You can't buy the sort of publicity Tiller's murder is generating.
Abortion advocates know this. Tlaloc, who had been absent from my blog for months, showed up as soon as he knew Tiller was dead to gloat about the prochoice victory. Oh, he doesn't say it that way. He couches it in "This is just what you wanted all along!" But he knows better. He's not stupid enough to think this is anything the prolifers would have wanted.
We know how it will play out. Abortion supporters will be out tonight at vigils, wiping away tears, saying all the canned speeches about poor hapless Dr. Tiller, brave champion of women's rights, yada yada yada. Yeah, they're saddened that an abortionist, a kindred spirit, is dead. But they know this is a victory for them. The biggest since Roe was handed down. The political gain is immeasurably greater than any sadness they'll feel at his passing. For them, inasmuch as any of them pray, Tiller's murder -- especially his murder in a church -- is an answered prayer. They wanted something, anything, to use as a stake to pound through our hearts. And they've gotten a huge one.
Prolifers, on the other hand, have been praying for TIller's conversion for decades. His conversion would have been a huge coup for us. As big a coup as his death is for abortion advocates. Now our hopes are dashed. Not just for Tiller, but for ordinary women and their children. For the cause of life and love. For everything we've worked so hard to achieve.
And hardcore abortion advocates know this. They know we've dreamed of Tiller's conversion like a Disney princess dreams about her handsome prince. They know the secrets Tiller took to his grave. And they rejoice that those secrets will be buried with him, not brought into the light as we'd hoped and prayed all these years.
Tiller and his supporters spent the past 35 years giving Satan a foothold in Wichita, in that church, in Tiller's life. And today Satan cashed in his chips big time. This was the payoff for 35 years of laying the groundwork. Satan couldn't have scored a brighter and more spectacular victory.
And don't think his supporters in abortion advocacy don't know it.
To those who don't get it, imagine that your job is to "turn" enemy spies, to get them to become double agents who give you vital information that saves tens of thousands of lives. Imagine that one of those enemy spies, who has access to all the enemy's most vital secrets, had been your target for 35 years. If you could turn him, it would be a mighty blow to the enemy, one from which they might never recover.
And then some dillwad went and shot that spy, in such a time and place as to score a huge PR coup for the enemy and to set back your work at least ten years.
THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED TO PROLIFERS TODAY.
Totally aside from the fact that a man was murdered, we're watching all of our hard work and dedication get torn to shreds by a gleeful press. This is a huge, massive, demoralizing blow.
My reaction when my troll came out from under his bridge to make the announcement was to sit and mutter, "Shit, shit, shit, shit, shit, shit!" for about five straight minutes. My initial blog post was pretty much "Shit, shit, shit, shit, shit." It needed a lot of editing.
If there's anything prolifers love more than rescued babies, it's converted abortionists. We kill the fatted calf for them. And we had an entire ranch of fatted calves just waiting for the barbecue when Tiller joined our side. He was going to blow the lid off the whole sordid thing when he converted. It was only a matter of time.
Then some dickweed gunman killed Tiller and with it so many of our hopes.
George Tiller went from monster to martyr the moment that bullet entered his body. The worst, most notorious abortionist in America became the most sympathetic character on the political and public opinion stage.
And to add insult to injury, we have the hardcore abortion advocates pretending this is good news to us.
It's hard to imagine worse news. Obama's election. Proabortion Supreme Court justices. Hardcore abortion advocates in positions of political power. Those were bad news. This is worse than all of them combined.
75 comments:
I wanted Tiller to be gone but not like this, I wanted him gone from the abortion industry.
Its sad that he didn't get a chance to see the error of his ways. But I guess that is out of our hands.
But to be shot down in a church?! I'm super pro-life and I would NEVER think to shoot someone at all, let alone in a church which is a place for refuge and peace.
I dreamed of the day he'd convert. I fantasized about it. I imagined the dark things he'd bring into the light.
Now those hopes are dashed. And Tlaloc, my troll, came out from under his bridge to gloat. He was here probably about ten seconds after Tiller's body hit the ground.
"Tlaloc, who had been absent from my blog for months, showed up as soon as he knew Tiller was dead to gloat about the prochoice victory."
I came to see what you had to say for yourself under the circumstances. I have to say I was very disappointed. I see nothing to gloat about here, Christina. Abortion was already legal. My side had already "won." But now my side has still won and your side has murdered a man. Tell me what I am supposedly celebrating?
I would like there to be a meaningful dialogue in this country about abortion rather than the polarizing and unhelpful current stalemate. Tiller's murder doesn't help this. Some prolifers will be horrorified and disavow the result but still embrace the process that led to it. Some will turn away completely. Some will double down and claim it was right or god's work (as we've already seen).
On the other side the pro-choicers will have one more reason not to trust the pro-lifers because they will see that pro-lifers value our lives less than their rhetoric.
This doesn't help me on iota, Christina, and it's pretty ugly the way you've turned a horrible crime by your fellow travelers into a club to beat me with. I didn't make you demonize Tiller. I didn't make you broadcast the idea that he was subhuman. You chose that route, and you should deal with the consequences rather than lash out at me for your failing.
Christina if you really had wanted to convert Tiller you wouldn't have spent so much energy persecuting the man. That's not how you turn a "spy."
You are a disgusting low-life. How can you call yourself pro-life and then celebrate the murder of a father and grandfather?!? You should be ashamed of yourself! You are a poor excuse for a Christian.
1. We don't know the motives of the man who shot Tiller. All we do know is that he evidently bought into the idea that killing people is an okay way to solve problems -- which is the PROCHOICE philosophy, not the prolife philosophy.
