Why Are Abortionist Killers Condemned?

[Telefrog]

The controversial issue of abortion crops up in P&R from time to time, but I don't think we've had a thread specifically for it. Don't fret! THIS IS NOT THAT THREAD. :D

What I'd actually like to discuss is the rhetoric used against abortion and the pro-choice movement. Specifically, I'm fascinated by the seemingly willfull disconnect between the talking points and accusations made by pro-lifers and the insistence (in polite society, at least) that the battle be won in the courts.

The accusation is that abortion is murder. Abortionists routinely murder babies. Every day! Abortion in America is likened to Nazi atrocities and mass murder. It's child killing or infanticide. In short, it's one of the most reprehensible and awful things a human being can do.

With that kind of rhetoric, why is it shocking that someone might walk into a church and shoot an abortionist in the head (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_George_Tiller)? In fact, why is this incident condemned by almost every anti-abortionist group? If abortion really is that bad, then isn't it every person's moral imperative to do something about it? Something other than just voting and waiting for enough like-minded judges to sit on the court?

Frank Schaeffer (son of pro-life leader Francis Schaeffer) sees the disconnect (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/how-i-and-other-pro-life_b_209747.html):

Like many writers of moral/political/religious theories my father and I would have been shocked that someone took us at our word, walked into a Lutheran Church and pulled the trigger on an abortionist. But even if the murderer never read Dad's or my words we helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.

Of course, he's not an objective source, but really, who is on this issue?

The other thing I find fascinating (or sad) is that I've looked and can find no equivelent incidents motivated by the pro-choice rhetoric, while violence against abortionists and abortion clinics (http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf) seem to be fairly regular.

[DoctorFinger]

The other thing I find fascinating (or sad) is that I've looked and can find no equivelent incidents motivated by the pro-choice rhetoric, while violence against abortionists and abortion clinics (http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf) seem to be fairly regular.
But you can find the equivalent in the environmental protest circles. Some extreme Evo groups murder and destroy, but you don't see the same in their opponents. Each side has their crazies, and they always will.

[Hawkzombie]

It's a catch-22 unfortunately...

Whether you believe abortion is right or wrong, there are people on both sides who are not only set in stone in their ways, but they are almost (and some beyond it) to the point of violently opposed to the other side. There is no medium ground on this issue, which is why I think it's so polarizing on many levels. You're either against it or for it...the only differences are HOW against or for it you really are.

You're Damned if you do, Damned if you don't.

EDIT:
But you can find the equivalent in the environmental protest circles. Some extreme Evo groups murder and destroy, but you don't see the same in their opponents. Each side has their crazies, and they always will.

This is true, but even then you can reach a middle ground and it's only the far reaching extremists who end up going over the line. For some reason when abortion is thrown into the mix, you get a FAR greater occurrence of 'crazies' than you would with, say, people protesting deforestation or oil drilling in Alaska.

[Telefrog]

But you can find the equivalent in the environmental protest circles. Some extreme Evo groups murder and destroy, but you don't see the same in their opponents. Each side has their crazies, and they always will.

You're conflating an overall liberal left agenda with the pro-choice movement. I'm talking about the specific issue of abortion. As far as I can tell, there isn't the level of violence and emotional rhetoric used by pro-choice folks as the pro-lifers use.

My point is that the rhetoric used by much of the pro-life people is so incendiary and outrageous that it seems willfully ignorant to not expect acts of violence to be perpetrated in the name of moral imperative. In fact, I don't understand why every pro-life group publicly recoils in horror at the assassination of an abortionist, when that act is exactly what they seemed to be seeking.

[DoctorFinger]

You're conflating an overall liberal left agenda with the pro-choice movement. I'm talking about the specific issue of abortion. As far as I can tell, there isn't the level of violence and emotional rhetoric used by pro-choice folks as the pro-lifers use.

My point is that the rhetoric used by much of the pro-life people is so incendiary and outrageous that it seems willfully ignorant to not expect acts of violence to be perpetrated in the name of moral imperative. In fact, I don't understand why every pro-life group publicly recoils in horror at the assassination of an abortionist, when that act is exactly what they seemed to be seeking.How do you define 'much'? You sure heard a lot of the crazies this week, but are they the norm of the pro-life movement, or a small minority? Any one who calls themselves pro-life a but supports murder obviously has something wrong with them. I understand taking non-violent steps to prevent them, but violence is wrong, and I think the vast majority of pro-life orgs would agree with me.

And there's plenty of harsh rhetoric on the other side as well. Pro-life people are too often not given the benefit of the doubt about their beliefs. They don't oppose the procedure because they think it's murder, they oppose it because they hate women, or want to enslave women, or some "hateful" reason. It's never because they think it's murder.

Ultimately abortion is an issue that no amount of science facts can change. It's about a personally held definition of what is and is not murder.

(I should note, that I'm pro-choice. I don't like the procedure, and I think some of the laws around it are just wrong, but I think it should be available to adult women before the 3rd trimester, and minors with parental consent)

[Telefrog]

How do you define 'much'? You sure heard a lot of the crazies this week, but are they the norm of the pro-life movement, or a small minority? Any one who calls themselves pro-life a but supports murder obviously has something wrong with them. I understand taking non-violent steps to prevent them, but violence is wrong, and I think the vast majority of pro-life orgs would agree with me.

And there's plenty of harsh rhetoric on the other side as well. Pro-life people are too often not given the benefit of the doubt about their beliefs. They don't oppose the procedure because they think it's murder, they oppose it because they hate women, or want to enslave women, or some "hateful" reason. It's never because they think it's murder.

