Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
I've just been told by a friend and longtime Dispatches reader that Dr. George Tiller, a doctor from Kansas who has long been controversial for performing abortions, was shot and killed a short time ago during a church service where he was acting as an usher. I hope to be able to bring you more details shortly. Maybe all that nonsense about the Department of Homeland Security's report on right wing extremists will fall silent now, but I doubt it.
Update: I've got permission to post some of this. My friend Gretchen, who comments here almost daily, is in Wichita visiting her parents and her parents were at the church when this shooting took place. This is what they reported:
I'm visiting my parents in Wichita, Kansas this weekend. They just came home from church and said that Dr. George Tiller, a member of their congregation, was shot in the head and killed. Dr. Tiller performs abortions here in Wichita, and has for many years. He was shot in both arms in 1993 during the so-called "Summer of Mercy" protests but has continued his practice in spite of being kicked out of his former church. He then joined Reformation, my parents' church, who refused to kick him out despite protestors showing up every Sunday and screaming at them through bullhorns. The protestors got ahold of the church roll and have sent ugly postcards and letters to members of the congregation, including my parents.Dr. Tiller was an usher today, and was going to get a cup of coffee in the lobby when a man came out of the sanctuary and shot him. At least one other usher witnessed it, but was afraid to tackle the man because he was afraid he might get shot as well. The man made it out of the church and into his car. He drove off, but another usher got his license plate number.
The "Summer of Mercy" was actually in 1991, but Tiller was shot in 1993 after being targeted for protests for years before that. They also report that the shooter had attended the church 3 or 4 times, so many people knew what he looked like. There's a manhunt on for him now in the Wichita area.
Shall we start an office pool on how long it is before one of the Worldnutdaily columnists defends the shooting?
Comments
He worked in my hometown of Wichita. He was a friend of my parents. I hope that this senseless act of unChristian lunacy sends shockwaves up and down and throughout the right-wing Christian community, across our nation and across the world. We are dealing with terrorism, pure and simple, in Jesus' name. It makes me want to vomit.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 31, 2009 1:14 PM
225-BAB is the license plate of the killer that the police are looking for, if anyone manages to see those plates in the Kansas area, let the police know.
Posted by: Reginald | May 31, 2009 1:23 PM
You know, Tiller was active in the community for decades. And, I think it was a Christian church he was attending when he got shot, so don't assume that one crazy lunatic speaks for the group. I didn't think Bill Ayers did for Obama, so knock it off.
Posted by: Chuck | May 31, 2009 1:35 PM
Chuck; No one is implying that all Christians think that physicians who perform abortions should be shot, or that all Christians approve of such actions. What I am upset about is that there are not enough people in positions of authority in Christian churches who speak out against such behavior.
It would not surprise me to see fundamentalist Christian preachers on television saying that this doctor "got what he deserved" because he "murdered babies". The people who espouse such beliefs are culpable when their followers take action in this manner.
Posted by: Dan J | May 31, 2009 1:45 PM
Nobody did. In case you didn't notice, Sadie called it a "senseless act of unChristian lunacy," and Ed didn't mention religion at all, just right-wing extremists.
Posted by: Pieter B | May 31, 2009 1:50 PM
Chuck:
Don't assume that I speak for all atheists when I say that I hope the gutless piece of shit who shot the doctor rots in some hellhole for the rest of his days. I did a quick google and it's pretty obvious that the KKKristian Reich had Dr. Tiller in their "sights" for a while. Among other stories were one about one of his volunteers (a Vietnam Gold Star mother) working at his clinic--and essentially being a murdress and another about his being selected to be ND's 2010 commencement speaker. Oh, that's right, ND is part of "Whore of Babylon, Inc."; they're not "True KKKristians".
Alas, Chuck, I know you're too busy to read this because you've been busy adding your outrage to that of the 250,000,000 other christians in this country who are hammering the leadership for inciting this sort of violence. Or are you only writing us, the fallen and depraved?
Posted by: democommie | May 31, 2009 2:01 PM
Yes, he was at a Christian church-- Reformation Lutheran, my family's church where Tiller has been part of the congregation for several years now following his eviction from his previous congregation. They came home from church and told me about what happened, and once I was able to control myself enough to type I emailed Ed about it.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 31, 2009 2:05 PM
I wonder if the MSM will report this as an act of terrorism, or as the actions of a lone nut (Not A True Cristian™, btw).
Posted by: XD | May 31, 2009 2:10 PM
He was a wonderful doctor, a wonderful man, and did a job almost no physicians in America want. He performed often life saving abortions on women, and this is what he gets.
Posted by: jason | May 31, 2009 2:18 PM
No one supports murder, but how do you sympathize with a man who kills late term viable babies for a living? This guys job is to murder children, and we are supposed to be sad someone murdered him? His thousands of faceless victims should be forgotten, while this monsters life is celebrated? A Sick world we live in
Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2009 2:41 PM
Kansas doctor George Tiller killed today!
WICHITA, Kansas - Media reports say that abortion provider Dr. George Tiller has been shot and killed at his Wichita church. Tiller has been among the few U.S. physicians performing late-term abortion. His clinic has repeatedly been the site of protests for about two decades. He was acquitted in March of misdemeanor charges stemming from procedures he performed, but moments after the verdict the state’s medical board announced it was investigating allegations against him that are nearly identical to those the jury had rejected.
The video from the scene:Dr. George Tiller-video
Posted by: addiction | May 31, 2009 2:43 PM
George Tiller's death just happened today. Give it time. Heck, Conservapedia has already condemned the murder.
Posted by: Brandon | May 31, 2009 2:43 PM
He was helping mothers who did not want to have their babies aborted but for their owns lives, needed to. What an unbelievable cross to bear for that Doctor. HE was not a cold blooded killer. I'm sure the women he has helped feel a deep loss. The ignorant coward who murdered someones husband and father is now on the run. Stand up for what you did, own it because you have definately earned your place in hell.
Posted by: kristy | May 31, 2009 2:48 PM
This is why I--a lefty queer atheist elder with a disability--carry a 9 mm pistol and 16 founds (loaded and chambered) at all times, with extensive training in how to use it. Nobody is ever going to do something like this with me in the room and drive away from it.
The fact that the killer got away is so dismaying. It just underscores the notion that liberals are open season. And that people like Dr. Tiller have no one to stand up for them in extremis. Just sit there and be gunned down.
My abortion provider in Madison, Wisconsin, wore a kevlar vest to and from work, and often in her home. I asked her why she didn't simply carry a .45 Glock and let those terrorist thugs know she'd stand up to them--with a posse of us, her patients, in support. (We knew where they all lived.)
She felt that it was more virtuous to be a victim--and not buck the anti-gun fetish of the liberal Democrats in our hometown (I am a liberal, though not a Democrat)--than to defend one's own safety and rights. In other words, we get to have our beliefs only until someone decides to kill us. Then we're supposed to lie down and take it like a woman.
Fuck that shit.
Dr. Tiller was a brave and good man. That this happened in his church doesn't surprise me. It reminds me of how special religious people think they are. Oh, violence can't happen here...god will protect us...if any harm comes, we'll have candlelight vigils and be Martyrs.
The real message is: go ahead and kill us, we won't stop you.
I carried concealed on the way to my only abortion (8 weeks), because I had to run a gauntlet of misogynist nut cases outside my GYN clinic. I knew that all the liberal thinking and fluffy bunnies in the world would not stop one of these people if they decided to kill me. I was on a hit list afterwards. The first one who harassed me at my home got one look at my .45 (unloaded at that time)...and my .308 long rifle on the wall...and my NRA sticker in my window next to my NRA, ACLU, NARAL, and IGLHRC ones. I was never bothered again.
Posted by: Slasha | May 31, 2009 2:50 PM
Weird how proud you are of murdering your baby. But I am with you on the guns...
Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2009 2:56 PM
That is grossly unfair and unfounded trivialization of what this man's friends at church must be feeling right now.
Posted by: Dr X | May 31, 2009 2:57 PM
This Doctor did not have a normal life. As the wife of a Doctor, I see first hand the stress of the entire medical system on my husbands shoulders. From his patient's illnesses to death. When Doctors go to sleep at night, imagine what they think of, what they see. Dr. Tiller knew he was doing the right thing otherwise, he wouldn't have done it. He has been threatened, billboards all over town, picketing, shot in his arms and yet, despite all of that, still went to work everyday. Thank you Dr. Tiller for the years you've given to Wichita and your practice.
Posted by: kristy | May 31, 2009 2:57 PM
Shawn's position on this turns a cliché inside out -- he praises the killer with faint condemnation.
Posted by: Pieter B | May 31, 2009 3:02 PM
Slasha-I'm sorry to hear about the loss of your baby. Shawn, hope you NEVER have to experience it because I would love to be there when it happened. You do not have the right to judge ANYONE for that choice. It's so personal and traumatic. It's not like they're just out driving pregnant one day and decide to go kill their baby. Medical reasons are involved. It changes a womans life no matter how the baby dies. Full term w/ gross deformations or still birth or abortion.
Posted by: kristy | May 31, 2009 3:03 PM
I dont praise the killer, he is wrong. We are not in a position to judge our fellow man and which is why we tolerate a state regulating justice. I just find all this outpouring for the doctor strange, considering he regularly committed many monstrous acts that dwarf the crime committed against him. I understand your position, late term baby murder good, killing murders bad; I just dont like it. I happen to think they are both bad.
Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2009 3:07 PM
"You do not have the right to judge ANYONE for that choice."
You do not have the right to judge ANYONE for ANY choice, but you have a responsibility to judge the CHOICE. I fully support abortion for health reasons, but you are lieing to yourself if you think that 90% of abortions are not born out of selfishness, lazyness, and a fear of the loss of social status.
Posted by: Shawn | May 31, 2009 3:10 PM
Shawn-do you understand that these women have to have the late term abortion? If the woman was going to die if she had the baby or the baby was going to die immediatley after birth with horrific health problems (brain exposed, no skin all organs exposed) do you still believe the woman should do nothing then to try and save her own life?
Posted by: kristy | May 31, 2009 3:15 PM
The laws are not perfect. Unfortunatley, girls will have abortions as a form of birth control. How would you govern that? I also think the laws are a bit blurry, with each state having their own age limit, parental permission. What is not blurry is murdering someone in cold blood because you do not agree w/ them. The women Dr. Tiller dedicated his life (gave his life for) were women in deperate need of a competent, caring and professional doctor and that's what they got.
Posted by: kristy | May 31, 2009 3:24 PM
I don't think Shawn is getting the point that these late term abortions were for health reasons or were perhaps a difficult but ethical choice (Kristy's examples #22).
Posted by: mezzobuff | May 31, 2009 3:25 PM
They've caught the suspected murderer, says Wichita news.
Posted by: Coragyps | May 31, 2009 3:32 PM
A bit off-topic, but it's clear that Shawn thinks that what Tiller did should be against the law. I'm curious about what criminal penalties he would impose on the women who've had the abortions that Tiller performed.
Posted by: daniel rotter | May 31, 2009 3:32 PM
Chuck wrote:
There's nothing to knock off. Not only did I not ever even imply that the church was responsible for this, the opposite is true. This is a church that has long embraced Tiller as a congregant despite enormous pressure to kick him out and almost weekly protests during services. The person who did this was not a member of the church, he went there three or four times for the specific purpose of planning out this murder.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 31, 2009 3:32 PM
I would NEVER shoot an abortion doctor. But then, who am I to impose my morality on someone else?
Posted by: rasputin | May 31, 2009 3:33 PM
There is no statement in the world that irritates me more than "you don't have the right to judge anyone else." Bullshit. The fuck we don't. And when you make that statement, you ARE judging people - for the act of judging, of course. Judging is indistinguishable from thinking; the only way to stop judging is to stop thinking. This is more of that relativistic bullshit and it's fucking stupid.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 31, 2009 3:37 PM
Shawn is falling into the common conservative trap of believing all women who have abortion do so with a cavalier attitude - killing an inconvenient baby in between a manicure and a pedicure. Never once have I heard an ardent pro-lifer with an understanding of the medical complexities of pregnancy or the myriad health and mortality risks to every woman who conceives, for any reason.
I have known quite a few women who have faced the choice of abortion, all for health issues and including my mother, who was denied a life-saving late-term abortion in 1971 because she was not "close enough to death" for the judge who heard her case. Instead she bled out for 18 hours until the doctors could assemble enough pieces of the fetus to prove she was no longer pregnant. They were able to save her life but she was unable to ever have more children; she was 32 at the time. Needless to say, she was vehemently pro-choice.
Every woman I know who has faced the choice has agonized over it, and in none of the situations - regardless of the choice she ultimately made made - would I have wanted to make that choice for any of them.
Whenever pro-lifers talk about abortion, they act like the woman isn't even in the picture - just a big incubator. Last year when Obama was asked by that charlatan Rick Warren "When do human rights begin?" Obama should have countered with, "the question is, when do they end?"
Posted by: CPT_Doom | May 31, 2009 3:42 PM
It isn't a crime and it wasn't even immoral. What he did was help people. Terminating pregnancies is not dwarfed by gunning someone down in the street. These murders aren't committed solely because they think abortion doctors are bad people. They are done to send a message to doctors everywhere. And patients- I had a similar experience as Slasha and too I seriously considered buying a gun.
And Pieter B has you pegged, you are implicitly condoning this act of violence by saying that the victim deserved it. That we shouldn't view the loss of this man's life as a loss. Well we do.
Posted by: Leni | May 31, 2009 3:43 PM
Shawn you are wrong about ladies that go for late term abortion at clinics....the ones you speak of are the ones who use a coat hanger, OD on drugs, or take other extreme measures to end an unwanted pregnancy....
You are one self righteous prick....JMHO
I hate abortions, but, I know there are conditions which should all this process.
Posted by: Dave in MidMO | May 31, 2009 3:49 PM
Follow on Twitter
https://twitter.com/#search?q=%23tiller
Posted by: Liz Ditz | May 31, 2009 3:52 PM
I can hardly believe that there are so many willing to believe the crap being said about this guy! "To protect the life of the mother...." Give me a break! Anyone in the medical field knows that babies being aborted in the eighth and nineth month has nothing to do with the protection of the mother's life! This man was a murderer and where the law was unwilling to act, someone was. I do not condone this act, but I do understand it! People, you have to know that facts before you vomit you ignorance!
Posted by: imakey | May 31, 2009 3:56 PM
You're right Ed. Everyone has the right to judge everyone. In fact, if you cheat on your wife, and I don't agree w/ it, I am going to judge you. However, I will not take action on that judgement and cut your penis off. The people who do crazy insane shit like this only prove our point even more credible.
Posted by: kristy | May 31, 2009 4:04 PM
I don't profess to hold any moral high ground on this issue, even though I'm a conservative or as many of the Libtards on here like to refer to as "winger". I HATE abortion, but I'd also never force a woman to go through a pregnancy after a rape, incest or for medical reasons for the mother.
As usual the talk of Rightwing Extremism and that ugly bitch Napolitano and her stupid report come up. Ohhh, maybe it was a disgruntled ex-Marine! We all know how bad and scary our Veterans are right?
There are and always will be extremists from both Far-Right and Far-Left, like the Fascist Punk we now have as a President, you can't go any farther left than he can we? I mean....wow! he even has his own logo, CREEPY.
Posted by: JTHM | May 31, 2009 4:11 PM
Citation please imakey. You are letting your emotions govern your intelligence, or rather letting your emotions display the lack there of.
Posted by: Trismos | May 31, 2009 4:13 PM
imakey-what is your profession? Medical? If a woman doesn't want the baby chances of her waiting until the 8th or 9th month is so freakin stupid. So would you let your mother die if the child inside her was causing bleeding? Or your wife? Please answer almight doctor.
Posted by: kristy | May 31, 2009 4:17 PM
The person who shot Dr. Tiller committed a crime, and should be punished based on the laws of our land. However, the person who shot the Dr. is a Hero. That person has stopped the Dr. from killing any more babies. It is tragic that the law of our land and the general opinion of people condones the killing of unborn babies. If this were any other people group besides unborn babies we would be at war to end the killing. When we send our soldiers into foreign lands to stop the killing of innocent people we call them heroes. The logic, reason, and morals of many in this country are without logic, reason, and morals. History will tell of the killing of unborn babies as one of the most horrific atrocities of our time.
Posted by: mike | May 31, 2009 4:17 PM
I have a friend who's just entering her 8th month of pregnancy. She'll be thrilled to hear that from now on no medical complication could possibly occur that would endanger the life of her or the fetus. Hell, she probably doesn't even need to go see a doctor anymore. I guess it's easy sailing from here on out. I had absolutely no idea!
Idiot.
Posted by: peaches | May 31, 2009 4:18 PM
An arrest has been reported. Here's a link:
fox4kc.com/wdaf-george-tiller-shot-killed-story-53109,0,7908213.story
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | May 31, 2009 4:21 PM
JTHM I'm not American and our definition of what passes for conservative and liberal are somewhat different than yours, but if you are any indication of a 'moderate' conservative, I'm sure those who you call Libtards are justified in calling you something other than just "winger" ... but you do appear to embrace an attitude that passes for all the ugly things the world dislikes about Americans and the past Bush administration.
Posted by: Trismos | May 31, 2009 4:25 PM
I was going to comment on something else, but I cannot believe the despicable attitude, and total lack of understanding, that Shawn displays. But then he will never have to worry about going through a pregnancy! I speak as a woman who did not have an abortion, when some people surely would have thought I "should" have. And my daughter was perfectly healthy! I was lucky, in many ways. But some of us are not so lucky. Some of us may very much want a child, and get pregnant, only to find that the child they are carrying, has serious anomalies that will make any kind of meaningful "life" impossible. Or they may want a child, but certain conditions -- and yes, I know this isn't common, but it happens -- make it impossible for the woman to carry a child to term without serious health complications. The decision in such a case must be agonizing for anyone or any couple who has to face it. I don't understand why Shawn doesn't have enough empathy to see this. It is not something that women just "do". "Stuff" happens. And, quite frankly, even if "stuff" doesn't happen, I cannot and will not judge anyoen who has had an abortion for any reason. I don't know what their lives would be like if they did or didn't. As for George Tiller -- I, too, am absolutely appalled by this shocking act of indecency. There are not words enough in the English language for me to experss the depth of my feeling on this. We, as a nation, should bow our heads in shame, that this has happened at all.
Anne G
Posted by: Anne Gilbert | May 31, 2009 4:30 PM
Others have already pointed this out, but I'm just going to say this simply so as not to confuse you. You don't understand most people's position on abortion.
Posted by: Owen | May 31, 2009 4:30 PM
I dont praise the killer, he is wrong. We are not in a position to judge our fellow man and which is why we tolerate a state regulating justice. I just find all this outpouring for the doctor strange, considering he regularly committed many monstrous acts that dwarf the crime committed against him.
And so Shawn demonstrates his hypocricy, and his willingness to parrot nice-sounding words he has no intention of obeying himself.
The simple truth is, a fetus is not a human being -- certainly not to the extent that it can be given rights that in any way trump those of its bearer. It's nothing more than a piece of its bearer that will one day become a human being, if the bearer chooses to make it so.
Those who seek to elevate the fetus to the exact same level as a thinking, responsible adult, instead lower adults to the level of animals. A fetus is nothing more than a cluster of human cells, and its awareness, thoughts and feelings, if any, take place entirely on the cellular level, far below the level of an adult cat, let alone a conscious child. Pretending the fetus is a human life, and then using that pretense as an excuse to completely disregard ALL other considerations of rights, health, choice, interests and responsibility, is nothing more than an act of totalitarian intolerance and irresponsibility.
Oh, and Shawn? If you support the killing of an adult (which you did, while lamely pretending you didn't), then you can't call yourself "pro-life," no matter how vehemently you insist you care about this or that cluster of human tissue. The Nazis did something similar: kill Jews (and just about everyone else) to protect Aryan lives. If you think a cluster of tissue is more important than a fully-formed adult, then you're not "pro-life," you're a small-minded bloodthirsty idiot. Same goes for that other idiot who called the murderer a "Hero."
Posted by: Raging Bee | May 31, 2009 4:45 PM
Abortion is not homicide under the law. All of you KKKristian fucktards can piss and moan about that till the cows come home, but that's the fact.
Murdering a medical doctor, regardless of what he does in his practice, IS murder under the law. Your "hero" is a coward and a murderer--not one bit different than the other murderers who kill those with whom they disagree.
That people like Shawn, Imakey, JTMH and Mike @39, have no problem conflating abortion--legal--with murder, illegal says much about their KKKristian goodness. Assholes.
Posted by: democommie | May 31, 2009 4:54 PM
If you want to see some really sick-minded people, read this thread at Free Conservatives. I count exactly two posters who say that this murder cannot be justified. The rest are bloodthirsty maniacs.
Posted by: FishyFred | May 31, 2009 5:04 PM
Don't y'all just love the display of informed thought condensed into such a brief quote? I mean, "ugly bitch" is such a delightfully revealing critique -- and then there's the charming display of Reassignment Syndrome [1], with a Bush Administration report being credited to the new Administration.
[1] Reassignment Syndrome: anything good that happens under a Democratic administration is the result of the previous Republican administration, and anything bad that happens under a Republican administration is the fault of a previous Democratic Presidency. Anything bad that happens during a Democratic administration (and even before it begins) is, of course, its own fault.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | May 31, 2009 5:05 PM
CPT Doom: Bravo; great post.
Posted by: Julian | May 31, 2009 5:07 PM
JTHM: What are you even talking about? The only thing coherent I can take from you post is that you think liberals are mean for calling you names and having good memories. And, by the way, how many people has President Obama gunned down in his life? Were you o.k. with calling presidents punks a year ago?
Posted by: Julian | May 31, 2009 5:12 PM
Posted by: H.H. | May 31, 2009 5:20 PM
" I don't understand why Shawn doesn't have enough empathy to see this."
That's simple: to people like him women are disposable baby factories for Jesus. Once they're born they are forgotten. Because we all know: making sure babies are born no matter what: The Work of The Lord. Making sure they get a good education and are adequately fed: SOCIALISM.
