Abortion Doctor Murdered
Dr. George Tiller, a famous abortion provider in Wichita, Kansas, has been murdered on his way to church today. Anti-abortion groups were quick to condemn the use of violence in the service of their cause, but that hasn’t prevented the liberal blogosphere from once again using such a tragedy as a tool with which to try to tar and feather anyone who disagrees with their purist position.
The abortion issue is a classic case of an issue that is entirely controlled by extremists. On the anti-abortion side, demonizing rhetoric about “baby killers” is all too easy a hook for a few mentally unstable fanatics who are all too willing to commit murder and feel like they are somehow saving lives in the process. And the pro-abortion side dishonestly conflates anyone who might have doubts about abortion at 8.5 months with the murderous wackos who kill abortion doctors, thus shutting down all debate and excluding even the possibility of a moderate position.
Which is worse? Clearly, those who commit murder in the service of their political cause win that dubious award. But those who exploit those incidents to try to end the debate over their own variety of political extremism are contemptible nonetheless. (Yes, Andrew Sullivan, I’m talking about you.) And anyone reading the comment sections must wonder if the potential for violence here is really only on one side. But those who actually read this post before commenting on it (a minority, according to my observations) should take note of the fact that I am NOT claiming equivalency between an anti-abortion murderer and a pro-abortion rhetorical bully.
But the message to the pro-abortion purists and anti-”Christianist” bigots in the blogosphere who are exploiting this crime in the service of their longstanding vendettas against all conservatives is that being better than a murderer doesn’t make you good.
UPDATE: If there were any doubt about the extreme ends that some on the pro-abortion side are willing to go to try to use this tragedy to advance their broader vendetta of hatred against conservatives, I offer this link, also because the author in question has been spamming this thread with his vulgarity and hate and linking to him after banning him might give him some annoyance that he deserves.
The “both sides are just as extreme” charge is dishonest. You can find individuals who believe just about everything, of course, but pro-choice advocacy organizations are dedicated to protecting the Roe v. Wade guidelines. And the Roe v. Wade guidelines permit states to ban elective abortions in the third trimester, as long as an exception is made for life and health of the mother. NARAL, NOW and other reproductive rights organizations encourage women who choose to abort to do so as early in the pregnancy as possible, and do not challenge state laws that ban third-trimester elective abortions as long as the “life and health” provision is present.
So, to say, “And the pro-abortion side dishonestly conflates anyone who might have doubts about abortion at 8.5 months with the murderous wackos who kill abortion doctors, thus shutting down all debate and excluding even the possibility of a moderate position.” The major reproductive rights organizations for years have accepted a ban on elective abortions in the 7th, 8th and 9th months of pregnancy.
It’s hard to believe that the “pro-abortion” side is conflating people with doubts about abortions at 8.5 months (abortions that don’t exist, btw) with “murderous wackos” when all manners of anti-abortion sympathizers are cheering the murder of Dr. Tiller and saying he deserved it. Especially since Dr. Tiller did more than just provide abortions. That’s reductionist on its face.
This is a very disingenuous and disgusting way to place yourself on the side of right rather than respect the memory of a person who worked hard to provide health care for women, even if that health care fell on the side of controversial.
“Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups), and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration.”
Research question: When was the last time an abortion doctor was killed before today?
October 23, 1998.
Jason, I believe the news reports are saying Dr. Tiller was murdered while serving as an usher in his church.
MattBastard. Re your comments. a bit over the top, methinks. In my post, I make the point which needs to be made, up front: Both the left and the right own this problem. Both the left and the right have been willing to make the right public remarks about dismay at violence, but both left and right seem to give violent, pathologically antisocial behavior a pass when it supports a cause they believe in.
Barbara: My comments to MattBastard apply as well. Why do you think this is only a right of center problem? Bombers like William Ayers and Ted Kazynski get a pass or tacit support from a lot of folks on the left because they generally approve of taking action against people or groups they approve of. So excuse me, but your argument has no credibility here. Both the extreme left and extreme right are guilty as hell, and neither side has any credibility in terms of honest, open government.
The arguments about abortion being a ‘women’s health issue’ are a good example of factually honest but disingenuous language – as is ‘pro – life.’ Both camps are correct up to a point, bot both fail to recognize or admit the reality – that the other side has legitimate concerns, and that we are, in fact talking about terminating a life. There is no way to gloss over that fact, and the euphemistic language of many of the pro-abortion camp tries hard to do this. Just as many in the anti-abortion camp refuse to admit that sometimes this really may be the best of a number of bad options before the woman.
Bottom line. Terrorists should be stamped out. That applies to the creep who murdered the doctor, it also applies to some of the nice people the Left loves to cheer on.
MattBastard. You have made your point, here and at your blog. That point is obvious – you are an intellectually dishonest person if you think that those who disagree with you should be brushed off with crude remarks.
“A man was killed today.” (LiteralKaiser) Very true. Yet I don’t recall this anguish from you or MattBastard when President Obama was rubbing shoulders with William Ayers, who is every bit as much an unrepentant domestic terrorist as Timothy McVeigh. You see, gentlemen, that is precisely the problem here: For too many of us, it’s OK when the killer is supporting a cause we like, and he’s and evil SOB if he’s supporting a cause we dislike. When we do that, gentlemen, WE have become part of the problem. WE have become part of the network that tacitly supports domestic terrorism. THAT is a serious problem – and both the Left and the Right need to recognize it, and tone down the acidic commentary.
I’m sorry that this concept is too abstract for some people to grasp.
Post has been updated to respond to “MattBastard”, but he himself has been banned and his comments deleted due to their almost unprecedented incivility in blatant violation of the comments policy. “MattBastard” certainly lives up to his name, though, like many on the far left, he clearly believes that his obvious political righteousness exempts him from normal rules of courtesy, civility, and honesty. The politically correct are beyond all that mere mortal stuff, you know.
And anyone who actually read the post above can see that there is no claim of equivalency. A murderer is infinitely worse than a mere vulgarity-spewing ideological hatemonger who cynically uses a tragedy to taint anyone and everyone he doesn’t like or agree with. But that comparison does not change that the vulgar ideological hatemonger deserves to be called out for being a vulgar ideological hatemonger.
It is flatly dishonest to say that “all” anti-abortion people are “cheering the murder”. In point of fact, the VAST majority have specifically condemned it. The only place you can find people “cheering” the murder is on a few marginal far-right blogs and in the open comment sections where any whack job (including agent provacatuers) can post anything.
Of course, selling the lie that “all” anti-abortion people are “cheering” the murder is very politically convenient, which is what that lie is the dominant meme of the hate-fueled part of the far left blogosphere tonight. But no matter how convenient the lie, it remains a lie.
Last I checked, no one on the pro-choice side has ever shot anyone. Or blown anything up. Or cemented a Crisis Pregnancy Center’s doors shut…I could go on.
You argument that “both sides are extreme” is ridiculous. When pro-lifers have to wear bulletproof vests every day, THEN we can talk.
Jessica, unless you believe that other people doing WORSE things makes it ok for you to do BAD things, you’re simply being non-responsive.
Unfortunately, this method of changing the subject has become routine any time the left gets criticized for anything in the entire world. Unless ALL conservatives are PERFECT and they are perfect ALL THE TIME, some lefties believe no one can criticize them for doing anything wrong.
Convenient. Dishonest, but convenient.
Fact is, extremists dominate both sides. The fact that a very few of the extremists on the anti-abortion side express their extremism through murder does not change the fact that the extremists on the pro-abortion side are also extreme. It merely means that the pro-abortion extremists are less violent towards their opponents. But they are still extremists and accountable for criticism on that basis.
But being better than a murderer doesn’t make you good.
The act of abortion is itself extreme, a fact that seems to be lost in the liberal meme on the subject, as amply demonstrated in the comments above.
A question: What of the million plus children who will be aborted in 2009 alone?
There are only two rational responses to the question. One is that the child does not exist as such until the 7th month of gestation and it’s therefore morally acceptable to destroy it. The other is that the fact that a child is being killed is of no consequence.
The first is patently false, which is why nearly all civilized countries disallow abortion after 12-16 weeks. This leaves us with the second, unspeakable option about which nothing needs to be said.
We can talk, Jessica, when the gap between abortion rights radicals and reality has been bridged.
Yea, I don’t get the O’Reilly thing. O’Reilly may be a pompous windbag who doesn’t know the difference between blog posts and comments, but Sullivan’s suggestion of a connection is simply not there.
As for other Christianists, fundamentalism doesn’t make you a terrorist, as not all Muslim fundamentalists are terrorists (even if their support for them is more pronounced). I think Sullivan would do well to learn that lesson.
I can see why Sullivan feels as he does, but I think he’s wrong here.
Jason, I took Sylvias “all manners” to mean different anti-abortion groups not all those that oppose abortion, though I could be wrong.
Jessica, there is no one for the pro choice side to shoot, you have already eliminated what was considered the problem. Your side points to two over the last decade the other side points to millions. Pro-lifers have to wear bulletproof vests? What do the unborn have to protect them from their parents?
How Many killed? Eight.
This is truly terrorism…
With his death Sunday, George Tiller became the eighth person and the fourth doctor killed in abortion-related attacks.
Before Sunday, the most recent killing of an abortion provider was on Oct. 23, 1998, when a sniper shot Barnett Slepian in his New York home.
In July 1994, John Britton and his security escort were killed while sitting in a car in the parking lot of a Pensacola, Fla., abortion clinic. Britton’s wife was wounded in the attack.
Paul J. Hill, an excommunicated Presbyterian minister, was arrested and convicted of the killings. David Gunn was the first abortion doctor killed when he was shot March 10, 1993, while abortion opponents demonstrated outside his Pensacola clinic. Gunn’s killer, Michael Griffin, was arrested at the protest and later sentenced to life in prison.
