A Kansas man, Scott Roeder, has been arrested for the murder of Dr. George Tiller (left), 67, who was shot while serving as an usher at his Wichita church Sunday morning. Tiller was one of the few U.S. doctors performing late-term abortions in the country and had previously survived a 1993 shooting outside of his clinic when he was shot in both arms. I discussed this case on this segment of Rachel Maddow Show.
Tiller died Sunday morning in the foyer of Reformation Lutheran Church, where he served as an usher. Witnesses were able to identify the gunman’s car and give police its license plate.
Tiller practiced for 40 years and was the target of fierce criticism and anger. This anger was fueled by commentators like Bill O’Reilly who repeatedly attacked Tiller by name as guilty of “Nazi stuff” and described him as “Tiller the Baby Killer.” For a description of the Fox statements about Tiller, click here.
He is only the latest victim of such an attack. In 1998, Dr. Barnett Slepian was killed by a sniper in his Amherst, New York, home.
In 1994, Dr. John Bayard Britton and a volunteer escort were shot and killed outside an abortion clinic in Pensacola, Florida.
In 1993, Dr. David Gunn, was shot to death outside his Pensacola clinic.
Eric Rudolph also attacked clinics, maimed a nurse, and killed an off-duty police in a spasm of violence in 1998. ,
For the full story, click here.
Re: what to do, Mike A has an excellent start on the problem. We have a template for countering the violence and intimidation and it should be used. I was stunned by the irony of two terrorist attacks happening so closely and being treated so differently: Tillers murder is left in local hands but the attack on the military recruiters is deemed a terrorist act and the full weight of the Federal system will be brought to bear. It really is a matter as simple as adding names to a list.
Also, a right is only relevant if you have access. I acknowledges earlier that I appreciate terrorism as being effective and regarding the ability to receive an abortion, the terrorism of the far-right over the last 30 years has worked to shut down clinics and drive doctors out of the field.
35, not quite 40 years ago a friend asked me where she could get an abortion. I didn’t know but I knew somebody that did and as it turned out the only place in Missouri was across the State in Kansas City. It was legal but it was totally cloak and dagger to get the initial authorization and be told where the ‘clinic’ was. No real names, no face to face, a deposit by check sent to a PO box, directions and address of clinic after the good-faith was put up. I was amazed and horrified at how it was done.
Well here it is 35 years later and there is now 1 clinic in Missouri in Kansas City. There are clinics in surrounding states that women also have access to but really, unless you live close to a big city, it’s a multi hour drive and maybe a 1 night stay-over at a motel. That’s ludicrous for a legal, safe medical procedure. There were more but the daily picketing and harassment coupled with the proliferation of restrictive and harassing State laws (Things like: it must be clearly marked as an abortion facility- right, lets paint a bulls-eye on the door.) have driven all but two out of business.
My GP at one time had his offices in a medical building wherein abortions were provided. It was a multi-use commercial building. I walked around protesters to visit him. He moved because his patients complained about the hassle of having to deal with them. This was when there wasn’t a 50 foot rule and you had to step around them at the front door.
There needs to be encouragement, even if that means Federal tax breaks and other customary incentives like insurance subsidies and tax incentives to cities, for facilities to open or be built. Whatever the Federal government can do to mitigate the damage increasinglt restrictive State laws need to be done. These facilities need to be as ubiquitous as any other medical facility.
GWLawSchoolMom,
I’m not trying to be smart, but you’re not getting it. (at least, not with your FAA hypothetical). If adults could go without oxygen for 30 seconds, but children could only go without for 10 seconds…they would tell you to put the mask on the child first. –It’s about saving the most lives…not the one that you determine to be the most important.
Jim you wrote:
Should only women capable of bearing children have a voice? i.e. -Infertile…keep quiet.
Me: yes. the decision to terminate a pregnancy belongs exclusively to the woman. It is a private medical choice she makes with her doctor and as such remains privileged conversation. she should not have to consult anyone else unless she chooses to do so.
Jim: At what stage…prior to birth…should society protect the unborn? Or should society stay out of it completely? If at 40 weeks, her husband leaves her, should she be able to go in and have an abortion?
Me: never. society has no role.
if a woman’s husband leaves her at 40 weeks chances are her water has already broken or will within minutes and you will never find a doctor who will terminate a 3rd trimester pregnancy unless there is severe deformation or unless the woman’s life is in jeopardy. It is nearly impossible to get a 2nd trimester abortion on demand.
