Yeah… On the other side of coin, it is not because something is illegal that people will not do it, especially when the law will have no or little effect on changing human behavior. Examples? How about drugs, speeding above the speed limit*, fraud and on and on. Abortion? Do you think it will simply disappear? Come back to the real world here.

*See the decision the state government did around Houston to lower the speed limit on freeways for environmental purposes. You can already guess what happened within two years after the speed limit was lowered.

It seems to me that all your appearance on O'Lielly accomplished was to point all the truly insane, anti-choice, anti-woman, nut-jobs to Salon. Thanks so much.

And did you really think you were going to be able to have a rational discussion on the subject of abortion with a man that hates women as much as Bill-O does? Next time, in the immortal words of Nancy Reagan, "just say No."

lelectra I think the argument here is about partial birth abortion for any reason. Not about the majority of Americans being pro choice. Which you are wrong. Here's the latest Gallup Poll. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx. You should get your facts straight. This is about Joan Walsh's total support for partial birth abortion under any circumstances and her support for Dr. Tiller. You people that beleive in this incidous, disgusting procedure are in a small minority of Americans. The only way you can defend your ideology is by name calling. There's not much debate on this. The killing of a 8 or 9 month old fetus is undefendable.

After watching the clip, it's clear how unstable & inconsistent O'Reilly's arguments are.

His OWN points state that the practice is "rarely necessary."

This means that it is sometimes necessary.

As for the fact that few doctors provide it, both sides agree that the nightmare scenarios in which the procedure is required are rare.

O'R of course leaves out the highly tragic & ironic "factor" that the few doctors who provide it are now one less & that the remaining few are under constant threat, along with their families, co-workers, friends & acquaintances.

Bombs--the traditionally preferred weapon of anti-choice violence-- don't discriminate. They don't even stop to ask old you are.

As for O'Reilly's "credentials," he's neither a medical doctor, nor a constitutional lawyer, nor a law-enforcement officer. He is in no position to assess when the procedure is "necessary," or legal, and when it isn't.

O'R hides behind "moderation" because he is cagey enough to realize that most Americans fear government intervention into the most private of spheres (reproductive rights & medical decisions), but the only thing moderate about O'R is his ability to reason.

Simply stated all that is legal is not right. I would recommend seeing Dr Lile's web demonstration of the Tiller procedure.

It is gruesome. Anyone advocating that for casual reasons once they are informed follows a moral compass I can't understand.

Likewise if a young woman saw a video of the procedure with the moving infant going limp when it's brain is pithed and sucked out I find it hard to believe she would sign her now truly informed consent.

Incinerating people was legal for the Nazis. Legal doesn't make it right.

Yes the system should be used to change the law, but one does not have to be an advocate for something in the meantime unless they really feel it is acceptable, which in this case is very disturbing.

Beware, we are on the way down the slippery slope unless we change course now.

Thanks you Ken McIntyre MD

Very good post!! You called it for what it was. I only think that "guts" had little to do with Ms Walsh going on O'Rielly. She thought it would be an opporunity to make a bigger name a spew talking points. I feel any thought of her having courage by trying to engage in a serous debate on the issue was undermined by her own admission that she failed to research the relevant information regarding it.

Every man knows the rules but a wise man knows the exceptions. Dr Tiller knew how to take advantage of those exceptions. The ignorance of people like Joan is that they do not understand the damage they do regarding this subject by just waving the ideolical banner regardless of the facts. Both sides should have stood against how Dr Tiller operated and if they could have we would be much further along understanding all sides of this issue. Bill O'Rielly did not oppose late term abortions, he opposed how Dr Tiller qualified thier neccessity.

Joan enlisted as a mercenary to undermine the credibility of those who hold views that differ from the left. That was what O'Rielly confronted and rightfully so. In the end it hurts Ms Walsh's credibility for being a willing participant to try to label O'Rielly,Rush or whoever as hate act inciting radicals. A left tool is all she made herself out to be. She was exposed and that is good as these hate filled mob arousers need to be confronted with the truth and facts. Maybe she might even feel a responsibility to now become aquainted with those facts before spewing her venom in the future. It might be wise for her to stick to Mathiews,Olberman, and Maddow for a while so they can help her defend the positions she states with some actual knowledge of them.

My heart started pounding merely reading the article, imagining the sheer scope for embarrassment and regret. I saw you bristling at Liz Cheney earlier this week, and wondered how Bill would respond to such treatment. However, I just watched the segment, and was relieved.

I have never seen anyone with such a deep well of contempt as Bill O'Reilly. He channels his anger so directly that I can't imagine anyone keeping their cool under that glare, with him barking orders and wagging that finger.

You made some excellent points, and anyone with a little sense will see that you are not the morally vapid person he would like to make you out to be.