2. I've not celebrated the man's death. Point out ONE WORD that indicates I'm glad he's dead.
3. The fact that he was murdered does not change who he was. The man left a baby blind, paralyzed, and mentally retarded by injecting formaldehyde into her brain. He let his staff kill a mentally retarded teenager. He preyed on vulnerable women who had gotten negative prenatal diagnoses, getting rich from their anguish and bewilderment. He openly broke the law and gloated about it. He bought political favor the way I buy toothpaste so that he could continue his dastardly deeds. Don't expect me to defend him or to sugarcoat what he did with his life. If you think these were good and beautiful things to do, by all means shout it from the rooftops. But don't expect a chorus of praise from me. I will not dishonor his victims by denying them.
Tlaloc, HE WAS A BUTCHER. A man who devoted his life to exploiting vulnerable women. To you, that makes him a hero. So go sing his praises. Shout from the rooftops how nothing gladdens a mother's heart as much as a dead baby, rotted from three days decaying in her womb, dropping out into a basement toilet in an abortion mill. Don't expect me to sing his praises with you.
Tlaloc, the very thing you admire most about this man is the thing I find most deplorable. The only thing we agree on is that it was wrong to shoot him.
Did you really think that this man's murder would make me convert, would make me say, "Yeah, injecting formaldehyde into a baby's brain is a good and beautiful and yes, brave and stalwart thing to do!"?
Go sing his praises to other people who think babies deserve to have chemicals injected into their brains. Don't expect me to join the chorus.
Staci, show me ONE PLACE WHERE I"VE CELEBRATED TILLER"S DEATH?
IT IS PROFOUNDLY PROCHOICE TO KILL SOMEBODY JUST BECAUSE THEIR PRESENCE TROUBLES YOU.
Killing George Tiller was a PROCHOICE act.
But I can't expect people who think injecting formaldehyde into a baby's brain is a GOOD THING to understand that.
"Did you really think that this man's murder would make me convert, would make me say, "Yeah, injecting formaldehyde into a baby's brain is a good and beautiful and yes, brave and stalwart thing to do!"?"
No, of course not. I hoped though that it might make you pause before stating unequivocally that a fellow human being is "a butcher." It's the dead certainty despite a lack of any real evidence and despite the repeated findings of innocence that really scares me, Christina.
That's fanatic thinking, and sooner or later a fanatic always reaches a conclusion that the ends justify the means.
What lack of evidence, Tlaloc?
I've not denounced Curtis Boyd as a butcher. I've said that all the evidence was that he believed he was doing what was right for his patients, and that he and his staff did every reasonable thing to try to save Vanessa Preston.
Let me quote from my write up on Vanessa's death:
To the credit of Boyd and the Fairmount staff, emergency procedures were immediately instituted. An ambulance was summoned, and Boyd and a nurse performed CPR and got Vanessa's heart to beat again.
Before the ambulance arrived, Vanessa again went into cardiac arrest. Again, staff at Fairmount performed CPR. Paramedics and staff stabilized Vanessa for transport to the hospital.
....
An autopsy revealed that she had developed amniotic fluid embolism (AFE - amniotic fluid in the mother's bloodstream) and disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC - a blood clotting disorder) during the abortion. This is what caused her cardiac arrest. When Boyd's staff resuscitated Vanessa, they caused a small laceration of her liver. This is typical in even properly performed CPR, and is not usually life-threatening. However, because of the DIC, Vanessa's blood couldn't clot, and she bled to death from the liver laceration. Since second-trimester evacuation abortions were still new (read "experimental") at the time, Boyd and his staff didn't realize that there was a risk of DIC.
Boyd, to his credit, reported Vanessa's death to the Centers for Disease Control. He also wrote a medical journal article about her death, warning other abortionists that DIC could occur during second-trimester evacuation abortions.
The evidence was that Boyd did his best by this patient. I've never seen evidence of carelessness or quackery from Boyd. I'd denounce Boyd as an abortionist, but not a quack of a butcher.
Tiller was another matter entirely. The evidence against him was pretty damning. It's hardly my fault that you can't see it.
Prolifers, on the other hand, have been praying for TIller's conversion for decades. His conversion would have been a huge coup for us.
Too bad y'all murdered him instead. "Pro life" my ass.
S.B., I was home in my bed nursing a chest cold when Tiller was shot. Where do you get off saying I murdered him?
And I've not seen a single news release on the motives of the murderer. What do you know that the police aren't releasing yet?
"What lack of evidence, Tlaloc? "
The lack of evidence that lead to Tiller consistently being found innocent. That means something, Christina. Maybe it means everyone in Kansas is on the take. Or maybe it means Tiller was never guilty in the first place.
Again, it is your iron clad certainty that is so worrying. If you really are that certain he's a butcher then honestly I don't believe you when you say you're sad he was gunned down. How could I?
"The evidence against him was pretty damning. It's hardly my fault that you can't see it."
The list of people unable to see this damning evidence is pretty long.
Oh, we all know juries are just totally infallible!
of course they aren't, but again- neither are you. Even assuming you had equal access to the evidence (and it is safe to say you don't) and an equal ability to evaluate the evidence without bias (and obviously again you don't) then we'd still have a case where one group looks at the circumstances and reaches one conclusion and another group reaches the opposite.
That should make you stop and consider the possibility you were wrong.
But you are just so sure, so certain that there's nothing that would have satisfied you that the man was innocent. That's why it was a witch hunt.
No, Tlaloc, I'm not infallible. But the jury hardly knew the whole story. And trials are set up with the presumption of innocence, which means that often the guilty get let go.
When William Waddill strangled Baby W in front of multiple witnesses -- including a neonatologist and several NICU nurses -- he got away with it, even though the autopsy clearly showed that the baby was 32 weeks and had died of manual strangulation, not prematurity or abortion injuries. Did that mean Waddill didn't strangle her? No. It meant that all it takes is one juror to say, "It depends on what your definition of 'death' is".