Posted by: Ian | May 31, 2009 5:26 PM
I would never call Dr. Tiller a hero. He was a doctor doing his job regardless of the the death threats, billboards posted across Wichita, protestors and picketing his church, home and office. He showed up for work everyday caring for women who sought his help. The killer ran away. Why didn't he stick around? If he is so proud of his actions and beliefs why did he speed off? He is such a small person compared to Dr. Tiller.
Posted by: kristy | May 31, 2009 5:26 PM
imakey didn't read CPT_Doom's post.
He has to be a troll or an alt. Nobody who is aware of pregnancy could possibly think that no complications arise in the last trimester.
Posted by: FishyFred | May 31, 2009 5:27 PM
H.H., I'd understand it too, but the search for imakey's brains would make Stanley finding Livingstone look like a walk in the park.
Posted by: Pieter B | May 31, 2009 5:28 PM
Where are the psychos in this thread coming from? Seriously, there are rarely this many "conservative" (I weep if they are representative of most people who label themselves that way) posters, let alone on a Sunday (in the States, anyway).
In any case, this is a tragedy, and I hope the murderer is locked away for life. Maybe some more sane religious conservatives will speak up about this and put and end to their hateful, violent rhetoric that encourages acts like these.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | May 31, 2009 5:38 PM
Regarding Shawn, Imakey, JTMH and Mike @39:
Guys, I'm really sorry your divorce from reality was so painful. Have you considered therapy?
Posted by: Ktesibios | May 31, 2009 5:44 PM
[quote]He is such a small person compared to Dr. Tiller.[/quote]
How tall was Tiller?
Posted by: JTHM | May 31, 2009 5:45 PM
We are not in a position to judge our fellow man and which is why we tolerate a state regulating justice.
Sounds kinda backwards. We tolerate a state regulating justice and that's why we are not in a position to judge our fellow man. That make a little more sense, at least.
Unless you're talking some God crap. Such as, we are not in a position to judge our fellow man because we are not God. But the state isn't God either.
Either way it doesn't make much sense, so you definitely must be talking some God crap.
Posted by: 386sx | May 31, 2009 5:47 PM
Re JTHM
There are and always will be extremists from both Far-Right and Far-Left, like the Fascist Punk we now have as a President, you can't go any farther left than he can we? I mean....wow! he even has his own logo,
CREEPY.
And Mr. JTHM is a goat fucking piece of filth and is invited to take his comment and shove it up his ass.
Re mike
Gee, the scumbag who shot Dr. Tiller is a hero according to Mr. fuckface Mike. He's not a hero, he's a cowardly yellow bellied piece of crap who shot anunarmed man in a church and who deserves to be executed by being burned at the stake.
Posted by: SLC | May 31, 2009 5:47 PM
Raging Bee stated:
"Those who seek to elevate the fetus to the exact same level as a thinking, responsible adult, instead lower adults to the level of animals. A fetus is nothing more than a cluster of human cells, and its awareness, thoughts and feelings, if any, take place entirely on the cellular level, far below the level of an adult cat, let alone a conscious child. Pretending the fetus is a human life, and then using that pretense as an excuse to completely disregard ALL other considerations of rights, health, choice, interests and responsibility, is nothing more than an act of totalitarian intolerance and irresponsibility."
Does someone who kills a pregnant mother get charged with double murder?
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 31, 2009 6:07 PM
The value of human life is, and has been for a very long time, been going down. Simple supply and demand really. We are pushing seven billion people on a planet which would be in better balance if there were just three. If the human population were but one million there would be no need for environmental controls. At that density, assuming it was dispersed, you could eliminate most laws and regulations.
Most of the lamentations heard over the blunting of the American ideal of freedom, as laughable as that concept is, overlook the fact that it is simply the result of our going from a population of around 120 million before WW2 to over 300 million now. More people living in the same space means you have to have tighter rules and regulations. The strict social and legal controls within Japan are clearly a result of the demands of population density, not a love of rules.
But, making matters worse, we live in a capitalist society where everything, literally everything, comes down to dollars and cents. Bottom line is that there is no surer way of getting and remaining poor than having children. A low-side thumbnail estimate is $6,000 and 2000 man-hours/year each. A pregnancy in high school or directly after is pretty much the end of educational and economic development for a woman. Yes, some do buck the trend but the vast majority don't.
Technology and industry have made reduction of labor and manpower the central part of their existence. Assembly lines, computers, robots and industrialization are all about getting more production out of fewer people. Where industrialization can't cut numbers they dumb down the job. The jobs all have to be filed but there are fewer jobs and most of the job growth is on the low end of the economic scale. Too low to raise a family.
So we end up with lots of contradictions. People screaming about the sanctity of human life as waves of unneeded and unwanted people slosh around the globe. Many of those enamored of the sanctity of human life are also those who hate immigrants who are fleeing overpopulated areas and meet poverty with a demand that they "Get a job". Overlooking the irony in that most of them would love to have a job if the job paid a living wage.
The same folks who shout about children being a 'gift from God' think nothing of keeping their kids ignorant and vaccinated. Beating them and denying them health care is also popular. Their love of the 'preborn' is not matched by their love of children and mothers. Particularly if they happen to be poor and brown.
To gauge how much people actually value children try this little though experiment. If there were only 100 human births on the globe what would the penalty be for not using a car seat? What would the law say about providing health care and keeping the drain cleaner locked safely away? If there were only 100 births each year how would we treat children? Keeping in mind the levels of child abuse, neglect, abandonment and exploitation can it really be said we 'value children'? And, if we don't actually value children very much isn't abortion something of a mercy for both mother and child?
In her book "Population Politics" Abernathy points out that segregation of women from men, honor killings, genital mutilation (look up Australian subincision for a thrill) and harsh sexual mores are seen more often in areas where the land has little bearing capacity and the human populations live on the edge of exceeding it. That these are social and religious artifacts of a desire to avoid the inevitable chaos, famine and war that come along with overpopulation.
At some time in the future humanity will have to deal with reproduction. Given the present population and conditions who has the right, or privilege, to have a child. How many can they have, when. Or would we rather ignore the issue and settle it the old ways ... chaos, famine and war.
Posted by: Art | May 31, 2009 6:10 PM
Those of you who support the work of Dr. Tiller, I have one question. Did any of you ever see the interviews of the women (and there were many) who reported their late term abortions performed by Dr. Tiller. They were performed because of the mental stress having a child would cause. What a bunch idiots! Yes, there may have been a few late term abortions done to save the mother's life. But many more out of convenience! Wise up!
Posted by: johnny | May 31, 2009 6:11 PM
You know, if you and those like you were to spend even a tenth as much energy actively condemning murder as they spend insisting that they not be judged by association with the murderers, that judgement by association might not even occur.
On the other hand, we have monsters like johnny, who consider human life worthless and are only concerned about punishing women for having sex. What else is there to say about them?
(Chuck, maybe saying a little of the obvious would lend some substance to your desire to not be seen as supporting them? Just a thought.)
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 31, 2009 6:19 PM
Please revise your post, giving due consideration to following the advice of Exodus 20:16.
Posted by: Mithrandir | May 31, 2009 6:24 PM
Where did all these fucktards come from? It's like a swarm of freepers.
Posted by: Leni | May 31, 2009 6:29 PM
You just did, you gutless coward. Own up to it like a big boy.
Posted by: Azkyroth | May 31, 2009 6:35 PM
And Mr. JTHM is a goat fucking piece of filth and is invited to take his comment and shove it up his ass.
"SLC" Heh....and what was it exactly that caused such a heart felt response? :) Moonbats make me laugh.
Posted by: JTHM | May 31, 2009 6:44 PM
I live in Los Angeles, thankfully, and so I have less contact with the mental midgets who do these sorts of things. But when I'm in Middle America, I always carry a .40 Glock 17 and extra magazine. I was asked recently why I, a kind and gentle liberal, have studied unarmed and armed combat. This is why. If the adults in this world are going to be targeted by the petulant and stunted children, as in this instance, I refuse to pretend that is not the case.
I pity this poor doctor, and heartily condemn the ignorant and cruel hordes who delight.
Posted by: Damien | May 31, 2009 6:55 PM
Correction: #62 in paragraph six the wording intended was "UNvaccinated" not "vaccinated". Sorry for any confusion.
Posted by: Art | May 31, 2009 6:57 PM
I might be convinced to give a little respect to those with strident anti-abortion views if I thought for one moment that they cared anything about, say, the lives destroyed and ruined by the Bush misadventure in Iraq, or about the innocent people languish on death row all around the country, or about the millions of poor Americans (and their children) who have died before their time because they cannot afford basic and preventative health care, and on and on and on.
Like everything else in the right-wing black-and-white worldview, being "pro-life" is boiled down to the most facile morality imaginable, where only those can be safely deemed to be pure and unsullied by life (i.e. the unborn and the brain dead) are worth protecting.
As soon as there is a little uncertainty in there---a little greyness in the pure white---whether the victims are Muslims, or on welfare, or their family failed to live up to their responsibilities, then all bets are off and these "pro-lifers" won't touch these unfortunate people with a ten-foot barge pole.
The whole "pro-life" movement is an insult to people's intelligence, and is driven much more by these people's emotional need for moral certitude than any real desire to see lives saved.
Posted by: tacitus | May 31, 2009 7:05 PM
It is horrible that Dr. Tiller had to die, but it is circumstances like this that show us what the anti-choice contingent really feels about the sanctity of human life.
There are some truly sick fucking people out there - a few of whom have chosen to wander over here and show us exactly what sort of lie it is, their claims to be pro-life. These people are death worshipers and nothing more. Their religion is a death cult, their god a genocidal maniac. Good on you for showing your true colors...
Posted by: DuWayne | May 31, 2009 7:05 PM
This is a tragedy, but what's more tragic is that I'm not shocked by this anymore.
If an act of violence from Christians was a shocking, rare occurrence, that would be one thing, but it's not.
I hope that they catch the killer and put him on trial. I'm prepared for another "Under the Banner of Heaven"-esque trial, and we'll see how strong the opposition from Christians is.
Frankly, I expect lots of comments about the martyrdom of this SOB if he's ever caught, from World Nut Daily and other anti-choice groups.
Posted by: JStein | May 31, 2009 7:20 PM
Shawn, I think it is repugnant that you are taking this opportunity to spread lies about second trimester abortion. It is not legal in Kansas to perform elective abortions past viability. He has been acquitted numerous times by anti-choice activists who accused him of performing abortions past viability unless there was a medical indication. He has had his medical records examined with a fine toothed comb. And funnily enough, the unplanned pregnancy rate stays the same.
Less than 5% of abortions are even performed after 12 weeks gestation (which is 10 weeks after fertilization), and none should be performed past viability.
If you need to lie to try to convince people to agree with you, maybe you should rethink your position.
Posted by: MomTFH | May 31, 2009 7:22 PM
No Christian should ever need to own a gun.
As for our concern trolls, I imagine they think of themselves as Christians, too. But tell me, Shawn, did you ever pray for Dr. Tiller? Do you pray for his family and church now? Or do you just know the Klassik Komiks version of the Gospel (ie, it's all about you, not serving Him).
Idiots.
Posted by: kehrsam | May 31, 2009 7:41 PM
JTHM will be taking his fuckwittery somewhere else now.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | May 31, 2009 7:43 PM
Gretchen - thanks for emailing Ed on this tragedy and allowing him to post your perspective on his blog.
Please let your parents know that my wife and I have them and their church in our thoughts.
If there is anything we as a community can do for them and their church I'd be most appreciative knowing how we can help. I had no idea a community of people like the ones at your parent's church had been taking a principled stand and refused to yield to the harassment they received for taking such a stand.
It's readers like you that help make Ed's blog such a great place to hang out. Your contributions to this community by way of your comment posts have helped me become a better person and husband.
Posted by: Michael Heath | May 31, 2009 8:05 PM
Dr. Tiller continuously risked his life to help women through some of most difficult situations they will ever experience. The man who killed him did so as he was unarmed and defenseless. Dr. Tiller was a hero, the man who killed him is a coward and a murderer. Those who are defending the latter are human shit. That is all.
Posted by: Tyler DiPietro | May 31, 2009 8:17 PM
Dear Michael,
Thanks for such kind thoughts. My parents are not really internet people so they don't necessarily understand the kinds of communities people form, but I will pass on your sentiments anyway.
I don't recall exactly what year the Tillers (George, Jeanne, and their three daughters and son) were evicted from Holy Cross church (also Lutheran, but Missouri Synod) and joined Reformation (ELCA)....I'm thinking maybe 2001, but that's just a guess. I do remember the people at Reformation having meetings about it, and specifically deciding that they were determined to make the Tillers welcome in their congregation despite the protests. One year we showed up for Christmas Eve service and the protestors were outside in the snow, standing in front of their van which was covered with photos purporting to be of aborted fetuses, and shouting through bullhorns at the people filing into church that we were "stepping on the blood of Jesus." One older lady walking in front of me turned her head at this and shouted back at them to either join us for worship in the warm sanctuary or go home and have some soup, as they'd catch their deaths out there in the cold.
My mother's position is that she doesn't think Dr. Tiller is a sinner, but if he is a sinner then church is precisely where he needs to be. Or at least, needed to be.
Everyone seems to be talking today about how bad this is for Wichita, and what a tragedy it is specifically that it happened in a church. Someone asked me if the people at Reformation would blame Dr. Tiller for being the occasion of violence within their church, even though he was not the cause. I replied that I thought not, and since then have received word that they are holding a vigil tonight in Dr. Tiller's honor, which confirms to me that they are only proud to have known him and to have been his church family.
I had always assumed that the early 90's were the worst of it, and things would just peter down, and peter down, and the protestors would lose interest, and for the most part that has happened.....but it only takes one nut to cause something like this. Most likely it was because Dr. Tiller has been in the news lately after being accused of violating "a state law that only allows late-term abortions if two independent physicians agree the procedure is necessary to save a woman's life or prevent 'substantial and irreversible' harm to 'a major bodily function.'"-- and aquitted.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 31, 2009 8:30 PM
@ Shawn and others like him:
In some late-term abortions, the fetus is already dead, and the doctor is trying to minimize the damage to the woman's reproductive system.
If you knew more of the facts about late-term abortions, you might find yourselves less judgmental.
Don't expect to find these facts on Fox News, or even (sadly) MSM.
Posted by: Alan | May 31, 2009 8:54 PM
The doctor's murder was illegal and will be punished. Abortion was at one time illegal and was punished. Now it's not illegal and not subject to punishment. Slavery, segregation, and wife-beating were once legal and not subject to punishment. Judging by some postings here, the fact that abortion is legal removes all possibility of its being wrong. If it were illegal again, would the posters consistently deplore it, as they do, for example, slavery? Of course not. They embrace the "legality" argument to the extent that it serves them.
Posted by: Bill | May 31, 2009 9:20 PM
Posted by: llewelly | May 31, 2009 9:27 PM
Gretchen, thank you so much for posting (esp #79) - as an athiest I tend to lump all religious folk into a few categories, and reading about how your parents' church accepted the Tillers as part of the church family has made my world less black and white - thank you again. Although I did not know Dr. Tiller personally, I mourn the loss of a good and respected doctor, the loss of peace in a community, and the loss of a husband and father.
Posted by: Heather | May 31, 2009 9:33 PM
Alan @ #80:
If they wanted the facts they could find them any number of places--that is not what they crave. They crave the feeling of reichteousness that they get from being good, GODfearing KKKristians.
Bill @ 81:
Go fuck yourself.
Posted by: democommie | May 31, 2009 9:40 PM
Democommie,
How do you really feel? Sarcasm intended.
Posted by: King of Ireland | May 31, 2009 9:50 PM
From the Wichita Eagle:
"Randall Terry, founder of the anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, said in a statement that "George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God."
Randall Terry is scum.
Posted by: democommie | May 31, 2009 10:01 PM
This issue has really brought the women haters out in force. Thank you shawn, bill and the rest (not), if you had your way I would be dead now and my daughter would be motherless. So why dont you take your hateful moronic views and stick them where the sun wont shine.
Posted by: yoyo | May 31, 2009 10:04 PM
"Abortion was at one time illegal and was punished."
If you're talking about America, you're only half-right; after all women in the U.S were rarely, if ever, criminally punished for having "illegal" (actually "half-illegal") abortions.
Posted by: daniel rotter | May 31, 2009 10:15 PM
Wonder if this is true. Has a true ring to it:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=3900787&mesg_id=3901256
Posted by: PensiveGadfly | May 31, 2009 10:15 PM
The not safe for work Rude Pundit has an idea on how to treat this misbeggoten murderer. Hint think Guantanamo Bay
http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/
Posted by: yoyo | May 31, 2009 10:16 PM
I think the pro-lifers would be doing more of a service to society if they spent less time screaming at abortion doctors and pro-choicers, and more time adopting children whose mothers were unable to care for them. Hell, if they feel strongly enough to shoot someone, they should be forgoing having biological children of their own, choosing instead to adopt or become foster parents.
Of course, that doesn't happen very often, because adopting babies is expensive and difficult.
Posted by: BrinyDeep | May 31, 2009 10:28 PM
BrinyDeep:
You got it. Why do anything substantive when praying (and inciting violence against others) will make you feel better without doing any real work?
Posted by: democommie | May 31, 2009 10:40 PM
Interesting factoid: Tiller's attorney was Pedro Irigonegaray, the man who whupped up on the creationists at the Kansas Board of Education hearings a few years back.
Not that this really makes us Evilooshunists babykilling scum......
Posted by: Coragyps | May 31, 2009 10:40 PM
I don't post here often (though I read the blog a lot) but this particular case just...what the fuck is wrong with these people? 'OH YES, I THINK THAT HE WAS KILLING A MURDERER AND SO IT'S OKAY BUT I DON'T CONDONE IT SINCE I KNOW IT'S ILLEGAL' give me a fucking break.
I think that pretty much summarizes the situation well.
But, seriously, where the fuck are all these people (and I use that term loosely) coming from?
Posted by: Thomas M. | May 31, 2009 10:43 PM
The Operation Rescue website is down, but it appears that the suspect, Scott Roeder, posted this on the site in 2007. Retrieved from Google cache:
Posted by: Dr X | May 31, 2009 11:23 PM
I'm still so fucking angry about this, I can hardly see straight. I don't believe in the death penalty, but part of me really, really REALLY wants to see Scott Roeder fry. Good thing for him that there's no hell.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | May 31, 2009 11:35 PM
That's why every anti-abortion activist is constantly pushes the baby-holocaust meme shares in this crime.
Posted by: Taz | May 31, 2009 11:39 PM
"Those of you who support the work of Dr. Tiller, I have one question. Did any of you ever see the interviews of the women (and there were many) who reported their late term abortions performed by Dr. Tiller. They were performed because of the mental stress having a child would cause. What a bunch idiots! Yes, there may have been a few late term abortions done to save the mother's life. But many more out of convenience! Wise up!"
Johnny, citations or you're lying. Frankly I think you're lying.
Posted by: GBM | May 31, 2009 11:40 PM
That should have been "activist WHO constantly pushes", of course.
Posted by: Taz | May 31, 2009 11:43 PM
I returned just a while ago from the vigil held for George Tiller in Old Town (a section of downtown Wichita). At least 400 people showed up, young and old, male and female, all different races and probably sexual orientations. It was a very peaceful crowd, giving the 50 or so police officers gathered very little to do. Apparently Fred Phelps and Co. were there before I showed up (it's not a long drive from Topeka), but they were shooed off. Since they were protesting on a public street, I'm not sure exactly how that happened and will have to find out.
My parents attended the vigil at Reformation Church, and to their surprise the Tiller family attended-- Jeanne and the four children, as well as the grandchildren. The bishop came down from Kansas City and gave a sermon, and they prayed and sang hymns. The Tiller family left first on their own and were given a police escort home, and then everyone else filed out.
The usher I mentioned before who witnessed the shooting was one of the ones Roeder threatened with his gun before going to his car, and there was another usher he threatened at the same time (I probably should not mention their names). He will probably be charged with two counts of aggravated assault for that in addition to first degree murder.
Posted by: Gretchen | May 31, 2009 11:50 PM
"If this were any other people group besides unborn babies we would be at war to end the killing. When we send our soldiers into foreign lands to stop the killing of innocent people we call them heroes."
Mike--where was you outrage for Darfur? Where was your demand that we intervene in the Rwandan genocide? Why weren't you and your 'pro-life' cronies in the streets with your fucking bullhorns for East Timor? Oh that's right because you aren't actually for life in any recognizable way you are against sex and against women. Learn some history you fucking clown.
Posted by: GBM | May 31, 2009 11:51 PM
Re: GBM @98:
While Johnny's at it (not that I think he will ever furnish anything) perhaps he could tell us how a lot of women who post-procedure think that they were "pressured" by abortion advocates into allowing their babies to be murdered. That particular meme is one that I've seen around for about the last 20 years. I think that statistics are highly suspect but if Operation Rescue (until they're out of the womb, at least) is to be believed then there have been someting like 50M or more babies murdered since the 1970's. Out of that number, dozens have said that they regret their decision.
Posted by: democommie | May 31, 2009 11:53 PM
I'll have much more to say later -- if I can find time on an insanely busy night -- but I want to pass on a suggestion that several commenters on WASHINGTON MONTHLY made, that one way of showing your anger and disgust would be to contribute to PLANNED PARENTHOOD or MEDICAL STUDENTS FOR CHOICE in Dr. Tiller's honor.
And for those of you who think some of our guests are sickening, you should read the wingnuts. Apparently there is already a theory going around that "Obama had him murdered to insure Sotomayor's confirmation."
Memo to Republicans: "Those the Gods would destroy they first make mad."
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | May 31, 2009 11:59 PM
King of Ireland @61: Does someone who kills a pregnant mother get charged with double murder?
Dunno about other jurisdictions, but in Canada one of our current theocon MPs floated a bill to do exactly that. It was (correctly, IMNSHO) seen as a stalking horse for the anti-choice position. Fortunately, it never went anywhere.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | June 1, 2009 12:09 AM
Today is the sixth anniversary of the capture of Olympics bomber and abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolph. Probably just a coincidence, but I mention it because Rudolph is something of a hero among some in the anti-gay, anti-abortion, anti-one world, wingnut crowd.
