Who let the fetus fetishists into Law & Order’s scriptwriting department?

law_and_order_image__1_I’ve always found the show “Law & Order” to be fairly evenhanded in its treatment of so-called “ripped from the headlines” stories, but the latest one is a nauseating exception to the rule.  On Friday, the once-proud crime drama humiliated itself and viciously desecrated the memory of Dr. George Tiller with a storyline based on his murder and told with a sickeningly anti-choice bias.

The episode starts with the doctor’s murder, you guessed it, at his church, but quickly devolves from crime story to abortion story.  Almost every deranged anti-abortion talking point can be found in the episode — ie. comparing anti-choicers to the civil rights movement — with little or no pro-choice rebuttal.  And there were many rebuttals the two pro-choicers in the episode could have given, but instead they say little, hanging their heads in shame and tacit agreement with the anti-choicers (who, the episode seems to forget, are the ones defending a murderer).

But the real low point in the show is during the court proceedings.   A nurse who quit the murdered doctor’s clinic exposes the doctor as a scissor-wielding baby-killer who commits infanticide on newborns, according to nothing but her own anecdotal evidence.   Then another late-term abortion provider takes the stand and reveals himself to be a wicked baby-killing monster with a thirst for fetal blood so intense that he’ll stop at nothing to quench it.  When asked what he’d do if abortion was illegal, he snarls “”Even if the politicians bow to the hypocrites and fools, it won’t stop us!”   Right.  And none of this shits on the memory of a courageous doctor who paid the ultimate price for helping women.

Anti-choicers fighting a ‘civil rights battle’, pro-choicers doubting their position,  evil baby-killing doctors… everything important was there, from an anti-choice point of view.  Everything, tellingly, except the women who seek out late-term abortion care.   These are their stories.

(This Law & Order episode, “Dignity”, can be viewed in its entirety here.)

77 Responses to “Who let the fetus fetishists into Law & Order’s scriptwriting department?”


  1. 1 deBeauxOs Monday, October 26, 2009 at 1:36 pm

    It sounds as though the producers were pressured into doing an episode that was anti-abortion and so did it in the most offensive, over-the-top way possible in order for viewers to get the message it was fetus fetishist propaganda.

    Their exploitation of Dr Tiller’s death is inexcusable however.

  2. 2 Torontonian Monday, October 26, 2009 at 1:48 pm

    The series of Law and Order have gone dramatically downhill this season. Every episode has shown a dark side to each of the leads in each series. It may be a way of adding more
    emotional “churn” to the series and give it more “gravity”.

    The thought that a policeman would deliberately try to choke the life out of a person during interrogation is beyond the pale. The outbursts of rage and viciousness on the parts of the principals is nothing less than pandering and a cheap way
    of trying to “juice up” a series which has pretty well run its
    course.

    The only trouble is that NBC doesn’t have anything to replace them and send them to the knacker’s yard.

    The American Thanksgiving is coming up next month. I can
    suggest a couple of available turkeys for the NBC executives.

  3. 3 mouthyorange Monday, October 26, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Hey, how come I’m not seeing this post coming up at the top (over bin Laden) on the home page?

    I can only see it when I click on its name beside a commenter in the commenters’ list.

    And I agree with your views, JJ. What a mess the show was. I saw it last night.

    Even Connie (is that her name? I’m groggy today) who is usually a more solid character went through a completely unbelievable personality change when she heard the ff’s stories of horror or suffering or unlove to or for the fetus. It’s as though they were trying to make her a symbol of a kind of change that the ff’s keep declaring has happened in the US and that I don’t think is real, that being that people who really understood the issue and were pro-choice before would today be hearing these kinds of stories and becoming anti-choice. To the point where they’d even do like Connie did and stop acting with integrity in her job.

    They could have done so much more with that episode, and been provocative on various sides. Instead — plop.

  4. 4 Jasper Monday, October 26, 2009 at 4:23 pm

    killing unborn children just isn’t that popular anymore folks…you’re falling behind the times..

  5. 5 Janus Monday, October 26, 2009 at 5:30 pm

    There are no “unborn children,” Jasper. Or don’t you understand what an oxymoron is?

    And what does “popularity” have to do with anything? Only a fool does something just because it’s “popular.”

  6. 6 The Anti-Social Socialist Monday, October 26, 2009 at 5:49 pm

    Jasper would know. It’s been a couple hundred years since his God demanded entire cities worth of pregnant women be ripped open and their unborn children be dashed against rocks.

  7. 7 Jasper Monday, October 26, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    Janus,

    Even the uber liberal LA Times recognizes unborn children:

    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/10/arrested-death-unborn-child.html

    Anti,

    You don’t understand the Bible.

