Say “no” to sex scenes? You’re fired!
Via DrudgeReport.com comes this article from Deadline Hollywood:
Neal McDonough… was suddenly replaced with David James Elliott 3 days into the filming on ABC’s new series Scoundrels earlier this week….
The move was officially explained as a casting change. But, in fact, McDonough was sacked because of his refusal to do some heated love scenes with… [lead actress] Virginia Madsen. The reason? He’s a family man and a Catholic, and he’s always made it clear that he won’t do sex scenes….
ABC knew that. Because he also didn’t get into action with Nicolette Sheridan on the network’s Desperate Housewives…. And he also didn’t do love scenes with his on-air girlfriend in his previous series, NBC’s Boomtown, or that network’s Medical Investigation.
“It has cost him jobs, but the man is sticking to his principles,” a source explained to me. You can’t help but admire McDonough for sticking to his beliefs….

Good for him!
Good for him!!! I also remember the story of actress Hunter Tylo. She was offered a role on Melrose place, but she discovered she was pregnant after accepting the job. Producers simply said, “Have an abortion.” Hunter had already had an abortion and vowed never to have another. She told Melrose to “stick it” and sued. She never got the roll. but she did walk with an undisclosed amount of money!!! Good for you Hunter!!
It is so nice to have people in the media that we can point to and show our children that yes, people DO stick to their convictions.
Another one I love is James Caviezel. He refused to do graphic love scenes in Angel Eyes with J-Lo and stated it was out of respect for his wife.
Wow. Good for him. *fangirls him harder* Mos def gonna buy Tin Man now.
Yes, good for him. I’m sure he gave up a good salary. His family should be proud.
Neal,
Good for you. Count me as one guy who respect that!
Praise God!
…I don’t understand the outrage about this. They asked him to do something job-related. He refused. They fired him. Simple. They probably didn’t think a sex scene would be an issue, or hadn’t scripted it yet. No big deal, it isn’t like the show had started or anything.
Less, so far, I haven’t seen anyone “outraged.”
It is his refusal and principles we are *applauding* here.
I had a major thing for Virginia Madsen in College, so this is superhuman virtue. Good for you Neal!!! It must make your wife feel like the most beautiful woman in the world.
Who says the world is bereft of heroic men?!?!
“I had a major thing for Virginia Madsen in College, so this is superhuman virtue.”
Yeah, what guy back in the day in college doesn’t? lol
…I don’t understand the outrage about this. They asked him to do something job-related. He refused. They fired him. Simple. They probably didn’t think a sex scene would be an issue, or hadn’t scripted it yet. No big deal, it isn’t like the show had started or anything.
Posted by: Less at April 1, 2010 5:59 PM
Less, his stance was well known. They hired him knowing he would not do this type of scene. Therefore there is a reason to, certainly not be outraged, but to lose a small amount of respect for those involved.
Yay!!! I love this actor, and have adored him ever since my favorite movie ever, Ravenous. I should go buy a copy right now…
Elisabeth, I knew of the actor and knew of the shows, and had no idea–I wouldn’t really call it well known. As I said, perhaps they didn’t know there’d be a sex scene in the show. Regardless, it seems as though it was amicable enough. I’m sure he’ll find work elsewhere, of course–he’s an okay enough actor, after all.
Well, just because it wasn’t well known to a viewer does NOT mean that it was not well known to the people who had been employing him. Since he had already told them in a previous series that he worked on FOR THEM, it seems ludicrous to believe they were unaware of it.
He’s a great actor – I’ve enjoyed him in everything I’ve seen him in. Hope this turns into an opportunity to get an even better role somewhere.
Because when you kiss in a movie, you’re not acting. You’re kissing. How much more “acting” is involved with lying naked in bed with an actress?
That’s a damn shame!
OT: Suprised you haven’t made a post about the pro-life movement’s hero Scott Roeder being sentenced yesterday.
msnbc.msn.com/id/36123454/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts
Some of this nutjob’s quotes look awfully similar to the things I see posted here daily. Disturbing stuff.
The fact you even suggest that the pro-life movement considers Roeder to be a hero makes you a whackjob for the pro-abortionist side, given his actions was condemned just about by every pro-life groups, and the vast majority of pro-lifers by far.
The key difference you ignore deliberately is that we are opposed to any form of murder to achieve our ends- we believe in using the legal system to undo the injustice that exists in this country.