Posted by: Dr X | June 1, 2009 12:33 AM
Gretchen, thank you for letting us see the human face of this tragedy.
In case some of the frothing-at-the-mouth crowd comes by and actually bothers to read anything here, I offer this information:
Dr. Tiller was one of the few remaining practioners of a critical medical service for women. Women came from all over the country to get third-trimester abortions after receiving the devastating news that their babies were malformed in critical ways. Some of their stories can be found here, along with many other personal accounts from women who had to make a heartbreaking choice.
Dr. Tiller was a hero and a man of great courage and integrity. He will be much mourned.
I suggest that those of us who would like to honor his legacy make a contribution in his name to Planned Parenthood.
Those of us who are Christians might also make a donation to Reformation Lutheran Church, to honor both his life's work and the congregation's courage and importance in his life. I've sent them a condolence email and asked them to set up a way to do so online; I suspect everything mailed to them will need to be screened by the FBI for quite a while.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | June 1, 2009 12:36 AM
This is from a 1997 post in a site called The Militia Watchdog"."
Roeder might, indeed, be from the same militia nut world as Eric Rudolph.
Posted by: Dr X | June 1, 2009 1:08 AM
Ed - how is not judging the equivalent of not thinking?
Posted by: Brian | June 1, 2009 1:11 AM
Tiller got Aborted! Roeder is probably the wrong man. It probably was a Pro-Abortionist posing as a Pro-Lifer to weaken their cause, after all that is what pro-abortionists do best is Kill! As for Tiller, what goes around comes around. God is not willing that any should parish but that all should come to repentance. Apparently Tiller was un-repentant. Tiller is dead, good for him- AT LEAST HE HAD A LIFE!
Posted by: usapatriot7 | June 1, 2009 1:15 AM
Oh poorly-named usapatriot7: You are an illiterate idiot. "God is not willing that any should parish"? Give me a break. Perhaps He's only in favor of congregationalists?
For those of us in the reality-based community, Feministe has an excellent list of pro-choice charities (via Pharyngula).
Posted by: Leigh Williams | June 1, 2009 1:24 AM
Here is a organization that directly funds women who can't pay for their abortions. They have set up a fund honoring Dr. Tiller. You can donate online.
Posted by: Leigh Williams | June 1, 2009 1:40 AM
@ usapatriot7
So this act that you crow over as a good thing was, you allege, probably done by "a Pro-Abortionist posing as a Pro-Lifer to weaken their cause."
Your reasoning is as stupid as your sentiment is vile.
And, yes, anonymous. Typical.
Posted by: Chris Winter | June 1, 2009 1:46 AM
usapatriot7 is a walking fucking advertisement for abortion.
....
Gretchen,
Condolences to your family and community, particularly your parent's church. I hope it gives them a small bit of comfort that they were able to provide the Tillers some shelter.
Please send them some love for me. It was good what they did and I feel unfortunate to not have known about it until now.
Posted by: Leni | June 1, 2009 2:12 AM
@#61 King of Ireland wrote: Does someone who kills a pregnant mother get charged with double murder?
In some states yes and in some states no. Is there a point to your question?
Posted by: tomh | June 1, 2009 2:21 AM
See here. The most immediately relevant paragraph:
I concur, and that may well apply here.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 2:54 AM
Every anti-choice fanatic shares some of the blame for Tiller's murder.
Whether they've endorsed violence or not, they have contributed to creating an atmosphere of hate, anger and religious fervor in which this kind of violence can and does occur.
Let's look at the flip side for a second.
How many pro-choice activists do you know who have murdered anti-abortion preachers or protesters?
I've never heard of one and after a Google search, I can't find one.
So it would appear the anti-choice nutjobs have the monopoly on abortion related killings. How fitting.
Posted by: woodstein | June 1, 2009 2:56 AM
I wonder what will happen to American women with urgent medical needs for late term abortions, now that one of the few remaining doctors in the US who would help them has been murdered. (ie, 99.99% of these cases.) Do they just have to die of blood poisoning now? Or give birth to a deformed barely breathing wreck, during their chemotherapy? The rich will fly to Canada or Europe and the poor can just die? What?
I have seen the most appalling jubilation over this, and I feel sick.
Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | June 1, 2009 3:18 AM
Pro-lifers are anything but. They are usually pro-war, pro-torture, pro-death penalty and anti universal healthcare. Also, a few of them kill people.
WWJD?
Posted by: Tired | June 1, 2009 4:23 AM
Re usapatriot7
Mr. fuckface usapatriot7 is a perfect example of Samuel Johnsons' quote that patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel.
Posted by: SLC | June 1, 2009 7:06 AM
@ KOI: "Does someone who kills a pregnant mother get charged with double murder?"
If by "pregnant mother" you mean pregnant woman, then yes, in some states this is a double murder, especially if the pregnancy is "far along." Why? Because it's assumed that the pregnant woman wanted to be pregnant, that she felt she was carrying a baby. I'm pretty sure Lacey Peterson wanted her baby very badly. Some women don't want to be pregnant, and they choose to end the pregnancy early before the embryo can be considered remotely personlike. In other words, the one in whose body the not-yet-a-baby is formed gets to assign it value, not you. Once it's born, things are different. Until then, it's up to her. That's what pro-choice means.
You see, there is no contradiction. There is no gotcha. That might be hard for you to wrap your head around since anti-abortionists are so used to not seeing contradictions where they occur--like when a person described as a pro-life Christian shooting down a doctor who has saved many lives while he was performing duties as a church usher.
Posted by: Laurel | June 1, 2009 7:32 AM
Laurel:
There are no contradictions, there is only the "Inerrant Word Of God™©" as expressed by numerous non-contemporaneous writers, editors and translators. And we all know that GOD's teachings on abortion are exhaustive.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 7:53 AM
I hope the Obama administration thoroughly investigates operationrescue.org over their involvement in this. They have taken their website off line, I presume to wipe it clean of incrminating evidence linking them to Scott Roeder. If they do so to avoid legal scrutiny, that is obstruction of justice.
The inflammatory writings on that site sure seem to me to be advocating terrorism. If so, then those who have donated to promote the site should be prosecuted as aiding and abetting terrorism under the Patriot Act, the way donors to Islamic charities have been prosecuted.
Posted by: daedalus2u | June 1, 2009 7:57 AM
"Where they're coming from is the impenetrable belief that this man was "killing babies"."
Sorry, perhaps I wasn't clear. I was wondering what site these people are showing up from. Generally there's a core of regulars here but once in a while we get an entry of a lot of nutcases in a thread like this. I'm wondering if a pro-life site(s)/blog(s) linked to this or something. I understand what their mindset is very well.
Posted by: Thomas M. | June 1, 2009 7:57 AM
To pile on Leigh Williams post @ 106, here is a page from that same site that reports specific abortion experiences at Tiller's facility. IMHO, the stories are worthy of all our consideration.
I was surprised these ladies were not able to get such needed services in their home state, especially the state of New York.
Many anti-abortion rights leaders with a bully pulpit are attempting to distance themselves from Tiller's murder, but continue to mischaracterize legal late-term abortions. Crunchy Con at the Beliefnet.com blog being one, Albert Mohler being another. Mohler characterizes all abortion as murder, even when its performed to save the life of the mother.
Like nearly all culture war issues, I continue to assign some responsibility to the mainstream media for these sorts of acts of violence. No anti-abortion leader should ever be allowed access to the media with the "abortion is murder" mantra without being immediately challenged by the journalist asking them if they support abortion for pregnant women where specific life and health issues are stake where the challenge by the journalist is not a generic question but presents the advocate with specific medical conditions and symptoms. The advocate will of course try and dodge the question claiming such acts are rare, the journalist should interrupt and stay on point.
I would expect the same aggressive questioning from journalists when it comes to pro-abortion rights leaders who advocate blanket support for abortion rights. The journalist should challenge them on the morality and constitutionality of abortion in the late-term when no health risks are present.
Like environmentalists, pro-abortion right advocates argue and fight for absolute planks given they know their opponents will chip away at those planks beyond reason and women's Constitutional rights if any ground is given. The fact that the women in the first link could not get obviously needed medical services in their hometown verifies the validity of this extreme position. However, I'm not so sure some activity in Tiller's facility was ethical, which is why I remain pro-abortion rights while hoping we eliminate poorly framed arguments from the public square, especially those in the mainstream media given I don't believe the moral, constitutional ground is held by either extreme. Certainly anti-abortion advocates hold no moral ground on this matter with the possible exception of the arguable position regarding on-demand abortion for viable fetuses, which is why I think both our debates and laws need some nuance on this matter.
As long as I've been monitoring this debate, I have yet to see two opposing sides presenting cogent arguments, which is evidence of how idiotic we are as a country that we find such dialogue in our media acceptable. I have seen cogent arguments from the left but never, ever from the right. In the 2000 South Carolina GOP Primary debate Sen. McCain had a nuanced position arguing for rights in life/health situations while then Gov. Bush refused to move or even discuss his absolute position even when McCain challenged him for being obviously untenable by any sane person. Bush was of course rewarded for taking his Mohler-like position by refusing to engage on life and health issues, a position no parent would take if it was their pregnant daughter whose life or child-bearing abilities were at stake. In 2008 we saw McCain take the same position as Bush to insure at least the sheeple came out to vote for him.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 8:17 AM
When they move beyond peaceful protest these anti-choice creatures become anti-democracy. Far from being patriots, they are more like traitors.
Posted by: SimonG | June 1, 2009 8:59 AM
Cath asked "[Who will women who need late-term abortions turn to] now that one of the few remaining doctors in the US who would help them has been murdered"
Since this was clearly meant to "send a message" to doctors who perform abortions (and their patients too presumably] would this be classified as a 'hate crime'?
BTW 'pro'-lifers:
MURDER: Feloniously taking the life of another person with malice aforethought. Can be mitigated by certain circumstances, such as killing to save one's own, or another person's life.
Therefore abortion is NOT murder (imho) because:
a) not FELONIOUS. Legally permitted as evidenced by the many FAILED cases to prevent them (in these cases).
b) not PERSON until 'viable' as defined medico-legally. Again, the fetuses aborted (in these cases) were not viable as defined. Therefore legally not a person.
c) no MALICE AFORETHOUGHT. Did the doctor hate clumps of cells? Could one prove the doctor's state of mind at the time of these abortions? If so, was it enraged, wrathful, and/or hateful?
d) CAN be justified on the ground of DEFENDING ANOTHER PERSON, that is, the mothers involved.
You keep calling it 'murder', I'd love to see his estate sue for libel and/or slander.
We'll all not praying for you.
DINGO
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 8:59 AM
@democommie--Indeed. I worked at a Kinko's in the early 90s and there were several regulars who came in to copy a leaflet about "Abortion in the Bible." This was, of course, an entire page of verses that said nothing about abortion at all. If anyone here is confused about this (which I doubt), there's a nice rundown here:
http://www.elroy.net/ehr/abortion.html
Posted by: Laurel | June 1, 2009 9:10 AM
Tiller is dead, good for him- AT LEAST HE HAD A LIFE!
This statement pretty neatly sums up the "pro-lifers'" hypocritical disregard for human life: once you're born, you're worth even LESS than the unborn, because you've already had a life and you're no longer unblemished. The only "life" these haters care about is the non-sentient kind.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 9:20 AM
Oops, earlier I posted:"Since this was clearly meant to 'send a message'..." The 'this' referred to was the doctor's murder* not Cath's question.
Sorry about that Cath :) - DJ
*In a church no less! Did someone at Operation Rescue shout out: 'Will no-one rid me of this troublesome abortionist?' and voila!
The mind-boggles at the brazen multi-leveled immorality of such a murder.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 9:37 AM
Can we get Shawn's comments deleted please? It's bad enough to hear this news, I don't need to hear some sick fuck endorsing the murder. That's just not okay.
Posted by: James Sweet | June 1, 2009 9:39 AM
Shawn wrote:
I fully support abortion for health reasons, but you are lieing to yourself if you think that 90% of abortions are not born out of selfishness, lazyness, and a fear of the loss of social status.
I think you are lieing [sic] to yourself if you think that 90% of the reasons people have children are anything other than the following: selfishness (I want to pass on my genes! I want to have kids to care for me in my old age!), lazyness [sic] (Too lazy to use birth control), or a fear of the loss of social status (Not having children is selfish! You're not really a grown up until you have kids!).
Posted by: Adrienne | June 1, 2009 9:45 AM
Sadie Morrison,
I would say just the opposite. The bad news for him is that there is a hell.
Posted by: heddle | June 1, 2009 9:48 AM
God doesn't tell people to assasinate abortionists. 99.99% of pro-lifers think this is destructive to the pro-life movement. Do not stereotype Christians (people of faith) with the act of one evil-minded idiot!
Posted by: David Davis | June 1, 2009 9:48 AM
God doesn't tell people to assasinate abortionists. 99.99% of pro-lifers think this is destructive to the pro-life movement.
Sorry David, but if you think telling us how much anti-choicers think this hurt your cause is going to make any of us feel better, think again. I could care less how many anti-choice jack-asses think it was destructive to your fucking movement.
Now those few of you who would soundly condemn this murder without caveat and without feeling the need to get your fucking anti-choice point out - that I can appreciate.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 1, 2009 10:00 AM
Shawn, lying death cultist apologist for terrorism @ #10:
Your own posts in this very thread show that you yourself support and celebrate this murder, as do many of your fellow cultists. Isn't your imaginary god supposed to have some sort of problem with bearing false witness?
A member of your cult murdered this man. If you had the slightest speck of morality, you would condemn this act of terrorism. Instead you defend it. Go die in a fucking fire.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 1, 2009 10:03 AM
David Davis: your disclaimer is plainly false. "pro-lifers" may not explicitly condone the murder of people who disagree with them, but they have long supported a mindset of complete disregard for the legitimacy of secular law. They have consistently said that their "support" for "life" trumps the law, and the democratically-expressed will of their own people; they have explicitly said they follow "God's law" (as they choose to interpret it) and no other; they have consistently defended terrorism against abortion-providers as "defensive" action to protect "human life;" and when we point out to them that abortion is legal, they immediately respond by saying that slavery used to be legal, with the direct implication that the law is not legitimate because it is sometimes wrong.
The "pro-lifers" have knowingly cultivated a political culture of lawlessness and disregard for their own country's laws; therefore those same "pro-lifers" share responsibility for the lawless violence of those who drank their kool-aid.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 10:06 AM
David Davis stated:
Mr. Davis - please provide a link validating your 99.99% number, I'm skeptical.
I also find your raising this particular point evidence you are outright evil, i.e., ""pro-lifers" think this killing was wrong" as if Tiller's murder was merely a poorly played political tactic. The comments I've found on the so-called "mainstream" conservative Christian sites have many posters defending this act, here is merely one of many. So while I will not condemn all Christians, who in this forum has? I will condemn anti-abortion rights people until they begin to make honest, cogent arguments rather than lying about all abortions equating to murder.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 10:06 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 1, 2009 10:10 AM
The bad news for him is that there is a hell.
And thus, once again, heddle graciously absolves himself and his cult of any responsibility to hold the murderer accountable in this life, or even say anything substantive about the matter. There is a Hell, God will punish the murderer, therefore heddle doesn't have to do anything stressful, like confront the evil mindset of his own religion.
What a fucking small-minded escapist.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 10:14 AM
The title of this post needs to be changed. Although factual, the use of the term 'abortion doctor' may be furthering the impression among the impressionable that the doctor was a baby killer and thus deserving of this attack. Perhaps 'MD murdered in Kansas', or, more truthfully, something like 'MD killed by Christian Terrorist' would not only be more accurate but also more appropriate.
Posted by: StoneRN | June 1, 2009 10:16 AM
Please ignore my previous comment, I inadvertendly misquoted Mr. Davis:
David Davis stated:
Mr. Davis - please provide a link validating your 99.99% number, I'm skeptical.
I also find your raising this particular point evidence you are outright evil, i.e., "99.99% of "pro-lifers" think this is destructive to the "pro-life" movement." [italics and scare quotes mine] as if Tiller's murder was merely a poorly played political tactic. The comments I've found on the so-called "mainstream" conservative Christian sites have many posters defending this act, here is merely one of many. So while I will not condemn all Christians, who in this forum has? I will condemn anti-abortion rights people until they begin to make honest, cogent arguments rather than lying about all abortions equating to murder.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 10:20 AM
David Heddle @ 132: I think Raging Bee makes a great point @ 139.
Do you recognize any moral or ethical culpability by the anti-abortion rights people for this act given all the leaders of their biggest advocacy groups simplistically define abortion as murder and these groups appear to be supported primarily by conservative Christians?
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 10:39 AM
This headline:
"WICHITA - The 51-year-old man arrested in the shooting death of Wichita abortion doctor George Tiller -- a case that has drawn international attention -- could be charged Monday."
and this statement by the always dependably despicable Randall Terry:
""George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.""
both of which were in the first article I read on the "Whichita Eagle" online page, are not being used today.
For all of the KKKristic assholes out there who are so filled with the Love of GOD as they condemn Dr. Tiller while saying hypocritically that they are against violence, remember that you reap what you sow.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 10:46 AM
So a lot of these fuckclowns are saying it's ok to kill someone who is doing something that is technically legal, but they thinkis morally wrong?
I assume they will be ok if someone starts killing off the worst of the right wing hate preachers, then? Right?? Right??
Fucking hypocritical douchebags.
Posted by: FastLane | June 1, 2009 11:02 AM
Michael Heath,
Raging Bee make no point whatsoever. Raging Bee is a moron of biblical proportions, a mouth-breather who sees everything in extreme black and white. You either agree with Raging Bee or you are a fascist, or something similar. That's Raging Bee's simple, pin-headed world. You should know that by now.
As for your question, I would say that anyone who ever went as far as hinting that violence against abortion providers is even remotely justified is morally culpable. And those who believe it is justified by Christianity are not only culpable but wrong and an utter embarrassment. But I would say those those Christians who believe abortion is the moral equivalent of murder (obviously, legally speaking, it is not murder), but have not called for or condone violence against providers, are not at all responsible.
Posted by: heddle | June 1, 2009 11:03 AM
Oh my, NOW heddle pretends to condemn this murder, AFTER being put on the defensive.
Oh, and in case you haven't noticed, this is indeed a "black and white" issue: killing a doctor, in a church, for providing perfectly legal -- and in many cases life-saving -- medical services to innocent women, is WRONG. Period. No fudging or shades of grey necessary. I see absolutely no need toi apologize for taking an "extreme black and white" view here.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 11:11 AM
Posted by: Taz | June 1, 2009 11:13 AM
PS: if heddle has a problem with my "extreme black and white" view in this issue, that's probably because he's too weak and spineless to understand, or admit, the disgraceful evil acts that have been fudged, justified, covered up, excused, or justified by recourse to his twisted, willfully-ignorant religious doctrine; and he's probably unable to think outside his doctrinal lockbox and adjust his rigid doctrine to accomodate human needs in the real world. There's really no need to bother with the self-righteous defensiveness of people like him.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 11:17 AM
Engine room to bridge:
Och, Cap'n Brayton, I'm givin' her all I've got, but the USS Dispatches From The Culture Wars is gonna be heddlejacked any minute. I'm doin' the best I can, but I'm only a nu-q-lar atheist
Posted by: Scottie | June 1, 2009 11:18 AM
Check out http://mypage.direct.ca/w/writer/anti-tales.html for the hypocrisy of the anti-choice movement: "The Only Moral Abortion is My Abortion."
Posted by: Becca | June 1, 2009 11:20 AM
Mr. Heath, my statement of "99.99%" was to make a point. If you attended church and studied the bible and Gods word you'd know that this was an evil act. So, I will revise my comment by saying that 100% of anybody that truely follows Gods word would not kill another human being like this. It cannot be justified. So I ask you please, do not stereotype people of faith to people that label themselves as "Christians". There is a big difference.
I have met pleanty of people that vote democrat that are very racist and do not stereotype them. Nor do I compare Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright to Obama even though they are supporters. Margret Sanger, one of the founders of Planned Parenthood, inspired Adolf Hitler with Eugenics. Yet I don't consider her to represent pro-choice people as Nazi's.
I've been a liberal, a democrat, and pro-choice. I know your side and I think there are well meaning individuals there and have friends with those views. Let's just agree to disagree and stop stereotyping. Stereotyping is as evil as racism!
Posted by: David Davis | June 1, 2009 11:24 AM
The REAL reasons the "pro-lifers" oppose abortion is that it removes power from the religious patriarchy and places it with women; and...GASP...the women had SEX, maybe...GASP...unconventional sex outside marriage!!! MERCY ME! It is all about controlling sex and imposing religion. They don't really care about the widdle biddy fetuses. When they drop their hypocrisy and become opposed to the death penalty, become completely anti-war, and become pro-birth control, then they will develop some legitimacy.
Right now, their belief system can be summed up by "yes we are opposed to abortion, but it is okay to kill born kids with bombs and missiles."
Posted by: DaveTheWave | June 1, 2009 11:28 AM
The Tiller killing was just as wrong as the thousands of murders he performed. I do not condone his murder, and you should not condone those he committed. Watch this video of the hard reality of his life's work, IF you have the courage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_L8tdatlrJE
Posted by: Leticia Velasquez | June 1, 2009 11:32 AM
Heddle posted:
Psst... your projection is showing ;)
However I kind of agree, 'collective punishments' (or in this case culpability and/or guilt) is not on. ARE ALL CHRISTIANS responsible for this murderous action? Including those who were attending the service he was ushering?
Those who aid and abet, sure, but let's not go off the deep end here. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 11:33 AM
So I ask you please, do not stereotype people of faith to people that label themselves as "Christians". There is a big difference.
And I am reminding you -- again -- that no one here is doing that. Your lame defensive attempts to spin our reaction to this murder as some sort of anti-Christian bigotry is dishonest and despicable. The victim of this crime was a Christian, and was murdered in his church; we're all well aware that not all Christians support this action.
Margret Sanger, one of the founders of Planned Parenthood, inspired Adolf Hitler with Eugenics.
