January 13, 2012
Abortion.com – Find a Provider for Abortion Care
Posted by Elena Carvin under Abortion, Abortion Blog, Abortion Discussion, Abortion Medical, Abortion Pill, Methotrexate | Tags: Abortion, Abortion Pill, Late Abortion, Medical Abortion |[2,050] Comments
Abortion - Abortion Clinics, Abortion Pill, Abortion Information 
January 18, 2011 at 8:38 am
I’ve been looking, John, and maybe your answered it but I just can’t find it but can you tell me how you KNOW that James Kopp was “only” firing at Bart Slepian’s shoulder? If that is the case, then that is stunning news….Thanks
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 8:46 am
Oops, I just found your response, John!! I dont recall Kopp’s trial but did he ever say publicly that he didn’t mean to kill Bart?
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 9:29 am
Oh sure, that was a big part of his defense.
LikeLike
January 18, 2011 at 8:50 pm
Who cares about the murderer Kopp’s defense.
Dunkle cannot prove what Kopp’s intentions were when he was in the process of a planned murder.
Dunkle you still have not proven anything you claimed about Kopp’s intentions of murder.
Will you make good on your word?
I doubt it. Because you cannot you anti abortion illiterate fool.
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 5:26 am
please Karen — Mr. Dunkle
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 11:08 am
Seriously, though, why was Kopp “only” aiming at Bart’s shoulder? What was that all about?
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 11:16 am
Kopp knew that a man with a damaged shoulder would not be able to kill anyone before she completed her nine-month journey.
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 11:25 am
Dunkle still has not proven anything. He still has not proven what he said he could prove.
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 1:41 pm
What did I say I could prove? Why can’t you just say what you mean?
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 9:01 am
You cannot prove that Kopp only wanted to hit his shoulder because your only evidence is Kopp’s words. I suspect that he came up with that during the trial to try to mitigate his sentence. I think it’s a total crock. He took the time to get a high powered rifle, hide in the woods and shoot him with the intent of wounding him so he couldn’t perform abortions?? That’s total bull. If he got should in the shoulder (like Tiller did in the first time), he would have recovered within weeks. I think Kopp chickened out at the end and came up with this lame defense. What a putz…..
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 11:23 am
You’re wrong, Pat. I’m not going to tell you why, but read about the case carefully and you’ll figure it out for yourself.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 12:32 pm
Moreover, Tiller took a bullet in each forearm. That’s little different from taking one through your shoulder. Also, if Kopp had wanted to kill Slepian, a 22 through the head would have accomplished that. But in shooting through a window or frame, you cannot be precise with a 22. You can with a high-powered rifle, and Kopp wanted to be precise. Still,I’m not going to raise the best argument to prove it was an accident. You’ll have to find out that one for yourself.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 4:27 pm
Centering the sights on a .22-caliber rifle for 75 yards will enable the shooter to kill a squirrel. I had no idea that Kopp had to use a much bigger weapon! Isd it true that Slepian was only 2’6″ and Kopp fired from 2 miles away?
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 7:08 am
Huh? Huh?
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:37 pm
More stupid Dumbkle comments.
Thats how he avoids the hard questions.
The reality is he probably really is not smart enough to answer this crowd anyway.
He’ll burn in hell.
No doubt.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 8:09 am
We who are interested in shooting like to know what our weapons are capable of, and we will check out specs for other weapons as well. So, it is common knowledge among us that a .22 long rifle bullet in a weapon whose sights (or scope) is adjusted to a target three-quarters of a football field away can, in the hands of an average marksman, hit something the size of a squirrel, an animal about the size of a man’s hand.
Jimmy “Death Wish” Kopp chose an assault rifle and scope to do a number of Dr. Slepian’s shoulder, which means he must have been farther away than 75 yards and that Dr. Lepian’s shoulder must have been much smaller than a squirrel. Otherwise either Jimmy Death Wish was ignorant of basic shootery (in which case he didn’t deserve to own,much less handle a weapon) or he meant to kill him.
So, in Little Jimmy’s defense, I propose it must be that he was two miles distant from a target the size of that guy on TV who used to say, “De plane! De plane!” If not that, then he intended to murder.
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 3:09 pm
Standard Dunkle worthless comment.
Typical for Dunkle, a person that applauds murderers.
