I just LOLed in my pants. He really doesn't think before he speaks, does he? On one hand, this obviously concerns me because he has such a huge audience and his out of touch views influence so many people. But at the same time, I have a hard time taking him seriously because he demonstrates no critical thinking ability. It's like he makes up his mind to rail against something and then gropes blindly for some semblance of an argument along the way.

There are simply no words to describe this man. He's so ignorant it isn't even funny. "Women's privacy" is new? You mean the term "right to privacy" wasn't used by the Warren court decades ago to describe behaviors in which the government can't interfere? And what the frack do panic attacks have to do with my ovaries?

Oh yeah, and can I see the hands of pro-choice people who believe that it's okay for mothers to kill their babies after they're born? Anyone? Hands up?

*crickets*

The more attentive anti-choicers are probably freaking out at his choice of terminology "after it's a baby"

On a positive note, Ashley Judd is magnificant, she cracked me up with her chicken comment. Is O'Reilly insisting someone wrote her statement for her because he can't imagine a woman would come up with it? Or...?

Tell me that by "even after it's birthed" he means D&C (which would at least make his thinking consistent with most of the right wing), and he doesn't actually believe that women want the right to kill a baby they've actually brought to term...

Although I suppose the two are basically the same thing in the minds of the Christian right. May Jerry Falwell rot in a nasty piece of ground.

While we're on the topic, someone told me that there's a Jewish tradition saying that life begins at first breath (based on God breathing into Adam's nostrils in Genesis). Anybody know anything about that? If my source was right, is that something that differentiates conservative Judaism from conservative Christianity in the choice debate?

"So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby -- women's privacy."

Part of me wants to laugh that some people actually believe that; and part of me wants to scream and cry in rage that some people actually believe that.

(Not that Bill-O The Clown actually believes that, this is just his tactic to scare up the ig'nunt base.)

Bill O'Reilly sneers at the right of privacy for women? You could have knocked me over with a feather when I heard that one. What, with his sexual harassment of one of his employees by telling her he wanted to use a falafel on her in a sexual manner. How much did Falafel Boy have to pay for that one?

The man is a complete dickhead.

I'm new here. Are we allowed to cuss in the comments? If not, please delete/modify my comment.

What a condescending asshole. First of all, saying that someone "wrote that for her", is offensive. Everything he says after that is just plain stupid. Nobody thinks that it's okay to kill a baby after it's "birthed". I'm thinking he had to mean something different than that. Right? He's spinning this so his audience will think that women are going to abort their babies if they get a hangnail or something while pregnant.

This kind of ignorance really makes my head hurt. I think I'll go watch Sarah Haskin's videos now.

It's hilarious that he opens with "somebody wrote that for her", because of course a) an actress like her couldn't possible ever speak intelligently about politics and b) politicians never ever have people write things for them to say, and Bill writes every single world of the script for every one of his shows all by himself.

Reproductive health. That could be anything. Anything at all. Migraine headache. Panic attack.

Or it could mean health that relates to the reproductive system... hence the word "reproductive" in front of "health." Am I misinterpreting his quote, or does he really think that "reproductive health" means health issues that aren't related in any way to, well, reproduction?

bandersnatch -- It means he gets mad when he can't do it with a woman, because she has a migrane, or is in the midst of a panic attack. Stop the migranes! They're ruining my ability to get laid!

Also: I thought that this fuckwad (yes, Catriona, cursing is a-ok around here) thought that anything after conception was a "baby"? Isn't he admitting, right there on television, that a fetus is not a baby until after it's "birthed"?

@Catriona: No one's going to kick you out of Feministing for calling Bill O'Reilly an asshole :) He is an asshole, after all.

And fer cryin' out loud, the logo is flipping him off!

Fuck, I seriously cannot stand that man. he begins his stupidity with a classic bit of condescension because of course having a vagina and thinking do not go together unless you are pushing a patriarchal message. This is followed by his attack on privacy...yeah none of this is mysterious, none of this is new terminology. He is clearly pandering to his bigoted audiences.

"So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby -- women's privacy."

How do you abort a baby after it's born?

It is so hard to take him seriously. He and Ann Coulter make these terrible arguments that are so absolutely nonsensical that I can't believe they are still working and quoted/brought on reputable shows. But then I am reminded that they speak to a certain segment of our population that holds these beliefs. And I guess that's why pundits have been debating whether Palin's seeing Russia from her house counts as foreign policy experience instead of just agreeing that it is completely crazy and further illustrates her inexperience.

