Assasination of Dr Tiller

[Zarathustra]

I can't say, "abortion is murdering babies" without you saying my claim is an example of hate speech.

Well, abortion ISN'T murdering babies. If it was, those doctors would all be arrested. So that's not a good start.

Just because slavery was legal doesn't mean it wasn't slavery. Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean it's not murder. I'm not making a legal argument. I'm not a lawyer trying a case. I think anytime you knowingly, premeditatively, kill another human being you've committed murder. We're not arguing about the definition of murder, but the definition of a human being. And I can't hold my belief about what a human being is without simultaneously believing that abortion is murder, because I believe a baby in the womb is a human being. Therefore, it's impossible for me to hold this belief without viewing the intentional act of ending its life as murder. I don't care if you think it's a good place to start or not. Of course you don't think it's a good place to start, because you think it's okay to kill the unborn.

And I'm sure you know the abortionist doesn't consider himself a baby murderer. So you know you've oversimplified, which is a form of misrepresenting the situation. That's not getting better.

I haven't over-simplified, or misrepresented the situation. I've stated my opinion. In stating my opinion, I'm under no obligation to qualify my opinion with someone else's opinion, especially someone who disagrees with my opinion.

You are equating "misrepresenting the situation" with "stating the situation in terms which I, Wayfriend, personally disagree." I think it's a perfectly accurate representation of the situation.

Its perjorative language.

Well, of course it's a pejorative! I think the doctor is murdering babies, and you want me to give him compliments? I'm not supposed to say anything derogatory about a man who in my view is a mass murderer? How am I supposed to express this belief in a flattering manner?

It presupposes abortion is wrong and judges doctors based on that supposition.

Of course it presupposes abortion is wrong!! I think abortion is wrong!! Don't you presuppose that murder is wrong? Or do you wait around for someone to tell you to think it's wrong? Do you have to wait and hear rational arguments for and against murder before you decide that taking a human life is wrong, or is that one of your basic starting points before any logic has been uttered?

Again, it seems your problem is that I'm pro-life. That's it.

Your convicting doctors of a crime that they didn't commit except in your opinion.

No, I didn't convict anyone of a crime. I have no legal power. But just because I have no legal power doesn't mean I can't express my opinion about what should be legal, and why. The problem here is that you don't like me expressing my opinion, so you're equating a statement of opinion with "convicting of a crime."

You're going after the doctors.

I'm not going after anyone. I'm expressing my opinion. This time, you're equating "expressing an opinion" with "going after" someone. Your rhetoric is getting farther and farther from reality as you stretch to make my mainstream opinion something hateful and extreme.

Your villifying them - literally. No one villifies someone so that we'll like them. They villify them so that we'll hate them. That we'll go after them and serve justice upon them.

I'm not villifying anyone. I didn't say that guy needs to be locked up or killed. I'm not accusing him of doing something he's not doing. He really is killing viable babies. Really. I'm not making it up. I'm describing his actions in terms you personally find uncomfortable, but that's not the same as vilifying. And I certainly don't want people to hate him. So, stop putting words in my mouth, and accusing me of convicting, going after, and trying to get people to hate him. I'm not. The only thing I want to come out of this debate is for conservatives to not be blamed for this man's heinous act (even by "degrees of culpability"), and I'd like federal abortion laws to change.

I can use your logic, too: you're trying to "vilify" me. You're convicting me of a crime I didn't commit. You're using pejoratives to describe my acts of stating my opinion.

So, yes, that's a kind of hate speech. When you combine it with similar speeches from others, so that it becomes a culture of hate, then it really is hate speech.

The only one combining my speech with others is you. You're lumping us together, even as you protest that you're not making general statements about all pro-lifers. Stop combining my words with "similar speeches from others." They don't speak for me. Neither do you. So stop doing it.

Stating the pro-life position isn't hate speech. It is only through a succession of tortured "logic," misapplying terms, and putting words in the mouths of those with whom you disagree that you can arrive at this position.

This is a common tactic of liberals: define your opposition as a racist, sexist, homophobic, hate-monger and you don't have to debate their points. Just make stuff up, like Wayfriend.