By pretending that Sanger has any responsibilty at all for any of Hitler's insane acts, you do what you deny doing, even as you deny doing it. Davis, you're a hypocritical piece of shit.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 11:36 AM
The Tiller killing was just as wrong as the thousands of murders he performed. I do not condone his murder...
Yes, you just did, you stupid cow.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 11:38 AM
Go fuck yourself, you hypocrite.
Posted by: Taz | June 1, 2009 11:40 AM
Leticia Velasquez - see #125 above (note particularly the ante-penultimate line) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 11:42 AM
David Davis wrote: If you attended church and studied the bible and Gods word you'd know that this was an evil act.
Nonsense. Every one of these killers, including this one, attended church and followed God's word. That's what led them to act.
Posted by: tomh | June 1, 2009 11:44 AM
heddle wrote:
But heddle believes in predestination. He doesn't think it's our bad acts that earn us hell, but God's choice. So his statement here contradicts all the theology he's badly argued on this blog.And now I wait for heddle to show up and do a really crappy job of explaining why I misunderstood him, and everything he ever writes is perfectly theologically consistent.
And while I wait, let me add my two cents: the rest of you right-wingers trolling around here should go back to your own fascist blogs where you can engage in your masturbatory fantasies. I pray for a plague of fire ants to infest your scrota.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 1, 2009 11:45 AM
Mr. Davis - I see you've improved your position from this murder was politically dumb to it was an evil act. Nice to see that.
However, now you are making a "no true Scotsman" argument where I've clearly showed many conservative Christians do justify the act in order to save the future "murder" of fetuses with previous links in this thread, in spite of providing other links that showed Tiller provided a medical service that women whose life and wellbeing (their unborn child was dying inside them) were threatened and Tiller and two other facilities were their only recourse.
I am well-versed on social conservative thinking and their attendant churches' dogma so need for lessons on what people who attend church think - I would argue I understand far better than they understand themselves - as a group; my argument is you are not representating that thinking accurately, not even close.
Here is an example of highly respected religious leader and social conservative Albert Mohler calling [all] abortion "murder".
Given one should expect at least some people in one's group to defend the innocent by killing a "murderer", I would argue your group is culpable for Tiller's death by distorting the arguments on this issue as Mohler does in this link. I expected you and other social conservatives to deny responsibility in spite of the fact the groups that spread the idea that all abortion is murder, that is part of the make-up of social conservtism. It's why this didn't end with Paul Hill, but continues through today. Until the groups that represent social conservatives argue anti-abortion rights while honestly recognizing the nuances of abortion, especially relevant to the authentic life and health consideration of both the mother and her unborn fetus, your group remains complicit in creating a context for such violence to occur.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 11:47 AM
Not to mention kinda pointless.
Someone who's not running late ought to go through and save relevant bits of that.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 11:49 AM
Wait now...Right-wingers get more than one scrotum?
No wonder they're crabby* - DJ
*if you you know what mean ;)
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 11:50 AM
They look out for their own kind, in other words.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 12:00 PM
(To those with this position in general:) Spend anywhere near as much energy denouncing him as complaining about being lumped in with him and I'll consider it.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 12:02 PM
Of course, if Roeder repents of his act tomorrow and spends the rest of his life sincerely attempting to atone for his crime then he will likely get to Heaven anyway. Not only that, but assuming that an unapologetic late-term abortionist is an unlikely candidate for a Heavenly reward, a repentant Roeder will be looking down upon Tiller's Hellish torment from Heaven and rejoicing in the absolute perfection of God's justice.
Predestination or not, this scenario is perfectly possible (maybe even probable) if the doctrines of Heaven and Hell are true.
Posted by: tacitus | June 1, 2009 12:35 PM
Actually, tacitus, according to many of the born-agains I've talked to, if Roeder repents and gets saved by Jesus, he doesn't even have to atone for anything afterword; he can kill as many doctors as he wants for the rest of his life, and still go to Heaven.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 12:42 PM
Usapatriot7 sounds more like a poe than a troll, but I have seen exactly those arguments on conservative sites:
1)the killer was most likely to be a pro-choice agent or some criminal associate - after all, abortion is immoral, so there's no telling what kind of low-lifes Tiller would have associated with;
2) leftists are, after all, far more violent than conservatives (this on a site where every other post featured gun references in the signature or profile icon);
3)if it was a pro-life activist, this is bad only because it will reflect (somehow unfairly) on the entire movement;
4) liberals cause vigilantism by creating a lawless society (not quite grasping the distinction between "lawless" and "immoral");
5) and, seriously, it is far better to kill an adult than a fetus because at least the adult got to live a while.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | June 1, 2009 12:43 PM
Stunning! The name calling and cliche's really show the depths of your thoughts. As deep as a bumper sticker along side the peace symbols. I rarely debate anymore because of these extreme and irrational voices that are meant to shout others down. When you name call and use profanity, you lose the debate. That's all I have further to say on the matter.
Posted by: David Davis | June 1, 2009 12:51 PM
Madam (if you are indeed a woman), you are a sadist if you are knowledgeable about what Dr. Tiller did.
You are a sadist in insisting a woman carry a non-viable fetus to term. You are forcing the parents to add months to their suffering when that child inevitably dies.
You are a sadist in insisting a woman carry a partially viable fetus to term. If it does not immediately die, you are insisting that it endure excrutiating pain every moment of its existence. And you WANT these parents to undergo immense emotional pain every moment that child is alive.
There are no "healthy" children among the patients of Dr. Tiller. You are being lied to when you talk about healthy babies. I do not accuse you of sin when you pass along that lie. But I accuse you of sin and of being a monstrous sadist when you do not think about what that lie entails.
Posted by: gwangung | June 1, 2009 12:56 PM
Tacitus - Since most feti abort 'spontaneously' and god is responsible for everything that happens in the universe (omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient) and it's predestined to happen anyway (god decided who he/she/it would kill before hand), than god must send himself to hell along with all of his accomplices (before, during and after the fact) for these 'murders' [see #125 above]. So Hell must become heaven and vice versa.
What a complicated piece of nonsense Christians seem to believe in! - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 1:02 PM
Murder for murder isnt just!Only god can take life!That includes unborn babies!
Posted by: marko | June 1, 2009 1:04 PM
Mr. Davis stated:
Actually, it was your arguments that were irrational, you were not able to rationally rebut one our rebuttals to your arguments while falsely describing our arguments. So now it appears you want to pout while slinking away acting as if we didn't play fair when instead we stomped all over your weak-ass arguments with actual cogent arguments, with some trash-talk thrown in given the weakness of those arguments.
I also do not find it "irrational" to call someone evil whose first and only observation initial response in a forum to a murder is the negative political implications to their cause. Nor do I find it irrational to call out someone trying to avoid any culpability in spite of the false rhetoric on the issue of abortion they promote exclusively in the public square that promotes such acts of violence.
We do name-call here when arguments are not cogent, but are instead rhetorical dodges that avoid the relevant set of facts. We are also perfectly cognizant this standard of argument, i.e., our expecting arguments to be based on a relevant set of honest representative assumptions rather than rhetorical flourishes, is the exact opposite of what you find in the churches you referred to (not all, but ardently "pro-life".), giving you a distinct disadvantage. However, if you hung around and argued using only fairly framed and relevant facts, I bet you'd learn a lot and have better positions to defend.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 1:12 PM
Marko - Yes and isn't god good at it! :)
So I assume your starving yourself to death for Jesus then. Eating kinda necessitates taking 'a life' (ie killing) at some point. Oh I see, you mean human lives*. But as explained before late abortion isn't taking a human life, so really it's a false equivalency. - DJ
*don't tell me. You're anti-war & anti-capital punishment too.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 1:17 PM
"I pray for a plague of fire ants to infest your scrota."
Fire ants, eh? Not bad. I like your style, young Hanley.
Hell of a lot more colorful than a rain of toads. Yes - keep up the Good Work. Spread the news and all that. May I bless you, etc, etc, etc.
Posted by: God | June 1, 2009 1:20 PM
David Davis,
I noticed that you avoided responding to the substance of the replies and instead focused on the name calling. As has been pointed out, you make a number of standard arguments that greatly weaken your position.
First, of course, is the "no true Christian™ would do such a thing" argument. The problem is that each of those who commit acts like these consider themselves to be "true Christians™." To attempt to distance yourself from them while still supporting much of their position (through your other statements) leaves you in the culpable category.
Second, you do a lot of "I could do this, but I'm not" arguments which, by making them, show you do, at least at some level, tie Obama to Ayers, Sanger to Hitler, etc. It's very common amongst the screaming heads of the right to do one of those "I could make this argument," statements followed by them making the argument, and then followed by the "but I wont make this argument statement." The intent of this tactic is to put the ties in the mind of the audience without accepting the guilt or blame for making asinine comparisons.
In each of the cases you "didn't make" you strangely ignored the arguments that shattered your non-statement. How Ayers had even closer ties to major Republican supporters was strangely left out. How Sanger spoke out against Hitler and opposed non health related abortions, in other words was pro-life, was strangely left out.
Finally, your "I used to be a liberal" statement rings hollow, much like an "I used to be an atheist" argument.
Personally I think this crime hit a little too close to home for you. The murderer shares a lot of your beliefs, has similar positions on issues, and acted upon them. I know such a development would scare the crap out of me and lead to a lot of personal reflection.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 1, 2009 1:22 PM
Nah - come over to the Dark Side* Young James Hanley. The wages are lousy, but you'll a much more interesting crowd, and the fringe benefits are out of your world - >;D SATAN
*...and the coloured girls go: "do, da do, da do, da do dit do..."
Posted by: Satan | June 1, 2009 1:27 PM
gwangung stated:
It is my understanding that are some late-term abortions where the health of the fetus is not in play, but instead either the the health of the mother is at risk taking her fetus to term, or she and/or her parents make the decision upon discovery late in the pregnancy; where one could argue the latter abortion is wrong. Some examples being women who either a) discover they are pregnant late in the pregnancy due to ignorance and severe obesity who also suffer from heart disease and/or diabetes or b) decide late in the term they want to abort and Dr. Tiller and a referring doctor allegedly allows such to take place in spite of no health issues (I believe there are some witness accounts on this matter).
My point is that while I agree with the core point of your argument, you extend it too far. I also believe there are exceptions where some people could rationally object and we should respect those objections while fighting to insure womena have far more access to late-abortions than they do now when their or their fetus health is in play. Ignoring bad behavior like what supposedly occurred at Tiller's facility doesn't help our cause, confronting it is wiser choice.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 1:31 PM
No Mr. Davis, what's stunning is that you come here and explain to us that most anti-choice advocates think that this murder hurts your fucking cause. Not "Most of us believe that this was an atrocity." or even "Most of us don't believe murder is a proper response to those who kill the unborn." The latter is a bit inflammatory, but still makes it clear that you actually believe this murder was wrong.
Instead you choose to tell us that most anti-choicers think it hurt your fucking cause. Well guess what? The only reasonable response to that bullshit is scorn, because the sentiment is unrepentant and nearly as vile as those among you who are actively praising the murderer of Dr Tiller.
Don't like being sworn at, don't come to forums spouting vile crap.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 1, 2009 1:38 PM
Michael,
I read that Tiller's clinic had been under grand jury investigation regarding charges of improper second opinions, 19 illegal abortions, etc. This was the second grand jury investigation into Tiller and the second one that found no evidence of wrongdoing.
Choice advocates want to address questions regarding Tiller and the possibility that he was involved in "bad behavior," but at the same time we want to be careful because anti-choice advocates have already shown that they are quite willing to misrepresent and outright lie about late term abortions.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 1, 2009 1:53 PM
Hey, forced birthers! A pregnant woman's uterus is not a public domain and an abortion is a medical decision between a woman and her physician. Society does not have the right to make her decision for her. Go find something more worthwhile to do with your time.
Posted by: Tommykey | June 1, 2009 1:57 PM
What the fuck?!
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 1:59 PM
Azkyroth:
Try it in context.
Posted by: Paul | June 1, 2009 2:14 PM
The name calling and cliche's really show the depths of your thoughts.
And your patheetif attempt to pretend our posts have been noting but name-calling -- despite clearly visible evidence to the contrary -- shows the depths of your dishonesty and cowardice.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 2:28 PM
Note the "or" in the quoted post, you smug jackass. He offers two situations in which he claims "one could argue the latter abortion is wrong" and the "What the fuck?!" response was aimed at one of them.
What's difficult about that?
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 2:34 PM
Azkyroth... have you been rockin the ganja?? lol
MH listed two different abortion scenarios, the second of which you had replaced with the ellipsis [...]. He then wrote:
Therefore the "or" does not matter, he is clearly referring only to the latter scenario, not the former.
And that means that the section that Paul highlighted in #183, if it really does happen (which to me is a big "if", I'm not conceding that it does), then a legitimate case could be argued that it is wrong.
I ain't tryin' to be smug... I'm jus sayin' is all...
^o^
Posted by: doctorgoo | June 1, 2009 3:06 PM
My point is that while I agree with the core point of your argument, you extend it too far. I also believe there are exceptions where some people could rationally object and we should respect those objections while fighting to insure womena have far more access to late-abortions than they do now when their or their fetus health is in play. Ignoring bad behavior like what supposedly occurred at Tiller's facility doesn't help our cause, confronting it is wiser choice.
Granted, but the preferred response, I think, is to deal with the less permisable abortions themselves, not ban late term abortions altogether (or, ahem, kill one of the few doctors who do them). And given some of the more rabid behavior of anti-abortion fanatics (the mildest being intimidation and harassment), I am less likely to take the accusations at face value.
Posted by: gwangung | June 1, 2009 3:10 PM
The ethics of abortion are complicated for me, and I don't have an easy answer to all cases and all situations. But I do know that the sharp lines people want to draw rarely take into account the realities of pregnancy and the things that can go wrong. For most of human history "childbirth" was one of the leading causes of death for women.
Here's a decent discussion of late-term abortion procedures, how and why they developed over time. Including issues that people often neglect, such as the impact of various choices on whether or not a woman can bear children again.
Posted by: Drew | June 1, 2009 3:10 PM
Posted by: sophia8 | June 1, 2009 3:13 PM
dogmeatib - 1st off - great job fisking Davis' petulant pout, far better than my response to him.
Regarding my bringing up late-term abortions which I stated were arguably "wrong" (not neccessarily illegal which was your response to my post).
While I'm aware of the cases against Dr. Tiller, both of which he's won handily where juries cleared Tiller, I've also seen some witnesses come forward to claim they received a late-term abortion based on their mental health, where they claimed it was merely the excuse needed to get an abortion, they had no mental conditions which would have threatened their health or their future child's. I never made a claim on whether this should be legal or illegal, or whether it was wrong or was not wrong, beyond arguing it was arguably wrong. I them made the case that its reasonable to assume such acts do occur and we need to make arguments cognizant of such rather than sink to the level of anti-abortionists with absolutist claims that all abortions should be legal unless we preemptively confront this assumption rather than avoiding it; otherwise we're as bad as the Mohler claiming "[all] abortion is murder" when we know this is a untenable, hypocritical position.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 3:18 PM
Both sides of the "or" were being contrasted with the case of medical problems of the fetus, in the original post. If the "latter" wasn't intended to apply to the first side of the "or" then why was the content of that side even included?
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 3:47 PM
I get your point Michael, I am only advocating caution, not embracing absolutist claims. Overall I agree with you.
The guy was investigated and went before grand jury trials twice before being cleared of the charges. One would think that in the scope of said investigations more evidence would arise to support the claims of the witnesses. I haven't read the details of the Kansas law regarding these procedures, but I would expect that the arguably "wrong" cases would mostly be legally wrong as well with their rather conservative approach to the procedure.
Add to that I am more than a little skeptical of the statements of witnesses who admit to mental health issues at the time of the procedure but now, after the fact, claim that the issues weren't that bad, etc., and put the blame on the doctor who performed the procedure. It is a bit convenient wouldn't you say? They absolve themselves of some of the guilt of the choice due to their mental health state at the time and absolve themselves of the rest by blaming the doctor.
I agree that such charges should be investigated, I simply urge caution because the anti-choice advocates have, as I said earlier, proven more than willing to use half-truths and outright lies to support their position.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 1, 2009 3:51 PM
Azykoth stated
Because I got a B- in English? The post you are critiquing was inadvertently published in draft form prior to my proofing. As Paul and doctorgoo correctly pointed out, I never intended to argue that abortions were wrong when the health of the mother or fetus was at stake. I did intend to convey that a person had an arguable position when opposing late-term abortions where neither's health was at stake and we should acknowledge and respect such a position. Arguable, not absolute. Sorry for the confusion.
dogmeatib - excellent post again.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 4:16 PM
Michael Heath:
As far as the mental health of the mother is concerned, people who can use such a convoluted argument to first excuse themselves for having the abortion and then turn it around and blame the doctor sound to me like they are pretty fucked up. I don't want to sound too callous here, but an aborted fetus is probably not so bad as an abused, neglected or murdered child.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 4:36 PM
>.> carry on then.
Posted by: Azkyroth | June 1, 2009 4:54 PM
I find it interesting that when the right is out power we get more domestic terrorism than when the left is out of power. Who are the evil traitors, again?
P.S. I comment here a lot, and have for years, and I am not the same individual who posted the inevitable "why are you accusing all good Christians of supporting terrorist acts against evil abortion doctors?" schtick seen above (comment #3).
Posted by: Chuck | June 1, 2009 5:02 PM
An abused, neglected, murdered child is wrong. A baby in the mothers wound of whom is no longer wanted, an inconvenience, just a "blob" of flesh is in my opinion, is also abused, neglected and eventually murdered during the abortion process! It is alive and has even been found to fight to live during the horrible procedure! Our minds have become so calloused. Our hearts have become so hard! God forgive us!!!
I am also appalled at the act of some individuals who justify returning brutality to the doctors who perform the abortions! Thou shalt not kill means exactly that! There is no justification for that ruthless act. Let the doctor live with his conscience and pray for him.
Posted by: PEB | June 1, 2009 5:16 PM
PEB:
The fetus is not murdered, when you idiots get that through your head there might be some hope for rational diaglogue.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 6:02 PM
PEB - prior to expressing an opinion, I suggest taking a reading class and then insuring your reading comprehension at least matches that of a 6th grader.
This thread of comments had several links filled with experiences of women at Dr. Tiller's clinic where those mothers who chose life early in their pregnancy experienced horrible complications later in their pregnancy. Complications where their very life and health were at great risk and their fetus' fate was death prior to, or just after term even if an abortion was not performed. Women who could hear their baby's heart slowing stopping, who saw images of horribly deformed fetuses whose chances for life outside the womb were slim to none while severe brain damage was a certainty, women whose finances would be wiped out if their baby did survive but would need constant care at an institution given the severe brain, heart, and spinal cord damage. Women who were told their baby would need a heart transplant but could never get one given the accompanying severe brain and spinal cord damage.
To insinuate these horrible decisions by these women and their husbands were made on a whim is just plain evil, on your part. There is a reason you don't deserve the title, "pro-life", and you showed one example of why with your ignorant, bigoted, and grossly dishonest post.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 6:18 PM
PEB, the problem is, you're conflating a fetus with a child, the two are not synonymous. Naturally anywhere from 1/3 to 2/3 of pregnancies end naturally, in other words, your "God" is the greatest abortionist in the history of the world. The cluster of cells, which is the actual subject of the debate, is not a living sentient being until it develops those characteristics. That is why the laws are structured in the way they are. That is why Dr. Tiller provided such a difficult, but necessary service to his patients. They were aborting fetuses that were in danger of killing the mother, had already died, were going to die and endangered the mother, were going to suffer catastrophic birth defects, etc. The vast majority of the procedures that he performed fall into these terrible, heart rendering categories. Personally I can't imagine getting up in the morning, let alone going to work if those choices and procedures were what waited for me when I arrived.
Prior to the modern age, many of the patients of Dr. Tiller, along with their fetuses, would have died. Contrary to the myths presented by the anti-choice crowd, these late-term abortions aren't a lark, they aren't a case where someone wakes up and says "I'm tired of being pregnant, let's get rid of this thing," they are, by a vast majority, cases where people who once were joyful about their pregnancy, now have to cope with losing the child and possibly losing their own life. They have to cope with choosing to end the life of a shattered fetus so that it doesn't have to suffer for a few minutes, hours, or days before it dies of its own hideous deformities.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 1, 2009 6:25 PM
I'm sorry, but this discussion has not been "Our Finest Hour" and I say that as someone who is staunchly pro-choice, and an opponent to Fundamentalism of all kinds.
I'm not just talking about the wince-provoking name-calling, understandable in our anger but painful to read. I'm talking about some of the assumptions that were made and some of the facts that were overlooked.
First, the accused assassin had, apparently ties to some other types of violent right-wing radicals, He was a Tax Protestor, a member of the Freemen, and a "Sovereign Citizen." These are all violent extremists. He's hardly your ganden-variety abortion opponent.' (I'd consider Operation Rescue in the same group, btw.)
But we have cheerfully and unthinkingly confounded 'Abortion opponents,' 'abortion protestors,' and the violent Phineas-Priest type Roeder seems to be. There are a lot of people who sincerely -- if wrongly -- think abortion is wrong. They don't 'want to control women's vaginas' and aren't even sophisticated to think in such terms. They may have religious beliefs backing this up, they may be wrong, but they are sincere.
Many of them are as disgusted by Operation Rescue type protests as we are, and most of them, I have no doubt whatsoever, were horrified by this murder. But they have to state that this hasn't changed their mind about the basic question.
(Maybe this will make it clear. We all oppose torture, and many bloggers have, rightly, made John Yoo a symbol of our torture policy. If someone -- with ties to violent 'leftist' organizations -- if any are out there -- shot Yoo, wouldn't all of us express horror at what he did, but still insist on our hatred of his policies. I'm not defending the obnoxious gloaters, but the othyers who got treated rather roughly.)
In fact, I'll ask any anti-abortionist to answer one question, and judge them on the answer:
"If you overheard a fellow anti-abortionist discussing even the possibility of his carrying out a violent, murderous act 'for the cause,' would you
a. Call the cops
b. Do nothing
c. Help him?