Other attacks on abortion clinics resulted in the 1994 deaths of two receptionists at clinics in suburban Boston.
An off-duty police officer who was working as a security guard at a Birmingham, Ala., clinic was killed in January 1998 when a bomb left by Eric Robert Rudolph exploded. Rudolph also was responsible for the deadly bombing in 1996 at Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta.
Tell me comedychick, how are you on male reproductive rights? Do they have any say? Would you be willing to drop all child support if he does not want you to have the baby? Or is this just a womans right thing? Because I’ve known more then a couple of guys who did have their girlfriends come up pregnant just as they wanted to move on. It seems this rights thing is just a one way ticket for one side of the arguement. See I ask all this because when you talk about the mother needs help, well, I think a father would come in handy, doncha think? All you wrote about was the woman. It take two to create. Why is only one allowed to make the decision? And frankly, spite does come in to play in times described above. I’ve seen this spite thing played out both ways against the guy.
Pro-reproductive rights, why its almost oximoronic.
It is not really difficult to understand the mindset of whomever murdered Dr. Tiller. I don’t agree with it, but if you accept the premise that abortion is murder, then killing Dr. Tiller is at worst a kind of eye-for-an-eye justice, and at best a deterrent to future murders.
I’m not prepared to believe that, and I think his murder is unjustified, but I don’t think that someone necessarily has to be unhinged to murder a doctor who performs abortions. You just have to have a particular set of beliefs, which may or may not turn out to be correct.
The original poster is right that neither side in this debate is wholly candid or trustworthy. That is true, because neither side can admit the most logical conclusion of their stance.
For those who support abortion, they are implicitly assuming either that abortion is not murder, or that we can’t know if it is murder or not, because we can’t determine at what point a cluster of cells becomes a “person.” According to them, if we can’t know if a fetus is a person or not, then we should err on the side of giving more rights to the individual who is indisputably a person (the mother).
It’s a valid argument, but it is almost never framed that way.
On the other hand, if a fetus is really a person, then those who support abortion are actually murderers and their premises are all wrong and they have been responsible for truly immoral behaviour.
This argument, when we really look at it, quickly becomes very complex and uncertain. In fact, it becomes so complex that it is difficult or impossible to confidently make a judgment.
In this issue, reason fails us, because humans simply don’t know enough. The problem really comes down to: we don’t actually know if a fetus is a person or not. We’re just not smart enough or wise enough. How would we know? Neither science nor reason lead us to a certain conclusion.
Since we can’t depend on reason, we have to rely on intuition and personal belief. And intuition on this issue will always lead some people to form one conclusion, and others the opposite. And regrettably, they will resent one another violently, because there are truly issues of life and death, and core values, behind their beliefs.
Unfortunately, as long as God does not step down from heaven to adjudicate and answer the question of ‘personhood,’ we will never be able to resolve this issue. The only thing we can do is be honest about the real substance of the debate, and how emotionally queasy any decision to end a life must be.
The conclusion I’ve come to is that abortion should be safe, legal and rare. I’m not sure if I’m right, but I’m doing my best, based on my own faulty reasoning and limited intuition. I’m almost certainly wrong about some part of it, but that is why these issues are so hard. No one who makes a decision here can ever be sure they aren’t making a significant mistake.
“rubbing shoulders with William Ayers, who is every bit as much an unrepentant domestic terrorist as Timothy McVeigh”
How many people did Ayers kill or intend to kill? 0! How many people did McVeigh kill? A lot more.
Nicolay, You need to do a bit more research. Ayers’s Weather Underground actually killed a few people. Ayers’ own group of Weathermen intended to kill or maim a large number of people by detonating a nail bomb in an NCO club at Fort Dix during a dance. This would have killed not only servicemen but their dates. Fortunately for the intended victims, the bomb-makers were inept, and blew themselves up while they were building the bomb. The people killed in the premature blast included Ayers’ at the time girl friend.
In my opinion, the moral equivalence / moral relativism mode of thinking engaged in by both sides of the political spectrum is a large portion of the problem. Let’s stop trying to finesse this: Ayers and his associates intended to kill people to create terror. They were not simply expressing political views strongly and working through the system. Timothy McVeigh was not simply expressing views and working through the system. Both were willing to kill and maim people to create political terror. They were, in simple terms, domestic terrorists. Our justice system is imperfect. Ayers got off, not because he was innocent, but because the federal prosecutor bungled the case. McVeigh got what he deserved. Unfortunately, Ayers did not. But the people who praise him as an enlightened educator should think about that – the only difference between Ayers and McVeigh, other than ideology of political extremism – was their competence as bombers. If you view Ayers as praiseworthy, and McVeigh as evil, you are part of the problem, because you are telling the world that the end justifies the means.
That neither side is honest is quite apparent in this thread (the ‘prochoice’ side’s dishonesty being clearly represented.) I often read comments like the ones here and wonder if the people writing them actually believe what they write- when talking points are spouted, it’s hard to determine whether the person writing them knows the truth but chooses to distort or if they’ve read propaganda and believed it.
comedychick, those may well be your opinions on ‘choice’ and may represent a segment of the prochoice movement. However, my own personal experience as well as a lot of other anecdotal evidence and hard data suggest that many, many abortion providers like Planned Parenthood DO NOT counsel women in an unbiased fashion about their various choices, and provide minimal if any support for women in crisis pregnancies who might want to keep their babies or complete the pregnancy and give the child for adoption. Meanwhile, they seem to jump through hoops to make sure that any and all women can make the choice that they think is correct, abortion. This extends even to helping minors bypass parental notification laws and colluding to cover up statutory rape.
Most Americans would not support the activities of these organizations if they were aware of them. If you are serious about your views, then you ought to take a long hard look at the facts and stop supporting abortion rights extremists (who do NOT earn the title they claim of ‘prochoice’, just as ‘prolife’ extremists are undeserving of that moniker when they support murder of abortionists.)
Before I get into this, I’ll preface my remarks by unequivocably condemning the murder of George Tiller. I have nothing good to say about the man or what he spent his life doing- I’m repulsed by it. However, murder and vigilantism are never justified and are particularly harmful to a prolife position and the credibility of the prolife movement. Even though, as Jason points out, virtually all prominent prolife groups immediately condemned the actions of Tiller’s murderer, they have already been tarred and feathered among prochoice activists in the blogosphere who imply guilt by association.
If there are prochoice readers here who want to look at the honest truth, here are some facts about Dr. George Tiller’s practice of abortion. He specialized in providing late term, sometimes VERY late term abortions. He was one of the few doctors in the country who performed these procedures, and women came from other states and countries to have their pregnancies terminated even in a very late stage (he once bragged that he’d performed an abortion one day before the due date.)
Kansas in 1998 started requiring certain data on these late term abortions. Now, we don’t know from the data whether all or most of these procedures were performed by Dr. Tiller, but since prochoice activists are concerned that this procedure may not be available without his services I’m assuming that many or most of the events reported here were performed by him. Even if not, there’s no doubt that virtually all of his ‘work’ is documented here since that is what his clinic existed to do.
Looking at the data for the last three years:
In 2008, 323 abortions were performed in Kansas for pregnancies past 22 weeks. Of those, 192 were past the stage of viability. How many of these would you presume to have been done because the mother’s life was at stake? If you guessed ZERO, you’d be correct.
In 2007, the numbers are 293 late term abortions in the state, 168 on viable fetuses. Again, NONE of these mothers’ lives were at stake.
In 2006, 414 late term abortions, 240 on viable fetuses, none for the sake of saving the mothers’ lives.
So, for those three years we have just over 1000 late term abortions, and 60% of these took the life of a viable fetus but in no cases was this to save the life of the mother.
So, if not to save the life of the mother, perhaps there was still a serious health emergency? Nope, not in the vast majority of cases:
From 1998 until 2000, only one out of the 1168 abortions that Tiller performed after viability was done during a medical emergency. Upwards of 97% of his late-term patients weren’t even from Kansas—they flew in from other states to have abortions that they had scheduled in advance.
source:http://www.abortionessay.com/files/Tiller.html
A Harvard psychiatrist who reviewed the records found that although almost all cases were not due to physical health of the mother, there was no thorough psychiatric exam or history done on the mothers (the doctor who verified the need for the abortions was a former abortionist herself, not trained in psychiatry) and he claimes that many or most of the mental health reasons listed were frivolous without even a psychiatric diagnosis. Incredibly, he claims that some of the reasons were as frivolous as not being able to attend prom or rock concerts.
The Kansas law states that if not for saving the life of the mother, the reason has to be that “continuation of the pregnancy will cause a substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman. Yet no such diagnoses were made in these cases, and the state of Kansas has turned a blind eye to the fact that Dr. Tiller performed these abortions for reasons of social need and had a second physician (who derived her sole income from his clinic’s patients) who rubber stamped his decisions. He was not required to provide documentation or a true independent review of his determinations.
Thank you Christine. This is a good examination of the problem. Again, check Doctor Zero’s post at the Hot Air Green Room on “Coming To Terms With Abortion.” He makes a good case for much of the support for abortion being a form of extended adolescence, to enable casual sex without experiencing the natural consequences of such behavior. Thank you!
I am pro life. My wife is pro choice. That is how divisive an issue this is.
I rarely try to weight into the debate on abortion.
My heart reaches out to the family of this doctor, just as it reaches out to the dead babies who were never given a chance at life.
This seems to me to be an incident of domestic terrorism rather than premeditated murder. This man was killed because he was a symbol of something the terrorist hated rather than a person who had wronged him personally. The killing also strikes fear into others who are or may be targets of others like the killer.
