Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Ann Coulter

49 Million to Five
by Ann Coulter

In the wake of the shooting of late-term abortionist George Tiller, President Barack Obama sent out a welcome message that this nation would not tolerate attacks on pro-lifers or any other Americans because of their religion or beliefs.Ha ha! Just kidding. That was the lead sentence -- with minor edits -- of a New York Times editorial warning about theoretical hate crimes against Muslims published eight months after 9/11. Can pro-lifers get a hate crimes bill passed and oceans of ink devoted to assuring Americans that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"?For years, we've had to hear about the grave threat that Americans might overreact to a terrorist attack committed by 19 Muslims shouting "Allahu akbar" as they flew commercial jets into American skyscrapers. That would be the equivalent of 19 pro-lifers shouting "Abortion kills a beating heart!" as they gunned down thousands of innocent citizens in Wichita, Kan.
Why aren't liberals rushing to assure us this time that "most pro-lifers are peaceful"? Unlike Muslims, pro-lifers actually are peaceful.According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion -- which is consistent with liberals' hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let's recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I'm fairly certain they've killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number "3,000" keeps popping into my head.So in a country that is more than 50 percent pro-life -- and 80 percent opposed to the late-term abortions of the sort performed by Tiller -- only five abortionists have been killed. And in a country that is less than 0.5 percent Muslim, several dozen Muslims have killed thousands of Americans.But the killing of about one abortionist per decade leads liberals to condemn the entire pro-life movement as "domestic terrorists." At least liberals have finally found some terrorists they'd like to send to Guantanamo.Tiller bragged about performing 60,000 abortions, including abortions of viable babies, able to survive outside the mother's womb. He made millions of dollars performing late-term abortions so gruesome that only two other abortionists -- not a squeamish bunch -- in the entire country would perform them.Kansas law allows late-term abortions only to save the mother's life or to prevent "irreversible physical damage" to the mother. But Tiller was more than happy to kill viable babies, provided the mothers: (1) forked over $5,000; and (2) mentioned "substantial and irreversible conditions," which, in Tiller's view, apparently included not being able to go to concerts or rodeos or being "temporarily depressed" on account of their pregnancies.In return for blood money from Tiller's profitable abattoir, Democrats ran a political protection racket for the late-term abortionist.In 1997, The Washington Post reported that Tiller attended one of Bill Clinton's White House coffees for major campaign contributors. In addition to a $25,000 donation to Clinton, Tiller wanted to thank him personally for 30 months of U.S. Marshals' protection paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.Kansas Democrats who received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller repeatedly intervened to block any interference with Tiller's abortion mill.Kathleen Sebelius, who was the governor of Kansas until Obama made her Health and Human Services Secretary, received hundreds of thousands of campaign dollars from Tiller. Sebelius vetoed one bill restricting late-term abortions and another one that would have required Tiller to turn over his records pertaining to "substantial and irreversible conditions" justifying his late-term abortions.Kansas Attorney General Paul Morrison also got elected with the help of Tiller's blood money, replacing a Republican attorney general who was in the middle of an investigation of Tiller for various crimes including his failure to report statutory rapes, despite performing abortions on pregnant girls as young as 11.But soon after Morrison replaced the Republican attorney general, the charges against Tiller were reduced and, in short order, he was acquitted of a few misdemeanors. In what is a not uncommon cost of doing business with Democrats, Morrison is now gone, having been forced to resign when his mistress charged him with sexual harassment and corruption.Tiller was protected not only by a praetorian guard of elected Democrats, but also by the protective coloration of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America -- coincidentally, the same church belonged to by Tiller's fellow Wichita executioner, the BTK killer.The official Web page of the ELCA instructs: "A developing life in the womb does not have an absolute right to be born." As long as we're deciding who does and doesn't have an "absolute right to be born," who's to say late-term abortionists have an "absolute right" to live?I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.


Batjacboy said...

"I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists? Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one."

Say what you want about Ann Coulter, but the woman can cut through hypocrisy like a knife, can't she?

