Pharyngula

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 5, 2009 2:18 PM

Um. How is OR going to spin this connection now?

Posted by: Arnold T Pants | June 5, 2009 2:39 PM

It's pretty near impossible to convince a person that their actions are harmful, wrong, unethical, etc. when they believe that a deity is directly telling them to carry on.

Posted by: MoonBat52 | June 5, 2009 2:49 PM

Are the potential (and I use the word in an overly cautious tone) terrorists of Operation Rescue going to be wire tapped and put under the same surveillance as the Quaker peace groups?

Posted by: Mike in Ontario, NY | June 5, 2009 2:57 PM

I wonder what would happen if we started a large, highly organized international group to follow, monitor, and badger the harassers? Let's start giving out THEIR home addresses, following them around, putting their names and likenesses on websites, vandalizing their places of business, glueing their car locks shut, and so forth.

I'd be willing to bet that the law enforcement would take a dim view of that, and would arrest the watchdogs while STILL allowing flagrant violations of the FACE act by Operation Rescue members.

Personally I've been tempted to contact my local Planned Parenthood office to see about becoming an escort, but I'm afraid of what I might do in the face of the anti-choice harassers.

Posted by: stogoe | June 5, 2009 3:13 PM

It is exceedingly difficult to force a system built on the oppression of Others and protectionism of white male privilege to pass laws that threaten to dismantle white male privilege, or at least pass laws that prevent oppression of the Other. And it is even harder to get that system to enforce the laws that threaten to dismantle their privilege or that prevent the systematic torture and murder of the Other.

How many more terrorist acts does Operation Rescue have to carry out before our government will step in and stop the murder/stalking/assault/harrassment of doctors, clinic employees and escorts? Obviously the answer is 'Too many', but I don't think the system cares yet, or can realistically be made to care in time to prevent more attacks.

Posted by: Mena | June 5, 2009 3:18 PM

If pro-choice people were really pro-death (their term, not ours), wouldn't someone have shot back by now? I'm going with anti-choice for Operation Rescue. That and "domestic terrorist", as in "I'm a domestic terrorist and I vote (Republican)!"

Posted by: Andrew | June 5, 2009 3:35 PM

While I am disgusted by the murder of Tiller, the FACE act is completely unconstitutional. The federal government cannot get involved in matters like this. You can see with the feds a history of getting involved in way too many things and being too inept, lazy, or not vigilant enough to enforce their overreaching policies.

Posted by: Blue Fielder | June 5, 2009 3:46 PM

Andrew, you'll shut up now.

The FBI is complicit in this terrorist act. Those responsible must be found and dismissed from their duties. If our agencies can't protect us, then they must be fixed.

Posted by: Nadia Williams | June 5, 2009 3:54 PM

The government can make as many laws as it likes, if the local enforcer is against you, s/he will find an excuse to make those laws meaningless in your situation. Until the police face severe consequences for supporting these terrorists by their passivity, they will continue to effectively make abortion illegal because they don't stop those using illegal tactics to force others to comply with their religious and political convictions.

Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 5, 2009 3:58 PM

@ raven

If these were Moslem groups they'd all be in Guantanomo being it's-not-torture waterboarded.

No they would not. Please do not make clearly inaccurate statements as they unduly muddy the discussion. All detainees at Guantanamo where captured or detained in overseas locations then transferred to Guantanamo. That's why Bush had the detention center built at Guantanamo. It is outside any country where the local government could place real political or legal pressure on the U.S. Government. The prisoners are never in a U.S. civilian legal jurisdiction so not subject to U.S. laws (at least that was Bush's idea and excuse) and never in the jurisdiction of a country that we have formal relations with.

The crap Bush set-up in Guantanamo is clearly wrong (IMHO) bit it is still improper to make false assertions about it to support your position. It reduces your credibility when you are trying making a point that I basically agree with.

Posted by: Zar | June 5, 2009 4:00 PM

Abortions don't kill people. Pro-lifers do.