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 1, 2009 6:50 PM
There are a lot of people who sincerely -- if wrongly -- think abortion is wrong. They don't 'want to control women's vaginas' and aren't even sophisticated to think in such terms. They may have religious beliefs backing this up, they may be wrong, but they are sincere.
Sorry, but I don't buy it. Yes, there are some anti-choice individuals who truly do believe that a fetus is a sentient baby, and that abortion is morally equivalent to murder the way that society defines it. Those are the most well-meaning (if delusional) anti-abortionists. However, I am convinced that the well-oiled machinery of the anti-choice movement (and many, if not most, people who call themselves "pro-life") are opposed to abortion primarily out of misogynistic/anti-sex attitudes. Why else are so many of them also opposed to contraception and comprehensive sex education, two things that would prevent abortions?
This is not to say that your standard, garden-variety "pro-lifer" (that term is such a lie) is to blame for Tiller's death, nor should we as liberals point the finger at them. However, I do strongly believe that, if they had an ounce of integrity or honesty, these people would seriously question the state of the "pro-life" movement, and how it has become bullying, extremely self-righteous, and often violent (don't tell me that human barricades around clinics aren't a form of violence). No, they aren't to blame for Tiller's death, but they ought to question why Tiller was murdered. And you'd better believe that people like Randall Terry, Troy Newman and everyone else who fan the flames of anti-choice extremism are, to some degree, morally complicit in this tragedy. I hope that Tiller's murder serves as a "wake-up call" for those "pro-life" individuals who are, underneath it all, decent human beings.
Posted by: Sadie Morrison | June 1, 2009 7:06 PM
Sadie wrote:
Agreed. At the point that one advocates that I am the legal and moral equivalent of a fetus...well, suffice it to say I don't usually feel like playing nice anymore.
Still, and I think you recognize this, there is a difference between not liking abortion and actively advocating that it be banned outright or even severely limited. There is some room for debate, as Michael pointed out above, but I don't consider people who are merely uncomfortable with late-term abortions as strictly "pro-life".
Maybe this is a bit contrived, but I reserve that term for people who advocate that I am the legal and moral equivalent of any fetus.
Oh, I believe it.
Posted by: Leni | June 1, 2009 7:59 PM
You know what Prup, they don't have to say fucking squat about whether this changes their views on abortion. All they need to do is soundly reject what the murderer did, without throwing their pet fucking view into it.
When fucking environmental terrorists strike, I don't go around talking about my own environmental views and make a mild statement of disdain for the fucking terrorists. I make it good and damned clear that the terrorists involved need to see the inside of a cell - for a very long time - like any other terrorist deserves and maybe an "oh, by the way, I also happen to be an environmentalists. Anyways, about putting that terrorist in prison..."
I sure as fuck don't come along like a slack-jawed moron and tell people that the majority of people who believe the same thing as that terrorist does believe this hurts their cause.
Fuck that bullshit. And quite honestly, I don't really care what someone's motivations for being an anti-choice advocate might happen to be - the result of their goal is the same - control over what women do with their vaginas. Doesn't mean I hate them all, there are several I can respect and some I love quite dearly, in spite of their views. Doesn't mean I have to have the least respect for their fucking views.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 1, 2009 8:09 PM
Prup (aka Jim Benton) wrote:
The Operation Rescue lunatics are the garden variety abortion opponents. If you don't believe me, I suggest you take a walk into one of those neatly segregated Planned Parenthood clinics someday (assuming you haven't). The protester that pleads with you on your way in and verbally assaults you on your way out- the wild-eyed, spittle-flecked, probably bearded man that "pretends" to photograph your license plates- is a garden variety abortion protester. He is camped outside of every nearly abortion provider in the country on a daily basis, fighting for fetal rights by inserting himself between women and their doctors, between women and their privacy.
And if he is not the garden variety abortion opponent, then he is probably on very good terms with whoever it is you think this garden variety opponent is.
If there is a difference, it is only that he has the requisite time, spittle and fervor to plant himself outside of a clinic to harass women on a daily basis.
Posted by: Leni | June 1, 2009 8:18 PM
When the folks who call themselves "christians" are willing to stand between the abusive, violent KKKristians and the women who need the services of the doctors and other healthcare providers who perform abortions and absorb the abuse of those protestors, while shielding the women from it...then I will believe that their claim to not be cut from the same cloth might be true.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 8:50 PM
Their foolish hearts was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools. Romans 1: 21-22.
We are so wise in our own eyes...are we not!
Posted by: PL | June 1, 2009 9:05 PM
My husband who claims not to be a christian informed me of what happened last evening. He was not disappointed. His statement was, "someone's gotta do it."
I am a shhhhh..."christian" and I was upset at what was done to that doctor! I was upset at my husbands reaction, so cold.... but I've learned not to debate with him, he has his mind set. We both are pro-life but I do not "delight" in someone getting murdered due to his occupation.
Can you all believe that a "non-christian" would actually want an abortionist killed? I shouldn't of said that. It's more acceptable to blame the christians!!!!
Posted by: PL | June 1, 2009 9:13 PM
I dont agree with murder and i think the man that shot the Dr should be punished and will answer to God for that but..that dr will have many little lifes to anwser for! Ones that were defenseless! when you have sex you always run a 50/50 chance of getting pregnant and you should be prepared for the consequences there a millions of women out there that would love to have a baby and cant how sad there are people out there treating them as disposable. adoption is always a great option!
Posted by: mindy | June 1, 2009 9:23 PM
PEB wrote:
Anybody else reminded of those products you sometimes find from Hong Kong with descriptions written in horrible, sometimes inpenetrable, English?
(Of course if it turns out that English really isn't PEB's first language, I'm gonna really regret pointing that out.)
Posted by: Michael Hoaglin | June 1, 2009 9:33 PM
Posted by: James Hanley | June 1, 2009 9:42 PM
Mindy - Why do you bear false witness against another (Dr. Tiller) and assume you know his destiny when its obvious you are clueless regarding his notoriety and why he became a target?
The types of abortions Dr. Tiller specialized and distinguished himself in performing were not abortion on-demand based merely on convenience as you infer. Instead these patients were women who had horrible complications in their pregnancies late in their term, health- and life-threatening complications to a pregnancy they originally had every hope and intention to turn into a birth. These women's fetuses were either dying in their womb or risked bankrupting complications post-birth with no hope of recovery from severe mental, spinal, and heart damage discovered deep into their term. They and their husbands went to Tiller because such medical services were made illegal in their respective states in spite of the threats to their health because of the anti-abortion advocates or because there were no doctors in their area trained to perform what is a difficult procedure so late in the term.
These sorts of abortions are relatively rare given Science has improved diagnosis of these conditions prior to the 21st week, when their own ob/gyns are able to provide treatment with less complicated procedures. But because people like you mischaracterize what is happening, a man who saved the lives of thousands of women has been murdered by one of your kind, i.e., someone unwilling or incapable of distinguishing the different types of abortions and motivations for abortion. Therefore you too have blood on your hands by misdescribing what occurs.
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 9:46 PM
Micheal Hoaglin & James Hanley,
I guess you both feel "superior" to others. So much so that you have to correct their written blogs and try to humiliate them through criticism. Shows just how inferior you both really that you waste time doing so rather then sharing potent information that would enlighten the rest of us!
Posted by: PEB | June 1, 2009 9:57 PM
Oh no!!! I missed a word. You both "ARE" inferior!
Posted by: PEB | June 1, 2009 9:59 PM
Prup (aka Jim Benton) - You ignored the fact that some of the people posting on this thread are labeling Dr. Tiller a "baby-killer". You don't go around accusing someone of the most horrific crime imaginable, then claim to be upset when someone shoots him. If you actually believe that's what he is you should kill him yourself. Suppose you knew of some psycho who did go around killing babies in their cribs, and the only way you could stop him was to shoot him. Wouldn't you? The vast majority of these people crying "baby-killer" don't actually believe it, they just love to work themselves into a state of delicious self-righteousness. And they ignore the fact that there are others who will take them at their word. The hypocrisy is appalling.
Posted by: Taz | June 1, 2009 10:04 PM
@PL
What a surprise, a christian with a victim complex pushing an unverifiable anecdote as 'evidence' that non-christians are immoral. You can take your bigotry and shove it up your ass.
Posted by: GBM | June 1, 2009 10:04 PM
Oh, noes! The poor, goodhearted folks who come here to display their religious superiority are chided for their lack of language skilz and they sorta chuck that Love-O-God turn the other cheek shit right out the winder (Yeah, I'm talkin' to you PEB).
Have any of you holier-than-thou's ever wondered why folks like us never come to YOUR blogs? Here's a hint, we like folks that are rational.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 10:06 PM
Amen shawn and PEB
Posted by: mindy | June 1, 2009 10:07 PM
James Hanley:
Baby JESUS was happy 'cuz that evil abortionist got what he deserved, but then you picked on one of his special lambs--and now he's crying, again!
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 10:08 PM
Taz -you do make a good point..
Posted by: mindy | June 1, 2009 10:13 PM
You can't take the truth either? Does it hurt to face the fact that non-christians can have those feelings?
Posted by: PL | June 1, 2009 10:13 PM
Prup - I'm sorry you think that 'this has not been our finest hour'.
So you think ALL 'pro-choice' posters here have blamed Christians as a whole for this murder?
Hmmm re-read #154 again, carefully. Mr Pot this is Mr Kettle, Mr Kettle this is Mr Pot.
Oh and BTW name the 'Pro-choice' organisations that advocate harassing, assaulting and murdering 'Anti-choice' protesters. Don't worry I'll wait. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 10:25 PM
Taz:
"You don't go around accusing someone of the most horrific crime imaginable, then claim to be upset when someone shoots him. If you actually believe that's what he is you should kill him yourself."
When I've brought that up, in the midst of some pretty intense shouting matches, it's gotten very quiet--and pretty much stayed that way.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 10:32 PM
Andrew Sullivan has been putting posting quite a few of his readers' experiences with complications discovered late-term. Here's merely one: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/its-so-personal-not-knowing-for-sure.html#more
Posted by: Michael Heath | June 1, 2009 10:32 PM
democommie what is rational language to you? What you just stated? You can cut myself and others down all you want. Just shows your own lack of intelligence that you would waste valuable time and energy doing so!
Posted by: PEB | June 1, 2009 10:42 PM
PEB:
Rational language might include not calling a doctor a killer when what he does is a licensed medical procedure instead of a crime.
I would be happy to stop wasting my time attacking you and your idiot friends. Go away and save both of us some time.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 10:46 PM
oh, noes! The poor, goodhearted folks who come here to display their religious superiority are chided for their lack of language skilz and they sorta chuck that Love-O-God turn the other cheek shit right out the winder
Wow....how intelligent democommie
Posted by: PEB | June 1, 2009 10:46 PM
PEB - So you advocate murdering someone because you disagree with their position on an issue, or is it murdering someone because they perform a legal medical procedure* that your endorsing? What exactly is your point here? - Confused DJ
* No, not murder (See #125)
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 10:58 PM
democommie
Yeah, a doctor has the license to snatch babies right out of the womb. They can insert poison into the womb that burns the baby inside and out. The baby will kick and punch in pain in the womb but let's just ignore this. The doctor can suction the baby body limbs right off of them and crush their head...I know that is fine. He can also pull the head out of the womb (but not the whole body after all then it would be born and he could not finish killing it) cut a slit through the back of the head and suck the brain out. Yeah, he has a legal license to due this procedure.
I could give birth to my child and decide to kill it and that would be a horrific, horrible, tragedy one that would surely draw attention by the media. But a license abortionist can snatch a baby from the womb and end it's existence through various horrific procedures and that's absolutely fine.
I do not feel attacked in the least bit. I have a clean conscious. I will never defend the right to murder babies...NEVER. You continue to defend the right to choose. All the millions of babies have lost their right to choose.
Again, "Proclaiming to be wise...they became as fools." Romans 1:22
Posted by: PEB | June 1, 2009 11:20 PM
DJ
I NEVER, NEVER advocate killing any doctor who performs abortions. I NEVER, NEVER advocate killing babies outside the womb. I NEVER, NEVER advocate killing babies inside the womb either!
'Now hear this, O foolish and senseless people, Who have eyes but do not see; Who have ears but do not hear. Jeremiah 5:21
Posted by: PEB | June 1, 2009 11:29 PM
PEB:
Apparently it's not impinged on your haloed head that I'm not attempting to wow you with my intellect. I think you're a concern troll and an idiot. I think you're one of the legion of smarmy jerks who like to pontificate about their love for swarms of zygotes and yet think it's sorta okay that a fully developed human being gets gunned down for helping others.
You and your fellow hypocrites actually make me wonder how anyone could believe in a loving GOD--considering the absence of evidence in that area--without being diagnosed as delusional. Wrapping your hate for those you disagree with in biblical justification makes it no less offensive.
Posted by: democommie | June 1, 2009 11:29 PM
FEB-
Again, NOT FELONIOUS, NOT A PERSON & NO MALICE AFORETHOUGHT.
Yep and the libel just keeps on comming!. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 11:31 PM
I NEVER, NEVER advocate killing any doctor who performs abortions.
Yes, you do, when you accuse said doctors, in the most graphic terms, of killing children, with absolutely no regard for the factual evidence presented by others here that contradicts your "murder" accusations.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 11:43 PM
You have to know that's not true, right? Why would you be so poorly educated about something you appear to care so deeply about as to think that was possibly true?
The beauty of Romans 1:22 is that it's a completely useless quote in every single way. It's as applicable to anybody using it as it is to their target, it's a catch 22.
Posted by: tincture | June 1, 2009 11:44 PM
democommie
I can disagree without hate. What about you?
Is your inferiority coming right through again with all the "verbal abuse" you seem to enjoy throwing at others who disagree with you opinion.
DJ
Your truly confused.
Posted by: PEB | June 1, 2009 11:45 PM
PEB (got it right this time, sorry about before) -
Biblical quote-mining is fun, but it's a game anyone can play.
Fervent believer are you? Try Jeremiah 8:8. :)
Before you start calling anyone else foolish, I'd suggest reviewing something said in the bible about motes and beams- DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 1, 2009 11:46 PM
I can disagree without hate.
Bearing false witness against someone -- especially someone who has already been murdered -- is an act of hate. So is ignoring every last bit of the corrective information offered here, without discussion.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 1, 2009 11:50 PM
To answer those who asked why I asked about the double murder charges for the pregnant mother who was murdered:
The point is to ask when it is a life. Someone about a hundred comments back says that the mother gets to decide the value of the fetus in her. Based on what? It is a life or it is not. What constitutes a life? That is what I am asking.
By the way, the dick who shot the DR. is the biggest hypocrite of all. Even if it is murder to kill an unborn child(for arguments sake) it is not going to stop it to kill anyone. People will just go somewhere else.
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 1, 2009 11:50 PM
Yes, I've been a volunteer guide at PP on several occasions when friends were having procedures. "What you have done for the least of these, you have done for Me." It's not simple to put Christ's law into action. It takes thought, and that appears to be too much for many.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 1, 2009 11:59 PM
tincture
The only 'choice' in abortion is between a dead baby and a live baby. ... and ring forceps are inserted into the womb to withdraw the foetus. ... Saline amniocentesis involves in introduction of a concentrated salt solution ... wall (which includes punching and kicking) and self-inflicted trauma.
1. Saline amniocentesis involves in introduction of a concentrated salt solution into the amniotic fluid via an amniocentesis needle. This is inhaled and swallowed by the foetus, which subsequently dies of acute salt poisoning.
2. Alternatively, a hormone called prostaglandin is injected into the amniotic sac. This causes premature labour and delivery of a stillborn.
3. Another injection method is inter-cardiac injection abortion whereby poison is injected into the chest or heart of the foetus via a long needle inserted through the mother's abdomen. This method is sometimes used for 'pregnancy reduction' in multi-foetal pregnancies.
4. Application of potassium permanganate crystals to the upper vagina and cervix causes chemical burns and death of the foetus from absorption of permanganate.
1. Suction abortion: This method is used during the first three months of pregnancy, before the embryo develops a functioning heart. A suction tube is introduced into the womb, where the powerful suction draws the embryo out along with the placenta. The embryonic remains are deposited into an attached waste bottle.
2. Dilation and curettage (D&C): In this procedure, the cervix is dilated, and ring forceps are inserted into the womb to withdraw the foetus. A curette4 is then used to scrape away any of the foetus or placenta that remains in the womb. Profuse bleeding usually follows. This procedure is used at the end of the first trimester (approximately 12 weeks).
3. Dilation and evacuation: This method is used if the pregnancy has been allowed to progress to 13 weeks or later. The cervix is dilated and the foetus is removed with plier-like forceps. The foetus and placenta are then reassembled outside the womb to make sure that they have been completely removed and so avoid complications.
4. Dilation and extraction5 (D&X): This is a procedure used for late-term abortions, and is carried out from the fourth to the ninth month of pregnancy. An ultrasound is first used to locate the legs of the foetus, which are then drawn through the birth canal with a pair of forceps. Scissors are then used to puncture the base of the back of the head so that the brain may be removed by suction. This serves to collapse the skull to facilitate removal of the entire foetus.
Posted by: PEB | June 2, 2009 12:01 AM
That's nice PEB, it would have been a great answer if I'd asked you to copypasta medical crap, but I didn't. I asked, re your claim that the fetus' feels pain,
"You have to know that's not true, right? Why would you be so poorly educated about something you appear to care so deeply about as to think that was possibly true?"
Posted by: tincture | June 2, 2009 12:06 AM
"Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen. In my 36 years of pediatric surgery, I have never known of one instance where the child had to be aborted to save the mother’s life. If toward the end of the pregnancy complications arise that threaten the mother’s health, the doctor will either induce labor or perform a Caesarean section. His intention is to save the life of both the mother and the baby. The baby’s life is never willfully destroyed because the mother’s life is in danger."- C. Everett Koop, MD, U.S. Surgeon General
Posted by: PL | June 2, 2009 12:17 AM
Would women choose abortion if wombs had windows?[39] Advances in technology, particularly 3D and 4D ultrasound, provide a window into the womb, a picture that this is indeed a human being, not — as many abortion clinics tell unsuspecting women — a "blob of tissue." Whereas Roe [v. Wade] claimed we do not know when life begins, ultrasounds show that it is clearly before birth.[44] The images are:
• Factual — They cannot dispute scientific evidence.
• Positive — Display the beauty of life.
• Educational — Reduce crisis pregnancies.
• Informative — Allow an informed choice.
• Aid bonding — Mother hears the heartbeat and views activity and development of the baby.
• Supportive — Fathers, families and friends are educated to provide encouragement and support.[39]
Posted by: PL | June 2, 2009 12:24 AM
Biblically -
Exodus 21:22
Compare that with Exodus 21:12
So evidently, from a biblical perspective, abortion is not the same as murder, it is a much lesser offence. -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 12:27 AM
Ah yes Koop - that noted OBGYN.
What's next? Bringing in a whizz at proctology to consult on psychiatric illnesses? The fallacy of a single (false) authority is not very convincing. Besides, was he arguing from a medical or religious point of view I wonder?
As the procedures for abortions, do you know how they conduct open heart surgery? Procedures are not all nice and clean, but they still can save a life, nevertheless. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 12:51 AM
Except when it is.
So, that quote was helpful. Maybe now you'd like to quote that renowned expert Randall Terry? Perhaps Bill O'Reilly has something insightful to say?
Maybe next time you go to the doctor C Everett Coop, Bill fucking O'Reilly and I could come along? Perhaps we'd have some useful advice about your cholesterol to give!
That would be SO MUCH fun! And when you go in to have your anal warts removed, we'd all be there too. Watching! Participating in your decision. Like a democracy! Maybe even lecturing you about it, despite the fact that none of us (except maybe Bill) knows the first god damned thing about anal warts. OMG Wouldn't that be fun! And, to make it even more democratic and America-like, we could inform the public and make sure that everyone and anyone passing by knows that you have anal warts so they could participate too. The public has a right to know. I have a right to protest this tragedy. If I can't come into the doctors office while you disrobe and present your anal warts for zappification, then I should at least be able to comment from the sidelines.
I have a right to make sure you and your doctor made the right choice. You never know. Perhaps the fact that you decided on laser surgery was a bad idea. You should have to wait for 24 hours and then come back. I can use that time to bleat in my bullhorn about your anus wart problem to all who can hear, hopefully while you walk past.
Doesn't that sound like a good idea? Boy, it sure sounds like a good idea to me. Now if I could just find a way to single you out and harass you based on where you go for health care, then I'd for sure feel better about the medical help you were getting. You know, because I want to help you.
Because I love you and your children and want the best for you.
Posted by: Leni | June 2, 2009 3:21 AM
@PL #242:
A cite would be nice; Googling produces a list of Christian anti-abortion sites, and none of those I looked at had any reference where the quote could be read in full context.
That's not to say that Koop is not simply wrong in any event even if he is accurately quoted for meaning.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 2, 2009 5:27 AM
Hmm Are you thinking, Robin, what I'm thinking?
"Liars for Jesus"(tm) - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 7:00 AM
Yeah, Satan knows the Word of God too!
Posted by: PEB | June 2, 2009 7:16 AM
Why is the murderer "not a true Christian", as so many have commented? That implies a true Christian would not kill for his or her beliefs, which is hardly supported by even a cursory glance at history. Atrocities like this are always a risk when people believe they are obeying a higher authority than human law.
Nobody is 'pro-abortion'. You have to balance two undesirable outcomes. Some people can only cope with black and white morality, not the complexities of real life. Obama is quite right to focus on reducing unwanted pregnancies. That is is a much more practical and humanitarian approach than the morally immature and misogynistic hysteria that passes for pro-life campaigning.
Posted by: Paul, UK | June 2, 2009 7:18 AM
Translation: This is the part of the Bible that I disagree with, so I'm going to ignore it this time.
Isn't it amazing how the Word of God is whatever any individual Christian thinks it should be?
Posted by: doctorgoo | June 2, 2009 7:28 AM
thanks to another forum, I've found a debunking of the abortion nuts' dead baby porn: Abortion photos
Liars for Jesus indeed....