Brett said...

What Ann Coulter doesn't get is that being pro-choice is the compromise to the issue. It's the middle ground. Enforcing mandatory abortions is the other side of the coin for "pro-lifers".

The heart of the debate is the issue of when and where life really does begin. Myself? I don't have all the answers but I believe life begins once the child is born and is free of depending on being in the mothers womb. Hence, "BIRTH DAY".

The analogy I use for this making sense to pro-lifers is the process of planting a seed for an apple tree. At what point do you have an apple tree? Once the seed has been planted in the ground? The moment the seed is planted? Or is it when the tree begins to sprout? Does it need to reach a certain height requirement? Or is it truly only an apple tree when it's limbs produce apples?

Make sense at all?

Of course another issue of debate here is that Tiller was performing late term abortions where the possibility of the fetus living was increased. But remember, the late term abortions were rare and more than likely done in order to save the mother's life or extreme cases of incest.

I think people like Bill O'Reilly and Ann Coulter and Glenn Beck have a lot of answering to do for his death. Their extreme rhetoric of calling him a "Nazi like killer" and calling him "Tiller the killer" no doubt incited the extremist who committed the murder.

Bottom line, I wonder what Jesus would think about the things Coulter and O'Reilly said about Tiller. Isn't every man, woman and child on planet earth a child of God despite how they choose to live their life? Even though I don't believe Jesus existed, I don't think he would be happy.

Batjacboy said...

Pro-choice isn't a compromise. It's a cop-out for people who can't make up their minds, and aren't decent enough to give the fetus/baby the benefit of the doubt.

You don't know when life begins (you "believe" it's at birth?), but you'll just allow the killing to continue until you're sure? Ridiculous. If you're not sure, stay out of it. I have no respect for those who say, "I'm not sure, but let the (possible) killing go on, at least until someone convinces ME." At what point did it become about you?

The pro-abortion crowd says, "It's not ever a life, so it's not killing." Unsupportable, but at least consistent. The pro-life crowd says, "It's a living being with human DNA, so it's obviously a living human (what else is it--a chimp?). Therefore to kill it is murder."

The "pro-choice" wishy-washy cop-outs say, "I'm not sure--kill until someone convinces me."

Decency demands that if you're not sure, you err on the side of caution. If you see a baby blanket on the highway with a moving bulge in it, and you're "Not Sure" it's a baby, you gonna run over it, and then pat yourself on the back for not knowing? Since when is your admitted ignorance a justification for anything?

How juvenile for you to say it's a human when it's BORN. So, based on your theory, the law has no right to prosecute a man who stabs a pregnant woman and kills the baby in the womb. But that's the law! Legally, it's homicide. And consider this: One couple has a baby delivered by C-Section at 6
months, and the baby lives, but you're philosophy is go ahead and kill another baby at 7 months if still in the womb and the parents don't want it. Since when do we kill in this country based on where someone lives? Or who wants him? In other words, your time of birth philosophy is beyond ridiculous, since time of birth can range from 22 weeks to 9 1/2 months. "Dependent on the mother's womb?" What about premies? 20 years ago, no baby less than 7 months could survive outside the womb. Now the science has us keeping them alive at 5 1/2 months. So, what, according to YOU, life begins a month and a half earlier now than it did 20 years ago? Man, you really are confused.

The apple seed analogy is kindergarten-level stuff. The apple tree doesn't have human DNA. It's never murder to kill an apple tree. The analogy is just another cop-out. Besides, the minute the seed so much as starts growing, if you interrupt the growth and kill it, it's dead. What part of that don't you get?

You write, "the late term abortions were rare and more than likely done in order to save the mother's life or extreme cases of incest." So your brilliant philosophy is "rare murder" is "OK murder", and any human being who's father and mother are closely related is killable??? I've heard better arguments from junior high-school students. Why should the "rareness" of it make any difference, if you don't think it's wrong? If it's not wrong, why should it need to be "rare"? Simply hypocritical.