  8. 8 The Anti-Social Socialist Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:08 pm

    Hosea 13:16 – “Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.”

    2 Kings 15:16 – “Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that were therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not to him, therefore he smote it; and all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.”

    Tell me how I am taking these out of context.

  9. 9 Carolyn Marie Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:27 pm

    Maybe they were making up for the *good* episode they did a few years ago on Criminal Intent? http://lawandorder.wikia.com/wiki/The_Third_Horseman

  10. 10 Jasper Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:32 pm

    Anti,

    Many times in bible, certain prophets expressed themselves metaphorically. Certainly we see that murder is wrong from the 10 commandments..

  11. 11 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    Carolyn Marie – Actually, they did a couple of good ones on abortion terrorists in earlier seasons. One was called “progeny” and the other was “life choice”, and they were both much more realistic.

    I haven’t watched L&O (or any TV really) for a couple of years, but if this episode is any indication, the show has really gone downhill. It was like a 45-minute anti-choice commercial.

  12. 12 fern hill Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:34 pm

    I haven’t seen this episode. Not that that stopped Big Nurse Stanek from commenting favourably, along with a bunch of other fetus fetishists.

    SVU has sucked for years. I’m not surprised they’re riding some chimera of supposed shift in public opinio. I predict: dead in two years max.

    Criminal Intent, though, I like. Vincent Dinofrio (sp?) is Interesting. And Jeff Goldblum (sp?)reminds me and others of my sweetie.

  13. 13 The Anti-Social Socialist Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    But Jasper, there is so very much talk of slaughter and murder and killing in your Bloody Book… and your Heroes seem so uppity if they are not lauded for the number of people they have killed.

    1 Samuel 18:6-9 – “And it came to pass as they came, when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the women came out of all cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet king Saul, with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of musick. And the women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his thousands, and David his ten thousands. And Saul was very wroth, and the saying displeased him; and he said, They have ascribed unto David ten thousands, and to me they have ascribed but thousands: and what can he have more but the kingdom? And Saul eyed David from that day and forward.”

  14. 14 The Anti-Social Socialist Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:40 pm

    2 Kings 2:23-24 – “And he [Elisha] went up from thence unto Bethel: and as he was going up by the way, there came forth little children out of the city, and mocked him, and said unto him, Go up, thou bald head; go up, thou bald head. And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.”

    And I love how your prophets wax metaphorical about the idea of God sending out bears to maul children to death.

    Such a peaceful and loving religion you have!

  15. 15 Jasper Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:50 pm

    Anti,

    What you condemn in the bible is the same thing you actively support today, now, in this day and age.

    http://www.prolifetraining.com/AbortionPictures/22-Weeks.htm

    Reject Satan now and accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior

  16. 16 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:51 pm

    deBeauxOs

    Their exploitation of Dr Tiller’s death is inexcusable however.

    Since L&O typically takes their stories from real life news, I was wondering how long it would take before this story showed up.

    I don’t mind them telling the story — in fact, I’m glad to keep it top of mind with people — what disgusted me was the portrayal of the doctor, both of them. Also, I thought they really glossed over the reasons why women have this type of abortion. And lastly, they weren’t even sticking to the law — it seemed to dissolve into a debate about the morality of late term abortion, and whether it’s more acceptable to kill a doctor who does them. Hello? It’s a legal procedure!

  17. 17 The Anti-Social Socialist Monday, October 26, 2009 at 6:57 pm

    That’s it, Jasper? That’s all you can do? That is the most cutting attempt at a rebuttal you can make?

    Thick as a stump, and near as clever.

  18. 18 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:00 pm

    Torontonian

    The outbursts of rage and viciousness on the parts of the principals is nothing less than pandering and a cheap way
    of trying to “juice up” a series which has pretty well run its
    course.

    I used to watch it all the time, but then there got to be so many different Law & Order franchises that the original got weak. The abortion topic will always attract attention, and the Tiller story was one of the biggest news stories of the year, so I can see why they’d do a show based on it. But they could have been more realistic about it, and especially treated Dr.Tiller (and Dr. Hern, or whoever the doc who was on the stand was supposed to be) more humanely. Instead they seemed to be justifying the killing.

    Bah! Another good show bites the dust.

  19. 19 J. A. Baker Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:02 pm

    Many times in bible, certain prophets expressed themselves metaphorically.

    So Jasper, educate us stupid, evil libruls: just what were the passages Anti cited supposed to be a metaphor for? The advisability/righteousness of “holy wars”? The notion that smiting anyone who doesn’t agree with you gives your God a massive boner?

