “soul” into a fetus until well after it has developed a CNS? Furthermore, what would this “soul” do / see / experience in the complete absence of senses (or a mind for that matter) to experience reality with? Is it me that is making the leap of faith, or is it you?
That said, do you think IUD / IVF / stem cell research / cloning research are on the same moral plane as shooting a man in the head?
Let me be clear that I can’t stand Atheling. But I assume we’re all adults here so we don’t need to yell “TERMS OF USE!” every time some one uses a swear word.
Calling someone names is a low form of debate and people should make a mental note of it. Hell, I’m guilty of it sometimes too.
For an example of calling someone names, the person who wrote that excerpt is a moron.
Zero, you can pepper me with all kinds of biological descriptors for the various stages of human development. Trying to reduce a human life to a set of biological and chemical impulses is a way of dehumanizing and degrading humanity, and results in all sorts of evil. I don’t need to belabor the extreme views of various dictators, thugs, and murderers throughout history, it should be self-evident what happens when human beings no longer emphathize with one another. But to answer your question, consider this from Jeremiah 1:5: “Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee” and from Psalm 139:14-16: “I will praise thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.”
Awwww, Rusty. I’m just tryin’ to get a rise outta her. She’s a real sweetie. You just have to get to know her.
And MtsEdge,
Quoting the Bible to an admitted atheist like zero is probably not much of a convincing argument. Nor is it really much of a basis for making public policy.
Mts Edge:
Reductio ad Hitlerum and strawman. There are various primitive peoples around the world that consider photography evil because it “steals one’s soul” and “dehumanizes” in it’s own way.
I am advocating technology that could save lives. IMHO, your argument amounts to “if God intended us to fly…”
Ref. scripture:
I am trying to be very delicate here as to not offend, but if you are going to pick and choose from the Bible, I should be allowed to do the same. As such, I reject your quotes from Jeremiah and Psalms and reason that they do not apply in the modern world.
So, I guess your answer to my question is yes. Obviously, I disagree wholeheartedly.
Just ask unfrozen caveman lawyer.
Zero and Chap, It was Zero who brought God into the argument. I merely shared some of His Word to respond to Zero’s question. Not sure what you mean by “picking and choosing” Scripture, unless you mean merely citing portions of it without reproducing the entire text. In which case, I’m guilty as charged.
and Zero, I didn’t mention Hitler’s name. I think it is overused to try to make a point. Surely you can think of other dictators, serial killers, and the like who would fit the description. And BTW, embryonic stem cell research results are tenuous at best. Stem cells from one’s own body, from another adult, or even from a baby’s placenta or umbilical cord have much better success rates.
MtsEdge:
I had thought your statement about my “lack of faith” was referring to my atheism. As such, I thought you were bringing “God” into our discussion. Was I wrong? If so, no offense intended. As for my remark about being a “zealot” I was referring to your political views, not religion; if I was unclear, again, mah bad.
Well, by picking and choosing, I am assuming that you pick lines you agree with (the ones your quoted) and do not pick ones you don’t agree with (like the ones I quoted). I think this is a safe assumption here. So, since that is the case, why quote the Bible at all? Why not just answer my question in your own words?
You didn’t mention Hitler specifically, but it is still a logically fallacy in the vein of Reductio ad Hitlerum.
As far as research, so what if they have better success rates? What about cloning research? What about the idea that by ignoring embryonic stem cell research we might miss something that might otherwise be a breakthrough?
That is possible, Zero.
What about the possibility that the fetus you aborted today would have grown into the research scientist that cured cancer and AIDS?
Unless you are a fatalist who does not believe in free will, this is an absurd argument.
Zero, I quoted the Bible based on your question about when God “inserts a soul” into a human being. My words pale in comparison to the Creator’s, which describe and respond exactly on point to what you asked.
With regard to the Hitler thing, I am loath to even type his name, it’s that overused. But the concept of dehumanizing people in order to rationalize evil is as old as time itself, and takes many forms, overt and covert. It may even start out as sounding like a good thing for humanity, such as “embryonic stem cell research.”
Stem cells from other sources have proven results, are more predictable, and they don’t require the destruction of a life. I hope that answers your “so what?” question.
The I expect your strong rebuke of Zero, who made the exact same argument in the post above.