Oh, and I'm a surgeon. Please don't waste my (or anybody else's time) with the life of the mother MYTH. Proven to be false by obstetricians. Proven. If the mother's life is in danger, you do a C-section, not an abortion. It's faster, it's safer, and there's less bleeding. Please read a book, and stop regurgitating mindless talking points.

You ask, "Isn't every man, woman and child on planet earth a child of God despite how they choose to live their life?" Good try, Mr. Atheist. The Bible says the "child of God" INCLUDES those in the womb. Nice job shooting yourself in the foot, and making our point for us.

Oh, and it's utterly ridiculous for someone like you who admits he "[doesn't] have all the answers" to claim Ann Coulter "doesn't get" anything. She knows your "pro-choice" crowd is a bunch of compromisers who put their own desires first and the fetus/baby second.

She just has no respect for you.

Brett said...

How is pro-choice not the compromise? If anti abortion is one side of the coin, the flip side is mandatory abortion. Correct? Then the only compromise left is that of pro-choice. Allowing women to make the decision themselves with consultation from their doctor.

Of course I don't know when life begins. It is one of those questions that is likely to be debated until the end of time with no real answer because there are just opinions on it. How can you prove that life begins at conception? Do you also believe that the fetus has all human rights and all laws apply once conceived? Should we then allow future parents to use their pregnancies as a means of a tax write off? What about something as simple as a car pool lane. Can I pregnant mother enter a car pool lane? After all, in your mind, there are two human lives in the car. While these things may be simple minded, your idea that life begins at conception brings much more complexity to our everyday lives and politics in general than you think.

Of course I'm not sure....because I believe when life begins is something that will never be answered for certain. I have my BELIEF of when life begins, which is subject to change with proper scientific evidence, unlike modern day Christians. But I can't really imagine science allowing a fetus to stay within the mothers womb and also exit the birth canal no longer dependent on the Science isn't there yet! So my position on when life begins is completely consistent.

I don't believe the fetus is a fully living human being. By definition, it is not. That is why it is called a fetus. Not a person. I also don't consider abortion murder so your three time stated position of pro-choicers thinking "I don't know so let the murders continue" is off base.

What you seem to not understand is my way of thinking for "PERSONAL TRUTH/BELIEF" and "UNIVERSAL TRUTH/BELIEF". Assuming you are a have to realize that that is a PERSONAL BELIEF. Even though you believe that it is the truth, the light and the way the world is ultimately only YOUR PERSONAL BELIEF. If it was a "UNIVERSAL TRUTH"...that would be that everyone would hold the same universal belief. These are usually things of scientific nature. Things like...gravity, math, language, etc. While I have my own PERSONAL truth of when life begins, as do is not a UNIVERSAL TRUTH held by everyone because it is something that cannot be proven. It is just a matter of opinion. Make sense at all?

Is it really juvenile to say its a human when its born? Your given example that the law would then have no power to prosecute a man if he stabbed a pregnant person is weak minded. Does the law of "Attempted Murder" come to mind? What about "Assault with a deadly weapon"? You cannot leave certain aspects of the law out because you are simply trying to make a weak point. In fact, only 34 states have fetal protection laws. In 2004, Bush signed a law into effect granting fetus' protection against such crimes but only on federal property. Quite the hallow law, isnt it? But it made most pro-lifers such as yourself think that the law protected ALL fetus'.

BRETT said...

How is my time of birth philosophy ridiculous? Yes, a fetus can live from 22 weeks until 9 1/2 months inside a mothers womb (actually closer to 34 weeks because the lungs have not fully developed and being born prior to 34 weeks will results in a life time of difficult health complications), but when the fetus exits the birth canal it results in the time of birth and moment of life. NO MATTER WHEN IT HAPPENS. If science 10 years from now allows a baby to exit the mothers womb and live at 10 weeks....then it is the time of birth and the moment life begins. When the baby is able to exit the birth canal and live. That is the moment life begins. So yes...the moment that life can POSSIBLY begin is now 1.5 months earlier than it was 20 years ago. How great is that? I find that amazing and a huge accomplishment of science. Don't you agree?

