ESSAY- Texas Taliban: Why they still fear Jefferson

The impending celebration of Independence Day comes about four months after the powerful Texas Board of Education voted to undermine one of our Constitutionally-guaranteed freedoms; namely, that of religion, which is guaranteed by the First Amendment. Unfortunately, the extreme religious right often claims that our government is based on Christianity, and their acts of textbook censorship and revision of American history suggest that a Christian Taliban is on the rise.

They typically argue that the founders were Christian men who crafted laws based upon the biblical Ten Commandments. Our laws and their antecedents do basically agree with the Ten Commandments, but so have the laws and mores of most civilizations, as they were all drawn from human experience. And although the founders generally attended Christian churches, they wisely realized that the populace was religiously diverse and that no particular religion or sect should be formally recognized.

As a member of the Board of Visitors of William and Mary, Jefferson helped abolish its divinity school and replace its two faculty members with professors of science and law. He included neither a chapel nor a professor of religion at the University of Virginia. As for Jesus, Jefferson did revere him–- but as a reformer, a teacher of ethics, and as a moral example to mankind. In his later years, Jefferson produced an edited version of the New Testament, from which he redacted what he called the "corrupted" passages, which he believed were added by partisan priests promoting their new religion.

While Jefferson was raised Anglican, he was so proud of his authorship of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, which disestablished the Anglican church as his state's official church, that authorship of the Statute was one of the three accomplishments he requested for inscription upon his grave marker. He and the other framers the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were deists, not theists, and were inspired by the ideals of the European Enlightenment– by thinkers such as Voltaire, Rousseau, Diderot, Bacon, and Locke. 

Now, seemingly unaware that our Constitution is a secular document, the reactionary members of the Texas Board of Education push Creationism as an opposing view into their biology textbooks. And they have downplayed Thomas Jefferson to just a few short sentences in their approved history books. To see why his ideas provoke such fear, one need only read Jefferson:

"I have sworn on the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."–to Benjamin Rush, 1800

"I never will, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance or admit a right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." –to Edward Dowse, 1803

"The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty Gods or no God."–in Notes on the State of Virginia, 1781-83

"Whenever... preachers, instead of a lesson in religion, put [their congregation] off with a discourse on the Copernican system, on chemical affinities, on the construction of government, or the characters or conduct of those administering it, it is a breach of contract, depriving their audience of the kind of service for which they are salaried, and giving them, instead of it, what they did not want, or, if wanted, would rather seek from better sources in that particular art or science." –to P. H. Wendover, 1815

"I am really mortified to be told that, in the United States of America, a fact like this [i.e., the purchase of an apparent geological or astronomical work] can become a subject of inquiry, and of criminal inquiry too, as an offense against religion; that a question about the sale of a book can be carried before the civil magistrate. Is this then our freedom of religion? and are we to have a censor whose imprimatur shall say what books may be sold, and what we may buy? And who is thus to dogmatize religious opinions for our citizens? Whose foot is to be the measure to which ours are all to be cut or stretched? Is a priest to be our inquisitor, or shall a layman, simple as ourselves, set up his reason as the rule for what we are to read, and what we must believe? It is an insult to our citizens to question whether they are rational beings or not, and blasphemy against religion to suppose it cannot stand the test of truth and reason. If [this] book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But, for God's sake, let us freely hear both sides, if we choose." –to N. G. Dufief, 1814

" .. I am myself an empyric in natural philosophy, suffering my faith to go no further than my facts. I am pleased, however, to see the efforts of hypothetical speculation, because by the collisions of different hypotheses, truth may be elicited, and science advanced in the end."–to George P. Hopkins, 1822

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." –to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." –to John Adams, 1823

Regarding the University of Virginia, which he founded:

"This institution will be based on the illimitable freedom of the human mind. For here we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate any error so long as reason is left free to combat it."–to William Roscoe, 1820

"... a professorship of theology should have no place in our institution." –to Thomas Cooper, 1814


Raised in Charlottesville, David Y. Miller recently retired to Stoney Creek in Nelson after his career as an aerospace engineer.



Are you kidding? The reasons why Jed and Cletus are having their brimstone revival nonsense and people are actually listening to them are because of a knee jerk reaction to godless mealy mouthed humanists preaching acceptance of anything no matter how immoral or destructive in schools. You get teachers that are hippie wonders actively promoting homosexuality, socialism and earth worship and preaching how "bad" Christianity is and you will inevitably get blowback. I'd wager just as many votes for those board members were by freedom loving citizens who appreciate Jefferson as there were by hick zealots. To call it a "Christian Taliban" is as disingenuous and misleading as to say Obama voters are all bolshevik traitors who want a communist revolution. I'd expect better from someone the Hook opted to publish.

>>>You get teachers that are hippie wonders actively promoting homosexuality, socialism and earth worship.<<<

Welcome to Earth! What color is the sky in your Universe?

Thank you King Ralph! I too am sorely disappointed in this essay and The Hook for considering it news worthy. It appears obviously shallow and lacking in critical depth and understanding.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." TJ

burn the christian taliban... they are an insult to the legacy of jesus...

The Texas Social Studies standards are now available for everyone to read. Go to to find a link to the actual standards.

The far left wants only its pet THEORY in textbooks, and the far right wants only theirs. Reasonable people think having multiple unproven theories is the rational response. Good for them. But never mind Texas for a moment. There's a cabal at work right here doing lots of very real damage.

Thomas Jefferson would be horrified that the University he founded now completely rejects the right to life that he himself enshrined as the first and most important right we have in this country. Thousands have been killed inside UVA hospital since 1991 in a procedure unthinkable to Jefferson and his contemporaries.

He would likely also be ashamed that medical science has been rejected at UVA in favor of lying to their own student body - and doing great harm to them - based solely on their extreme partisan agenda and affection for lucrative drug profits.

Medical facts and proven science do indeed matter. But not at UVA. Not in a long time.


Really? Do they burn down schools, throw brning gasoline on girls face when they attempt to go to school, keep woman in burqa's, plant bombs in town squares on market day, behead captives with rusty knives, commit genital mutiliation on young girls, allow terrorists who target civilians safe haven, stone to death adulterors, blow up ancient buddhist temples, kill Christian missionaries and aid workers, etc?

They may be ignorant and embarassing, but let's not call them "Taliban". A little clarity, please.

Sean Sean Sean Sean...

Despite the fact that we have already dismantled your claims of birth control pills "doing great harm" to women... despite the fact that we have destroyed your nonsense about abortion... you continue to come on here and prattle about them.

When will you become a productive member of society instead of being a leech, or even worse, a negative aspect of the Charlottesville community? This is unbelievable.

I agree JJ - what a ridiculous comparison to the taliban.

Unbe, you can fight it all you want - and pretend that you can keep people in the dark. UVA is becoming famous for more than just murders. But you can't hide from the facts. You can only hope nobody notices the beheadings and the harm to women your local taliban is taking part in.

We're up over 30,000 online visitors now. Ranks are swelling. It's going to be great Fall semester for human rights and medical honesty in central Virginia. I don't blame you for being worried.

I invite the author David Miller to please comment on another of Jefferson's quotes that we display - and defend here:

Keep up the propaganda, Sean. Its the only thing you have left. Keep using medical reasons as a masquerade for your religious beliefs. Even though those medical reasons have been thoroughly disproved.