We really should start harassing the protesters; see how they like it. Or at least showing up en masse at protests. A rather strange group called the Church of Euthanasia used to do that in the Boston area, creating complete pandemonium. Details of one of their demonstrations can be found here (scroll down a bit). They sang "Every Sperm is Sacred", bore signs with slogans like FETUSES ARE FOR SCRAPING and EAT A QUEER FETUS FOR JESUS, dressed as pedophile priests, and a figure they dubbed "Brigitte":

Pastor Kim and I were talking about how to symbolize the situation and we came up with the idea of a blow-up doll on a cross. So I went down to the zone [where the porn shops are] and found a lovely blond doll named Brigitte. I put her on a giant wooden cross, and gave her a blue-and-white striped hospital robe, ankle socks, rosary beads, a crown of thorns made of barbed wire--plus she had a carnivorous baby coming out of her vagina, with blood dripping down its chin. A real traffic stopper.

I like the idea of beating the forced-birthers at their own game, being crazier and more shameless than them. It seems to work pretty well.

Posted by: Phoenix Woman | June 5, 2009 4:11 PM

This came out today:

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO FEDERAL CRIMES IN CONNECTION

WITH THE MURDER OF DR. GEORGE TILLER

WASHINGTON – The Justice Department today announced that the Civil Rights Division and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Kansas have launched a federal investigation into federal crimes in connection with the murder of Dr. George Tiller. The federal probe will consist of a thorough review of the evidence and an assessment of any potential violations of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE Act) or other federal statutes. The federal investigation will be conducted in close coordination with the Office of the Sedgwick County, Kan., District Attorney, and the state’s ongoing murder prosecution will have the full support of federal investigators.

The FACE Act was enacted by Congress in 1994 to establish federal criminal penalties and civil remedies for violent, obstructionist or damaging conduct affecting reproductive health care providers and recipients.

“The Department of Justice will work tirelessly to determine the full involvement of any and all actors in this horrible crime, and to ensure that anyone who played a role in the offense is prosecuted to the full extent of federal law,” said Loretta King, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. “We will conduct a thorough investigation that will complement and build upon the fine work of the Sedgwick County District Attorney and other state and local law enforcement agencies.”

Following the May 31, 2009, murder, the Attorney General directed the U.S. Marshals Service to offer protection to appropriate people and facilities around the country. The U.S. Marshals Service has moved expeditiously to implement the Attorney General’s directive with the assistance of the reproductive health care service providers and organizations throughout the country.

In an effort to coordinate the federal government’s efforts in response to the shooting of Dr. Tiller, the Civil Rights Division recently convened a meeting of the National Task Force on Violence Against Reproductive Health Care Providers, an interagency law enforcement working group that includes attorneys from the Civil Rights Division and the Criminal Division, and law enforcement officials from the FBI, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Postal Inspection Service. This task force was established more than a decade ago to commit resources to the reduction of threats and violence against health care providers on a national level.

Posted by: DGKnipfer | June 5, 2009 4:14 PM

@ felix

A question: had these incidents with Roeder where he was caught damaging the clinic occurred in Texas, would they have been in their right to shoot him?

No they would not. Sound very much like TV crime drama. Police do not yell “Stop or I’ll shoot” at unarmed criminals fleeing the scene then start shooting at the criminals. They can’t even shoot you simply for resisting arrest. Different states may have different rules but none give Police Officers the right to shoot you unless they have probable cause to believe that a life is in danger. Now, if Roeder had pulled out a gun (or even a knife) during any of the incidents in Texas the Police would then have cause to shoot as a matter of self defense and in defense of the public if the suspect refuses to drop the weapon.

Posted by: Zar | June 5, 2009 4:27 PM

@Felix

I hear that repeat offenders get horrendously increased sentences in the US, like 20 years in prison for the third time caught shoplifting or similar.

Are you referring to the Three Strikes Law? That law isn't in place in every state, thank goodness. It's in place in California and the prison population is obscenely huge because of it. I think it was originally based on the fact that certain types of repeat offenders just don't stop committing crimes. Like, a guy with a history of committing sexual assault isn't terribly likely to stop after a prison term.

