Chum
Appearing on a nationally syndicated daytime talk show five days after losing a parent is not a good idea. Indeed, I am sure that nine of 10 grief counselors would agree that subjecting oneself to a live studio audience less than a week after your father has been murdered is most assuredly unhealthy. When you compound the death with a handgun murder, multiply it by a controversial subject such as abortion, and cube it by a guest list which includes someone who you know is anti-abortion, it can only yield pain. Not your typical blunt object to the gut pain but anguish that leaves you crying open mouthed with no sound.
I was ill-prepared to say the least.
I flew to New York City from Nashville the Sunday before the show aired, or it could have been that same Monday. I don’t really remember. In fact, I have remarkably little recall of the show. I do remember meeting Phil Donohue. He was a fixture in my life since childhood. My mom watched his show daily when I was smaller—I’d say I was a child, but I was pretty much a child on that day though I thought I was so much more at the time. I guess everyone looks back on their past selves and says, “damn was I a dumbass.” Perhaps not. I do it constantly.
In addition to Phil, I met the producers and the other guests. I do recall what they called the “green room,” getting the hair and make-up treatment, someone saying “time will go by quickly,” and thinking to myself, “you will not break.” In fact, one of my most vivid memories of that day is parroting that simple phrase mantra like over and over again.
Honestly, from a choreography standpoint, the producers did an excellent job. The cast included the following players: Susan Hill, a strikingly beautiful Southern clinic owner and co-worker of my dad’s; Ron Fitzsimmons, a tough but pragmatic lobbyist and head of NCAP (National Coalition of Abortion Providers); Tavey Crist, a no bullshit OB/GYN and abortion provider who chartered his own plane to get to New York to serve as a panelist and advocate for his fellow besieged doctors; and me, the open wound. Then there was the as yet unknown anti-abortion activist named Paul Hill. In fact, we almost appeared in that order left to right on the stage, but someone—I believe Dr. Crist—was strategically placed between Hill and I.
The choice side of the cast knew one another and had worked together for some time. I was new and had only recently talked to Susan—she was instrumental in convincing me to go on the show. No one knew Paul Hill, but we all knew he was decidedly of the anti-abortion persuasion likely (as many in the anti-abortion crowd had already done) to explain how unfortunate dad’s killer’s actions were and to placate those ready to label the anti-abortion crowd as zealots with passive qualifiers, half hearted indignancy, and self serving non apologies.
I knew Paul was there to speak for the other side—the producers told me an anti abortion spokesperson was on the panel prior–and wondered nervously how the show would go, how I’d hold up under Phil’s and the audience’s questions, and whether I’d keep my promise to remain solid.
When we went live, I blanked out. I have never had an out of body experience or amnesia of the non-drunken variety; however, I honestly have no memory of the show other than small slices. When Paul Hill uttered the soon to be famous words “justifiable homicide,” though, I woke up from my somnolence and remembered why I agreed to go on the goddamned show in the first place.
My formative years were spent in abortion clinics. I visited my first clinic when I was 14, attended my first pro-choice rally at 15, witnessed protesters and their ever growing ire for the better part of my life, and lost my dad to a religious terrorist’s gun, but I had never heard someone argue it was justifiable, and I was woefully emotionally unprepared for Paul Hill and his advocacy for what he claimed he wanted to prevent: murder.
When he uttered the phrase “justifiable homicide,” it was as if Ross Perot’s giant sucking sound removed all air from the room. We were in New York City with a predominately female New York City audience confronted by a Southern, Presbyterian minister openly advocating for the murder of a doctor.
Silence typically predicates an eruption, and most of the audience was aghast at Hill’s remarks. He, though, seemed to relish the attention. My clearest memory of that day was his analogy about the “justifiable” actions of my dad’s assassin. I’m paraphrasing, but he coldly explained that dad’s assassin was no different than someone who, when confronted with a mad gunman picking children off at random in a playground, elects to kill the murderer in defense of innocent life. In his view, abortion providers deserved death and deserved it immediately, without remorse, and without consequence.
I did not break. Perhaps a combination of shock and exhaustion prevented the proverbial dam from bursting, but I did not break. I maintained my composure. I did not give in to anger and hate. I did not become Paul Hill.