What am I worried about? Let's see... someone with absolute no affiliation with the university... someone with absolutely no medical science training... keep polluting propaganda that Kim Jong Il would be proud of here? Keep it up, hack.

I think that Sean's Facebook group has about 45 members.

It's quite a groundswell.

As usual, the Killing Lobby has nothing to go with other than wishful thinking that they can keep people in the dark. They are the politics over science crew right here, right now. And, not coincidentally, they applaud every beheading UVA performs. They have there own brand of female genital mutilation, and they don't care how many cases of birth defects or breast cancer they cause. It's just who and what they are as people.

The UDHR, Geneva, and the Nuremberg Protocols will outlast you ghouls. Now really, Mr. Miller - I'm really curious why you left that one quote from Jefferson out of your partisan rant. Perhaps you could clear that up for all of us?

Wow S. You must feel real guilty about something.

I think that Sean has outdone himself in terms of ignorance. Thomas Jefferson did describe abortion in his "Notes on the State of Virginia" and did not condemn it. Here's his description of the condition of indigenous women:

"The women very frequently attending the men in their parties of war and of hunting, child-bearing becomes extremely inconvenient to them. It is said, therefore, that they have learnt the practice of procuring abortion by the use of some vegetable; and that it even extends to prevent conception for a considerable time after. During these parties they are exposed to numerous hazards, to excessive exertions, to the greatest extremities of hunger. Even at their homes the nation depends for food, through a certain part of every year, on the gleanings of the forest: that is, they experience a famine once in every year. With all animals, if the female be badly fed, or not fed at all, her young perish: and if both male and female be reduced to like want, generation becomes less active, less productive. To the obstacles then of want and hazard, which nature has opposed to the multiplication of wild animals, for the purpose of restraining their numbers within certain bounds, those of labour and of voluntary abortion are added with the Indian. No wonder then if they multiply less than we do. Where food is regularly supplied, a single farm will shew more of cattle, than a whole country of forests can of buffaloes. The same Indian women, when married to white traders, who feed them and their children plentifully and regularly, who exempt them from excessive drudgery, who keep them stationary and unexposed to accident, produce and raise as many children as the white women. Instances are known, under these circumstances, of their rearing a dozen children."

So Jefferson clearly disapproved of the drudgery and scarcity that indigenous women were commonly subjected to, but not their recourse to abortion under these conditions.

Perhaps Sean-y could clear up why he was so thoroughly ignorant of Jefferson's views?

To sum up:

Hitler opposed abortion for German women, whereas Jefferson did not oppose abortion.

Just look at the company that Sean-y keeps.

"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."

Friedrich Nietzsche

Sean, you did know that Jefferson did not oppose abortion, right? And that abortion before quickening was not considered a criminal offense during his time, right?

Oh, and your point in quoting someone who died of insanity on the subject of insanity with regard to blind faith given your thoroughgoing commitment to blind faith rather than reason and evidence was what, Sean-y?

I think that Thomas Jefferson would be proud that there are those using his words to justify recreational sex without responsibility. I am sure he would have no problems with the young girls of today who put out so easily and find flushing the remains down the toilet even easier. I believe that he would be ever so pround to look at the number of children who were disposed of so that we could pursue life liberty and pursuit of happiness without being bothered by taking birth control.

Abortion is not about religion or not it is about common decency. If circumstances require an abortion it should be available. If you are just a drunken irresponsible couple than the sad part is that the abortion is a generation too late.

I think you, Yes, you: are confusing me with someone else.

Who is saying that Thomas Jefferson would be proud of actions without responsibility? Jefferson's view is similar to most people's in that he viewed abortion as an unfortunate and harsh outcome but necessary for women in certain circumstances.

Sean-y is the extremist here in that he opposes both abortion and birth control.

Just say: NO

Ha ha

You are ridiculous, Sean. When will you stop your BS? When medical science does not support your claim, you dare lie that "the other side has politics over science?" You continue to lie about "birth defects and breast cancer", even though science has shown your claims to be patently untrue?

UDHR, Geneva, Nuremberg have all been twisted by your fanatical thinkings, despite none of them say anything about abortion. Keep it up, hack.

Of all the killing lobby backflips I've see, that has to be at least top five funniest! Thanks!

Jefferson indeed noted how his enemies amongst the "merciless indian savages" (as he called them in the Declaration of Independence) were so savage and without mercy as to try and procure abortions is yet another example of how unthinkable this would be in his mind for civilized people.

Yet there are actually some of you who think this makes him pro abortion?! WoW. Thanks for making my day.. For any rational people here, can you believe they actually tried this one? Sally Hemmings didn't abort, and there is certainly ZERO defense for infanticide in the constitution or in Jefferson's record as president either. But, as we've seen, no amount of data, no amount of science, no amount of anything will dissuade them from their politics of cruelty.

I guess when you got nothing else to go with, you really need to reach back for any rag you can grab - but to try and twist this passage into a pro abortion treatise is really a comedic reminder of how desperate they are getting given the current polls and elections coming.

IMO That passage is neither pro or anti abortion. He is just commenting on the hardship of the native women's lifestyles.

The fact is, abortion and infantcide have occurred throughout all human history. The only difference is that now, along with everything else, abortion has been "industrialized." Some groups have found ways to profit off of abortion, similar to how back alley doctors and quacks of yesteryear did.

Now then, there's even more bad news to add on to all the rest of it for the killing lobby lately. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists had their annual meeting in May, and we now have a brand new paper detailing yet another huge research study:

"Dr. Ghislain Hardy, a third-year resident in the department of obstetrics and gynecology at McGill University did a retrospective chart review of women who had delivered a baby between 2001 and 2005 at the Royal Victoria Hospital. Among the 17, 916 women who had a singleton delivery, 2,276 (13%) also had undergone a previous abortion and 862 (5%) had two or more induced abortions.

After adjusting for baseline characteristics, women with one previous abortion were 45% more likely to have a premature child at under 32 weeks; 71% more likely at less than 28 weeks; and more than twice as likely at less than 26 weeks. This association was even stronger for those with two or more abortions. “Preterm birth is a major concern in our health-care system today. It is the most important cause of neonatal morbidity,” said Dr. Hardy in his presentation. The rate of preterm birth is on the rise in Canada, and was more than 8.1% in 2006. Preterm birth is a burden on neonatal intensive care units, and these children go on to have health and social problems."

Add this one to all the others.

Actually, modern day Menegle's - if you think the science is actually 180 degrees opposite than what it is - how is it you can never come up with anything substantive? How come our website overflows with peer reviewed medical research, and all you can retort with is "that's BS," or "you're crazy?"

A few weeks ago, somebody tried linking to a pro abortion website in England that mentioned 8 studies that showed the link, and 4 little ones that didn't as proof that the link wasn't there! As funny as that was mathematically, the 4 studies that claimed the link wasn't there showed numbers in the same direction as the ones that did, albeit smaller numbers. SO they were 0-12, now 0-13. The Orioles can beat these records, folks!

Show me, show us all, the research showing NUMBERS that are the reverse of what has once again been proven above. Show us how the research proving that smoking causes lung cancer and birth defects is ANY better than the research on this most closely held medical secret of the abortion industry.

Go ahead. Make my day.

Who is this Sean dude that appears in all these comments? It seems everywhere I go, no matter what the topic is, he seems to link it to abortion? lol?