Your attempt at guilt by association with that guy, on grounds he sees abortion is murder, is just as heinous and dishonest as the pro-slavery side’s attempt to discredit the abolitionist movement via attempted guilt by association with the murderous fanatic John Brown.
@Anne and OT…the disturbing stuff is that Tiller killed babies that were able to live outside the womb at the time of their death at Tiller’s hands. THAT is disturbing.
In NO WAY do I condone what Roeder did. He does deserve the sentence he got. He, however, killed less than Tiller did. THAT is disturbing.
Anne, nice try! Amazing how some people just have to stir up trouble where there is none. She’s off topic and a fish out of water. Bye bye Anne.
Cudos to McDonough! It is nice to see someone living up to their beliefs.
Anne – I agree – was very surprised I saw no posting on it – assuming it is still coming. The previous parts of the trial were on here. It is life in the pro-life world.
Well, I can’t do any more about Roeder killing Tiller than I can about the Menendez boys killing their parents. So let’s just carry on. It’s over. Besides, their are far more nut wings on the left.
Yeah, you’re right Heather, let’s just carry on. Of course, an anti-abortion protester gets sprayed with some water on a hot sunny day and it’s worthy of multiple posts screaming for the head of the man responsible, but for murderous sociopath Scott Roeder, whose rhetoric and goals are identical to those of many “pro-lifers” here, it’s water under the bridge, time to move on, etc.
Lee: I have yet to see a single unequivocal condemnation, with no additional qualifiers whatsoever, of Scott Roeder’s actions by any “pro-lifer.” They always make sure to throw in some additional caveat about Dr. Tiller being a baby murder, glad he’s not doing what he was doing anymore, etc. This leads me to believe that many of you are indeed pleased with Scott Roeder’s actions but don’t want to make your cause look bad by outright saying so.
And really, if you honestly, truly believe that abortion is murder, would you really disagree with killing a mass murderer like Dr. Tiller? So I’ll ask: is anyone here brave enough to own up to their real feelings about this and admit that they consider Scott Roeder’s actions valorous?
“but for murderous sociopath Scott Roeder, whose rhetoric and goals are identical to those of many “pro-lifers” here, it’s water under the bridge, time to move on, etc.”
So by your idiotic logic, abolitionists against slavery are to be discredited because their rhetoric against slavery is shared by murderous folks like John Brown.
And by such asinine logic, the civil rights movement led by MLK should be discredited because the more extreme elements like the Black Panthers were part of it and had some common goals with them.
And guess what? By your logic, your pro-abortion position should be discredited, too, since your side have more than your share of those who committ acts of violence and murder against pro-lifers.
Those who live in glasshouses should not throw stones.
Pro-life left-winger/progressive exposes the fallacies and dishonesties of those like Anne here:
http://www.godlessprolifers.org/library/trageser2.html
Anti-abortion movement not to blame for clinic violence
By Jim Trageser
Following the recent terroristic attacks outside two Massachusetts abortion clinics and another in Virginia, the more extreme pro-abortion groups and their allies in the national media have argued that all abortion opponents share responsibility for the murders. The argument, first raised last year by nationally syndicated columnists including Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe, Anthony Lewis of The New York Times and Tom Teepen of Cox Newspapers after Paul Hill’s deadly attack in Florida, is that because moderate pro-lifers have not corralled the more violent fringe elements of the anti-abortion movement, all must share the blame.
As an avowed liberal who opposes abortion because it is an act of violence, I wholly reject that argument.
I didn’t aim the gun. I didn’t pull the trigger. I didn’t kill anyone. I have vehemently condemned these attacks for the exact same reason I condemn abortion — we do not have the right to take another’s life.
I oppose violence of all kinds, from the death penalty and war to abortion and euthanasia. To suggest I am guilty or share the blame for these abominable attacks is to stretch the meaning of personal responsibility beyond all reasonable recognition.
By this logic, Martin Luther King Jr. was responsible for the Black Panthers because both sought equality for blacks. Extend this argument to its logical conclusion, and Abraham Lincoln shares the guilt for John Brown’s terrorism because both opposed slavery.
If anyone is guilty of fanning the flames of hatred leading to the deadly attacks, it is the national media, which gives disproportionate attention to the nutcases of society. Even when “moderate” (“responsible” might be a better word) anti-abortion groups do try to get their message out, the media generally ignores them in favor of the radical fringe.