There's harsh rhetoric on both sides, but I find that there's only one side calling the other "mass murderers," "holocaust enablers," or "anti-life" advocates. My point is that there's a huge emotional disconnect when you constantly say that a group of people is guilty of government sanctioned baby killing, but when someone does something violent about it, you act like that wasn't the intent at all. I have a hard time believing that the intended response to baby killing is "rock the vote."

Do all pro-lifers feel that way? Of course not. But it seems disingenuous to tell people that they have a moral imperative to stop the mass murder of infants, and then condemn someone for shooting a hated baby-killer.

Isn't the basic pillar of pro-life the fact that abortion is murder? In that context, why wouldn't you encourage vigilante justice since the government seems unable or unwilling to stop it?

[DoctorFinger]

There's harsh rhetoric on both sides, but I find that there's only one side calling the other "mass murderers," "holocaust enablers," or "anti-life" advocates. My point is that there's a huge emotional disconnect when you constantly say that a group of people is guilty of government sanctioned baby killing, but when someone does something violent about it, you act like that wasn't the intent at all. I have a hard time believing that the intended response to baby killing is "rock the vote."

Do all pro-lifers feel that way? Of course not. But it seems disingenuous to tell people that they have a moral imperative to stop the mass murder of infants, and then condemn someone for shooting a hated baby-killer.

Isn't the basic pillar of pro-life the fact that abortion is murder? In that context, why wouldn't you encourage vigilante justice since the government seems unable or unwilling to stop it?Murder is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. It's that simple. Some people use that to justify, but they're wrong.

I think most pro-life people feel that way, but there are always exceptions. Again, it's arguably the most intensely emotional issue of our time.

[Telefrog]

Murder is wrong. Two wrongs do not make a right. It's that simple. Some people use that to justify, but they're wrong.

I think most pro-life people feel that way, but there are always exceptions. Again, it's arguably the most intensely emotional issue of our time.

I absolutely agree. In fact, my views on the matter are the same as yours.

I'm just confused by the level of rhetoric that has been, and continues to be, used by the pro-life side against the pro-choice people, when the logical results (http://www.prochoice.org/pubs_research/publications/downloads/about_abortion/violence_statistics.pdf) are apparently not the intent. If you really don't want people to assassinate abortionists or bomb clinics, then perhaps likening them to Nazis and baby killers is the wrong tactic.

[Kelegacy]

They OPENLY condemn the killers, while secretly thanking God that He sent a soldier to murder a murderer.

It's all a bunch of craziness, because I find it hypocritical. To me abortion is not murder, but shooting a man in the head is. Yet, even if I believed abortion to be murder, killing a man who conducted abortions would go against all that I believe in. Pro-life means FOR life. Killing anyone is against the beliefs of that philosophy.

[Vector]

I agree with the TS. People feel as strongly about abortion as did people who were against the Holocaust and Nazi occupation. Noone would ever accuse the resistance of being murderers for killing Nazi's, etc. Well people who are against abortion see it as no different than that and just like back then this is perfectly legal.

[Vector]

Pro-life means FOR life. Killing anyone is against the beliefs of that philosophy.


You've contorted the definition of Pro Life. It's Pro Life for an innocent child.

[National Kato]

You've contorted the definition of Pro Life. It's Pro Life for an innocent child.

You mean the definition per those in the Pro Life movement? Because 'pro life' means exactly what Kelegacy said. It's the movement that has contorted the definition if they believe one type of murder is wrong while another is right.

Maybe they should rename themselves the Pro Innocent Child Life movement, so as to not confuse the issue when it comes to guilty child lives or adult lives or any other born life.

[Vector]

You mean the definition per those in the Pro Life movement? Because 'pro life' means exactly what Kelegacy said. It's the movement that has contorted the definition if they believe one type of murder is wrong while another is right.

Maybe they should rename themselves the Pro Innocent Child Life movement, so as to not confuse the issue when it comes to guilty child lives or adult lives or any other born life.

It's no different than how the other side labels it Pro Choice. It obfuscates the real issue so that if you're against them then you are operantly against choice. See how that works.

Pro Choice makes the opposition look like fascists and Pro Life makes the other side look like murderers. The titles were picked not because they actually reflect the true beliefs of the people who follow them but because they make the opposition look bad.

People who are Pro Life have no problem with non-innocent people being killed. You've changed the meaning of the title so that you can try and make them look hypocritical.

"Pro-Choice means FOR choice. Any restrictions on our behavior is against the beliefs of that philosophy."

I guess people who are Pro Choice believe anything goes, right? Using Kelegacys logic.

[National Kato]

The titles were picked not because they actually reflect the true beliefs of the people who follow them but because they make the opposition look bad.

You're agreeing with me. Just in case you didn't understand my post.

People who are Pro Life have no problem with non-innocent people being killed. You've changed the meaning of the title so that you can try and make them look hypocritical.It was a joke, obviously. As if someone would name a movement that clumsily.

Besides, it's not me making them look hypocritical. It's their own actions, as evidenced by the murder referenced in the OP. You can't have it both ways.

[Ox]

You're conflating an overall liberal left agenda with the pro-choice movement. I'm talking about the specific issue of abortion. As far as I can tell, there isn't the level of violence and emotional rhetoric used by pro-choice folks as the pro-lifers use.
Level of violence? Maybe not. Emotional rhetoric? Pro-lifers are misogynistic patriarchical haters who wish to enslave women and control their bodies out of a prurient desire. Why, then, don't pro-choicers assassinate prominent pro-lifers if they're afraid their rights will be taken away?