[The Dreaming]

I posted this in another thread, probably the wrong thread. I am quoting it to save time, then I'll continue.

So "Tiller the Baby Killer" was gunned down by a ... *cough* ... "pro-life" activist.

Six such murders during the Clinton years. None during the Bush administration. Obama is inaugurated, and we're back in business.

Can there be any doubt that such "right-wing extremism" is induced by the fear that a pro-abortion administration is going to crank up the baby killing? (Before you say no, think about the bullet shortage.)

So lets monger the fear. It's harmless.

... Or, rather, no one can blame you for what happens. Close enough.

When Will Right Wing Violence Be Terrorism?

No kidding everyone is backing away from this and refuting any claims of a relationship to this terrorist.

But this is the natural result of sustained demonization over a period of years. The people who go out of there way to rile up the masses and induce unthinking hatred in others are among those we need to blame. They're the ones backing the way the hardest at the moment. They'll get off unsinged; they know how to motivate others to do the dirty work without leaving a concrete trail.

They are yelling "Tiller the Baby Killer" in a crowded theatre. They deserve to feel the consequences of their actions.

One organization has reported that there is an insufficient number of abortion climics because people fear being harmed by anti-abortion protesters.

That is nothing less than systemic domestic terrorism.

Where is the waterboarding now?

Is it much better than systematic institutional infanticide?

This is a subject that a huge number of Americans take extremely seriously. (Myself included). Do I especially grieve this man's death? Of course not. Do I think this will do any good for the pro-life cause? No, the cause has taken a HUGE blow because of this. It is grievous and ludicrous that the abortion doctors with questionable medical ethics have the moral high ground. (They have had it for years, and it's set back the pro-life movement enormously.)

So, let the feeding frenzy begin. Anyone who despises abortion is an insane zealot. A fundamentalist whacko, whatever. There are *core* ethical dilemmas inside of this issue, which is why its so insanely divisive. I have stated before that the left frequently misjudges and misunderstands how seriously the opposition takes this issue. It is not a political issue for us, it is a basic human rights issue. We take it about as seriously as we would take institutional genocide happening in this country, and there are clear, precise, logical, and defensible reasons why.

So please, watch the flippancy, it's what drives people into a murderous rage.

[Avatar]

Ok guys, I think we've managed to return to a relative level of civility and rationality, so I'm not locking the thread, but it was a close call there for a while.

Let's try for two things (again) please. First, take more care with our generalisations. They spill into implied accusation more easily than we realise. (I'm giving everybody the benefit of the doubt here and assuming that what I saw wasn't deliberate baiting.)

Second, try and extend that benefit of the doubt to each other, even if it feels like its not warranted. Giving in to provocation rarely produces anything of positive value.

With such emotionally charged rhetoric, this is traditionally a sensitive topic. So please bear it in mind when you make comments on the other position.

--A

[finn]

Here! Here! Av. I'm glad I didn't get in on pg 2 & 3!

Thing is tho' I wonder how much is about the subject and how much is about other things, such as the polarity of American Left/Right politics. Frankly I don't care about it except that more and more topics get painted blue or red by the same posters with the eventual you liberals/conservatives blah blah blah............. running out the clock.

This subject in particular is one where there is a mix of pro choice (not "pro abortionist" by the way Tjol) and pro life on both sides of the political aisle. Trying to defend ones political colours on this subject (that being murder not pro life/choice) is basically going out to look for a fight.

I don't really think in terms of left and right; there are some issues on which I support right wing policy and others on which I support the left. On the political compass I'm slightly to the right of Av which makes me overall a "mild leftie" I suppose. My reason for mentioning this is that there seems to be an assumption amongst some that because I have views on one subject I automatically defer to a platform view of another subject. This is not just the "right" having a go at the "left" but also vice versa and this has been a theme in this thread. Personally I find it a bit lacking in respect for my intellect, sense of fairness and freedom of thought and I must say that lack of respect has been (imo) the over-riding flavour of the last 4 pages.