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 3:13 pm
Dunkle posted:
“Slep, I know for a fact that the shooter [murderer] aimed for the shoulder.”
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 9:46 pm
Thank you, George.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 7:29 am
George, legally, Dunkle can only say he believes Kopp was aiming for the shoulder, because the only evidence he has to substantiate it is a statement from Kopp himself, which by itself is not a provable statement– Kopp might have lied to him or been temporarily insane at the moment of pulling the trigger, etc. Dunkle can only know for a fact that Kopp claimed that.
Even more interesting is Dunkle’s unintentional revelation of trying to make himself look like a hero in the previous post, where he claims the fetus Kopp was saving was female.
Of course, “everybody” knows that girls are more helpless than boys, so this makes a so-called “pro-lifer” even more heroic– he’s saving the maiden from the dragon, just like St. George. Of course, the fetus can’t contradict him until it is born and grows up to be the next Ted Bundy or Andrea Yates, but the “pro-choicer” absolves himself of any responsibility for the multiple deaths that ensue by claiming how a child grows up is God’s will.
It’s a win-win, when you’re so-called “pro-life.” Which is why Dunkle keeps at it.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 8:04 am
“It’s a win-win, when you’re pro-life. Which is why Dunkle keeps at it.” Couldn’t have said it better myself, Chuckles.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 11:15 am
Because giving the appearance of “rescuing” a fetus (whom he has painted in the most glowing colors) and being able to excuse himself for every child’s adulthood outcome is so much easier than caring for even one child, the so-called “pro-lifer” expends much less energy in his role than any parent does.
Why does he prefer this role instead of a role where he really has to sacrifice his self-interests in the interests of a developing child? It has a lot to do with the possibility of not being very good at it; in effect, “losing,” as Matthew Wright’s adoptive dad would point out, except that Matthew killed him.
It is so much easier to wage a combat against an invented enemy and reap great satisfaction.
You don’t want to be in a so-called “pro-lifer’s” head.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 11:24 am
This I probably could put better — if I could understand it.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 11:47 am
The appearance of stupidity is a defense against having to acknowledge a reality. However, when one claims to have been a teacher, the defense doesn’t hold up at all well. Or maybe the educational critics are right. . .
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 11:56 am
See what I mean — from the incomprehensible to the vindictive?
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 3:18 pm
Dunkle cannot know that as a fact, he even appears to avoid and evade the question how he knows that as a fact.
I wish there were more prolifers here that did not believe that murder was OK.
So sad.
LikeLike
January 19, 2011 at 9:47 pm
It is not murder, Emily, when you defend yourself against someone who is coming to kill you.
LikeLike
January 30, 2011 at 10:57 am
Dunkle,
So the murdered doctor’s should have tried to kill the ProLifers who were trying to murder the Doctors and their staff?
LikeLike
January 31, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Make this coherent, Franklin, or should I do it for you?
LikeLike
February 2, 2011 at 2:42 pm
I can’t resist: “Britton should have used the gun he was carrying to kill Hill before Hill killed him and his bodyguard?”
Or, Franklin, you might have meant this: “Baby killers should shoot suspicious looking characters. Otherwise, they’re liable to get popped themselves.” Pick the one you meant, or maybe you meant something different. Then we can discuss.
LikeLike
January 20, 2011 at 8:13 am
This is an aside for Rog. On thenotsodailyherald you say you are a practicing Catholic. Kate doesn’t post 90% of the stuff I send her, so I’ll ask you here: does that mean you are also a believing Catholic? I ask this because 98% of practicing Catholics (Sunday church goers) do not accept the Church’s teaching on chastity. Do you?
LikeLike
January 23, 2011 at 6:39 am
Guess I ain’t gonna hear from Rog, so let me try this. Remember when all the illiterates on this blog used to attack me for avoiding “abortion.com” on Facebook? Now they’ve got another blog over there, “restoreabortion.com.” I still hate Facebook. I can’t find anything over there and when I do say something they erase it, just as Kate does on “thenotsodailyherald.” I don’t know the motive for the person responsible for this blog, and I don’t care. It is still, and it will always be, #1.
LikeLike
January 23, 2011 at 11:12 am
Believe me, John, there are times when I want to delete some of your posts as well, especially when you get very personal about some of my friends who are now dead. But I have to err on the side of the bigger issue, which is free speech. You piss me off, but I vigorously defend your right to piss me off….
