Abortion doctor has been murdered in his church

[Araelus]

database error took the post away, let's see if I got it back:

The hilarious thing is, i think abortion is immoral, and yet i don't think it should be illegal, and i had enough good sense to know not to drag an abortion debate into a clear act of terrorism and murder. Because the point here is terrorism and murder.

The murder of Dr. George Tiller is horrific and certainly a terrorist act. I'd say Kuya has it right in terms of framing the discussion and the moral issue. Reasonable, good-minded people disagree about the legality of abortion. Yet only a fringe group think it worth murdering over. And that's what is at stake in this news article - the people who oppose abortion on moral grounds must also oppose violent action against it. But why?

I'm late to the party as usual, so the best I can do is bold some salient portions of the only satisfying treatise on the problem I ever bothered to read through, (albeit an article that is badly titled) by James K. Fitzpatrick. I found an archived online copy here.

Pro–lifers who condemn violence against abortionists and abortion clinics are not hypocritical, nor are they inconsistent. Their intuition that shooting a nurse at an abortion clinic is not the same as shooting the man with the meat cleaver in a maternity ward is correct, even though saving innocent lives is the objective in both cases. What the man [with the meat cleaver] is doing is outside and against just law. What the nurse [or doctor] does is, alas, permitted by unjust law. It is reasonable to believe that that unjust law can be changed, with the result that innumerable innocent lives will be saved. It follows that it is morally imperative to work for such change, which can be achieved only through the politics of persuasion.

and thus we can conclude that killing people who perform abortions is unjust under the same moral law that condemns abortions, interestingly enough, or as Kuya said:

I think we can all agree his murder (and history of being harassed and attacked) is terrorism?

Fitzpatrick would agree, and he does so from the position that abortion is murder:

The time may come when the societal bonds are so ruptured that forceful confrontation will become necessary with those who, until then, had been our fellow citizens. The corollary, of course, is that we cannot in good conscience call for an application of lethal force against our neighbors until that moment arrives. There must be a marked debasement of the social compact. For all but the most radical pro–lifers, such a devolution has not yet occurred. Pro–life Americans are not willing to accept the sight of abortionists, their staff, and the women who employ them lying dead in our streets, because they remain our neighbors. They are neighbors who have fallen into evil ways on the issue of abortion, but neighbors nonetheless, fellow citizens who have permitted material concerns and self–centeredness to cloud their judgment on the question of abortion.

Historical parallels are hard to come by to press this point. After all, we are talking about large numbers of our neighbors reaching the conclusion that it should be legal to kill unborn children. The Civil War offers certain insights, however. It has been well documented that slavery was not the only issue in that conflict. But it was the central issue for Christian abolitionists in the North. By 1860 they were willing to take up arms against supporters of the Confederacy to end slavery. The question is: Why then? Why not before? Radical abolitionists such as John Brown and William Lloyd Garrison had called for military action against the South long before the war, but others were not as militant. They were willing to bide their time, seek a moral conversion of the slaveholders, work for a political solution even if that solution were to take many years.

Yet when war was declared there were few protests from these moderate factions. What had changed? Why was there a new willingness to back the use of force? It was not a result of a sudden breakthrough in their awareness of the evils of slavery. The writings and speeches of antislavery Americans in the middle years of the nineteenth century make clear that they had always viewed slavery as unequivocally immoral.

...

The defenders of abortion include within their ranks many of our cultural leaders, including members of the clergy, people whose opinion is respected in other areas, whose views are lauded on the talk shows and in academic circles—the proverbial “best and brightest.” Moreover, many pro–lifers have family members who disagree with them on abortion. All this makes a difference. It causes even militant pro–lifers to intuit that there is something markedly different between Nazi concentration camp guards and, say, the pro–choice delegates to the Democratic National Convention or members of the local chapter of the League of Women Voters.

Does a willingness to entertain apologies for the pro–abortion sentiments of their fellow citizens imply a degree of doubt about the nature of abortion on the part of pro–life Americans? To a certain extent—yes. It indicates, at the least, that pro–life Americans understand what causes many of their fellow citizens to err on this question. Let us once again consider the abolitionists to illustrate the point.

One could argue that the willingness to compromise with slaveholders in the years before the Civil War implied some self–doubt among early abolitionists; that their spirit of tolerance indicated, perhaps, that early abolitionists questioned the fitness of Southern slaves for equal membership in American society. This explains why so much abolitionist energy was directed toward returning blacks to Africa after emancipation. It seems fair to conclude that there was considerable sympathy in the North for those Southerners who hesitated to free their slaves in fear of what emancipation would do to their society. The fear was seen as not entirely unjustified. In other words, Southern slaveholders were viewed as being in error on the question of slavery by early abolitionists, but not as irretrievably evil men and women because of that failure. They were to be given time to come around to the truth, time to work out the social adjustments needed to deal with emancipation.

