Hard News: Swine flu, terror and Susan Boyle
613 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 11 12 13 14 15 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
Kyle:
It just feels as though (from my personal perspective) that the murder of Tiller reflects on all of us.
I mean I am pro-life, I disagree with abortion, euthanasia, research that destroys human embryos, the death penalty etc. Basically I believe that no one should take another's life except in self-defence. I hate war, even wars that needed to be fought such as World War II, I'm against the use of many weapons, eg, nuclear, cluster bombs, mines, chemical weapons, depleted uranium etc.
Yet here comes Scott Roeder and his actions reflect on me because we held the same belief - George Tiller killed vulnerable human beings for a living.
I guess I just want to distance the actions of those who would do violence.
-
The vast majority of pro-life protests are legal and non-violent.
The term is "anti-abortion" not "pro-life". Everyone is pro-life, but some people are anti-abortion.
-
Dyan, the terms are framed by either side in pretty similar ways. Pro-choice, etc, etc.
-
I use the term pro-life because it covers more than just being anti-abortion, as I said above I'm against all killing except in self-defence and in certain cases, war.
Also I I'm pro-life from the very beginning of human life, until it's very end, but if you want to narrow me down to only being anti-abortion that's your call. But I', also anti-death penalty and anti-euthanasia and so on.
-
The man who murdered Tiller wasn't acting as part of a group as far as we know.
I wouldn't be surprised if Scott Roeder has some kind of link to the domestic terrorist group Army of god.**Warning** - I've linked to this website as the Army of god website is graphic.
Here is a link to Dr. Speckhard who continues to study abortion clinic terrorism in the United States.
-
The Army of God definitely gets the terrorism label and whilst they are anti-abortion, they are definitely not pro-life by definition.
And yes, The Army of God website is very graphic. I do have mixed feelings about photos and footage of aborted fetuses though. Part of me thinks, well yes, this is what an abortion is. OTOH it is disrespectful to the baby, its body deserves respect and not to be plastered all over the internet.
I definitely disagree with publically displaying these images. I would hate for my children to see them. It's just not appropriate to publically display them.
-
Also I I'm pro-life from the very beginning of human life
So am I, but an embryo or feotus is not yet a human being, so abortion is not "killing a human being", it's killing a collection of cells that have formed inside a human being..
As embryologist Lewis Wolpert points out in his new book about life How We Live and Why We Die an embryo or foetus is not actually a baby until it can survive outside its mother's body, with minimal technical support.
But I agree with you about the death penalty -
mainly because it's morally repugnant, but also partly because it's hard to get juries to convict when there is a death penalty, and partly because the death penalty is so incredibly expensive in a democracy.I an provisionally pro-euthanasia, but having worked with terminally ill people I don't think legal euthanasia until that very end stage is a good idea. It became apparent to me the motivation for euthanasia is rarely to avoid pain but usually to avoid being a burden on family. Sometimes that sense of being a burden is simply having them witness the dying person's suffering. But what I realised is that even when a dying person is suffering physically, they still wish to cling to life. Of all the people I knew who were dying, not one wanted to die because of their physical suffering.
Adequate hospice facilities and unlimited (to the point of euthanasia really) pain relief at the very end stage are better options than legal euthanasia at the very diagnosis of a terminal illness.
The danger with legal euthanasia is that many people will make their family members their priority, rather than themselves.
-
I definitely disagree with publically displaying these images. I would hate for my children to see them. It's just not appropriate to publically display them.
Me too. The whole website should be shutdown, the army of god manual is a damaging document that could be interpreted by someone with strong views as sanctioning any group or individual to perform any action, including killing or murder (whatever people want to call it).
-
Shticking my oar in...
...stop with your last wordism.
possibly the latest thing in Omegalomania ?
yrs
Alpha MayallPS: Rusty, what is the "time out window" duration when posting comments?
I'd just spent some time on a finely crafted, honed down and eloquent treatise - chapter and verse, acts and all - on what Murder is and what Juries do in regard the standing laws - with virtually none of my usual glib, or attention seeking, play on words shtick - and when I Posted it I was whisked to a page that said that Chad's PA Blog no longer exists, and my words had all evaporated, talk about adding insult to injury - sob! : )So as a last attempt at constructive contribution
the following site has an interesting take on what possible defences the "alleged vigilante" could raise not many if any -
this is right on the money shoot so far as i can see (beyond my own spunk) http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/
WHO will take up the larger forceps? -
So am I, but an embryo or feotus is not yet a human being, so abortion is not "killing a human being", it's killing a collection of cells that have formed inside a human being.
I disagree with you. I think we are ourselves since conception since that is when our unique self came into being. I mean really I'm still just a bunch of cells, I don't think my location (ie. outside my own mother) or abilities make any difference to my uniqueness or my humanity.
Out of interest, at what week of pregnancy would you not allow an abortion? Because after 30 weeks baby is very viable.