Meanwhile, was there a march on the 22nd in D.C.? I saw absolutely no coverage of it in this morning’s Washington Post….
LikeLike
January 23, 2011 at 3:42 pm
No, it’s tomorrow. I’ll be there because i have to see someone. Otherwise, no.
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 8:28 am
Dunkle helped write (edit?) a book about about a Sniper?
What is that about?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 8:49 am
Actually, John, how did you come to edit Kopp’s book? Did you know him before he killed…oh, excuse me, attempted to wound, Bart Slepian?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 10:49 am
Pat, I told you all this! I met him in a jail in Atlanta, around ’90. We became good friends and still are.
I am editing one of his books now, but I’ve never done it before. Are you confusing me with Jon Wells who wrote “Sniper”?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 8:48 am
A Canadian, Jon Wells, wrote the book.
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 10:18 am
all i see from John is
BLA BLA BLA
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 11:41 am
Angela, Google “aborticentrism” and get a larger perspective of where he and his ilk are coming from. A lot of what he does, he can’t help.
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 9:43 pm
I agree with Angela, all that guy that supports murderers does is talk nonsense. He adds nothing to the conversation.
He is proud of editing a murderer’s writings?
Did I read that correctly?
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 8:14 am
Course not, Katira. You have to learn to read first.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 11:09 am
Dumbkle, what was that stupid reply of yours?
LikeLike
January 26, 2011 at 10:28 pm
Apparently he admitted to thinking the murderers as friends, wouldn’t mind one as a son, burnt an American flag honoring a convicted murderer, apparently edits writings for murderers (did I read that correctly?)
and,
he bothers people outside of their homes, and makes women feel intimidated by his annoying presence.
He evades questions, has stupid remarks, like huh?
Instead of discussing an issue he will try and be a pseudo intellectual and criticize your grammar or spelling. To avoid the fact that he does not have a good reply to the question.
In my opinion he has written nothing of value here, and he is outwitted every time, he must not be very smart. Although he clearly thinks he is.
On top of all of it, the Pro Lifers don’t even seem to like him and disagree with him. He alienates people that could help him!
Not too smart.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:00 am
Huh? (Duplicate comment detected. It looks as if you’ve already said that.) So let me try this: Wha?
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 9:06 am
Huh?
Wa?
More stupid Dumbkle remarks.
Again he fails to address the issues posed to him.
Classic for someone not smart enough to construct a well formed position.
Dumbkle is just not up to the task.
I only expect stupid remarks from him.
He has never outwitted anyone.
The Dumbkle likes convicted murderers. He is like a character out of a horror movie.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 9:18 am
Huh?
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 9:09 am
#17
Typical Dumbkle reply.
Why bother?
Unless he tries to be intelligent.
If he doesn’t have that capacity, he does not have it.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 10:24 am
“Dumbkle”! Hey, clever.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 10:50 am
Point proven.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 10:55 am
Why not, more importantly, if you are as smart as you think you are (or not), support your position of harassing innocent people, or supporting convicted murderers instead?
Or are you truly Dumbkle the know nothing?
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 1:19 pm
I think I see some potential questions here. Select one, Lostris, and write it coherently. If you’d rather, I will do it for you.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 4:41 pm
Another stupid Dumbkle comment.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:23 pm
I agree this dummy cannot even reply with anything except stupid statements.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 11:12 am
I read his writings here.
The Dunkle really does not have any knowledge of the issue, although he likes to make grade school comments.
He is not capable of a literate response.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:29 pm
There are a lot of people who are falling into the trap laid for them by a so-called “pro-lifer,” who encourages their ad hominem and vindictive comments. What they provide for him is evidence that his is the right side, as he can judge by people who respond at his level.
It is necessary for the continued well-being of a so-called “pro-lifer” to project– to impose on another his faults for purposes of catharsis– and engaging in gutter-sniping merely provides him with an easier job of it.
Far better is to simply ask him a question repeatedly, without getting personal or losing your cool, until he answers it satisfactorily. You deprive him of mastery over your emotions.
LikeLike
January 27, 2011 at 5:51 pm
Hey, now this is not bad. Chuckles, I’m amazed. Of course you’ll get nowhere because you’re talking to illiterates.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 3:38 pm
CG,
another Dumbkle response, just worthless.
LikeLike
January 28, 2011 at 6:34 pm
See?
LikeLike