You can go to hell for murdering an unborn baby just like you can go to hell for murdering an abortion doctor. Both are unacceptable and all responsible parties for both types of crimes will answer to God in judgment.
Last year, an average of about 46 persons were murdered per day in the United States. This creep who killed Tiller should be up for the death penalty along with the roughly 30-50 individuals/parties who murdered someone yesterday. Beyond that, I ask: Why would the left have such a frenzied interest in this particular tragedy?
Personally, I feel that abortion is morally wrong (with a few exceptions), but usually is not murder. But millions of Americans think that it is always murder. If anything, that only 8 or so abortion doctors have been murdered in, what, 20 odd years is evidence of tremendous restraint on the part of the “Cristianists.” After all, according to the left, these Christianists are rabid, irrational bible thumpers full of fire and brimstone.
Actually, though, that a murderer of an abortion doctor might call himself a “Christian” is further proof of his disengagment from reality (and Christian humility). The act itself demonstrates that he is not much of a Christian. Similarly, Tiller (and others commenting on this site) called him a health care provider, which is also sad.
At least this tragic incident gives “progressives” an excuse to get their hate on.
If there were any doubt about the extreme ends that some on the pro-abortion side are willing to go to try to use this tragedy to advance their broader vendetta of hatred against conservatives, I offer this link, also because the author in question has been spamming this thread with his vulgarity and hate and linking to him after banning him might give him some annoyance that he deserves.
Yes, because we all know that having a potty mouth equals TERRORIST EXTREMIST! RUN FOR THE HILLS, THE VULGAR LIBERALS ARE COMING AND THEY’LL FORCE YOUR INTO EXTREMIST GAY MARRIAGES!
And, of course, liberals who are angered over a rightwing extremist that murders a man in cold blood certainly deserve more condemnation than, uh.. Rightwing extremists who shoot people. Nice set of priorities you have here, Jason. I also find it funny that you evaded every single one of our points in your effort to smear all of us. Hey, don’t sweat it though — I’m sure scum like you were never worried about intellectual honesty in the first place.
But the message to the pro-abortion purists and anti-”Christianist” bigots in the blogosphere who are exploiting this crime in the service of their longstanding vendettas against all conservatives is that being better than a murderer doesn’t make you good.
And what makes you good? The stick up your ass about potty mouths? Your unwillingness to even recognize extremism brewing on your side that’s taking lives because, ironically, of your “service” to your own “longstanding vendettas”? Tell us Jason, what makes you such a standup guy?
Hey wilky, if you got a girl pregnant and you wanted to skip out on her and she spitefully went after your hard earn blue-collar cash to support her child…well while that kind of sucks, it is just really too bad because you didn’t use a glove and that is that.
On the otherhand if you got your girl pregnant and you want to be a baby’s daddy but she decided that she didn’t want to be chained to a life in hicksville, and this pregnancy has to her to an awakening that she needs to get educated, a career and a life and that further down the road when she has the emotional maturity to be a parent she will be one… well you cannot force her to have your baby.
I’m assuming wilky, that you are a guy…
You may say that this is a double-standard, and that is your choice to call it what you want, but as long as WOMEN are the one’s getting pregnant, we have a right to choose.
That being said, I don’t believe in partial-birth or late term abortions – UNLESS not having the abortion is detrimental to the woman’s health. I’m not a doctor so I cannot tell you what is detrimental, does it have to be life/death situation or emotional stability, I don’t know.
I also do NOT believe that abortion should be used as a birth control method, as described in the Jerry Springerish scenario above. Abortion should be SAFE, LEGAL and also the LAST resort.
I does always continues to amaze me that the same people who are against abortion, are usually also against sex-education, safe-sex, birth-control, etc. Even though there is overwhelming evidence that education is the best prevention for unwanted pregancies.
Christine;
I am pro-life. I appreciate your in depth review of the late term abortion practice of Dr. Tiller.
Having said that, this murder of Dr. Tiller must be clearly and unequivocally condemned. I believe any discussion of his practice should come later and in a separate post so as not to, in any way, suggest justification for Dr. Tiller’s murder.
Finally, it must be said that I’m not aware of any pro-life activist being murdered by a pro-abortion activist. The murders of abortion doctors is a stain on the pro-life movement.
It always continues to amaze me how those determined to construct stereotypes manage to do so without any evidence whatsoever and then use those stereotypes to make presumptions about the people they are talking to rather than just asking them directly.
Then again, I am constantly told that liberals are the tolerant and open-minded ones.
Of course not. There is no need to embrace desperate tactics when they already control almost all policymaking in this area.
But consider what some pro-abortion extremists might do if they felt it was necessary. Read the comment on the other thread, for example, where a commenter suggests that all pro-life people (he allows for no exceptions) need to be “culled by any means necessary”.
The potential for violence arising from intolerance for disagreement is intrinsic to extremism of all types and is not unique to only one side of this or any other issue. Claims that only anti-abortion people are capable of violence are fundamentally dishonest.
Editor’s Note: Normally comments of this type that encourage violence would be deleted automatically. We are allowing this one to remain to recognize that extremist anti-abortion violence does exist and is a real threat. It does not, in our opinion, make it ok to embrace pro-abortion extremism, whether it be violent or merely rhetorical. So commenters are advised not to use this comment as a blanket excuse for pro-abortion extremists to paint all anti-abortion people as violent nor as an excuse for your own side’s bad behavior.
Killing babies at any age or stage of development is murder.
God said you should not kill. Abortion on demand is a war on unborn children who are absolutely defenseless.
The baby killers are the abortion mill doctors. they are the mercenaries who kill babies for money. those who stop the abortion doctors are the heroes.
The sin of killing defenseless babies is much greater sin than defending the lives of babies by stopping the murders via assassination.
The government should enforce the laws against murder to include unborn babies and babies at birth whose mothers and abortion doctors choose to kill.
Why don’t all babies have a right to live—why aren’t all babies protected from murder under the laws of the USA.
Questions:
1. If you are pro-life, are you on a list to adopt babies?
2. If you are pro-life, how can some of you then condone murder? Are you against the death penalty? Do you get to pick and choose who lives if you are for the death penalty? If so, then that is pro-choice is it not?
3. If you are pro-life and wish to stop abortions, isn’t it prudent then to be pro sex education?
4. How do you discount the life of a rape victim’s choice to abort. If you have NEVER been raped or molested, then do not answer, you have no damn clue!!!! Everyone’s life experience to deal with this death (yes rape is a death of who you once were)differently, some choose to abort others do not, how dare pro-lifers RAPE the victim again by telling her she is YET again NOT in charge of her own body?
I don’t think I could have an abortion personally but HOW DARE I MAKE that choice for everyone else! If we become a totalitarian society you best believe that eventually YOUR rights will be encroached upon.
This is a sad day!!! This is a sad time! Whether or not you are pro-choice or pro-life, this doctor’s murder was NOT justified by any means! You cannot murder because you are against a person’s views. You are no better than Charles M if you believe that!
You can LEGALLY fight or you can become the “monster” you are trying to get rid of, the choice is always yours to make. Question is will we EVERY make the grown up choice or will we continue to be destructive?
@Ahead Why does a person have to be on a list to adopt children just to be pro-life? That doesn’t make any sense at all. Do you know how much it costs to adopt a child? I’m happy that the Lord blessed you with that type of money (if you have that type of money) but some of us just don’t have it.
Yes it does! You can justifiably say you are part of the solution! When you sit by and do nothing to solve the problem and yet want more children to be born when so many are suffering and unwanted when they are born, well it seems like one is “preaching” from the sidelines and not living the practice! In the end if you truly believe in something, why should cost matter? And yes I do know how much it cost? If you are pro-life and want to advocate saving children, SAVE THEM!!! How can money be the be all that stops you in the end? After all all you are looking to save lives. Or is saving lives only good when it is convenient? That argument makes no sense at all!! Sadly it appears”believes” believes ONLY when they are convenient?
@Ahead Your point of view is not logically based. Being pro-life includes my own life and reading your comment just wasted 2 minutes of my life that I can never get back.
Well Angie you have every right to your opinion; illogical as it is! And if speaking on a matter you “seemed” to hold dear was a waste of time, bully for you! We disagreed…so, at least we are both still alive and well. I guess if we agree it would have been worth it ey? OH well…cheers!
“Of course not. There is no need to embrace desperate tactics when they already control almost all policymaking in this area.”
That argument and slight variations of it could be used to justify a lot of things. For example why Palestinians are using terror.
Not a very good argument.
How many have died or been injured by American left wing terrorism during the last 30-40 years? Orson Buggeigh used William Ayers and Ted Kazynski as examples of left wing terrorists. The Weathermen disolved more than 30 years ago and I’m not sure why the Unabomber is considered a left wing terrorist, but I bet someone can inform me.
Now compare that with the death toll from acts by right wing terrorists.
PJ, I wasn’t trying to justify anything. Murder is always wrong. The only thing I am trying to refute is the self-righteous and arrogant idea common on the left that they are so morally superior and pure that none of them could EVER be repressive or violent.
The rhetoric and record of left-wingers includes plenty of examples of willingness to endorse, embrace, and practice violence. Trying to limit the set of data to talk only about the abortion issue (not environmentalist terrorists) or only about the last 15 years (not about the violent elements of the left in the 1960s like the “Days of Rage” by the SDS and the Weathermen along with many, many other incidents) or only about the United States (not about the USSR or Shining Path in Peru or the many other countries where left-wing terrorism has racked up a huge death toll) or only about murder (not other forms of attack and vandalism) are all frankly just fundamentally dishonest evasions.
Extremism of BOTH left and right is easily perverted into violence. The belief that one’s own political correctness exempts one from normal restraints is common on BOTH left and right extremes. And the belief that the other side is so bad that it justifies anything in retaliation is also very common on BOTH left and right extremes.