The three-strikes laws were probably meant to keep violent people out of society, but the idea was implemented in an incredibly stupid way that doesn't distinguish between minor crimes and really serious ones.

There's also the horribly unreasonable Zero Tolerance policy, which throws all individual discretion out the window in favor of harsh mandatory minimum punishments. In certain states, public schools are required to enforce a form of Zero Tolerance on the student population or else lose funding. That's where things get really ridiculous. Schools with these policies suspend or even expel students for possessing any drug, and I mean any drug. I can understand carrying out a severe penalty for illegal drugs, but this policy also applies to perfectly legal drugs like aspirin. I'm not kidding. High school kids have been severely punished for carrying Advil or "weapons" like fingernail clippers.

Posted by: raven | June 5, 2009 4:31 PM

JUSTICE DEPARTMENT LAUNCHES INVESTIGATION INTO FEDERAL CRIMES IN CONNECTION

WITH THE MURDER OF DR. GEORGE TILLER

Whir chop chop whir. That sound you hear is paper shredders at Operation Rescue, Randall Terry's house, Kansans for Life and a lot of other places.

Smash, clunk, clank. Those are hard drives being crushed with sledge hammers and tossed into dumpsters.

Those cars you hear starting up are heading off to the safe houses.

Somebody turned the lights on and the cockroaches are scattering.

Posted by: The Dancing Kid | June 5, 2009 4:35 PM

Just so you know, instead of signing the FACE act in a public ceremony in the Rose Garden and giving this issue the exposure it needs, Bill Clinton signed the bill behind closed doors.

Bill Clinton: coward.

Posted by: HCl | June 5, 2009 4:43 PM

Why are those pro-lifers so often women you wouldn't want to fuck anyway? Correlations are always so strange.

Posted by: ctenotrish | June 5, 2009 5:04 PM

#33 HCl - because REALLY, what good would a woman be if you couldn't or didn't want to fuck her? Bite me.

Posted by: not a gator | June 5, 2009 5:34 PM

Blue Fielder: Not really; women are what they are, not what we want them to be. And some unpleasant, unhappy women make it their business in life to try to bully and control vulnerable young women (or other women's children).

Witness old biddies in the Middle East strongly supporting full-body covering for young women (so hubby won't stray); pinched, nasty nuns torturing children in the schools they run or bullying lay workers in the parish they run (because they resent not having had their own children); or "pro-life" (not in this case!) advocates who are obsessed with punishing other women for being "whores".

Or witness Linda Tripp. She manipulated and betrayed the naive young Lewinsky to satisfy an urge to aggression which was frustrated ten years earlier when she was unsuccessful in humiliating or exposing Jennifer Fitzgerald, George HW Bush's lover, whom she resented for the favoritism shown her.

Posted by: not a gator | June 5, 2009 5:44 PM

FannyBabbs: Interesting comment. I am not a news junkie, myself (although I have enjoyed the occasional Olbermann rant on YouTube and I sometimes tune into him on ESPN radio), but it interests me that you make the Morrow comment with respect to Maddow.

The Advocate ran a puff piece on Maddow late last year and the next week several gay men wrote in in a total huff because the author had compared her favorably to a number of MALE journalistic icons. Heaven forbid!

Maddow isn't cute or an abusive ranter (it's infotainment! really!), so maybe she is a case of a good person actually getting a break for once. In the piece above she seems to give a **** about accurate reporting (though she is quite clearly pushing an agenda). A pleasant surprise, kind of like Katie Couric's tenacity when she tried to get an answer out of Sarah Palin on which newspapers/newsmagazines she reads (odd that Palin didn't have a GOP-friendly AK fishwrap to pimp, really).

Posted by: SC, OM | June 5, 2009 6:39 PM

Blue Fielder: Not really; women are what they are, not what we want them to be...

WTF?

Women and men have personal, psychological, cultural, political, rational, irrational,... reasons for their political positions. Argue the politics, using reason. Leave your personal preferences about whom you consider fuckable the fuck out of it.

Posted by: MartinM | June 5, 2009 7:32 PM

Well, that was unnecessary and sexist.

Not to mention unoriginal. He nicked it from George Carlin.