And a guilty verdict doesn't always mean the person is guilty -- I believe that Darlier Routier and the West Memphis Three are wrongly convicted, innocent people.
A jury's verdict is LEGALLY BINDING, but it's not necessarily reflective of reality.
I myself was part of a jury that passed a not guilty verdict on a man we thought was guilty, because the state hadn't gotten one key piece of evidence that a search warrant rather than an arrest warrant would have produced. We were sure he'd done it, but the state hadn't PROVED it. So, "Not Guilty". We wanted to smack the cops upside the head for arresting the man in his skivvies in his parents' house without also getting a warrant to search the pants the perp had taken off before going to bed -- pants we were sure contained the vital piece of evidence to convict the man.
I looked at Tiller's life's work. The man was guilty. And I don't just say that because he was an abortionist. I say that because he was an abortionist with a history of doing exactly what the prosecution said he did. Openly and without apology.
Imagine, say, if Henry Earl actually went to trial on a drunk and disorderly, and was acquitted, and people were saying this meant Henry Earl was never drunk in his life. THAT would be on a par with your claim that Tiller never did anything wrong. He habitually and openly did it!
Correction -- let's say Henry went to trial for public intoxication. And got acquitted. And people were saying this meant he was never publicly intoxicated.
I'm glad that you recognize that presumption of innocence is a *difference* between you and a jury.
I really think it would be worth you taking some time to think about what that means, Christina.
There's a difference between a legal standard of proof and enough to draw a reasonable conclusion.
If somebody openly advertises that they do something, and they admit in court that they do it, and their web site says they do it, and numerous witnesses step forward and say that they did it, and an expert who reviewed the person's own documents concluded that they did it, and a judge and grand jury agree that there's ample evidence that they did it, then you know what? ODDS ARE THEY DID IT.
Silly me for going with the vast sweeping preponderance of evidence over a period of more than thirty years instead of the selected evidence a judge and a defense attorney decides was suitable for a jury.
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/05/31/how-long-will-it-take-media-tag-tiller-murderer-not-part-prolife-movemen
As has been the case with most previous incidents of abortion-related violence, Roeder appears to have an affiliation with extremist political groups but not with the mainstream pro-life movement.
Abortionist gunned down by bomb-making loon, and some how it's the fault of those who consider every human a person, no matter their location.
But now my side has still won and your side has murdered a man. Tell me what I am supposedly celebrating?The fact that you said "your side" (referring to pro-lifers) murdered a man is proof of your celebration.
Christina didn't murder him. I didn't murder him. The man who killed Tiller is responsible.
When an inner-city gang member shoots someone to death, we don't convict his neighbors, his family, the rest of his gang. We convict the killer.
Blaming all pro-lifers is ridiculous. But totally not surprising.
"The fact that you said "your side" (referring to pro-lifers) murdered a man is proof of your celebration.
Christina didn't murder him. I didn't murder him. The man who killed Tiller is responsible."
Of course Christina didn't murder him. Notice I didn't say "you murdered him" I said "your side." This may be a bit presumptuous since it assumes that the murderer was in fact a prolifer, but that's by far the most likely case and seems to be supported by the details emerging.
The man who pulled the trigger is absolutely responsible. But the people who egged him on with statements likening Tiller to a serial killer and a nazi (for a couple examples) have some small measure of blame.
You don't really think it is a coincidence that it was Tiller who was killed, do you? He's be #1 on the prolifer hate list for years now.
"When an inner-city gang member shoots someone to death, we don't convict his neighbors, his family, the rest of his gang. We convict the killer."
To return the Godwin's law violation- it wasn't just the guards in the actual death camps who were guilty, the nazis who wrote their lies about the jews that motivated the "final solution" shared a small measure of the blame (as did the people who ordered the killings, but that's hopefully not applicable here).
"Blaming all pro-lifers is ridiculous. But totally not surprising."
All? Yes that probably is ridiculous. Blaming the culture that has developed? That's entirely appropriate since the things produced by that culture encouraged the action.
This may be a bit presumptuous since it assumes that the murderer was in fact a prolifer, but that's by far the most likely case and seems to be supported by the details emerging.The thing you're not understanding is that someone who is genuinely pro-life wouldn't kill someone.
There are a lot of pro-lifers out there. The last murder of an abortionist was in 1998. Which means the actual pro-life people aren't committing murders.
Blaming the culture that has developed? That's entirely appropriate since the things produced by that culture encouraged the action.A "culture" is defined by what a majority of the people do. Ergo, the pro-life culture is, by a majority, not induced to murder. You're continued connection of all of us to the fringe who either murder or call Tiller a Nazi or serial killer refute your weak attempts to backpedal on blaming all of us for this murder.
If "culture" is defined by people like Roeder, then you and the other pro-choice people have 54 million-plus lives on your hands because your CULTURE encourages abortion.
"The thing you're not understanding is that someone who is genuinely pro-life wouldn't kill someone."
It doesn't matter if he is "genuinely" pro-life. What matters is if the rhetoric of the pro-lifers pushed this guy to murder by inflaming his passions and giving him an easy target (psychologically).
"There are a lot of pro-lifers out there. The last murder of an abortionist was in 1998. Which means the actual pro-life people aren't committing murders."
The vast vast majority of pro-lifers aren't going to murder anyone. But if they irresponsibly mass produce hate then they share a small measure of blame when someone trusts them enough to act on it.
"A "culture" is defined by what a majority of the people do. Ergo, the pro-life culture is, by a majority, not induced to murder."
No, not murder but to spread invective about the man sufficient to encourage his murder. Ask yourself how you feel about white supremacist propaganda like the Turner Diaries." Do you find it innocent? Or is it promoting violence towards minorities by a group that shrugs and say "hey we didn't lynch them, we just wrote about how evil they were."