Jim: My voice helps to shape the future of our society. -Remember..it takes a village. Your premise would lead me to think that you believe that only women should provide moral guidance to our female youth (yoots -for our NY audience). I would have to disagree.
Me: so how many unwanted children, special needs kids, have you adopted?
Slartibartfast,
“would you agree that a man doesn’t have an equal role in creating a child?”
No. The role is equal (using my definition of creation).
——
Using your premise, let’s narrow this down a little further:
Should only women capable of bearing children have a voice? i.e. -Infertile…keep quiet.
At what stage…prior to birth…should society protect the unborn? Or should society stay out of it completely? If at 40 weeks, her husband leaves her, should she be able to go in and have an abortion?
My voice helps to shape the future of our society. -Remember..it takes a village. Your premise would lead me to think that you believe that only women should provide moral guidance to our female youth (yoots -for our NY audience). I would have to disagree.
Jim writes: The reasoning behind having you put on the mask first has nothing to do with being selfish or self-centered. It has to do with having the capacity to help others. If you pass out, due to a lack of oxygen, while trying to assist others first; both you and they will likely perish.
Me: my point exactly. my life comes first. after I defined how I wanted to live and what that life should be like my decision to bring pregnancy to term or not was a personal choice. just like the FAA guy says.
FFLEO, I really enjoyed your post. Your comments regarding the beginning of human life cut to the core of the conflict in my opinion. The difficulty is that there is not a consensus as to when the law should recognize life as “human.” This is a matter of public policy and involves considerations beyond the scientific, including theological, social and economic issues. That debate has been hampered rather than helped by the Roe v. Wade decision.
I did a great deal of historical research on the issue when writing a law review case note on the district court (federal trial court) decision in 1970. I was struck by the interplay of science and religion, among other things, in the historical treatment of abortion. For example, abortion prior to discernible fetal movement in the womb was not subject to criminal prosecution under the common law, but the rationale had nothing to do with privacy. First, until the advent of more modern medicine, it was extremely difficult for a prosecutor to present proof of fetal life prior to “quickening.” Moreover, the law was intertwined with the old Aristotelian notion of ensoulment, that movement in the womb meant that God had infused the fetus with a human soul. Prior to that point, of course, there could not be the taking of a human life.
In addition, I concluded that viability was an artificial threshold and noted that continuing improvements in medical technology meant that viability would gradually be reached much earlier in the term, thereby creating an arbitrary and unstable timeline for determining when the state’s interest in protecting the right to life begins to outweigh a woman’s right of privacy.
Despite the court’s intentions, Roe v. Wade created a pool of legal quicksand from which we have been unable to extricate ourselves for almost forty years.
JB,
You “adequately answered” my question in the sense that you defended your point of view, although not in the sense of convincing me. If I change the terminology in your answer a bit, would you agree that a man doesn’t have an equal role in creating a child? (I think that this more accurately represents the required roles of the mother and father.) Thus, from your premises, I still don’t think that the man deserves an equal say in the matter (perhaps he has the right to be consulted, but this feels like a slippery slope to me so I’ll defer to any of the ladies here if they care to weigh in). Additionally, as I man I have certainly found it to be the case that sperm is happily donated in an effort to relieve biological pressure without any other obligation being requested. You are saying that if a woman has sex that it obligates her to bear any fetus that results (birth control is irrelevant here as no form is 100% effective) which seems to be totally out of balance with a man’s obligation. From my point of view the choice (and since modern medicine has made abortion a minor medical procedure someone is making a choice) cannot reasonably be given to anyone but the woman concerned (who is more entitled to that choice than her?).
FFLEO,
Thank you for the brief biology lesson. I reconcile my personal hypocrisy (pro-choice and anti-death penalty) by arguing that I don’t have the right (and by extension no one but the mother has the right) to make that decision for a pregnant woman. (Besides, as Emerson once said, “Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds.” ;-)) While I admit that this is ducking the issue somewhat, I don’t believe that I have the moral or legal authority to impose my will on someone else. I think that this view is more intellectually honest than the pro-life, pro-death penalty crowd (I guess I can’t compete with your pro-choice, pro-death penalty stance though…) and I think those that use violence to deprive other people of their legal rights is despicable, but I still would oppose the death penalty for Dr. Tiller’s murderer.
Personally I like being here and I for one am glad my mother chose to keep me. It’s good to be alive and experience all the wonderful things life has to offer.