So please stop insulting everyone by pretending that only right-wingers have violent potential. It is flatly not true.
Christine;
I am pro-life. I appreciate your in depth review of the late term abortion practice of Dr. Tiller.
“In-depth” meaning reliant on hearsay and propaganda from anti-abortion sites and on an out-of-context and highly assumptive reading of state records. Disregards that Tiller was acquitted of all charges on the one occasion they were brought by a politically-charged “citizen’s grand jury” supervised by a pro-life judge (technical misdemeanors, BTW, not charges of illegal abortion). So, guilty if you say so, despite the jury’s verdict in possession of all the evidence? After several grand jury investigations and numerous Attorney General investigations that were overtly political and involved a complete review of clinic records going back for years, it took years to dig up a few purported technical violations of staute, which resulted in complete acquittal at trial.
News flash: Much of what has been promoted on pro-life websites about George Tiller was sheer fabrication, and much of the rest was at best out-of-context misrepresentation. That should be no surprise–the agenda-driven are not particular about the veracity of their claims. As long as it backs the aprty line, that is.
George Tiller was murdered in his church yesterday about a mile from my home, by an Operation Rescue whackjob with a prison record of bomb-making. Congratulations on attempting to justify that and minimize the crime committed. Don’t you feel righteous now?
Jason, ‘justify’ might have been a bit too harsh. How about replacing it with ‘explain’. It’s still a weak argument.
I’m not only talking about abortion, nor the last 15 years. But the issue here is American domestic terrorism. Having to drag the rest of the world into the argument only shows that you don’t have anything to stand on.
Maybe time to revisit that DHS report?
“Of course not. There is no need to embrace desperate tactics when they already control almost all policymaking in this area.”
One more observation. This is obviously also the reason for why we have seen all the violence by gays whom have been refused the right to get married…
One can only hope that opponents of gay marriage will act as peacefully as proponents of it have.
I doubt it.
Christine;
I am pro-life. I appreciate your in depth review of the late term abortion practice of Dr. Tiller.
Having said that, this murder of Dr. Tiller must be clearly and unequivocally condemned. I believe any discussion of his practice should come later and in a separate post so as not to, in any way, suggest justification for Dr. Tiller’s murder.
c3: I understand your point of view and I had concerns along those lines before I posted that comment. (Tully obviously went on a rant about it as though my intent was to justify the murder, despite the fact that I clearly stated that my opinion is 100% in condemnation of the murder.)
However, since prochoice activists want to politicize the occasion and several have shown up here with propaganda, I felt that it was important for people who were unaware of what procedures Tiller performed to know the truth. That (I will AGAIN repeat) does not mean he should have been murdered. I do believe it means that his activities should not be supported by the moderate prochoice movement, nor by the state of Kansas if it follows its own statutes.
Tully, I linked directly to the Kansas medical board’s data sheets and quoted the numbers. I stated that those cases might not all have been Dr. Tiller’s patients, but its not an unreasonable assumption that many or most were. Certainly since he made no secret of the fact that he performed late term abortions, and has been described as one of the few physicians in the country who did so, his patients must have been a subset of that data- and the fact remains that for the three years I sampled, NO abortions were performed in late term in Kansas for the reasons of risk of the mother’s life.
What propaganda do you object to? I presume you are referring to other information in the article I linked to, but my main post was taken directly from the primary source data and I only provided the link to that essay to reference the site through which I learned of the primary source data location.
George Tiller was murdered in his church yesterday about a mile from my home, by an Operation Rescue whackjob with a prison record of bomb-making. Congratulations on attempting to justify that and minimize the crime committed. Don’t you feel righteous now?
And do you feel righteous in implicating an organization which has denounced the murder and had no more involvement in this than to have had a lone individual post a message on their website? Are blogs similarly all responsible for the potential actions of their commenters?
And frankly, Tully, I’m surprised at the number of misrepresentations you make about the criminal trial of Dr. Tiller. It is not a minor infraction to violate the state’s requirement for an independent second opinion on whether or not a mother’s
‘bodily function’ is at stake (the only justification other than risk to her life which is permitted for late term abortion by Kansas law.) Since the person who was providing that second opinion for Dr. Tiller would not have qualified under IRS law as an independent contractor, I have no idea why the jury decided that she should be considered an independent second opinion in this situation. And since the comprehensive review of the records and reasons for the abortions was not admitted into evidence (the second AG having refused to even interview the psychitrist who made the review), perhaps the additional information would have changed the outcome of the case. But since AG Morrison defeated AG Kline with the help of donations from the PAC set up by Dr. Tiller, one has to wonder about which way the political influence swung in this case.
I should also point out that although he was aquitted of the charges, the state board was going to hold hearings on the same grounds to determine if he should have kept his medical license.
PJ,
I think there is a long history of domestic terrorism associated with the left, and it goes back quite a way in our history. I’ll post on domestic terrorism in US history this evening. You may be disappointed – most of the bombers and threatening folks are not people we would normally associate with the far right.
American leftists have been willing to look the other way for years, and give guys like Ayers a pass. But he’s got blood on his hands. Not to mention the dismal record of communism world wide. Check out “The Black Book of Communism” to get a look the body count for communism in the 20th century. Depressing, and all too real.
The FBI’s big concern for the past decade has turned out to be environmental terrorists. So far, we’ve been lucky. But what many nice people in our faculty lounges think of as ‘monkey-wrenching’ and kind of youthful extreme political statements has cost a lot of people millions of dollars and scared some animal and plant biologists into living with as much anonymity as they can get. This doesn’t get much play in the newspapers, but it should. Because firebombing labs, knocking down mailboxes, and leaving anonymous threats in people’s faculty mailboxes is intended to do one thing: terrorize.
Then there are the crazies who think that free speech includes harassing private citizens, like the professors engaged in things the radical greens object to. No one has successfully prosecuted any of the Wall Street guys who got big bonuses, but no one got too alarmed about the bloggers passing out home addresses and encouraging people to go picket at the executives doorsteps. seems like someone forgot the steps about charges, trial, and conviction – the bloggers just selected a verdict they liked and proceeded to sentencing. The same thing happened with the list of campaign contributors to the Pro Proposition 8 drive in California – some unhappy anti- Prop 8 folks passed out information about donors, names, addresses, etc. All of this is dangerous. It leads to a break down of law and order.
Sunday an abortionist was murdered. Today its a soldier home on recruiting leave after basic training. Crazies on both extremes seem to be coming out of the wood work. As I remarked in my first post on the subject, this problem is owned equally by the left and the right. Both have tolerated extremely dangerous provocations without comment when they generally support the statements, both have passed over opportunities to forcefully speak out against vigilanteism and mob rule, while accusing those who disagree with them of being evil. In such an environment communication breaks down and violence becomes easily accepted. I believe we are dangerously close to such a climate in this country.
The crazy who murdered Dr. Tiller may well have ties to the religious right, but all of those groups have officially vigorously denounced his action. We don’t have enough information yet to know what motivated the nut who shot up the recruiting office in Little Rock, Arkansas today. He may be a left winger, he may not. But I would guess that he, like the man who murdered Dr. Tiller, is unbalanced, and the flood of bile and splenetic hate may have pushed him over the edge. If so, all of us who have contributed to the nasty comments and the delegitimizing of those who disagree with us are part of the problem.
Perhaps, PJ, you are letting yourself be led into error by the hasty presumption that anyone who criticizes the pro-abortion side must be a pro-lifer.
Truth is, I think abortion should be legal. I have no affinity for the anti-abortion crusade. I just also can’t stand the way that the pro-abortion extremists ply their dishonest rhetorical games by trying to link every violent whack job with the entirety of the conservative movement but then turn around the whine about how unfair it is when they find themselves lumped in with Michael Moore or Cindy Sheehan. And I hate hate hate hate hate the way that liberals in the blogosphere seem incapable of reading any criticism of their side without immediately and irrevocably claiming that the righties are worse and, therefore, they are under no obligation to explain or reform themselves in the slightest.
I don’t give a damn whether more right-wing extremists kill or whether more left-wing extremists kill. The fact is that extremists on BOTH sides are intolerant, repressive and potentially violent and they deserve to be called out on their excesses. And the sins of the other side DO NOT CONSTITUTE AN EXCUSE for sins — even lesser ones — on one’s own side.
But that doesn’t stop you liberals from doing it EVERY SINGLE DAMN TIME that there is a post that criticizes your side. I’m sick and tired of it and I am not going to tolerate it any more.
And your desire to custom-cut the data set on global political violence to trim away the parts that show leftists engaging in violence while focusing exclusively on the parts that show rightists doing it is what is really a “weak argument” because it is blatantly dishonest and biased and partisan. It does not constitute good-faith discussion and I won’t pretend that it does. So stop it.
Ahead… Thank you. You read my mind… I think your point of adoption is extremely valid. All the pro-life activists think these unwanted children should be brought into this world, yet they’re not willing to be the ones to provide for them. It definitely makes more sense to have a child bounce around the foster care system then for a woman to make a decision that best suits her and the unborn child’s future. For the record I am pro-choice not pro-abortion. I believe a woman should have a right to choose even though it would not be my personal choice.
You liberals on this thread are really pretty arrogant to keep up with the claims to know about what “all the pro-life activists” do, think, and feel.
Then again, you’re liberals in the blogosphere, so your moral and intellectual superiority knows no boundaries, right?
P.S. I was the adopted child of strongly pro-life parents. And since I have considered adopting myself, I know for a personal fact that truth of the response you ignored above that money is often more a barrier than will to adoption. So you guys have no idea what the hell you are even talking about.
P.P.S. By the same standard you want to impose on this topic, none of the anti-war people should be allowed to say anything about the military since they never served. Oh. Wait. Restrictions on being allowed to speak out only bind non-liberals. I keep forgetting about that unwritten rule of the politically correct blogosphere.