"You're continued connection of all of us to the fringe who either murder or call Tiller a Nazi or serial killer refute your weak attempts to backpedal on blaming all of us for this murder."
This very blog has called Tiller a nazi and a serial killer and Christina's one of the more level headed pro-lifers. The sentiment isn't hard to find on your side.
"If "culture" is defined by people like Roeder, then you and the other pro-choice people have 54 million-plus lives on your hands because your CULTURE encourages abortion."
There are aspects of popular culture that encourage abortion. Personally I'd like to change them.
Personally I'd like to change them.And so that absolves you of any responsibility?
I, personally, would like to change the violent minority of the pro-life movement, but that doesn't seem to absolve you.
Scott Roeder was a man with a criminal history and what can only be described as an anarchist, anti-government bent. Unless we never say anything about abortion, we run the risk of a nutter like Roeder going around the bend and acting out.
It doesn't make us culpable for Tiller's death.
"And so that absolves you of any responsibility?"
Keep in mind that your view of the repercussions and mine are worlds apart. My concern is for the slightly elevated risk to women's health and the psychological difficulties associated with abortion. You're concerned with what you see as dead kids (I see dead tissue which doesn't concern me in the slightest).
"I, personally, would like to change the violent minority of the pro-life movement, but that doesn't seem to absolve you."
Do you condemn references to Tiller as a nazi and a serial killer?
"Unless we never say anything about abortion, we run the risk of a nutter like Roeder going around the bend and acting out."
There's a huge gap between saying nothing and saying slanderous inflammatory things. Really, there is.
There's a huge gap between saying nothing and saying slanderous inflammatory things. Really, there isNot by your logic.
I don't personally agree with calling Tiller a Nazi. But, by your logic, calling Tiller a Nazi incited someone to murder him. All the times Bush was called a Nazi and Hitler and a slew of other things - yet I doubt the left wingers who did that would be concerned about being blamed for "inciting" violence.
Tiller didn't murder lumps of tissue. His business was murdering babies well past the date of viability and some, in many instances, only moments from being born perfectly healthy. So yes, that concerns me.
And the fact that Tiller did this - in spite of the law, which he did break, even if investigations met with roadblocks that delayed a conviction - and that his clinic regularly covered up cases of sexual abuse (rape/incest) by performing abortions and NOT informing the authorities makes him criminally liable. He was not innocent. He did kill children and, in the case of Christin Gilbert, a pregnant woman.
Let's make a deal-- pro-aborts get to blame the pro-life side for all the murders committed by folks claiming to be pro-life, only for so long as pro-lifers get to blame pro-aborts for the mother-deaths resulting from abortion.
I won't even be obnoxious and point out the basic biology that a fetus is a human being which folks redefine as something else-- just the adult women.
Sound fair?
That puts us at...what... two vs a couple hundred?
"Not by your logic."
Um...are yousure? Cause I think I just explicitly claimed that there was. Wait, did I? Yeah actually I did.
"All the times Bush was called a Nazi and Hitler and a slew of other things - yet I doubt the left wingers who did that would be concerned about being blamed for "inciting" violence."
If Bush had been assassinated by a leftwinger due to that kind of rhetoric then I'd absolutely say that the people saying those kinds of things bare some responsibility. Particularly if say, ten people had been assassinated due to that rhetoric and another 20 some had almost been assassinated. You know after the first murder done in your name might have been a good time to rethink things.
"Tiller didn't murder lumps of tissue."
Tiller didn't murder anyone.
" And the fact that Tiller did this - in spite of the law, which he did break, even if investigations met with roadblocks that delayed a conviction -"
In other words there was no circumstance in which Tiller could prove his innocence to you. Again- that makes this a witch hunt, and its a big part of why your side is guilty of murder. You just HAD to believe he was guilty no matter what, and when your revenge fantasies were squashed by the courts... well we all know what happened next.
"Let's make a deal-- pro-aborts get to blame the pro-life side for all the murders committed by folks claiming to be pro-life, only for so long as pro-lifers get to blame pro-aborts for the mother-deaths resulting from abortion."
Prolifers already do blame pro-choicers for women that die during abortion. Have you read this blog? It is all about dredging up every death due to a complication (or in very rare instances malfeasance) and claiming these deaths are the fault of pro-choicers.
"I won't even be obnoxious and point out the basic biology that a fetus is a human being "
That's not biology. Human being is not a scientific term. It is a philosophical distinction.
"That puts us at...what... two vs a couple hundred?"
Actually prolifers have murdered 9 abortion providers and attempted murder another 20 some times. Plus of course all the more minor crimes.
Prolifers already do blame pro-choicers for women that die during abortion.
No, we blame abortionists for the deaths.
Your grasp of reason is just... shocking.
That's not biology. Human being is not a scientific term. It is a philosophical distinction.
human being –noun 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens. Actually prolifers have murdered 9 abortion providers and attempted murder another 20 some times. Plus of course all the more minor crimes.
1) proof? AP could only come up with two, and the prior one was, what, 15 years ago? It was also very highly publicized as "the first abortionist slaying."
2) This hasn't been shown to be a pro-life killing; in fact, it's shaping up to be a "random anarchist/ anti-gov't wingnut" killing, two-year-old blog comments not withstanding.
Target likely chosen because his name is big and would get a lot of attention.
Prolifers already do blame pro-choicers for women that die during abortion. Have you read this blog? It is all about dredging up every death due to a complication (or in very rare instances malfeasance) and claiming these deaths are the fault of pro-choicers.No. She blames the abortionists for the deaths. Pro-choicers merely ignore these inconvenient deaths.