Thanks Mom.
It’s too bad that 30 million other babies did not have an opportunity for life.
I don’t observe that Pro-life appreciate subtleties and distinctions between women and their reasons for needing abortions. They just stand outside of clinics calling all the patients “murderers”.
So I won’t sort them out individually either.
FFLEO,
Well stated. You’re a far better wordsmith than I.
I disagree with your determination of when life begins. I know it takes about 24 hours from the time the sperm penetrates the ovum before those chromosomes become one with those of the egg.
(Hence, my previous statment in acceptance of timely use of an emergency contraceptive.)
I think we must assume that the blastocyst will attach/be implanted on the uterine wall, as that is its natural path. An alternate assumption would conclude that every driver on the highway must be dead, because they might not make the next turn.
(I am assuming that most fertilized eggs do implant.)
Slartibartfast,
“Thus by your own logic aren’t you unqualified to have an opinion on the issue of abortion, since your skills are for hunting and killing things rather than gathering nuts and berries and carrying a fetus to term?”
Does a man not have an equal say, when he has an equal role in creating life? If pregnancy occurred without a man playing any role; I think you would have a much stronger argument.
The man was invited IN (pun intended), before the life in question was created. Had the union not taken place, the issue would be moot. Keep your body (or, at least, parts of it) to yourself, and the issue remains moot.
I hope I adequately answered your question. -If a woman wanted to have a boob job, or donate a kidney, or have her tongue pierced…I’d stay out of it. As long as the decision does not have a direct impact on another life….do what you wish.
We humans are all hypocritically biased regarding human life such that Pro-lifers support the death penalty while death penalty opponents support Pro-choice, thus paradoxically sanctioning the taking of the most innocent and unprotected of all human life.
As a retired biological scientist and a 40-year atheist—who is also Pro-choice and a proponent of the death penalty—I think that there should be little substantive scientific disagreement that human life begins in about 8-10 days after the formation of the zygote *once* an embryo attaches to the uterine wall. Forget about unscientifically misusing the continuum of the embryonic developmental process—including gastrulation of the 3 germ layers—for any disingenuous argument regarding the formation of the ‘soul’ or ‘personhood’. Any speculation or preferences of defining human life past the initial stage of pregnancy, beginning with the embryo/uterine interface, becomes strictly philosophical and outside the realm of scientific argument.
Pro-choice people want to ‘make themselves feel good’ by prolonging the definition of human life to the latest stages (28 weeks) of the pregnancy possible to fool themselves into “believing” that they are not “baby killers,” to use the strongest term possible, if they decide to abort their fetus. Pro-life people are more factually correct that human life begins early in the developmental cycle following fertilization. I disagree with them by only 7 to 10 days.
Therefore, the philosophically—not scientifically based—question becomes one of how far society wants its government involved in making private decisions for its citizenry. While I cannot imagine any situation where I would want anyone I love to chose abortion—outside of disease, rape, incest, the health of the mother, etc.—I do *not* want government bureaucrats, who cannot even run their own lives properly, telling a woman that she cannot abort her embryo or fetus at any stage before birth. However, once the placenta forms within 2 weeks—post zygotic fusion—the prospective mother is clearly making a decision to end a potentially viable human life, she should honestly admit that fact, and the current laws give her that right—which I fully support.
In law—as with life in general—there are no perpetuities. As philosophies change, so do the laws that govern our lives. I am often amazed with the potential for perpetuity of our U.S. Constitution, having survived thus far for over 2 centuries. However, the abortion rights ‘decision’ under the right to privacy/ Due Process clause of the 14th Amendment through Roe v. Wade, which I strongly support, is based on hypocritical philosophies, not on scientific fact. As such, the Roe ‘decision’ might unlikely stand the tests of time as well as our other fundamental Bill of Rights have endured because of the scientifically challengeable nature of this definition of viable:
{Quote: Roe v. Wade held that a mother may abort her pregnancy for any reason, up until the “point at which the fetus becomes viable. The Court defined viable as being “potentially able to live outside the mother’s womb, albeit with artificial aid. End Quote}.
The viability threshold the court references is 28 weeks (7 months) when I think they missed viability by up to 27 weeks too long, disregarding the phrase “…live outside the mother’s womb”. Again, this gives the false impression of validity to the expectant mother who might want to abort her pregnancy before that timeline/threshold, that the baby in her womb is unviable at the stages of a several weeks-old embryo or at the milestone of a recognizable fetus, representing a 2-month-old human. She is actually lying to herself based on precedent law but *not* on sound embryonic science.