Actually, that's a serious question. If you take the pro-choice argument on its face, limiting a woman's right or access to an abortion is a very severe intrusion upon her personal autonomy, arguably on par with rape. We generally acknowledge that lethal force may be used to defend against such
profound intrusions. Why doesn't someone assassinate ?

I don't think you can condemn the rhetoric. This is a much bigger issue: each side genuinely and honestly believes the other side wishes to wreak the most horrendous evil imaginable. Soft-pedaling it and wrapping it in fuzzy words doesn't dispel the fact that pro-choicers and pro-lifers [I]must view each other as, at best, the Devil's ignorant assistants. Instead, we need a sophisticated philosophy of when and why violence is justifiable, not to pretend we don't disagree vehemently.

For starters: it's very far from clear that the murder of George Tiller actually saved any babies. Probably it did not: his patients will get their abortions elsewhere. What's more, it has set back tremendously the movement to ban abortion nationally. At best, you could look at his murder like a soldier who foolishly ruins a mission by charging without orders: not only have the deaths he has wrought been for nought, a terrible evil in itself, but he actually set back the cause for which he fought and more innocent people will die because of his impetuousness.

They OPENLY condemn the killers, while secretly thanking God that He sent a soldier to murder a murderer.
And you OPENLY condemn them, while secretly thanking God that He sent someone for you to feel superior to.

It is fun to pretend we can peer into each other's soul, isn't it? We can make up all sorts of crazy libelous things about each other!

But I will say this. George Tiller's murder was not just an isolated incident, it was intended to intimidate and cow other people like him. It was an act of terrorism. And like moderate Muslims, I recoil -- not just at the crime itself, but at the terrible fact that so many people (e.g., in this thread) consider me just as crazy and evil but better at hiding it. What I find interesting is that the very people who would scold a person for getting antsy around a nice fellow with a turban seem to think I'm just waiting for the opportunity to blow up a gynecologist's office.

[Telefrog]

Actually, that's a serious question. If you take the pro-choice argument on its face, limiting a woman's right or access to an abortion is a very severe intrusion upon her personal autonomy, arguably on par with rape. We generally acknowledge that lethal force may be used to defend against such profound intrusions. Why doesn't someone assassinate ?

I think that's a great point. Where are the quotes from pro-choice advocates calling for the death or imprisonment of pro-life people? They should be all over that, right? Yet, for some reason, I'm having a hard time finding that level of extremist rhetoric coming from the pro-choice side, while it seems ridiculously easy to find it spouting out of the pro-lifers.

I don't think you can condemn the rhetoric. This is a much bigger issue: each side genuinely and honestly believes the other side wishes to wreak the most horrendous evil imaginable. Soft-pedaling it and wrapping it in fuzzy words doesn't dispel the fact that pro-choicers and pro-lifers [I]must view each other as, at best, the Devil's ignorant assistants. Instead, we need a sophisticated philosophy of when and why violence is justifiable, not to pretend we don't disagree vehemently.

Perhaps I'm unclear. I'm not condemning the rhetoric. If people really do think abortion is a recreation of the Nazi holocaust, or a child-killer's legally sanctioned mass murder, then I think their talking points are spot on. You could even argue that the rhetoric is too lenient in that case.

What I'm confused about is the willingness to paint abortion as an abomination against God and the sanctity of life, but being unwilling to take the logical next step, or even approve when others do. This guy should be a hero, right? Instead we get stuff like this from Operation Rescue (http://www.operationrescue.org/archives/operation-rescue-denounces-the-killing-of-abortionist-tiller/):

"We are shocked at this morning's disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down," anti-abortion group Operation Rescue said in a statement on its Web site. "Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller's family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ."

That sounds great, but here's what their own Randall Terry said (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/01/opinion/main5053766.shtml):


Abortionist George Tiller is dead.

I grieve for him that he did not have an opportunity to properly prepare his soul to face his Maker. Unless some miracle happened, he left this life with his hands drenched with the innocent blood of tens of thousands of babies that he murdered. Surely there will be a dreadful accounting for what he has done.

[...]

George Tiller was a mass murderer. He routinely killed innocent children who were “viable.” For the unlearned, that means that they could live outside the womb on their own. He specialized in killing “handicapped” children whose parents decided that they were not fit to live. He even offered photographs of the dead children and baptisms for the victims that fell under his knife.

According to God’s laws, and the laws that govern how we protect the innocent in times of peace, George Tiller was one of the most evil men on the planet; every bit as vile as the Nazi war criminals who were hunted down, tried, and sentenced after they participated in the “legal” murder of the Jews that fell into their hands.

I'm not sure, but that statement seems at odds with the website PR.

Interestingly, Terry goes on to predict the very reaction from others that we're seeing. That pro-choice folks will accuse him and his group of inciting the violence. I guess if the shoe fits...?

[Shieldmaiden]

I think I get what Telefrog is getting at. I'd like to think that if was witness to something I believed was truly evil, like an act of rape or murder, I would do everything in my power to stop it, regardless of the legality of the situation, or the risk to my personal safety or liberty.

I'm trying to imagine how I would react to someone that I knew had killed dozens of children and was almost certain to do so again.

If I truly believed that abortion was the same thing as baby killing, how would I react to someone who did that?

Interesting point to ponder.

[Ultima Thulian]

Here's something that always made me chuckle. There are several Christian-Conservatives who are pro-life because they believe that abortion is sinful and an affront to God, the creator of life and blah blah blah.

Well, if God is against abortion, then why is it he aborts more babies than any clinic on his blue and green earth?

http://www.womenshealth.org/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm

25-50% of conceptions just go "POOF!" All natural, a.k.a. God's way.