  20. 20 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:05 pm

    mouthyorange

    It’s as though they were trying to make her a symbol of a kind of change that the ff’s keep declaring has happened in the US and that I don’t think is real

    Exactly, I notice they kept bringing up that poll that shows “more Americans are ‘pro-life'”, 52% or whatever. That’s what irritated me: they’d bring up that poll, which you would THINK would be a pro-choicer’s cue to say, “Ah, but less than 15% think abortion should always be illegal, and 69% don’t think Roe v Wade should be overturned, so many people may be personally pro-life but still believe in a woman’s right to choose” etc. But nothing like that was forthcoming, no rebuttal given to all the anti-choice talking points.

    It was like one big fetus fetishizing commercial.

  21. 21 Robert Rouse Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:13 pm

    I really have no comment. I just wanted you to know I saw it and agree with you.

  22. 22 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:14 pm

    Janus – Jasper doesn’t understand how shows like L&O work. They see a big story and they run with it because they know it’ll get a lot of attention. Especially if they frame it in a contrarian point of view, they know it will generate a lot of outrage. Fetus fetishists are dreaming if they think this means there’s some kind of anti-choice renaissance going on — if it didn’t happen during the Bush years, it ain’t about to happen now.

  23. 23 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:16 pm

    Antisocial

    Jasper would know. It’s been a couple hundred years since his God demanded entire cities worth of pregnant women be ripped open and their unborn children be dashed against rocks.

    Old Testament, blood & guts! 😆

  24. 24 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:20 pm

    fern hill

    I haven’t seen this episode. Not that that stopped Big Nurse Stanek from commenting favourably, along with a bunch of other fetus fetishists.

    You should watch it, it’s really weird. The treatment of the Tiller character will make you angry though, at least it did me. Someone I (and a lot of women) consider a hero deserves better.

  25. 25 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:23 pm

    JAB

    The notion that smiting anyone who doesn’t agree with you gives your God a massive boner?

    Blasphemer! 😯 😆

  26. 26 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:25 pm

    Robert – Thanks. I found it very frustrating to watch at times. I hope they get a lot of complaints about their treatment of Dr.Tiller.

  27. 27 Rob F Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:33 pm

    Jasper:

    Our gut reactions to pictures do not serve as a useful argument against anything. Our gut reaction to pictures of anticoagulant necrosis (graphic) does not mean that we should ban the use of bloodthinners. Our reactions to seeing pictures of blood everywhere does not mean we should ban heart surgery.

  28. 28 Rob F Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:34 pm

    At least this episode has one positive outcome: it shows that wingnuts cannot complain about the “pro-abortion media” anymore.

  29. 30 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:48 pm

    Rob F – Hey, that was the best rebuttal to fetus porn that I’ve ever seen. Good work.

    Hah, yeah, and so much for the “liberal media”. Although, Dick Wolf has always been known to be an unabashed Repig and supporter of Bush. That’s probably how Fred Thompson got the part for awhile. Thompson was in one of the early L&Os about abortion, and he was anti-abortion even in the show 😯

  30. 31 Jasper Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:50 pm

    “Our gut reactions to pictures do not serve as a useful argument against anything.”

    I don’t blame you Rob, it’s not easy defending murder..just close your eyes and pretend it’s not there.

  31. 32 JJ Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:52 pm

    JAB – Yep, and they can send you emails from the Great Beyond with instructions for the care & feeding of their pets.

  32. 33 Jasper Monday, October 26, 2009 at 7:54 pm

    twisted logic of pro-choicers..

  33. 34 Janus Monday, October 26, 2009 at 9:27 pm

    “Even the uber liberal LA Times recognizes unborn children:”

    Jasper, I don’t give a shit who “recognizes” whom. I do not.

    “You don’t understand the Bible.”

    Oh, puff. Nobody does.

    Or would you like to take a run at Numbers 5: 11 – 31 and try to explain it?

    God not only doesn’t disagree with abortion — he mandates it, promotes it, and provides a recipe!

  34. 35 Frank Frink Monday, October 26, 2009 at 10:19 pm

    Old Testament, blood & guts!

    And sex! You forgot Teh Sex! 😯

  35. 36 Shade Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 1:24 am

    Jasper you linked a video of a guy who specifically says it’s the Feminist mentality he’s talking about and then uses Star Trek and and phrase he seems to not have researched properly as resources.

    That’s hardly what I’d call “twisted logic of pro-choicers” more like “very poor explanation by a wierd guy on the internet on how he thinks women’s brains work”

  36. 37 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 9:00 am

    Their exploitation of Dr Tiller’s death is inexcusable however.

    But when you exploit it, it’s OK, huh?