Jenn, I'm here discussing the rights and freedoms found in the Constitution - and the idea that science should trump ideology. Those are the two main subjects of this article.

Furthermore, I have added another quote from Jefferson as noted on our website:

"The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government."

The author curiously left this out of his ample list of TJ's quotes. There's a reason for that. He clearly wants only certain parts of the constitution and Mr. Jefferson's quotes to be read here defending his ridiculous view that some unproven theories about the origins of mankind should be printed in text books - and others not - simply because he doesn't like them. This is likewise a violation of the First Amendment.

Third, I have pointed out that the University of Virginia now completely refutes and ignores TJ's quote regarding following truth wherever it leads with regard to medical science. Creating birth defects and giving students breast cancer for profit is not what I think Mr. Jefferson had in mind as he was designing the Rotunda.

You can go to the discussion regarding rail service to Richmond or the Cuccinelli vs. Mann drama if you want to see comments that do not involve human rights or medical honesty. I suspect these are not your favorite topics, so..

"Really? Do they burn down schools, throw brning gasoline on girls face when they attempt to go to school, keep woman in burqa's, plant bombs in town squares on market day, behead captives with rusty knives, commit genital mutiliation on young girls, allow terrorists who target civilians safe haven, stone to death adulterors, blow up ancient buddhist temples, kill Christian missionaries and aid workers, etc?"

A brief look at US history demonstrates that well into the 20th century, even right at the end, fundamentalist Christians have indeed done many of things mentioned above, and some others along with it.

Muslims don't place flaming crosses on people lawns before lynching them Christians do. Christians have also bombed and burned churches, and thrown gas onto people's homes and burned them to the ground.

The raging obsession over abortion by Sean is exactly the sort anger the Taliban uses to justify it's murders of the supposed 'unbelievers,' and it's attack on women. Why, in the last year we have seen legally practicing physicians murdered over abortion and the Holocaust museum shot up as well.

Not a religious thing? Find me an athiest group that focuses on abortion like the fundamentalist Christian.

the more I read the more I think that denied the opportunity to terrorize minorities, Christians use abortion and women as a new target.

Old Timer, if this were 1650, or maybe even 1900 - you might have a point. But it's 2010. It should serve as some smelling salts for you to have to go back centuries to slander people today for something they played no part in.

You may also want to remind yourself that it was very religious Christians who began and advanced the abolishonist movement when people like you were screaming back at them "against slavery? don't own one and shut up!" It was also very religious Christians who ran the civil rights movement in the 1950's-60's and endured all the violence from those who thought the constitution only applied to them.

I suggest you google the names Jim Pouillon and Holly Patterson and get a firm grip on the reality that you cannot alter or make disappear simply because your media does not cover it. There's plenty more where that comes from.

The facts, laws and science my group simply reminds people of makes you and yours very angry - certainly not us. There are no girls getting acid thrown in their face for going to school in Texas, Old Timer. There are no Christians being stoned to death in America either. And the only beheadings and female genital mutilation going on around here are at the 3 abortion clinics in town - one of them a state funded university. Biology does not conform to ideology.

Since you cannot refute the science and are left only to clasp your eugenics and Nazi medical ideologies - then the only question left for you is how many children needlessly born preterm with cerebral palsy is it worth? How many per 100 killings? How many per 1,000? 1,000,000?

I suspect the answer is "however many it takes for the strong to keep killing the weak and unwanted." But I'll let you answer yourself.

Jenn: Sean is just another one of us posting his opinion. His right if he wants to do this. I find, IMHO, that sometimes he has a point and could spark some insight and sometimes I don't understand him at all (but this does NOT mean he is wrong, only that I don't understand his opinion). He does start some heated debates that are fun to watch...abortion isn't his only rave, get him started on UVA and how it covers stuff up! This is, for one, where I do think he had some pretty good points. Take this for what it's worth, JMHO.....:)

and the local killing lobby falls silent at one very simple question.

"Old Timer, if this were 1650, or maybe even 1900 - you might have a point. But it's 2010."

You like to rewrite history when it doesn't suit, don't you? What a good little ideologue you are. Far better than even La Raza that likes to pretend all those citizens down in Mexico were living in places like Washington State and run out.

KKK terrorism didn't even get going until the end of the 19th century, much less end then. What's more, it's acts were reflected within government because of the alrge membership, leading to the deaths of civil rights workers, bombing of Churches, all the way to the current day with the murders of legally practicing physicians.

I am being nice when I say you are a deluded individual who thinks the laws don't apply to him. There is a far less friendly but more blunt term to describe what you say here.

One day that pinochio nose will fall off from all the rot.

And Sean, let me pose a question to you.

Are you willing to take care of every single unwanted infants that would be out there without abortion? Are you willing to funnel your finances to support them? Are you willing to see that they will have a decent childhood and an education?

Or is a child's physical and emotional health, his or her education and growth, none of your concerns after you get him or her out of the womb?

Or are you aware of the social and cultural implications of a high birth rate?

I find it hilarious and hypocritical that many of your pro-life crowd claim that you re human rights activist, only for the activism to stop immediately after the infant is born.

What is the difference between an infant who cannot live outside his or her mother's bodies, and a child who is developmentally stunted because of the incapability of his or her mother to provide?

See? They still can't even begin to face the question.. It's a VERY simple one.

Old Timer, you are living way, way in the past. I suggest you have a look at far right vs. far left violence in America the last 50 years. Compare Tea Party violence to that of, say the G20 meetings or the riots in Oakland last weekend. You are really out of touch with MODERN reality. Oh, and the hisory of the 60's is not as you present it either. You forget about the other side. The summer of 69 wasn't the summer of love - it was the summer of Charlie Manson. ANd I Don't think Charlie was a Godwater or Nixon disciple, now was he?

Enough, I got a nice email from Kristin Day yesterday thanking me for supporting her in supporting the Pregnant Woman Support Act that is part of the new health care bill. I am trying to get Jill Stanek to come to an accomodation with Kristin at present. These are, in my mind, two of the top three pro life leaders in the country at present. One of our group memebers here is C-Ville is being published in the American Feminist magazine this summer as well.

You can't answer my question, but I'll still answer yours. I have been and will be resposible for whatever child I concieve before and after birth. Beyond that, I will support programs that enrich childrens lives. I volunteer here in town as a coach for a number of foster kids and single parent kids. Do you?

But no, the pro life movement is not responsible for every kids diaper bills any more than every abolishonist was repsonsible for supporying every freed slave after 1865. But your exact argument was used often by the pro slavery folks back then, and it was just as silly an attempt at diversion.

Your opinion that the unwanted (even of they are wanted by one of two parents) should always be killed is not a new one. Mengele would be proud of you. And your carefully sidestepped the issue of how much a needlessly deformed child that you and yours create every week in America costs society. Cerebral Palsy is rather expensive, especailly if the afflicted live long into adulthood. You purposely and directly make sure there are more developmentally stunted children with your policy. These are the facts you can no longer hide from. That's why you can't answer my challenge.

If you are so worried about there being too many people, can I suggest suicide as a way to solve this problem you see as so horrible? Oh, I almost forgot, it doesn't apply to you - right? Just to the others you'd rather see in the garbage than playing in a park in a few years.


It is ant-abortion groups who demand abstinence-only sex ed teaching for youth.Anti-science religious fundamentalism is to blame for many abortions in the world. Young people desire sex. to deny this and not teach them how to avoid pregnancy is foolish. To not teach and then deny medical access to the young person you have denied information to is cruel and twisted.