I think the "after it's born" bit was referring to the "born alive" bills.

He's just repeating the bullshit that the anti-choice crowd keeps claiming about how Obama supports infanticide.

"While we're on the topic, someone told me that there's a Jewish tradition saying that life begins at first breath (based on God breathing into Adam's nostrils in Genesis). Anybody know anything about that? If my source was right, is that something that differentiates conservative Judaism from conservative Christianity in the choice debate?"

Judaism traditionally doesn't consider a fetus a person. The issue isn't even really addressed in midrash. The most relevant law is from Leviticus, which states that if a pregnant woman is struck and forced to miscarry, the criminal must compensate the woman with money or goods--as if he had destroyed her property. It is not treated as the death of a person at all.

Reform, Conservative, and even Modern Orthodox Judaism tends to be pro-choice. I can't speak for the Ultra-Orthodox or Hassidic; they tend to put more stress on babymaking, but again, according to tradition, a fetus is still not a person.

P.S. I hate to double-post, but got to add: "Conservative" Judaism is not at all the same as conservative Christianity. Conservative Judaism, with a big C, is actually quite progressive: officially pro-gay-rights for the last couple of years (and unofficially for years before that, but queers are now allowed to be ordained as rabbis), and although a lot of American Jews still tend to be pretty right-wing when it comes to Israel, the communities I've been involved with on the East Coast and in the Midwest have been politically liberal, as far as American politics.

Judaism and Christianity, contrary to popular belief, don't run parallel to each other at all; they're based on very different world philosophies, despite coming from a common source.

Just another example of either his willful ignorance or intellectual dishonesty. I have to believe he knows about Griswold's right to privacy in contraception as the underpinning of Roe, so it's likely the dishonest choice this time.

alixana:

"Oh yeah, and can I see the hands of pro-choice people who believe that it's okay for mothers to kill their babies after they're born? Anyone? Hands up?"

Are you referring to the bill that stated when an abortion had failed and the baby was removed from the woman alive that the baby's life could then be allowed end on its own? I believe Obama supported that one.

WIDave, are you conflating "kill" with "allow to die"?

Migranes and panic attacks? Haven't we moved past the "hysterics" argument...just a little.

Props to Judd for the KFC analogy! And how!

really bill?? really?! i had a nice long laugh after i heard his comments. ahhh...

plus, loved the kfc analogy as well. so true, so true.

abort babies anytime?! does that mean we can petition his mother to abort him?

"While we're on the topic, someone told me that there's a Jewish tradition saying that life begins at first breath (based on God breathing into Adam's nostrils in Genesis). Anybody know anything about that? If my source was right, is that something that differentiates conservative Judaism from conservative Christianity in the choice debate?"

MaggieF, while Judith Jewcakes already gave an awesome response, there is an interesting article by Roy Bowen Ward (a preacher and biblical scholar) called "Is a Fetus a Person? The Bible's View" that addresses this issue bringing up some of what Judith Jewcakes said and a few more things I think in about six pages. It used to be the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice website. www.rcrc.org

As I understand it, Griswold vs. Connecticut was a case about whether the state has the legal right to deprive the people of the right to buy and use conception. The Supreme Court ruled that consenting adults have the right to do as they please within the confines of privacy, such as the home. Note that this has nothing explicitly to do with "women's" rights, as either sex would have been denied the right to buy and use contraception if the Connecticut law had been allowed to stand. Privacy, under Griswold, was just as much about women's reproductive health as it was about men's. Griswold was later cited in the Supreme Court's Roe vs. Wade decision as the basis for striking down laws against abortion, likening the inanimate objects of condoms and pills to the quite animate objects of human life -- unborn babies. This also removed the matter of privacy from the political realm, making it subject to the whims of justices rather than the will of the people. Pro-choicers are now confronting the foolishness of relying on that strategy, as the Supreme Court drifts ever closer toward a full-out reversal of Roe. If abortion policy had been determined in the political realm (i.e. in the legislature), as is the case in European countries, there would be little doubt as to the future of the right to abortion. But as it is here, in America, Roe vs. Wade provided the pretext for millions of people to mobilize and elect a string of anti-abortion presidents, starting with Reagan, and taking over the Republican party itself. Removing the right of the people to decide, and yanking abortion policy into the Constitutional realm (on a flimsy argument that a destroying a fetus is the same as preventing conception), proponents of legal abortion have done their own cause a tremendous disservice.