    Let me sum up the response of the pro-abortion movement to this episode:

    WAAAAAAAAAAH! Someone’s talking about abortion and we can’t silence them! Uh, boobooboobooboobooboo!

  37. 38 sassy Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:02 am

    pro-abortion movement ??

    0/10

    Failed again – better luck next time.

  38. 39 RossK Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:03 am

    When the good Docktor needed action he always turned to the Old Testament, especially in the middle of the night in hotel rooms in places like Milwaukee.

    But here’s the thing….

    When the going got really weird, so weird that things could become troublesome down the road, he always turned metaphorical.

    How else can you explain why his Chicano legal advisor suddenly morphed into a Samoan?

    .

  39. 40 JJ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:07 am

    RossK – The drugs took hold 😆 there’s no other explanation.

    The good Docktor did love the OT, but his favourite bible tome of all was Revelations… now that is a book full of Bad Craziness 8)

  40. 41 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:11 am

    Failed again – better luck next time.

    So Sassy, I presume you’ll support legislation that would protect a doctor’s right to choose to refuse to perform an abortion?

  41. 42 sassy Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:24 am

    Patrick – I would support legislation that would protect a person from having to become a doctor. Does that work for you?

  42. 43 Frank Frink Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:33 am

    Umm.. Twatrick. Since when have doctors been forced to perform an abortion, and why would legislation be required?

  43. 44 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:38 am

    No, not at all.

    In fact, you really just proved my point.

    If the abortion issue were really about choice to you, the choice of any one person — say, a doctor — should be worth as much as anyone else’s choice.

    Yet you and your cohorts pathologically cannot agree to this. If protecting a woman’s right to choose abortion means refusing to proect the right of a doctor to choose to refuse to perform an aboriton he judged to be unethical — such as, say, a medically unnecessary late-term abortion — it seems like you and the lunatics you run with seem entirely alright for us.

    You aren’t pro-choice. You’re in favour of your own right to choose, and everyone else can evidently go fuck themselves.

    But that isn’t really pro-choice. As a matter of fact, it’s much closer to pro-abortion than to pro-choice.

    Don’t worry. I don’t expect you to admit it. My faith in the honesty of the pro-abortion movement was deplected far too long ago to have that kind of faith in you.

    Your petulant bawling about how you can’t silence the anti-aboriton position may now resume.

    Let me be the first:

    WAAAAAAAAAAAH! People might think about abortion in a way that I don’t like! WAAAAAAAAH!

    (And I already know what JJ’s thinking: “oh, look! It’s a candidate for a fourth trimester abortion!”)

    (I also know what Mike is thinking: “does anyone know where the Law and Order producers go to Church? This episode is giving me ideas…”)

  44. 45 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:39 am

    Twatrick. Since when have doctors been forced to perform an abortion, and why would legislation be required?

    Ummm, Franky.

    Ask your friend JJ about her desire to entrench abortion rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. And while you’re at it, kindly ask her not to lie about it.

  45. 46 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:40 am

    Heh. I can’t believe I forgot Frank Frink exists. I mean, again.

    You’re the bane of my existence, Frank!

  46. 47 toujoursdan Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:43 am

    Keep in mind that the 10 Commandments and the rest of the Mosaic law applied to the Hebrews ONLY.

    They were free to break them when it came to foreigners.

    And Patrick draws a false equivalency. Typical.

    But I guess this will put to bed the notion that Hollywood is run by the evil liberals.

  47. 48 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:57 am

    I’ve never believed that Hollywood is run by liberals, evil or otherwise.

    As for “false equivalence”, I’m sure Dan would like to think of all kinds of reasons why a doctor’s right to choose over his expertise, and a woman’s right to choose over her body are terribly different.

    Anyone willing to take off the ideology glasses can plainly see that they really aren’t all that different, but meh. Farbeit for anyone to expect twits like Danny boy to move past those tired old rhetorical fallbacks.

  48. 49 J. A. Baker Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:12 am

    If protecting a woman’s right to choose abortion means refusing to proect the right of a doctor to choose to refuse to perform an aboriton he judged to be unethical — such as, say, a medically unnecessary late-term abortion — it seems like you and the lunatics you run with seem entirely alright for us.

    And once again, Twatsy, you whip out a red herring for us to cut down the mightiest tree in the forest with. I seriously doubt that an OB/GYN who objects to abortion would advertise (falsely) that they offer abortion services.

    What’s next, are you going to say “NI!” to us evil libruls?

