MSNBC's Keith Olbermann Names Pro-Life Advocate Jill Stanek "Worst Person"

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I try not to use pro choice as that simply feeds into the wordspeak that treats the unborn as non human with no rights. Either we understand the horror that we speak of or we really do not think it is as bad as we claim.

:clapping:

 

[rpp]

I try not to use pro choice as that simply feeds into the wordspeak that treats the unborn as non human with no rights. Either we understand the horror that we speak of or we really do not think it is as bad as we claim.

I use pro-choice because it is how they prefer to be recognized. However, I do not shy away from the opportunity to point out that the choice is a choice to murder. See what I’m saying, it’s about getting them to listen. If I refer to them as pro-death they stop listening. But, if I refer to them as pro-choice while making a case that the choice they are actually making is the choice to murder, then I stand a chance at them actually listening.

When a person uses the euphemisms of those who are trying to justify a grave evil, then one has already begun to concede defeat. Fix is correct in avoiding the use of their euphemisms like “pro*-choice*” or “women’s health” or “reproductive rights”. We cannot permit morally bankrupt from framing the discussion by allowing them to change the meanings of words and create their own vocabulary.

 

[Drawmack]

It depends on the context and the person listening. I do not accept your premise that people stop listening. In fact, one may argue if you continue to obfuscate by misstating the problem by calling it a choice one continues to enable the problem.

It seems you are saying the truth is too startling for many people. That may be what some need.

I am by no means obfuscating the truth, or saying that it is too startling. It is a choice, granted it’s a choice to murder, but it is a choice. At least in America. For if it were not a choice then someone would be either forcing people to get abortions or forcing people not to. In America no one is forcing this. They are in China and there I would not refer to it as pro-choice. Though there I would not have the freedom of speech to talk about it either.

It is a choice that people should not have the legal ability to make because it is murder. But, it is still a choice. Everything is a choice unless you are forced. Refusing to call it choice is obfuscating the issue by implying that someone is advocating for making it mandatory.

 

[Drawmack]

Conversion is ongoing and takes many forms. Do not handicap the process by introducing false limits.

I am not handicapping anything or introducing any limits. I am asking why I do not read about the holocaust of souls being propagated by allowing a choice of religion. If it is okay to talk about abortion as a holocaust then why don’t we talk about people of other faiths as committing a holocaust of souls. After all, it is only the Truth and we should be proclaiming the Truth right? If language this strong is used in the pro-life fight then why should language any weaker be used in the fight for souls?

I used an analogy to show the absurdity of holding such an evil position. You may not like it, but that does not make it wrong. It means you do not like it.

Would you hold your position if we substituted the word rape or genocide for abortion?

But, your analogy was a false analogy. Is the choice on which treatment to receive for cancer taken with the same weight as the choice of a salad dressing? Is the choice of whether to continue extra measures or stop them taken with the same weight as the choice of a salad dressing? For crying out loud, there is more weight on the choice of which car to buy than on the choice of a salad dressing. Various choices have various degrees of weight and by making a false comparison you prove nothing except your own prejudices.

You are making false analogies, which actually make light of the problem. You are the one implying that abortion should be taken with all the seriousness of salad dressing.

 

[Drawmack]

When a person uses the euphemisms of those who are trying to justify a grave evil, then one has already begun to concede defeat. Fix is correct in avoiding the use of their euphemisms like “pro*-choice*” or “women’s health” or “reproductive rights”. We cannot permit morally bankrupt from framing the discussion by allowing them to change the meanings of words and create their own vocabulary.

Do you keep listening to, and taking seriously, people who insist on insulting your opinions?

 

[rpp]

Do you keep listening to, and taking seriously, people who insist on insulting your opinions?

Are you referring to yourself? If so, then, in your case, no. However, despite the fact that you insult and mock me at every turn, I will not have you shout me down.

You keep talking about being polite. Are you listening to what you are saying?

 

[Drawmack]

Are you referring to yourself? If so, then, in your case, no. However, despite the fact that you insult and mock me at every turn, I will not have you shout me down.

You keep talking about being polite. Are you listening to what you are saying?