Whoopsie-doodle!

[Ox]

I think that's a great point. Where are the quotes from pro-choice advocates calling for the death or imprisonment of pro-life people? They should be all over that, right? Yet, for some reason, I'm having a hard time finding that level of extremist rhetoric coming from the pro-choice side, while it seems ridiculously easy to find it spouting out of the pro-lifers.
I think the major reason (or at least a major reason) is pretty simple: kings don't revolt. Pro-choicers have a lot more of what they want right now than pro-lifers do. Marginalization is a big factor in violent ideation or action, and pro-choicers aren't marginalized.

What I'm confused about is the willingness to paint abortion as an abomination against God and the sanctity of life, but being unwilling to take the logical next step, or even approve when others do. This guy should be a hero, right?
You're being awfully simplistic, aren't you? Almost all of us can think of some action by the US government that is horrifically evil: torture is a common one for bleeding-heart lefties, so let's use that. If I told you I was about to go torture someone, you'd be justified in using lethal force to stop me, yes? And if you were not in the position to stop me, then some police officer who drew his gun and shot me would deserve a medal, right?

So what if someone had assassinated former President Bush? Would you have celebrated?

There's a reason why Catholics have an entire branch of moral theology on the ethics of so-called 'just war' theory: the morality of using violence is a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. There are some evils which ought to be corrected by violence, and some which may not; and the depth of the evil is only one, relatively minor, aspect of that calculus.

That sounds great, but here's what their own Randall Terry said (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/01/opinion/main5053766.shtml):
Just to be clear, I'm pretty sure Mr. Terry is no longer affiliated with Operation Rescue.

[Jackel]

Here's something that always made me chuckle. There are several Christian-Conservatives who are pro-life because they believe that abortion is sinful and an affront to God, the creator of life and blah blah blah.

Well, if God is against abortion, then why is it he aborts more babies than any clinic on his blue and green earth?

http://www.womenshealth.org/a/spontaneous_abortion_common.htm

25-50% of conceptions just go "POOF!" All natural, a.k.a. God's way.

Whoopsie-doodle!

For the same reason death isn't a "sin" but suicide is. Would you like me to explain that one to you to ?

[Ultima Thulian]

For the same reason death isn't a "sin" but suicide is. Would you like me to explain that one to you to ?

No, I wouldn't.

[Telefrog]

You're being awfully simplistic, aren't you? Almost all of us can think of some action by the US government that is horrifically evil: torture is a common one for bleeding-heart lefties, so let's use that. If I told you I was about to go torture someone, you'd be justified in using lethal force to stop me, yes? And if you were not in the position to stop me, then some police officer who drew his gun and shot me would deserve a medal, right?

Is the threat of impending torture equal to murdering hundreds of infants? I'm not sure it's a good comparison, but for the sake of argument, let's agree on that. Would I need to use lethal force to stop you? No insult intended, but I'm pretty sure four of five like-minded citizens could hold you down and prevent you from committing the deed. The hypothetical cop could also do less than shoot you if he needed to stop you. The pro-choice folks are accused of no less than the wholesale murder of children.

So what if someone had assassinated former President Bush? Would you have celebrated?

I would hope not, but then again Bush wasn't guilty of personally murdering babies on a daily basis. I certainly see your point, though. According to the extremeist pro-lifers, the legislators are at least complicit in infanticide.

There's a reason why Catholics have an entire branch of moral theology on the ethics of so-called 'just war' theory: the morality of using violence is a lot more complicated than you're making it sound. There are some evils which ought to be corrected by violence, and some which may not; and the depth of the evil is only one, relatively minor, aspect of that calculus.

I'm curious then, as to what exactly it would take to qualify for "just war" in in that theory. Let's not forget that abortionists are accused of trafficking with the Devil, mass murder, and infanticide. If that's not enough, then what is?

[Ultima Thulian]

Murder = Crime punishable by law.

Abortion does not equal murder. It can equal killing. It can even equal morally reprehensible if you wish. But not murder. People throw that word around too much nowadays. Shit, I had some PETA chick run her mouth to me years ago saying that my Whopper was murder. I told her that murder is a crime punishable by law, but eating a whopper is a crime against my colon, at best. I also told her that murder tasted yummy and that she needed to find better hobbies than annoying me with her naive teenybopper bullshit.

I'm single, btw. Big surprise.

[Ox]

I'm curious then, as to what exactly it would take to qualify for "just war" in in that theory. Let's not forget that abortionists are accused of trafficking with the Devil, mass murder, and infanticide. If that's not enough, then what is?
The standard test is:
1. Is the damage wrought by the evildoer lasting, grave, and certain? (Yes.)

2. Have all other means been shown to be ineffective or impractical? (No.)

3. Are there serious prospects for success? (No.)

4. Will our violence create a worse evil than the one sought to be eliminated? (Hard to answer. To the extent that killing one doctor makes banning abortion very much harder, clearly yes. There's also the concern that the evil of creating abounding fear of lawlessness, and the overall damage to the community's sense of lawfulness, will hurt people in ways great and small that we cannot even begin to list. Breaking the law, especially in such a flagrant and terrifying manner, unravels the very fabric of society. Since this is a generally just society with the exception of abortion, that may well have worse effects than the abortions themselves.)

So killing George Tiller really only satisfies one of the four criteria for a just use of violence. I can imagine circumstances in which I'd consider taking up arms to stop abortion. But none of those circumstances resemble the world we actually live in. That's not to say that abortion isn't an evil meriting violent response -- banning anything implies being willing to use violence to enforce the ban, at least indirectly -- but killing George Tiller is not a close question.

Murder = Crime punishable by law.
That reminds me of the old saying: "Why does treason never prosper? Because if it prospers, none dare call it treason."

I suppose you could say, in a highly technical and legalistic manner, that anyone who gets away with it isn't a murderer. Kim Jong Il will never face a court, so he's not a murderer; likewise, neither is OJ or Jack the Ripper. If you'd like to draw such a fine distinction, okay, but I don't see why you're tilting at this windmill. What purpose does your distinction serve? Not even lawyers and judges use this distinction.

Moreover, now that I think about it, it's not even technically true. You can commit what is legally known as a 'murder' without being legally punishable. Effectively, that's exactly what abortion is: a killing with a mind regardless of social duty (i.e., murder), but by a person who (like an executioner) is legally privileged to do so. That's an affirmative defense, I think, which means you committed the crime but you have an excuse that relieves you from the ordinary consequences of the act. This is highly technical and I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the regulations excusing gynecologists from the 'murder of the unborn' statutes are phrased in a manner that makes them affirmative defenses, not elements of the crime.

[Telefrog]

The standard test is:
1. Is the damage wrought by the evildoer lasting, grave, and certain? (Yes.)

2. Have all other means been shown to be ineffective or impractical? (No.)

3. Are there serious prospects for success? (No.)

4. Will our violence create a worse evil than the one sought to be eliminated? (Hard to answer. To the extent that killing one doctor makes banning abortion very much harder, clearly yes. There's also the concern that the evil of creating abounding fear of lawlessness, and the overall damage to the community's sense of lawfulness, will hurt people in ways great and small that we cannot even begin to list. Breaking the law, especially in such a flagrant and terrifying manner, unravels the very fabric of society. Since this is a generally just society with the exception of abortion, that may well have worse effects than the abortions themselves.)

So killing George Tiller really only satisfies one of the four criteria for a just use of violence. I can imagine circumstances in which I'd consider taking up arms to stop abortion. But none of those circumstances resemble the world we actually live in. That's not to say that abortion isn't an evil meriting violent response -- banning anything implies being willing to use violence to enforce the ban, at least indirectly -- but killing George Tiller is not a close question.

Understood. With those criteria, I can see your point.

It's hard for me to come up with any scenario in which 2 or 3 would ever be a realistic negative if you were a zealot. I suppose a zealot wouldn't have a test to worry about. :p

Back to my original point, then. Is the inflammatory rhetoric being justly used? Are anti-abortionists that say the act is worthy of hellfire and damnation, equal to mass murder and the Nazi holocaust, being disingenuous when they disavow the killing of an abortionist?

You pointed out that Terry is no longer with Operation Rescue. His statements about the assassination of the doctor seem to jibe better with the normal stuff coming from the Operation's PR. As reprehensible as I find him, I think Terry is more honest and consistent.

[National Kato]

Are anti-abortionists that say the act is worthy of hellfire and damnation, equal to mass murder and the Nazi holocaust, being disingenuous when they disavow the killing of an abortionist?

I would assume they're putting on a more palatable public face in order to not seem as if they support murder, the very same thing they condemn. Whether or not they actually support the killing of abortion doctors is not for me to say. However, I doubt they're losing sleep over Dr. Tiller's death.

[National Kato]

Author Frank Schaeffer, former anti-abortion activist, challenges the Pro-Life movement to stand by their principles. (http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/frank-schaeffer-pro-life-prove-it) He also talks about how radicalized it became prior to his disassociation with it, and the discussions about how violence could be a valid tactic.

Not sure if he should hold his breath.

[civil]

I'm going against better judgment and making a comment in this thread, mainly because I have some first-hand experience with the topic.

My ex-wife came from a very conservative and Christian family (note that I separated the two because I find the lumping of the two simplistic and unoriginal). Her father is a somewhat famous minister (in certain circles) who would take his children to anti-abortion protests all throughout their childhood. Pickets, signs, chants...the whole thing you see on TV. They were and are strongly opposed to abortion and do feel it is murder.

That said, I know these people and know the circle they travel in (some rather high-end Republicans) and not a one of them would ever condone the killing of a man and whenever these situations would arise their hearts would break for the family of the person murdered and they would pray for their families. Not to save them, not to have them see the error of their ways, but to bring them comfort.

It's easy (as many of you in this thread have done) to villanize an entire category of people because of the actions (well-publicized as they may be) of a few. To say that all people who are "Pro Life" are for the murder of anyone is to say that all Muslims want to blow themselves up in a crowded plaza in Jerusalem. It's not true, it's simplistic and it does nothing to further dialogue. All it does (as Ox pointed out) is allow some the opportunity to feel superior to another. But that is fleeting, and to those with some semblance of intelligence, untrue.

To those that ask "Why would they do this if they are pro life?" I think the answer is obvious: They feel that they are doing a good by destroying an evil. It doesn't take genius to understand what, but it takes intelligence and compassion to understand why. And hopefully, once that is achieved, discourse can happen.

For the record, I am Christian. I believe abortion is wrong. But I also believe in a woman's right to choose because I do not want the government dictating such things. Whether or not a woman gets an abortion is between her, her doctor, her lover/spouse, her potential child and - if applicable - her god. I have known many women who have gotten abortions and with the exception of one they were all difficult decisions that have in some way altered them. In fact, this past Mother's Day I was with a friend who, though she still feels she made the right decision, mourns the child she aborted several years ago on that day in particular. It's actually pretty common.

Anyway, let the debate rage on. I'm sorry to inject some gray into this black and white world.



EDIT: I should add that when I say I feel abortion is wrong I say so without judgment of the person. Some of my nearest and dearest friends (and former partners) have gone through this and I love them no less nor think any less of them because of it. Abortion is just something I can't fathom doing, but I understand why someone would do so.

[Telefrog]

I want to make something very clear. I am not vilifying each and every person with an anti-abortion opinion. As with any debate, there are going to be folks that fall all along the path, from mildy in-line to overzealous wacko. I think we're all in agreement that Tiller's assassin was a sick individual and does not represent the majority of people against abortion.

My concern is that the rhetoric used by anti-abortionists is out of step with the basic decency of the majority of those folks. (I tend to believe that most people are pretty decent and if given the chance will talk it out.) Accusing people of being "Devil's helpers," "mass muderers," "baby killers," "Nazis," and having their souls damned to Hell through their work doesn't imply that you want a reasonable debate in a courtroom, or a legislator's office. It implies that you expect someone to do the right thing now and take care of the problem by any means neccessary. Statements like that may not tacitly approve of murdering abortionists, but it certainly goes a long way to providing a clear conscience for the killer.

[civil]

My concern is that the rhetoric used by some anti-abortionists is out of step with the basic decency of the majority of those folks. (I tend to believe that most people are pretty decent and if given the chance will talk it out.) Accusing people of being "Devil's helpers," "mass muderers," "baby killers," "Nazis," and having their souls damned to Hell through their work doesn't imply that you want a reasonable debate in a courtroom, or a legislator's office. It implies that you expect want someone to do what you feel is the right thing now and take care of the problem do what you think your god would want you to do by any means neccessary. Statements like that may not tacitly approve of murdering abortionists, but it certainly goes a long way to providing a clear conscience justification for the killer.
A little re-worded for my benefit, but I think you'll agree with the premise. ;)

[Shieldmaiden]

I have to admit that the amount of anti-abortion feeling in this thread surprises me. I can't remember ever speaking to anyone with strong feelings against it face to face.

Incidentally, I hate the term "pro-life." Does that mean that anyone who isn't pro-life is pro-death, or anti-life, maybe?

[Telefrog]

A little re-worded for my benefit, but I think you'll agree with the premise. ;)

Are you saying that you don't believe me when I say I believe the majority of people are decent?

[civil]

Oh, no no no. I believe you believe that. It was more of a "I don't believe it" sort of thing. I'm pretty misanthropic, which can be a hard thing to reconcile with some of my beliefs.

To BJ: I'm not exactly sure what your post implied, but I agree with you about the labels. I wish it would more accurately reflect that some believe abortion should be legal and some don't. I think both current labels demonize the other side and only fuel the hatred and misunderstanding (on both sides).



EDIT: Come on, Telefrog. With that avatar of course you'd believe the majority of people are decent. It's just so damn cute.

EDIT 2: Are you going to be at PAX? This would make great bar conversation!

[National Kato]

EDIT 2: Are you going to be at PAX? This would make great bar conversation!

If you guys do discuss this at PAX, do so over strong shots, so the conversation will get louder as time passes. Bars love abortion as a topic. :D

[Telefrog]

To reiterate, here is the statement from current Operation Rescue leader, Troy Newman in USA Today (http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/06/opposing-view-we-abhor-vigilantism.html):

We abhor vigilantism
Operation Rescue uses all legal tools to expose abortion’s brutality.

By Troy Newman

The fundamental tenet of the pro-life movement is that human life has intrinsic value and is deserving of protection from the moment the seed and egg unite, until natural death. To take a life without due process devalues all life.

We at Operation Rescue were shocked to hear of the killing of late-term abortionist George Tiller and were among the first groups to denounce the cowardly act that took Tiller’s life. It was not justice, but vigilantism, which must be abhorred by a society that embraces the rule of law over anarchy.

Social justice begins in the womb or it does not exist at all. The spark of life is so precious that the matter of abortion demands we expose it for what it is: the brutal and immoral destruction of a unique human being.

Operation Rescue uses legal tools at our disposal, including the justice system, law enforcement, the legislative system, regulatory boards, health departments — even our ironclad First Amendment rights to display pictures of aborted babies brutally killed through the euphemism of “choice” — to expose the violence of abortion and provide as much protection as possible for women and their pre-born babies.

Outspoken opposition to abortion has had positive results. For the first time in decades, polling data show that the majority of the American people, 51%, identify themselves as “pro-life,” while the numbers of those who say they are “pro-choice” have slipped eight points to a low of 42%. Abortion rates are dropping nationwide.

Our “pro-choice” opposition fears what will happen if the truth about abortion becomes known. We fear what will happen if the truth is not told.

America must not be afraid of where showing the truth will bring us, whether it is to the brutal death of a baby in the womb, the state-sanctioned starvation death of Terri Schiavo, or dehumanizing war crimes committed at Abu Ghraib.

Tiller’s homicide must be denounced, but so should the killing of over 45 million innocent babies through abortion, because when even one life is wrongfully taken, it devalues us all.


Now, on one hand he goes to great lengths to condemn Tiller's murderer as a coward and a criminal. On the other hand, he uses some pretty charged wording that leaves no doubt that abortion itself is the greater crime. It is the "brutal and immoral destruction of a human being" and is compared to state-sanctioned starvation and torture. These aren't words intended to dissuade violent action. It's lip service to the media, but the real message is right there.

In fact:

Wichita, KS – A statement has been released by attorneys for the Tiller family stating that Women’s Health Care Services will permanently close.