  49. 50 MariaS Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:21 am

    jj – do you have a figure for how many black babies were aborted in the last 12 months? I do not know… but thought you might have a figure as you are sooooooo Pro-Choice.
    Ever stopped to think that black fetuses are going down the tube by probably 80% than babies of any other color?
    What does that say for people who are Pro-Choice?
    Could we say “racist” ?
    Could people who are Pro-Choice be against more black babies been born while pretending all the while to be fighting for women’s rights ?
    Sometimes, our vilest thoughts and actions are masked in supposedly good works.
    The girl from BigBlueWave gets a lot of criticism and ridicule from you lefties. Ever stopped to think that she is clamoring to save babies of every color, more black than white. What does that make her? In my books she is a concerned, loving, lover of all humanity.

    MariaS (dodocanspell)

  50. 51 MariaS Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:23 am

    Will come back late tonight to check your comebacks.

  51. 52 toujoursdan Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:28 am

    As for “false equivalence”, I’m sure Dan would like to think of all kinds of reasons why a doctor’s right to choose over his expertise, and a woman’s right to choose over her body are terribly different.

    Now we are presented with the false dilemma, another tool in the Tool’s toolbox.

    If they are going to pursue OB/GYN service and advertise abortion services, why do they need to be protected again? If they aren’t when have they ever been called on to perform abortions? Can you actually show us cases where podiatrists or paediatric specialists were forced to perform abortions against their will?

    Anyone willing to take off the ideology glasses can plainly see that they really aren’t all that different, but meh. Farbeit for anyone to expect twits like Danny boy to move past those tired old rhetorical fallbacks.

    Pot, kettle, black, Twatsy. What a maroon.

  52. 53 toujoursdan Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:30 am

    Maria’s comment makes no sense whatsoever. Lay off the bottle.

  53. 54 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:41 am

    What I could show you, Dan, is cases where pro-abortion activists have argued that doctors should be forced to perform abortions because otherwise access to abortions would be restricted for women living in remote areas.

    Interestingly enough, Dan, the very kind of arguments that you’re using here were rejected by the lunatics in those particular cases. The idea that safely performing an abortion requires specific training and facilities doesn’t seem to be one that penetrates very deeply into the skulls of your compatriots.

    (Interestingly enough, I don’t seem to remember you being around to drop this particular point then. I’d say that’s interesting, but not particularly odd.)

    Beyond that, Dan, let’s talk about some Dilemmas and whether or not they are truly false.

    For example, let’s go back to JJ’s advocacy of enshrining abortion rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This would allow women to force doctors to perform abortions they may otherwise consider to be unethical — such as medically unnecessary late-term abortions — under the threat of a lawsuit.

    There’s nothing false about this dilemma, and if you don’t understand why this is the case then you are simply ignorant in regards to how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually works.

    Just like there’s nothing false in the dilemma that if you really support choice, as pro-abortion activists disingenuously insist they do, then support for choice has to extend beyond people who only make choices you already agree with.

    Not that I expect Danny boy to be able to figure this out. He read a webpage on how to accuse people of logical fallacies and now seems to think he’s a master philosopher.

  54. 55 toujoursdan Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:54 am

    What I could show you, Dan, is cases where pro-abortion activists have argued that doctors should be forced to perform abortions because otherwise access to abortions would be restricted for women living in remote areas.

    I want actual cases. Where has this actually happened? I suspect that if doctors go into a remote area where they may be need to perform abortions against their conscience they would be aware of that fact and choose to go somewhere else.

    So where have doctors actually performed abortions against their will?

    Asking for links isn’t unreasonable.

    Interestingly enough, Dan, the very kind of arguments that you’re using here were rejected by the lunatics in those particular cases. The idea that safely performing an abortion requires specific training and facilities doesn’t seem to be one that penetrates very deeply into the skulls of your compatriots.

    I have no idea what you’re talking about here. Every pro-choice person I know is aware that doctors have to take specific training. They may not specialize in these procedures as a practise, but doctors train for procedures all the time.

    (Interestingly enough, I don’t seem to remember you being around to drop this particular point then. I’d say that’s interesting, but not particularly odd.)

    I join the conversation when I can. I do have a life.

    Beyond that, Dan, let’s talk about some Dilemmas and whether or not they are truly false.

    I’d like to stick to the false dilemma you presented. Can you show me specific cases?

    For example, let’s go back to JJ’s advocacy of enshrining abortion rights in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This would allow women to force doctors to perform abortions they may otherwise consider to be unethical — such as medically unnecessary late-term abortions — under the threat of a lawsuit.

    Your conclusion doesn’t follow your supposition. Allowing women the right to terminate a pregnancy does not force doctors to perform anything against their conscience. The doctor can simply choose another speciality or location and be free of worry. It merely guarantees that the right to abortion can’t be taken away through legislation.