But I agree with you about euthanasia. I too have worked with dying people - the elderly with dementia as a nurse aid. I fear that euthanasia would be a way to allay the family's sufferings rather than the elderly person.
I also agree about plenty of pain relief, even if it shortens life is fine by me. I'd like to see more resources given to hospice care rather than euthanasia.
The danger with legal euthanasia is that many people will make their family members their priority, rather than themselves.
I completely agree.
-
Daylight Rubbery or Moider moist towel?
"may the forceps be with you"...but then where are the Latex Intolerant condom manufacturerer murderers and who will Kull the Barbaric Onanists?
yrs
Rubber E HowardPS Thanks Steve I'm saving as I go now
Dumpty doo dumpty day -
Sorry, me again. I intend the following in good non-troll-like faith.
I took the liberty of emailing the New York Times editor regarding their style guide and our little debate of killing versus murder.
Here is what he said:
Hello Mr. Paiste*,
The Times stylebook has this to say:
murder, homicide, killing. Reserve murder for a crime that has been so labeled by the authorities in a warrant, a charge or a conviction. A murder is the killing of one person by one or more others under conditions specified by law — in a vicious manner, for example, or during another crime. A homicide is any killing of one person by another, but killing is the simpler word: preferably use it until a legal finding has been made. Someone arrested in a death is not a murder suspect unless murder charges have been filed.
In articles about crime statistics, murder rate is an acceptable informal reference. But when counting actual deaths, use homicides. The homicide rate is a ratio of killings to population: The national homicide rate rose to 55 per 100,000 population, from 52; The city had a homicide rate of 1 per 1,350 residents.
Hope that helps.
Best,
Daniel
nytimes.com
So, somewhat helpful.
Reserve murder for a crime that has been so labeled by the authorities in a warrant, a charge or a conviction.
A warrant, charge or conviction are quite different beasts. An inauspicious start...
A murder is the killing of one person by one or more others under conditions specified by law — in a vicious manner, for example, or during another crime.
No we're getting warm.
A homicide is any killing of one person by another, but killing is the simpler word: preferably use it until a legal finding has been made.
Boom-sha-ka-la-ka-la-ka. Blop, blop! Brrrrr-ba-da-boosh.
Someone arrested in a death is not a murder suspect unless murder charges have been filed.
There is I/S's point connected, as I argued earlier, logically to the preceding point.
So, there you have it from the best newspaper on earth, while it still exists.
Oh yeah: did I mention kiss my ass?
*Ok, it said my actual name.
-
Congratulations, you have proved that Public Address is not the New York Times. Bated breath, etc.
-
Dumpty doo dumpty day
Boom-sha-ka-la-ka-la-ka. Blop, blop! Brrrrr-ba-da-boosh.
Suddenly everyone's channeling Susan Boyle.
-
What would those Brits know, eh?
-
''whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child."
have we already slid past what we believe in relation to that statement or what?
-
"whatever force is legitimate to defend the life of a born child is legitimate to defend the life of an unborn child."
have we already slid past what we believe in relation to this statement or what? -
There seems to be a rash of semantic silliness here lately aimed at obscuring some people's true motivations.
I believe most reasonable New Zealanders would say murder is intentional killing by someone who is not exceptionally authorised to do so in certain circumstances - ie: military, some police, etc. That is all. It is not about what degree of legal culpability they face or whether they've been charged or convicted or fingerprinted or whatever.
This guy deliberately shot and killed another person in front of a group of witnesses, in a context where the motivation is clear and documented. Seems bugger all point getting all picky over what the eventual legal finding is going to be. Unless you're trying to avoid saying just why it concerns you so much, of course. Feel free to do that any time.
-
…its got to do with continually challenging the information we get, what we read hear and see.
Is there a problem with that?Not at all. It just seems to me that a lot of your challenging involves you being a dickhead unnecessarily - especially when responding to Russell.
how does it need "acknowledging"?
it needs to be rememberedand yeah, it was poorly worded,
I just think it’s so obvious (hence the ‘you must think he’s dense’ angle). But if you’re saying it was something that someone arguing a point like Brickley's needs to keep in mind, then fair enough. But the way you worded it did look like you were more interested in having a dig at Russell than clarifying anything for Brickley. But at least you acknowledge it was poorly worded, so I’ll leave it there.
-
-
"Omegalomania'
Nice! -
Seemed as good a time as any.
-
Brickley, I offer this by way of rebuttal.
-
Reserve murder for a crime that has been so labeled by the authorities in a warrant, a charge or a conviction.
George Tiller gets shot on Sunday - US local time.
The Guardian article dated the day after - Monday 1st June, 9.29AM London time - reads as follows:
Russell's blog post was posted at 10.49 AM NZ local time Tuesday (around 11.49PM Monday London time - 14 hours after the Guardian article was published).
So, when Russell posted, it was already in the news that the guy had been charged.
Which, according to your own NYT style guide, would make the use of the word 'murder' perfectly acceptable usage.
Now, this really is getting boring, and you don't actually seem to be making any sort of relevant point. so please drop it.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.