Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism? Abortion Doctor Murdered

Remove all ads!

I just want to make one thing perfectly clear: If I knew that person X were a murderer, that they had killed before and planned to do so again, I would not break into their house (or car, or church) and shoot them. I would not commit murder to stop murder. I would try to stop the murder, and I would do everything in my power to do so, but only within a progression of reasonable force. The only way I would kill the murderer is if he were currently attempting to commit another murder and it were impossible for me to stop him any other way (including incapacitation). I hope that clears a few things up on my view on abortionists.

I also want to say that most pro-lifers don't actually want a complete ban on abortions. We want them to be safe, legal, and extremely rare, with regulated prerequisites beforehand. I have no problem with abortions, even late-term ones, if it is neccessary to save the mother's life. I believe it should be the parents' decision which life to save. I do not have a problem with abortions in the case of confirmed unviability (i.e. the child will be born and die a painful death within a short period of time). Again, it should be the parents' decision. I do have problems with abortions of convenience, where the mother decides they don't want (or even don't have the resources) to raise this child. I am currently unsettled on the issue of pregnancies from rape, though any abortions in those cases should only come after LONG and EXTENSIVE psychological counceling.

Other than that, Drew actually did a very good job of explaining my position. It isn't my decision (or rather it shouldn't be) who lives and who dies. Just because someone else has taken that decision into their own hands doesn't mean I should do the same. There are a few notable exceptions, such as extreme circumstances surrounding the immediate defense of life, declarations of war, and orders of God (in which case believers didn't make a decision, but rather followed orders from their god, hope that distinction clears things up, Drew), but generally I should not be making the decision.

On the one hand, you may find your answer in the above, but on another hand, let me ask you this: How many attrocities do you know about, or suspect, being committed around the world right now? How many nations frequently allow husbands to beat their wives to death? How many are currently in such a state of turmoil that thugs litterally rule the streets (think Somalia)? How many dictators currently rule through death and fear of death? How many of them are you acting to stop? If you recognize that hundreds, thousands, maybe even millions of people are being murdered, by just about anyone's definition, every year, how can you not act against them?

 

There's nothing to clear up, NOG. Vengeance is God's, and when he orders the faithful to kill every man, woman, child, cow, and ass in a village, the faithful are just following orders, God still gets to take credit for the vengeance, and the hands of the faithful remain clean. I understand it just fine, and that's exactly why, if I actually believed, I would not be able to bring myself to follow The LORD. No offense, but there's no way I could worship a Deity that orders such brutality. Sure, I guess some people can just tell themselves that the Lord moves in mysterious ways and move on, but not me. By my estimation, the God of Abraham is little more than unsavory, immature bully with anger issues.

 

And now for something completely different

A reasonable response. There are, for instance, human traffickers within, oh, ten miles of me. I could without too much trouble find out who exactly they are and go attempt to kill one or more of the slavers.

One key difference is that slavery is something that occurs without societal sanction. It's illegal. The local police are doing their best to stop the bastards, even if they're largely ineffective. Abortion, by contrast, has societal sanction.

 

Depends on the means, and depends on what the goal is.

Killing bad people, or people who are perceived to do evil acts does not diminish or lessen the evil in the world. Strike with hate and you feed the hate. The only peace that violence ultimately brings forth is the peace of the grave.

Of course just starting to kill everybody is just something that's already prophesized as an omen of the end of time, so that makes it allright, especially if it's done in the name of God, right?

 

More on Tiller's case

(a) Apparently, Tiller knew something was coming. What does that say about law enforcement that clinic staff routinely had to deal with a steady stream of threats, threatening phone calls, stalking and intimidation without law enforcement intervention or protection? That Tiller himself had to drive an armoured car and wear a bulletproof vest? Depressing, to say the least. And the picketing and blocking of clinic entrances? Violations of FACE, or the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. It is a federal crime to block or damage a reproductive health service facility.

I read that at one instance clinic staff were told that the city would rather have trouble with them than with violently angry anti-abortionists. That, and I find that plausible, would be the timidly caving in of an official under political pressure. It also is an unacceptable capitulation of the rule of law. The state must not give in to criminals, or leave unchecked zealots that will resort to force, as illustrated by their history of violence. For that purpose there is no difference between an anti-abortion whacko and an Islamist zealot. One ought to re-consider Obama's preventative detention in face of such ideology driven serial offenders with plenty of criminal energy.