In other words there was no circumstance in which Tiller could prove his innocence to you. Again- that makes this a witch hunt, and its a big part of why your side is guilty of murder. You just HAD to believe he was guilty no matter what, and when your revenge fantasies were squashed by the courts... well we all know what happened next.No. Tiller broke laws. Or in your world do abortionists get to be above laws simply because they're abortionists? He deserved to be retried; Tiller was a big supporter of the KS Dem governor and the Dem party - if a GOP supporter got off for crimes clearly committed, all hell'd break loose. He didn't deserve to die, so stop spinning it that way.
Tiller didn't murder anyone.Yes, he did. These weren't 1st trimester abortions. These were abortions done on babies past "viability" - which used to be the line for most pro-choicers. Guess not these days. Those were human beings (were from conception, but I won't argue that point) who could have lived and breathed outside the womb. Tiller was complicit in their death and for reasons NOT related to saving the mother's life.
And, if we're really going to go down the road of moral ambiguity, and since you clearly don't define an unborn child as a human being - how can we be mad at Roeder for killing Tiller? Maybe Roeder didn't think Tiller was a human being, so it was okay to kill him. And since it's wrong for pro-lifers to say an unborn child is human from conception, since some don't agree with that definition, then how is it right for you, or the government, or anyone to say that adults or others deserve legal protection from murder? If Roeder's definition of "human" didn't include Tiller, who are we to judge, right? (/sarc)
See how that slippery-slope works?
To say that abortion kills babies isn't rhetoric. It's reality. You might just as well blame John Walsh when some vigilante kills a child rapist, because John Walsh profiled the guy on America's Most Wanted.
If abortionists don't want to be hated as baby killers, they can STOP KILLING BABIES. How much simpler can it get? Don't do heinous things, and you won't be seen as evil. Gosh, what a concept!
"No, we blame abortionists for the deaths.
Your grasp of reason is just... shocking."
Yawn. If you want to pretend that all the rhetoric is confined to attack abortion providers and not the pro-choice movement as a whole, feel free. You aren't fooling anyone but feel free.
"human being –noun 1. any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens."
Congratulations, you can use a dictionary. Unfortunately you failed to establish that the term is a scientific term.
"1) proof? AP could only come up with two, and the prior one was, what, 15 years ago? It was also very highly publicized as "the first abortionist slaying.""
Murders
In the U.S., violence directed toward abortion providers has killed at least 9 people, including 5 doctors, 2 clinic employees, a security guard, and a clinic escort.[4]
* March 10, 1993: Dr. David Gunn of Pensacola, Florida was fatally shot during a protest. He had been the subject of wanted-style posters distributed by Operation Rescue in the summer of the year before. Michael F. Griffin was found guilty of Dr. Gunn's murder and was sentenced to life in prison.
* June 29, 1994: Dr. John Britton and James Barrett, a clinic escort, were both shot to death outside of another facility in Pensacola. Rev. Paul Jennings Hill was charged with the killings, received a death sentence, and was executed September 3, 2003.
* December 30, 1994: Two receptionists, Shannon Lowney and Lee Ann Nichols, were killed in two clinic attacks in Brookline, Massachusetts. John Salvi, who prior to his arrest was distributing pamphlets from Human Life International,[5] was arrested and confessed to the killings. He committed suicide in prison and guards found his body under his bed with a plastic garbage bag tied around his head. Salvi had also confessed to a non-lethal attack in Norfolk, Virginia days before the Brookline killings.
* January 29, 1998: Robert Sanderson, an off-duty police officer who worked as a security guard at an abortion clinic in Birmingham, Alabama, was killed when his workplace was bombed. Eric Robert Rudolph, who was also responsible for the 1996 Centennial Olympic Park bombing, was charged with the crime and received two life sentences as a result.
* October 23, 1998: Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot to death at his home in Amherst, New York. His was the last in a series of similar shootings against providers in Canada and northern New York state which were all likely committed by James Kopp. Kopp was convicted of Dr. Slepian's murder after finally being apprehended in France in 2001.
* May 31, 2009: Dr. George Tiller was shot and killed as he served as an usher at his church in Wichita, Kansas.[6]
A fifth doctor, George Patterson, was shot and killed in Mobile, Alabama on August 21, 1993, but it is uncertain whether his death was the direct result of his profession or rather a robbery.[7]
from here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Murders
"2) This hasn't been shown to be a pro-life killing; in fact, it's shaping up to be a "random anarchist/ anti-gov't wingnut" killing, two-year-old blog comments not withstanding."
The guy was involved in the pro-life movement. Tiller is, excuse me, was prolifer target #1. That's not concrete proof by any means but contrary to your suggestion this is very much shaping up as anti-abortion violence.
You aren't fooling anyone but feel free.*snort* You do realize that makes you sound like a high school kid trying to sound cool, right?
Congratulations, you can use a dictionary.And proved that you were wrong. Don't expect you to accept that, but then, I doubt anyone here expects you to behave like a reasonable adult-- we're responding to you for folks who come here later on, and read your comments.
Oh, BTW? Wiki isn't a source.
The guy was involved in the pro-life movementLess so than you, as shown by your frequent posting at an anti-abortion blog-- someone under the same name posted at an anti-abortion blog two years ago.
Wow, such proof.
"Tiller broke laws."
And you know that no matter what the people charged with enforcing the laws said?
"if a GOP supporter got off for crimes clearly committed, all hell'd break loose."
Let me throw out a couple names, maybe they ring some bells: Richard Millhouse Nixon. Oliver North.
"Yes, he did."
Why didn't you get him arrested then?
"And, if we're really going to go down the road of moral ambiguity, and since you clearly don't define an unborn child as a human being - how can we be mad at Roeder for killing Tiller?"
Well, as with most of your arguments here, you might try consulting the law. It clearly marks what Roeder (allegedly) did as murder and what Tiller (allegedly) did as not murder.
Now you can certainly disagree with the law, but it remains a pretty brightline difference between the two.