P.P.P.S. I will buy the “pro-choice” frame only if the people who promote abortion rights drop their opposition to laws that require providers to present all alternatives equally. I have witnessed first-hand how Planned Parenthood only offers the abortion option and doesn’t even bring up alternatives at all. It is not “choice” when only one option is put on to the table. So please stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that we can’t see what is being said and not said right in front of us. I believe abortion should be legal, but I have contempt for many of the extremists who hide their extremism under a dishonest, bland “pro-chioce” affectation in an effort to protecdt it against criticism.
Orson, Ayers is 30+ years ago, but I’ll give you that one since republicans have been so fond of him. Communism? Like I said, having to bring non domestic terrorism into this…
I wouldn’t compare Michelle Malkin, for instance, posting addresses on her blog with threats of violence or actual violence. But some might do.
Arson is a violent act, and those who firebomb labs should be arrested and convicted. But knocking down mailboxes? I probably wouldn’t have used that one as an example.
About Prop-8, I have no problem with people boycotting companies connected to supporters of prop-8. Harrassing them directly, no.
And I wouldn’t support attacking O’Reilly over what he said about Tiller, much better to let the companies that advertise on his shows know the hate he spews.
Where does “the bile and splenetic hate” that might have put Roeder over the top come from?
Jason, when did I say or presume that anyone who criticizes the pro-abortion side must be a pro-lifer? And I haven’t said or presumed anything about you being either.
Perhaps instead you should stop presuming things about me?
The “BOTH sides” argument is a weak one. Pointing at the other side and saying “they do it too” or in case “The might do it too” is weak.
Ahead and BrandO, I hesitated to respond to this at first because I don’t want to sound self righteous, but since the demand for proof of sincerity is being repeated I will tell you my story.
My husband and I had one biological child and intended to have more. We are Catholics and part of the smaller subset who actually believe and follow the Church’s teachings on matters of sex and procreation. We took vows to welcome any children that God wanted to create through our union. We practiced natural family planning, which is not the old rhythm method but a highly effective method of spacing pregnancies.
After our first child was two years old, we began trying to conceive again but could not. We both underwent testing to make sure there was no physical problem that needed to be addressed for health reasons, but did not want to have fertility treatment and certainly not IVF. So, after deciding that we were infertile we took this as a sign that we were to increase our family size through adoption.
We adopted our son eight years ago. It was a considerable expense to adopt him, as another commenter has already noted, and we were fortunate to be in the position to be able to do so. Most families would not be able to. My son has also had some special needs, and raising him has not been easy. However, we’ve never doubted that God sent him to our family for a reason, and we’re blessed to have two beautiful children.
Now, regular readers here who have come to know me a bit may be surprised (as my husband and I were) by the next bit, but life is full of surprises. After 15 years of infertility, I recently found out that I’m pregnant. I’m in my mid 40s and my pregnancy will carry higher risks, but never for a moment would I consider abortion. I can certainly understand why the fear leads many women to do so though.
So, shortly before the new year rings in, God willing, we’ll welcome the third child into our family. We’d actually considered adopting before but didn’t think we could handle the expense due to my son’s needs.
I have no idea why you feel you need people to pass a litmus test to prove their convictions, but I wanted you to know that in fact some of us do pass that test. (I wonder if you go to homes of friends who might have expressed that they are pro-green policies, to check to see if they have any recyclables going out in the trash or if they have energy saving light bulbs in all of their fixtures?)
You should also keep in mind that there are other ways that people can act on their prolife convictions. I’ve personally helped women who needed assistance in carrying their pregnancy to term, and I know other people who’ve done so as well (one couple I know let out their basement apartment for free to a woman in such a situation.) Other people work or volunteer at crisis pregnancy centers, or donate to them, or donate to adoption support organizations. Not everyone can adopt, but there are other meaningful ways to affirm a prolife conviction.
I will buy the “pro-choice” frame only if the people who promote abortion rights drop their opposition to laws that require providers to present all alternatives equally. I have witnessed first-hand how Planned Parenthood only offers the abortion option and doesn’t even bring up alternatives at all. It is not “choice” when only one option is put on to the table. So please stop insulting our intelligence by pretending that we can’t see what is being said and not said right in front of us. I believe abortion should be legal, but I have contempt for many of the extremists who hide their extremism under a dishonest, bland “pro-chioce” affectation in an effort to protecdt it against criticism.
Jason, I’m sure there’s quite a bit of distance between your views on abortion and mine, but I can respectfully disagree with you without discord because you’re one of the few who are honest about what ‘choice’ really means.
Jason: I’m glad to hear that you were adopted into a loving home. Not so many others are as fortunate as you. My mother, 2 aunts and uncle sat in foster care between 3-7 years until they were adopted into a loving home. I see that it has also been ignored that maybe a child shouldn’t be brought into a home that can’t afford to care for them properly. So please don’t tell me I have no idea what the hell I’m talking about. Frankly, what is it anyone else’s business what someone decides to do in their personal life?
BrandO, isn’t it true though that whether prolife or prochoice, everyone should consider what they can do to help children in the foster care system? Although we did adopt an infant, we also work with an organization that assists families that foster and it’s definitely a worthwhile cause. I am sorry for what your family members had to go through, as the foster care system in most states is a nightmare.
Anyway, my point is that although there are certainly some overlapping issues between abortion and adoption, there’s no reason to hold only prolife people accountable for society’s responsibility to children who need families.
CStanley: Thank you. And I didn’t state that in pity, just making a point that I’m not clueless about adoption and the foster care system. I would love to see more people in general get involved regardless of their view on abortion. I know plenty of people that are not willing to adopt and have the means to do so and they’re on both sides of the argument. I also know some on the other side as well, myself being one of them. I have one child and one on the way and if I could afford to adopt I would in a heartbeat. You also adopted a special needs child. I’m sure they’re just as high up on the wanted list as an older child. It would be nice if more people could be part of a solution.
This is the first time an abortion provider has been murdered in over a decade. I have friends who work in abortion clinics. This is terrorism. And right now, I just don’t have the words.
I wonder if they would be willing to waterboard them for information?
Jason, please re-read my comment. I never said that ALL anti-abortion groups are against sex-education, safe sex and birth control. I said that the people who are anti-abortion are USUALLY the ones who are also against methods that will prevent unwanted pregnancy, and NO this is NOT a stereotype. Some people who come to mind that are anti-abortion and anti-sex education, birth control, etc. include The Pope Benedict XVI, Catholic Church, Christian Crusade, John Birch Society, The GW Bush Administration, The Christian Coalition and Sarah Palin, to name a few.
I am not an out of touch lefty, nor am I radical, nor self-righteous. I do try to be fair and open minded and practice common sense. I am pro-choice and if a pregnant female asked me for advice, I would counsel her to follow her conscience, examine her life/situation and she should do what is best for her. I would support whatever decision she chose and would NOT force her into an abortion. My peers are pro-choice and we would all do the same. I do not know any pro-choice advocate who is promoting abortions. We are trying to minimize the need for abortion by making sure people have the information and resources necessary to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.
I would support whatever decision she chose and would NOT force her into an abortion. My peers are pro-choice and we would all do the same.
I think that is probably true for a large number of prochoice people who are not activists, and perhaps some of the more moderate activists. However, it seems to me that most people like yourself (I actually have no idea if you are one of the people like this I’ve encountered, and you can respond one way or the other if you wish) tend to rather forcefully support all actions of the prochoice movement and of organizations like Planned Parenthood, which does not act in the way that you personally would if you were counselling a women facing a crisis pregnancy. I sincerely wish that people like yourself would learn more about the movement that you support; just as prolife adherents must examine what is going on within the movement if we support it, the same is true for the other side which enjoys legal cover and much political and monetary support, often from people who really don’t know what their support is going toward.
CStanley: I am pro-choice and I don’t agree 100% with the movement; for example Parental Notification. This is a tough one. I tend to lean on notifying the parents. Abortion, while most of the time is medically safe, it still is a medical procedure. Minors may not have the best mental faculty or maturity to make a sound decision and notifying parents makes sense. On the other hand if notifying the parents cause more harm than good, for example if the girl was a victim of incest from father, brother, etc. and notifying the perpetrator would put her in additional danger. I would be against that notification.
The bottom line is that abortion is not a black/white issue; there are a lot of gray areas. We live in a gray world.
You are correct; people should educate themselves about the position/causes they support. I do support Planned Parenthood, and have used their affordable medical services several times throughout the years whenever I was uninsured. I am active in my local chapter for many reasons, including the fact that they are providing general medical care to uninsured and poor women, including cervical cancer screening, infertility testing/treatment, HRT for pre/post-menopausal women, education/prevention of HIV, STD, etc. and they also provide parental and childcare counseling as well as healthcare and screening for men, including colon, prostate and testicular cancer screening.
The original proposition of this blog is correct: the public debate on this issue is controlled by the extremists. I would add that this is true about most, if not all, issues. Talk radio and media commentators add fuel to the fire with glee, becuse there is money to be made in hate.
The most troublesome question of all is why are those who consider themselves reasonable, i.e. willing to talk about it without recrimiantion, allowing this to happen?
I’ve come to believe that that they are simply trying to have thier cake and eat it, too. It’s gratifying to hear their opinion expressed so recklesslessly. amd. im prder tp avoid the risk of dampening the force of ‘their side’, they sit back silently and sanctimoniously:”That’s not me. Don’t you dare paint me with the same brush”
Yet they never speak out against the excesses of their own side. Calls for moderation, as well as blame, is directed only on the ‘other’side.
Hate speech by out elected representatives is is attributed to ‘just politics’, but we, the people, elect those representatives to do exactly what they do.