Old timer. You seem to missing the point.

I was commenting on the the comparison between the Taliban and this School Board. I find the Texas school board and some of their decisions to be embarassing and generally ignorant, but commented that to label them the "Texas Taliban" is absurd. What the KKK did or didn't do, or what was done in the name of Christianity hundreds of years ago, has nothing to do with my characterization of this choice of a title.

Beyond that, I have no interest in wasting my time dealing with some of your patently ridiculous claims about 'Chrisitian fundamentalists' in the US as:

1. The article is about this specific School Board and not 'Christian fundamentalists' throughout history
2 Our worldviews and grasps of reality must be at complete odds, so what is the point?

In any event, I can assure you that I also hold disdain for the religious right in this country, although I realize they are peaceful people and their prophet is one of peace. The same cannot be said of the Taliban.

Your job as a coach is all fine and dandy, but how does that affect their lives outside the hour they spend with you every week? It does not.

More importantly, the question is not about you. Obviously since you cannot bear children, you cannot answer the question. You are asked about the infants you would bring out of the wombs of mothers because of your activism. And you have shown that you are unwilling to bear such a cost.

The question I posed to you is not a diversion. Every unwanted child out there is a huge cost to society. They are at a disadvantage for education. They are at a disadvantage for jobs. Many of them turn to criminal activities. Taxpayers have to support them with welfare, rehabilitation programs, and other social works. Obviously there are always going to be a few success stories, but it is a huge hurdle to leap for a young child with minimal support from parents. Whatever potential birth defects (and it is a very low number, if at all) caused is dwarfed by the immense health and economic costs borne by society due to unwanted child. To argue otherwise would show complete ignorance.

Answer this again:

What is the difference between an infant who cannot live outside his or her mother's body, and a child who is developmentally stunted and socially disadvantaged for the rest of his or her life because of the incapability of his or her mother to provide? Why should we, as a society, bear this costs due to misplaced activism on your part?

"What is the difference between an infant who cannot live outside his or her mother's body, and a child who is developmentally stunted and socially disadvantaged..."

The gift of existance. No matter how dire a situation may seem all animals will fight to live if given the chance.

And are you willing to pay for 1 million of these "gift of existence" through your tax money every year? Keep in mind it does not cover only these "gifts", but also the associated social costs for the family in having the child.

Like I said, telling other people to have children is all fine and good. Paying for them? Not anymore?

"Old Timer, you are living way, way in the past. I suggest you have a look at far right vs. far left violence in America the last 50 years. Compare Tea Party violence to that of, say the G20 meetings or the riots in Oakland last weekend. You are really out of touch with MODERN reality. Oh, and the hisory of the 60's is not as you present it either."

The 1950's and 60's are not the way past, and most certainly are as I present it. And the violence against homosexuals, Jewish Americans, and those who disagree with the anti-abortion crowd continues today.

The G20 meeting violence is not the monopoly of the 'left' as you identify them, and has nothing to do with your claims and those of JJ's about somehow Christian groups have not nor do not even today participate in terrorism based on their ideology. They most certainly do, whether it is 5% or 80%, and if they had their way, it would be state sanctioned just like it is in certain states in the ME.

You know, it's really funny. If a couple of BP's shake a few sticks while marching it's radical left terror, but if a bunch of Christian white guys march with their firearms it's 'Mercans pertekin' their 2nd Amendment rights.

I defend my right to own firearms, but I have no illusions about how much more a threat people like you are to those rights than the supposed radical left.

"Like I said, .."

I know you are trolling but..
Abortion is the scourge of society. It is the same as Hitler trying to kill the Jews and Gypsies. The only difference is instead of Jews and Gypsies most victims are the poor and underpriveledged. The mindset is the same.
I am not religious so you can move along now.

Yeah, talk to me once you want to shoulder the costs of raising these unwanted children. You are saying abortion targets the poor and underprivileged. What does banning abortion do? Give these people more kids so they can be poorer?

Give me a break. Time for you to go to church.

Let’s review, shall we?

Here is opinion # 1:

“It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics.”
Adolph Hitler.

Here is opinion # 2:

“WHEREAS the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”

United Nations Declaration of The Rights of the Child
Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Keep in mind that the latter was written in large part as a direct response to human rights abuses of the axis powers during WW2, and performing abortions is one of the things doctors were convicted of – and executed for – at the Nuremberg trials. There is no escaping from this stark contrast, no matter how fervent you are in not wanting to think about it. There is absolutely no middle ground whatsoever between Hitler’s policy and the UDHR, and that includes the Declaration of Geneva which was also reaffirmed in response to the Nazi Doctor’s Trial:

“I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception; even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity; I will practice my profession with conscience and dignity”

There is indeed an American Taliban. They kileld 3700 defenseless infants today. They will again tomorrow. There are very much into beheadings, and into damaging female reprodcutive parts. And into deforming their future children as a result. Wanna see?

There's nothing new about "kill the poor, put the unwanted parasites to the sword." It's as old as the hills.

There is not one word about any religion whatsoever on our website, just pages and pages of medical science.

The other side has only one thing left that they can try: divert, distract, confuse. It's all they have left.

They cannot, as is very obvious, defend their own suppression of medical science and human rights. As a national leader in both, state funded UVA has done a very good job of covering it all up the last 20 years. But now, as they say, the jig is up.

You can't keep everyone in the dark forever. Sooner or later, people of conscience stand up and say enough is enough. At UVA, we're just getting bigger.

It's going to be a great Fall semester.

Keep dodging.

People such as me and my friends Lila Rose and Kristen Day have made it much more difficult to keep the science of abortion a well guarded secret.

And oh, how the news just keeps getting worse for the American Taliban:

There are going to be a lot of folks in Charlottesville chewing the edge of the carpet come November. Indeed, our goal locally is to get them a-chewing in September. But we'll gettem there sooner or later.


Yawn. Surprise, surprise, Sean keeps proof-texting a quote from Hitler (how subtle and sophisticated) in defense of his views without providing context. Hitler certainly wanted abortions among supposedly non-desirable non-German populations. German physicians were later convicted of encouraging and forcing women in occupied areas to have abortions.

Hitler and the Nazi regime vehemently opposed abortion for Germaan women.

On May 26, 1933, two pieces of penal legislation . . . prohibit[ed] the availability of abortion facilities and services. More important was the stricter handling of the old antiabortion law, resulting in a 65 percent increase in yearly conviction between 1932 and 1938, when their number reached almost 7,000. From 1935 on, doctors and midwives were obliged to notify the regional State Health Office of every miscarriage. Women's names and addresses were then handed over to the police, who investigated the cases suspected of actually being abortions. In 1936 Heinrich Himmler, head of all police forces and the SS, established the Reich's Central Agency for the Struggle Against Homosexuality and Abortion, and in 1943, after three years of preparation by the Ministries of the Interior and of Justice, the law entitled Protection of Marriage, Family, Motherhood called for the death penalty in 'extreme cases'."

Yawn's info is correct. Abortion has always been about killing the unwanted parasites, of course. Same logic as today. And that need not happen just before birth. Every murder that ever happened was the result of a choice.

Problem for Yawn is that this takes nothing away from the historical fact that Hitler was the father of the legal abortion movement in the modern western world - and Dr. Mengele was a pioneer in the procedure at Auschwitz and afterward. It's why Geneva and the UDHR say what they say.