Last point... Domestic violence used to be considered a private matter that was best dealt with in the home and outside of the criminal justice system. But feminists rightly pointed out that human beings were being beaten, injured, and sometimes killed because of this attitude that violence was a private matter. Yet today, feminists call for the right to kill a fetus, even up to the point of delivery (under Roe's trimester system). A successful abortion requires violence by necessity, the destruction of the baby. But this is considered a private matter, while domestic violence is not.

In my opinion, there is a disconnect of logic here -- unless of course the true agenda has nothing to do with privacy in itself, but rather the empowerment of women primarily.

AAARRRGGHH. The "infanticide" crap again! It's such B.S. and nothing but a pathetic appeal to emotion. OBAMA IS NOT FOR KILLING BABIES AFTER THEY ARE BORN, NOR ARE ANY PRO-CHOICE ADVOCATES, YOU IDIOT! I try not to hate anyone, but I cannot help hate Bill O'Reilly; he's nothing but a slimy, sexist, hypocritical, reactionary, paranoid, raving, bloviating, bigoted ass!

As for Judaism, I've heard a baby isn't human until it breathes, but I've also heard it's human once you see the head. Secular and reform Jews tend to be Pro-Choice (go us!) while (non-Modern) Orthodox Jews tend to be as bad as right-wing fundamentalist Christians.

One of my personal heroes, Carl Sagan (you can laugh at me all you want, but his books are the reason I love science, and both he and his wife Ann Druyan were ardent activists for left-wing causes like nuclear disarmament and human rights--sad as it is that those are considered left-wing only!) wrote an essay on abortion and why the standards set by Roe v. Wade make the most sense (from both an ethical and a scientific standpoint), and he includes a brief history of anti-abortion laws throughout the ages. (Google it if you're interested.) Sagan and Druyan were secular Jew themselves, and they point out that while the Torah is rife with rules on how to grow your crops and prepare your food, it's suspiciously silent on abortion!

"In my opinion, there is a disconnect of logic here -- unless of course the true agenda has nothing to do with privacy in itself, but rather the empowerment of women primarily."

Of course this is about the empowerment of women primarily, John Dias. Do you want to know why? Because we're the ones directly affected by pregnancy! Our physical health, our standard of living, our psychological health, our careers... all of these things and more can be adversely affected by pregnancy -- and that's assuming that the pregnancy is healthy and voluntary! So yeah, the right to abortion is all about empowering women. If you've got a problem with that, tough cookies.

"...today, feminists call for the right to kill a fetus, even up to the point of delivery..."

Let me guess: the image dancing in your head is of some flighty chick waltzing into a Planned Parenthood clinic, kicking her feet into the stirrups, and announcing, "Yeah, I know I've spent nine months getting pre-natal care and eating for two and buying tons of baby stuff, but y'know... I've changed my mind. Kill the li'l bugger." I have yet to hear a confirmed case of this. Women have late-term abortions for reasons of heart-breaking necessity.

"A successful abortion requires violence by necessity, the destruction of the baby."

Please. Neither a zygote, nor a blastocyst, nor an embryo, nor a fetus is a baby. Do not conflate them.

And no, abortion is no more violent than any other surgical procedure. You are not going to fool anyone here by comparing abortion with domestic violence. Domestic violence is one sapient being seeking to control another sapient being through violent action. Abortion is one sapient being preventing the budding life form within her from developing into a sapient being in the first place by voluntarily undergoing surgery.

Billo is a low down, dirty rotten pig. Ashley Judd just became a 1000 times more cool and attractive, IMO.

Beyond all of the greatly articulated outraged expressed in the comments above, I'd like to add another complaint. I am a words person, so there is something about not only what O'Reilly is saying here, but how he says it that bothers me a lot. Of course, he's an obnoxious fuck, but also, he is unfairly framing Ashley Judd's comments as manipulative simply because she is using logical, appropriate, and accepted terminology.