(b) Tiller wasn't protected. He had been victim of attempted murder and a bombing attack before. Police knew he was at risk. Roeder super glued the locks of the clinic doors, repeatedly. That is not just vandalism, but a violation of FACE that specifically criminalises vandalism on reproductive health facilities. The clinic staff reported that to the FBI - with photos, name of a suspect - a suspect with a criminal history, in fact, a nine-year history of targeting the Central Family Medicine Clinic in Kansas City - and license plate information - who then said they couldn't do anything? Puzzling. They had witnesses, evidence and a likely culprit and could arrest him for violating federal law? And didn't do it? Why? I don't buy it.

(c) Was Operation Rescue involved? They made public private information about Tiller like his home and church address, license plate numbers, their photos, the names of children and the schools those children attend? It means they have had observed or investigated him. What does that have to do with legitimate protest against abortion? It is *wink*wink* only for informational purposes that we share such information. Given the history of violence against Tiller that is implausible.

What I see is a clear pattern of harassment, intimidation and violence against pro-choicers, abortion doctors and staff: Posting such information is knowing if tacit (and thus deniable and difficult to prove) participation in the preparation of crimes. It is just that no one needed to explicitly communicate about that. Roeder knew what he had to do. Nobody had to tell him. He was in that perfectly in tune with Cheryl Sullenger, Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor (who spent two years in jail for trying to blow up an abortion clinic in California in 1988; which makes her a ... domestic terrorist?), whose phone number the police found on the dashboard his car when he was arrested and who admitted to have had multiple phone calls with Roeder, but not recently ... well, that is easily checked I presume. Curious and curiouser.

(d) Worse, it appears that under Bush FACE was not enforced. Rachel Maddow reports that under Clinton the FBI investigated about 17 cases a year, in the Bush years that ranged from 2 to 4 cases per year. Not enforcing criminal law makes a mockery of the law, and leaves unprotected those the law is intended to protect. Also, non enforcement sends a signal that violations will go unpunished and that emboldens offenders.

It is conceivable that after Bush came to power, the anti-abortionists let go a little bit. But such a drop in investigations? The result of still enduring Bush era policy guidance from the Justice Department? Plausible considering Bush's anti-abortion friendly politics? You betcha. The pro-lifers are a relevant voting segment of the GOP. It would fit squarely into the reports of other stories of politicisation of federal agencies under Bush. I expect we'll hear more on this. Still worse would be if anti-abortion sympathies on the side of the responsible FBI agents were the reason for their lacklustre response.

 

Ragusa, I'm not about to defend murderers but I wouldn't put people who were picketing in the same category as those with "criminal energy". In an open society protest is something to generally be allowed.

The vandalism was a crime and the people responsible could have been taken to court. However, I wouldn't think someone was likely to commit murder if I heard this same person had glued doors shut. There is a pretty big difference.

I personally protested when W visited my hometown and a police officer there told me that if a fight or something broke out he was going to remove me simply because it was easier for him to remove me than the crowd of people there to see W. I wonder if the local city government had similar thoughts about the clinic vs the crowd of people there who opposed it.

Note that except for the earlier attack on Tiller (carried out by someone already in prison) there was nothing that indicated actual violence was about to occur.

I am uneasy about the personal info being put out but would like to point out personal info has been distributed by other groups to do things like protest at the homes of CEOs of companies that did things the group felt was reprehensible. It may be questionable but not the same as inciting violence. Recently an opinionated local paper in my hometown published the annual pay of top government and non-profit organization employees as part of trying to prove a point/make an issue out of something.

That favored groups weren't prosecuted when they should have been is something that may or may not have happened. I don't know one way or the other for sure. It is true that people (and presidential administrations) in power have done favors for supporters so it is possible. It is also possible that the more extreme supporters felt less motivation to carry out more extreme acts because they felt friends in high places would already move things the direction they wanted.

I think you have noted some questionable things, but you also seem to be exaggerating the likelihood of conspiracy and violence on the part of Pro-Lifers.

 

A couple of things about this. Super-gluing the doors shut is not just simple vandalism. It's a federal crime to prevent someone (either workers of clients) from accessing these clinics. That law was initiailly put in place to prevent people from forming human barricades in front of clinic entrances, but I imagine that it would apply equally to super-gluing the door - you are preventing people from entering the building. If it was a department store then it would be simply vandalism, but not if it's a clinic.

Secondly, Roeder isn't just your average guy, because most people don't have a history that includes a criminal conviction for transporting bomb-making materials. It's one thing to know how to make a bomb - he could have learned that if he had simply been in the military or has an interest in explosives. It is quite another thing to have go out and acquire all the actual ingredients, when the only reason you'd have to be in possession of them is if you wanted to make a bomb.

That having been said, I do agree that there is still a big leap to assume that Roeder would kill Tiller. While his criminal past, actively breaking federal law by denying access to clinics, and his association with radical pro-life groups made him more likely than the average person of carrying out his attack, the way the law is setup, we cannot act on suspicion alone. However, to suggest that this attack came completely out of the blue and no one could have predicted it, is also not true. There was, afterall, a reason Tiller wore a bullet proof vest to work.

 

Absolutely. I would have rep-ed you for that if I could.

 

Terrorism wins. Wichita is left without an abortion clinic and the entire country is left with two providers of late-term abortion.

[Coulter] We should kill their leaders and convert them to atheism[/Coulter]

 

I have a question for everyone, and please, don't shun me for it because I'm dead serious. Did you know he existed before this happened and do you honestly care about his death; or are you more interested in using it to fuel the belief you do or do not have?

My two cents on the matter (pardon the expression):
I've been a Christian for most of my life, and whenever I see things like this in the news it's saddening. Extremists, Atheists, Christians, whoever, they always turn it into a slap-fight and use the death of an individual they "mourn" or condemn into a death for their cause. It isn't a person that will be missed, nothing but another log for the fire.

 

Yes and yes. I would have thought that anyone involved in the abortion debate would have known about him. There are, after all, only 3 doctors in the entire country performing late term abortions. What's particularly odd in this case is that a majority of the late-term abortions Tillman has performed are of a type that most people would agree with -- the only possible exception being those young incest victims who, other than being young and victims of incest, didn't necessarily have anything medically wrong with them or with their babies (although the odds of it would be quite high). With the lone exception of those young incest victims Tillman has helped, Tillman hasn't been performing late term abortions of healthy, viable fetuses.

I totally understand the pro-life community's angst about Tillman's perfectly legal early-term abortions, but those early term abortions are no worse than any other abortion performed by any other doctor or clinic. The people Crying shenanigans about the late-term abortions* he performed in keeping with already-restrictive Kansas law are at best sorely mis-informed.

* With the possible exception of the children borne of incest, who didn't necessarily have anything medically wrong with them -- though it was quite likely.

 

Shardnax,
yes and yes here as well.

What I see in Tiller is something that I have seen long ago - that the anti-abortionists in the US include fanatics who are perfectly willing to murder for their cause, and Tiller is the final proof for that.

Tiller was a man who took his oath to help woman in need serious. That's in my view, late term abortion or not, what counts. His stance mirrors my conviction, based on woman who have aborted that I know, that woman in need don't need pious pontifications but help, and that includes medical help - in accordance with the law. Tiller was a good man. A good doctor. May he rest in peace.

What O'Reilly made of that was mere demagoguery and defamation.

 

The state of political rhetoric in the US is very toxic, atm. It's not just the Right, at this point, that is spewing the the worst of it, but all sides have joined in on the action. It may have started with morons like Rush, but now it is like a fire in dry timber. The rhetoric of hate is becoming an art form of its own. The breakdown of rational political dialogue has brought the US to the point of nuclear exchange, and it is spilling over into this kind of action.

An example: Sarah Palin has spewed her own share of hate speech, since hitting the national spotlight, but Letterman's recent remarks demonstrate that there is now culpability among even her detractors. Which caused Palin to remark:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2009/06/10/1959199.aspx

Of course, for someone who accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists," it loses some of its timber, but nevertheless, what she is saying is pretty much on target. Of course, she would never take her own advice on the issue of what's "proper" to comment on or isn't, and it's not her strongest talking point. It was during her own rallies, where she whipped up the crowd with her own toxic remarks of Obama, which caused cries of "kill him" among those present.

Then there is rhetoric like this:

It's the same old "us against them," mentality. The rise of hate groups is nothing new, but the election of Obama has helped to inflame the heat of rhetoric to a new level.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30876593/

Anti-abortion groups are not any different. The rhetoric is designed to speak directly to the raw emotions, rather than speak to the rational intellect. Please note that I'm not referring to individuals who oppose abortion on moral grounds, but to those oraganizations that thrive on the rhetoric of hate to further their own agendas. Follow these same organizations, and a number of hotwire issues lead directly into their spheres of influence:



You got it: "lock & load" Rod has spoken to the faithful....

 

Exactly, true Christians should be just as appalled about a doctor being killed as an unborn baby.

My take on such things is to pray in my closet secretly. do my voting according to my conscience, and otherwise keep my mouth shut, because everything pertaining to pro-life has already been said, and unsaved people do not need to see or hear me keeping the pot stirred.