In fairness, abortion abolitionists are not the only victims of the media’s preoccupation with the bizarre and aberrant. Middle-class, law-abiding blacks and Hispanics are all but invisible in the national media — especially if they are not entertainers or athletes. The gay rights movement is still presented in most of the media as a side show of cross-dressers and transsexuals, with the vast majority of gays who are quiet and middle-class ignored. And when conservative, Republican women made huge gains in the 1994 congressional elections, the media ignored it — contrast that with the so-called “Year of the Woman” in 1992 when liberal Democratic women made similar gains.
So it should come as no surprise that the vast majority of abortion abolitionists — nonviolent, law-abiding and, well, boring — are likewise overlooked by the media in its search for the sensational.
Too, the same columnists who now chastise what they refer to as “mainstream” anti-abortion groups are also guilty of giving the fringe more weight than it deserves. When media voices such as Lewis and Teepen spend most of their time portraying all abortion opponents as dangerous radicals completely removed from the American mainstream, they cannot then turn around and blame the recent tragedies on “moderate” abortion opponents not speaking out more strongly against violence. It is more than a little hypocritical to hold as responsible someone whose existence you earlier denied.
How many anti-violence abortion opponents have been intimidated into silence by the national media’s portrayal of the pro-life movement as a bunch of gun-toting fanatics out to kill all who oppose them? If the majority of abolitionists hadn’t been disenfranchised from the political dialogue by the media, the fanatics — the Paul Hills of the world, who were feted on the talk shows and presented as representative of a movement whose motives they reject — might not have taken it upon themselves to kill.
Other syndicated columnists, including Diana Griego Erwin of The Sacramento Bee, have argued that by referring to abortion as “murder,” the Catholic Church and other religious leaders have created a climate in which mentally unstable individuals feel compelled to kill abortionists. If those of us who oppose abortion do so because we believe it to be the taking of human life, then what should we call it? To argue that abortion abolitionists must euphemize and obfuscate our opposition lest we encourage lunatics to kill is to use the horrorific tragedies in Massachusetts and Virginia in an effort to silence one’s political opposition.
It is interesting that when death penalty abolitionists — who unlike abortion abolitionists enjoy broad support in the media — refer to capital punishment as “state-sanctioned murder” (which it is) they are not condemned for encouraging violence against judges or government officials.
Are abortion opponents as a whole responsible for what power-mad fanatics did in the name of stopping abortion? No. We are each responsible only for our own actions. Only those very few extremists who have advocated violence share the blame. Any effort to stigmatize the entire pro-life movement because of what a few terrorists claim as their motive is nothing more than emotional blackmail.
“And really, if you honestly, truly believe that abortion is murder, would you really disagree with killing a mass murderer like Dr. Tiller?”
We disagree with taking the law into our own hands. And we disagree with the right for ourselves to murder others, as well.
That’s the dishonest part about your statements- you focus on similarities while pretending such real differences don’t exist.
Let’s turn the arguments around on Anne. Anne claims we are somehow responsible for what Roeder did and that we applaud his efforts since both see abortion as murder of unborn children. So that somehow mean it causes the death of Tiller because Roeder followed that logic to conclusion he had right to kill a murderer before he strikes again.
Let’s flip that on Anne. Since we are responsible as she claimed for murder of abortion doctors like Tiller, so each and every time abortionists kill one of us or commit any violence against any of us, Anne is RESPONSIBLE for their actions since she used the same rhetoric they do against us.
See how asinine a logic Anne is using? It can be used AGAINST HER SIDE OF THE DEBATE EASILY!!!!!
Anne, you asked, so I’ll say what I think. I will not pretend to miss Tiller. He was not a doctor. He was a murderer. I don’t feel any worse about his passing than Hitler. Tiller threw countless babies into an oven after ripping them to shreds. Do I feel bad because someone like this is gone? No!!!!
My exact words the day I heard he had died?? …………..oh well. *shrugs*
I’m not trying to discredit your cause, Punisher: you folks do a fine enough job of that yourself. What I’m observing here is that no pro-lifers are willing to unequivocally condemn Scott Roeder’s actions: they always need to take a parting shot at the late Dr. Tiller whenever the topic comes up. Usually, they even admit that they’re pleased Dr. Tiller is no longer able to perform his reproductive health services. Trying to make an analogy to the civil rights or abolitionist movements here is absurd. I never heard MLK say “well, violence is wrong, but at least there’s one less racist cop in the world” when the Black Panthers murdered somebody. His platform was strictly passive and non-violent. Large swathes of the anti-abortion movement give immaterial support (i.e. emotional, psychological reinforcement) to the violent extremists, even if they don’t partake in the actual physical violence themselves, and when it’s at that advanced point, it’s not hard to foresee a possible shift to violent action for even more people in the movement who are becoming increasingly frustrated with their inability to further their goals legally.