"And since it's wrong for pro-lifers to say an unborn child is human from conception, since some don't agree with that definition, then how is it right for you, or the government, or anyone to say that adults or others deserve legal protection from murder?"
Prolifers are wrong to claim it is a human being from conception because such an argument leads to nonsensical results and conclusions which prolifers simply ignore. It also relies upon criteria which similarly lead to nonsensical conclusions that they again simply ignore rather than face that their ideology is built on emotion bereft of logic.
"See how that slippery-slope works?"
Yes, your strawman slides down it very fast indeed.
"To say that abortion kills babies isn't rhetoric. It's reality."
No Christina, it is rhetoric because it assumes that fetus = baby which is not a fact. It is an assertion, and one made explicitly to try and inject an emotional component into the argument. It is not an observation, it is an attempt to persuade (i.e. rhetoric).
*starts to wonder of Tlaloc also thinks OJ was innocent, and would believe women aren't human were s/he in a land where that was the law*
"*snort* You do realize that makes you sound like a high school kid trying to sound cool, right?"
Nyuh-uh!
"And proved that you were wrong."
You do understand that a dictionary definition is different than a scientific definition, right? Cause if you understand that then you should know you didn't prove me wrong, you simply interjected a non-sequitor.
"Oh, BTW? Wiki isn't a source."
*shrug*
If you actually want to know you can always go to the wiki page and follow the references. It's not like I'm going to lose any sleep one way or the other.
"Less so than you, as shown by your frequent posting at an anti-abortion blog-- someone under the same name posted at an anti-abortion blog two years ago."
You're apparently basing this entirely on the OR posting and ignoring other things like his involvement with the Kansas City pro-life movement. Regina Dinwiddie, apparently part of that scene at least during the mid 90s, has been claiming to know the man from there.
You mean the woman who remembers 12 years ago he tried to scare an abortion worker, then hugged her and told her he loved her work in justifying the taking of murder in pursuit of political goals?
Right before he went to jail for having bomb supplies in his car, in association with a violent, radical anti-government tax resister group?
Oh yes, clearly he's BIG in the pro-life field, provable because he told a woman how much he loved her work on a statement that supported his violence in resistance to the gov't!
It's so clear, now... same way that Timothy McVeigh was a devout Christian, and he and Eric Rudolph are examples of good Army men.
"You mean the woman who remembers 12 years ago he tried to scare an abortion worker, then hugged her and told her he loved her work in justifying the taking of murder in pursuit of political goals?"
Yep.
"Oh yes, clearly he's BIG in the pro-life field"
No one said he was big, just obviously part of it. Let's see, he posted on a prolife website, attended a prolife rally, liaised with fellow prolifers. Gosh, doesn't that sort of sound like someone in the prolife movement?
Tlaloc, you're 1) ignoring the timeframe involved and 2) greatly overstating the evidence.
Assuming that it was he who posted, two years ago, that means that there was a full decade between his "involvement" and "attending a pro-life rally"-- walking up to a woman and saying "gee, I loved your justification for deadly violence!"-- and his postings on an anti-abortion blog.
Then another two years before he shoots the guy.
Oh, and still refusing to take into account: he's a known supporter of deadly violence, know to have been involved with the Montana Freemen-- gee, that might explain violence more than "involvement" that's separated by over a decade, eh? (He wasn't in jail for that whole time, either-- or even for most of it.)
There's more evidence for Obama being a Marxist, racist and Muslim than there is for this guy being part of the pro-life movement.
"Assuming that it was he who posted, two years ago, that means that there was a full decade between his "involvement" and "attending a pro-life rally"-- walking up to a woman and saying "gee, I loved your justification for deadly violence!"-- and his postings on an anti-abortion blog."
Correction there was a full decade between the one incident we know of where we can definitively place him at an anti-abortion protest and the one instance we know of where we can "place" him on a prolife website. There's no reason to assume these are the only incidents to be found.
" Oh, and still refusing to take into account: he's a known supporter of deadly violence, know to have been involved with the Montana Freemen--"
I don't see what that has to do with anything. A person can believe in two different movements at the same time.
"There's more evidence for Obama being a Marxist, racist and Muslim than there is for this guy being part of the pro-life movement."
Look if you want to be fundamentally un-serious could you at least tell me that up front so I don't waste time trying to reason with you?
"That's not biology. Human being is not a scientific term. It is a philosophical distinction."
Ohhhhkay, then. Feel free to join the huddled masses who have apparently never opened a biology textbook...of course -- how silly of us to be using SCIENCE textbooks to find SCIENTIFIC terms...
"Ohhhhkay, then. Feel free to join the huddled masses who have apparently never opened a biology textbook...of course -- how silly of us to be using SCIENCE textbooks to find SCIENTIFIC terms..."
She didn't use a science textbook but a dictionary.
...fortunately for her, though, the science texts will back her up just fine.
"...fortunately for her, though, the science texts will back her up just fine."
If you say so. I suppose if creation is being forced into science books anything is possible but in real science "human being" isn't a scientific term. Homo Sapiens certainly is, but there's a huge difference between the two precisely because we ascribe philosophical values to the term "human being."
It's the difference between "brain" and "mind." One is a physically quantifiable thing and the other... just isn't.
As you are doing on another thread, you (like so many others) desperately try to work backwards: since you would just as soon not consider the embryo or fetus to be a human being, you try to work backwards, finding something she cannot yet do or does not yet have (or, really, that she does have but is not yet formed or visible), and then you say, "THERE. That's the main criterion for whether an entity is a human being or not."
If you wish to split hairs and say that "human being" is not a scientific term, then, fine. Neither is George Tiller, neither am I, and neither are you. If we can explain away anyone's personhood, then we can do the same for everyone else.
Folks, don't worry about Tlaloc spinning to try to ignore a basic English definition. You're just giving him the attention he wants.