    There’s nothing false about this dilemma, and if you don’t understand why this is the case then you are simply ignorant in regards to how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms actually works.

    Pot kettle black again.

    Just like there’s nothing false in the dilemma that if you really support choice, as pro-abortion activists disingenuously insist they do, then support for choice has to extend beyond people who only make choices you already agree with.

    It’s still a false equivalency. Saying it isn’t over and over and over again doesn’t make it less so. No one forces doctors to go into situations where they must perform abortions against their will.

    Good grief Twats! There is an acute doctor shortage in this country. If a doctor doesn’t want to perform abortions it isn’t all that difficult to find another practise or move into another specialty.

    Not that I expect Danny boy to be able to figure this out. He read a webpage on how to accuse people of logical fallacies and now seems to think he’s a master philosopher.

    I call them as they are.

  55. 56 RealityBites Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:59 am

    If it were indeed true that pro-choice activists are arguing that doctors should be forced to perform abortions, that alone would be proof positive that doctors currently are under no obligation to perform abortions and that therefore there’s no need for legislation to guarantee them a right they already have!

    Doctors should, of course, absolutely be forced to provide referrals for abortions and birth control because a doctor isn’t like a doughnut shop. You often don’t get to choose. If you don’t want to provide referalls for legal medical procedures then get the fuck out of the profession. That applies to pharmacists and marriage commissioners as well. No one gives a flying fuck about their personal religious views and they sure as hell didn’t get their job in order to impose them on other people. You want to preach, become a preacher. You want to be a doctor? Do your fucking job.

  56. 57 toujoursdan Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    The stupid just can’t get any better.

    We have a Charter right to legal counsel in this country but last time I checked it doesn’t mean that any lawyer we pick is forced to represent us.

  57. 58 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:09 pm

    Ho ho ho.

    Hold on there, Dan. I told you that I could, and I can.

    I didn’t tell you that I will. You can bawl about this as much as you like, but you aren’t entitled to waste that much of my time.

    I suspect that if doctors go into a remote area where they may be need to perform abortions against their conscience they would be aware of that fact and choose to go somewhere else.

    See, Dan, it’s funny that you would say something like this so soon after dismissing my comments here as “typical”.

    This isn’t a credible argument, as it doesn’t answer the argument in question. The fact that such doctors would likely choose to go somewhere else neither answers the fact that some of your compatriots think they should be forced to perform abortions, to the extent that the “right” to an abortion should be Constitutionally entrenched.

    When did I ever say, Dan, that doctors have been forced to perform abortions against their conscience? I’ve said no such thing. What I have said — extremely accurately — is that your compatriots think they should be.

    Once again, this is antithetical to choice.

    See, Dan, you clearly either don’t know how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms operates, or you’re simply feigning ignorance. Neither bodes particularly well for you.

    Enshrining the “right” to an abortion in the Charter would make any refusal by a doctor to perform one a violation of the woman’s charter rights, regardless of any ethical concerns that may be present at the particular time.

    I’d explain this further to you, but you’ve made it plainly evident that you’re ignorant in regards to the Charter and how it operates within law, and very much intend to remain so.

    But, hey. Don’t ask me. Maybe somewhere there’s a webpage that will make you a Constitutional scholar as well.

  58. 59 JJ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:10 pm

    Maria S – The connection of racism to abortion is disingenuous at best. It doesn’t make any sense, regardless of numbers, as long as the women are walking into Planned Parenthood clinics of their own free will.

    If a larger percentage of african-americans are having abortions (which might be true, I don’t know), it’s because of economics, not racism — a greater proportion of black women live below the poverty line.

  59. 60 toujoursdan Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:16 pm

    Ho ho ho.

    Hold on there, Dan. I told you that I could, and I can.

    I didn’t tell you that I will. You can bawl about this as much as you like, but you aren’t entitled to waste that much of my time.

    Rrrrrrrrrrrriiiiggghhhttttttttt! An assertion without any substance. Thanks for waving the white flag.

    “I suspect that if doctors go into a remote area where they may be need to perform abortions against their conscience they would be aware of that fact and choose to go somewhere else.”

    See, Dan, it’s funny that you would say something like this so soon after dismissing my comments here as “typical”.

    This isn’t a credible argument, as it doesn’t answer the argument in question. The fact that such doctors would likely choose to go somewhere else neither answers the fact that some of your compatriots think they should be forced to perform abortions, to the extent that the “right” to an abortion should be Constitutionally entrenched.

    I think it does answer the question. Doctors still have the right to refuse abortions services against their conscience by choosing not to put themselves in a place where they may be asked to perform them?

    When did I ever say, Dan, that doctors have been forced to perform abortions against their conscience? I’ve said no such thing. What I have said — extremely accurately — is that your compatriots think they should be.