And please note that I am not saying that the entire pro-life movement is directly responsible for all abortion violence, so you can stop knocking down that straw man.
Posted by: Heather at April 2, 2010 10:41 AM
See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Sentiments like this, very common among pro-lifers, are a huge psychological reinforcement for any disturbed person who is considering violence on behalf of the cause. For the right person, it is an explicit invitation to do violence, knowing that his peers, those whose beliefs and opinions are most similar to his own, will, at the worst, show indifference to his actions and at best praise them in a backhanded sort of way.
Violence?? Who on earth is more violent than an abortionist?
Anne, I never allow a pro-abort liberal back me into a corner. Abortion is murder and abortionists are murderers. Tiller chose his own path in life. oh, and not all of his patients thought he was great either. I checked out quite a few sites where women said that he was “cold” and a few women were afraid of him. These were his own patients, Anne!!!!
“And please note that I am not saying that the entire pro-life movement is directly responsible for all abortion violence, so you can stop knocking down that straw man.”
Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 10:55 AM
“See, this is exactly what I’m talking about. Sentiments like this, very common among pro-lifers, are a huge psychological reinforcement for any disturbed person who is considering violence on behalf of the cause. For the right person, it is an explicit invitation to do violence, knowing that his peers, those whose beliefs and opinions are most similar to his own, will, at the worst, show indifference to his actions and at best praise them in a backhanded sort of way.”
Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 11:00 AM
In which of these paragraphs are you telling the truth and in which one are you lying? You can’t believe both. They’re mutually exclusive.
No, they’re not mutually exclusive. I am not blaming your entire movement for the violence, and I have not said that anyone but Roeder himself is directly responsible for his actions. That’s completely distinct and different from encouraging his actions and reinforcing the destructive thought processes that lead to such actions.
Anne,
Your outrage would be credible if it also encompassed the victims of infanticide, viable babies barbarously executed by Tiller.
He died as he lived.
That you weep for the murdered executioner and not his victims as well says much about you.
Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 11:37 AM
You can not have it both ways. You say ought to do something the way that you want us to, but also say that you’re not placing respnsibility on the thing that you claim we’re not doing. It’s either one or the other. Now are you not only trying to do both, you claim that you can not see the contradiction.
Unless you’re going to argue that it’s the fault of all sane people that crazy people do crazy things, then you need to stop making this case. Especially since that’s not how reinforcement works. And if you are unable to grasp the concept of a bad person coming to a bad end, whilst accepting that the person that brought them there was wrong to do so, then I don’t think you’re ready to debate on any level.
And it says much more about you that you continue to malign and slander a murder victim who was killed because he provided, at great personal risk, important reproductive health services to women in a backwards state where few other doctors would dare to do so. George Tiller was a selfless, heroic man, who was killed for doing his job.
Anne, you’re one day late with those comments. April Fool’s Day was yesterday.
Tell me, how does injecting digoxin into the beating heart of an 8 month old unborn human (thereby causing cardiac arrest) have anything to do with “reproductive health?”
Anne, you can’t even bring yourself to state what Tiller actually did. “Reproductive health services.” Right.
Posted by: Keli Hu at April 2, 2010 12:26 PM
I haven’t said you “ought” to do anything. You can continue to egg on dangerous, unstable people to commit acts of violence with your extreme rhetoric and then act completely innocent when you get your desired outcome and someone is brutally murdered. I can’t stop you. Though I have to laugh how “pro-lifers” get all bent out of shape when it’s suggested that perhaps the FBI and police should monitor them, and act like it’s totally uncalled for, when clearly it’s not, and extremism is obviously percolating within.
“but also say that you’re not placing respnsibility on the thing that you claim we’re not doing. It’s either one or the other. Now are you not only trying to do both, you claim that you can not see the contradiction.”
This is nonsensical gibberish, but I’ll reiterate what I said earlier: the only person I hold directly responsible for the murder of George Tiller is Scott Roeder. However, he had a lot of encouragement, which likely served to lower his inhibitions about committing the act in question, from otherwise non-violent people and the extreme rhetoric they use… things like, say, “a bad person coming to a bad end”: this, said about a murder victim who was shot in broad daylight while attending church services. It is words like this that foster an atmosphere in your movement where ends are justified by violent means.