Therefore—whether Pro-life or Pro-choice—the fundamental, underlying reasons and claims are hypocritical and neither side has much standing to condemn the others’ ‘beliefs’. I simply think that we must disallow the government and/or religious fanaticism the rights to decide the abortion decision for any woman. However, I will say that even though most Pro-life proponents use religious beliefs instead of science to bolster their claims, the science is ironically on their side of the augment; instead, the so-called moral majority is too blinded by religion to ‘see the light’ of the error of their ways (i.e., their methods of abortion dissent).
For this particular thread and using others’ hyperbolic terms, Dr. Tiller was legally justified in his duties as a “baby killer doctor” and Mr. Roeder deserves the death penalty for murder, which might serve somewhat as a deterrent against future ‘baby killer doctor killers’ and abortion clinic bombers.
Four basic milestones of human embryonic/fetal development providing attribution to my brief essay:
1-week to 10 days: the trophoblastic embryo attaches to the uterus through the placenta initiating a pregnancy. (This is the critical, initializing point I think that establishes human life because the fertilized zygote is *not* a potential viable human if it does not successfully attach to the uterine wall; that is, ectopic pregnancies are unequivocally unviable and are naturally aborted or by physician-assisted means).
3-weeks: the embryo has a primitive heart
2-months: the human *fetus* with recognizable structural features
3-months: the final formation of all vital organs and the compact baby is essentially complete.
Jim B,
“If I failed to answer a question that you considered to be extremely important, I apologize. Ask it again. If I can provide an answer, I will.”
Fair enough (and I would certainly extend you the same courtesy), here goes:
You said:
“Most women will agree that they are much better than men when it comes to providing love and care. Alternately, most men will concur that they are better suited to be the hunter gatherers.
When it comes to physical strength, most men will prevail.
We may not like it, but it was our Creator that made this determination.”
In hunter/gatherer societies the men were the hunters and the women were the gathers. But to follow your conclusion to its logical end, the creator made the determination that women would have the physical and mental skills needed to gestate, give birth to, and nurture offspring from conception to adulthood, thus women are the only ones qualified to make decisions on matters such as abortion. Thus by your own logic aren’t you unqualified to have an opinion on the issue of abortion, since your skills are for hunting and killing things rather than gathering nuts and berries and carrying a fetus to term?
Finally, I apologize for calling you a troll earlier. Whoever posted in your name earlier: That isn’t funny – you are the real troll, please go away and let us have a serious discussion – you’re not wanted here.
GWLSM,
“remember what I asked you about having been on the airplane and the little skit about the loss of cabin pressure and the little yellow oxygen mask? abortion is a woman being able to reach for that mask and being able to put it on herself, thinking of herself and her life first.”
The reasoning behind having you put on the mask first has nothing to do with being selfish or self-centered. It has to do with having the capacity to help others. If you pass out, due to a lack of oxygen, while trying to assist others first; both you and they will likely perish.
“If the oxygen mask drops down, put it on yourself before helping someone else.”
“In the worst of conditions, the occupants would only have about 10 seconds before they would actually become unconscious,” says Corbett. “Obviously, if you’re responsible for someone else, then you need to take care of yourself first and then take care of the other person. Otherwise, neither one of you will be taken care of.”
“Beyond that, it’s up to each passenger to decide for themselves whether to stop and help others.”
“That’s a personal decision … a moral issue that the FAA doesn’t have rules about,” says Corbett.
Cynthia Corbett is a human factors specialist at the Federal Aviation Administration’s Civil Aerospace Medical Institute in Oklahoma City.
Jim writes: As someone who is Pro-Life; I was very offended by that statement. –In case you didn’t know it, the overwhelming majority of those who consider themselves to be pro-life, are peaceful individuals who just happen to believe that unborn life has the same value as the life of those with a voice. I find the whole “It’s my body and I can do what I want to” thing to be a selfish proclamation. If you don’t agree…That’s fine. The best I can do is try to convince you to change your mind.
Me: well then Jim, you get to be offended and there you are. There is plenty in life that is guaranteed to be offensive whether it is orange naugahyde or strip bars in your neighborhood.
Go ahead and be pro-life. since you don’t have a uterus you can espouse any opinion you want on the subject of pregnancy and abortion but it will never be as valid as a woman’s decision whether she should/wants to continue a pregnancy or not.