I did realize, though, that Paul was right about one thing: If you believe abortion is murder, then you believe doctors are murders. If you believe in an eye for an eye type justice as most on his side do, it is only logical to conclude what Paul concluded and said on 15 March 1993: abortion is murder; abortion providers are murderers; murderers deserve death; hence doctors deserve to die. It is very simple syllogistic logic. It is terrifyingly simplistic. It is most assuredly absurd and fucked up logic, but to those of Hill’s ilk, it makes perfect sense.
Maybe someone prior to Hill and dad’s murder silently advocated for a doctor’s murder? I certainly believe Michael Griffin—dad’s assassin—did not suddenly become an anti-abortion murderer and terrorist. I think what Hill expressed that day on national television five days after the first abortion provider was murdered was said in private by many on his side for years; however, on that day, he let the genie loose. He had the appalling courage to say what many believed and were waiting to hear. In one hour of daytime drama, the bait blood clouded the water and a national spokesman was born.
Simultaneously, a palpable shift occurred in the audience. It was a man behind the curtain moment. They watched in person how the debate immediately changed, and they recoiled at Hill’s arrogance. Doctor. Crist spoke forcefully on behalf of doctors. Susan and Ron remained calm but effective in their defense of clinic owners and staff as well as in their condemnation of Hill. I simply did not break.
I know I participated in the conversation. I have fleeting memories of telling dad’s story, talking about the murder, peeling back the skin of the open wound, and allowing a small voyeuristic glimpse of my pain; yet, I did not break. As much as Donohue and the show’s producers wanted the money shot, I did not weep. I was not provoked to hysterical anger.
I never viewed the show. I never will. It was the show that launched a murder epidemic which continues to this day. We did not know, nor could we predict, at the stage how serious Hill was and that he eventually murdered a doctor, his escort, and seriously wounded the escort’s wife.. We do now, and his influence is as palpable today as it was 21 years ago.
As a result of my performance on the Donohue Show, I suddenly became abortion rights chum the antithesis of Hill’s pro-murder anti-woman blood bait. He and I crossed paths many times over the next year while the sharks circled concentrically.
May 22, 2014 at 4:11 am
David Gunn gets it wrong in paragraph 13. Ever since 1973 abortionists have been killers, not murderers. In fact the state (that’s us, babes) not only made it legal for them to kill, we made everybody pay them to do it. I know some pro-lifers will counter by saying that in God’s eyes abortionists are murderers, but none of us knows what’s in God’s eyes. Sure we all have opinions and mine is that when this plays out, more pro-lifers than pro-deathers will burn in hell.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 7:00 am
Abortion is not murder. There no hell aside from the self created variety.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 9:42 am
Dunkle: Some believe in God as you do, using selective passages from the Bible to conduct themselves in despicable, judgmental ways… Others believe in God for goodness in the world and their behaviors reflect what many are at least taught to be Christianity in action. And, still many others consider the entire concept of God a fantasy of sorts, the Bible a history lesson with unverifiable claims. Whatever one believes, none of those beliefs have a role in any discussion about abortion, especially if the discussion is suppose to influence public policy or medical standards or the like. Abortion is a medical procedure that some women choose for reasons that are none of your business. Abortion is not murder. Abortion providers are not murderers – unless, of course, they are killing women through illegal abortion.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 9:51 am
Exactly…
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 11:01 am
What about if they’re killing little women through legal abortion?
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 11:52 am
Dunkle, they aren’t killing little women. Your “what if” scenario is patently false and ludicrous.
In response, what if unicorns really did fart rainbows?
See, typing does not constitute scientific fact. It’s just typing.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 12:43 pm
Some are little women, D, They’re not grown women yet, and they’re not pears.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 1:38 pm
Pears? Seriously? We’re debating pears. In that case…
I prefer apples. In fact, I ate one for lunch just a bit ago. I feel a little less guilt eating apples knowing they are non-sentient and all. I even enjoy baby apples of the crab apple variety and have a tree which will hopefully become laden with fruit any day.
Once, I ate two apples for lunch. I believe I was outside of the university listening to Tool’s Undertow. You probably wouldn’t appreciate Tool, but maybe you do. Never know on these things. Anyhow, at the end of the disc (this was the 90s; we had CDs), it started jumping manically up to like track 99–apparently it was a trend to hide tracks in the 90s cause Nirvana and NiN did it as well. Maynard was preaching on this particular track sounding somewhat Sam Kinnisonish about fruit and vegetable consciousness.