March 6, 1942. The day it began in Poland. January 22, 1973. The day it began anew in the USA.

Seriously, Sean, people like you are responsible for causing more abortions than anyone else. When you deny education to sexually active youth about sexuality: pregnancies will occur. Ignorance is understandable in teens. What's your excuse?

Ok, Sean, keep dodging.

Problem for Sean's Hitler reference is that no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion in the United States. Oopsie-doopsie, there goes that analogy.

If we are going to go into history, even Hippocrates told women to have abortion by Lacedaemonian Leap, or other energetic motions.

You see, abortion will never be non-existent. Procedures have existed from ancient times, and before the legalization there are underground abortion clinics in the United States. Yes, Sean, I know you want to kill off people who wants to have abortion. Forcing them to have dangerous ones in underground clinics seems like a good idea, no?

Doesn't Sean get tired of being wrong about everything?

the historical fact that Hitler was the father of the legal abortion movement in the modern western world - and Dr. Mengele was a pioneer in the procedure at Auschwitz and afterward. It's why Geneva and the UDHR say what they say.

March 6, 1942. The day it began in Poland. January 22, 1973. The day it began anew in the USA.
Let's see: abortion was legalized in the Soviet Union in 1920 under Lenin but somehow Hitler who reversed the liberal treatment of abortion in Germany under the Weimar Republic is its historical father. Amazing grasp of history. Who do you consider the Father of this country, George III? Also, abortion was legal in Poland from 1932 in cases of medical need or rape, largely due to Soviet influence. Again, great awareness of history. I don't even know what "the day it began anew in the USA" means. Abortion was already legal in the US in states such as New York, California, Alaska, Hawaii, and Washington, so it didn't begin in the US then. It hadn't been discontinued in these areas, so it didn't begin "anew."

What did you study at Wisconsin, Sean, when you weren't guzzling beer? Business?

Also, your plans for eliminating the need for abortions via the pill and your versions sex education have failed completely the past 50 years. Totally. But I know that no amount of failure - or bodies - is enough to dissuade a lunatic partisan from failed policies.

Enough, you can't answer my question even though I answered yours. Rape and murder have always and will always happen too. So we legalize them also according to YOUR argument??

As for your ridiculous quote
"no one is forcing anyone to have an abortion in the United States," I bring you two local pro choice heroes here in Virginia - whose stories you can hear by clicking on the middle two links we put at the bottom of this page:

Who wrote up the text for Sean's crackpot website?
Indeed, one of the first things Hitler did after taking power in 1933 was to inform the German medical associations that the Geneva and Helsinki Accords were now to be ignored with regard to their prohibition of abortion, sterilization, or euthanasia.
First, the Geneva and Helsinki Accords aren't even relevant to the subject. There have been Geneva Accords concerned with conflict in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Palestine, etc. The Geneva Conventions address the treatment of prisoners of war. The Helsinki Accords were signed in 1975 and were designed to reduce Cold War tensions.

One assumes that the (Geneva) Declaration on the Rights of the Child and the Declaration of Helsinki are being referenced. Except that the Helsinki declaration on medical experimentation wasn't signed until 1975. And the Declaration on the Rights of the Child of 1924 in no way refers to abortion. The website could be referring incorrectly to the Declaration of Geneva of 1948, except that Hitler obviously would not have informed physicians to disregard provisions of a declaration that wouldn't exist for another 15 years.

Sean-y should fire his fact checker.

Sean- I never said anything about eliminating the need for abortions. Unfortunately there will always be a need for them. That is why They are available legally in places that fundamentalists have not kept them underground and extremely dangerous. Any "failure" is due to denying the truth. Success would be reducing the number of abortions through education.

Geez, thanks for being visitor 30,856 to our website. Some details were provided by Youth Defense in Ireland, and we get some help from a Polish doctor also. But perhaps the nurse manager inside UVA hospital has been the most helpful recently. Thery're having quite a problem getting a nurse to even prep someone for an elective abortion at UVA now, and have to make special schedules as a result. Pretty cool, huh?

You may want to familiarize yourself with
when Helsinki and Geneva were first written. Then, you can familiarize yourself with how and when they were reaffirmed after Nuremberg.

You spend way too much time on Wikipedia, btw.

If you ever find any actual errors, please let me know. But I doubt you will. We'd know about them by now, 9 months later.

Thanks for proofreading, though.

Nope, Sean, you never answered my question.

And to your question (another attempt to dodge mine): No on the comparison between murder and abortion.

A murder involves taking the life of another living person. A fetus is not classified as living. It cannot live outside the mother's womb until ~ 30 weeks or so.

Now onto another part of your question, which is "if rape and murder always happen, should it be legalized?" Why don't you petition your Virginia assembly/senate representatives to make them legal if you so desire? Rape and murder are crimes. Abortion is not.

Sean is speechless without the easily-accessed words of others.
Goodnight Sean.

" has nothing to do with your claims and those of JJ's about somehow Christian groups have not nor do not even today participate in terrorism based on their ideology."

Once again you have brought a straw man into this. I never claimed such a thing. You're not very good at the whole reading comprehension thing, are you? Stick to going tit for tat with Sean.

"A murder involves taking the life of another living person. A fetus is not classified as living. It cannot live outside the mother's womb until ~ 30 weeks or so."

So by your theory anyone attached to life support is not a living being?

What would you consider the definition of life to be for another planet to be classified as having life?

What do scientists consider to be life?

Perhaps I left out the term "human being" after living. My apologies.

The difference between life support individual and a fetus is that a fetus does not have a viable circulation/respiratory/digestion/neuro system and depends upon the mother for the function of all their organs.

Most individuals on life support retain basic functions of all their major organs (e.g. feeding tube means someone cannot swallow, but their digestive system is working after that). If you are referring to brain dead individuals that require advanced life support in ICU, they are classified as dead under United States legal system.

Misleading people and trying to make them reject science in favor of politics is essential to the killing lobby's campaign. They have no other choice given the facts.

Case in point.

The lie:
"it cannot live outside the mother's womb until ~ 30 weeks or so."

The truth about a young man born at 21 weeks:

I got bad news for you, Enough. This dude may have been the size of a fountain pen when he was born 9 weeks before you thought he could survive - but he can defend himself now from people like you. He's a rugby player that can prevent himself being beheaded. He's no longer a defenseless infant for you and yours to destroy and throw in the garbage for a messily $500.

Questions the killing lobby can never answer:

When did YOU become male/female?

When did YOU get your DNA? Does anyone else have that DNA? Is your DNA human? When did it become human?

When did YOUR heart start beating?

When did you first have YOUR blood type flowing through YOUR veins?

Would YOU be here talking to me had you been aborted? Or would someone else?

Yes indeed, The American Taliban MUST keep medical science and human biology secret. They have to. But that's getting tougher and tougher these days. the polls are showing that quite clearly. You can't keep people in the dark forever now.

Libs like to classify the neo's as uncaring clods who only value the dollar but they are the ones advocating the killing of babies.


Note that you still haven't answered my question, Sean. Are you willing to pay (or force the government) for the social welfare that these unwanted children will invariable demand?

Congratulations! You found one shining example of a fetus at 21 weeks who defied the odds. Keep ignoring the fact that the vast majority of prematures at 21 weeks do not survive.