Where have I been impolite? If you’re going to make such an accusation please back it up with proof. I have not been mocking anyone in this, or any other, thread. I have simply been expressing my views, which seem to be in opposition to yours.

 

[antunesaa]

a woman who helps to prevent murder is not a “worst person” by any stretch of the imagination.

This is wrong. First, she didn’t prevent any murder because the fact that some nuts killed the good old doctor is not her responsibility. No reasonable people would attribute this death to Jill. Second, even if she were directly responsible for the doctor’s death, then she would be a despicable person herself, as the nuts who killed him indeed is. This is yet another example of the moral rule that the ends do not justify the means. That is, doing an evil (killing the doctor) to prevent an evil (the killing of numerous innocent babies) is evil itself.

 

[rpp]

Where have I been impolite? If you’re going to make such an accusation please back it up with proof. I have not been mocking anyone in this, or any other, thread. I have simply been expressing my views, which seem to be in opposition to yours.

Well, for one thing, you utterly, and seemingly intentionally, misread an earlier post of mine and attacked me. Then when I clarified that post, your response was quite rude, ungracious, and uncharitable. As was the post I responded to where you clearly admit to insulting me.

It is against forum rules to make personal attacks or insult other members.

For another, you have hijacked this thread which is against forum rules. This thread is about Kieth Obermann and his statements regarding Jill Stanek. It is not your concept of ettiquette and how best to surrender the debate to the pro-abortion crowd. So start being polite by posting on topic or do not post. Your hijacking of this thread has already been reported to the moderators.

Rule breakers are generally considered, at best, impolite.

You are new to this forum. Forum rules are strictly enforced here. Post within the rules.

 

[Drawmack]

Well, for one thing, you utterly, and seemingly intentionally, misread an earlier post of mine and attacked me. Then when I clarified that post, your response was quite rude, ungracious, and uncharitable. As was the post I responded to where you clearly admit to insulting me.

It is against forum rules to make personal attacks or insult other members.

For another, you have hijacked this thread which is against forum rules. This thread is about Kieth Obermann and his statements regarding Jill Stanek. It is not your concept of ettiquette and how best to surrender the debate to the pro-abortion crowd. So start being polite by posting on topic or do not post. Your hijacking of this thread has already been reported to the moderators.

Rule breakers are generally considered, at best, impolite.

You are new to this forum. Forum rules are strictly enforced here. Post within the rules.

Report away, there was no intent on my part to high-jack this thread. My initial comments were very short and to the point. It was others who insisted on pursuing the conversation with me. I will now re-read the thread to locate the posts you’re talking about.

 

[Drawmack]

Well, for one thing, you utterly, and seemingly intentionally, misread an earlier post of mine and attacked me. Then when I clarified that post, your response was quite rude, ungracious, and uncharitable. As was the post I responded to where you clearly admit to insulting me.

It is against forum rules to make personal attacks or insult other members.

For another, you have hijacked this thread which is against forum rules. This thread is about Kieth Obermann and his statements regarding Jill Stanek. It is not your concept of ettiquette and how best to surrender the debate to the pro-abortion crowd. So start being polite by posting on topic or do not post. Your hijacking of this thread has already been reported to the moderators.

Rule breakers are generally considered, at best, impolite.

You are new to this forum. Forum rules are strictly enforced here. Post within the rules.

Okay, I reread the entire thread and I really don’t see what you’re talking about. I think much of this is in your perception because I honestly do not see it. We’ll let the moderators sort it out.

 

[rpp]

Okay, I reread the entire thread and I really don’t see what you’re talking about. I think much of this is in your perception because I honestly do not see it. We’ll let the moderators sort it out.

You have been added to my ignore list.

 

[MJGTMom]

What a brilliant observation by FOX. I wonder which party FOX endorses…hmm?

Olbermann’s views on abortion and homosexuality are despicable, but his political analysis provides a good counterbalance to the junk coming out of the right wing press.

Where in the world have you found a “right wing press”??? please let me know, I’d like to watch/read some!