As I listend, having just injested said apples, I became a bit concerned at the karmic implications of ingesting sentient beings; however, I quickly realized a) I was probably intoxicated; b) Maynard is typically full of shit; and c) irony is funny.
Perhaps your an artful ironist?
Pears. I don’t like ’em. Don’t trust ’em. They’re all mishapen, dirty looking, and have an odd gritty texture that is not at all appetizing. Good analogy for this irony you keep passing off as logic.
Dunkorny. I like that, but not pears.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 2:02 pm
Huh?
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 12:16 pm
Legal abortion does not kill little women, big women, or any woman but for the rare complication. In the history of legal abortion there have been some bad docs and thank your God that abortion was legal so that those docs could be charged and convicted. I mention this before you try to respond with some distorted version of reality. Another thing Dunkle: Illegal abortion does kill little women, big women, all variations of women through infections, blood loss, etc. I do not believe in hell but, if I did, I would agree with you that more “pro-lifers” would end up there. God-like people or spirits in the sky most certainly would not understand why they put so much effort into fetuses instead of needy children or women in general.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 12:44 pm
When filicide and uxoricide become legal, MT, and they will, I would include those too in what I actively oppose. Right now, however, around here only feticide is legal
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 1:16 pm
Dunkle: The only people who seem interested in killing or murdering are, very sadly, those who seem to cherish the fetus and, as David Gunn, Jr. mentioned in his post, “justifiable homicide” is how such folks consider murder when it is to save a fetus.
Filicide and uxorcide becoming legal? In some cultures around the world, might as well say it is so. In the U.S., don’t be absurd…
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 2:06 pm
Stay with that stuff you’re on, D. Give up this.
MT, when I was your age, I thought making murder legal was absurd. Then it happened.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 1:40 pm
Feticide is not legal. Pears are.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Dunkle: I have not provided my age. Apparently you make presumptions and judgments about all people, not just women who choose abortion or people who think abortion is a legitimate option for women. Furthermore, I am not aware of any statute in which murder has been made legal. There are certain laws that address specific circumstances in which intentional homicide can be legal, relative to self-defense. If you throw abortion into the “legal murder” definition, we can all comprehend the propaganda intent but it is not murder and I am at an age in which I can understand how things are defined, just so you know.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 3:51 pm
Don’t play games with me, MT. In 1972 abortion was illegal because it was murder. In 1973 they legalized murder.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 10:11 am
Dunkle: I do not play games with women’s health and lives. You are a chatterbox of nothing but illogical, creepy, frightening, and truly despicable non-wisdom.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 10:37 am
MT, I think you missed this: “He needles people into becoming his pawns in a game of words that ends with you all you looking like mad, angry idiots.”
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 2:35 pm
Dunkle: I did not “miss” any comments about anything. You are entertaining. You are not getting under the skin of anyone that I can see commenting here. Doing the pro-choice cause good is actually a spot-on comment about your words! Yeah, you are gamey, but you do not outsmart anyone. You know, we all know, that you are basically here to annoy. Fun hurts no one. Being a gay immigrant American in the process of adopting an older child, these kinds of discussions are also enlightening. You fool no one Dunkle.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 4:23 pm
Yup, “You are a chatterbox of nothing but illogical, creepy, frightening, and truly despicable non-wisdom” sure fooled me.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 11:29 am
Oh jeez John Dunkle – no one is killing little women! Abortion prevents the development and birth of a human being. That is fact. There is immense gratitude for doctors who provide abortion, whether as an elective procedure or one that saves the health or life of a woman.
David, as always, glad to see you sharing your experiences and thoughts. MTabb – nice articulation of thought. It is obviously fair to say that views about abortion remain polarized, with John Dunkle inserting his personal perspective that abortion is murder, with no regard for the circumstances of the woman’s choice. I guess the echo chambers are functioning nicely once again.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 11:53 am
You rock, Kimmie.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 12:45 pm
Filicide prevents the development of a human being too, Kimmie. No reason to kill her..
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 1:47 pm
Trident prevents tooth decay. Decay is living but also dying–like us–how dichotomous. Trident is a murderer.