Actually, the inflamatory vitriol surrounded the topic of abortion rights hold up a very clear picture of America: riddled with hate, viiolence and an aversion to respectful debate
Oh, well, we can always preach tolerance to the Taliban to make us feel good about ourselves.
We’ve housed a girl who chose to carry her child after initially planning to abort. We actively supported her before and after her delivery.
An ironic comment after all of the thoughtful comments above.
Meitene, you can help reverse that which you decry by taking a deep breath, think for more than a second and then have a thoughtful dialogue with the others on this string (Christine [CS Stanley], Jason, etc) who clearly differ in their viewpoints but are actually discussing this issue. Try it
Yes comedychick I am a guy, and by choice, I have no children. So you see that I have never had to play this drama out with a woman. But I have watched my friends play the game, both men and women.
“..well you cannot force her to have your baby” Well I certianly didn’t force her to have sex, and like it or not, half of what was created by that act of sex, is the males. It is NOT solely the womens. And yet you tell me that only the women gets to choose because nature gave women the privilage/burden of carrying the child? Your not going to tell me that men should treat women equally are you, because you are not treating men in the same fashion.
Uh, Wilky, with all due respect, I think that after the thousands of years of woman oppression, which still goes on today to a lesser degree, we can give them this.
Uh, Wilky, with all due respect, I think that after the thousands of years of woman oppression, which still goes on today to a lesser degree, we can give them this.
That’s a typical pendulum swing overcorrection advocated by the liberal side. Unlike you and wilky, I am a woman and I do not feel any need whatsoever for society to ‘give me this’, the right to kill an unborn child that might result from decisions I make to have sex.
What is ironic in a terrible way, too, is that many women who’ve chosen abortion have later said that they would not have done so if they’d had their partner’s support. In that sense, men’s use of the “it’s not my body so I have to let the woman decide” excuse is nothing more than a cowardly ducking of their responsibility. What you are ‘giving’ women is a horrible choice- either abort (which may well be against their personal conviction) or bear a child that you have made clear you don’t care enough about to help her bear and raise.
“we can give them this” I’m sure you can, its the easy thing to do.
I feel that I should make clear the “I have no children” statement. What I should have said I have no biological children. My wife has 3 children and 4 grandkids. Two of the grand kids have spent most of their life under our roof. So on the rare occasion that I refer to children or granchildren I am refering to step children or step grandchildren.
“men’s use of the “it’s not my body so I have to let the woman decide” excuse is nothing more than a cowardly ducking of their responsibility”
I couldn’t agree more. Knowing that there are many men out there that do take that attitude, I should concede that on some level, comedychicks position on (the lack of) mens rights concerning this issue is understandable. Still doesn’t make it right. I wonder, on a spiritual level, how much is the male responsible for when he has no control over in this situation. Something tells me that the lack of control does not let them off the hook.
———
CStanley, having read you posts since the TMV days, I would like to wish you the best of luck and that you and your family ring in the new year healthy and happy. Congratulations.
wilky and CStanley: I hear your points about the pregnancy being a result of of two people choosing to have sex and I can understand a man wanting the pregancy carried to term and feeling a sense of loss and unfairness that he doesn’t get to decide over something that is half his. I get it. I do wish there were more men who wanted to bear the responsibility of supporting a woman and child. Sadly CStanley is right, there are a lot of women who turn to abortion because they have no support system and/or are desperate to keep their “man”.
On the otherhand, does a rapist have the right to demand that his victim carry to term? Like it or not half of what was created by a violent act is his. Since the victim did not choose to have sex, does the rape victim have any rights?
Every six minutes a woman in raped in the USA. Every year approximately 25,000 rapes will result in a pregnancy, many will be to a minor girl under the age of 18 and some will be due to family member/incest. Violence against women is very REAL.
It seems pretty unfair to punish all fathers by presuming the scenario of the rapist as the basis for deciding what their reproductive rights should or should not be.
I also think it would be possible to recognize some legal rights for fathers while at the same time excluding rapists from exercising those rights, don’t you? And if so, don’t you think that inserting that into this previously-civil discussion was at best a red herring and at worst needlessly offensive?
That’s a typical pendulum swing overcorrection advocated by the liberal side.
The liberal side? How do you know which way I politically lean? An even better question, why does it matter? Turnabout is fair play so I guess the typical conservative defense would be to turn a personal belief into something political. This is coming from a person who wrote earlier:
However, since prochoice activists want to POLITICIZE the occasion and several have shown up here with propaganda, I felt that it was important for people who were unaware of what procedures Tiller performed to know the truth.
The caps are mine, the rest is yours.
My inferior liberal brain might not hold a candle to your einsteinian conservative one but my mother did teach me that people in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
Oh, and have we all forgotten that a man was MURDERED? You all make it sound like he broke into pregnant women’s houses and forced abortions on them. In 2007, 12,998 innocent people lost their lives due to drunk driving, 12 times as many as the fetuses that Dr. Tiller destroyed. How many of you think bartenders are monsters and murderers? I’d be willing to bet many of you support the legality of alcohol because many of you probably partake of it. You’d probably use the argument that those drunk drivers responsible for all those deaths were just irresponsible. Same goes for the women who get abortions. I know you’re going to get me for changing the subject but I think the comparison is valid. Pro-life should mean just that, if you’re against drunk driving then you should be for the prohibition of alcohol, because Dr. Tiller was only providing a service. You can’t hold someone accountable for a complete strangers actions (the mother), just because they chose to provide the service. The murder was disgusting, and I’m sure the christian Dr. Tiller is now in a better place.
R.I.P George Tiller
1941-2009
You will be missed.
No one here said anything like that so stop making stuff up and try responding to what people actually ARE saying. And if you can’t do that, buzz off.
I feel the need to say that any doctor who performs abortions(especially late term) is setting himself up for judgement whether it be by a murderer here on earth or by God after death. I don’t feel assasination is the answer for situations like this, but by practicing this profession it has to constantly be on the minds of these doctors. Very sad situation.
Wow, Jason, it must suck to live in a completely literal world. I only meant that as the irreverence that you’re all showing this man after his death. Telling commenters to buzz off? Not exactly becoming of a man who’s the face of the organization in this thread.
Seconded.
Both sides have their extremists, but thus far the violence has only been perpetrated by one side.
I notice that your statements about the ‘pro-life’ side are careful to qualify that you are talking about a few bad actors, yet your characterizations of the ‘pro-choice’ side are much more sweeping.
For example,
rightly points out that it is a lunatic fringe of the ‘pro-life’ movement,
while statements like,
are much more sweeping statements that seem to tar an entire side of the debate.
Who says that?
Absolutely.
I can now agree with that as well.
Congratulations. My mother also had a late pregnancy (42) and everything turned out well. He is now going to high school and doing very well. I wish you similar luck.
Thank you, Jeb and Wilky, for the good wishes; it’s much appreciated.
Charles: I apologize if I presumed too much about your general political leanings. My point there was just to say that I often believe that liberal/progressive ideology tends to push for overcorrections when there is perceived social injustice. I saw that comment as an example of that. You may well believe that conservatives tend to attempt to legislate their own personal moral views, and may see that as a failing of conservatism as a political philosophy. You are free to point that out and argue your case any time you see instances of that, and if you bring up such instances I would then either agree or disagree and attempt to make a rebuttal.
Charles, on your comment about our comments somehow resembling claims that abortions were forced on women, I don’t see where you are coming from at all with that. There is actually a case to be made that there are many women who do not enter into the decision to abort of their own free will, and I have no idea how many of Dr. Tiller’s patients might have been in that category (which is why I have not brought up that point at all.)
However, the wrong that I believe was committed was against the unborn human being in each case. There’s no denying that those beings did not have a choice, and their lives were ended with the act committed by Dr. Tiller with the mother’s consent (whether freely given or coerced.)
I feel that we can hold two ideas in our head simultaneously- that the murder of Dr. Tiller was a reprehensible act, but the acts he committed throughout his life were also reprehensible as far as I’m concerned. I am even capable of holding in my head the two conflicting ideas of Dr. Tiller as a man who performed these terrible acts, but who was also I’m sure doing what he felt was a good service and in many other ways he may have been a very good, moral man. That simply doesn’t change my strong feelings about the acts of abortion, particularly the specific types he performed and the circumstances under which he did so.
And if I were to take a stab at your alcohol analogy, it seems to me that the way to make an equivalence would be to say that alcohol should be illegal since some people can’t use it responsibly, but then the corresponding idea in the abortion debate would be to say that sex should be illegal since some people aren’t responsible enough with their sexual behavior. Since no one is saying the latter, I see no reason that we should have to say the former to be consistent. If you want to say that we feel that people who do drink excessively should always have to face the consequences of their drunken behavior (just as I feel that people who are sexually active shouldn’t be removed from the consequences of that), then fine, I don’t disagree with that at all.
In my example, sex, along with the drinking of alcohol, has already been performed. We can both agree that those things can be performed safely and responsibly. Drunk driving is more akin to the abortion. We even take the same side, feeling that both those things are irresponsible and reckless. But in cases of drunk driving, where is the anger placed? In the person making the decision, so why is it not when it comes to abortion? Why have so much anger and outrage towards a doctor who performs abortions when you don’t have the same reaction towards the bartender or the liquor companies that provide the alcohol? What I wanted to get across is that people should be responsible for their own actions. Don’t hate a man providing a legal service for someone when it’s the people who come to them that are the ones acting irresponsibly.
It’s completely unrealistic to assume that abortions will disappear if they’re made illegal. I believe that doctors such as this man who lost his life are a necessary evil. Teens and any other age range are going to have irresponsible sex regardless of if abortions are legal or not, and they’re going to have unwanted pregnancies. In a world without men like Dr. Tiller, abortions will still be performed, just in a lot less safe of an environment and by someone with a lot less experience. Don’t hate a man who brings safety to individuals.