For myself it is becoming an increasingly disappointing aspect of the Tank because it's replacing the original thought and personal insight that makes this such a unique and precious forum. I think the Tank is in real danger of becoming elitist, esoteric and an arena rather than a forum. People don't feel comfortable coming here, certainly not posting here and without fresh ideas, new perspectives and original takes on things we will stagnate and eventually dry up.

[Cail]

Again, there's nothing "fringe" about being pro-life

The Gallup Poll reported Friday that 51 percent of Americans now call themselves "pro-life" rather than "pro-choice" on the issue of abortion, the first time a majority gave that answer in the 15 years that Gallup has asked the question.

Both Malik and The Dreaming have made excellent points.....That legalized slavery was still slavery, and that abortion does amount to systematized institutional infanticide.

[Avatar]

Ideally, I'd want that no abortions are ever performed. But I would rather that 10 were, than one child grew up unwanted, neglected and abused.

I know.

You can't make those sorts of assumptions about the quality of people's lives. But I do anyway.

As for the poll...it looks like the US is increasingly a nation split between two poles. Maybe it's time for a new seccession. All your "votes" are too evenly split. It'd be different if it was a 80-20 split. But when you have a 1% majority that (theoretically, and not in this case yet) overrules almost a full half of the populations wishes...

--A

[Cail]

Did Fox News host Bill O'Reilly kill abortion provider Dr. George Tiller? Reading some of today's outraged commentary by pro-choice writers in both America and Britain, you could be forgiven for thinking so. Scott Roeder might be suspected of actually pulling the trigger, but O'Reilly—and other loudmouth, right-wing anti-abortionists—have already been found guilty of egging him on in the kangaroo court of liberal opinion.

Tiller was savagely shot dead while attending a church service with his wife in Kansas on Sunday. His "crime," as his alleged killer undoubtedly sees it, was to run a clinic that provided women with perfectly legal late-term abortions.

Yet rather than seeing this dreadful killing as the action of a probably crazed individual, too many liberal commentators are discussing it as the logical outcome of the "dangerous" words and images propagated by O'Reilly and others. This is the liberals' version of "effects theory," the idea that certain of speech are so irresponsible and inflammatory that they can easily provoke unhinged individuals to take unhinged actions.

Writing in Salon, Gabriel Winant slams O'Reilly's "sensationally irresponsible" and "extremely vivid" denunciations of Tiller's clinic. For example, on O'Reilly's show Tiller has been referred to as "Tiller the Baby Killer." O'Reilly himself once said Tiller "destroys fetuses for just about any reason right up until the birth date for $5,000." For Winant, "there's no other person who bears as much responsibility for the characterization of Tiller as a savage on the loose, killing babies willy-nilly, [as O'Reilly]."

Winant strongly hints that O'Reilly played an unwitting, offstage role in Tiller's death: "O'Reilly didn't tell anyone to do anything violent, but he did put Tiller in the public eye, and help make him the focus of a movement with a history of violence against exactly these kinds of targets."

Like me, you might find O'Reilly's comments about Tiller distasteful. But the deeply censorious implication of Winant's argument is that anyone who uses "extremely vivid" language to condemn someone he doesn't like can—and should—later be held responsible if something bad happens to that individual. Leaving aside the fact that there is as yet no evidence that the suspect was a fan of O'Reilly—according to the Kansas City Star, the suspect had been a weird, anti-government, anti-abortion nut for some time—Winant's logic is that public debate should be watered down to the level of polite tea-party disagreements, lest any borderline cranks be agitated or inflamed by it.

Michael Tomasky, formerly of The American Prospect and now American editor for The Guardian, says it's a "fair question" to ask, "Does O'Reilly have blood on his hands?" Echoing censors throughout history who have claimed that words and ideas pollute society, Tomasky says O'Reilly and other shrill media commentators have contributed to a "toxic atmosphere" on the abortion issue.

The Manhattan-based feminist writer Jill Filipovic points the finger of blame not only at O'Reilly but also at various mainstream anti-abortion groups that use "outlandish and inflammatory rhetoric." She says the killing of Tiller was "the logical outcome of years of increasingly violent, dehumanising and threatening rhetoric and action on the part of supposedly mainstream pro-life groups."