How long do you want to persist with these absurd analogies? I’m really beginning to believe you’re a skilled satirist.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 2:08 pm
See above.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 2:50 pm
Perhaps…Dunkle…your ” little woman” is one of the Catholic women that use to sit in our office’s and “shake” because she had one child after another and her spouse was strict Catholic that believes she is his “broodmare” !! She felt to go through another pregnancy would surely kill her….she was afraid to tell her husband!! So she came to us to terminate her pregnancy and keep her secret safe!! Some times leaving with “secret birth control” so she would never get pregnant again!! We treated her with respect, she got safe medical care…I think that’s why God put us there…to help women!! Don’t you?
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 3:03 pm
What a somber reminder of real life Lorraine, albeit so very sad… I can recall two instances of teen women coming for abortion appointments at the family planning clinic I once directed; the mom of one and both parents of the other had picketed outside of the clinic at various times. In BOTH cases, the young women requested birth control pills, begging staff not to tell their parents. Also in both cases, as the parents signed the consent forms that were required by law, counselors were informed of how the abortions were for “special circumstances” – of course!! Abortion is just fine when it is in your interest…for the sake of the young women, I was grateful that their appointments were not on the same day although a part of me so wished the parents would have run into each other in the waiting room… Again, thank you for commenting – too many women live in the very fear you alluded to and in 2014, you would think those days would be gone…
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm
LDM, wow! Glad you’re back. God didn’t put you there, young lady. Satan did.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 3:38 pm
David, I have been trying to figure out how best to articulate that, well, your “Trident” response was perfect. The illogical and, yes, absurd comments that come from Dunkle and so many antichoicers can truly be likened to satire! However entertaining at times, in the end what is so dreadful is the complete lack of willingness or ability to accept the prospect that other views are valid. We on the pro-choice side understand and accept that others have views different from our own and we are fine as long as no one tries to impose their views on us. I have never understood why it is that the anti-choice zealots cannot grasp the concept of acceptance of others, their views, etc. Argh ugh.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 3:56 pm
Intollerence and control. Period.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:06 pm
But the arguments that allow us to kill innocents are so weak, Kimmie. I thought we’d exhausted them when we realized the German holocaust. The only thing you have left is personal attack as you’ll see if you read above and the comments on Pat’s post about me.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 2:33 pm
John Dunkle, you well know that law, science, and social/medical and even many religious ethics define abortion and filicide in entirely different frameworks. As always, I completely respect your view that egg + sperm = a complete human being. It simply is not representative of reality. There is a significant difference between choosing to abort an undeveloped human being, a potential son or daughter, and the murder or killing of an actual son or daughter. I will not enter into a nonsensical exchange about it but will say that the earlier comment from MTabb that the reasons a woman chooses abortion are not the business of anyone but the woman making the decision.We are not privy to her mind nor should we be.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 3:54 pm
There is no reasoning with a hegemonist who clings to truths rather than facts, advocates actual murder, and fails to see contradiction when it sits on his face. Ultimately, Michael Griffin, Paul Hill, John Salvi et al are the real murderers. All were charged with murder, two were convicted of murder, and one still rots in prison for actual factual murder. Dunkle’s metaphysical arguments are nothing but sound and fury signifying nothing, and they cannot change the murderous biographical facts of those above mentioned regardless of what truth he tries to use to justify an untenable position.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:17 pm
And D, I offer no metaphysical arguments, only physical ones — It is immoral, grotesque, Satanic to kill any innocent person, the younger the worse. That’s not a metaphysical being, D. She’s flesh and blood and alive, very physical.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Morality is metaphysical, not scientific. Grotesque is an adjective, not a scientific fact. Satan is most assuredly metaphysical. So your arguments are based on hyperbolic adjectives and metaphysics as I stated previously.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 5:22 pm
I think you got me.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 8:56 pm
I think you are right. Match point. You’re good though.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:19 pm
And please, when someone addresses a comment to me, wait a bit. I’ll respond. Otherwise your jumping in gets everything mixed up.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 10:14 am
Dunkle: How rude. No one is that anxious for your pious commentary that they will “wait” – what a joke but a great attempt at adult entertainment online.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 10:38 am
See above.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:12 pm
You’re wrong, Kimmie. There is no significant difference between killing an undeveloped human being a week old and killing one a year old. Or killing one forty years old. We’re all developing. That’s why I’m here for you guys.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:32 pm
No John, You are wrong…science, law, morality, ethics – sure does make you wrong although, again, I always respect and accept that you think differently.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 5:26 pm
It becomes a game, Kimmie. Science, law, morality, ethics — sure does make you wrong. See? I can say the same thing.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 10:16 am
Dunkle: there is a significant difference. Developed and undeveloped – are you sure you can’t see the significant difference?