    You raised this as an issue. I want evidence that it is a real issue and not something you are just cooking up as a silly false equivalency.

    That’s not unreasonable.

    Once again, this is antithetical to choice.

    Hardly. Doctors have the choice to not put themselves in situations where they may be asked to perform abortions, or not.

    That is a choice by definition. You have more than one option.

    See, Dan, you clearly either don’t know how the Charter of Rights and Freedoms operates, or you’re simply feigning ignorance. Neither bodes particularly well for you.

    Enshrining the “right” to an abortion in the Charter would make any refusal by a doctor to perform one a violation of the woman’s charter rights, regardless of any ethical concerns that may be present at the particular time.

    I’d explain this further to you, but you’ve made it plainly evident that you’re ignorant in regards to the Charter and how it operates within law, and very much intend to remain so.

    But, hey. Don’t ask me. Maybe somewhere there’s a webpage that will make you a Constitutional scholar as well.

    So why doesn’t this work that way for the Right to legal counsel in regards to lawyers? Why aren’t corporate tax attorneys being forced to try criminal cases?

  60. 61 JJ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:21 pm

    Patrick, stop being such a fucking dummy. My statement about enshrining in the constitution was in the context that those rights continue to be under attack by anti-choicers. Fortunately in Canada, the anti-choice movement doesn’t have that kind of momentum or influence.

    As for doctors, what RB said. Nobody forces a doctor to do any procedure they don’t want to do — but they are obliged to provide referrals (as my pro-life doctor does). Anyone who can’t cope with that needs to alter their career path.

    You really make yourself look like kind of an idiot when you use false equivalencies. I know you are smarter than that — you must cringe inwardly when you make such specious arguments.

  61. 62 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:39 pm

    Hmmmm. So declining to let you waste my time by having me dig through an online cesspool is waving the white flag?

    In your dreams, Danny boy.

    See, you apparently have yet to figure out that if you keep spouting the same old nonsense like “false equivalency” you just won’t be taken seriously.

    I just dismantled you once, and I’m not wasting my time validating your attempts to pretend that isn’t so.

    Call me back when you get a new act.

  62. 63 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 12:44 pm

    JJ, quit being so fucking dishonest.

    You’ve already made it plainly evident a long time ago that you know absolutely nothing about the law and how it works. You didn’t even know the difference between concurrent and consecutive sentencing, for Christ’s sake!

    But then, you have these things — including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms — explained to you, and you choose to continue arguing from a position of ignorance. Nobody owes it to you to remain silent while you do that.

    This is only the most recent of numerous weak arguments you’ve used to try to explain away your advocacy of this — as I recall, your original complaint was “well, that’s not ‘advocacy'” even if I pledged my support!

    See, JJ, I’m just not convinced when you insist that the anti-abortion movement doesn’t have much influence in Canada. There’s a reason why you and your cohorts are so terrified to let anti-abortion activists speak.

    I’d dare say that they carry far more influence than you’d like to let on. Then again, no one expects you to admit to that, either.

  63. 64 Rob F Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    PalMD at the Denialism blog has two posts about why refusal clauses are morally wrong.

  64. 65 dizzlski Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 1:04 pm

    Providing evidence would be a waste of time.
    Returning many times to write about it being a waste of time? Not so much.

  65. 66 Shade Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 1:37 pm

    Wow Patrick you really can’t distinguish extremists from people who don’t want to see things got that far. I’m left wing, I support right to choose, but I don’t support the idea of forcing doctors to perform procedures they find unethical and presently they don’t have to.

    Neither does JJ or Toujoursdan from what I can see of their reponses. So you are choosing to attack them for other more extreme left winger attitude. There’s some people on your side I’m sure who think we should try all the doctors who have performed abotions for baby murder.

    Does that mean you support them? No it does not.

    Both JJ and Toujoursdan said they will not support forcing Doctors to perform such procedures. Yet your too busy wheeling your way through your long winded arguments to notice what is in front of you.

    There’s extremeists and wingnuts on both sides of the fence here and they all need to be reigned in espically sa they tend to be the more vocal. See most Liberals are actually pro-choice, for everyone, even the doctor.

    But as I said there’s extremists who even their own side looks at what they’re asking for they think it’s insane and over the top. If it ever comes to that point, I think you can expect most of the Liberals to fight for a Doctors right to choose too.

    Of course, I doubt you’ll listen as you said you question the honesty of people like me but I’ll try anyway.

  66. 67 toujoursdan Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 1:45 pm

    Oh Twats, you are so cute when you’ve been pwned. The outrage!! The outrage!!