If he manages to say anything new, let's respond to that-- but don't make him think his frantic attempts to twist are having any effect, 'k?
I've got enough faith in the brainpower of anyone who shows up later on....
"As you are doing on another thread, you (like so many others) desperately try to work backwards: since you would just as soon not consider the embryo or fetus to be a human being, you try to work backwards, finding something she cannot yet do or does not yet have (or, really, that she does have but is not yet formed or visible), and then you say, "THERE. That's the main criterion for whether an entity is a human being or not.""
Uh, no. The criteria for life is pretty well established. Respiration, action, digestion, reproduction and all that. That the fetus during early and mid development cannot carry on all of these processes by itself (even if removed to an environment outside the mother) means something. You don't have to like what it means, but it means something nonetheless.
"If you wish to split hairs and say that "human being" is not a scientific term, then, fine. Neither is George Tiller, neither am I, and neither are you. If we can explain away anyone's personhood, then we can do the same for everyone else."
That's nonsense. In the first place saying that human being is not a scientific term is not splitting hairs, it is simply acknowledging that the term is not in fact scientific. Most of the english language is not scientific. "Poetry" has no meaning in science. Of course poetry as a concept still exists. Similarly the soul is not a scientific concept. If it exists it is outside the scope of science to describe. If someone tells you they have scientific definition of poetry or soul (or human being) they are simply ignorant.
"Folks, don't worry about Tlaloc spinning to try to ignore a basic English definition."
Thank you, this is what I've been saying all along- "human being" is a function of basic english and not a scientific term.
"If he manages to say anything new, let's respond to that-- but don't make him think his frantic attempts to twist are having any effect, 'k?"
Uh... but you just admitted what I've been trying to get you guys to understand. That seems like I've had an effect, in fact the exact effect I was going for (education).
Tlaloc, you're grasping at straws so feeble that I'm shocked you can stand yourself.
A fetus is a stage of human development, just as a toddler, a teenager, a post-menopausal woman are. Only one of the three I just listed are able to reproduce, if you cut them off from the continuum of their biological development.
Try again!
For someone so ignorant of basic science as to assert that a post-viability fetus is somehow not alive, while an infant is, you sure do get hung up on "scientific" don't you?
The first mention of "scientific":
That's not biology. Human being is not a scientific term. It is a philosophical distinction.
Human being is a common English term with the primary meaning "any individual of the genus Homo, esp. a member of the species Homo sapiens."
Did you sleep through the part where a fetus is a member of the genus Homo sapiens?
For our next trick, Tlaloc will try to insist that a chicken egg about to hatch is not alive, and in fact is not a member of the species "chicken;" life apparently self-generates at the moment most fitting to Tlaloc's personal philosophy.
"A fetus is a stage of human development"
Very true.
"Only one of the three I just listed are able to reproduce, if you cut them off from the continuum of their biological development."
Also true, and it is a good point that I agree with. An even bette example are social species like insects where the drones have no part in the reproductive cycle (after having been themselves born of course). Reproduction shouldn't be one of the criteria for life. Or if it is kept as a criteria then it should have an extra conditional.
But it's not my fault that biology includes reproduction in the list. And notice my examples detailing why a fetus is not a complete organism unto itself do not use that criteria (I focus on the more fundamental issues of respiration and digestion).
"you sure do get hung up on "scientific" don't you?"
No, I really don't. Notice that I don;t introduce the idea of a scientific definition of human being. I merely refute it when others do. I'm perfectly aware that this argument revolves around subjective evaluations of personhood which science has no say in.
"The first mention of "scientific":"
I was responding to a claim about biology. That's a science. I'm sorry, I thought that was common knowledge.
"Human being is a common English term"
Precisely. It is a common English term. Its definition has no scientific value (even if it uses a term like "Homo Sapiens" in it).
"Did you sleep through the part where a fetus is a member of the genus Homo sapiens?"
Define "member." If by that you mean organism then I didn't sleep through it because it never happened.
"For our next trick, Tlaloc will try to insist that a chicken egg about to hatch is not alive, and in fact is not a member of the species "chicken;""
Just before it hatches it certainly is an organism. Just like a fetus moments before birth. But was it a chicken organism when it looked like the eggs you crack open for an omelet? No. See all nice and consistent.
No, I really don't. Notice that I don;t introduce the idea of a scientific definition of human being.
Actually, you did.
"Actually, you did."
No really I didn't. Here's the quote:
""I won't even be obnoxious and point out the basic biology that a fetus is a human being ""
That quote explicitly says that there is a scientific definition of human being in biology that includes the fetus. That's precisely what I refuted.
Unless you really don't understand that biology is a science your argument makes no sense.
In response to your sheer misconception that they are "lumps of tissue," not as a scientific definition.
Hate to break it to you, but basic biology isn't very scientific-- dogs have puppies, not kittens, rocks aren't alive, plants aren't animals, life doesn't spontaneously generate, etc.
The basic biology *is* that they are human beings-- that isn't the scientific definition, that's basic biology and simple English. As I pointed out, the definition of the basic English term...bah, why repeat myself?
The scientific definition might be referring to the fetus as separate organism representing homo sapiens sapiens, for the very short version-- you'd have to clarify what you want defined before a scientific definition could be found.
"In response to your sheer misconception that they are "lumps of tissue," not as a scientific definition."
I have no idea what that sentence is referring to.
"Hate to break it to you, but basic biology isn't very scientific"
I'm really getting the feeling here that you don;t have the slightest idea what biology is. Now granted those of us who are in physics and chemistry (including me, my degree is in physics, I used to work in materials analysis for Intel and now I work for a state university doing basically the same thing) sometimes tease biologists as being a "softer" science, but this is just good natured ribbing and some jealousy on our part since most of the women are in the bio department.