I can answer those questions alright. DNA is predetermined by the fusion of male and female gametes. Heart starts beating at 21 days, and at that point fetal circulation also begins.

How about: Where does the fetus get its nutrients? What happens to the fetus's waste? Where does the fetus get its oxygen?

Jeez, a fetus is not a baby. Keep trolling.

As if science could definitively answer such profound questions as when life begins.

[tip: check out how the Japanese consider abortion]

My best friend was born at 25 weeks. It was a tough fight in his first few years (before I knew him) and he had to receive hormone shots a few times a week until he was into his teenage years but he ended up being slightly below average height (5 feet 8 inches) and led a normal, happy childhood and adolescence. He and his wife just celebrated the birth of his 2nd daughter last month.

Sometimes I wonder how my life would have turned out if I hadn't had his positive influence and support throughout difficult times during my late teenage years.

He was born in 81. I assume medical care has improved since then, or maybe he was just a born fighter.

When your life began is only a "question" to those who enjoy ending other individual's lives that they have self appointed themselves in charge of deciding for. But you'll notice that none of them ever include themselves in the "too many unwanted people" argument. That's always reserved for someone else. Exact same thought process as slave owners and concentration camp guards. Infants must die, and 60 year olds must live as long as possible.

The science, meanwhile, has spoken. We now know exactly when you got your DNA, gender, eye color, hair color - and so on. You were you an hour after conception, and twins twin often before implantation. Meet my friend Gerard Nadal, embryologist and PhD..

Becuase you like to pretend that the slam dunk scince is not there, does not mean that it goes "pop" and vanishes because simply you want it to.

This is the American Taliban's attempt to reject science in favor of politics.

Nope, you see, the mother decides to end the pregnancy. The mother, who provides the fetus with all the nutrients, oxygen, and carries away the waste, opts for an abortion. I know you want to enjoy controlling other individual's lives. When you are able to carry a fetus for 10 months, talk to me then about the morality of abortion. You see, you don't have to go through any of this physical and emotional pain, so you decry the other side as the "American Taliban" and go on a crusade without actually going through an ordeal. Tough talk, big guy.

Your "too many unwanted people" argument is also ridiculously flawed. The mother herself knows that she does not have the time or resources to bring up a child, easily one of the most momentous event of someone's life. Instead of electing to bring herself and the family into social, economical and financial hardship, she opts for an abortion. While, you on the other hand, wants to force her to carry the fetus for 10 months. Afterwards you go on your merry way and find a new target.

You are going through the same thought process as the upper class aristocracy. Keep the poor people down by overpopulating and making them poor. Keep up the saint pretending... or aka trolling.

How on earth can someone be a MOTHER without having a CHILD ?

Beheading someone and throwing them in the garbage is certainly keeping them down..

(this is so easy...)

Maybe you could start a group of mothers who proclaim "I should have killed this little poor bastard in utero." Good luck recruiting. In stark contrast, we have women in our group have had abortions in the past. I welcomed another just a few weeks ago.

Human rights, medical honesty, women's health, and parental rights will prevail. It's just a matter of getting people informed.

Oh yes, getting into semantics. Because that is the only thing you can argue.

I am perfectly fine with women arguing for or against abortion. You sir, on the other hand, can get out of it.

Parental rights? Women's health? When you are forcing a woman to bear a child? Get out of here.

I know you can't argue against any of my points. Just keep on trolling and try to pretend you are a goody-goody. I'm done with you. You can keep on spamming this thread and all other UVA-related subjects with abortion.

"When your life began is only a "question" to those who enjoy ending other individual's lives that they have self appointed themselves in charge of deciding for"

This only exhibits the meagerness of Sean's education and the smallness of his world. He is saying that Aristotle, various catholic "saints" and popes (!), not to mention a good number of high thinkers in Buddhist, Hindu, and Judaic and other religious traditions with smaller geographic expanse, all performed abortions and took pleasure in do so.


Maybe you are right, Mr. President.. Maybe children really are just a terrible punishment, and and really just parasitic tumors that need to be disposed of before they can ruin our world.

What were we thinking?

"Jeez, a fetus is not a baby. Keep trolling"

I don't know whether to pity you or have contempt. You obviously have some guilt associated with the conversation so I will give you the benefit of pity.

Well, we're finally making some progress. Everyone agrees that children are parasites.

Now, let's get back to support of binge drinking.

Not everyone agress. But the American Taliban seems to be pretty cohesive with regard to this "parasitic tumor" foundation to their beliefs.

I think it's actually more important to teach kids in their textbooks about the proven medical science of human development than it is to postulate two scientifically unproven theories about what was or was not happening millions of years ago. We don't even have that great of an idea about what was happening 7000 years ago as it is.

It's interesting that Mr. Miller has not come on here to defend his own article. I'd be curious as to why he left out Jefferson's quote regarding human life, as well as why on earth TJ would include "..endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.." in the Declaration of Independence.

It seems TJ was rather fond of the idea of their being a Creator - with a capital C - and the right to life was the first one he mentioned. Strange, huh Mr. Miller?

Sometimes we get ourselves into such a tunnel visioned frame of mind that it's easy to miss the forst for the trees.

think it's actually more important to teach kids in their textbooks about the proven medical science of human development than it is to postulate two scientifically unproven theories about what was or was not happening millions of years ago.
Wait, Sean doesn't accept evolution?

Enough, I'll bite: a female voice making a response.
Firstly, why can't men voice their opinions on abortion? Yes, women have the duty of carrying the infant within them for 40 weeks or so, but why should this prohibit men from advocating care for the pre-born life? Some might say that I don't have the credentials to talk either because I've never been pregnant!

But, when it comes to something as serious as the ending of the life of another human being, discussion of the matter cannot be limited to pregnant (or formerly pregnant) women only.

People who use the term 'personhood' in an attempt to nudge out the greater importance of the humanity of the pre-born are hiding behind semantics. When you can't deny the science that the DNA of a human zygote is 100% human from the moment of conception, what else is there to say? 'Personhood'? That's rather semantic.

What is this, the Irish Taliban?

Siobhan, you seem to have an extremely anthropocentric perspective. What is this great importance of having 100% human DNA? Other fauna and flora have DNA that is 100% of some species. What is your point?

After reading some of these comments, especially Sean's, and seeing the state of the planet due to the human species- I think the "sanctity of life"- for all other species on the planet- would best be served by total, complete human extinction!

The Irish don't need a Taliban, they have the IRA, who as we all know hold the "sanctity of life" in high regard.

Hollow boy,

Might I dare suggest that you could get your human extinction project a kick start in the privacy of your own bathroom? I would prefer you embrace human rights instead, but it was your idea to get rid of all the humans.

Prince, you are aware of what Siobhan's point is - you just don't want to answer the question she poses. If this is not human (and if you were not human at 7 weeks) - then what exactly were you? A dolphin? A kangaroo?

Yeah, this new 4D stuff is gunna be a real headache for you folks now, isn't it?

Getting back to the base argument of Mr. Miller's essay - which I've noticed he has not defended here - the triumph of politics over religion is once again in the news. And in THIS case, it is real:

This might just ruin Ms. Kagan's senate coronation in KillVille. Even if we think perjury is OK, there's always going to be this on Kagan's record:

"The problem for me, as a physician, is that she was willing to replace a medical
statement with a political statement that was not supported by any existing medical

American Taliban indeed..