Posted by: nemryn | June 5, 2009 7:38 PM

chgo_liz @ 42:
I read NaG's post as an assertion that [i]some[/i] women are like that, that women like that exist, not that [i]all[/i] women are like that.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 5, 2009 8:03 PM

Why are those pro-lifers so often women you wouldn't want to fuck anyway? Correlations are always so strange.

Not to mention that this is projecting one's personal preferences onto another's motives. "I'm not attracted to you, so you must believe yourself to be unattractive and develop your political positions accordingly."

It's so fucking stupid.

Posted by: nemryn | June 5, 2009 8:23 PM

SC @ 46: Okay, after rereading everything, I see what you mean. I withdraw my objection/clarification/whatever-it-was.

Posted by: SC, OM | June 5, 2009 8:30 PM

SC @ 46: Okay, after rereading everything, I see what you mean. I withdraw my objection/clarification/whatever-it-was.

Wow. That's incredibly honorable.

I'm tremendously impressed. So rare...

Posted by: Demonhype | June 5, 2009 9:34 PM

@Mike in Ontario:

Damn, you beat me to it!

I recognized Carlin right away. Also recognized right away that it was a misquote. Damn my obsession with reading all the comments before posting!

Posted by: SoMG | June 6, 2009 3:43 AM

Unfortunately, enforcing FACE will not be enough.

We need to pass a law to say that the slogan "abortion is murder" constitutes incitement to terror.

Consider the following: "Right-to-lifism is murder and right-to-lifers are murderers. This information comes to us directly from God; it cannot be contradicted nor even questioned. Therefore, Professor Robert P. George of Princeton is a HIRED MURDERER. He makes his living by committing MURDER (i. e. right-to-lifism) every day. He murdered yesterday and today and he will murder again tomorrow UNLESS SOMEONE STOPS HIM or unless he CHOOSES to stop murdering, and repents, changing his mind on abortion, and becomes a pro-choicer. If someone were to shoot Professor George in the head that would be a sin and a crime and a tragedy and I hope no one ever does it but it would not be any worse than the MURDERS (right-to-lifisms) which Professor George commits every day."

Would that sentence be incitement to kill Professor George, yes or no? That's EXACTLY how right-to-lifers have been writing about Dr. Tiller since the mid 1980s. The only changes are: I have substituted the name of one George for another, and I have substituted "right-to-lifism" for "abortion".

YES, that means poper-scoper priests will have to change their position. Send "abortion is murder" to the same place they put the inherited papacy and the idea that voting and holding political office is "contrary to Woman's essential feminine nature". Into the toilet of history.

Posted by: SoMG | June 6, 2009 4:04 AM

Right-to-lifers will only really cooperate against terror when right-to-lifers FEAR terror.

Until then, they'll continue doing what they do: coming just as close to calling for terror as they legally can, and no closer. And disclaiming responsibility when someone completes the picture and takes them seriously.

I seriously think we should doing the same thing to a well-known, symbolic, MAINSTREAM right-to-lifer. Pick one and focus intense energy on him. Not break the law but come as close as LEGALLY possible to calling for his assassination. And do cute right-to-lifey things like giving letters begging him to repent to his children on their way home from school to deliver to him. Professor George, if you don't know, is the right-to-life Princeton prof who served on President Cokehead Burnout Bush's "Bioethics" committee. He's the most respectable right-to-lifer in the world.

Let's not break the law. But my understanding is it is legal to call someone a murderer if you believe that his profession constitutes murder. No one shut down any web sites for calling Dr. Tiller a practicioner of infanticide. My religion says Professor George's profession is murder. Therefore....

Anyone want to join my religion? All you have to do is look in the mirror and say "Right-to-lifism is murder and right-to-lifers are murderers. I, [your name], pledge to conduct myself accordingly at all times."

Oh, you can also look up Professor George and send him email. Beg him to repent, stop committing murder (right-to-lifism), and become pro-choice. Before it is too late.

Posted by: SoMG | June 6, 2009 4:46 AM

When contacting a right-to-life conversion-target, remember it is illegal to say or write anything which a "reasonable person" would interpret as a threat of violence. It might be a good idea to make it very clear that you personally intend no harm and that you hope no one else will harm him either.

"We believe that right-to-lifism is murder. Please repent and stop committing that form of murder. Good luck and good health to you."

Posted by: SoMG | June 6, 2009 5:02 AM

Better ask a lawyer friend.

OK, better not say "before it's too late". A jury might find that a reasonable person could feel threatened by that.

Posted by: SoMG | June 6, 2009 6:26 AM

"He will go on committing murder until he is stopped" is ok. It means until he is stopped BY A NEW LAW. If anyone's asking.

Posted by: SoMG | June 6, 2009 8:15 AM

Well this is an instant classic. They interviewed Scott Roeder (the guy who ALLEGEDLY shot Dr. Tiller in front of his congregation) from his cell by phone and he said (be sure you're sitting down and your mouth is empty before you read):

"I haven't been convicted of anything, and they're treating me like a criminal!"

Laughing-too-hard--must-go-change-underwear

Posted by: Walton | June 6, 2009 8:41 AM

"SoMG", what the fuck are you talking about?

I seriously think we should doing the same thing to a well-known, symbolic, MAINSTREAM right-to-lifer. Pick one and focus intense energy on him. Not break the law but come as close as LEGALLY possible to calling for his assassination. And do cute right-to-lifey things like giving letters begging him to repent to his children on their way home from school to deliver to him.

I strongly suspect that "SoMG" is a pro-lifer, deliberately impersonating a caricature of a pro-choicer in order to see what reaction s/he gets.

Posted by: raven | June 6, 2009 10:20 AM

I strongly suspect that "SoMG" is a pro-lifer, deliberately impersonating a caricature of a pro-choicer in order to see what reaction s/he gets.

Maybe, maybe not. The 1st amendment free speech covers almost anything. Almost anything is not the same as everything. Some free speech collides with other rights. You can't lie for financial gain, that is fraud. Death threats are felonies. Burning a cross on someone's lawn is not performance art, it is intimidation. Advocating the violent overthrow of the US government is sedition or treason. Inciting to riot and so on.

The Anti-choicer/anit-humans inhabit the grey area between legal free speech and death threats and threats of violence. They push that line as far as they can.

There is nothing to prevent anyone from adopting the tactics of the Death Cults in reverse. Camp out in front of their offices with pictures of murder victims and life size dolls covered with fake blood representing murdered MDs. Approach anyone going in and out and tell them they can give up hate, lies, and violence and lead a normal life because god hates fundies. Put their pictures, names, addresses, phone and email numbers etc.. on websites..

Note, I'm not saying anyone should or will. At this point it is Nietchze's principle, "When hunting monsters, make sure you don't become a monster yourself."

How many people must be murdered and how many family planning clinics, universities, and other facilities must be bombed and burnt by the christofascist terrorists before people retaliate? What if they start assassinating scientists? Remember they hate evolutionary biologists, astronomers, geologists, paleontologists, archaeologists, historians, and sociologists as well as various other groups in society. Several of their leaders have called for just that, Randall Terry, Tom Willis, Rushdooney.

What if they kill 10 more people? or 100? Or 1000? or 10,000? Got me, My guess would be after 50 or 100 assassinations, someone might start taking out the anti-humans. It is what happened in Northern Ireland and Iraq among other places.

It won't come to that if law enforcement at the local and federal levels enforce the laws and protect normal citizens from the other citizens. So far lately, there isn't a lot of evidence that they are all that interested. Tiller's murder might change that. Stay tuned and see if the cops go after the terrorists.

BTW, Roeder has ties of some sort to both Operation Rescue and Army of God. Both of those have shown up in connection with assasinations and bombings before. Randall Terry the founder of OR once threatened to hunt down and kill every abortion doctor in the USA in a public statement.