Jeb,
Editing what people said in order to “fix” it is a form of lying and a deliberate insult by mockery. Do it again and you will be banned.
Only if you maintain the liberal code of silence about the anti-war protests that call on soldiers to shoot their officers and the murder at the recruiting office yesterday.
Convenient for you that you pompously lecture us on the threads related to the abortion issue but you avoid saying anything at all on the recruiting office murder thread.
These transparent games where stories that feed the leftist narrative receive lavish attention while stories that run the other way get ignored are the norm in the leftist and faux moderate blogosphere. And your pose to be above and beyond all that is exposed as a sham right now by your pattern of preaching on the abortion threads and ignoring the recruiter thread.
@comedychick
Just to put some perspective on that question, 1% or less of abortions in the US are as a result of rape
That was not the intent and I believe that the following statement,
Indicated that I was altering the statement to reflect my opinion. I made clear what portion was mine and I did not tag it “fixed”. Had I tagged it “fixed” I would understand your upset. As it is I am a bit befuddled.
I believe the topic at hand was abortion and so that other murder, while tragic is not relevant.
Both murders are reprehensible. I haven’t commented on the broader motivations of the recruiting office murder as it is not certain what the motivation was. Was it political or religious or some combination of the two? If it was political what was the political motivation? Was he an active participant in the anti-war movement? If so under the banner of what organization? I have not seen the answers to any of these questions. If he is directly tied to some anti-war group, then they have a lot of explaining to do and should immediately repudiate this murder and political violence in general.
I make an attempt at honest assessment, alas we are all subject to our biases. I don’t believe that I have been preachy, I have simply pointed out what I think is flawed argumentation. When it appears to me that a point has been effectively made already in a comment thread I rarely post a concurrence.
Violence is fortunately a rarity in American politics. Despite the generally appalling level of dialogue the caterwauling by both left and right rarely escalates to physical violence. That non-violent means almost always win out in such a highly charged environment is something we should all be thankful for.
Here is why it is relevant to exposing a consistent pattern of dishonesty among the left side of the blogosphere:
1) The murder of the abortion doctor was immediately seized upon by a large number of left-leaning sites as proof positive of the notion that the entire right wing was violent and/or that political violence was a uniquely right-wing phenomenon. You yourself, Jeb, have endorsed the idea that right-wingers are more violent than left-wingers. They furthermore lie about conservative reaction to the murder, claiming that conservatives were “cheering” even though the VAST majority of conservatives condemned the murder unequivocally.
2) The very next day, a man claiming to be motivated by both political (anti-war) and religious (Muslim extremist) motivations shoots soldiers outside a recruiting station. The result from the liberal blogosphere is to simply ignore the story and keep harping on how only anti-abortion conservatives are politically violent.
I think the contrast is relevant, especially given the proximity in time and the continuing accusation that right-wingers are the more violent ones. Drop your support for that sweeping and insulting claim, and I think we’ll have fewer problems.
No I have not. I stated that, to this point ‘pro-choice’ advocates have been more violent than have ‘pro-life’ advocates. Is this in dispute? I did not attempt to broaden that into a left v right stance.
I have in no way stated that members of what are crudely termed the right and left in American politics are inherently or in practice more violent. You chose to read that into my statements.
I have seen no authoritative report on the killers motivations. The police stated that there were likely political or religious motivations and that he had recently returned to the US (from Yemen?). Assuming anything beyond that is not warranted. We should wait and see rather than painting with a broad brush.
Given that I never made that claim, it is easy for me to disown it.
Both sides have tried to make political hay out of these tragic incidents. From ResState today,
Both sides spew vitriol and we could trade anecdotes about horrible things being said by one side or the other, but in the end that serves no purpose other than to get our partisan outrage on. Can we agree that it is unfair to characterize either side of the debate with its more extreme elements?
No I have not. I stated that, to this point ‘pro-choice’ advocates have been more violent than have ‘pro-life’ advocates. Is this in dispute?
Actually the pro choice advocates are much more violent then pro life.
There have been what? 8 murders in 30 years?
Each year the pro choice murder Tens of thousands of babies.
I think its prolly on the order of about 8 million murders to 8. Yeah there is a dispute.
@c3 that doesn’t answer the question.
Perhaps you and I could just between the two of us, but in today’s left-dominated blogosphere, making that a general policy on my side would be playing the sucker.
If it ever so happens that liberals start to call each other out on these excesses, I will reconsider.
Two things strike me here.
First you say this as though the right blogosphere is somehow more honest and less outrage driven. That is in no way my experience. The political blogosphere is dominated by outrage, generally faux outrage. Insightful commentary can be found from most points of view but that is the exception rather than the rule. It is not accurate to say this comes from one side.
Second this is the same thing both sides always say in politics regardless of the ground. It is the prisoner’s dilemma of politics.
If both sides refuse to police themselves until the other side does it to their satisfaction we’ll have…exactly what we have now.
BTW I have responded to what I think you meant, but a less charitable reading of what you wrote looks like an admission that you unfairly characterize your political opponents based on their most extreme elements, or at least support those who do, and are justifying this bad action based on perceived bad actions of political opponents. That would indeed be a callow and cynical position and one I would think that you would not want to inadvertantly give the impression of having.
Jeb, I feel the difference is that there are prominent right leaning bloggers who DO call out the extremists on their side, but I virtually never see left leaning bloggers, even those that call themselves moderates or centrists, do the same when left wingnuts do or say things that are beyond justification. Those stories are either completely ignored by left leaning bloggers, or if someone forces them to address the issue they make excuses for the behavior. They also tend to always point out that the extremists do not define the progressive movement as a whole, even though the same people who say that are more than willing to push the meme that right wing extremism is the face of the conservative movement.
comedychick, I’ve never seen the number you quoted before but I’ll accept that you may have an accurate source for it. I’m guessing that many of those are the result of incest or some other situation where the perpetrator has a relationship with the pregant woman (such as young women raped by stepfathers or their mother’s live in boyfriend.) I say this because a one time violent rape by a stranger is unlikely to result in a pregnancy, partly because of the trauma and partly due to timing (it would have to occur on the day that the woman is ovulating.) I’m not claiming that pregnancy in those situations never occurs, but it is said to be very, very rare.
The reason I bring this up is because the situation of that kind of violence against women is pretty complex, and it’s not at all clear to me that having legal abortion readily available helps rather than perpetuates it. In some cases, the perpetrator himself might be covering his crime by encouraging or setting up an abortion. In other cases, the young women involved might be helping to cover the crime as well because they’re too scared to tell someone the truth about how they became pregnant.
Jeb,
What Christine said. That’s what I am talking about when I talk about getting played for suckers. Progressives in the blogosphere are quick to criticize conservatives — pretty much any criticism from conservatives is somehow intolerably flawed. But they feel free to cuss out conservatives, stereotype them, and misrepresent them with abandon. And most importantly, they never seem willing to call each other on their excesses, though they demand that conservative do so as the price as admission to the link-exchange trading that is the currency of the blogosphere.
The fact that you perceive it as potentially “callow and cynical” but cannot spare the time or energy to make a reciprocal criticism towards the overheated anti-conservative critics that proliferate throughout the blogosphere undermines the credibility of your criticism. Double standards tend to do that.
First, you have admitted to using a double standard yourself. If using double standards undermines credibility then…
Secondly, I have said repeatedly in conversation with you that I find most of the political blogosphere (right and left) to be little more than outrage factories and less than honest in both attack of enemies and defense of friends.
Finally, you do not know who I criticize or when. You are assuming a pattern of behavior on my part based only on your perception of my politics.
CS,
I don’t doubt that is your perception. My suspicion is that this is primarily feeding of confirmation bias, but I will keep my eyes open for it going forward. It is not a search google friendly task so that is where I will leave it for now.
After reading more about the shooter I wager the conversation will turn from rage at the “pro-life/anti-abortion” movement to anger and “We told you so!” regarding right-wing terrorist groups.
My mind is racing as it projects out possible absurd outcomes (i.e. “yes, waterboarding is a useful strategy to find out who there next target is”…)
” And the pro-abortion side dishonestly conflates anyone who might have doubts about abortion at 8.5 months with the murderous wackos who kill abortion doctors”
No, we really really don’t, man. Some do, but the entire side doesn’t. I was rightly banned for a week for misrepresenting a person’s statement. I feel as if I was just misrepresented – I’m pro-abortion but I don’t want to conflate those who called for a stop to Tiller’s practice with those who spread the kind of unsympathetic and psychopathic sentiments that could be considered justifying murder.
I have this to say to all anti-abortion voices. I won’t consider a ban. We have to choose between one inalienable right or the other. If we allow abortions, some fetuses might be terminated after achieving personhood. If we ban abortions, then we effectively deny all women a right that is intrinsic to their personhood. There will always be more women on the planet than fetuses that have achieved personhood. With this in mind I’m simply not interested in talking about anything other than setting limits and making abortions rare. We must ask of all pro-abortion voices and abortion providers that they consider the alternatives to abortions, especially when we start approaching a gray area regarding the state of the fetus. Also, give gay couples the right to adoptions.
Regarding to which degree some people are responsible for fostering sentiments that could have lead to Tiller’s death, I find it dubious that anyone who hasn’t written books on the subject should decide which words could semantically be declared an example of fostering pro-violence/dehumanizing/eliminationist sentiments. Wanted posters featuring abortion providers is definitely crossing the line, and I think O’Reilly’s focused and emotional vendetta against Tiller was also short-sighted and careless. There’s also a back-and-forth; many pro-abortion voices are prone to see a sinister side to many arguments and declarations from the other side, and the anti-abortion crowd seems ready to consider martyrdom even when they are being hit with legitimate contention. The negativity and stress in society accumulates – a benign person telling a racist joke at the wrong moment could be more related to a later bout of racial killing than a committed neo-nazi. It’s like a butterfly effect. As such, it makes no sense to paint one side or one movement as “like this” or “like that”. We must draw a line and make a case-by-case criticism, telling people on both sides that they have a responsibility to keep themselves on the right side of that line.