It is my body. I have mine, just as you have yours. You may be capable of impregnating a female but it ends there. should she decide to carry it to term is up to her. just as my choices to bring pregnancies to term or abort them was mine. is it selfish? of course it is. no law against selfishness. selfishness is another word for healthy self concern. In my life I do come first. I come before my children and before my squeeze and my parents and siblings.
remember what I asked you about having been on the airplane and the little skit about the loss of cabin pressure and the little yellow oxygen mask? abortion is a woman being able to reach for that mask and being able to put it on herself, thinking of herself and her life first.
oh and nice trick with that Atticus Finch stuff. In this respect you are licked and were from the day our took your first male breath.
FYI- The 1:15 PM comment was not left by me.
FFLEO -Thanks for keeping an open mind.
Let’s take a little trip back in time. –At 11:15 AM yesterday, Mike Appleton posted; “The campaign of hatred conducted by Bill O’Reilly is the moral equivalent of KKK members espousing violence against civil rights workers.”
Mike didn’t paint with a broad brush. He directed his equivalency towards Bill O’Reilly..a TV personality.
Four posts later (at 1:57 PM), DOMINO posted; “I think comparing Pro-life to the KKK is very accurate..
As someone who is Pro-Life; I was very offended by that statement. –In case you didn’t know it, the overwhelming majority of those who consider themselves to be pro-life, are peaceful individuals who just happen to believe that unborn life has the same value as the life of those with a voice. I find the whole “It’s my body and I can do what I want to” thing to be a selfish proclamation. If you don’t agree…That’s fine. The best I can do is try to convince you to change your mind.
Since DOMINO made her blog available via hyperlink, I read it, and determined that she comes across as a feminist.
Feminist -A person whose beliefs and behavior are based on feminism.
Feminism -1. Belief in the social, political, and economic equality of the sexes. 2. The movement organized around this belief.
If DOMINO took my observation to be offensive, perhaps she should consider what it is like to be compared to the KKK. -Compare O’Reilly to whomever you want. Compare me to the KKK, and you should expect a verbal assault that would make a sailor proud.
GYGES: You issued an ultimatum. I am not willing to make a statement that I don’t believe to be true…No matter how much you would like me to. If not getting your way results in no further discussion..so be it. (It’s my keyboard, and I’ll do as I want to with it.) :>)
And Doctor Patty C.: I’ll bet you’re not a neonatologist. Your beliefs, when it comes to the privacy, are no more relevant than mine. In fact, I could provide you with a plethora of physicians that are willing to support my position.
—As far as Tiller is concerned: I believe that what he does (or did) is the sanctioned taking of human life. I believe the person who killed him is guilty of taking human life. In my book, both are immoral acts.
The German Soldiers took human life…and they did so with approval of their government. Just because an activity is lawfull..that doesn’t mean that it is moral..or that we should learn to accept it as such.
–As to speaking out on this blog: Do you really think I expected to make converts out of all of you? Do you think I didn’t know that most of those who comment here lean to the liberal side? –Nothing wrong with that. As long as your opinion is based on fact; I’m happy to see that you have an opinion…far too many don’t.
Remember. I entered hostile territory. It was reasonable to assume that I would be attacked for my beliefs. –“Courage is not a man with a gun in his hand. It’s knowing you’re licked before you begin but you begin anyway and you see it through no matter what. You rarely win, but sometimes you do.”– spoken by Atticus Finch, by Harper Lee, To Kill a Mockingbird
If I failed to answer a question that you considered to be extremely important, I apologize. Ask it again. If I can provide an answer, I will.
Jill You wrote:It does seem that the worst restrictions on women’s rights come at the state and local level. I also agree with Mike A., that hitting them in the pocketbook is the way to go.
Me: okay then so the 2-prong approach works better… what might be the 3rd prong to lift existing restrictions on abortion and protecting Roe?
Jill: If the christian right was serious about ending abortion they would have to stop being members of the christian right. The CR teaches women to be subserviant to men. At best they allow women and men to be separate but equal (in their respcctive spheres). As soon as you agree to inequality you will oppose those things most likely to end the need for abortion.
me: Huh? I’m lost here. the CR’s opposition to abortion is not personally limited to individual CR marriages. If it were then there would be no public argument at all and my reasoning “If you don’t want one, don’t have one” would be sufficient… the Live and Let Live approach.