  67. 68 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Dan, you’re actually kind of boring once it becomes evident you can’t be taken seriously.

    As for Shade,

    It’s very simple: actions speak louder than words.

    JJ previously pledged her support for the idea in question. Not only is her defense now entirely different from the argument she originally used long ago (and is such entirely suspect to any rational individual), but her refusal to support a piece of legislation that would legally protect a doctor’s right to refuse to perform an abortion makes her utterly transparent.

    If the matter is really about choice, support choice — including the choice of those people who may choose things you don’t like.

    Otherwise, admit what it’s really about: it’s really about abortion.

    And stop bawling everytime you find you can’t silence viewpoints that you don’t like.

  68. 69 Shade Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 2:29 pm

    Patrick you’ll find our problem with the Law and Order episode was it didn’t represent pro-choicers or doctors who perform abotions in a fair light. If you can call that episode unbiased, then you’re either blind or really, really don’t understand pro-choicers.

    I said I do support a Doctors right to choose whether or not to peform such procedures. But they already have the option in many ways, one by their choice of field and two by not training in the procedure. A doctor can choose not to learn how to perform an abortion and then legally they can’t do them because they haven’t been trained.

    That seems to be a choice to me. Of course if for some unfathomable reason a doctor who’s anti-abortion did learn the procedure, he still wouldn’t be forced to.

  69. 70 toujoursdan Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    I dunno Twats. Others seem to be taking me seriously. You on the other hand don’t have enough time to back up your claims but more than enough time to compose lengthy posts.

    And where has anyone called for the silencing of an anti-abortion TV show? People have the right to present their view and others have the right to criticize it.

    Really, Twats, stop being such a drama queen. Stick to the points that are actually made instead of going down so many slippery slopes, invoking false equivalencies and red herrings.

  70. 71 JJ Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 2:37 pm

    Patrick – Look, jackass, that kind of BULLSHITTING is what got you booted from my old blog.

    Here’s the original “consecutive/concurrant” thread, I’ll let the other commenters decide who was confused and who wasn’t. Maybe we can take a vote.

  71. 72 The Anti-Social Socialist Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 4:55 pm

    “It’s very simple: actions speak louder than words.”

    Yes they do.

    I notice that you have yet to provide the requested evidence – all you are doing is talking, Patrick. Words words words and no proof.

    You’ve been about as clever as a particularly bright budgerigar thus far – lots of squawking, little sense.

  72. 73 Patrick Ross Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 10:52 pm

    No, JJ, your intellectual cowardice is what got me booted from your old blog.

    As for anti-social socialist, and any of you other morons who are now endeavouring to waste my time, the denizens of this blog have made it utterly apparent on numerous occasions how futile it is to provide them with evidence of anything.

    These are people who can’t even be honest about their own comments.

    So, in conclusion, desu desu desu, and go fuck yourselves.

  73. 74 Shade Tuesday, October 27, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    Congratulations Patrick, I tried to be civil with you and was honest and up front and as I predicted you think I’m lying and you call me a moron. Lovely.

    Your manners leave something to be desired and your attitude is pompous. You refuse to read what has been said and understand it, you say actions speak louder then words yet all you say are words with no action to proove them.

    Maybe you think JJ wont look at your “proof” of your claims but you don’t know me. This is the first time we have crossed paths, I’ve been honest and civil with you. You however have been talking about as of yet a hypothetical situation which cannot happen in the current laws, nor is there a bill even close to be drafted that would cause it.

    Yet you continue to harp on about this situation and fail to provide any evidence at all. If you aren’t willing to spend the time to find your evidence to proove Doctors have been forced against their will to perform abortions it is quite frankly a hypothetical situation.

    Seems to me you’re the one not being honest. You aren’t providing proof, because you have none. That simple.

  74. 75 J. A. Baker Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 7:38 am

    the denizens of this blog have made it utterly apparent on numerous occasions how futile it is to provide them with evidence of anything.

    Well, Twatsy, it would help your credibility if you had actually, you know, provided evidence.

  75. 76 The Anti-Social Socialist Wednesday, October 28, 2009 at 8:16 am

    “No, JJ, your intellectual cowardice is what got me booted from your old blog.”

    Yes, because it’s JJ’s fault you can’t back up anything you say.

    What a pillock.

  76. 77 Janus Friday, October 30, 2009 at 5:08 am

    Um…is it my imagination, or did PRoss just kick himself off your blog, JJ?

    Things are looking up! 😆


Wait. What?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




Mac Security Portal
Rose's Place
Blogging Change

Incoming!

  • 630,758
[Most Recent Quotes from www.kitco.com]

Archives


%d bloggers like this: