Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism? Abortion Doctor Murdered

Remove all ads!

I myself had never heard of Tiller before this incident. The fact that he performed abortions for reasons that I vehemently disagree with makes me not like him, but that does not mean he deserved to be murdered. All that did was deprive another family of a loved member, eff up the life of the murdering bastard who did it (and make no mistake, I think that the shooter deserves the death penalty -- it's pretty obvious the murder was 1st degree), and smear the message and intent of the thousands of honest, decent pro-life people who would never in a million years dream of engaging in vigilante murder.

I do not think that I am using Tiller's death to "fuel" any of my previously existing beliefs. If I were saying crap like "he brought it on himself, this is God's way of punishing abortionists" then I suppose I could be accused of such nonsense (and I'm sure lots of rabid loonie right-wingers are making such statements right now, more's the pity) but I am capable of mourning the murder of any law abiding man of honest intention, even if I disagree with his beliefs and actions.

 

I did not know of Tiller specifically by name before this incident. However, I was aware that there were very few doctors anywhere that were willing to perform 3rd trimester abortions, and that those that did were constantly being harrassed by pro-lifers.

Could you explain this a little better LKD? It seems like the way you are phrasing it that you had a problem with the late term abortions and not the early term abortions (Tiller performed far more early than late term abortions). If my assumption is true, I would like to know which late term abortions Tiller performed for reasons you vehemently disagreed with. For the 19 late term abortions in which Tiller was tried for, all were for either unviable fetuses or in cases in which the mother's health was at serious risk (verified by a second doctor) except one. The lone exception was a case of incest. The only one I question is actually that last case. Presumably, you knew the fetus was the result of an incestuous relationship long before the 3rd trimester, so why did it take that long to get the abortion?

EDIT: One more thing about Letterman. I found out today that the reason why they focused on Willow as the butt of Letterman's joke was because Willow was the only Palin daughter present at the baseball game. I still think it was obvious that the joke about being knocked up was actually directed at the 18-year old daughter who actually was knocked up, but at least now I understand the thought process inovlved.

 

Gladly. I have a serious problem with abortion on demand, be it early or late term. Psychological stress is not, IMHO, a valid reason for an abortion. I see that as a cop out, and that doesn't mean I don't value mental health.

Now, I didn't know much about Tiller or his abortions. But my position has always been quite clear. In the case of incest, I usually assume it was involuntary incest* (ie -- the rape of a daughter by her father). In that case the girl did not make a choice to get pregnant, so therefore she should not be held responsible for the actions of another -- I support the abortion. In the case of grave physical danger to the mother's life, I also support abortion.

Now with professional abortionists, however, I don't usually trust them to be honest about the whole deal -- they'll claim "grave physical danger" for the projected weight gain the mother will endure after the birth. I do not believe that they are honest most of the time about the true probable consequences.

But that's neither here nor there. Disagree with it though I do, abortion on demand IS legal. And even if it were illegal, that does not change the fact that it doesn't give vigilantes the right to kill the doctors performing the abortions.

*If some related adults willingly engage in sexual intercourse, then AFAIK in most jurisdictions they've committed a crime, though it's not the kind of crime that often goes to court. If a baby results from willing sex between relatives, I do NOT support abortion in that case. I support the removal of the child from such a sick and twisted environment after birth, however.

 

One of the main reasons for not allowing intercourse among relatives it the chance that a genetic defect will be present in the baby. So we go back to your example:

Now assume testing has determined the fetus has a debilitating genetic defect -- the baby will not survive for long or it will be in constant pain and suffer it's entire life. Perhaps the baby will be born with only half a heart or without a fully functional brain. Is abortion acceptable for this case?

Many pro-lifers would say yes. And that's exactly why I have a problem with limiting abortion -- the line is drawn in the sand for most people. Examples can be given and the pro-lifers follow and say 'yes, abortion is okay for that circumstance' until the rules for such procedures is more complex than the US Tax Code.

For example, most opponents of abortion say it's okay in the case of rape or incest. Alright, when is it okay?

If the woman claims she was raped is it okay? She could be lying to get the procedure done.