In a sure sign she has caught the censorship bug, Filipovic even falls back on the "fire in a crowded theatre" argument: "If you yell ‘Fire!' in a crowded theatre, it's reasonably foreseeable that people will panic and someone will be injured. And if you yell ‘Murderer!', ‘Baby-Killer!' and ‘Holocaust!' long enough, it's reasonably foreseeable that someone will take it upon themselves to make sure that vigilante justice is done."

This reaction to Tiller's death is driven by cowardice and censoriousness, by a desire to protect the pro-choice argument from the extremely vivid, sensationalistic, and, yes, frequently hysterical attacks of the anti-abortion brigade. In a left-leaning version of the traditional effects theory—which holds that some films, TV shows, and videogames should be toned down or wiped out entirely since they allegedly make young people violent—pro-choice commentators now seem to want "outlandish rhetoric" restricted on the grounds that it is, literally, murderous.

But like all instinctive censors, they blur the distinction between words and actions. There is neither moral equivalence nor a direct link between O'Reilly's rants and what happened to Tiller on Sunday. To seek to restrict a broadcaster's speech on the basis that it might inflame viewers to do something awful is an insult to all of us, since we're treated as little more than dumb attack dogs that hear "orders" and then carry them out. And to seek to restrict speech on the basis that it might coax one or two unhinged loners to do something awful would be turn society into the equivalent of a lunatic asylum, where everyone watches their words and controls their tone of voice just in case they give a madman the wrong impression.

I fully support a woman's right to choose abortion, including late-term abortion. I also find O'Reilly's rants and those anti-abortion websites nauseating. But the best way to make the case for the right to choose is not to criminalize the speech of the anti-abortion lobby, but to inject public debate with more and more convincing arguments for abortion rights. In short, we need more "extremely vivid" speech, not less.

Link

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

This murderer wasn’t trying to affect a debate as much as he was trying to stop abortions. Granted, the goal of the prolife debate is to stop abortions, too. But just because they have the same goal doesn't mean they're both political in their means. When you try to stop abortions in a civilized manner involving our political institutions (voting, campaigning, etc.), you’re in the realm of politics. When you grab a gun and start implimenting your goals with force, you’ve moved beyond political institutions and the tools we use to navigate them.

Revolutions -- ours for example -- move beyond political institutions and devolve into violence, too. And revolutions are utterly political. As I say, politics exceeds institutions and debate all the time; that is how those latter two are radically transformed. This man's goal of stopping abortions is still inherently political. He was practicing applied ethics, and in doing so violently challenged what you call the "science of power," whose current practitioners in our country tell us that abortion is legal. Thus in my view it was principally political.

I don't understand. I was talking about the guy who killed him, not the abortion doctor himself. Did you mean that the vigilate murderer's actions were the logical conclusion of the pro-life movement?

If I had meant so, I would have said so. No, I was purposely talking about George Tiller.

Well, if you want to call debate and voting “action,” I suppose so. But debate and voting are two ways to express an opinion. Opinions are definitely more abstract than bullits, wouldn’t you say?

Not when the opinions become votes and votes become elections. In any event, my point above applies here again. The notion that politics is about "debate and voting" seems hopelessly narrow and strict. My ability or inability to make certain decisions and commit certain actions every day of my life is a result of political realities.

You seem to imply that politics is the end, rather than the means.

Uh, no. You've badly misread me. I'm saying that on every stop of the road this man traversed to become a pro-life activist and then a murderer is steeped in political realities and a certain political environment.

[Avatar]

Regarding that article posted by Cail...

I wouldn't call it a logical outcome. Personal responsibility rests on the killer. However, I can't say that the political rhetoric doesn't play a role in polarising these extremes of opinion either.

I'd certainly never go so far as to blame any commentator (unless they out and out said "kill abortion doctors"), but, as I think LM is suggesting, nothing happens in a vacuum either.

I have no doubt that the extremist views of political/social comment have an effect on peoples opinions and actions. That's not the same as saying they're to blame though.