 

Shadow Wolf,
you are right in the sense that the picketing of abortion clinics is not undertaken to convert the unsaved to see the light of Jesus, but to entertain the own troops and give them a cause to rally around, and utilise the issue politically. Certainly, however, the protesters are sincere in their opposition to abortion. Yet, it is very implausible that pro-lifers like Roeder thought that super glueing clinic doors would make the clinic staff understand that abortion is bad and godless. Same for picketing with signs like 'Baby Killer!" or other name calling. In my understanding the abortion protesting is strictly a mobilisation issue. Exclude that and the picketing and cries of 'muderer' and the like have only utility as a means to terrorise and harass fellow citizens.

On a utilitarian level, the value of the protests, however sincere, is mostly for the protesters themselves. To take up a noble cause and use it for self-exhalation dis-nobles it and turns it into an expression of, for lack of a better word, vanity. The same applies for the folks who want to 'save Israel' from all enemies, real and imagined, to fulfil biblical prophecy. God doesn't need our help. Last time I checked, He was almighty. Who do they think they are that they think they can help Him? Or is it just fear of divine punishment in their lifetimes? Of the Second Coming? The assumption that God will smithe us and send hurricanes to New Orleans for gay parades or send 9/11 because of abortions conducted in the US is a superstitious, almost pagan fear that seeks the divine in natural or man made disasters or incidents.

 

That includes the abortion mother and the abortion doctor who barge into the child's life and kill it. It's homicide to murder to kill an abortion doctor in normal circumstances, but it's homicide in affection (and possibly in error) to homicide to murder to have an abortion or help in it.

This is not to say I have no pity on the killed doctor, but pity is also due to the children aborted.

I agree. Any joke about raping is disgusting. A joke about raping a 14 year old is even more disgusting and should be criminal - and probably is, if you apply the laws the way they are made. A joke from a 62 year old man about raping a 14 year old girl is thoroughly disgusting and there is nothing "free speech" about and nothing noble in defending that man.

Anyone who thinks otherwise should take a deep breath and count to ten. I challenge you to say how you would react if a 62 year old man made a rape joke about your own 14 year old daughter.

If I were the local public prosecutor, the complaint would already be in the writing no matter who said that about no matter what 14 year old, barring legally insane people who cannot be criminally responsible, which that man probably was not.

Chandos, unless you have good reasons to believe that she used the situation in cold blood to further her political goals and made that man a scapegoat, then nothing she said should be used against her. I wouldn't blame her for knocking his teeth out on the spot. The only reason I probably wouldn't slap someone in such a situation is that I'm a bit too collected and probably wouldn't do it after all. But he deserved more than just verbal scathing for that kind of joke, if he really made it.

 

...And this is from FOX News:

Sarah Palin ran for Vice President on the McCain ticket. In that sense her goals were largely "political." And yes I have "good reasons" to believe exactly that.

 

One quick comment on Letterman - I didn't take it as a "rape joke", because I had assumed he was talking about Bristol - the 18-year old who had a baby. I'm not sure which one the 14-year old is - either Willow or Piper. I'll have to look up his comment, but at the time I heard it live, I assumed it was the one who had the baby.

EDIT: I just found the clip, and he just says "[Palin's] daughter", without specifying which of the Palin's three daughters he was referring to. Why anyone thought he was specifically referring to the 14-year old is rather curious. I had assumed it was the one who we know was sexually active. That said, the joke was in poor taste. None of Palin's daughters should be the subject of political humor.

 

As did I, and I'm sure anyone who heard the joke would, too. When anyone references "Palin's daughter" or sees a headline reading "Gov. Palin visits NYC with Daughter," I'm certain Bristol is the one who springs to mind 99% of the time.

Be that as it may, I personally think it was a low-point for Letterman, who I've always been a fan of (though he's becoming increasingly obvious about his political leanings, which always ruins comedy IMO). He was obviously referring to Bristol, but still - it was really tasteless, and not in a good way (I love tasteless jokes most of the time). I even thought his "slutty flight attendant" joke was out of line, too ("cheap" would have been better), and I'm hardly a fan of Palin's.

On a related note: I do think she's dead serious about running in 2012. Unfortunately.

 

I would say "fortunately". We'll have 18 months of comic relief - you can't put a price tag on that! Seriously though, I think she will run, but I cannot see how she could possibly win the nomination. It's very hard to change a first impression, and there's a reason why Quayle never won the Republican nomination.