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 10:39 am
I can’t see it.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 3:05 pm
David…as I sat in my office at my clinic in Charleston, SC prepared to watch “Phil”…I certainly knew this was an important show! I think I can speak for the “pro-choice” community when I say we were “numb with the horror of the last 5 days”!! I knew that for Phil Donahue having this show on so quickly after your Dad’s murder was so important on so many levels!! I believe that he wanted to show the insanity of such a horrific act!! (It certainly did that!!)!!
As a mother of a child not to much younger than you…I along with many others was so proud of you that day!! I know your Dad was right there with his hand on your shoulder…giving you the strength you needed when you needed it!!) David you conducted yourself with so much grace, dignity and you honored your Dad and what he believed in and actually had his life taken because some radical fanatic thought he would “play God”!!
I did feel that day would NOT be the last time we heard the name of the murder on stage with you…one year later when we all came together to honor Dr. David Gunn…we saw him outside the clinic with his menagerie that he paraded around with…I was fairly close to him at one point and it made me shutter…later he murdered (3) people!! I often think about what he thought when his soul left his body….and he headed in the wrong direction!!
Thank you for sharing your feelings about that time…we were all very sad… but so proud of you!
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 3:59 pm
Thank you, Lorraine. If people would tend their own gardens and worry less about the weeds in their neighbors, we’d all be much better off.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:18 pm
AMEN. David Gunn, Jr!!
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:21 pm
This is what it was like before I came back — a mutual admiration society. Boring, right?
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 4:56 pm
Nope. Just one that does not seek to impose their views on others.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 5:30 pm
Common now, we all seek to impose our views on others. You were successful in 1973 in imposing your views on me. Now I’m trying to impose mine on you. Nothing wrong with that. So drop that argument.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 8:06 am
Dunkle, First, I don’t impose anything on anyone. I think everyone should be able to do with their bodies what they want, when they want, with whom they want, and how they want. It’s that whole “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” thing. It’ part of one of those documents the founding fathers right leaning folks so admire drafted a couple hundred years ago. Perhaps you should take a gander some time. Google. Easy.
Dunkle, your point in favor of hegemony is invalid. It is inherently wrong to impose views on others. As one example, Christians are consistently up in arms about “Christian persecution,” “the war on Christmas,” and “the loss of our Amurica.” They obviously find something very wrong with the proposition they should adopt views different from their own and certainly resent the perceived imposition–as a tangent, we can debate whether or not there is any validity to the above in a different forum.
Just as antis fail to see the irony in advocating doctor murder in the name of their interpreation of life based solely on a metaphysical definition as we have already established, some Christians, in general, fail to grasp the contradiction in panicking over some perceived infringement on their Christianity while at the same time consistently trying to convert people to their religion through coercive means.
Go ask some native Africans or Indians how the whole colonial conquest felt to them. I’m sure they do not agree that there “is nothiing wrong with imposing views on others.” In fact, there were a number of revolutions on this point if I recall. I believe one occurred here when England tried to impose their views on its colonies.
I’m sure if you ask a Native American they can explain to you in detail how “imposing views” on another group of people is horrid. Further, you can ask GA Rep. Cummings how he felt when someone imposed their views on him as he attempted to cross the Edmund Pettus bridge in Selma how that felt and whether there was any harm in it or not.
Michael Griffin and Paul Hill tried to impose their views on others. Three real people are dead. You cannot get any more wrong than that.
So, I say again, just as I did earlier, stop attempting to buttress your arguments with false equivalancies, hyperbolic analogies, and metaphysics or superstition, The historical facts directly cotradict your assertion there is no harm in one imposing their will over another. I do, though, think you’ve struck on something very profound as follows:
Your side sees nothing wrong with attempting to shape the world, and others, into a reflection of itself through imposition, hegemony, intimidation, and murder.
In contrast, we just want to be left the fuck alone to, I don’t know, help one another. I bet you’ll fail to see the irony in that as well.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 8:28 am
Cut through the verbiage to your crux — I believe those are real people we are killing; you believe they are not real people. (One of those beliefs is a false faith.)
Then I tried to get cute by asking you if you thought they were pears, and you went ballistic.