As for Keith Olbermann, he should have stayed with ESPN–I enjoyed watching him in those days. Now, listening to his hate-filled, illogical diatribes, I wonder if in his sportcasting days, if he wasn’t sitting too close to the field and got hit with a few line drives!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I am by no means obfuscating the truth, or saying that it is too startling. It is a choice, granted it’s a choice to murder, but it is a choice. At least in America. For if it were not a choice then someone would be either forcing people to get abortions or forcing people not to. In America no one is forcing this. They are in China and there I would not refer to it as pro-choice. Though there I would not have the freedom of speech to talk about it either.

It is a choice that people should not have the legal ability to make because it is murder. But, it is still a choice. Everything is a choice unless you are forced. Refusing to call it choice is obfuscating the issue by implying that someone is advocating for making it mandatory.

You have to wonder why the left always hides the meaning of their acts with increasingly vague and ‘fluffy’ words.

I refuse to play along. I’m happy to see that others are on the same page.

 

[limerick]

You have to wonder why the left always hides the meaning of their acts with increasingly vague and ‘fluffy’ words.

I refuse to play along. I’m happy to see that others are on the same page.

**Drawmack concedes that when one chooses abortion one chooses murder. What in the world is “vague and ‘fluffy’” about that?

Limerick**

 

[Drawmack]

**Drawmack concedes that when one chooses abortion one chooses murder. What in the world is “vague and ‘fluffy’” about that?

Limerick**

Thank you.

 

[rpp]

**Drawmack concedes that when one chooses abortion one chooses murder. What in the world is “vague and ‘fluffy’” about that?

Limerick**

What is wrong is that he refuses to say that to people who he/she does not already know agree with him/her. He/she concedes the point and choioses to use the euphamisms of the muderers.

Now, stop letting Drawmack hijack this thread. This thread is not about drawmack inabgility to speak truthfully about abortion to abortion supporters. It is about Keith Obermann’s comments. Do not feed thread hijackers.

 

[Drawmack]

What is wrong is that he refuses to say that to people who he/she does not already know agree with him/her. He/she concedes the point and choioses to use the euphamisms of the muderers.

Now, stop letting Drawmack hijack this thread. This thread is not about drawmack inabgility to speak truthfully about abortion to abortion supporters. It is about Keith Obermann’s comments. Do not feed thread hijackers.

I would appreciate it if you did not make inflammatory comments about me after stating that I am on your ignore list. Please, if you’re going to ignore me do so peacefully and refrain from talking about me.

 

[JKing]

This is wrong. First, she didn’t prevent any murder because the fact that some nuts killed the good old doctor is not her responsibility. No reasonable people would attribute this death to Jill. Second, even if she were directly responsible for the doctor’s death, then she would be a despicable person herself, as the nuts who killed him indeed is. This is yet another example of the moral rule that the ends do not justify the means. That is, doing an evil (killing the doctor) to prevent an evil (the killing of numerous innocent babies) is evil itself.

I believe you misunderstood livi, whom you quoted in your post. Jill Staneck helped to prevent murder not by somehow enabling Tiller’s killer. She helped prevent murder by drawing attention to babies being born alive in abortion procedures. This led to the law that now protects them (despite Senator Obama’s opposition.)

I think Olberman linked the two (Staneck and Tiller’s death) together somehow in his twisted little mind, but they are unrelated.

 

[ltramel]

But, if they were converted to the wholeness and truth of the Catholic faith then they would also be converted on abortion by default. So, shouldn’t we be talking about conversion to the Catholic faith the same way we talk about conversion to pro-life?

Being Catholic does not mean you are Pro-Life or you are but you don’t want to tell other people how to live. 50% of Catholics voting voted for Barack Obama because they chose economy over life and now late term abortions are no longer banned. But I do understand about language and that maybe because of your situation 15 years ago, you are more sensitive to “the language” then some. I have a mentally retarded daughter and when I hear some language is hurts me and absolutely shuts me down…Retard…it turns me off to that person and anything they would say, so I do see your point there. Hearts and minds need to be changed. Your story, your personal witness is one of the very best ways to change peoples hearts and minds. It’s what I had to do.