StanW:
What about the possibility that you having sex with a total stranger whilst in a drunken stupor will produce the next Einstein?
I think I’d rather deal with things a tad more concrete; like the idea that countless actual living scientists ignoring a particular area of research is a bad thing.
Huh? Where?
You are talking about something being predestined to do something.
Zero is talking about not closing off avenues of research because some others may or may not seem more promising at this time.
You’re dealing with nothing but your fantasy that, inspite of all efforts so far, embryonic stem cell research MIGHT produce something. I guess the research scientists might also sneeze into a perti dish and grow the cure for cancer as well.
Again, we are back to your desire to kill innocent life just because you don;t want it around, except for your scientific experiments. You have no idea when life begins, yet you feel morally superior to say it can be killed.
Also, based upon the number of innocent children killed by abortion in this country compared to the overwhelming failure of embryonic stem cell research to produce ANYTHING of value, the chances are much greater that the next Einstein has already come and been aborted.
No, I didn’t.
MtsEdge:
Fair enough, but I do want it known that I felt I was not the first one to bring up God.
Baby with the bath water. By this line of thinking, nuclear power is evil as well.
Yes. This is where we differ, and I am happy to agree to disagree at this point. Suffice it to say, I do not think IVF / IUD / etc = murder. Let’s leave it at that.
Well, it is the core of the “choice” argument afterall - “take ‘em out anytime they are an inconvenience”.
No, Zero is talking about a failed science being continued based on Zero’s ability to devalue human life and want it used in more failed experimentation.
And of the millions of children aborted, you are saying there is no possibility of a great scientist being in that group?
StanW:
Honestly, if you don’t understand what chap is talking about in #146, I see no reason to continue this.
I did use the word “faith” first…
So am I. Nice discussion. Good night.
Goodnite all. Until tommorow.
It IS producing something. Early stages, of course, but that is certainly not helped by our anti-science administration.
And yet you are claiming that you do, as evidenced by your “desire to kill innocent life” comment and claiming moral superiority over those that choose a different starting point than you. Interesting.
Zero, your entire rebuttal to anything anyone has said about abortion has been “No it isn’t”. Continue this debate? I am waiting for you to actually begin.
Your stand that we shoudl continue to destroy human life to continue failed research, when adult stem cell research has already produced results is far-fetched and idiotic. I threw out the “Einstein aborted” theory to prove to you how far fetched you really are. Yet you are so blinded in your zeal to see innocent children killed that you ignore the obvious.
Until you can say for certain when life begins, AND PROVE IT, you are nothing more that a fool.
Oh please. Feel free to do the same thing you are asking of Zero. PROVE IT.
Oh wait. You can’t? Interesting.
Are you calling yourself a fool?
Embryonic stem cell research has failed to produce ANYTHING, which is why all the private research money is drying up. Adult Stem Cell research has a proven track record and numerous successes.
And try reading my words and not lying about my position, Chap. I do not know when life begins, and neither do you and Zero. The difference is that, since I am unsure, I err on the side of life and say it should be protected and allowed to mature.
On the other hand, you and Zero have no idea whatsoever when life begine, but err on the side of death. Kill it whenever you want. In Zero’s case, right up until it is born. After all, it is just a clump of cells we have named fetus or zygote of anything else we can think of that will cause you to think of it as not human.
Dude, you are the one that said someone that could not prove when life begins was a fool. Not me. Your own words.
And as for embryonic research producing nothing, this is simply false. Have they cured Alzheimer’s yet? No. Are we a hell of a lot further along than we were 10 or 15 years ago? Yes. Just like drilling offshore now for the advantages 5 or 10 years from now. Depending on your view of when life begins, that may make you uncomfortable, and that is fine.
But what are the successes you can point to on the adult stem cell side? From what I hear, the best they have been able to do with them is make them maybe in certain circumstances, act like embryonic cells. Which really, at best, brings us to square one.
If a person is against the taking of innocent human life then that person is morally superior to the person who is for it. That’s a given.
Chap, I think you’ve got it backwards. The behavior of embryonic stem cells is harder to predict, and thus less reliable, than adult stem cells.