Posted by: GregB | June 6, 2009 12:10 PM

>The prisoners are never in a U.S. civilian legal jurisdiction so not subject to U.S. laws

Not completly true. Jose Padilla was a US citizen who was born in New York and raised in America. So the Bush administration has detained American citizens at Gitmo.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jos%C3%A9_Padilla_(alleged_terrorist)

Among the problems with Gitmo and the way they treat prisoner's legal rights is that there are people who may very well be terroist, but due to legal incompetancy and violation of their rights they could go free. There are also, very likely, innocent people at Gitmo who have never commited a crime. Both situations are horrendous.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 6, 2009 2:58 PM

SoMG,
Whether Walton's suspicions are right or not, just fuck off.

Posted by: Knockgoats | June 6, 2009 3:32 PM

SoMG,
OK, maybe you're not a right-to-lifer,just breathtakingly stupid.

Posted by: crowepps | June 6, 2009 5:13 PM

And do cute right-to-lifey things like giving letters begging him to repent to his children on their way home from school to deliver to him.

At the point where it is considered appropriate for anyone whatsoever to harass and frighten children to make a point in any policy dispute, we might as well give up civilization and just blow each other up. I realize these loathsome creeps do just that, but their actions are repulsive and children should be entirely off-limits even if their parents are mass murderers or terrorists. The children already have enough problems trying to live with these extremists and decent people just DON'T do that.

Posted by: sav | June 6, 2009 7:53 PM

@Mike in Ontario
I agree. I'd add that we've turned possession of drugs into a worse crime than killing another human being, than raping a woman, than molesting a child. Our priorities are completely f'd up.

Posted by: David Marjanović, OM | June 6, 2009 8:13 PM

If the right-to-lifers' kids don't like being harassed, then they should convince their parents to become pro-choicers.

That would be blackmail.

Don't take your morality from the Book of Job. I mean, please. You're insulting your own intelligence here.

Posted by: raven | June 6, 2009 8:37 PM

The idea is that by harassing a right-to-lifer's kids, we can get protection for the abortion docs AND FOR THE ABORTION DOCS' KIDS.

This violates Nietchtze's Principle.
"When hunting monsters, make sure you don't become a monster yourself."

It also isn't legal or ethical.

Normal people do have some advantages over the anti-human/anti-choice xian terrorists. We hold the moral high ground, they having vaporized theirs long ago. The US public isn't real fond of terrormism and terrorists. The Death Cults routinely prove their intellectual and moral bankruptcy.

There is a large infrastructure for fighting terrorism in the USA, Homeland Security and the various laws including the Patriot act. If they were enforced, the cockroaches would scurry back under their rocks.

Posted by: raven | June 6, 2009 8:43 PM

If the right-to-lifers' kids don't like being harassed, then they should convince their parents to become pro-choicers.

Since when do parents adopt the religious and political views of little kids?

They are far more likely to call the cops.

Posted by: SoMG | June 6, 2009 8:56 PM

Check this out:

http://iamdrtiller.com/

Posted by: raven | June 6, 2009 9:21 PM

from the wikipedia article:

See Domestic Terrorism in the US for the alarming statistic that between 1980 and 2000 -- a mere 20 years! -- 250 of the 335 terrorist acts in the US were carried out by American citizens!

Interesting factoid. 2/3 of the terrorist attacks in the USA were by Americans against Americans. The majority of them were most likely Xian Terrorists.

Posted by: crowepps | June 6, 2009 9:28 PM

Ironically, Christians attacking (mostly) other Christians using terrorists tactics to make the country more MORAL!

Mind-boggling. The Thirty Years War wasn't all that successful at 'reclaiming morality' the first time around but it sure killed a lot of people. We don't just need better science classes in the schools - we need real history classes with real facts so we don't have to keep recycling really bad ideas.

Posted by: crowepps | June 6, 2009 10:02 PM

The number of people who are leaving these churches certainly seems to imply that these tactics are not only failing to reach their primary goal but in addition they are destroying the attraction of Christianity as a whole.

I'm participating in another thread today about protesters who allege that the birth control pill kills people, and many of those on the thread have made some sort of comment that they're not THAT kind of Christian. It's not a good sign that we're at the point where stating your religion requires a disclaimer.

Posted by: SoMG | June 6, 2009 10:25 PM

Crowepps, the difference is THEY started it.