“We are thankful that Tiller’s clinic will not reopen and thankful that Wichita is now abortion-free. It is our sincere prayer that threats to open another third-trimester abortion clinic in Kansas will not come to fruition so that the healing process for this state and community can begin,” said Operation Rescue President Troy Newman.


Edit: Yup. I'm bound for PAX. Hell, it's 40 minutes from my house! If I see you, I'll buy the first drink.

[civil]

If you guys do discuss this at PAX, do so over strong shots, so the conversation will get louder as time passes. Bars love abortion as a topic. :D
My best friend - who is an emphatic atheist - and I once spent ten days getting piss drunk across the UK arguing our asses off about religion. At one bar in Edinburgh in particular it got really heated and I kept thinking, "Fuck we're those obnoxious Americans who get really fucking loud" and I could have sworn we were on the verge of getting thrown in jail.

I'm visiting him again in a few weeks. We're already putting aside bail money.

[Shieldmaiden]

Civ, that's exactly what I mean. I dislike labels that are that polarising and are a blatent attempt to demonise "the other side." It harms both sides by making it difficult for anyone with a moderate attitude to identify with either. I'm generally against abortion (as the older brother of a beautiful eleven year old girl with Down's Syndrome, hearing about people aborting when they hear that it is likely, not definite, but likely that their child will be born with it makes me feel physically sick) but I also know someone who was, at the very first stages of pregnancy, told that if they didn't have an abortion they would most likely die. I certainly feel that I can't take either side on the issue.

[civil]

Telefrog, I can't read that with the attention I'd like to at the moment (in terms of analyzing it well) but my immediate reaction wasn't the same as what you say.

Though I will admit that throwing in the bit about Abu Ghraib struck me as condescending and trying to make themselves appear more well-rounded in their approach. AFAIK, there have been no Operation Rescue protests regarding any war crimes. That was a blatant attempt, IMO, to latch on to what they perceive as a liberal concern to elicit some sympathy. I wish he would have left it at condemning the murder.

On a related note, a friend once gave a speech at a Christian conference during which he held people to task that if they were going to be against abortion they would need to be against the death penalty as well. For that community, it was a ballsy move and he basically told a group of a few thousand that they needed to hold themselves accountable for any inconsistency in their beliefs. He caught a bit of flack from some circles, but I was so glad he did it.

[Ultima Thulian]

That reminds me of the old saying: "Why does treason never prosper? Because if it prospers, none dare call it treason."

I suppose you could say, in a highly technical and legalistic manner, that anyone who gets away with it isn't a murderer. Kim Jong Il will never face a court, so he's not a murderer; likewise, neither is OJ or Jack the Ripper. If you'd like to draw such a fine distinction, okay, but I don't see why you're tilting at this windmill. What purpose does your distinction serve? Not even lawyers and judges use this distinction.

Well, it depends. In the case of my Whopper, I just wanted to bring up any point to shut the PETA bitch up, and I knew she wasn't intelligent enough to retort with anything reasonable, so I could essentially say whatever (and I pretty much did).

As for the abortion side of the equation, well, there's a lot of debate on when "life" starts, right? Some say right at conception, some say it's during certain trimesters, etc. Since people can't agree on when the thing is alive, then we can't agree that abortion is murder, or even killing, right? You can't kill something that isn't alive.

Now I do wish to make it clear that I'm not throwing my hat in with one group or the other, nor am I saying that life begins or doesn't at a certain point. I'm saying that there seems to be a lot of disagreement on such things and as such throwing around words like "murder" seem to be rather pointless, as the foundation can't even be agreed upon. I know this kinda goes way back to Telefrog's original point, but the inflammatory language does kinda throw a monkey wrench into the works.

But to be honest, I just wanted to eat my whopper in peace, and bringing up that semantic argument worked then, so yea. :D

[Jackel]

EDIT 2: Are you going to be at PAX? This would make great bar conversation!

I'll be at PAX, but since for the most part I'm in a similar corner as you so it might just be us agreeing.

[Ox]

I think we're all in agreement that Tiller's assassin was a sick individual and does not represent the majority of people against abortion.
I wonder if we've been reading the same thread.

They OPENLY condemn the killers, while secretly thanking God that He sent a soldier to murder a murderer.

IPeople feel as strongly about abortion as did people who were against the Holocaust and Nazi occupation. Noone would ever accuse the resistance of being murderers for killing Nazi's, etc. Well people who are against abortion see it as no different than that and just like back then this is perfectly legal.

It's the movement that has contorted the definition if they believe one type of murder is wrong while another is right.


These are all examples of people who seem to think that George Tiller's murderer is pretty representative of the general pro-life movement.

Accusing people of being "Devil's helpers," "mass muderers," "baby killers," "Nazis," and having their souls damned to Hell through their work doesn't imply that you want a reasonable debate in a courtroom, or a legislator's office. It implies that you expect someone to do the right thing now and take care of the problem by any means neccessary. Statements like that may not tacitly approve of murdering abortionists, but it certainly goes a long way to providing a clear conscience for the killer.
I see your point. But flip it around for a moment: imagine you actually believed abortion was that bad. It would be very difficult to express your opinions without being accused of "providing a clear conscience for the killer."

[Kelegacy]

Yes, I admittedly do believe it's representative of the pro-life movement. The environment for abortion doctors has been toxic because of the fires fed by the pro-lifers. When you try to incite such rage over a topic you can't be surprised or mournful when something like this happens.

I used to be an anti-abortionist. Freshman year in college I remember running around at night slapping fliers and banners everywhere--not to mention other endeavors--trying to spread the message of some group I was drawn into, apparently trying to incite anger in people because anger is a great motivator. There were also those awful people holding signs of aborted fetuses outside the Union where people ate and hung out each day. I was obviously searching for myself the first semester of my college life.