Biology is most definitely a science. It's a well developed and important science and one of it's principle applications, medicine, has seen enormous development due to the good science done by biologists.
"The basic biology *is* that they are human beings-- that isn't the scientific definition, that's basic biology and simple English."
You seem to be using the term "basic biology" to" mean something like "the everyday layman's understanding of biology." I look at the term and think "what they teach in BIO 151-3 or even 101-3".
"But was it a chicken organism when it looked like the eggs you crack open for an omelet? No."
From the outside, a fertilized chicken egg (also known as an unborn, developing chicken) looks very much like an unfertilized chicken egg (which ISN'T one). So yah: once a chicken egg is fertilized, a new chicken's life commences. Such is the case with human fertilization. I'd be glad to provide citations from science textbooks, but I'm not convinced it will help you with your denial issues.
bmmg39-
Utterly correct.
Although most of the eggs in the market aren't fertilized, any "free range" ones you get are very likely to be chicken embryos-- you may even be able to see an eye spot.
A few times on various ranches I've had the "educational" experience of opening an egg that was a bit further along. Not very good in omelets. ^.^ (A delicacy in some countries, though.)
"From the outside, a fertilized chicken egg (also known as an unborn, developing chicken) looks very much like an unfertilized chicken egg (which ISN'T one). So yah: once a chicken egg is fertilized, a new chicken's life commences."
New cellular material, absolutely. New organism? Not even close.
or⋅gan⋅ism
–noun 1. a form of life composed of mutually interdependent parts that maintain various vital processes.
2. a form of life considered as an entity; an animal, plant, fungus, protistan, or moneran.
3. any organized body or system conceived of as analogous to a living being: the governmental organism.
As for:
New cellular material, absolutely. New organism? Not even close
You do realize you're insisting that an egg somehow acquires life at some point after being laid?
Seriously, listen to yourself.
This scientific paper, entitled "Quality of Life as the Realization of Life Potential: A Biological Theory of Human Being", uses the term "human being" in the following way: "Higher-level organisms, such as animals and human beings, are colonies of cells that have united to form ever more complex systems with more and more cells for the past billion years." Hmm, this would apply to a fetus....
And, "If we view human beings as organisms with biological potential capable of realizing themselves mentally and socially, the purpose of life is the ability to let this potential blossom and develop in an individual and ecosocial context. We may take this one step further so that the quality of life, a good life, means the ability to maximize life potential in a social and ecological
context." This also would apply to a fetus.
But, tlaloc, out of curiosity, how do you define a "human being"?
"You do realize you're insisting that an egg somehow acquires life at some point after being laid?"
Not at all, again you are simply misunderstanding the difference between being alive at the cellular level and at the organism level. Both things are alive but the organism has a higher order of organization (except of course for single celled organisms where the two are identical).
The chicken egg is alive at fertilization, in fact it is alive before fertilization (at a cellular level). After fertilization this living cellular material divides and specializes into tissues and organs and eventually self organizes into a new chicken.
cheep.
"This scientific paper, entitled "Quality of Life as the Realization of Life Potential: A Biological Theory of Human Being", uses the term "human being" in the following way: "Higher-level organisms, such as animals and human beings, are colonies of cells that have united to form ever more complex systems with more and more cells for the past billion years." Hmm, this would apply to a fetus...."
Quality of life is not a biological issue. It is a psychological or sociological issue, neither of which, despite their pretensions, is a honest to goodness science.
However if you really want to go there, the paper is about using self assessed questionnaires to determine quality of life. You can see such a questionnaire here (pdf)
If that's the criteria you want to use I think you should expect all fetii to fail as they are typically poor at paperwork.
"And, "If we view human beings as organisms with biological potential capable of realizing themselves mentally and socially, the purpose of life is the ability to let this potential blossom and develop in an individual and ecosocial context. We may take this one step further so that the quality of life, a good life, means the ability to maximize life potential in a social and ecological
context." This also would apply to a fetus."
It would? How many fetii are uh... "ecosocial" and "realize themselves mentally and socially"?
"But, tlaloc, out of curiosity, how do you define a "human being"?"
Personally I'd define it as a human organism, with some fudge room for situations like conjoined twins.
Not at all, again you are simply misunderstanding the difference between being alive at the cellular level and at the organism level. Both things are alive but the organism has a higher order of organization (except of course for single celled organisms where the two are identical).
...
K, guys, I think we have proof that Tlaloc is a self-parody troll.
Oh, my, that is just... wow.
I can't believe I just read someone claim that a virus is more alive than an unhatched chicken....
Tlaloc,
I guess you missed the "potential" part.
This is a stupid, boring conversation, because you dance around more than Michael Flatly. You ill-define the biological definition of life and organism, and then expect us all to bow to you. Sorry. That ain't happening. Go find another site to troll.
"I can't believe I just read someone claim that a virus is more alive than an unhatched chicken...."
And where'd you read that?
"This is a stupid, boring conversation, because you dance around more than Michael Flatly"
Funny I thought it was boring because people are insisting on using "scientific" definitions that don't exist and don't matter and then get defensive (rather than just move on) when shown wrong. Que sera sera.
My Michael Flatly impression is really an interpretive dance trying to communicate basic science since English has failed repeatedly.
"You ill-define the biological definition of life and organism, and then expect us all to bow to you. Sorry. That ain't happening."
In other words you refuse to learn anything from me just because we have opposite views regarding abortion. I can help you develop a better understanding of biology. I've been pretty damn patient really in trying to help. But at the end of the day I can't force you to learn anything.
You have total control on how inured you remain to reason.
Funny I thought it was boring because people are insisting on using "scientific" definitions that don't exist and don't matter and then get defensive (rather than just move on) when shown wrong.
Well, yes, that would be what you're dancing about....
Post a Comment