Well, there is that pesky presumption you make.
against the taking of innocent human life
What I actually sez wuz -
“If a person is against the taking of innocent human life then that person is morally superior to the person who is for it. That’s a given.”
You are, of course, free to disagree with that statement, chap.
Again, lying about my position and what I clearly said, Chap. If this is your standard debating technique, then you should get your money back.
What I said was, anyone that does not know when life begins, yet chooses to kill it anyway, is a fool. Do try to keep up.
Would you bury a person if there was the slightest chance that they may still be alive? Would you check every possibility to make sure they were in fact deceased before you buried them? Why do unborn humans deserve any less.
And here is a link for you, although not the one I was looking for, on Stem Cell Research. It outlines “the successful treatments with adult stem cells in cases of Crohn’s disease (a chronic infection of the gut), thalassemia (a blood disease), and a rare skin disease.
Of course, you probably already know this, Chap.
Forgive me, MtsEdge,
But I am having a bit of trouble trying to figure out how that link you provide proves anything. Actually, it may prove that there is value in adult stem cell research. Okay. Cool. Not disputing that. But that is not really the same as saying there is no value in embryonic research, is it?
If you do not see the inherent contradiction in that statement than arguing with you is hopeless.
Chap, you’re right. The link was intended to show various studies emphasizing the success of adult stem cells in response to your earlier question about the same.
How about this?
Running away so soon, Chap. I did not take you for a coward.
There is no contridiction at all in my statement. Neither you nor I know when lie begins. I think we can agree on that.
The other area we can agree on is that I think that life, no matter when it starts is precious and deserves the chance to live.
We can also agree on the undeniable fact that you think that life, no matter when it begins, can be destroyed on a whim.
So what we have here is our area to agree upon.
1) Neither of us know when life begins
2) Since I am unsure of when life begins, I choose to protect that possible life.
3) Since you are unsure of when life begins, you choose to destroy that possible life.
Did I miss anything or have I misunderstood your position on this subject? If I have, please explain it to me.
purplepeep said:
chapoutier said:
against the taking of innocent human life
Well, there is that pesky presumption you make.
What I actually sez wuz -
“If a person is against the taking of innocent human life then that person is morally superior to the person who is for it. That’s a given.”
You are, of course, free to disagree with that statement, chap.
= = = = = = = = =
To be more accurate, chap, I would have to say the person is making the morally superior argument. The person him/herself could be a total jerk, lol.
Oh - and so you don’t take my comment above wrong, Stan, I’m not saying you’re a jerk, lol. I’m just making an overall point on the superior morality of an argument. You’re spot on with yours.
You can’t take a post personally on a message board, Peep. You don’t know me and I could be an absolute jerk (opinions vary!)
Thanks for the support!
Oh no. Still here. Bobbin’ and weavin’.
I think we can all agree that once a child is born, that is it. Obviously no abortion then. And I think anyone with any sense would say that once a child is potentially viable (say in the last trimester) that is too close for comfort. But then we start to get into a grey area where the further you get from birth and the closer you get to conception, the issue of when the cells becomes “human” becomes hazy and in all honesty informed more by one’s religious beliefs than science. So then it becomes a question of weighing the possibility of a human beginning at point x with the absoluteness of the female’s wishes with respect to being pregnant at that same point.
But hey…its complicated and I am not even sure I am convinced either way. So I certainly do not begrudge the anti-abortion position.
I will concede this.
I’ve been following the thread and whole-heartedly agree with what has been posted by most of the passionate, soulful people who care about life. Now, the exceptions:
Rusty:
You do not speak for me or many other women. Are you one of those pushy boyfriends who doesn’t want to be bothered with a kid because it doesn’t fit into your “life plan?” Then again, it’s all about you, isn’t it? Many men don’t want to be bothered with a kid. Are you one of them?
Rob:
Your only purpose on here is to screw around. There are not only “religious nuts” who despise abortion. I’m sure you realize that. Your careless attitude is unappealing and loses more fans than it wins.
Zero:
You and I have tangled on many a thread about abortion. I really think you just cheapen life. I’m not overly religious myself and still feel that there is some “higher being” watching out for me. A clump of cells is nothing, but a third term baby is suddenly a “sentient being?” Must be nice being the judge and jury of life and when it starts.