Posted by: sophia8 | June 2, 2009 7:41 AM
Anybody can quote mine scripture. It's a lot harder to make it up out of whole cloth, like this:
St. Peter's epistle to the KKKristian Asshats.
"Hey, ain't you idiots got somethin better to do? That dick that shot the doctor? he's a stone killer--nuttier than Almond Roca, no shit! Those of you who profess to believe in GOD, let HIM do HIS work, he doesn't need your whining sanctimony or your ineffectual lobbying. Check out the "beatitudes", dudes. Lamb of God's Peace, Out."
Posted by: democommie | June 2, 2009 7:49 AM
Demo - Hey! I resemble that remark! - :) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 8:05 AM
@DJ #248:
Could be...
Actually, it may be an accurate quote; what I hadn't realised when I posted the previous comment was quite how anti-abortion Koop was - and that his anti-abortion views sprang as much from his religious beliefs as from the fact that he was a paediatric surgeon specialising in birth-defect corrections.
Having said that, can I challenge PL to explain what s/he and/or organisations of which s/he is a member are doing to prevent unwanted pregnancies and/or to provide for pregnant women in need.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 2, 2009 8:33 AM
PEB -
Why not? In the comment just before that you wrote:"they can insert poison into the womb that burns the baby inside and out. The baby will kick and punch in pain in the womb but let's just ignore this. The doctor can suction the baby body limbs right off of them and crush their head".
You honestly believe in the baby-torture scenario, but you won't lift a finger to stop the torturer? And you hide behind your religious belief to justify your idiotically contradictory position? You must be against capitol punishment, any and all wars (including the one against Hitler), and even self-defense, I suppose. What an attitude! "Babies are being tortured, but I'm opposed to using force to stop it." It would be funny if it wasn't so dangerously dishonest.
Posted by: Taz | June 2, 2009 8:56 AM
Come on Taz...
How can you expect PEB to have an intellectually honest opinion on morality if she/he can easily hide behind her/his favorite Bible verses?
Posted by: doctorgoo | June 2, 2009 9:04 AM
DocGoo - Even the Devil knows scripture (or so I've been told) - ;) DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 9:09 AM
The only 'choice' in abortion is between a dead baby and a live baby.
A fetus is not a baby, it's a cluster of cells that may become a baby. Learn the difference already, if you care so much about babies.
Protection of the life of the mother as an excuse for an abortion is a smoke screen.
Only to people who don't give a shit about the life of the mother.
Would women choose abortion if wombs had windows?
Would women choose abortion if they'd had honest comprehensive sex-ed and access to decent birth control?
Whereas Roe [v. Wade] claimed we do not know when life begins, ultrasounds show that it is clearly before birth.
Sorry, but ultrasounds don't answer moral questions. This statement is just as idiotically dishonest as "The Earth's hot inner core proves the existence of Hell." (No, I'm not making that up.)
Yeah, Satan knows the Word of God too!
Funny, Christians always say this the minute you quote a bit of the Bible that they don't want to hear. So much for Biblical inerrancy.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 9:15 AM
PEB,
Yes, I feel superior to people who say patently silly things. Curious that you criticize me for feeling superior, when you yourself obviously indulge in the same feelings toward others (calling several of us "inferior,"). Pots and kettles, eh?
I just wish you "pro-life" folks weren't so obviously hypocritical. Conservatives are more likely than liberals both to be pro-life and pro-war, apparently not recognizing that war causes lots of innocent people to die. They're more likely also to want to fast-track executions, showing little concern for whether an innocent person might be put to death. No, it's just the little un-born babies who spark your sympathy, and after they're born you all want to deny them medical care and adequate nourishment unless their parents can afford it. You're not so goddam pro-baby then.
I'm the father of three children. I still remember the first time we heard the heartbeat of our first child, just how magical that was to realize there was a real living being inside there. And I remember vividly the heartbreak of going to an ultrasound in my wife's second pregnancy and seeing no movement, and realizing the baby had just died. Eddie Vedder's version of "Oh were can my baby be" was popular then, and 10 years later the song still makes my wife break down in tears. So we're not exactly unaware of the reality of what's in the womb. And yet, my wife and I aren't so arrogant as to make these crucial life changing decisions for other people
You're the one who really acts as though you're superior to others--you're certain that you're better than anyone who would have, consider having, or support those having, an abortion.
What you really are is a wretched spiteful human being who probably has never lifted a finger to help a pregnant girl in need, or a baby whose mother can't afford to care for it, yet sits comfortably in her living room judging others.
I wouldn't be surprised if you're like the people in the church I grew up in, who would whisper the most vicious gossip about a girl who got pregnant, but wouldn't show her any love or consideration. But god forbid if she had decided to have an abortion. You un-Christlike haters forget that when Jesus said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he was defending a woman who'd had sex outside of marriage--and yet Christians today have no problems throwing stones at those woman. Hell, if they'd stop doing so and reach out to these girls, they could put a serious dent in the rate of abortions.
And what sick people like you don't realize is that banning abortions isn't going to make them go away. All that's going to happen is a) lots of unwanted babies that people like you sure as hell aren't going to adopt, and b) lots of amateur abortions that really wreck women's lives. But if you're like most of the pro-lifers I've met, you're ok with that, because you see it as just desserts, forgetting--as un-Christlike people like you always do--that it is God's role to judge, not yours.
Do I feel superior to you? Yes, because I don't live in a make-believe world where banning abortions will magically make all pregnancies happen within a perfect marriage where mom and dad love each other, their children, and God with perfect generoristy of spirit.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 2, 2009 9:19 AM
Taz,
I don't see it, Taz. Just to take another example, some Americans may feel passionately that our military is committing the murder of civilians--and even that they are baby killers. That doesn't mean they advocate killing of military personnel, even those directly involved. It simply does not follow that if you think someone is guilty of immoral acts, even the moral equivalent of murder, that you wish for or condone his execution. It is quite possible that all you want is for him to stop.
Posted by: heddle | June 2, 2009 9:53 AM
Speakikng of "pro-life and pro-war," do any of these "pro-life and pro-war" social conservatives know how many Iraqis have died as a result of our invasion and occupation? Have they even ASKED THE QUESTION? I've seen very little discussion of this question, and no reliable answers; and most of what I have heard is the same social conservatives attacking and mocking estimates that trouble them, while offering no better estimates, or alternative methodology, of their own.
These loons don't care about people; they care about "life" (preferably the non-sentient kind, in the abstract, with absolutely no regard to any of the issues that living things have to contend with.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 10:05 AM
It simply does not follow that if you think someone is guilty of immoral acts, even the moral equivalent of murder, that you wish for or condone his execution.
If you knowingly lie about the acts in question, and repeatedly assert, over a period of DECADES, that you're following "God's law" and don't have to obey secular law, and if you and your comrades continually egg each other on by insisting that your hateful opinion trumps your obligation to obey any secular laws, then it DOES follow that you wish for or condone his execution. This is why we conclude that the "pro-lifers" have innocent blood on their hands. They've been pretending they're above the law since 1973, at least, and stoking pure mindless hysteria the whole time, so they pretty much make lawless violence inevitable.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 10:23 AM
Bottom line - if you don't think abortion doctors should be killed, then quit calling them baby-killers. That doesn't mean you have to give up your opposition to abortion.
Posted by: Taz | June 2, 2009 11:19 AM
@ James Hanley #260: your post just sort of 'hit' me. Thanks and I fully agree...
Posted by: mezzobuff | June 2, 2009 11:54 AM
Yeah, what mezzobuff said. Can I Quote your post #260 in my own blog?
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 12:24 PM
Personally I find that Koop quote rather dubious. First, I question whether he actually said it, second, I question his role as an "authority" given the scope and time period of his practice.
As has been pointed out, the only place you see this quote is one pro-life site after another. I tried a variety of searches and couldn't find a single site that gave it an original context, just that "he said it" or "in the words of," etc.
Second, given his practice and the time period in which he worked, it is a rather dubious quote even if it is valid. First, the guy was a practicing pediatric surgeon from 1946 until 1981. Given that in-utero surgery is cutting edge technology today, I doubt he was much involved in OBGYN procedures. For 27 years of his practice abortion was illegal, including Pennsylvania where Koop practiced, which didn't even allow procedures in cases of rape, incest, or when the mother's health was in jeopardy. One has to ask, when precisely was Dr. Koop in contact with such cases? Finally, had Koop even practiced in a state where such procedures were allowed, the level of technology necessary to identify these cases, prior to them impacting the health of the mother, was absent for much of his career.
It's like asking Goddard if the moon landing really happened.
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 2, 2009 12:24 PM
Raging Bee,
I would be honored. Please feel free to do so.
Posted by: James Hanley | June 2, 2009 12:28 PM
I hear what you're saying Taz, but I think I have to defend heddle to a point here. I don't think it's valid to assign blame to anyone else for their rhetoric based on the acts of, as you admit, 'unstable individuals' who are motivated by that rhetoric; that's exactly why they're unstable. Yes, there are undoubtedly twisted but 'stable' pro-lifers who ratchet up the hysterics in hopes that some unstable person will do their bidding, but those people would be a small proportion of pro-lifers.
Our society would have to be thoroughly cleansed to get to the point where there's nothing left to motivate the unstable.
Posted by: Spartan | June 2, 2009 12:55 PM
Spartan: See Leni's comment #205 and my comment #263 and #136.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 1:06 PM
Spartan:
So if Republicans held conventions saying "kill Obama" across the country, and then someone actually kills Obama, then claiming "we didn't really mean it, it was just rhetoric" that would be a viable excuse? Honest question.
Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 1:14 PM
My last comment @201 got a lot of criticism, much of which would have been justified if I'd said what the critics accused me of saying. For example, DingoJack says
No. I never used the word 'ALL' -- or, for that matter, the word 'Christian' since other groups are also anti-abortion and anti-choice including Orthodox Jews and Muslims and there ARE non-believers who have decided that abortion is wrong. (And plenty of religious people who come down on the other side. In fact, my mother's devout Catholic wife, who took me to daily mass, condemned Catholic hospitals - and refused to let her daughter have a baby in one -- because of the 'in case of emergency, always save the child first, the mother second' paper that had to be signed -- fifteen years before Roe. And many Christian denominations come down on the same side as I and those who condemned me do -- that abortion is not murder but the desctruction of an unconscious group of cells, that it is something that -- like with many acts -- should be considered carefully, but that a woman who chooses abortion -- for whatever reason -- is doing nothing more than exercising her judgment on a matter in which her judgment is the only thing that matters.)
I never accused ALL posters of anything, though the 'we' in the comment could -- barely -- be interpreted that way.
A couple of people accused me of ignoring those who 'came to gloat' over Dr. Tiller's death. In fact, I specifically said -- and meant -- that I did not defend the 'obnoxious gloaters.' They are scum, unworthy of notice.
But others argued that 'If they say abortion is murder, they are guilty of creating a climate which encouraged this murder." Sorry, but I was on the othe side of that one 40 years ago, when I had to argue that my opposition to the war did not mean I bore ANY responsibility for the evil and counter-productive actions of the Weathermen, which I publicly condemned. If it didn't fly then, I don't want to see it launched now by 'my side.'
And finally for now, I carefully and deliberately made a distinction between abortion opponents and the maniac abortion protestors -- and the 'spokesmen'. I was speaking in understanding of those who might wish Roe defeated but who would never attack women going into a clinic, or doctors -- and I believe I have read stories of
people opposed to abortion in general who still were willing to serve as escorts for such women to show their opposition to OpRes type terrorism.
More later, I actually started this hours ago but got called away for important family stuff.
Posted by: Prup (aka Jim Benton) | June 2, 2009 1:43 PM
Bee, with all due respect, I think where you and I diverge is that you are assigning to the group 'pro-lifers', which is roughly 100 million plus people in the US, several beliefs that are more aptly assigned to a subset of them. Leni talks specifically about pro-lifers who protest in front of abortion clinics, which is what, a thousandth(?) of the number of people who are pro-life? In comment 136, there's lots of 'they have's and 'they have said's that simply are not true as an attribute for 'pro-lifers'. I'm assuming, maybe mistakenly, that when you refer to 'pro-lifers', you are referring to 'most pro-lifers', not the 'worst pro-lifers' which to me makes your comment make more sense. Unless you've got some pretty convincing evidence to the contrary, there's no way that close to 100 million people have, 'complete disregard for the legitimacy of secular law' for instance.
To Paul and Bee, do you really think that the majority of pro-lifers are advocating for abortion doctors to be killed? There's a hell of a lot of difference between thinking abortionists 'kill babies' and therefore should not do what they do, which the stable know is just an opinion, to 'it is good and right and holy to go vigilante on abortion doctors and execute them'. Hell Bee, in regards to your mention of pro-lifers following God's law, you've been around here long enough to see the debates about whether Christians are specifically restricted by Romans (13?) from disobeying secular authorities as long as it doesn't involve directly violating God's law.
How far do you really want to go with blaming the acts of the unstable and mentally unhinged on their purported motivations? There are cases of people being motivated to some extent by violent video games to commit crimes; is there blood on the game manufacturer's hands also? Is it John Lennon's fault that he sang, 'imagine no possessions', yet he had millions of dollars, which was partly the motivation for Chapman to kill him?
Posted by: Spartan | June 2, 2009 1:46 PM
Paul -
I think that's a bad analogy. While there are certainly extremists who actually call for the deaths of abortion providers, they are absolutely on the fringe - much like those who actually call for Obama to be killed. However, if they were accusing Obama of being a murderer - which some are because of his position on abortion and he was murdered, the answer would be no.
I am all for calling out anti-choicers, but Spartan is right - it is unreasonable to assert that people who use hysterical rhetoric should know that someone who's clearly insane might commit murder because of it.
Let me put it to you and Taz this way; An environmental activist is protesting a specific condo project because it is going to destroy more wetlands. She explains at a rally, that destroying this wetland is going to destroy the local eco-system and be yet another nail in the coffin of planet Earth. She says that if we don't stop this project before it starts, we are going to lose a critical link in our local ecological chain. This is a very emotional, impassioned plea and the crowd feeds on that emotion and builds upon it, as rallies are supposed to do.
Protests fail, city council approves the project and the condos start going up. Then a terrorist, motivated by her rhetoric, decides to blow up the structures, blow up materials and blow up all the equipment on the site. Can we blame the first activist and her strong rhetoric for the actions of the terrorist? Can we call her a hypocrite when she comes out later and categorically condemns the terrorist actions?
I think not.
Though if she came out and said; "I don't condone his actions, but understand it." or "I am sorry this happened, but they were raping the environment." or "Violence is wrong, but this developer deserved to take that loss." I would heartily agree that she's a sick fucking loon and supporter of terrorism.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 2, 2009 1:46 PM
Bee, with all due respect, I think where you and I diverge is that you are assigning to the group 'pro-lifers', which is roughly 100 million plus people in the US, several beliefs that are more aptly assigned to a subset of them.
Yes, the dominant subset, who have consistently controlled the national debate, supported the ongoing terrorism that's kept abortion clinics out of THREE-FOURTHS of US counties, and had the Republican Party eating out of their hands since 1980. In short, the "subset" that matters most.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 1:56 PM
Spartan - I don't think most of the pro-lifers ratchet up the hysterics in the hopes of getting a doctor killed, I think it's cold-blooded political strategy. Call it baby-killing, because who cold be in favor of that? But it's not like this is the first incident. Dr. Tiller has been shot before. People have been killed and mutilated by nail bombs. These people can see the effect their demonization has, and they still refuse to abandon it in favor of reasonable discussion. I'm not talking about everyone who's pro-life, I'm talking about the groups and people who have made a political decision to put other people's lives at risk. They do bear some responsibility, and they should have the decency to admit it.
Posted by: Taz | June 2, 2009 1:56 PM
Spartan,
Just wondering where you get the 100 million plus figure?
Posted by: dogmeatib | June 2, 2009 2:04 PM
There are cases of people being motivated to some extent by violent video games to commit crimes; is there blood on the game manufacturer's hands also?
That's not a national political movement, and there's no chorus of voices praising and excusing videogame-motivated violence; nor are people accused of such violence publicly praised, without shame or irony, as "heroes."
While there are certainly extremists who actually call for the deaths of abortion providers, they are absolutely on the fringe - much like those who actually call for Obama to be killed.
The big difference between these two examples is, the anti-choice extremists aren't "on the fringe" -- they're right in the mainstream, taking concerted nationwide action to accomplish their objectives; see my previous reference to all those US counties with no abortion clinics. OTOH, those callng for Obama's assassination really are on the fringe, which is why (so far at least) we've seen so little action toward actually killing Obama.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 2:04 PM
DuWayne,
All I was going for is for my analogy to be taken at face value. If people are "rhetorically" calling for murder, should we consider them culpable when that murder happens? I believe so.
Now, let's abstract it a degree. Now they are protesting that a person is a murderer. They kill babies (except that they don't, and they're performing a perfectly legal procedure). They must be stopped at any costs. Now, should the people spewing that invective be considered culpable if someone does take it upon themselves to stop the person at any cost by murdering them? Once again, I believe so. I could see argument on this point, I suppose. But when people are spending more effort objecting to the point that they may be culpable than they are to denouncing the murderer, the argument rings hollow.
Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 2:10 PM
Spartan posted:"There are cases of people being motivated to some extent by violent video games to commit crimes..."
Are there such cases? I'd be interested to chase them up, as I have heard of studies that show (in the sort term at least) such games reduce the level of violence. Of course I could be totally wrong. - curiously DJ
PS Sorry for dragging the thread OT, I won't push it too far.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 2, 2009 2:12 PM
I have to disagree that only those who are wild-eyed fringers bear a share of the blame for the violence directed against pro-choice facilities and individuals. Randall Terry, to name only one, is a charlatan and shyster who makes a very, very good living from his public hatred (which might only, in fact, be feigned) for those whom he calls baby killing murderers.
Posted by: democommie | June 2, 2009 2:15 PM
democommie -
Randal Terry is on the fucking fringe.
So would you say that people who make donations to their local Humane Society shelter, should bear partial responsibility for ALF terrorism against institutions that engage in animal testing?
Paul -
So then would you hold legitimate environmental activists culpable for terrorists who are motivated by their rhetoric? Should everyone who believes very strongly in a cause just avoid any strong language for fear of setting off the extremists who are capable of terrorism?
Posted by: DuWayne | June 2, 2009 2:28 PM
DuWayne -
This doesn't come anywhere near accusing someone of torturing and murdering babies, but if after the incident she kept repeating the same rhetoric, even ratcheted it up, she would bear some responsibility if it happened again. And again, and again, over a period of decades. That's the situation we have here.Posted by: Taz | June 2, 2009 2:36 PM
No, I would not say they should not use strong language. But emphasizing the need to act legally and not blow things up or kill people like savages would definitely be a good step. Rhetoric good, allowing people to get away with incitement to violence while claiming plausible deniability bad.
Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 2:43 PM
I want to emphasize that I'm not calling for any legal repercussions. I just think people who push the "baby-killer" rhetoric bear some personal responsibility, and at least one pro-life reader agrees with me.
Posted by: Taz | June 2, 2009 2:46 PM
Damn, that should have been "pro-life leader", not reader.
Posted by: Taz | June 2, 2009 2:48 PM
I should add that context is important too. If you are part of a movement that has a history of bombings and murders, the "that's not what I wanted" shtick is transparently ridiculous when your message is presented in the same way that encouraged the previous atrocities..
Posted by: Paul | June 2, 2009 2:50 PM
Taz & Paul -
But why should she stop being honest? Assuming that she is making these statements based on science, she has every reason to use the language she's using. The fact that terrorists decide to act out in a way that she believes is unconscionable, is irrelevant. That person is a fucking terrorist, not a legitimate activist.
Likewise, no matter how much cognitive dissonance is involved, the mainstream of the anti-choice movement absolutely condemns this terrorist activity out of hand, yet also believe firmly that abortion is murder. Don't assume just because it's the extremists who are getting the headlines, that that is the mainstream.
My mother is anti-choice - we just don't talk about it, given my position. She is as appalled by this terrorist action as anyone else here. But she also believes absolutely that abortion is murder. She has spoken out strongly against terrorism of this type every time it happens, as has every single anti-choice minister I've ever met. Every fucking one of them will be preaching about this next Sunday and most of them have emailed their congregations about it.
Truth, or perceived truth, should not be silenced because of the lunatic fringe.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 2, 2009 3:06 PM
No, but pandering to the lunatic fringe, and bringing the "fringe" to the center and giving them more influence than is good for anyone, should be punished at the polls.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 2, 2009 3:52 PM
I think fetuses must be included in that tally.
Posted by: Jennifer B. Phillips (aka Danio) | June 2, 2009 4:42 PM
dogmeat:
That figure came straight out of my ass. But I ballparked it by, 350 mill in US, 150m of those are kids who I'm not counting, and roughly half of people in the US are pro-life. I didn't take into account undecideds admittedly, but we're talking about a lot of people.
Dingo:
I've seen those and they make sense. The most obvious example that I've heard of is that the Columbine asshole murderers were very into the game Doom, although I know I've heard of some kids also being inspired by Grand Theft Auto. I don't agree at all that the game makers have any culpability, but that's my point.
Bee:
Bee, I just think you're blending together several different viewpoints here. I don't think this 'dominant subset', which I'm defining as the people who think it's okay to kill abortion doctors and have no regard for secular law and the other things you wrote above, control the national debate as much as they poison it and prevent progress from being made on common goals that both sides should have. There are people on the pro-choice side also who are just as extreme, although I agree there are more of the extreme pro-lifers.
IMO, you occasionally use the same type of logic when discussing Republicans and/or Christians, that it's fair to lambaste everyone in the group based on a viewpoint shared by only some of them, justified by the, somewhat valid, point that they are the loudest and getting the most attention. Just cuz they're loud doesn't mean the rest of the prolifers in this case share some culpability for their ideas or actions. As long as we're being kinda vague, do you agree with this statement, that I think is true: the pro-life movement does not condone assaulting or murdering abortionists.