--A

[Cail]

Then we ought to stop broadcasting news and opinion, because any stated belief, or even objective reporting of facts, has the potential to outrage someone. That's the point of the article.

Put it this way, would the Anti-Bush folks here hold themselves, The Huffington Post, Salon, and anyone with a "Bush lied, people died" bumper sticker had someone shot him?

If we're too stupid to go through life without killing people who disagree with us, then there's no sense in having news or the internet (unless they can figure out a way to make it porn-only).

[Rawedge Rim]

I can't say, "abortion is murdering babies" without you saying my claim is an example of hate speech.

Well, abortion ISN'T murdering babies. If it was, those doctors would all be arrested. So that's not a good start.

Just because slavery was legal doesn't mean it wasn't slavery. Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean it's not murder. I'm not making a legal argument. I'm not a lawyer trying a case. I think anytime you knowingly, premeditatively, kill another human being you've committed murder. We're not arguing about the definition of murder, but the definition of a human being. And I can't hold my belief about what a human being is without simultaneously believing that abortion is murder, because I believe a baby in the womb is a human being. Therefore, it's impossible for me to hold this belief without viewing the intentional act of ending its life as murder. I don't care if you think it's a good place to start or not. Of course you don't think it's a good place to start, because you think it's okay to kill the unborn.

Actually, at this time, abortion is legal. I personally don't like it, but it is legal, therefore, abortion, by the definition, is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Obviously this is the lawful taking of a human life.

Homocide, certainly. Murder, no.

[Rawedge Rim]

Primarily to Wayfriend....


In a country with somewhere around 200 million adults, there are nuts who will decide that the normal give and take of public debate are too slow, and will take action, sometimes violent. It's inevitable and unpreventable.

The Eviromental Liberation Front regularly burns down resorts, auto dealerships, etc., and eventually either accidently or deliberately will end up killing a human being.

Nut job animal rights activist break into labs and release lab animals (and while I sympathise with thier feelings, this in particular is a hidiously dangerous thing to do, as they could end up releasing something like ebola into North America, or Europe.)

The Weather Underground, The Black Panthers, SLO, etc. did kill people.

Others on the Right have done the same.



but...... Rush Limbaugh,Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Ed Shultz,Randi Rhodes etc. have not advocated violence as a means of solving a dispute about policy within this country. They may rant about it, but in the end, each has advocating solving these issues either in the courts or in the polling booth.

[Avatar]

Good post RR. Ideally, I'd like 'em resolved in the polling booth. That way, everybody gets a say. I'm a big fan of the referendum process, although what I see of your guys legal system and voter participation makes me concede it might be impractical there.

Still, I favour it.

Over here, there's a big argument in the ruling party over the legalisation of prostitution. I agree with the segment that wants it done, with attendant tax revenue and health checks. But there's very little chance I can personally affect the outcome of the debate. A referendum on the issue would give me that chance, however small.

(And yes, for them as keeps track...I don't vote in elections, but I would in a referendum.)

--A

[sindatur]

but...... Rush Limbaugh,Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Al Franken, Ed Shultz,Randi Rhodes etc. have not advocated violence as a means of solving a dispute about policy within this country. They may rant about it, but in the end, each has advocating solving these issues either in the courts or in the polling booth.

Yea, that's what I was saying in my last post. Show me where these guys advocated killing abortion Drs, and I'll agree it's a logical conclusion their rhetoric caused it (and they should be charged with Conspiracy or accessory to Murder)

[Zarathustra]

Revolutions -- ours for example -- move beyond political institutions and devolve into violence, too. And revolutions are utterly political.

As I've said, all politics can end in violence. However, you can't conclude from this that violence is always political. It's a simple logical fallacy.

This man's goal of stopping abortions is still inherently political.

Saving human life is political? Are ambulance drivers really politicians in disguise? I think you want to describe it as political because your response to it is political. And because you want to draw connections to the conservative movement.

But the guy wasn't trying to get any politician elected, or help any political party. He wasn't trying to win a political debate. He wasn't trying to influence public opinion. He was trying to stop murder. Unless you can provide evidence that he was doing anything other than his actions, then you are playing psychologist and assuming more than the evidence warrants. You are just talking about your own motivations, not his.