Chaps:
You’re not the TOS police. It’s up to Michelle to make the call about Atheling. I wouldn’t have used the language she used. It’s not worth it. It feeds the trollish joy that folks like Rusty and Rob partake every time they show their constant disrespect for life. You also need to get off your GK fixation.
————————————————————————————————————————
This country really needs an honest discussion about life, pregnancy, and abortion not couched in simplistic, feel good terms. That’s why college kids go berzerk and find dismembered “fetuses” disgusting and can’t face the truth for what it is.
I hope, one day, I’m lucky enough to have a baby. I will cherish that life. Some women aren’t so lucky when they go into an abortion clinic, get a botched abortion, and find themselves maimed and permanently infertile. Then again, to people like Rusty and Rob, hey, no big deal…. humans are like dogs and cats. Let’s control the population, let’s be like China that forces abortions and a one child policy.
Too bad life is a lot more complicated and messy then what abortionists, their supporters, and the whole of the Democrat Party would have us believe.
Steve:
This is a threat. Are you in violation of the TOS? You’re nothing but a propagandist for abortion (the same as Rusty) who has not a care in the world transporting any woman (even a minor) to an abortion clinic. Apparently, a bully like you only understands violence.
Michelle, what say you?
And here I strongly disagree. A few years ago, 9 months was 9 months and any child born before then had a very slim chance at life. Today, children at 20+ weeks gestation are born and live. They are alive and human.
Yet if you have a woman that decides to have an abortion at week 25, your’s and Zero’s posts have led me to conclude that you think the child is a mass of non-human or non-living cells.
We learn more and more about the human body every day, including when a child in the womb feels pain, has independent movement, and shows all signs of life. Again, I choose to err on the side of that life and say it is worth protecting. You and zeros err on the side of death, or woman’s choice, or whatever euphamism that is in vouge these days.
Regardless of who is right, and outside of any religion, yours is still the least moral position. If I am wrong and you are right, the child is still alive. But if I am right and you are wrong, then what the radical pro-lifers have said is undeniably true… You and your ilk are mass-murderers on a scale the Nazis would have envied, and the blood of millions of innocent lives are on your hands.
I could not live with that.
“I would have to say the person is making the morally superior argument. The person him/herself could be a total jerk, lol.”
Heh. But if the degree of jerkiness is dependent on the superior moral argument, the opposing arguer would be even jerkier!
To put the situation in the context of a law enforcement/military “shoot-don’t shoot” type question:
You have a hunting party of three guys, Larry, Moe and Curly Joe. Larry says to Curly Joe, “There’s a buck behind those trees - shoot!” Moe says “You numbskull, he could be shooting into another hunting party!’. Realizing that none of them are 100 percent certain, including himself, should Curly Joe shoot or hold his fire?
It was a joke. Atheling is a pompous, nasty jerk and I was just making fun of her, admittedly jerking her chain. But if you got thrown the vicious stuff your way that I or some others here have, I wonder how you would react.
————————————————————————————————————————
I do not disagree with this.
Seriously Stan. We were having a fine conversation, and then this crap? That is actually the way to “run away from a debate”.
Whoahhhhh….you just blew my mind, man. What if D-O-G really spelled “cat”?:)
In your scenario, if Curly or Joe had no empirical evidence to believe they were shooting into a hunting party, did they do anything wrong?
Chap, this is getting a bit annoying. First you lie about my abortion position, then you deliberately leave out words that I wrote to change the meaning. What I said was… “But if I am right and you are wrong, then what the radical pro-lifers have said is undeniably true… You and your ilk are mass-murderers on a scale the Nazis would have envied, and the blood of millions of innocent lives are on your hands.”
Do not pretend that you have not heard this smear handed out by radical pro-lifers. Trust me, it would be that type of “I Told You So” moment if we can prove scientifically that life begins BEFORE the point you are willing to abort.
So, are you deliberately misrepresenting my positions to score a few cheap points, Chap?
On August 7th, 2008 at 12:32 am, chapoutier said:
But then we start to get into a grey area where the further you get from birth and the closer you get to conception, the issue of when the cells becomes “human” becomes hazy and in all honesty informed more by one’s religious beliefs than science.