But we don't really know that. There are lots of people who are apeshit irrational about Obama, and I don't doubt that there are some who would call for his assassination. But those people are homogenized in with all the other, more rational Obama critics, just like the people who think abortion doctors should be killed are subsumed into the greater collective of people who are more rationally anti-abortion. I think I'm just parroting what DuWayne's said better than I, but it really seems abundantly obvious that you can't blame people for sharing some of the same viewpoints with crazy people who take some action on those viewpoints.
Posted by: Spartan | June 2, 2009 4:58 PM
229-230pretty much says it all!!
Posted by: mel | June 2, 2009 5:01 PM
Not all Democrats are liberal; not all Republicans are conservatives. There are members of both parties who are moderates -- and until those folks start their own organizations, we're going to be stuck with the false choice of Dems vs. GOP. It could be argued that the deeper Flush Limbaugh sinks his fangs into the GOP, the better for the country -- because at some point, the moderates are going to launch an organization that reflects reality.
Threatening the life of the president is a federal felony -- anyone who remotely hints that Obama should be assassinated should be in prison.
The issue is choice; Neither government nor God (who/whatever he/she/it may be or not be) owns anyone's reproductive organs. Only a pregnant woman can make the decision to abort or carry the child to term. I dislike the idea of abortion as birth control, but that can be mitigated with realistic sex education in the schools. And yes, that includes using bananas to demonstrate the correct way to use a condom.
Miscarriages are spontaneous abortions, right? So, how does that not make God (or your favorite supreme diety) history's most prolific mass murderer?
"Just say no" didn't work for the "war on drugs," and it isn't a realstic alternative to reducing unwanted pregnancy. Half the human race has a Tab A, and the other half a Slot B -- it's the way we were designed. Enough of the "but god said" gibbering. Children should be taught, before they reach puberty, the mechanics of sex, the consequences of unprotected sex and that making love with someone is a helluva lot more rewarding than screwing.
Until abortion opponents join a list agreeing to adopt the next unwanted child who is born, regardless of that child's physical condition, medical needs or other factors, they've no right to condemn anyone.
Posted by: mediajackal | June 2, 2009 5:29 PM
Is it just me, or is this one of those subjects where people just talk past each other?
Now, granted, I'm a lefty-hippie-atheist (and a foreigner, to boot), but I'm seeing lots of drive-by comments from one side that just sees the word "abortion" and goes off (this includes some repeat posters, as well). The "whys" of the subject don't matter; only the "whos" do (and those whos don't include the mother). I can't speak for everyone on "my" side, but I am speaking for everyone on "my" side when I say this...nobody is for late-term abortion.
Sometimes, it's the lesser of two unfortunate, painful decisions. Everybody wants a healthy baby; no one expects the terrible things that sometimes go wrong.
Sometimes, life gives you a pregnancy with, say, neural tube defects (like anencephaly...warning: graphic and heartbreaking). Abortion or not, that's not going to result in a Hollywood ending. All that ends up with is a body that just barely keeps itself running (and generally not for long).
Sometimes, life gives you a choice of one dying or both dying.
Other times, the mother can't or won't take care of it. "Give it up for adoption" is an easy thing to say when you aren't going to adopt her brood. Whether it be fetal-alcohol syndrome, "crack baby", one of the less popular shades or too old to be adorable, there are a bunch already on the market waiting for parents. (On a side note, I'd have a modicum of respect for nuts like the Duggars if their kids were adopted. I'd still think they were nuts, from the "quiverfull" philosophy to the use of tatertots as a food group, but they'd get props for taking the kids that few others are looking for).
That the anti-abortionists tend to also be against comprehensive sex-ed, subsidized birth control, public schools in general and social programs for those who fall between the cracks just illustrates their, yes, insanity. Banning abortion and banning (or criminally underfunding) the things that realistically reduce the pressure for it is insane. In an ideal world, abstinence-only sex-ed (or charity in place of State social programs, or, or...) would work, but it's not an ideal world.
Posted by: Modusoperandi | June 2, 2009 6:30 PM
DuWayne:
Fred Phelps is "fringe". Randall Terry is only fringe in his grip on reality. He's got the ear of a lot of pro-lifers.
I have to agree with what several other people are saying here about who bears responsibility. People that support extra legal means to achieve their goals are, generally, referred to as criminals. The crazy fucks that kill people that a lot of other people have told them are evil are not acting alone, imo. I'm not aiming to convince you, that's just my take.
Posted by: democommie | June 2, 2009 9:43 PM
That should have read:
"People that use extralegal means to achieve their goals are, generally, referred to as criminals. If you support them in their efforts then you should bear some of the responsibility, morally, if not legally...."
Posted by: democommie | June 2, 2009 9:53 PM
"When it comes to abortion, there really is only one moral question: Will women be free to determine their own lives, including whether and when they will bear children, or will women be subjugated to patriarchal male authority and forced to breed against their will?"
I think this quote from Sunsara Taylor gets right to the heart of the matter.
You can read more from her article, "The Deadly Illusion of 'Common Ground' on Abortion - Response to Obama’s speech at Notre Dame on common ground and abortion"
You can read the whole article at http://www.revcom.us/a/166/ST_on_Obama-en.html
Posted by: Lee Thompson | June 2, 2009 10:11 PM
Sean @56, look on the bright side: Kansas still has the death penalty. For domestic terrorism and first-degree, pre-meditated murder of a medical specialist, the murderer could fry. Or perhaps there's an opening at Gitmo, where he can be filed and forgotten or perhaps waterboarded until he coughs up an elaborate story about treasonous conspiracies. Nah, I'm being sarcastic. Two wrongs don't make a right. But it would be nice to justify the disarming of some terrorist strongholds in the backwoods of the U.S.
Please, report all the hate-filled murder-excusing threads to your Domestic Security service.
Posted by: Monado | June 2, 2009 11:02 PM
democommie -
I am not talking about people who support fucking terrorists or those who support those who talk about using such methods.
Sure Terry has the ear of a lot of anti-choicers, he doesn't have the ears of a great many more precisely because of his extremist rhetoric. He goes way beyond calling abortion murder. Most anti-choice types do not.
Again, would you call those who cut checks to the humane society, culpable for terrorist actions against institutions that engage in animal testing? How about those who cut those checks and who also say that animal testing is cruel and inhumane?
Would you say that my mother and several ministers I know, who will be preaching against this and condemning it out of hand, but who nonetheless firmly believe and say that abortion is murder, are somehow culpable in this? People who abandoned Terry years ago, as a fringe fucking loon?
Posted by: DuWayne | June 2, 2009 11:39 PM
Abortion opponents:
All the opponents of abortion that I've met seem to be motivated by religion, so far as I can tell, or trained by those who were. But maybe I just notice them because they're the loudest and because "God hates you!" is like "I hate you" squared. That opposition seems to stem from an assumption that a special, immaterial spirit is infused into the zygote at the moment of conception, so another worshipper is in the pipeline and belongs to the god that your parents trained you to believe in.
So you assume your conclusion, that a conceptus is a baby and that killing a fetus is morally equivalent to murdering an independently living person, even if the conceptus is a fertilized egg or a blastula of eight or sixteen cells. The propaganda poured into your ears about poor little babies and genocide and pro-aborts and greedy doctors ensures that you'll come to that conclusion. (Not to mention the lies--I've seen apparently full-term stillbirths labelled "eight weeks.") Babies must be protected, right?
So my question is this: if you were brought up in a different religion and had an equally visceral certainty that cows must be protected, would it be all right to kill the greedy, heartless defilers of the symbol of all that is good in the universe by eating beef? Read about the principle of Cow Protection. People have been killed for eating beef because, by golly, they had to answer for their crimes!
Now, are you going to give up eating beef because other people think it's wrong, in fact heinous, or are you going to go on doing what you think is best for you? Why or why not?
Posted by: Monado | June 3, 2009 12:23 AM
Mediajackal (#293) asked: "Miscarriages are spontaneous abortions, right? So, how does that not make God (or your favorite supreme deity) history's most prolific mass murderer?"
Three words (for the christian god anyway) Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent. If these are true for the christian god, then god is responsible for everything and every action in the universe. Since a large number of fetuses 'spontaneously' abort, god must be responsible for this too. Thus god is the greatest abortionist in the universe. Not to mention 'predestination' which implies god knew of these so-called murders before hand, which would give you malice aforethought. That there was no trial or other legal procedure gives you feloniously, if you grant these clumps of cells the status of a person that makes: "Feloniously taking the life of a person with malice aforethought", in short, murder. (but see #125) -DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 2:04 AM
@DuWayne passim:
If you preach (i) that God's law is that abortion is murder, (ii) that abortionists will go on murdering unless stopped and (iii) that God's law is above man's law and (iv) that we all have responsibility to prevent the continuance of the abortion "holocaust"; you are helping to create a climate favouring breach of man's law in defence of "babies" in pursuit of God's law. You have no moral right whatsoever to say - before or afterwards - "I didn't mean that law".
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 3, 2009 3:09 AM
@DuWayne:
...or, putting it another way, you are preaching that man's law permitting abortion cannot licence breaches of God's law against murder. Same result - you are preaching that defence of "babies" is a higher moral good than obedience to man's laws.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 3, 2009 3:30 AM
Robin - and further to your question; does "god's law" outlaw abortion anyway?
There doesn't seem to be any specific verse(s) that say that this is explicitly wrong. There does seem to be verses that hint that such an action could be considered punishable by a fine, but not that it's a capital offense, unlike the clearly outlawed murder. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 3:45 AM
@ DingoJack/Robin
AFAIK the bible does what it always does with regards to abortion and comes down more or less on both sides.
"If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.'"
Ecclesiastes 6:3-5 "
And
"For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother's womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them." Psalm 139:13-16
That said I think the bible probably leans more pro-choice, considering that (1) the only reference to the legal status of fetuses seems to regard them as the property of the husband rather than as people (Exodus 21:22-23) & (2) the majority of the passages that are quoted as supporting pro life are either from the psalms (thus being songs supposedly written by David rather than actual knowledge from god) or else are referring to miraculous, one-time events such as the birth of prophets, jesus, etc.
Of course none of that really matters since the bible is so vague and contradictory that you can take any meaning you damn well please and come up with some textual support for it, but personally I've always found it amusing to be able to build a pro-choice biblical argument since doing so tends to surprise the hell out of the average pro-lifer.
Posted by: GBM | June 3, 2009 6:01 AM
DuWayne:
If people believe in a OOO GOD and yet they think that stopping sinners is their job, at whatever cost, then yes, they bear some responsibility. I don't know your mother, so I certainly don't know what's in her heart. If she's against abortion and thinks it's a sin, that's her business. If she's against abortion and thinks that it should be denied to those who legally seek it, then, yes, she and her like minded co-religionists bear some responsibility for the violence that is perpetrated against both providers and patients at reproductive services clinics. MY mother was a devout catholic with 11 children. She was adamantly opposed to the idea of abortion. One of her brothers was in Operation Rescue back in the 80's. She kept her mouth shut about it at family gatherings but she didn't mind telling her own children that she thought he was an idiot and a dupe.
FWIW, the AHS does, afaia, support any groups like PETA--they, in fact, work hard to make sure that they distance themselves from such idiots.
Why have a OOO GOD if you have to help him with his job?
Posted by: democommie | June 3, 2009 7:31 AM
Should have read:
"FWIW, the AHS does not, afaia, support any groups like PETA"
Posted by: democommie | June 3, 2009 7:33 AM
GBM -
You must be SATAN too! Don't worry though, along with myself, so are many others.
Anyone who can quote scripture that contradicts or offers a differing perspective from their point of view seems to be SATAN, at least in the eyes of fundies.
Their scripture only can say what they have been taught it says, no more or less. What a sterile way to view any work art or literature (no matter how good or bad it is)!
Fundies inability to tolerate change and development in any form almost seems to be pathological. Is it any wonder that others outside their group equate their behaviour with a mental illness?
The only reason I quoted Exodus above was to try a figure out how Iron Age Judeans viewed the issue (I'm sure there are plenty of learned books that investigate the topic written since then.) I wonder what the Koran and Islamic law says? What were the attitudes to abortion amongst classical Greeks and Romans? And so on.
Getting back to what I was actually going to say (brevity being the soul of wit) I never really understood Psalms. In this case David (or whoever) seems to think he was knitted in utero (whilst it was removed and buried) by a god who was, in turns, awe-struck and terrified. Then there is the bit about god inventorying the singular substance multiple times ("they were all written"). Guess it made sense in the original. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 7:57 AM
DuWayne -
This is not anywhere near the same as continually calling someone a "baby-killer".How do they say it? If they singled out one researcher and labeled him a "puppy-torturer" and "puppy-killer", if they continually protested outside his home and place of business displaying gruesome pictures of dead puppies with the implication that he was responsible. If this researcher was attacked and/or shot multiple times and they still kept doing it. Then yes, they should feel some responsibility when that person is killed. I believe in free speech. I believe you have the right to say whatever you want. But speech has consequences. People exercising their right to free speech contributed to this man's death. Why is that so hard to acknowledge?Posted by: Taz | June 3, 2009 9:32 AM
FUCK!!! I wrote this all and then my browser decided that it needed to shut the fuck down to install an update - I FUCKING HATE VIRUSES!!!
Robin -
The only ministers I have ever heard preach that God's law trumps man's law here on earth, are fringe psychopaths and when they've done so in the context of abortion, they are either barely veiling a call for violence or are calling for it outright. I was first aware of that concept when the pastor of a Methodist church I attended as a child was condemning it. Most mainstream ministers, including mainstream fundamentalists, preach that God commands his children to follow the laws of the land, except when those laws would require denouncing one's faith and disallow worshiping him.
demmocommie -
If people believe in a OOO GOD and yet they think that stopping sinners is their job, at whatever cost, then yes, they bear some responsibility.
(wtf is an ooo god?) And you know what? There isn't a single church outside of the lunatic fringe that preaches that. Not one. Mainstream fundamentalist churches accept that The World is not theirs. That doesn't mean they won't politically agitate to change laws they believe are repugnant, but they most certainly don't believe that it is their responsibility to stop sinners at any cost. Hell, they all accept that they're sinners who require their god's forgiveness on a daily basis.
They're tools are proselytizing and in some situations political action.
If she's against abortion and thinks that it should be denied to those who legally seek it, then, yes, she and her like minded co-religionists bear some responsibility for the violence that is perpetrated against both providers and patients at reproductive services clinics.
There is a huge fucking difference between advocating political action and advocating violence.
I was involved in a lot of political action that went way beyond anything my mom was involved in, when I was younger. I was involved in a "smoke out the capital" protest, wherein several of us lit up joints in front of the MI state capital building and got arrested for it (the first year, subsequently there were too many people). I was involved in blockading a major polluter in East Saint Louis and got arrested for that. I was involved in chaining together with several others, to block a groundbreaking - that one convinced the developer to alter the plans. The list goes on...
I fucking well dare you to fucking tell me that I was ever responsible at all for motherfucking environmental motherfucking terrorists! Seriously - don't even fucking go there. (email me if you want me to explain exactly why)
Posted by: DuWayne | June 3, 2009 9:44 AM
DuWayne -
"Three words (for the christian god anyway) Omnipresent, Omniscient, Omnipotent." OOO - geddit? :)
I love how you sign off:
"I fucking well dare you to fucking tell me that I was ever responsible at all for motherfucking environmental motherfucking terrorists! Seriously - don't even fucking go there. (email me if you want me to explain exactly why)"
Don't you dare tell me something, don't even think of going there -
but email if you want to go there! :) Priceless! - DJ
PS: How's that anger management class working out for ya? ;D
I assume you're stressed because of exams - relax you'll do fine, you'll walk it. anyway...
We'll all be praying for you (I kid, i kid).
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 10:50 AM
DJ -
I got booted out of the class, when I spit in the instructors face and told him to shove his "why can't we all just get along" claptrap up his fucking ass - sideways...
As for email - there is a good reason for me getting rather pissy about equating activism with terrorism in that context, but I am not comfortable talking about them publicly. I'm not generally a violent person, at least when it's only words being bandied about. But accuse me of being complicit in fucking terrorist bullshit to my face and I am not all that sure it wouldn't result in me hitting you - hard.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 3, 2009 11:05 AM
Terrorism? He's only being charged with first degree murder and 2 counts of aggravated assault. Everyone knows these days only brown people get charged with terrorism.
And DuWayne, if you were appealing to a higher power saying natural laws trump human laws, and your "activism" consisted of distributing people's names and addresses saying they must be stopped at all costs in the name of said natural laws, you're just as complicit as we've accused some pro-lifers of being. If not, not. No need to get your panties in a twist going overboard with the activism apologetics. Nobody said all activists are bad.
Posted by: Paul | June 3, 2009 11:15 AM
Paul -
You may not be, but several others have been painting with a far broader brush. democommie, Robin Levitt and several others are implying anyone who says that abortion is murder is complicit. The problem with that is anyone who is anti-choice believes abortion is murdering babies - but cognitive dissonance aside, it's only the fringe loons who would do anything but condemn these terrorist actions.
Taz -
Missed your comment.
I know several people who believe absolutely, that animal testing is torture and have protested quite vocally about it at Oregon Health and Science University. Hell, a couple of people who were my friends invited me to join them - my reaction to them is why they decided not to be my friends anymore. I think they're ridiculous and absolutely dead wrong. But they aren't doing anything illegitimate. They aren't posting names and addresses, they aren't committing terrorist acts or knowingly supporting terrorist acts, nor are they implying that such actions should be taken.
And neither are the majority of anti-choicers.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 3, 2009 11:40 AM
DuWayne - So -- the anger management isn't going that well I gather. :D
Seriously, sometimes you got to put up with fuckwittery for your own good, once they give you the bit of paper - then tell 'em what you think of their idiotic kissy-kissy crap. Get ahead before burning your bridges. In twenty years time when you've changed the world for the better, and you're giving the key-note alumnus speech, you can tell everyone what a tool this professor is, and he'll have to smile whilst taking it.
Success is the sweetest revenge (and it doesn't even have to be cold!)
If you don't feel comfortable talking about something, you don't feel comfortable, I get that completely. I've got all emotional and idiotic here before, it was humiliating and not good for anyone else either. I respect that reticence totally.
As for ideas that one passionately believes in equating automatically to terrorism, you're right; THAT'S BULLSHIT! If that isn't 'thoughtcrime' in action, nothing is. Shades of grey people, shades of grey. Let's not stoop to the level of IDiots and their ilk.
Anyway, hope all is well with you and yours, and say hello to your bro for me - DINGO (Peace out).
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 11:43 AM
IMO, you occasionally use the same type of logic when discussing Republicans and/or Christians, that it's fair to lambaste everyone in the group based on a viewpoint shared by only some of them, justified by the, somewhat valid, point that they are the loudest and getting the most attention.
It is indeed fair, and sometimes politically necessary, to hold the whole group accountable for ALLOWING the fanatics to control their public discourse and to shout down the rational members with their implacable irrationality. You can't expect any group to weed out its embarrassing fanatics unless, and until, we make them am embarrassment.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 3, 2009 11:56 AM
I was being sarcastic DJ - never taken an anger management class. Nor have I actually done that to an instructor, though it is occasionally tempting...
I should note that it is not something I am entirely uncomfortable talking about - I just don't talk about it publicly.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 3, 2009 12:56 PM
But at some point, the error is in our allocation of individuals to groups, and if we take this idea to the extreme it is essentially bigotry. How the hell is someone supposed to weed out people from a group that is self-identified? And why is that the responsibility of other members of the purported same self-identified 'group'? Why is it not the responsibility of everyone to properly identify the opinions held by that specific individual? If someone identifies as 'pro-life', you're justified in treating them as if they think abortion doctors should be killed because a minority of people who also identify as 'pro-life' think that? Bull and shit. Surely we can play the same game with the 'groups' that you are a part of, and hold you responsible for the loonies also in that group. There is no membership requirement to be 'pro-life', or technically even 'Republican'; it's not a club they can be kicked out of. As far as the 'control of their public discourse', we can't ignore the culpability of the media in seeking out the fanatics and giving them airtime over the more boring mainstream rational people.
Let's use this case as an example; I've already read of various anti-abortion groups condemning the assassination of this doctor. What more do you think they or pro-lifers are responsible for doing? You can't stop people from having a wide spectrum of ideas within the huge group of 'pro-life'. You need a coordinated effort to get the media to change their ways and treat them like the lunatics they are. How culpable are you in allowing the fanatics to control 'their' public discourse, since this control is something that the listener is also allowing to happen through their own laziness or ignorance of other pro-lifers viewpoints? At some point the fanatics are not 'shouting down' the rational ones and it's your/our responsibility to find and listen to the rational members who are saying something to the contrary. If I meet a Christian, it is not valid for me to assume they are anti-science and think the earth is 6000 years old, and it is not their responsibility to give me a whole list of caveats that differentiate them from other Christians; it is *my* responsibility to not be so ignorant of the large set of possible beliefs that come under that 'group' before I level criticisms at the entire non-homogenous group.
Posted by: Spartan | June 3, 2009 1:00 PM
DuWayne -
I did my best Polonius impersonation merely for your wish fulfillment fantasy? DAMN! ;)
Posted by: DingoJack | June 3, 2009 1:09 PM
DJ: Very like a whale!
First Things, has an excellent editorial up about why the shooter's actions are wrong even if one agrees with the argument "abortion is murder and therfore abortionists must be stopped."
http://www.firstthings.com/on_the_square_entry.php?year=2009&month=06&title_link=defending-life-requires-law
From the editorial by R. R. Reno:
I'm not endorsing the whole argument, merely pointing out that the idiots who have posted that the killing was justified are full of it even if their assertions were factually correct.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 3, 2009 3:10 PM
Killing him did not violate the principle of innocence. Moreover, he gave no evidence of stopping. As a result, perhaps something like the principle of necessity can be satisfied.
Once again, a pro-lifer pretends to disapprove of the murderer's actions, while overtly stating a rationale to excuse the murder.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 3, 2009 3:47 PM
How the hell is someone supposed to weed out people from a group that is self-identified?
By ostracizing those who bring public condemnation and embarrassment to their cause. Groups do this all the time.