Jill: The CR opposes safe, effective and cheap birth control for women and do not fund research for male birth control. Girls and women are to subsume there needs to men. This makes negotiation of sex and birth control very difficult for women, even when married. The CR does not women to know our own bodies, have our own strong sexual desires that are not attuned to men (husbands), to know our own mind and heart and act on our own desires.
Me: I don’t care what their motivation is. Not really. Whet they think and what they do is their own business and why they oppose abortion is not something I want to waste brain cells pondering.
Jill: Further I have noticed that the CR would usually rather die before they’d help any woman get food stamps and/or welfare, good medical care, a home and good schooling for the next 18 years, should economics be a force in the decision to have an abortion.
Me: you are kidding, right? who do you think the largest recipients of social welfare are?
Jill: I am sick of hearing contemptuous phrases such as “convenience abortion”.
Me: why? it is a perfectly good rationale for seeking abortion. It worked for me. I was in the 2nd year of my professional training and was very young and having a kid was unthinkable. I was able to go to my own doctor, have a pregnancy test confirmed (no home kits back then) schedule the TBA and get it done without ever discussing why I wanted one. I never had to explain or give a reason and it wasn’t because my MD was psychic. He performed a legal medical procedure that I requested. I did not dither for one moment. I never regretted my choice. This was just about as convenient as it gets and I am grateful, eternally grateful, that I was able to legally terminate a pregnancy that would have altered my life and not for the better. I did not tell the guy or my father or my rabbi or my professors. I took a sick day off from work and that was that.I did not seek permission or a language set that made my choice seem more justifiable than “because I want it”
and in the end legal access to anything whether it is to guy a pack of cigarettes or a cocktail at the Ritz or a nice pair of Chanel boots or an abortion is personal and no one should have to justify it to anyone else.
GWLSM,
It does seem that the worst restrictions on women’s rights come at the state and local level. I also agree with Mike A., that hitting them in the pocketbook is the way to go.
If the christian right was serious about ending abortion they would have to stop being members of the christian right. The CR teaches women to be subserviant to men. At best they allow women and men to be separate but equal (in their respcctive spheres). As soon as you agree to inequality you will oppose those things most likely to end the need for abortion. The CR opposes safe, effective and cheap birth control for women and do not fund research for male birth control. Girls and women are to subsume there needs to men. This makes negotiation of sex and birth control very difficult for women, even when married. The CR does not women to know our own bodies, have our own strong sexual desires that are not attuned to men (husbands), to know our own mind and heart and act on our own desires.
Further I have noticed that the CR would usually rather die before they’d help any woman get food stamps and/or welfare, good medical care, a home and good schooling for the next 18 years, should economics be a force in the decision to have an abortion.
I am sick of hearing contemptuous phrases such as “convenience abortion”. What a meanspirited way of looking at women’s lives.
Being surrounded by a crowd of people screaming at you as you go to a clinic or try to protect someone going there is quite an experience. My friend used to have a clinic and she got threats at home in the night. She also had supporters rally outside her home during a picket. I know that helped her a lot.
Moral victory sounds a lot like: “Mission Accomplished” to me.
Slart, you wrote: in an effort to get back on topic (if that’s possible): What are appropriate and effective measures to preserve a women’s right to choose from anti-abortion terrorists?
by finding and backing candidates to local school boards and hospital boards, state assemblies and finally to congress who will come out on the record and support a woman’s right to determine her own reproductive destiny. By contacting women’s health clinics and finding out if they perform abortions and volunteering.
They organize so we have to organize
Jim Byrne writes: I am leaving, you wont have Jim Byrne to kick around anymore (with hands above head, arms outstretched and the V for victory sign made with the index and second fingers of both the left and right hand).
I declare moral victory and leave in the certitude of my knowledge and the rectitude of my cause.
Me: Oh, Pul Leeeze.
why bother showing up, insulting pretty much everyone whose opinions differ from yours and then when challenged, play Tricky Dick?
If this is your M.O. then indeed you are not worth my time or anyone else’s. Maybe you are a simple-minded bigot who in finding no agreement with misogyny has decided to take his toys elsewhere.
Good luck on some christian website. There are hundreds of them, maybe thousands, where you can find like-minded haters just like you. Be careful though, you may find yourself collecting nazi memorabilia or be tempted to shave your head and special order jack boots (whatever those are) to wear to anti-abortion rallies.