Yup. And scientists tell us that if they would have found even just one molecule of an organism on Mars it would have been declared “life” in no uncertain terms. Even if could only be detected by an electron microscope. If they happened upon human double helix, it would be human life.
Stan, I get what you are saying, but the big difference is that both sides here are arguing in good faith and from a position of admitted ambiguity. Which is why the “mass murderer” and “nazi” analogies are really inappropriate and beneath decent debate.
Actually, I don’t think Atheling is anything of the kind. She means what she says and says what she means. Many abortion apologists parse their words in isolated little sayings that are supposed to disguise what abortion actually is.
I guess you also missed the times that I’ve been castigated for my support of John McCain. Then there is the condescension I’ve gotten from folks like Rusty about how abortion helps women. I, as a woman, don’t feel better off for it.
Then, there are the times I’ve been “counseled” by liberals (perhaps you or dakine) to stop mentioning my being a military spouse. Or the precious little gem by a “well-intentioned” liberal that I’d chosen the wrong lifemate or that my husband was a baby killer on another, more public blog.
So you see, I’m not as popular as you might think. However, you’re a lightening rod for sarcasm and criticism that you feed by either a)taking swipes at folks like Atheling or b)your continued, insinuation campaign about GK.
You and I don’t agree on most stuff. However, you’re not nearly as ravaged as conservatives would be on sites like Daily K and HuffnPuff and I think you know it.
“You have a hunting party of three guys, Larry, Moe and Curly Joe. Larry says to Curly Joe, “There’s a buck behind those trees - shoot!” Moe says “You numbskull, he could be shooting into another hunting party!’. Realizing that none of them are 100 percent certain, including himself, should Curly Joe shoot or hold his fire?”
First off, it’s “Curly Joe” - he’s one fellow, chap. And the question is: should he shoot or not?
And we’re straying away from my underlying point of what is the superior morality involved. I submit the person urging “don’t shoot” (Moe) is making the superior moral argument inasmuch as the possibility of taking innocent human life is not an acceptable outcome.
You are far from arguing in good faith Chap, as I count twice you have lied about my position on abortion and once you have changed my words to distort their meaning.
And if being called a mass-murderer on the basis of your support of millions of innocents killed hurts your widdle fweelings, then you may need a new past-time, as you are obviously too think-skinned for the arena of political ideas.
Dunno about HuffPo, but I’ve never, ever seen a conservative diarist on the KosKidz site. They even banned their former absolute moral authority, “Mother Sheehan”, for criticizing Democrats.
Excuse me, where did I lie about your position?
You said if one could not prove when life began one was a fool. I asked you to prove when life began to show you were not a fool, even though you admitted you could not. If you meant something else it is your own fault.
And my widdle fweelings are not hurt by you throwing out such stupid statements. it just proves you are not capable of rational discussion.
Damn. Ya got me peep.
But where does Shemp play into all of this? Or is HE the mysterious hunting party?
You said twice on this thread that I had said I knew when life began, which was a deliberate lie on your part. You then cut my quote off to change the meaning.
Do not pretend to lecture me on debate etiquette when you refuse to even admit your own perfidy.
Your views on this and the Jose Medellin thread paint a very clear picture of your position, Chap. You have no idea when life begins, but you are all in favor of killing the innocent and protecting the guilty.
Not surprising that you have to fall back on a “fair debate”, since you have no rebuttal.
Me too
“First off, it’s “Curly Joe” - he’s one fellow, chap.”
Well, if Shemp’s on the other side of them thar trees I give special dispension to open fire. Nothing worse than sitting down to catch some Stooges and getting a Shemp!
You know, in local talk radio if it’s the middle of the night and the host is tired of getting no calls mentioning gun control, homosexuality and/or abortion is a time-tested remedy. Not that that’s why the topic is here - it’s just an old talk-radio fallback from at least the 70s. There just are some things that draw out folks with strong opinions.
Lost in all this very interesting debate is the fact that alaskangrizzly called Rust a “demon puppet”. Wow. Hadn’t heard that one before. Atheling, in her usual calm and rational manner, also jumped on the Rushy-bashing bandwagon and referred to our boy as a “misogynist murderer”. Bet she’s a load of fun at a party. Also, interesting to see emjem lecture my man chap on his joking reference to the TOS, and then she promptly goes TOS on the site bad boy Rob. Quite a thread. BTW emjem, I had no idea that you have a loved one on the military. That’s got to be a pretty rare thing on this board…not like I have two close family members in Iraq.