Does she have to file a police report for it to be okay? Once again, she could be lying -- at least a DNA test on the fetus would acquit the poor sap she just took through the wringer.

Does there need to be an arrest or conviction for the abortion to be okay? That could take months.​

The same type of questions could be asked about incest. Do you really think every daughter would turn their father (or brother, or uncle) over to the police? Highly doubtful.

The only real solution is to make abortion legal or illegal. Period. You can break it down to specific procedures being legal or illegal, but line must be drawn at the procedures -- not the reasons for the abortion.

I personally disagree with abortion. I could not imagine having any of my children aborted. But I've known women who had abortions and I do not think any less of them for doing so (they had their reasons -- granted, none of them were the 'I just don't have time for a child right now' reason).

 

I have to say, I believe you are completely wrong here. You see, the problem you are talking about is the problem that almost all laws come up against, that real-world situations frequently have to be handled on a case-by-case basis, not with a single overarching black line. This is why mutability is built into our legal system. From the police officers to the prosecutors to even the judges, each is empowered to employ a certain level of discression in what and how to apply the law. This allows for individual, unique, and complex cases to be suitably and rather smoothly handled (ideally at least). The same needs to be applied to abortion.

Tal, I had heard of that story, and I find it very disturbing. Unfortunately, unless she blatantly asked people to give her stuff in the blog, I don't think she did anything illegal. I'm not lawyer, so I'm not sure, but I don't think telling a sob story in the blind hope of being given things is illegal.

 

Therein lies the problem. I don't believe this is done very well. I don't believe it is possible for this to be applied to abortion. Everyone brings their own opinions and value systems to the table -- the person will receive judgement, not empathy. I simply do not trust any government agency, at any level, to make humane and equitable decisions here. I think doing this will simply divide the country into communities that allow anything, and communities that allow nothing. In the end, people will simply travel to where they need to go to do what they believe they need to do.

Nothing will change.

 

T2, so you think a better solution is either to deny it to everyone, or to allow anyone who feels the least inconvenienced by their pregnancy to get it without restriction?

I'd rather trust it to even a lapsed and botchy organization than either deny it to everyone (even those the organization would let have it) or go without any kind of oversight at all (even those the organization would put in place).

 

Abortion is a medical issue. Period.

Dealing with people who have had abortions (or are considering abortions) can be a religious issue if the religion believes it necessary.

Fine, let the religions punish their flock in the same way they punish for any other sin, but leave the rest of us out of it. I remember when I was a teenager a couple was excommunicated in my ward (this was several years before I was). They were going to divorce when she found out she was pregnant. She didn't want his child (a child which would remind her of an abusive husband -- there were rumors the child was a result of spousal rape) and he didn't want to pay child support for 18 plus years so they got an abortion. IMO, all three (the woman, the man, and the church) made the correct decision.

Such decisions cannot be left to a 'lapsed and botchy organization' -- that would be the worst of the three choices you gave. People either have a respect for life or they do not. Those who do will probably never have an abortion, those who have no respect for life will find a way to either get rid of the fetus or the child (as another thread has shown).

 

T2, I have to disagree with both your sentiment and conclusion concerning those with no respect for life. I presume the other thread you are reffering to is the one about the mother who killed her three children. That is almost certainly the fault of a serious psychological disorder, not her just "not wanting the children".

At the same time, your conclusion that "they'll find some way to do it anyway" suggests that we shouldn't punish those who break the law if we think "they'll find some way to do it anyway". If my next door neighbor will "find some way" to steal a new flat screen TV, regardless of the law, it doesn't decrease my interest in putting him behind bars any. That we should let people get abortions because "they'll get it anyway" is only applicable if we're concerned with limited abortions for preventative health issues (i.e. home abortions tend to be seriously risky to the mother).

Lastly, the big problem with the abortion issue is that many don't agree that it's a medical issue. It is also a life issue, which brings in human rights concerns and the law, even if you don't consider it a religious issue. What the ultimate conclusion on these issues will be is up for a great deal of debate, but that they are concerns is certain.