This, I submit, is also the view—more sensed than articulated at this point—of modern pro–life activists toward their pro–abortion fellow citizens. It is what explains why George W. Bush is able to react with such composure to his mother’s pro–choice views. As he phrases it, “Good people disagree about abortion.” While there is no reason to question Bush’s repeated assurance that his goal is to insure that “every unborn child will be protected in law and welcomed in life,” it is unlikely that Bush would have responded with such aplomb if it were discovered that his mother was a racist or anti–Semite. His reaction makes clear he does not think her error in this instance an egregious moral deficiency.

In other words, Bush is not so convinced of the persuasiveness of his pro–life position that he cannot imagine a high–minded individual coming to a different conclusion. I would argue that most pro–lifers are in the same boat. They do not see the mass of their pro–abortion fellow citizens as engaged in a calculated choice of evil. In fact, if pressed, I think most pro–life activists would concede that the fetus, especially in the early stages of its development, is not self–evidently (I repeat: not self–evidently) a human person; that there very well may be an element of religious belief that informs their conviction that human life begins at the moment of conception.

These distinctions are critical. We would not grant rapists, child molesters, or concentration camp guards any benefit of the doubt, regardless of how articulately they defended their behavior. We treat their transgressions as self–evident evils, their attempts at self–justification as crass dissimulation. That we treat differently Americans who promote and participate in abortions indicates our grasp of how easy it is for otherwise upstanding members of society to fall into error on this question—in spite of [the pro-life] conviction that [abortion] is an abomination.

[Correction]

Go cry yourself to sleep, dude, abortion is murder. Unless they aborted a black fetus lol haha

Burrows, what happened to you?

[Kohan]

My stance on abortion is and always has been that unless it's a danger to the mother or the child then it is simply wrong. If you're irresponsible enough to get pregnant by accident and don't want to keep the child then give it up for adoption to someone who does.

For someone who so thoroughly explained how a woman can get pregnant in the other thread (to counter Subzero's magical commentary), I am impressed that you've made a post so incredibly ignorant in this one.

First of all, there are far too many children on this world as is who do not get adopted. If people wish to appear truly generous, and intend to help the world out in its current state, they can adopt. They do not need to add another life. They should help one already here. Likewise, popping out another baby and tossing it into an orphanage isn't helping anybody, because this sort of thinking makes the cycle repeat indefinitely, and -- well, you get the idea, don't you? I certainly hope so.

Secondly, every single form of birth control -- aside from surgery, if you're counting that -- can fail. Even 1% is going to take effect 1% of the time. Why would this perfectly responsible person want a child they were doing everything within their power to prevent? They weren't a fool, they had an unfortunate happening and they'd like to get rid of it (and a bundle of cells you have no desire to turn into a baby is just that. Humans are animals like any other creature on this earth, we just have a higher thought process, which we waste on arguing about crap like this).

Thirdly, your not thinking something is wrong is certainly your right, but that doesn't mean it is wrong to everyone else. I'm female, and I support abortion 100%. Considering that it's quite a while before the brain even develops to the point of thought, what does it matter? Not much worse than the birth control preventing it in the first place, to be honest, now is it? I've donated to clinics, causes, and so on, so forth. It doesn't mean I don't respect life, but rather that I realize there are plenty of living creatures already here, and we do not need more.

Take care of what we already have. Make the current world a better place. Don't just ignore its fucking problems and unwanted children and encourage the production of more runts we don't need.

[Vajra]

Go cry yourself to sleep, dude. Abortion past the third trimester is murder.

Fixed. I'll also add that abortion is OK if you got raped in an unplanned event. It is also OK if the baby is threatening your life. If you're 25 years old + and you have a baby that's threatening your life (9 months pregnant) all they have to do is deliver the baby by cesarean session after the mother is dead, or delivery it naturally BEFORE she dies. I'm pro choice but I still believe there's a point where abortion is NOT OK (past third trimester). That is the only time I consider it murder. I also consider it murder if people have sex (w/o protection stupidly) and then abort it because they cant handle the baby in their life (even though it's not endangering their life/ they were not raped). But hey it's their choice, what can you do.

I.e. couple months ago there was a 9 year old who was pregnant and the baby was guaranteed to kill her if she had it (the baby would also die too premature). Her parents would not let her have the abortion because of their religion. So apparently she's going to have to die, and so will her baby. I haven't read into this story recently so idk if they're charging the parents with something so....

The people who killed this guy are obviously evil because they killed him while he was church. They could of atleast waited til he was infront of his house or something...Murdering people in church is not the thing to do if you are trying to prove a point about "abortion is murder no matter what because of the Bible." Justifying the Christian belief by breaking the "Thou Shalt Not Murder" commandment, and doing it in the holiest of holy settings is probably one of the most sinister sin you could commit in the eyes of God PERIOD.

[Demosthenes11]

but what if the mother has swine flu

[Kerberoz]

Yeah, abortion past the third trimester is quite literally murder, genius.

[Araelus]

Afterthought: did the wretched person who murdered Dr. George Tiller know today is Pentecost?

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

The people who killed this guy are obviously evil because they killed him while he was church. They could of atleast waited til he was infront of his house or something...Murdering people in church is not the thing to do if you are trying to prove a point about "abortion is murder no matter what because of the Bible." Justifying the Christian belief by breaking the "Thou Shalt Not Murder" commandment, and doing it in the holiest of holy settings is probably one of the most sinister sin you could commit in the eyes of God PERIOD.