So now I ask you straight out: what were you nine months before you were born?
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 9:18 am
First, Dunkle, the whole apple tangent was parody, not histrionics. Irony. look it up. There is a difference. Do you seriously think you upset or rattle me? These discussions are amusing. Amusement does not equal befuddlement, anger, resentment, or any other negative emotion. I’ve actually been in a very good mood over the last few days for a whole host of reasons I’ll not go into in this forum as they are not important.
Needless to say, nothing you say bothers me. I find it entertaining and amusing. I do take this stuff seriously, but I don’t get mad. That’s self defeating.
Second, nine months before I was born, I was a probably a zygote. I had no identity. I had no sense of self. I was not sentient. According to most OB/GYN sources, I didn’t have a heart beat nine months before I was born. The potential person who was born and subsequently became me was, at nine months pre ejection from womb, in no way shape or form a person. I had no free will which you folks seem to think is the excuse for all kinds of woe and disorder.
I agree with your claim that you believe abortion is murder and I don’t. We knew that before we started this yesterday. It will be that way all day today and until both of us die someday somehow.
I also believe your assertion that one of those beliefs is based on faith–whether or not it is “false faith” is for you to decide as it is you who base your beliefs and truths on your Christian faith–not me.
Since you base your truths and beliefs on your faith and I don’t, and we live in a democratic socieity which separates church from state, and as we have already established subordinating another and forcing them to bend to your will against theirs is tantamount to true evil (and eliminates free will which you Christian folks, again, seem to think explains the whole god thing which is another tangent we’d have to debate at some other point), then why can’t you simply admit that you have no business trying to impose your faith based view of when life begins and what constitutes murder on the rest of us. I am not trying to convince you to change your view. I am not trying to convince you to accept mine. I am simply pointing out the logical fallacies in every argument you use to support your position.
Your arguments are not logically sound, reason based, or rational. They are emotional, faith based, self imposed truths which do not hold up under scrutiny. Period.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 9:31 am
Who you think you’re talking to , D? Somebody smart? You ain’t! Get down to my level.
LikeLike
May 22, 2014 at 5:43 pm
John Dunkle, golly you keep getting things wrong. No one view was imposed at all in 1973. At. All. What happened was that the Supreme Court recognized what all reasonable jurists, doctors, and people generally recognized long before, and that is that abortion is a legitimate choice for women who are pregnant . It put an end to the religious view of “abortion is wrong or abortion is murder” being imposed on people. It enabled CHOICE for women, choice to receive safe reproductive healthcare, inclusive of abortion, and choice to have control over when and whether to have children.
Go on and keep writing your truly nonsensical notes and quips – you are enlightening those who are young and just beginning to understand the zealotry that is out there, the zealotry that in fact promotes murder of decent human beings, like Dr. Gunn, who are making immense contributions to the safety and health of women during their reproductive years. Your brand of zealotry has always been helpful to the pro-choice movement.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 4:57 am
Kimmie Farrell, golly you keep getting things wrong: “Your brand of zealotry has always been helpful to the pro-choice movement.”
No, Kim, it’s my brand of wishy-washy prolifism that’s the problem. I call abortion murder but I don’t act as if it is, and I say we’re in a war but I don’;t fight as if we are. And there are millions like me.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 8:45 am
An excellent illustration of how the so-called “pro-life” movement defines the terms of engagement and gulls people into arguing by them.
As Ernest Becker wrote, “A hero is one who pays the price society specifies.”
An almost certain way of becoming a hero is to save a fellow human being.
It becomes more certain if that fellow human being is innocent both in conduct and of worldly ways, someone who is incapable of recognizing the danger to him- or herself and thus in need of a rescuer.
Since our society has a strong sexist orientation we will accord even greater homage to the rescuer of an innocent female than an innocent male.
Finally, society gives its highest accolades to one who rescues another from death by intentional violence; e.g., a rip tide and a psychopath can both kill, but only the psychopath can modify his strategy to meet changes in circumstance.
So it is important for so-called “pro-lifers” to insist that something with the intelligence and cognition of an earthworm is fully human, that the fetus is an “innocent angel” and that abortion providers are murderers, because so-called “pro-lifers” have a need to be seen as heroes.
Rather than pay the price society specifies by meeting that price, they change it.