 

NOG, laws are man made, they can be repealed. Religious laws are another matter. But they don't bind those who do not subscribe to that particular religion or sub-sect of it. Whatever a Hindu might think - I like beef. And milk. Putting religious laws into secular law means forcing them on the non-believers. That, among other things, is what Iran's youth is currently protesting against - the harassment by the religious police which is enforcing real or imagined religious law on those who are disinterested in it.

As this is the n-th abortion thread I am fairly familiar with the usual arguments of the pro lifers. For instance it is realistically so that a woman in such a situation is wildly disinterested in what you think she might think in twenty years and that she will then mourn to have had an abortion. You may hope that but you can't know that. It's a hypothesis. Such women have health concerns, they have financial woes. The decision to abort is theirs and it is on their conscience. You can try change her mind it with palpable support, counselling or even proselytising, if these woman want that (i.e. if they don't, leave them alone) - but that's your private business.

In that sense, I think T2 is right on. Conflating a health matter with religion doesn't help the ones who need to have an abortion for medical reasons one bit. Insisting on a total ban, for moral and religious reasons, only pushes woman in an abortion situation into illegality, with all the well known health risks involved with back room abortions. Rather than saving unborn life, that approach imperils born live as well. It helps nobody, in particular bot the woman in need right now but, let's try that pun, except the conscience of the bully on the pulpit.

There is this demented 'reasoning' behind opposing HPV immunisation - based on the assertion that immunity against HPV would encourage promiscuity, as if the fear of cervical cancer is a deterrence for having sex - so for the sake of deterrence against promiscuity, rather let them have cervical cancer. The implicit argument in that is that, if they get it, the sluts had it coming anyway.

Along that line I have read pro-lifers referring to the obvious health risks of illegal abortions approvingly, because they serve as a deterrent ... As in, yes, I exaggerate, but not by much: When you have an abortion, it is not only wrong, but you will die and if not die, suffer miserably ...

 

NOG, you're putting words in my mouth with "they'll find some way to do it anyway" -- if Roe v. Wade is overturned the issue of abortion becomes a state issue. Some states will allow it, some will not. People will simply trave to the states that allow the procedure, I doubt home abortions would rise much over where they are now.

The mother who killed three children is not alone -- infants are abandoned all the time. They are found both dead and alive in garbage cans, on doorsteps, and under trees. It seems a lot of people have this "severe psychological disorder" you mention. Such instances would only increase if abortions were illegal.

It would be good if the pro-life people could get organized and have a common set of goals and priorities. They could focus on procedures that are reprehensible. They could try to alter the definition of life (from the 'moment of first breath' to perhaps 'the point in development where survival outside the womb is greater than 50%'). They could focus on community awareness campaigns and trying to get kids to understand that unprotected sex leads to pregnancy (of couse, that's a stretch because these same people are against condoms to minors). Instead they are factionalized and militarized -- many would rather taunt and publically condemn a 15 year old girl rather than be part of the solution.

 

Just wanted to say I don't believe abortion is purely a medical issue, and it isn't for religious purposes.

There are so many people who are not in a position to judge the difficulty or gravity of a situation who do judge, and judge harshly (myself included) I do not think it is fair on any person involved that an abortion is performed late or mid term and should only be done for medical reasons. I do not agree with 'career abortions' and believe more support should be available to women during pregnancy and after the birth of their child - so many abortions are performed because of the pressure of preparing to become a parent, the ingrained belief that you are not ready to be a parent and you cannot cope, a similar affect that leads depressives to think suicidal thoughts can lead a woman to believe that her child is better not being born. Yet where is there support for them? I can accept an abortion in the instance of severe trauma in both physical and mental terms for both the mother and unborn child.

I do not agree with abortion, but I am still pro-choice because I would not assume to know about such a painful and horrifying decision and the accompanying guilt. I would not brand a woman who had a willing abortion from difficult circumstances any more than a woman who miscarried. Often the psychological outcome is the same, even if the situation is in many views incomparible.

 

Ok, quite a few people have seriously over-reacted to what I said and assumed a great many arguements that I never presented and do not myself believe.