For many people the murder of an abortion doctor is rationalized by the saving of countless future babies, not to mention atoning for past ones. I personally believe that pro-lifers do not feel as much angst for these murders as they let on.

[National Kato]

These are all examples of people who seem to think that George Tiller's murderer is pretty representative of the general pro-life movement.


Context is everything, Ox. You are incorrect in your assumption.

[Ox]

Yes, I admittedly do believe it's representative of the pro-life movement. The environment for abortion doctors has been toxic because of the fires fed by the pro-lifers. When you try to incite such rage over a topic you can't be surprised or mournful when something like this happens.
Let's say an emotionally disturbed person is reading this thread right now. He sees your comment, gets angry at the pro-life movement, and goes out and shoots some pro-life campaigner. Can you be surprised? Can you be mournful? Or, by inciting such rage as you have in this thread, are you complicit and secretly gleeful about the killing?

[alienmastermind]

The murder of this doctor doesn't do a damned thing to stop abortion. Even criminalizing abortion won't stop abortion, it will just create criminals who have abortions.

What I believe will stop abortion is proper sex education and education on condom use.

Making people less ignorant of how sex works will prevent unwanted pregnancies, I believe that making people more knowledgable, not less, will prevent kids from making mistakes, and leading to heart-wrenching decisions down the road.

For those pro-lifers who use the Bible to justify their stance, the Biblical standard for abortion is that God Himself proscribes an abortive potion administered by your cleric if you suspect your wife of adultery.

The Biblical tradition also offers a harsher penalty for harming a mother than her fetus, so, be sure to actually read the book if you're using that for your standard of behavior, as it was a fairly common practice according to the Bible.

[Shrinn]

I can't imagine that anyone thinking logically will assume that taking away one doctor's ability to perform abortions will completely stop abortions. An abortion is a huge decision, you don't change your mind about it (hoping you're responsible) because the local doctor isn't around anymore and you need to drive a bit further.

Doesn't that mean the person is committing a crime of retribution?

[Ox]

The murder of this doctor doesn't do a damned thing to stop abortion. Even criminalizing abortion won't stop abortion, it will just create criminals who have abortions.
Prohibiting things doesn't stop them entirely: otherwise, we wouldn't need cops. But we don't say that you have to stop crime completely. Prohibiting abortion presumably acts as a deterrent for a lot of people; otherwise, doctors would be happy to flout the law and backalley abortions would be needless, in the same way I don't need to scurry around in dark alleys in order to jaywalk. The very fact that there is a large and passionate pro-choice lobby means that they believe prohibiting abortion would significantly change many women's decisions about whether to have an abortion.

What I believe will stop abortion is proper sex education and education on condom use.
That's wishful thinking. Despite what liberals like to believe, there is not a large body of people who don't know where babies come from (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/22/opinion/22saletan.html). Nor are these people ignorant of the concept and mechanism by which a condom prevents conception. The problem isn't even that they don't have access to contraception.

The problem is that almost all contraception requires you to think ahead about the possibility of sex, consider carefully the potential consequences of sex, and take mildly embarassing and slightly inconvenient precautions to avoid those consequences. Lots of people don't have much forethought in any area of life, and most of us become idiots when sex comes into the picture. "Education" doesn't do much good: everyone knows that drinking leads to impaired judgment, but how many people climb behind the wheel of a car or dial an ex-girlfriend after a few beers?

Heck, take Plan B, which doesn't require forethought or planning at all. You have unprotected sex, you take the pill, boom, you're covered. But it's not uncommon for women to have sex, go and get Plan B from their pharmacists, and then fail to actually ingest the drug (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/23/health/23fda.html). It's had no measurable effect on the number of abortions or unplanned pregnancies in the US. If even ready access to Plan B won't impact pregnancies, it's delusional to think rolling a condom on a banana in the seventh grade will.

[alienmastermind]

Ox, I would hope you of all people would know the difference between education, and the misinformation that's spread by folks who have the best interests of children in mind but won't actually tell them the truth with the 'Abstinence Only' education.

When you tell children that condoms do not work to prevent pregnancies in educating them, it devalues the education's effectiveness in preventing unwanted pregnancies. Rather than telling them the risk of pregnancy is infinitesimally small when you wear condoms. If you also say that using the pill will cause you to have ovarian cancer (which many pro-life advocates tell young women, which is irresponsible, and false) causes these people to not use the precautions when having sex.

I'm one of the people in the world who was told the straight, honest truth about condoms and sex, and guess what? No unwanted pregnancies. Even the op-ed piece repeats what I believe:

It’s a shortage of cultural and personal responsibility. It’s a failure to teach, understand, admit or care that unprotected sex can lead to the creation — and the subsequent killing, through abortion — of a developing human being.

By no means would I say that only education will prevent unwanted pregnancies, but I think that telling them the truth and the practicalities of sex you put them ahead of the game. Even telling them the risks of birth control like the IUD, or Depo shots, or even the pill along with the protections it offers, gives them the whole picture, rather than just scaring them into doing what a religious portion of our country wants them to do.

Also having religious people repeating over and over that condoms don't work, or are a sin, a trespass worthy of hell, will put good people into bad situations, because ultimately, humans are built to procreate. And believe me, you've got a better chance of gaining escape velocity with a new pair of tennis shoes than getting teens to stop having sex.

[Lithium Flower]

You know how they used to make children drink milk in classrooms at one time? They should take a tray of Plan B around in classrooms every morning. That might help.