Ya, they're totally more eviler for killing the Dr. in front of one building instead of another.

[Vajra]

Ya, they're totally more eviler for killing the Dr. in front of one building instead of another.

They're not only justifying killing people in/at/infront of a Church (which is a place where this should never happen), but they could of endangered other people who are coming out church to go home and relax on a nice Sunday afternoon...like Az says today's Pentecost is today May 31, 2009. It's the day when God gave the Ten Comandments at Mount Sinai. Moses took part in collecting the tablets and passing them on to everyone.

Most laws are also based on the Ten Commandments (like it or not). Obviously the person who committed the murder was a Christian, but he made a big mistake by committing a sin like this, at the location he did, and on the day he did.

[Mistress Stowastiq]

You do know he specialized in late-term abortions, which is about 5 months pregnant?

What your baby looks like -- 21 weeks | BabyCenter

So people should be allowed to abort pregnancies this far into development?

I'm not justifying his murder, which is an outrage (and just goes to further show how hypocritical a lot of religious folk are), but it's not like he was doing something good.

It's just that -murdering murderers- defies the point of the "justice" that they may claim to want. Actual respect for human life is not something that can be traded or diluted and the moment a life is taken in murder, it places the murderer in the same category as any other person who has taken a life.

Killing a human to make a statement about how horrendous it is to kill humans is a complete fallacy and it contradicts any remote hope for the legitimacy of the "pro life" cause.

[Neosutra]

Everyone: Shut the fuck up with the abortion debate.

We dont care what your opinion is.

It doesnt change anything. Every single person here has a different reason for why they feel life begins at whatever point. Fuck off.

If you want to stop abortions, work to improve sexual education in schools and the use of contraceptives. Nothing else you -ever- do in life will affect the abortion rates in this country more than this, jesus titty fucking christ.

[Konohamaru]

i think its simply amazing people still debate this shit lol

[Beckwin]

another round of terrorism from the fringe American right.

Up next: Ruby Ridge and Waco sequels; Texas secedes.

[MF Perm tha Fineass]

i think its simply amazing people still debate this shit lol

You kidding me, evolution is still a debate. This country is fucking doomed and we're worried about North Korea and Iran having nukes?

The guy that shot the doctor probably also thinks the Flintstones was a documentary. There are enough of these people in America to allah akbar the shit out of allah akbar.

[Guitarman]

Everyone: Shut the fuck up with the abortion debate.

We dont care what your opinion is.

It doesnt change anything. Every single person here has a different reason for why they feel life begins at whatever point. Fuck off.

Funny, change the word abortion with religion, and you'd have the answer to stopping all those debates too.

(just to add i agree with you, but religion and abortion topics need to both fuck off. We're never going to see eye to eye).

[Rhinox]

Randall Terry, the founder of anti-abortion group Operation Rescue who led protests against George Tiller's clinic in Wichita, Kansas in 1991, issued a statement about today's killing of the abortion doctor.

In his comments, Terry does not grieve for Tiller or denounce the murder but seems more concerned about President Obama's reaction and what it bodes for the pro-life movement.

"George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.


Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches."

Terry did not return calls for comment.

Other anti-abortion groups condemned Tiller's murder in strong terms, reports the Catholic News Agency.

Troy Newman, President of the Kansas-based Operation Rescue said in a statement that his organization "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"...


Shaun Kenney, executive director of American Life League, explained that leaders within the pro-life movement "often discuss justice in connection with our mission to end the tragedy of abortion. Today, Dr. George Tiller's life ended in an act defying those principles."

stay classy Pro-lifers.

At least some of you guys can call it for what it really is.

[Neosutra]

Funny, change the word abortion with religion, and you'd have the answer to stopping all those debates too.

(just to add i agree with you, but religion and abortion topics need to both fuck off. We're never going to see eye to eye).

Actually, since the premises for religion are based on testable facts and logical inconsistancies, they arent even remotely similar debates.

But thanx.

[Correction]

Actually, since the premises for religion are based on testable facts and logical inconsistancies, they arent even remotely similar debates.

But thanx.

But such 'debates' are identical in their content because neither side is willing to walk to a middle ground of understanding, which was the point you missed.

But thanx.

[Jefe]

Actually, since the premises for religion are based on testable facts and logical inconsistancies, they arent even remotely similar debates.

But thanx.

He obviously meant the opinions, Einstein. Kinda sad I have to fucking bold shit around to emphasize the point.

[Neosutra]

He obviously meant the opinions, Einstein. Kinda sad I have to fucking bold shit around to emphasize the point.

Ya, because atheist argue based on opinions.

Actually no wait, we dont. We argue based on the facts.

The only similiarity between a religious argument and an abortion argument is a large percentage of religious people on one side of each arguement. The fundamentals of each stance and the basis for each arugment are completely different. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer to abortion. There however most definately "is" or "isnt" a god.

One of these debates has a side that is correct, the other is conjecture.

Sure you can tell the difference?