Correction to 12:40PM post:
**where ends justify violent means.
Posted by: Kel at April 2, 2010 12:31 PM
Dr. Tiller, like all “abortion doctors”, performed the broad range of OB-GYN services. It’s not just about abortion, though that is one thing that falls under the category of reproductive health services.
Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 12:40 PM
And that? That right there? That’s how I know you’re lying. You can not say in one breath, “You can continue to egg on dangerous, unstable people to commit acts of violence with your extreme rhetoric” and then say “the only person I hold directly responsible for the murder of George Tiller is Scott Roeder” and not be lying. You’ve managed to confuse yourself so thoroughly I don’t think even you understand what you’re saying.
He was a bad person. He came to a bad end. At the hands of another bad person. Who did something bad. Bad all around. Like I said, if that concept is too much for you to handle, then you aren’t ready to debate with anyone. On any level. Period.
“important reproductive health services to women in a backwards state where few other doctors would dare to do so.”
No, Tiller killed disabled babies or healthy, near term babies for teenagers.
That’s it. He wasn’t providing “important reproductive health services.” If a woman’s life was in danger, she could go to any hospital in the state and they would induce her and try to save both her and her child.
Tiller own spokesperson admitted that “About three-fourths of Tiller’s late-term patients, Jarman said, are teen-agers who have denied to themselves or their families that they were pregnant until it was too late to hide it.”
Copyright 1991, 1996 The Kansas City Star Co.
Record Number: 45427
Furthermore, Kansas hospitals will perform elective abortions up to 20 weeks and abortions for fetal deformity up to 26 weeks.
Tiller was taking care of the patients either past 26 weeks or from out of state. Kansas actually has some of the most lienant abortion laws in the country.
You really should investigate things before you post.
“George Tiller was a selfless, heroic man, who was killed for doing his job.”
So were the Nazis executed at Nurmberg, by your reckoning.
Tell me Anne, a baby old enough to be viable in the NICU is grasped by its feet, pulled from the womb, through the birth canal and out into the world with only the top of its head still inside the mother. A pair of scissors is jabbed into the base of its skull and spread to allow the insertion of a suction cannula.
The babies brains are sucked out from a writhing child in agony, its skull collapsed, and its lifeless body tossed in the garbage.
This is what you call providing, “at great personal risk, important reproductive health services to women in a backwards state where few other doctors would dare to do so. George Tiller was a selfless, heroic man, who was killed for doing his job.”
Tiller wasn’t selfless. He was paid well for murdering these babies.
But the brutal, torture and murder of babies is a selfless act and an essential service in your eyes?
Really??!!
Anne says “Dr. Tiller, like all “abortion doctors”, performed the broad range of OB-GYN services. ”
Dr. Tiller was not an OB/GYN. The only services he provided other than abortion were handing his patients a pack of birth control pills. No one went to George Tiller to deliver their baby.
Also you say “It is words like this that foster an atmosphere in your movement where ends are justified by violent means”
The pro-life movement is explicitly anti-utilitarianism. We do not believe that ends every justify violent means. Like MLK, we recognize that there are unjust laws, but believe that nonviolent action is the best way to overturn these laws.
It’s really pretty simple.
Posted by: Keli Hu at April 2, 2010 12:48 PM
Once again, you make no sense. Do you even understand the concept of direct responsibility? Roeder is directly responsible because he planned and carried out the killing. He was egged on, influenced, motivated, whatever you want to call it, by the increasingly extremist sentiments of those in the anti-abortion movement. Because the people who push these sentiments did not pull the trigger themselves, they are not directly responsible, they do not share in the punishment for the murder, but they are an influence and thus do play a role here. Is this really so complicated for you?
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 2, 2010 12:50 PM
Here we go again. You people really, really love to describe the various abortion procedures, don’t you? Which is fine, if that’s how you get your thrills, but there is no murder committed here whatsoever. When you make the claim that abortion is, in any way, “murder”, you are making a factually incorrect statement. Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning.
Posted by: Lauren at April 2, 2010 12:56 PM
“The pro-life movement is explicitly anti-utilitarianism. We do not believe that ends every justify violent means. Like MLK, we recognize that there are unjust laws, but believe that nonviolent action is the best way to overturn these laws.”