If I had meant so, I would have said so. No, I was purposely talking about George Tiller.

Not necessarily. For instance, if you're a human being and not a robot, it's actually possible for you--even you!--to make a mistake. And the mistake you made here was misunderstanding the point to which you were responding. Hence my confusion over your response:

This guy transcended the realm of politics to the realm of action.

I would put it a different way, as I already have above: Tiller's actions were the logical conclusion of the pro-choice position. That's almost a condemnation, you'll notice, rendering your subtle accusations that I agreed with the man irrelevant. But it's also, I think, a fact.

If you go back and read my post, it's clear whom I was referring to with "this guy." It wasn't Tiller (whom I didn't mention or reference at all). Why would you put my words "a different way" and then talk about someone else altogether?

The notion that politics is about "debate and voting" seems hopelessly narrow and strict.

That's not what I said. Those were examples of political actions, but they were by no means an exhaustive list. Had I known you would have interpretted TWO actions as the sum total of all possible political action, I would have elaborated. However, I assumed that among intelligent people, that was an unnecessary elaboration. In fact, I find your interepretation of my words hopelessly narrow and strict.

You seem to imply that politics is the end, rather than the means.

Uh, no. You've badly misread me. I'm saying that on every stop of the road this man traversed to become a pro-life activist and then a murderer is steeped in political realities and a certain political environment.

Okay, I agree with that last sentence completely. But that's entirely distinct from his goal being political. Do you admit that there's no evidence his goal was political? Or are you also saying something about his endsand not merely his means or his context? If so, I haven't misread you at all. And indeed, you said this above:
This man's goal of stopping abortions is still inherently political.

"Inherently." Not by its context or by its means, but inherent to the goal itself. So you are talking about his ends, and I didn't misread you, unless you are misusing the word "inherently."

[Lord Mhoram]

Malik,

However, you can't conclude from this that violence is always political.

I think it almost always is. But we're talking about a violent act that pertained only and specifically to a politically charged US issue (abortion), so I think it's a no-brainer in this case.

Are ambulance drivers really politicians in disguise?

Perfect example. In the United States we have public access to emergency health services. This wasn't a gift from above nor is it a necessity; it's the result of the prosperity and values and concepts of the public good, etc., that exist in our country. It could be that there are no ambulance drivers at all; or they could show up at your house and you pay a bill from the get-go; or they would turn you away if you're black. Or any number of things. But they act in a certain way in the US. So no, ambulance drivers aren't "really politicians in disguise"; but their existence is predicated on certain political realities in whatever country they're serving.

But the guy wasn't trying to get any politician elected, or help any political party. He wasn't trying to win a political debate. He wasn't trying to influence public opinion. He was trying to stop murder.

Again you are applying a ludicrously strict definition of the political. (See below.) Politicians, elections, debates, public opinions? All part of politics, but so is the legal allowance of abortion in the United States and the movement to stop it, of which this man is a part and which he tried however tragically with this murder.

You are just talking about your own motivations, not his.

I find this deeply insulting on an intellectual level (not like you care; you'll resort to curse words to insult your opponents), and also find it ironic given your mocking allusions to psychology. No, I'm basing my conclusions on the analysis I've tried to provide in every post thus far.

If you go back and read my post, it's clear whom I was referring to with "this guy." It wasn't Tiller (whom I didn't mention or reference at all). Why would you put my words "a different way" and then talk about someone else altogether?

Why not? I realized you were talking about the assassin and not Tiller, but my statement was a different way of framing the debate entirely. Hence "a different way." Really, you're just nitpicking at this point.

However, I assumed that among intelligent people, that was an unnecessary elaboration. In fact, I find your interepretation of my words hopelessly narrow and strict.

I've both provided and applied a very broad (perhaps too broad for your liking; that's the point of the argument) definition of "the political." Since that's what's being debated here, it would be nice "among intelligent people" if you were to provide your own definition, rather than throw out some apparently haphazard examples and expect me to extrapolate from them your full definition. Thanks.