That's enough difference for me.

Posted by: crowepps | June 6, 2009 11:54 PM

Oh, geez, if we're going to be at kindergarten level how about "two wrongs don't make a right".

Of course, three lefts do, so maybe those sick of the degeneration of political/moral conflicts into opposing extremists and free speech into hate speech and religious freedom into bigotry freedom could actually do some THINKING and handle this problem with something entirely different.

Deprogramming as dangerous to self or others?
Federal conspiracy charges?
Education on the realities of reproduction?
Education on the Constitution?
Free psychotropic medications?

Anything that might actually work without escalating the violence --

Posted by: SoMG | June 7, 2009 12:47 AM

So if you want to argue that we shouldn't turn the tables on the right-to-lifers in every way we legally can or whatever, then it is incumbent on you to suggest an alternative, PLAUSIBLE plan for ending this pattern, where whenever we elect a pro-choice President, the terror ramps up.

Put your plan on the table and let's compare. If your idea seems more likely to succeed than mine, OK.

Posted by: crowepps | June 7, 2009 1:26 AM

Since these same reactionaries hate gays it would be ironic if they manage to enact laws against hate speech aimed at gays to incite violence which could then be used to stop anti-abortion violence and enable doctors to save women's lives.

I'm no genius, but there are a lot of intelligent people out there -- somebody surely can come up with a better plan than emulating what doesn't work.

Posted by: crowepps | June 7, 2009 1:43 AM

There have been a few instances where some man accompanying his wife to Planned Parenthood has become enraged at the 'sidewalk counselors' and shoved or punched one. It's always billed on their whiny websites as 'religious prosecution' and 'hating Christians' instead of justifiably being upset at having idiots insist on screaming in your face when you're going through something traumatic.

I really do understand freedom of speech is sacred. I really do understand the absolute necessity of freedom to petition the government. I do NOT understand how those morphed over into the right to harass average citizens going about their lawful business by yelling at them, stepping in front of them so they can't move forward, blocking their cars on the street, etc. To me that is NOT freedom of speech, it bordered very closely on assault.

Posted by: SoMG | June 7, 2009 1:54 AM

John Morales, post 102, in war, the ends DO justify the means. Otherwise you lose and die.

Crowepps, post 104, you are yapping. "I don't understand how they do this" and "To me this is ASSAULT!" oooooooh. I want to know what you propose DOING about it.

Posted by: John Morales | June 7, 2009 2:09 AM

SoMG:

in war, the ends DO justify the means. Otherwise you lose and die.

But right now, there's no such war, metaphorical or otherwise. It's terrorists against law-abiding citizens.
You would that we become militia, not civilians, and make it a war.

No, thanks.

Even were I to grant that your proposal is justifiable, I consider that your proposal would result in further polarisation and antagonism, and lead to escalation and further violence on both sides - putting the situation further away from resolution.

And, even were I to grant it might work, it would at best win one battle and yet lose the greater war, as all the vindictive malicious innuendo and demonisation against pro-choicers would be seen as vindicated.

I wonder that you even seriously contemplate this, never mind advocate it.

Posted by: Autumn | June 7, 2009 2:17 AM

To SoMG,

In the unlikely event that you are not a troll, I offer this response to your recent posts.

We do not engage in the tactics of our enemies because of a fundamental fact.

We are better than them.

We see that the rule of law is an important factor in the functioning of our society (one which, by the way, allows changes based on its own laws, as the people see fit--hell of a defining characteristic).

We encourage the rule of law to be enforced, and this subtle pressure is what has resulted in . . . wait for it . . . the rule of law being enforced.

We actually believe that society is better than anarchy.
The instant that you encourage tactics that are not deemed acceptable by society you must logically accept the unacceptable tactics of your foes.

I prefer, for as long as society exists, to show myself better than my foes, and to retain the legal means to restrain their illegal acts.

I need not sacrifice my own humanity to fight the depraved; in fact, if I do, there is no longer a moral distinction between me and them.

Posted by: John Morales | June 7, 2009 2:23 AM

#108 answers the question of "Poe or Troll?".