My apple seed analogy was meant to be kindergarten-level, which truly is amazing considering you don't understand it. Of course the tree doesn't have human DNA. When did I claim it did? It was a philosophical analogy asking the question of when does a potential "something" become what it is supposed to be.

You never answered my question. When does an apple tree become an apple tree? According to your stance of life beginning at the moment of conception, its an apple tree the second it is planted in the ground. Correct? If you reply, I would love an answer to that question. When is an apple tree become an apple tree?

Yes, late term abortions are rare. They amount to about 2,000 every year of the normal 1,000,000 that are conducted. (HOPING MY MATH IS CORRECT, I AM HORRIBLE AT IT AND REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY UNDERSTANDING OF IT, HAHA) That is a percentage of 0.002%. Would you call that rare? I would.

Of course no murder is okay, but again, I don't consider abortion murder and neither does the law. But it seems as though Ann Coulter is justifying the murder of Dr. Tiller with a score board title. Is his murder okay?'re a surgeon. Wonderful. I am a publicist for Hip Hope label. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? You mean to tell me that NOT ONE abortion has been conducted to save the mothers life? You are calling this a MYTH? It does NOT exist? Really? Are you seriously making a absolute judgement call like that?

What about cases where women contract breast cancer and have to chose between chemo therapy or an abortion? There are also many other instances where this could happen.

Here is an article that easily refutes your claim that the mothers health is a "MYTH":

And can you please cite the biblical passage where it states that children of god includes those in the womb? Could you also explain why on Genesis 2:7 the bible states that God "breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Per that passage, it seems as though the bible states that humans become living beings once they take their first breath. Yes, I am an atheist so I do not know the bible as well as most christians, but I am aware of many contradictory statements in the bible. Can you read Genesis 2:7 in any other way?

Sorry for the disjointed and rather non-flowing response. After all, it is rather late and I've come home from a long 14 hour day. Hopefully this makes sense and allows you and others to finally open up and see some light when it comes to pro-choicers views. Of course our view is a compromise...that is what this whole nation is built on and makes us great.

Batjacboy said...

I’ll respond in order:

1. Pro-choice isn’t THE compromise—it’s just a cop-out for those like you who admit they “aren’t sure” but want to make sure the killing is allowed to continue, instead of showing the character and class necessary to say, “As long as we’re not sure, we WON’T sanction allowing skulls to be crushed and limbs to be torn off for convenience until we’re convinced.”

2. The conflict in this country has always been “Allow abortion” or “Forbid abortion”. It’s never been “Force abortion” so your “compromise” excuse is just a rationalization for a despicable position parading as a middle ground.

3. As my high school biology teacher said, when asked “When does life begin?”: “What a stupid question: the sperm and egg are both alive. It’s never NOT alive, it just doesn’t become a living HUMAN being until fertilization, when the complement of human DNA is present.” In other words, the only way you can rationalize the killing is to redefine “life” however you please to further your agenda. If you think the fetus is not human (“by definition”, as you like to say, Homo Sapiens), you’re ignorant. If you think the fetus is not alive, you’re beyond ignorant, and YOU CANNOT SUPPORT EITHER POSITION MEDICALLY. But for you to convince yourself that the killing’s OK, you just keep redefining “life” and “human” until you feel comfortable killing it. You’re exactly like the pro-slavery Americans in the 19th Century, who rationalized slavery by saying Blacks weren’t quite human enough for human rights.

4. The fetus therefore should have all human rights. Logistically, they’re not going to pass a tax-deduction law, based on the lack of full monetary dependency, or a car pool law, secondary to a lack of easy identification by the CHP, so don’t go there. It makes your argument seem petty. And your it-“brings-much-more-complexity-to-our-everyday-lives” complaint is just another excuse of yours to allow the killing. You might as well have said, “Please let us keep killing so our lives aren't any more complicated.”