Wow, I see that a lot has been covered here since 6:30 PM last.
Recognizing the futility of butting into any one conversation so late in the game, I still feel compelled to comment on my ceaseless fascination with the many arguments that have been made on both recent threads regarding abortion and capital punishment:
-Comments made by those who defend life, all the way from a “zygote” to a detestable rapist and destroyer of little, innocent girls.
-Comments made by those who are willing to terminate life for many different reasons…again, from a “zygote” to a detestable rapist and destroyer of little, innocent girls.
-Comments excruciatingly made by those who are willing to terminate life in the womb for many different reasons, but who feel compelled to defend those who face capital punishment, even after an arduous trail of due process and appeal.
-Comments, IMHO, thoughtfully made by those who defend innocent life in the womb, but who cannot extend the same privilege to those found guilty, rightfully or wrongly, of some of the most heinous crimes heaped upon society.
-Comments prematurely ejaculated by pimply-faced, high-voiced agitators like Rob and Steve456, from behind their Charles Atlas Excercise Manuals and Ho-Ho wrappers. (By the way Steve456, I thought that I can get emotional on a thread or two…but you are one creepy dude, dude. If I was Andy Dufresne, I wouldn’t want to bump into you and the “sisters” at Shawshank.)
Perhaps the strongest reflection I impart with, after reading y’all tonight, is something equidistant between free will and the knawing awareness of something greater than myself. I can’t help thinking that this entire ball of wax is something akin to an open book, final exam:
-Some of us choose to transcribe the entire open book onto the test paper, for fear that anything less than perfect adherence isn’t passable.
-Some of us complete our test answers by interpreting the book to the best of our abilities, but mostly relying on our better judgements.
-Some of us reject the book outright, feeling that we alone have all the right answers.
Give the textbook any cover you want, and pick the exam method that you are most comfortable with. But be honest. Before you fall asleep…you know you’re thinking about that report card that will eventually be showing up in your mailbox someday.
Steve456 said:
Zzzzzzing! Hey Stevie, you better get your Chuck Norris-rest. You never know if you might be called upon to drop a patented can of “Steverino Whoop-ass” tomorrow on some of those Sisters of Perpetual Mercy, who pray for the little souls outside your clinic’s doors.
Tell me, big boy, do you prefer pulling their habits down over their heads before giving them the business, or do you just prefer “breaking ‘em in two, with a smile on your face?”
Why is it, that when a newspaper or magazine or such, decideds to talk about an anti-infanticide group, they ALWAYS, without fail, use the word “rabid” as a way of telling their readers about the tenacity…oh who are we kidding…to describe period, the groups in general? Is this the mandatory way for all anti-infanticide groups to e talked about?
Wait, wait, wait, wait just a second here. Now, how can this be? Is it not the contention of all pro-infanticide groups everywhere that Roe v. Wade rid the country of just such a place? After all, is it not their argument that should Roe v. Wade be overturned, that just such places will sprout up all over the land? Women forced to dress in long overcoats, hats pulled down over their faces in shame, slinking down a dark alley, in the rain, (both ways) to some “back-alley Abortion Clinic” that is “
cont.
performing “unlicensed or unsafe abortions”
Wow…now how can this be? How can there be such places in this country, in this day and age?
On August 6th, 2008 at 8:51 pm, chapoutier said:
How so? In what way was Papa attempting to “divert attention from the real issue,” which is that abortion is murder? And just how is he selecting the pro-abortionists’ “weakest argument” to focus on, by making an analogy between the harvesting of human embryos for profit/convenience and abortion’s lack of respect for life?
StanW:
As evidenced by this comment…
…you aren’t even reading what I write. Why on Earth would I “debate” someone that won’t even read what I am writing?
All:
Ref. stem cell research: Whilst there may have been more success with adult stem cells in treating certain types of illness; only embryonic stem cells have the potential to (for example) re-grow an arm for an amputee. Embryonic stem cells are the most plastic, and the adult stem cell “alternatives” involve trying to get the adult cell to de-differentiate (as chap said in #158). So, then, why isn’t the de-differentiated adult cell now a living human being?