Troll.

Posted by: SoMG | June 7, 2009 2:38 AM

Rorschach 110, I'm afraid I don't know what a poe is.

You ask who defines the ends? We all can, and here's a first suggestion: the end is stopping the right-to-lifers from net-dragging for crazies and using free speech to direct them against abortion docs and to activate them.

Anyone have any problems with that end?

As for your other question, no, I hate guns. To quote Bruno Anthony in Hitchcock's STRANGERS ON A TRAIN, "A gun?? Bang bang bang all over the place??" Too unpredictable unless you have really good training like Kim du Toit or whoever.

Posted by: Rorschach | June 7, 2009 2:53 AM

somg,

the end is stopping the right-to-lifers from net-dragging for crazies and using free speech to direct them against abortion docs and to activate them.

I find your tendency to be selective about who to grant the right to free speech a bit disturbing,frankly.

Posted by: SoMG | June 7, 2009 5:05 AM

Rorschach, 115, I didn't mean to be selective. I also think that anaesthesiologists should be protected from terror-speech directed at them ("Anaesthesiology is murder!") It's just that the abortion docs NEED the protection. The anaesthesiologists don't.

Walton, you called me a "raving wingnut". Well sticks and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me you smelly son of a five-rouble whore impregnated by a kangaroo.

You wrote: "There is a reason why we, as a society, tacitly accept that the state has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force..."

Right-to-lifers don't. If you say someone is committing murder, that legitimizes stopping him by force if the state won't do it. If you compare someone's profession to Mengele's, or terrorists against him to John Brown. That DEFIES the state-monopoly on the use of force.

Consider: "If someone shoots Professor Robert P. George of Princeton in the head, the shooter will be no more guilty, morally, than John Brown, or than some hypothetical person who hypothetically shot Mengele." Incitement or no?

You wrote: " - it's because no one wants to live in a society in which people shoot each other over every ideological disagreement. "

Sorry but the right-to-lifers have already made USA into that. Not only do they shoot over ideological disagreement but also they shoot over the outcomes of elections. Three months after Clinton's inauguration and again a few month's after 2008. If it's not deliberate, the effect is the same as if it were.

You say abortion-terror matters less because the victims are few? Well, if Professor George became a victim of pro-choice counterterror he'd be the FIRST. And if someone also killed all the Catholic Supreme Court justices, and Gary Bauer and Jill Stanek and Father Frank Pavone and Phyllis Schlafly (the killer better hurry) and the Pope, and Alan Keyes, that would still be only eleven victims, so it wouldn't matter very much, RIGHT?

When you analyze the numbers you have to account for the size of the terrorized community of possible victims. 9111 killed three thousand Americans out of what, 300 millions or is it up to 400 now? McVeigh killed however many Fedworkers as he did out of how many Fedworkers in the total workforce? The terrorized abortion docs may be fewer in number but not relative to the total number of abortion docs. That means the terror-effect on the target community is greater. And when you consider the late-termers alone, the fraction terrorized is much higher.

Right-to-lifist terror IS a threat to American civilization. If right-to-lifists show that they can remove a fundamental right by appealing to unbalanced folks to terrorize their targets, using free speech to cause repeating terror sustained over time whenever they lose elections, they won't stop with abortion. They'll use the terror strategy to go for everything they want. They'll terrorize gays, wiccans, adulterers, "evolutionists", athiests, and conflicting strains of their own religions. No more Constitutional Democracy.

Even if you're a right-to-lifer, you should be supporting abortion rights just to prevent the validation of the terror-strategy. This was not always true but it is true now.

Posted by: FannyBabbs | June 7, 2009 5:34 PM

Somg: Last I checked, comparing one's own actions to those of John Brown was not exactly a good thing.

Posted by: John Morales | June 8, 2009 1:46 AM

Somg:

Immediacy? Not very high. It would take a decade or so for the terror-strategy to become general enough to threaten Democracy.

Severity? As severe as any threat. If theocrats succeed in validating the terror-strategy, that will be as great a threat to Democracy as any number of Mullahs with nukes.

Interesting.