Maybe you’re one of the rare ones who truly feels this way, but that’s not the indication I’m getting from most of the other anti-choicers, many of whom openly celebrated the murder of Dr. Tiller.
Dr. Tiller, like all “abortion doctors”, performed the broad range of OB-GYN services. It’s not just about abortion, though that is one thing that falls under the category of reproductive health services.
Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 12:45 PM
Actually, no he didn’t. But don’t let the facts stand in your way.
“Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning.”
Not exclusively. Murder also means “to kill inhumanly or barbarously, as in warfare” according to Webster.
“Maybe you’re one of the rare ones who truly feels this way, but that’s not the indication I’m getting from most of the other anti-choicers, many of whom openly celebrated the murder of Dr. Tiller.”
It’s not just me. The entire pro-life movement is based on the idea that it is not justified to kill someone in order that some other good may come. I.E. it’s not justified to kill your child so that you can go to school.
I have yet to see a single pro-lifer outside of the 3 people who openly support violence against abortionists say that Tiller’s murder was a positive thing. I am being literal with the 3 people number, by the way. There is a “group” that openly supports these types of things, but it is made up of only 3 people though it is often portrayed as a main-stream pro-life group. It’s not.
I have seen people say they aren’t particuarlly sad to see Tiller dead. That’s not the same thing as advocating his death. I would not be particuarlly sad to see a number of people die, but that doesn’t mean that I support someone killing them. I’m sure, if you’re honest with yourself, there are people you feel the same way about. Would you really shed tears over the death of Glenn Beck? Seriously? I doubt it. That doesn’t mean you’d be happy that someone killed him or in any ways supported their actions. It also doesn’t mean that you would have to ignore everything you disagreed with him about during his life and pretend that he was someone he wasn’t.
Anne:
“When you make the claim that abortion is, in any way, “murder”, you are making a factually incorrect statement. Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning.”
Then WHY were the Nazis executed for murdering Jews?????
Under German law, Hitler’s word WAS the law. The people voted in that constitutional amendment. Therefore, all concentration camp guards were NOT guilty of murder when following Hitler’s orders.
The answer of course is tat the Germans were guilty of violating Natural Moral Law which, as the Allied Powers held, supersedes ALL manmade law that is crafted to the contrary.
Under the Natural Law, this is murder. Under the Natural Law, humans cannot be redefined to be not human. Read the Declaration of Independence. It’s all right there in the first three sentences.
What really frosts you, Anne, is that some people who act in the name of pro-life apply pro-choice standards to their targets e.g. the arbitrary designation of humanity and moral worth, the determination that a human’s continued life is solely determined by the whim of another.
If it frightens you, as it does me, know that it is the standard advocated by your side, not mine.
Final thought Anne,
People who start wildfires are often caught by surprise when the winds shift and they are consumed by the fire they began.
I abhor the murder of abortionists for the same reasons that I abhor the murder of babies.
However, cut it with the faux horror that the wind shifted on Tiller.
Would that this entire scourge go away.
But Anne, it is your side first that screams that pro-lifers are intolerant, but you guys give yourselves a free pass to do that very same thing! As lauren pointed out, would you be sorry if Glenn Beck passed away? How about Ann Coulter? You may not be saddened if they were murdered, but I doubt you would cheer it on. I am a woman, and I don’t see where Tiller provided a wide range of women’s services. let’s face it, the only reproductive services he provided were that a woman not reproduce. The day I found out he’d been murdered, I watched the story on the news, and I went on with my usual daily routines.
“Maybe you’re one of the rare ones who truly feels this way, but that’s not the indication I’m getting from most of the other anti-choicers, many of whom openly celebrated the murder of Dr. Tiller.”
I am not trying that hard to prove you are a liar, since you do that yourself well on your own.
I’m disgusted by anti-choice people here who
compare the cowardly,self-righteous and hypocritical murderer Scott Roeder with abolitionsists and Martin Luther King.
That’s absolutely disgusting! And comparing abortion to slavery is so disingenuous and intellectually dihonest.
If anything, the real slavery would be to make abotion illega again in America and reduce women to baby-making machines.
And what’s the big deal about the actor being fired for refusing to do love scenes. It’s not as though he were making actual pornographic films with full frontal nudity and graphic sex, which aren’t even allowed on television anyway.
” who
compare the cowardly,self-righteous and hypocritical murderer Scott Roeder with abolitionsists and Martin Luther King. ”
That’s not the comparisson that was made. We compared peaceful pro-lifers to MLK.