5. You write, “I don’t believe the fetus is a fully living human being. By definition, it is not. That is why it is called a fetus.” What an unbelievable worthless argument. Fetus is a STAGE, not a genus/species designation. Fetus leads to Neonate leads to Infant leads to Child leads to Adolescent leads to Adult. They’re stages, but all human (and I noticed you never answered my question, “What is it if it’s not a human being?”). An infant is no less human than an adult, just a different stage. You’re differentiation is a patently dishonest stage-as-distinction where none exists.

Batjacboy said...

6. That whole paragraph on Personal Belief/Universal Belief/Universal Truth is clearly nonsense, since, Truth is not determined by man’s beliefs. You quote science as a source—well that’s ridiculous—science maintained for centuries that the earth was the center of the universe. It was a universal belief—and still flatly wrong. And certain opinions, like yours, are flatly wrong (despite the polling data and the number of people on your side.) Just because 2 people have differing opinions, it doesn’t make them both VALID. At least one of them may be completely wrong, regardless of how strongly held. Even in science. Even in math. (Languages??? Are you kidding??? LOL!!!)

7. (Re: the fetal protection law: we’re in California, so that’s what I’m referring to: California Penal Code § 187(a) says, "Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with malice aforethought." The words "or a fetus" were added by the legislature in 1970. In addition, Penal Code § 190.2(3) makes a defendant eligible for capital punishment if convicted of more than one murder, and the California Supreme Court ruled that fetal homicide is included under this provision as well (People v. Dennis, 1998).

8. I repeat without hesitation that your time of birth philosophy is ridiculous. If premies are born, and survive, far earlier now, it means that your “time of birth = when life begins” varies enormously not only decade-to-decade, but country-to-country. To be consistent, you would have to say “life begins much earlier in America than in Africa, solely because we have better neonatal units.” Laughably ridiculous.

9. Re: the apple tree analogy. It’s worthless for the same reason the “fetus” argument is worthless. “Apple tree” is the adult Malus Pumila. It’s a layman’s term for an advanced stage, as “adult” is for Homo Sapiens. Would you ask the question “When does an adult become an adult?” Well, maybe you would, if you wanted to kill an earlier stage.

10. You did some really fancy math to show that rare killing is indeed rare. That’s the difference between you and us: You think “rare” makes it OK; we think killing makes it despicable. Even once.

11. Why do you atheists always misquote the Bible? Is it that you’re all dishonest? You quote Genesis 2:7 in a discussion about when fetal life begins???? You must be joking--Genesis 2:7 refers to ADAM. If you’d actually read the previous verse properly/responsibly/honestly, you would have realized ADAM WAS NEVER IN A WOMB. Pathetic.

If you’d like a verse that applies, try (just for starters) Jeremias 1:5: Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee: and before thou camest forth out of the womb, I sanctified thee, and made thee a prophet unto the nations.

12. Lastly, you’ve shown your true colors, be they ignorant or dishonest, by quoting a website UNDERWRITTEN by the pro-abortion National Organization for Women to support, surprise surprise, partial-birth abortion. No bias there, right? Totally dishonest of you to quote such a site in a medical discussion. How about real articles in real scientific journals, like (off the top of my head) Calhoun’s study out of Tacoma, which flatly refutes the ridiculous assertion in your non-scientific article about having to kill a fetus with chromosomal abnormalities? That’s why I mentioned I was a surgeon—because medical school and scientific journals provide the science to refute worthless information that Hip Hope label publicists get off pro-abortion websites and then dishonestly try to pass off as real science (never occurred to you their “scientific experts” were 3 women who had abortions?). Having a “good reason” to kill doesn’t change the fact that it’s still killing.

Summary: Pro-choice is a cop-out based on a desire to kill for convenience, using dishonest rationalizations to redefine “life”, “human”, human stages, etc., to support a despicable agenda. It’s not supportable, it’s not philosophy, it’s not logic—it’s just killing with the names changed to protect the guilty.

Related Posts with Thumbnails