Human cadavers are human. They have human DNA. UVA's medical school has students dissecting them for educational purposes.

Oh, the humanity!

Sean, I think I am doing my part by not producing any progeny.
When I look around and see what humans are doing to the planet( not to mention each other),cannot help but think how much better off Earth would be if our wretched, bloodthirsty species passed on to extinction.
Will take the company of birds and wild beasties any day over that of most of humanity

"If this is not human (and if you were not human at 7 weeks) - then what exactly were you? A dolphin? A kangaroo?"

These are moral and religious questions, not scientific ones. Pimping out science as the ultimate arbiter of good and bad devalues people and demeans science.

You can't expect anyone in the Killing Lobby to ever accept medical science any sooner than they will human rights accords. Both are diametrically opposed to their world view.

Here, we see a fundamental inability to discern between someone that is alive, and someone that is dead. We next see an attempt at pretending that members of different species can be switched around and about based on religious or moral beliefs - not science.

Rational people know that a member of any species cannot be instantly transformed into a member of another species because of a belief held by some person - and that includes transforming an infant in utero into a tumor, as many have compared to an unwanted child in utero. If this were the case, why bother using human fetal and embryonic samples and just use aborted kangaroos instead?

Prince, PVCC has a brand new cadaver room, and PVCC students also dissect cadavers. But they aren't killing anyone inside the same building, cutting them up and selling the valuable parts for ghoulish research gone nowhere. All the people whose cadavers are being studied gave their expressed consent as adults for their corpses to used in this way.

The NUREMBERG PROTOCOL expressly and specifically forbids any research whatsoever on ANY human subject that has not given his or her consent after an age where they know what they are agreeing to. Thus, UVA is in direct violation of the terms laid out following the Nazi Doctor's Trial saying what is and is not allowable.

American Taiban indeed..

OK, let's try to make Sean's views somewhat coherent. He objects to abortion because human embryos and fetuses are a)living and b)human and adduces as support of his position c)certain documents produced in the mid-20th century, composed primarily by Western European and U.S. males.

The problem with a) of course is that it's not really clear at what point, if any, an embryo or fetus can be described as a living organism. The problem with b) is that Sean has never clarified what is unique about human beings in relation to other organisms.

The problem with c) is that most of the documents that Sean cites have since been amended and modified. The passage from the Nuremburg Code that Sean cites would rule out clinical medical trials involving children and adolescents, given that they have not reached a legal age of consent. The Declaration of Helsinki, first issued in 1964, obviously did not follow this formulation.

Sean, I presume you have been busy adopting unwanted children since you are so eager to generate more of them?

I would predict that his commitment to the cause doesn't extend beyond telling other people what to do.

No surprise that Nazi medicine is as popular in Charlottesville as cocaine is. It's a lifestyle here. Mengele lives.

"The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision"

The Nuremberg Code

These are the fundamental human rights accords that the American Taliban - very popular around here - shrug their shoulders at. If they can kill people from far away in Mexico with all their drug purchases, there obviously shouldn't be any big deal made about a few hundred beheadings per year at UVA hospital..

It makes perfect sense if you can get into their mentality. Killing people is green, and we need to kill lots more of them to become a greener planet. Just don't dare include them, though. It always must be someone else.

Axis ideology reborn, and remarkably similar to the taliban's opinion of the unwanted infidels also.

According to Sean Cannan, the polio vaccine trials of the 1950s were "Nazi medicine" and a human rights atrocity.

After all, hundreds of thousands of children, who were not capable of providing legal consent, were enrolled in the trials by their parents and legal guardians.

Coward with no name who calls himself a warrior anonymously on online comment threads,

Please provide a list of children who were beheaded and thrown in the garbage in the polio vaccine trials.

Sean, hundreds of thousands of children were enrolled in an experimental study even though they were not capable of providing legal consent to their participation, contrary to the stipulations of the Nuremburg Code. Tens of thousands were inadvertently exposed to live polio virus in the trials and developed a form of the disease. Children died as a result, and spread the disease to others who died.

According to your views, one of the great public health triumphs of the twentieth century was "Nazi medicine."

So any country that allows abortion if the women wants one or if her health is in danger is practicing 'Nazi medicine'?

It's ok. Sean reached Godwin's Law, and resorted to Reductio ad Hitlerum a very very long time ago.

Much as you would like to think it possible, you cannot simply wave your finger at history or science and make either go away.

Here is opinion # 1:

“It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics.”

Adolph Hitler.

Here is opinion # 2:

“WHEREAS the child, by reason of his or her physical and mental immaturity, needs special safeguards and care, including appropriate legal protection, before as well as after birth”

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

You are aware that Dr. Mengele was arrested in Argentina still performing Hitler's beloved abortions, right?

Well, if you weren't - you are now.

Nice try with the "Godwin's Law" silliness. History and science will never change simply because you don't want people to know about them, and the direct link back to Auschwitz and the Reich's Chancellery is as direct and clear as could be. These are the birthplaces - pardon the pun - of your movement and your ideology with regard to this topic.

Sean forgot that induced abortion has been around since the dawn of mankind in his haste to link abortion to Nazism (Godwin's Law). Even Hippocrates talked about methods of abortion.

But's its ok! Sean ignores all the counter points (see Prince's polio) and just keep sticking to Nazi and Hitler. Bravo!

Sean really is incapable of presenting a reasonable argument, isn't he?

First, he suggests that abortion is wrong because embryos and fetuses are living. Then, when it is noted that many living things do not enjoy the same protections as human beings, he claims that abortion is wrong because human embryos and fetuses are human. When it is noted that many human things do not enjoy the same protections as human beings, he claims that abortion is wrong because embryos and fetuses are incapable of providing legal consent. Then when it is noted that many medical procedures are performed without direct legal consent, he can only fall back to his favorite rhetorical device: quoting Hitler.

It's a shame for the pro-life movement in Charlottesville that they are represented by people such as Sean Cannan and John Giuliano.

"the direct link back to Auschwitz and the Reich's Chancellery is as direct and clear as could be."

Sean should reveal be more cautious about throwing around the N-word, giving that his ideology is identical to that of the Nazi regime in Germany.

From the Holocaust Museum's website:

"On October 26, 1936, Himmler formed within the Security Police the Reich Central Office for Combating Abortion and Homosexuality. Josef Meisinger, executed in 1947 for his brutality in occupied Poland, led the new office."

I support Geneva, the UDHR, and The Nuremberg Protocol.

Some people still support the Nazi medicine that these foundational human rights accords were all written so as to try and prevent same from ever reappearing on planet earth.

There is no compromise between the two positions. Some are AOK with the destruction or deforming of others so long as they themselves avoid it. Nothing new about that.

Everyone should take note that not one of the American Taliban supporters here on this thread has dared take a stab at how many deformed children born preterm with cerebral palsy abortion is worth. Your favorite butchers just got caught lying about this yet again:

The politics and profits over science crew is just as dishonest corrupt in Indiana as they are at UVA. My friend Lila is basically shooting fish in a barrel at this point. THIS is the premier politics over science issue in the United States.

Back to the Nazi rhetorics yet again! Sean doesn't realize that quoting Nazi is usually the last resort for a desperate man losing an argument. I like how he completely ignore prince's Himmler and Meisinger's evidence.

But it's ok too. Sean didn't address the cost society must bear for unwanted children. He doesn't care either.