“And comparing abortion to slavery is so disingenuous and intellectually dihonest”
No, it’s apt. The comparison is made when pointing out that a certain group of humans has been stripped of their personhood by another group of humans. There is no argument against this point, it’s a scientific fact.
“And what’s the big deal about the actor being fired for refusing to do love scenes.”
He made it clear at prior to the start of production he would not do such scenes and was hired anyway. The fact that they later fired him because of his refusal to do something he had always made clear he would not do is absurd, and probably a violation of contract.
“I’m disgusted by anti-choice people here who
compare the cowardly,self-righteous and hypocritical murderer Scott Roeder with abolitionsists and Martin Luther King.”
You should be disgusted with yourself for lying about what we said.
No one compared Roeder with abolitionists and Martin Luther King. We are the ones showing him acting in contrast to what we believe, along the lines of John Brown acting in contrast to what aboilitionists believe as well as Black Panthers acting in contrast to what MLK believe.
It is cowardly,self-righteous and hypocritical for you to make the claims you make here to score cheap arguments against pro-lifers so you can bash them further namecalling them anti-choicers.
Like you are pro-choice. You are not. To deny people right to life is the ultimate anti-choice mentality ever. So it the ultimate self-righteous and hypocritical display to call yourself pro-choice and others anti-choice.
“That’s absolutely disgusting! And comparing abortion to slavery is so disingenuous and intellectually dihonest.”
No, it is not. Not to those who know their history. My apologies that you are that intellectually dishonest, woefully ignorant, and misinformed.
Slaveowners did the same thing to abolitionists that your side do regularly to pro-lifers: used the argument that a few cases of those who acted like John Brown and Roeder defined their opponents as overzealous fanatics. Same intellectual dishonesty.
Like your side, slaveowners argued another human being is property to justify taking away their liberty, except you go further and justify taking away their lives.
Like your side, slaveowners argued that those who say slavery are immoral are forcing their view of morality and even religion unto the slaveowners.
Like your side, slaveowners argued that to take away right to own slaves is to take away their fundamental rights.
Like your side, slaveowners argued that their right is that of PRIVACY, in regards to their PRIVATE PROPERTY.
Like your side, slaveowners argued that another human being is their PROPERTY. Just like your side say the unborn baby is the WOMAN’S BODY or part of the woman’s body and she can DISPOSE of that baby as she pleases.
“If anything, the real slavery would be to make abotion illega again in America and reduce women to baby-making machines.”
Stupid argument to make. I don’t see anyone on the pro-life side sayin women should have to be pregnant and make babies, but once they choose of their own will to have sex, they know ahead of time they might end up with- gasp- pregnancy and babies.
You are the one basically saying babies have no right to live if their mothers choose to want to have them murdered.
“And what’s the big deal about the actor being fired for refusing to do love scenes. It’s not as though he were making actual pornographic films with full frontal nudity and graphic sex, which aren’t even allowed on television anyway.”
Proof your claim that we are anti-choicers is all talk and not reality.
All of us believe in the idea that we all should be allowed to make choices without legal repurcussions WITH EXCEPTIONS.
Even you.
After all choices to murder, rape, maim, enslave, kidnap, abuse women and children, are still CHOICES.
Just because a choice is made does NOT mean we should be for it automatically.
Not all choices are created equal and to play card we are anti-choicers when you deny basic human right to live is the ultimate exercise in self-righteousness and hypocrisy.
Lauren: No, it’s apt. The comparison is made when pointing out that a certain group of humans has been stripped of their personhood by another group of humans. There is no argument against this point, it’s a scientific fact.
Me: Yep. And the comparison I brought up with my argument on slavery was not even with pro-lifers at all. Much less Roeder as the poster you responded to falsely suggests. My comparison was between the rhetoric of slaveowners and pro-abortionists/pro-choicers, who try to discredit those they disagreed with by lumping the majority as fanatics based on actions of a murderous few.
No violence to any human, born or pre-born.
Roeder was not a pro-lifer – he was misguided in his actions – he murdered and sinned, as any abortionist.
Murder, pure and simple.
Again – No violence to any human, born and pre-born.
Seriously, would ANYoNE on this blog express sorrow over Hitler’s death??? I’d like to know who on earth would. You might find a few KKK members! P-lifers don’t condone violence, but many of us don’t mourn the death of an evil abortionist who dismembered innocent children and scarred their mothers for life!!!!! Please pro-deathers, get over yourselves!!!