Ref.: the gray area of where life begins. I am certain it is not before any semblance of a CNS is formed.
emjem24:
I am on the side of saving lives by pioneering research.
Purplepeep:
You left out the following in your analogy: by shooting, Curly Joe could stumble onto a method to re-grow severed limbs, provide a way to replace organs, and possibly extend human life expectancy to unheard levels.
Equivocation, again.
BrianNY:
Was that me? *smile*
DBNinKY:
It is strawman because my argument is not that murder is OK for whatever reason. It is that it is not murder.
He’s not creepy, Brian. He’s just some 12 year old whose two mommies dont know he’s using the internet. This is the kind of thing he posts about:
He’s never added anything of worth here, or engaged anyone on anything more cerebral than what i quoted.
You couldnt break wind without serious strain, Steve. You can stop pretending to be an internet hard@ss anytime.
That’d work - if he was taking pictures of the women. He wasn’t.
And just because something’s legal, it doesn’t make it right. Abortion is never right and should never be a “choice”.
There is tremendous benefit. First and foremost - if you’re going to argue women have a “right” to abortion, they have a right to know if the clinic they are visiting engages in unethical practices.
Would you go to a medical facility that engaged in unethical practices?
But, once again, you prove that nothing - not even the health and safety of women - can stand in the way of “choice”.
I find it sickening that most of the advocates for abortion here are men. Every single man here who defends abortion is aiding not only in the dehumanization of children, but the objectification of women. Naturally, the fact you benefit from abortion by being able to have sex without consequence (and hey, who cares of my girlfriend suffers after an abortion? I’m being such a cool, sensitive guy for defending her right to choose).
Way to be progressive, fellas.
And if we have to destroy lives in the process - meh, what’s the big deal.
Major injuries like amputation are terrible. But to destroy another human being to treat the problem is inexcusable. This, in my opinion, is no different than China - where they harvest organs from executed prisoners.
I mean, if “pioneering medical research” is so important, let’s round up other undesireables (like the homeless, or the disabled) and off them too. We can use their body parts for being progressive in the field of science.
I was waiting for someone to accuse pro-lifers of being anti-science.
StanW,
By using the word “killing” as as in “killing innocent life” you are presuming that life actually exists at that point. How is that not clear?
And DBNinKY, “strawman” at least as it is commonly used means distorting or misstating an opponent’s position so as to make it absurd and easily refutable. Which is what we have when we go from this:
to this:
Sorry, Mr. C, but I still believe Papa was making a valid analogy; extreme contrasts and examples, though shocking are winners at getting people to think about the central issue.
Question to those professed Christians on the board who are just fine with abortion, on the grounds that the critical point where “life begins” is subjective and open to debate: When does the soul enter the body? Does it enter when the brain is fully formed, and the CNS and associated ganglia are all in-place, or when the heart begins its first beat?
I mean you obviously believe there is a soul, else you wouldn’t claim to be adherents to a religion built around the concept of souls and eternal life, so please, humor us benighted pro-lifers: tell us when you believe the soul enters the body and where it is supposedly located.
This is the last time I will make my position clear to you, Chap. If this does not do it and you continue to lie about my position, then you can argue continue to argue with yourself, as you are so fond of doing here.
I. DO. NOT. KNOW. WHEN. LIFE. BEGINS!!!!! And since I do not know, I err of the side of life and consider that innocent to be life. A fetus at 8 weeks may be a human child, possessing heart, soul, and a moral fiber, or it may not. I DON’T KNOW FOR SURE!
You, on the other had, do not know when life begins either. Yet you and Zero find it acceptable to kill that life.
Since I have answered your question for the fourth time, and to see if you are truly interested in debate, please answer this question for me.
Suppose there was no objective method for determining when a person was dead. I took the position that we sould wait to bury them until rigor or putrification had set in, just to make sure. You, on the other had, said “Dead is dead!” and would bury people when the stopped breathing and their hearts stopped. And then let’s say 20 years later, we found out that all the people I buried were dead afterall, but part of the people you buried were actually still alive and struggled to get out of their tomb. Would you rethink your position on what “Dead” means, faced with such evidence?