You're mad as hell because I reminded you about the history you'd prefer to forget. You probably were not even aware of it. But you can't change any of it.

The reference to what Hitler thought about WANTED German's reproducing and UNWANTED non-germans having abortions does not correlate to supporting your position. It supports mine.

Anyone can become unwanted any time by anyone else. And one choice can end the unwanted person's life. But, as if by magic, everyone alive enough to type pro abortion clap trap considers themselves to be personally exempt from the results of their own beliefs regarding unwanted people being beheaded by the choice of another.
How convenient!

I stand by Nuremberg, and you don't. You are on the side of the founding father's of your movement - Hitler and Mengele. I am not. The experience with the polio vaccine confirms the importance of Nuremberg, it hardly thwarts it. Again, it's AOK if children die to some people, as long as they think they can benefit from it themselves.

So it's not surprising that they are AOK with countless children born preterm and live with birth defects also. Not their problem.

Selfishness, indifference to the suffering of others, and an opposition to human rights are fundamental beliefs if you are an abortionist, drug user, or someone trying to suppress medical science. UVA and greater Charlottesville is quite enthusiastic about all three.

What a loon. Sean would have millions of childen, who are unable to give legal consent to medical procedures, dying from infectious diseases around the world rather than have them receive vaccinations, just because he isn't capable of thinking through what the implications of the Nuremburg Code are and why some of its formulations were modified in the Declaration of Helsinki.

"Selfishness, indifference to the suffering of othes, and an opposition to human rights" are his trademarks.

Prince Coward,

Due to your specific blood type, gender, and DNA (all of which you've had since conception, not birth - btw..), we need you to take part in a medical research study that might provide a vaccine for a terrible disease someday.

Yeah, it will kill you within 36 hours, but just think what you might be doing for people down the road someday. We'll even pay for your funeral!

We'll see you at the clinic tomorrow at 2 pm. SHARP. No excuses, please. You wouldn't want anyone to think you're a hypocrite or anything.

Crackpot Sean,

First, you just demonstrated that you don't understand the word "gender," which is generally used to mean a broad array of characteristics, both physical and social,that distinguish males from females.

Second, your self-absorption renders you incapable of conceiving of the existence of altruism. Just because you are incapable of sacrifice on behalf of others does not mean that others share you condition.

Third, shouldn't you be off picketing at the public health office? They encourage parents to have their children vaccinated, which is "Nazi medicine" in your opinion. You could put up a crackpot website misreading epidemiological studies and grossly overstating the risks inherent in vaccinations. Perhaps Jenny McCarthy would even join your Facebook group and you could be overjoyed when she sends you a form email.

The Nuremberg trials were worthless. Any trial on 'human rights', 'war crimes', and 'crimes against humanity' that had Stalin's henchmen on the judges panel should have never been allowed to happen.

In the end, they get to taking their masks off.

Apparently, the difference between girls and boys is a confusing gray area riddled with questions.

And also apparently, the Nuremberg Trials were a farce - and our foundational human rights accords null and void now.

This is, after all, the only place they can run and hide. They certainly don't want to talk about science, or about history. The sky is green and the grass s blue as long as they say so. An infant is a parasitic tumor also, in case you missed it.


Apparently, the difference between girls and boys is a confusing gray area riddled with questions.

Ummm, yes, in many cases, it is. Are you not aware of transgender inviduals?

Or do you follow the example of your Nazi heroes such as Josef Meisinger and view these individuals as deviants?

I still do not understand Sean's constant Hitler arguments. Does he really think abortions were started by Hitler? Really?

Talk about ignorance.

You should picket the US military to stop using missiles since Hitler pioneered their developments.

I'm merely stating scientific and historical facts in the context of this "politics over science" article - and pointing out that we do it every day in Charlottesville. You have a right to your own opinion, but not a right to your own facts.

The following is not an argument. It is a historical, factual quote announcing the beginning of the abortion movement in the modern western world as a matter of government policy.

“It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics.”

Adolph Hitler.

Sean is a compulsive liar.

"The following is not an argument. It is a historical, factual quote announcing the beginning of the abortion movement in the modern western world as a matter of government policy."

1920– Lenin legalized all abortions in the Soviet Union.
1931– Mexico legalized abortion in case of rape.
1932– Poland legalized abortion in cases of rape and threat to maternal health.
1935– Iceland legalized therapeutic abortion under limited circumstances.

Sean will next proceed to ignore all countering evidences, and will keep bringing up Hitler.

oh, Prince Coward, it seems you want to divert attention away from what elective abortion is now. The word elective does not involve rape, nor does it involve a serious physical threat to the mother's life - which also don't want people to know are way less than 1% of the cases..

And it seems you don't even know the difference between East and West. But I am amused by your having to use Lenin, Hitler, Calles and Rubio as examples of leaders defending YOUR position, however.

That may not make you sit back and think how it is we in a modern society would still allow such horrors as first imagined by such horrible men, but there are plenty of us do.

Sean uses an arbitrary definition in order to utilize his Godwin's Law reference to the fullest. He ignores that abortion is an age-old practice. Hippocrates himself gave advice on how to induce abortion. Romans were having abortions. Even English common laws following industrial revolutions (the beginning of the modern age) allowed abortion before fetal movements.

But its ok! It doesn't matter. Hitler did it. Thus it is evil. Like using missiles. Like making the trains run on time.

it seems you want to divert attention away from what elective abortion is now.
More ignorance and hypocrisy. Here's some context for the quotation from 1942 that Sean quotes ad nauseam:

"In view of the large families of the Slav native population, it could only suit us if girls and women there had as many abortions as possible. We are not interested in seeing the non-German population multiply…We must use every means to install in the population the idea that it is harmful
to have several children, the expenses that
they cause and the dangerous effect on woman’s health… It will be necessary to open special institutions for abortions and doctors must be able to help out there in case there is any question of this being a breach of their professional ethics."

So the Nazi regime ordered physicians to perform abortions in occupied Poland and the Soviet Union. And yet somehow Sean believes that previous abortion policies in these same areas are somehow irrelevant to the discussion. Of course, the fact that these abortions in occupied areas were coerced and thus not elective and thus not relevant to modern abortion policies is far too much for Sean to comprehend.

It seems that the ignorant one "wants to divert attention from what elective abortion is now."

You know, if Sean were in any way intelligent and didn't have such a Nazi fetish then it would make more sense for him to cite Lenin. After all, Lenin was an extremist leftist dictator who allowed women to choose to have abortions. Of course, that would require a three digit IQ. Oh well, it would make his ill-formed rants at least a bit more tolerable. He could compare Lenin to Casteen and then Leonard Sandridge could be Trotsky. Instead, we have to suffer through Sean's hard-on for Hitler.

You who were darkness warmed my flesh
where out of darkness rose the seed.
Then all a world I made in me;
all the world you hear and see
hung upon my dreaming blood.

There moved the multitudinous stars,
and coloured birds and fishes moved.
There swam the sliding continents.
All time lay rolled in me, and sense,
and love that knew not its beloved.

O node and focus of the world;
I hold you deep within that well
you shall escape and not escape-
that mirrors still your sleeping shape;
that nurtures still your crescent cell.

I wither and you break from me;
yet though you dance in living light
I am the earth, I am the root,
I am the stem that fed the fruit,
the link that joins you to the night.

Judith Wright

Sean surrenders, goes "Groh" on us.