Silly me! I thought this discussion was about Neal McDonough. How on earth did it veer onto Scott Roeder/George Tiller?
So, Mr Berger is disgusted by the anti choice group?? That’s your group Robert. You know. The very men and women who pass judgement on women who decide to actually give birth to their children. Stop harassing us!
Silly me! I thought this discussion was about Neal McDonough. How on earth did it veer onto Scott Roeder/George Tiller?
Posted by: Janet Baker at April 2, 2010 5:59 PM
Beats me. Can we go back to talking about the cute guy who is a good actor and totally respects his wife?
And what’s the big deal about the actor being fired for refusing to do love scenes. It’s not as though he were making actual pornographic films with full frontal nudity and graphic sex, which aren’t even allowed on television anyway.
Posted by: Robert Berger at April 2, 2010 4:13 PM
What’s the big deal? The big deal is that it is refreshing to see a man who stands by his principles and ideals, even if it means it costs him his job. It’s nice to see a man who puts his wife and his integrity first.
The fact that you can’t see that simple fact merely demonstrates your own lack of the above qualities.
Robert Berger,
My grandmother, who was born in 1899, used to talk about how loathsome actors and actresses were who kissed on screen wen she was a young girl. The thought of two people kissing who were not married, who were being paid to do so was scandalous.
Quaint, no? But then, marriages back then were generally more durable than today’s marriages.
Nana’s greatest lament about films and fashion was that nothing was left to the imagination anymore. Great words from a great woman who, along with her wit and wisdom, I still miss 25 years later.
Still amazes me that folks are sticking up for Roeder – and some of the comparisons being made are just odd. Go watch his testimony – the guy went in, shot him, then ran – and as somebody was running after him, he yelled that he would shoot that person if they didn’t stop following. Then when another guy started to get in the way of his car, he pointed his gun at him also.
Roeder is a murderer – plain and simple – and he knew he was wrong as he ran away and threatened the life of others.
Good for Neal McDonough! I am glad he sticks to his faith! Not like certain OTHER actors who shall remain nameless…..
And I knew that James Caviesel also refused to do love scenes. Good for him, too!
Its time to bring morality back to Hollyweird. This may be why I mostly prefer Shirley Temple movies to many of today’s “classics”.
Anne,
I unequivocally condemn Scott Roder’s actions. Period.
Ex-GOP Voter,
Don’t see anyone sticking up for Roeder in the responses to the article here.
As long as actors are also respected for turning down killing roles in movies such as “Saving Private Ryan”, I see no problem with this.
Nobody is sticking up for Roeder. It’s an opinion about what happened. Roeder was wrong for killing Tiller. He will be punished accordingly. Tiller was a baby killer. He murdered thousands of innocent children. If I told anbody I missed Tiller, I’d be a liar!
1) Of course I would respect an actor who turned down any role because it conflicted with his/her core beliefs. That is called integrity (living a life where actions and beliefs are integrated.)
2) We are not discussing someone who “turned down a role”. He was hired by a company who knew his refusal to do such scenes. After he was hired they wrote in such a scene. He refused to do it and was fired. That’s a bit different than just turning down a role.
Virginia must be totally bummed…..
“Virginia must be totally bummed…..”
Or maybe it might open door for her to see what real men (and women) of faith are like- those who don’t see her as a chance to have sex with, but as real human with dignity.
This is a little late, but I think it’s an important point:
…there is no murder committed here whatsoever… Murder is a legal term with a specific meaning.
Posted by: Anne at April 2, 2010 1:06 PM
That’s a cop-out based on a technicality. Murder, also known as homicide in most states’ statutes, is indeed a legal term (among other things, as others have pointed out). What you don’t mention is that the vast majority of states (38 at last count) have fetal homicide laws. But because of Roe v. Wade, states are forced to make exceptions for abortion. So legally speaking, the only reason Tiller (or any abortionist) can’t be charged with muder is that the mother consents to the child’s death. It’s nothing short of legal schizophrenia.
Punisher–
I was being facetious…lighten up a little.
Hooves,
I am “lightened up.” I was playing along with your joke to make a partially serious, partially humorous point.
Personally, it would take the grace of God and then some in me to say no if I had been in Neal’s position. Virginia looks as beautiful (from photos I have seen of her from this past year) as she was when she was in Candyman.
Punisher, a rhetorical question…If you could go back in time, would you kill Hitler before his rise to power? Would that be valorous? Just wondering.