I am definitely for making strong statements against people who wrong you – I can consider it acceptable to have Tiller to be subject to legal and civil repercussions considering i found it acceptable to deny Prejean a crown because she wants to discriminate people on unsound grounds. Neither Tiller or Prejean broke the law.
I guess Tiller’s murder could maybe spark the idea in some people’s minds that the more you approach the line between acceptable and unacceptable speech and deeds the more active you have to be in ensuring the people that listen to you are aware of where the line is. When I say that Prejean should lose out on the pageant I must also tell people that she must not be followed beyond the context of her statement and that her humanity and rights must not be threatened or ridiculed. Likewise, I think O’Reilly should have been more careful, and pro-abortion voices should remind themselves that there are certain descriptions and accusations that can’t be bandied about but should be reserved for those that cross the line.
I have no problem with the anger directed at Tiller, and I do not think his detractors had a duty to tell people of his very humane and professional treatment of the couples who came to visit him. But when they called for a committed, emotional and focused movement against Tiller they should have been more careful. The bigger the tool and movement the more caution to be exercised. The closer you get to the realm of the uncivil, illegal and immoral in your political agenda the more time you have to spend telling your comrades and audience to not go there under any circumstances. The civil rights movement could get away with very strong rhetoric and unorthodox strategies but I could not defend it if it used violence unless in self-defense.
Also, Andrew Sullivan, an extremist? Yaaaaaawn…
I think if you go and review the coverage in the left-leaning blogosphere for the last week, you will be hard-pressed to find a single example of ANY of them recognizing distinctions or differences on the other side. Their view has been consistently expressed as making ALL anti-abortion people conflated with radicals.
And whenever it comes to certain issues — basically, anything involving Christians — Andrew Sullivan IS an extremist and a bigot and he is deliberately dishonest in how he presents information. I personally sent him a very mildly worded email in an effort to get him to correct an egregious misrepresentation of Mormons once — he simply ignored it.
It would be easy for you to prove me wrong, Jeb. Simply point me towards a place where you have criticized liberals in the blogosphere for their excesses and abusiveness with the same standards and enthusiasm that you are here.
And if you don’t think that I criticize the far right with the same vigor that I criticize the far left, you should see when I post about immigration.
But the flat truth is that when it comes to the commenters who show up to slam us in comment threads here, the abuse we personally experience from the left (you don’t even see the vulgar and threatening comments because those get deleted) VASTLY outweighs that from the right.
Given that this is a right of center blog, that what I would expect. If you spoke with proprietors or editors of left of center blogs I suspect you would find the inverse. I doubt that either of us will be changing our opinions on this in the near term, but as I said I will keep my eyes open.
“I think if you go and review the coverage in the left-leaning blogosphere for the last week, you will be hard-pressed to find a single example of ANY of them recognizing distinctions or differences on the other side.”
Yet here I am.
“Their view has been consistently expressed as making ALL anti-abortion people conflated with radicals.”
Which is wrong. However, I’m still part of that side and I am not trying to, quote: “conflate[s] anyone who might have doubts about abortion at 8.5 months with the murderous wackos who kill abortion doctors”. So, yeah.
” I personally sent him a very mildly worded email in an effort to get him to correct an egregious misrepresentation of Mormons once — he simply ignored it.”
Sounds bad. I think I can trust your account of events to be sufficient. Still, I think that on every matter he has so far raised, including abortion, I think his MO and approach to be superior to most other bloggers, and most of all he earns the right to make strong statements now and then by building up to said statements by a detailed and structured criticism. He has a philosophical baseline, and that is the only kind of baseline I can respect.
I guess I’ll think twice before considering him an authority or good source of knowledge regarding Mormonism and other subjects. I judged Prejean for making a statement without really building up to it via sound thinking, in the same sense I hold it against Sullivan that he occasionally makes statements about people and people-related situations without proper skepticism and research.
As usual, no minds have been changed here, how intersting. Bot sides are as entrenched as ever. I think it is important to point out that as Michael Merrit put it in the, “We clap at what we like to hear” post. This statement touches the heart of so many issues (not just the Palestine / Israel issue), and most definately here.
Asking questions and honestly discussing issues “across the aisle” versus asking loaded questions within an echo chamber that are spun to meet an agenda are obviously not the same thing. In observing the political process, I find it interesting that one side seems to always be willing to discuss (usually the one that is not currently in power) and the one that is in power at the time, usually shrugs off the legitimate questions. I was hoping to see a “Change” but so far, no change, just the same old.
Maybe we should take some time to actually remember the person that died, and feel for their families. (And the same for the Army Recruiter that was killed in a similar fashion)
What gobbly-gook!
A man who was acting within the law and according to his own Christian beliefs was murdered in cold blood (in his church, btw), an act of terrorism. From that the comments immediately descend to arguments about who is fairest in the land: the left or the right blogopshpere.
Rather than adddrees the whole issue of the dual blogosperes, I’ll stick to the pertinent subject: the murder of ahis doctor.
The root of the problem lies at the very beginning: there is a an irreconcilable chasm of differences in beliefs about when the life of a person begins. (An equal chams of differences exists about enf-of-life questions, but that’s another topic).
From the very beginning, then, there is a world of difference betweem the pro-abortion camp and the anti-abortion camp. I have yet to read or hear someone who supports abortion rights say that it’s immoral for anyone to believe that life, i.e. a human person, begins at conception and to make life choices accordingly. Yet, chants of ‘baby killer’ are common among those on the other side of the argument.
Unless the pro-lifers can accept that a aoral, ethical and even religious person can reach an opinion different from theirs, acts of terrorism like this are bound to continue.
===
As to Ardvarks’s continued whining about prejudice against the religious, please note that the likes of A.Sullivan have never proposed legisltation to curb or alter others’ religious beliefs or practiceswhile groups like the Mormons have done exactly that. On abortion, same-sex marriage and a host of other issues, it is the religious who want to intrude into the private lives of others. Particularly concerning abortion, there is an attempt to legislativedly, and by intimidation, to submit others to a forced conversion to their own beliefs.
Though I am in no way equating the actions, the mindset does remind me of the Taliban, who also think they have all of God’s answers for the complexities of life
Condemming this murder is not enough. It would take condemming all the inflammatory demogogary and intimidation at aboortion clinics as well as harassment amd threstening their personnel that preceded it and contunues after it to quell the flames that lead to murder.
Show me the person who never doubts whether he has the difinitive answer to all these complex questions of existence and who demonizes all those who come to different conclusions, and I’ll show you the person who doesn’t even understand what the question is.
Remember the Phelps family who disrupted military funersls because of their righteious beliefs? Everyone conmemmed them, but equal acts of harassment by Operation Rescue and their ilk in another cause gets a free pass. I haven’t heard of pro-life service providers being harasssed and threatended in the same way. By the time it leads to murder, it’s too late. The whole zeitgeist of hate and demonizatation enables the inevitable outrageous act of a lone wolf, because he knows he will be a hero among so many.
The mere act of condemming the murder gets no special award from me. That’s like comdemming the mathematical total of a long list of intentionally preset numerals.
It you condemn the murder, you must condemn the zeitgeist of intoleance that facilitates it.
This gratuitous insult against Mormons is false, slanderous, and offensive. The Mormons have never proposed a law to make their religious practices mandatory. In fact, the Mormons include religious freedom among their most basic “Articles of Faith” (basically the Mormon equivalent of the Nicene Creed — the most basic canonical summary of official Church doctrine) — I know of NO other religion that incorporates that principle at the most fundamental doctrinal level like that. Historically, the Mormons have been a target of government repression, not the initiators. You should read the history of the pogroms against Mormons and the “order of extermination” issued against them by the governor of Missouri. I flatly state that YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT, you are just regurgitating anti-Mormon talking points.
Most of the rest of the comment was agreeable until I got to this completely unnecessary slam on Mormons. Once it appears, accusations of anti-Mormon prejudice on your part are completely understandable — if not for hatred against Mormons, why bring them up on this thread at all? You ask that we make distinctions about how some pro-abortion people are different from others, yet you make sweeping, no-exceptions hateful comments about religious people. You are personifying that which you criticize.
I am both anti-abortion and pro-choice (I think abortion is immoral but that it should be legal because the state does not have a clear secular case to be made regarding its immorality). I am a former but not current Mormon (thus I am neither a water-carrier for the LDS Church nor an anti-Mormon). I condemn anti-abortion extremist rhetoric AND violence without equivocation (thus, I cannot be accused of making excuses for anti-abortion extremism). I think Fred Phelps is simultaneously an abomination and a sick joke on humanity (don’t even try to insult me or anyone else here by linking us to Phelps). I say these things as a way of preempting the inevitable attacks against my integrity that are the usual response to me calling out a lefty on their various prejudices against religions and especially against Mormons.
The existence of bigotry and extremism on the other side does not excuse yours, so don’t even try. Prejudice is just wrong, it is not some comparative contest where you are ok as long as you have an excuse to claim that the other side is worse.
You owe an apology.
Exactly @F. Lacefield
@Jason Arvak
hm i dont think anybody is actually pro abortion… that doesnt really make sense. I doubt there is anybody in the world who is like “HEY EVERYBODY LETS GO HAVE AN ABORTION ONCE WE GET PREGNANT.” but those are just my thoughts…