musik_knut wrote: 
First of all, let's be clear, no one likes abortion. I know women who have had abortions, and I can assure you, they thought long and hard about their decision.

There are all kinds of reasons that women have abortions, and often it is because they are single, live in poverty, have no health care or birth control available to them, are abused and/or subjugated by men. Dr. Tiller's patients often had extraordinary circumstances for their decisions. He believed that they had a right to make their decisions about their own bodies. Would you like to be forced to have a vasectomy for example?

Where have you been the last 9 years while our men and women have been killed in Iraq for an unnecessary war? Where have you been while hundreds of thousands of innocent people, men, women, children, have died because of our occupations in the Middle East? What do you say about that destruction? Have you been out protesting against that kind of killing?

Killing is killing. Do you condemn the death of an embryo more than the killing of living, breathing humans? Children who have not had a chance to live their lives either? Men and women who leave their families missing them?

If you can't support abortion, but you support war, then you are a hypocrite.

i'm without

 manbirdexperiment wrote:
 
I don't know any of you weirdos.

 samiyam wrote: 
I'm with coaxial

 dionysius wrote: 
I'm with Islander and you on this... 

 islander wrote: 

 Well-said.

 zipper wrote: 

music_knutwrote:
I'm open to being wrong here, but this reads to me like it was a tit for tat kind of thing. His statement of "killed more human beings than his killer did" makes it look like he thinks it is justified. He does say it was wrong, then immediately qualifies it with "so was Dr. Tiller".  Nowhere has he acknowledged that Tiller was acting within the bounds of the law. That point to me is a huge difference between some one performing an unfortunate medical procedure that no one really wants to see but our larger society has recognized as occasionally necessary, and some one hunting down and killing (in a freaking church no less) some one who they have a fundamental disagreement with.

Edit: I'd love to see MK clarify his points here. But as it stands it looks to me and a lot of others like he believes that murdering people who perform abortions is wrong, but an acceptable alternative to them continuing to perform abortions.

 islander wrote: 
I don't read said willingness in his posts. Can you point it out?

 musik_knut wrote: 
I don't think anyone question your adherence to proper handling procedures. I think the concern was your willingness to accept acts of violence up to and including murder against some one who is acting within the bounds of the law just because you disagree with them on a principle.  This is not really the right thread for this, but your aggressiveness on the abortion issue coupled with your access to lethal toxins and the casual dismissal of a patently illegal act was the eyebrow raiser.

 arighter2 wrote: 

ari...
I don't have access to anthrax. Thanks for being misinformed. I don't work with anthrax, never have. And I take my work seriously with all safeguards at the forefront of my research. *hint: I toil with Clostridium botulinum*  Again, you made a very pointed assumption that would suggest sloppiness or indifference on my part. I can not afford that approach, not for my personal safety or that of my coworkers.  I fully know and appreciate what a number of biological agents can do, the havoc they wreak on living organisms.  I did say the shooter at the Museum was wrong. Ok, I condemn that wanton act of violence. Feel better? And I will continue to condemn the act of abortion which can not fairly be said to be a procedure predominately performed due to the mother's health or in case of impregnation by rape or incest. It can not be fairly stated that the vast majority of abortions fall into any of those three reasons. That fact will lead me to repeatedly comdenm abortion which is more often a form of birth control. It would be refreshing if the other side on this issue would offer more than lip service: we must reduce abortions. And then throw up every roadblock they can muster in defense of the status on abortions in this country, now pegged at some 49 MILLION. I hear NO CONDEMNATION from the other side on that wanton destruction of human life, often for convenience sake, only.
Some of us do believe in the sanctity of life, a shock for certain to some on the other side. And for such beliefs, one I am totally comfortable with, I'm full of shit?
mk

 arighter2 wrote: 
Really!  Thank you!

 musik_knut wrote: 
mk,

If your previous ten posts are indicative of  your "respect"  for the rule of law, the thought of you at Fort Detrick, with access to stuff like anthrax, scares the hell out of me. Please explain yourself a little better, maybe even bothering  to condemn the shooting at the Holocaust Memorial.

 hippiechick wrote: 

hc,
If your notion of civil discourse leads to stating I'm full of shit, you have no idea what civil discourse is.

with regards,
mk

 hippiechick wrote: 

hc,
That's more than fair and I appreciate your thoughts. I do believe Ricci should be heavily visited during her hearings. And in the end, she will be promoted to our highest court.  But in Ricci, she owes something approaching a legal explanation, something she did not do when she enjoined the decision. A Justice should at a minimum, tell The People, how he/she reasoned a decision and on what basis. In Ricci, the only basis one can discern is that of reverse discrimination. Is this a case of a Liberal jurist not caring about whom is being discriminated against as long as their gender and race are non-white? Any utterances from Judge Sotomayor on opposition to discrimination would be laughable.

mk

 musik_knut wrote: 
Sorry I think you're full of shit. I have argued my points about abortion and I am not ging to do it again. Feel free to believe whatever you would like to believe.

One of the quotes from Dr. Tiller was to the effect that he believes that women know more about their own bodies and themselves and that they should do what is best for themselves. I agree with this.

 hippiechick wrote: 

Well, that would explain recent polls showing a tilt against abortion in the minds of the American public. Perhaps the endless expanison of abortion rights under Roe, is changing minds? I support a woman's right to abort in the case of her health, rape or incest. It is YOUR SIDE which refuses to seek common ground, ground based on sanity and reason, other than some 'clause' discerned in The Constitution which yields an unenumerated 'right' to women to commit infanticide. It is your side that tap dances like mad, around the terms in use: it's a thing, a lifeform, no, it's not a lifeform...sorry, but genetic analyis would show that of the 49 MILLION abortions performed to date, all were on homo sapiens. Not tadpoles, not 3 pound sacks of sugar. Human beings...

The information? From someone who toils, you think, for Planned Parenthood? Shaky and weak, at best. Of course, in fariness, stories that Dr. Tiller 'aborted' children outside the womb, are equally shaky and weak. Dr. Tiller kept a tight grip on a money making enterprise. What we do know, from Dr. Tiller himself, were his thoughts on late term abortions. *and, BONUS TIME, the expressed thoughts, by Legislative Vote, on late term in the mind of Mr. Obama*

You do have radicals on your side in this issue...those on my side kill with bullets, those on your side with surgical instruments.

 musik_knut wrote: 
I actually disagree with the decision, but I also feel that this should be the deciding factor in her appointment. Since I believe in Obama's decisions, I also believe in his appointments.

 arsenault wrote: 
Then they are left wing nuts and are just as dangerous.

Who are these people that you are referring to, anyway?

 hippiechick wrote: 

hc,
Fine. I accept your inability to discuss, in this case, the next US Supreme Court Justice and her decision in Ricci. I can take away two things: you support legislation from the judiciary and, you support reverse discrimination.


mk

 hippiechick wrote: 
yes on all three.....edit. i would say the last one 'if the blacks or jews owned property or corporate interests..or were financiers' or had jobs..