How culpable are you in allowing the fanatics to control 'their' public discourse, since this control is something that the listener is also allowing to happen through their own laziness or ignorance of other pro-lifers viewpoints?
Since when was it MY job to dig through and decide which of their statements to take as representative of their mindset, and which to ignore? Are you trying to tell me it's not someone else's fault for saying something ignorant, it's MY fault for reacting to it?
Surely we can play the same game with the 'groups' that you are a part of, and hold you responsible for the loonies also in that group.
I don't have a problem with that. But then again, I choose not to hang with people who explicitly condone illegal violence, or who adopt an attitude of disregard for the laws of a democratic state. Sometimes an embarrassing idiot comes our way, but they drift away because we don't validate their idiocy or extremism. And this is the point you seem to be missing in your desperate attempt to avoid the hard work of assigning or accepting responsibility: we're holding "pro-lifers" generally responsible for encouraging this murder, not merely because they're against abortion, but because they've allowed themselves to be persuaded to accept a doctrine of disregard for secular laws they don't agree with; and because they've allowed themselves to be persuaded by uncontrollable emotion, at the expense of respect for others. Actions are important, but so are observable character and mindset. Yes, there are "pro-lifers" who don't buy into that minnset; but it's fair to ask them why they let the loonies dominate the debate, and what, if anything, they did to stop it. The more we embarrass them over this, the more likely they'll be to take stronger action to ostracize the loonies.
You can talk all you want about how terroists are a "tiny minority" in the anti-choice movement. but if that's the case, why have they been so effective at driving clinics out of existence all over the US, not just in this or that redneck backwater? The answewr is, enough good people doing nothing for evil to win. That's how terrorists and gangsters always succeed.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 3, 2009 4:13 PM
Bee: It works because the threat to clinics and physicians is universal and not local only. My senior paper as an Econ major was an examination of the economic effects of the rash of abortion clinic bombings in the mid-1980s (off the top of my head, the peak was 23 in 1984). I no longer have the paper, but again as I recall the number of clinics dropped by over 2/3, from over 300 nationally to fewer than 100.
What put them out of business was not the arsons, but the fact that the businesses became uninsurable. Most Planned Parenthood offices stayed open because they essentially created their own mutual insurance pool. Most others closed.
It isn't "good people sitting by doing nothing," although that can be an issue. What was required was action by the Justice Department which had ignored the issue because of idealogical interests. Once the Feds stepped up in late 1985 and thereafter, the problem was much reduced. Operation Rescue was created in large part because of frustration in the pro-life camp that the number of clinics was rising again in the late 80's. That in turn led to individual nuts shooting physicians in the 90's.
Currently, I doubt that there is any coordination betwen potential shooters, which makes the FBI's job almost impossible. And I don't think any of the potential nuts are interested in my opinion: They will no doubt tell you I'm not even a Christian. I feel the same about them.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 3, 2009 5:11 PM
But you seem to be the one who is condemning 'their cause', despite the obvious fact that the cause of the 'pro-life group' is not to execute abortion doctors. Regardless, their main medium is protesting, so there isn't much ostracizing that can be accomplished. If some idiot protestor holds up a sign saying 'Abortionists should be killed', then it's not the responsibility of the other pro-lifers who don't agree with that to write on their 'Abortion is Murder' signs, "but I don't think abortionists should be killed". Isn't it the responsibility of the observer to realize that that person speaks only for himself? And let me ask again; in this case, what more specifically do you want pro-lifers to do than they have?
No, it's your job to not paint everyone who is in that large of a group with a brush the size of a push-broom as being responsible in any way for what some idiot someone says, or in this case does. If you are going to criticize most people in a group, it is *entirely* yours and mine and everyone's job to dig through and decide what positions are representative of a mindset of a group and which are held only by certain individuals in that group, especially in this obvious example where there are conflicting statements by individuals in the group on whether abortionists should be murdered.
And how many of the tens of millions of pro-lifers do you think hang with people who do this, or is that not your job to find out either.
Ha, uh yea, because it takes so much work to assign blame based on a fucking label. This crap that you're projecting about, "persuaded to accept a doctrine of disregard for secular laws" and "because they've allowed themselves to be persuaded by uncontrollable emotion" simply does not apply to the majority of 'pro-lifers', unless you're holding out on some convincing evidence to the contrary. Are the large number, if not majority, of pro-lifers who believe secular laws should be obeyed and explicitly have said that abortionists shouldn't be killed via vigilante also culpable then? If not, don't you think you should be tad more specific when making reference to a generic 'pro-lifers' when the majority of those individuals in that group are not to blame?
Maybe it's because it's not their responsibility, or they don't really give a shit enough about abortion to protest, or they realize that this debate has been going on for decades without much new to say and think that most people know the arguments, or more importantly don't feel the need to do whatever mysterious specific thing you want them to do to these loonies specifically because they reasonably think that most people can see that they are in fact loonies.
Posted by: Spartan | June 3, 2009 6:40 PM
DuWayne wrote:
If the political action is advocating a reduction of rights for another group, I'd argue that distinction becomes less important.
I worded that clumsily, but I think you can work around it without me throwing out more meaningless and distracting metaphors.
Yes, it might still exist, but it becomes less important. Less important, I think, than you are making it out to be given the highly-charged atmosphere around the abortion debate.
The only point I would concede is that a lot of the pro-life movement apparently advocate their position in an incredibly insensitive and thoughtless way. Maybe you remember these fools? These idiots haven't even reasoned out the most foreseeable consequences of their activities, much less the unintended ones.
Yes, there are people who aren't out protesting and fomenting abuse of doctors. Those people are instead showing up at the polls or sending money to groups like Operation Rescue (now Operation Save America). Better than murder, yes. But not much.
Posted by: Leni | June 3, 2009 7:54 PM
The attitude in Roman times was that newborn infants were presented to their father, who decided whether they should be allowed to live or be placed on a hillside to die of exposure. That was the alternative in the days before contraception and abortion.
Posted by: Monado | June 3, 2009 9:48 PM
Posted by: llewelly | June 3, 2009 10:16 PM
DuWayne:
This:
"I fucking well dare you to fucking tell me that I was ever responsible at all for motherfucking environmental motherfucking terrorists! Seriously - don't even fucking go there. (email me if you want me to explain exactly why)"
is supposed to do what? Make me shit myself in fear that you don't like what I have to say?
You are mixing so many different sorts of "protest" that I can't keep track.
Let me see if I can make this simple for you.
You say abortion is a mortal sin? fine.
You say abrotionists will all go to hell. again, fine.
You say that you won't personally take any action to ensure that they get there sooner, rather than later. Yeah, okay, got it.
You go to a church that entertains the ideas and passes out pamphlets, broadsides, jeremiads, whatever by asshats that think killing said abortionists is okay. Now you get some guilt.
You insist that it's only fringe fundies who nobody really listens to that say this shit. Baloney.
You say that fundies won't do anything violent because they're not of this world. Again, baloney.
You don't agree with me? Do you think I care? I said before that I wasn't trying to convince you. If your tirade was intended to be a warning or a threat--FAIL.
Posted by: democommie | June 3, 2009 10:20 PM
Leni -
I'm sorry but I really don't agree and I am never going to. I believe that the anti-choice movement is reprehensible enough, without pretending that most of them are anywhere near the lunatic fringe that are openly advocating murder. I also think that the morons who advocate against animal research are reprehensible enough, without pretending that most of them are close to that movements lunatic fringe.
I guess I just happen to have a really nasty fucking attitude about terrorism and refuse to accuse people who have absolutely nothing to do with fucking terrorism of encouraging it. I consider terrorism to be marginally less reprehensible than pedophilia. I am not going to bandy that bullshit about without a whole lot more connection than person A says abortion is murder, therefore they're responsible for person C murdering a doctor who performs abortions.
I have been accused of exactly what these folks are accusing anti-choice advocates of and it isn't fucking ok. My engaging in civil disobedience is a far cry from motherfuckers blowing shit up. I wasn't the least bit insincere when I categorically denounced terrorist actions and I put my money where my mouth was.
Nor was it unreasonable for me to continue to engage in acts of civil disobedience for the causes I believe in - on one occasion it actually had a positive effect. Developer negotiated with the folks who knew how to hammer out the best compromise and that was that.
Fucking anti-choice bullshit sucks. I find it absolutely odious enough as it stands - but it's a far cry from fucking terrorism.
People who come around and provide un-apologies are not, btw, the people I am talking about - fuck them and their motherfucking bullshit. They are absolutely encouraging this shit. I'm talking about the folks who are absolutely and without caveat condemning this shit.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 3, 2009 10:39 PM
Demmocommie,
You seem to have agitate the shit out of people. I had a similar issue with you. Your words are big for a blog site. I do question if you are man to back them up. Stop talking shit man. Duwayne is one of the most balanced people on this blog that calls it like he sees it even if it is unpopular and goes against the grain. Why fuck with him?
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 3, 2009 10:50 PM
It wasn't meant as a fucking threat, it was meant as an illustration.
Do you think I was encouraging fucking terrorism when I was protesting the destruction of wetlands? Was I encouraging it when I was passing out pamphlets at fucking concerts? Was I encouraging it when I chained myself to several other people and ultimately to trees?
Was I?
And I told you to email me if you actually want to know why this fucking bullshit pisses me off so much, because I fucking trust you, not because I actually want to threaten you. Jesus.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 3, 2009 11:11 PM
I think I get it. By using, or failing to condemn, inflammatory rhetoric within one's own group that person is promoting the radical actions of the fringe. They are therefore partially responsible for the radical actions. If so, I'd just like to take this opportunity, as a pro-choice advocate, to say I condemn people who assert that the pro-life movement is responsible for terrorism. I wouldn't want to be accused of being complicit if someone murders a pro-lifer in the name of combating terrorism.
Posted by: Abby Normal | June 3, 2009 11:18 PM
Kehrsam @323, may I quote you on my blog? Your explanation is admirably clear.
Posted by: Monado | June 3, 2009 11:40 PM
I guess I set the bar lower, then. I think the lunatic fringe are the people who wish to legally and morally equate me with a fetus. To me, this whole argument amounts to something like "But segregationists don't necessarily lynch people!"
Oh. Well. I guess they are absolved then. My mistake.
Posted by: Leni | June 4, 2009 1:26 AM
Abby wrote:
I wouldn't either. I'd also reconsider my actions if I had a good reason to suspect that something worse might happen as a result of them.
Except that it is entirely foreseeable that this would happen, given the reality of violence against clinics and the continued harassment and intimidation of medical providers and patients. If they want to wash their hands of that dirtiness then they should wash their hands of it. Not pretend they did while advocating against women's rights.
This is what they asked for. Illegality at best, death penalties at worst. If any of them thought for a second these things wouldn't happen then the best thing we can say of them is that they are fools.
Posted by: Leni | June 4, 2009 2:03 AM
@DuWayne #310 and @Dwain #314:
#314 - Don't misrepresent my position.
#310
and
don't seem to match completely.
Let's get one thing straight; abortion is not murder - man's law says so (in the USA). The people who bray loudly that abortion is (as opposed to should be) murder are arguably therefore themselves setting god's law above man's law.
I'd argue that those who say on the one hand that abortion is murder (and comparing abortion to the Holocaust) and on the other hand man's law is above god's law are holding two contradictory positions at the same time; they're not (as) culpable for the actions of those licensed by the "God's law is above Man's law" crowd, but they certainly need to take a long hard look at their beliefs and their rhetoric.
I don't really care if you want to twist that into a condemnation of your environmentalist activism. What's true isn't measured by whether it offends you.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 4, 2009 7:57 AM
Robin -
Don't misrepresent my position.
Then fucking clarify, because I based my statement on your comments.
Let's get one thing straight; abortion is not murder - man's law says so (in the USA).
Law also says that the state can seize someone's belongings without due process, doesn't make it any less criminal when they do. Murder, theft and a lot of other words mean more than statute law to most anyone who isn't a pedantic asshole.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 4, 2009 8:58 AM
But you seem to be the one who is condemning 'their cause', despite the obvious fact that the cause of the 'pro-life group' is not to execute abortion doctors.
Their cause includes demonizing women for the choices they have to make, pretending they're all just casually flushing fetuses down the drain without a second thought, refusing to acknowledge the complexity of medical and personal-life issues, intimidating women and abortion-providers all over the country, repeatedly attacking the legitimacy of the law itself, elevating fetuses to the status of adults while denigrating women (and their doctors) to that of depraved sociopaths indifferent to all but their own immediate convenience, repeatedly comparing abortion to slavery and the Holocaust, and publishing the locations of abortion-providers so others can make "proper use" of that information, wink wink nudge nudge.
The mere anti-abortion opinion does not exist in a vacuum, but has accreted to itself a mindset of paranoia, simplemindedness, intolerance of complex or contradictory ideas, refusal to accept new information, and blatant disregard for the rule of law and the rights of others. The minute you mention laws or rights, they automatically reply "You're talking laws and rights, we're talking BABIES' LIVES!!!" The direct and obvious implication is that their concern for "lives" gives them a special right to disregard everything else. Furthermore, this mindset has intersected and merged with similar mindsets attached to other radical-right movements, such as the antitax and "sovereign citizen" movements, which have intersected with various racist movements, creating an atmosphere where lawlessness and violence tend to be quietly accepted (at least) by a relatively broad spectrum of people, who then tend to egg each other on, as a logical extension of their values and agendas. And it is this mindset that is the cause of the danger we see all around us, and it is this mindset that needs to be esxposed and put to shame.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 4, 2009 9:29 AM
I wouldn't want to be accused of being complicit if someone murders a pro-lifer in the name of combating terrorism.
That probably wouldn't happen, because the culture of hatred, intolerance and lawlessness is nowhere near as prevalent among pro-choicers as it is among pro-lifers. Such a murder as you describe would not be part of a pattern of nationwide intimidation of anti-choice activists, because no such intimidation or terrorism is taking place.
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 4, 2009 9:34 AM
King of Ireland:
What is it with you? You want to kick my ass? This is the second time when you've accused me of not having as big balls as you have, as if that were somehow a measure of a.) rectitude or b.) intellect. Do you actually believe that I'm going to drop what I'm doing to come to wherever you are and have a fistfight or something to prove that I'm tough enough to say what I feel like saying? You profess to be a christian at times, and this is your way of settling disputes? Are you the baddest badass in the marketplace of ideas who can beat up people you disagree with or don't like? If you mean to scare me, it's not working. If you mean to demonstrate that you're an idiot who will call out anyone who disagrees with you, even after you've demonstrated you inferior intellectual argments, then it's working quite well.
DuWayne:
Fuck all the fucking fuckers who fucking say fucking things that I don't fucking agree with even when I fucking tell them that they're fucking fuckers for doing that kind of fucking shit? Is that a pretty fair statement of your feelings in this matter?
I like the word, "fuck", too, but as Groucho Marx is accused of saying (he apparently did not). "I like my cigar, but I take it out of my mouth once in a while."
I know you get excited about your viewpoint, as I do about mine, but screaming at me is not going to make your point any stronger. However, if it works for you, go for it.
Posted by: democommie | June 4, 2009 1:19 PM
Democommie,
I have not been in a fight in 13 years. I hope to never get in one again. I am a Christian. I am calling you as a shit talker. You are. I call a spade a spade. So no I am not threatening you. I am calling you shit talker. Don't like it fuck off!
Your intellect is hard to see when you are so bitter and bombastic.
Yes I do not think God has any problem with me telling you to fuck off.
Posted by: King of Ireland | June 4, 2009 11:22 PM
Demo, Duwayne & KoI,
let's you and him fight! [Dingo grabs popcorn and looks for a front-row seat] :D
Oops, does that make me culpable if violence actually ensues? Or is it painting with too broad a brush to even consider it? Would a reasonable person consider violence a possible outcome? And how possible? Beyond reasonable doubt or balance of probability? .... ooohhh....my head hurts.
Perhaps we should just turn it down to a low simmer, and discuss it some more, like civilised persons! - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 4, 2009 11:47 PM
Hell no, DJ, I've got a fiver on DuWayne if you're game. Even if KoI gets the upper hand, DuWayne just asks for forgiveness and KoI is compelled by the Bible to forgive him!
It's easy to fight Christians.
Posted by: kehrsam | June 4, 2009 11:57 PM
Now Kurt, do I really strike you as the type to ask for forgiveness? I'm really more of a "kick 'em in the balls and kick 'em when they're down" kind of a guy...But then the last two violent encounters were not exactly favorable odds...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 5, 2009 12:07 AM
democommie -
I am not one for being particular calm about accusations of culpability in terrorist actions, unless there is actual culpability. I am quite serious, I would appreciate the opportunity to explain why, but I really can't comfortably do so publicly.
And there is never too much fucking!!!
Posted by: DuWayne | June 5, 2009 12:10 AM
Oi, and Leni -
I am not going to go the rounds with you again on this topic. Seriously, I really like and respect you and it was just ugly the last time we got into this...
Posted by: DuWayne | June 5, 2009 12:12 AM
DuWante (#345) - As to the ultimate line, amen to that* :) - DJ
*Unless it's in the next room of the crummy motel you stopped at 'cause you nearly killed yourself by running off the road due to exhaustion, then the opposite is true.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 5, 2009 12:25 AM
DuWayne:
Fine, we're good.
King of Ireland:
Fuck off.
Posted by: democommie | June 5, 2009 6:38 AM
@DuWayne #337:
Nope. You almost got it in your #310 - perhaps you should reread my first comment and the 4 conditions mentioned there? I thought they were tolerably clear.
Nuhuh. It might be "criminal", but unless and until the law is held to be unconstitutional, acting under that law is not criminal. If you consider that distinction pedantic, tough. It's there, and crucial.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 5, 2009 7:39 AM
Whatever happened to the "don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theater" rhetoric? Doesn't that apply here......?
Posted by: jws | June 5, 2009 9:09 AM
Robin -
Yes you are being a pedantic fuck. If the law changed and said that it was ok for the police to execute suspected criminals out of hand, would that not still be murder?
Only a complete fucking moron would assume that when I say the seizure laws are criminal and when the police utilize them they are stealing, to mean that I think the police are doing something illegal. The same applies to anti-choice advocates who think abortion is murder.
But then I've long suspected that your pedantry pushes into the realms of abysmal fucking stupidity.
Posted by: DuWayne | June 5, 2009 10:35 AM
a person that made a good living off of killing helpless humans has become an instant martyr, after he too was aborted...meanwhile, his thousands of victims are long forgotten.
revenge is sweet....nice shot
Posted by: marcus | June 5, 2009 8:09 PM
Marcus:
Fuck you, you sanctimonious piece of shit.
Posted by: democommie | June 5, 2009 9:28 PM
Ah, marcus, endorsing domestic terrorism! Great, Homeland Security will love to hear about it. Have fun in Gitmo you traitorous sack of pig excrement.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | June 5, 2009 9:37 PM
a "doctor" performs a late term abortion (murder) to supposedly save the life of a pregnant women.
and that's perfectly ok with some people
so why do those same people have a problem with someone performing a VERY late term abortion to save even more innocent lives???
you dumbass fucks
Posted by: marcus | June 5, 2009 10:02 PM
I pray that those who are anti-abortion will adopt at least one abandoned, abused, neglected child. There are many in the world who need a good home. Dear God, I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: Joann | June 5, 2009 10:45 PM
QUOTE; "Ah, marcus, endorsing domestic terrorism! Great, Homeland Security will love to hear about it. Have fun in Gitmo you traitorous sack of pig excrement."
haha...you spineless little faggot. are you going to sic the PC police on me?? ooooh nooooo
your mother didn't make the right choice
Posted by: marcus | June 5, 2009 11:28 PM
Yo, marcus, did you ever actually do any research into exactly what the doctor did, or under what circumstances he did it? Of course not -- you're "pro-life," not "pro-reality."
Posted by: Raging Bee | June 6, 2009 12:39 AM
"yo", raging bee, i was informed by CNN. why should i have to do research on an aborted baby killer?? CNN did it all for me.
Posted by: marcus | June 6, 2009 6:10 AM
@Duwayne # 351:
In the other thread on this issue, someone quoted the Thomas More speech from "A man for all seasons". It's one of my favourite quotes.
You are not praying in aid a deity whom you say that all believers must obey. (Almost) all anti-choice advocates do. Your analogy is false.
Posted by: Robin Levett | June 6, 2009 6:47 AM
Marcus:
You are indeed a poster child for the face of "KKKristian Love", you twisted asshole.
Posted by: democommie | June 6, 2009 7:29 AM
Marcus - Do you actually have a point, or are you simply moronic? - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | June 6, 2009 7:54 AM
i'm very sure that you flaming fruitcake libs lose a gasket and scream "blody murder" when someone clubs a baby seal to death....yet you see nothing wrong with humans being shredded to death and flushed away.
now THAT twisted attitude of yours is moronic.
abortion does have a good point... the vast majority of aborted humans would have been raised to be Democrat voters...BWAAAAAHAHAHAA. you dumb shits are killing off your replacements.
and what's this KKK bs?? abortion has killed way more blacks than the long washed up KKK ever has. and no, i do not practice ANY religion. democummie, YOU are quite a dumbass.
and once again i must say, NICE SHOT!!!!
Posted by: marcus | June 6, 2009 1:06 PM
Marcus -
So I can take the answer to my question (#362) as: 'I'm being the latter'*?
When you actually have some kind of arguement, backed up with actual evidence, come back and tell us ALL about it. Until then, 'no further correspondence will be entered into.' Bye - DJ
*Look up 'moron' in a dictionary. Note the word it came from.
Posted by: DingoJack | June 6, 2009 1:23 PM
That's quite alright. I wasn't angling for a fight.
Ohh, BloodRayne is on Sci-Fi, gotta go!
Posted by: Leni | June 6, 2009 1:33 PM
Marcus:
You are the bad boy, aren't you. With each and every one of your posts you reinforce the notion that the GOP and its adherents really are braindead fucks who willingly include murder in the list of tools that they find to be fair to use against those they disagree with. Good luck with that GOD that you believe in.
Posted by: democommie | June 6, 2009 4:52 PM