Tal, I never presumed that all religions are against abortion. My whole point was that, even without religion of any kind, abortion is still more than a simple medical issue. I never "shoved" my beliefs down anyone's throat. I also never advocated forcing anyone to live by my beliefs though, ultimately, on many matters of law, someone's beliefs MUST be followed, even if the fact that this is X person's belief has nothing to do with why it is accepted by the law. Whether we ban abortions, restrict them, or allow them for anyone for any reason, all represent certain people's beliefs, and the law would be advocating one of them.

Ragusa, similarly, I'm arguing that religion isn't an issue, not that it is. Nor do I advocate a complete ban on them. There are a number of reasons why I would support an abortion, and believe they should be legal. As for a woman's mentality as she's considering abortions, you may be surprised what I know. One of my bible study teachers for 6 years was also the church counselor and counseled many women, from our church and walk-ins from the street, about abortion. She told us many stories of the kinds of topics that come up. Of course, those were women seeking guidence, not set in their decisions, so it may be a different crowd from what you're describing.

As for the HPV vaccination, the most common reason for refusing it I have heard is that there is actually a chance (as with most vaccines) of causing the very disease you seek to prevent. Couple that with the fact that by far the most likely source of infection is promiscuous sex and a forced vaccine is essentially an assumption that all young women engage in promiscuous sex.

While I don't advocate that position at all, I do believe these risks are things that are all too often underplayed by the pro-abortion movement.

Really?

Now, there may be some dispute as to what I meant by "it", but that's "it" in that last quote, just to clarify.

Ah, but the woman in question didn't abandon her children, she brutally murdered them and, I seem to recall, froze one or two of their bodies. That, along with her own account, is why I say she is mentally unwell. As for the likelyhood of increased abandon rates if abortions were banned, the statistics say differently. Once abortions were legallized in the US, teen pregnancy, STDs, and abandonments shot through the roof. Now, there were a LOT of other issues going on at the same time that almost certainly contributed as well, but to say that legalized abortions didn't play a role in that is ridiculous.

I agree completely with you here, and there are a number of organizations with just that goal (or similar ones), but the ACLU and Pro-Abortion movements battle them just as much as any other pro-life group.

Here I think you're confusing a vocal (and loved by the press, in a way) minority with the vast majority who condemn the above as well as abortions.

8people, for so many reasons, including what you just said, I deeply wish adoption would come back into the discussion. Most (maybe all now) states even have laws where you can leave a child of a certain age or younger on the doorstep of a police office of fire station without even having questions asked. Yet this kind of thing never comes up. Too many young and unprepared mothers even go so far as to abandon or kill their children, when they could achieve the same end result (them not having to care for the child) by leaving them with the authorities.

 

BTA is right. In that sense the 'most common reason' might turn out to be the most common scarecrow i.e. pretext in the established talking points of the opponents, used to not have to speak about promiscuity.

When you nowadays hear interviews with John Hagee he says his support for Israel has nothing to do with eschatology. That's of course nonsense; it has everything to do with it. He has just learned his talking points.

 

Well, it's good to be enlightened on that point. Thanks, BTA.

Nonetheless, there are a number of current trends in the medical industry, meant to contain and prevent STDs, that many take as an offensive insinuation that they WILL be engaging in unsafe sex. The HPV vaccine is one. Another is that, in order to get a contraceptive pill perscription, my wife had to get a pap smear. Both my wife and I were virgins at the time, and not likely to be sleeping around, so the odds of her getting HPV from me, or giving it to me (I assume men can be a carrier or something) are quite low. The procedure was basically unnecessary.

Now, I understand that these precautions are meant to catch everyone, as many women who are engaging in unsafe sex are unlikely to admit it to a doctor on a basic questionare, but it can be offensive to those who value their sexual integrity. It's a slap in the face. Sure, it's a slap in the face for important medical reasons, and I have no problem with it really, but it is a slap nonetheless.

 

Scott Roeder, the suspected killer of Dr. Tiller, is advocating the murder of abortion doctors from his jail cell.

Army of God comments on Hill with the bible verses:

The message is clear enough.

 

Well, I got one for them:

Thou shalt not commit murder.