Arguing their claim that abortion providers are killers merely reinforces their attempt to make themselves heroes. The fact is, people should be arguing that the so-called “pro-lifers” are living out their fantasy.
Now, John Dunkle is going to say this is psychobabble. I would point out to people that when he refers to the sex of the typical “unborn innocent” he would “rescue,” it has always been a girl. Freud would have a lot to say about that.
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 2:51 pm
RRTL Chuck – it is always interesting to see the elements of Dunkle…and I agree that Freud would have a lot to say about his “girl” references. As one comment alluded to, there is entertainment value in, well, dunking once in awhile!
LikeLike
May 24, 2014 at 4:29 pm
D, would call this physical or metaphysical: “see the elements of Dunkle”?
LikeLike
May 25, 2014 at 6:05 pm
Why can’t I get this right — would you call this . . .
LikeLike
May 23, 2014 at 9:27 am
Now, John Dunkle is going to say this is psychobabble.
LikeLike
May 26, 2014 at 9:45 am
Are you guys having fun yet??? Who’s winning?
LikeLike
May 26, 2014 at 10:10 am
I’m winning but Chuckles rocks — he invents great words that I can really use, like psychobabble. And DG too — rocks.
LikeLike
May 28, 2014 at 5:22 am
Well Pat, looks as if we’ll end up talking to each other. I knew I shouldn’t have posted Ligget. He chases ’em.
LikeLike
May 31, 2014 at 3:18 am
Look guys, I never thought you’d all quit on me. Ligget was just trying to be funny. Y’ain’t idiots. You’re cool, especially MT, that nice young man of disordered sexual inclination. I’ll be away till Tuesday. When I get back, I want to read stuff. Hit me hard.
LikeLike
May 26, 2014 at 6:20 am
http://www.truebluepolitics.com/
Above is a link to my blog that I wrote about my first experience as clinic escort. I focused on the anti’s, each time I escort I will blog about my experience.
thanks David for telling us your story
LikeLike
May 31, 2014 at 10:27 am
The so-called “pro-lifer” uses abortion as a way to focus attention on himself. People might have noticed that the exchanges between themselves and Mr. Dunkle have involved nothing of substance; in fact, he has gone out of his way to avoid discussing substantive aspects of the issue.
I am reminded of a quite undisciplined child of my son’s acquaintance who had a reputation as the town’s chief misbehavior. He would do anything to make himself the center of attention, even if being the center of attention meant being escorted to the principal’s office. We are seeing something similar to that when we look at the so-called “pro-life” movement, and, sad to say, Mr. Dunkle’s appearance here.
LikeLike
June 2, 2014 at 8:28 pm
Damn! What can I say? Chuck’s almost got me too.
LikeLike
June 3, 2014 at 3:15 pm
Here’s what the so-called “pro-life” movement thinks of human life:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/03/bodies-of-800-babies-long-dead-found-in-septic-tank-at-former-irish-home-for-unwed-mothers/?tid=sm_fb
This is synecdoche, make no mistake.
LikeLike
July 2, 2014 at 9:03 pm
I see a lot of interesting content on your page.
You have to spend a lot of time writing, i know
how to save you a lot of work, there is a tool that creates unique, google
friendly articles in couple of minutes, just search in google – laranita’s free content source
LikeLike
August 5, 2015 at 1:07 pm
For David Gunn Jr.: I came across a YouTube video that you made about your dad’s assassination and felt the need to reach out. I hope that you’ll see this.
Your father saved my life when I was 17 and pregnant as a result of rape. He was murdered not even a month later. (You might even possibly remember an article that I co-wrote soon after for a certain fluffy women’s magazine.) I remember him as kind and caring. His murder influenced my life drastically; I saw Dr. Britton for a follow up and he was killed a year later. I feel forever entwined in the horrors of 1993-1994. I am so sorry that you and your family lost your father. He is forever in my heart for treating me so kindly and for saving me when I was a teenager. (For the pro life loonies: I would’ve just killed myself and the unborn child if I’d been forced to carry it.) I think of him and your family often. I will always fight loudly for the right for women to choose — I hope that you know that for all the zealots out there, there are those of us whose lives were drastically affected by your father; his murder only made me a stronger advocate for pro-choice.
LikeLike
August 6, 2015 at 7:51 pm
I didn’t mean to post this on two blog entries!! My apologies! (Cringe)
LikeLike