Like Vanessa said in the original post, "the term "women's privacy" has been around since Roe v. Wade was passed," yet O'Reilly baulks at it as though it's some kind of new fangled (read:dangerous) idea. Likewise, the term reproductive health would seem pretty self explanatory, but he sets up a ridiculous straw man by having his listeners believe he (and by extension they) couldn't possibly know what it means. (Also, incidentally, while dismissively spewing out legitimate health issues with a tone that says, "you know, panic attacks, those hysterical women's problems," simultaneously using archaic and misogynistic medical logic and insulting men and women who suffer from migraines and panic attacks. but i digress).

This tone scares me, because what he's doing here is (among other things) what so many McCain/Palin supporters are doing: he is framing liberal opinions as elitist and hyper-intellectual while spinning is own opinions as authentic and morally superior. He chastises Ashley Judd basically for using big words, while he carelessly flubs over his own choice of words "So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby --". This careless delivery is irresponsible because now listeners may be quite unsure what he means, and so choose to embrace the more sensational, imflammatory edge of his comment and believe that Obama supporters enjoy using SAT words and killing babies.

Oh, Bill, Bill, Bill. How can you believe what comes out of your own mouth? You are just so damn ignorant!

I looked "infant" up in the dictionary (it's my new best friend). An infant is "a very young child (birth to 1 year) who has not yet begun to walk or talk." Key phrase there: BIRTH to 1 year. Infanticide is killing a baby that has already been born--that means it has come out of the womb. That is NOT the same thing as abortion!

he is framing liberal opinions as elitist and hyper-intellectual while spinning is own opinions as authentic and morally superior. He chastises Ashley Judd basically for using big words, while he carelessly flubs over his own choice of words "So, if a woman wants to abort a fetus at any time, even after it's birthed -- after it's a baby --". This careless delivery is irresponsible

BTW, for a little essay on what "effete" really means, see this http://openingarguments.wordpress.com/2008/05/13/effete-to-be-tied/

So, I wrote this rebuttal to John Dias last night, but the site kept saying that I wasn't registered. Anyway, here were my thoughts, which in many ways mimicked ShifterCat's:

John Dias --
Im my current state, I'm unlikely the best person to answer, but here we go anyway. Sure, Griswold was about privacy of both men and women, as either can make a medical decision on their own behalf as far as contraception. At that point, it has as much to do with the body of the man as that of the woman. However, in order for a medical decision to be made after conception, the man's body is really out of the picture at that point. So under the same logic as was used in Griswold, under Roe, the decision was made that any pregnant person should be able to make their own medical decisions. If men were physically able to get pregnant, they would have the same right to deal with that medical condition in the manner they chose. Perhaps a bunch of shitty presidents got elected because of it -- and a bunch of sh*tty politicians were elected after the abolishment of slavery too. That sounds simplistic, perhaps, but the point is that taking away individual peoples' rights because there might be a backlash is not the way to go, and I would hope you agree.

As for the domestic violence argument, really it doesn't hold up too well -- because they both involve "privacy" doesn't mean that it's an apt comparison. The Roe trimester system does not allow women up to birth to get an abortion for whatever reason they choose (ooh! after 8 months I've suddenly thought better of this whole "kid" thing -- not an allowed scenario), but only for really heart-wrenching reasons that bring the idea of "choice" to a whole new level (my life or that of the child I hoped to carry to term -- a choice I hope I never have to make). In other words, at the third trimester point, there's an much better comparison to self defense, or to the decision of giving a necessary organ to a child, or the decision to keep a loved one on life support even if in a permanant vegetative state.

I don't think anyone here is advocating "whoops" abortions after viability. I really can't tell if, in your argument, you're making the comparison between only 3rd semester abortion and domestic violence, or if you're extending the metaphor to all abortion. In the hope that you're smart enough to see the difference between the abortion of a viable fetus and that of a non-viable fetus and the level of supposed violence involved, I am going to choose not to rehash the standard non-viable fetus arguments. If the difference isn't clear, you just let me (or the other, more-capable, members of the feministing community) know, and I'm sure we can restate the basic pro-choice position for you.

O'Reilly is such an ignorant idiot! I can't believe they allow people like this to leave their own houses let alone talk in public on tv. When will people learn?

Christy
real estate training

Shameless to O'Reilly since he do not know what he talking about. LOL

Frank
Hot Tubs, Spas and Pools