"Inherently." Not by its context or by its means, but inherent to the goal itself. So you are talking about his ends, and I didn't misread you, unless you are misusing the word "inherently."

It is possible, and in fact in this case probable, that both the ends (murder) and the means (uh...stopping murder?) of the assassin are political. So we agree the violence is political (I'm glad), apparently where we disagree is over the politics of stopping abortion. The politics of stopping abortion. You know, the pro-life movement. If we can't agree on the political nature of such a movement, of which the assassin was a part prior to the assassination and whose means he served (stopping abortions) through his actions (killing a prominent abortion provider), I don't see how we can proceed.

[wayfriend]

Malik, all those long posts commenting on every line of what I said...

Except the parts when I asked him to explain how does saying "Tiller was a baby killer" explain why abortion is wrong.

And when I asked how does adding "That's how he made his money" advocate anything about the pro-life position.

All I hear in that is a call for, and a threat of, vigilante justice. It's marking someone as deserving of punishment.

If anyone else wants to step up and answer, I'd be pleased.

If it's not about explaining why abortion is wrong, and it's not about advocating vigilantism, what the heck is the purpose of saying it?

And let me ask everyone this? Who else do we treat this bad? Do we call anyone else baby killers in civil, non-extremist discourse? Do we call anyone anything worse in civil, non-extremist discourse?

Anyone else, and we would feel we were listening to nut-jobs, I feel sure.

Thanks, but no, I'm not calling a lot of people extremists. What I see here is extremist language, in the form of poorly disgiused calls for punishment of certain people, becoming popular with the main stream pro-lifers.

And that is dangerous because extremists will feel that they are mainstream. Acceptible. And therefore the likelihood of violence rises. "They won't punish me, they'll call me a hero." Etc.

It's no surprise that violence against medical people is on the rise. With conservatives out of power, mainstream rhetoric against abortion is becoming more charged, more extremist, in an effort to compensate.

[Rawedge Rim]

Malik, all those long posts commenting on every line of what I said...

Except the parts when I asked him to explain how does saying "Tiller was a baby killer" explain why abortion is wrong.

And when I asked how does adding "That's how he made his money" advocate anything about the pro-life position.

All I hear in that is a call for, and a threat of, vigilante justice. It's marking someone as deserving of punishment.

If anyone else wants to step up and answer, I'd be pleased.

If it's not about explaining why abortion is wrong, and it's not about advocating vigilantism, what the heck is the purpose of saying it?

And let me ask everyone this? Who else do we treat this bad? Do we call anyone else baby killers in civil, non-extremist discourse? Do we call anyone anything worse in civil, non-extremist discourse?

Anyone else, and we would feel we were listening to nut-jobs, I feel sure.

Thanks, but no, I'm not calling a lot of people extremists. What I see here is extremist language, in the form of poorly disgiused calls for punishment of certain people, becoming popular with the main stream pro-lifers.

And that is dangerous because extremists will feel that they are mainstream. Acceptible. And therefore the likelihood of violence rises. "They won't punish me, they'll call me a hero." Etc.

It's no surprise that violence against medical people is on the rise. With conservatives out of power, mainstream rhetoric against abortion is becoming more charged, more extremist, in an effort to compensate.

I must be dense today. I didn't read anything in Malik's post that suggested that someone ought to arm themselves and put a stop to abortion.

If I see three or four people run a stop light; and make a comment like "someone ought to do something about people who run red lights before they kill someone"; that doesn't mean that I'm advocating for someone to arm themselves and kill the next person who blows through a stop light.

While you may not like the terms he used, Malik was accurate in that as the Dr. performed late term abortions on fetus' that could possibly be viable with minimal help outside the womb; then Tiller was in fact a baby killer. The fact that his practice was sanctioned by the State does not change this fact.

If you pull the switch on the electric chair, or the gas chamber, or the lethal injection machine, you are a human killer. It's sanctioned by the
State; it may be necessary, but the lable is accurate.

[Zarathustra]

Wayfriend, it might come as a shock to you that I don't read every one of your posts. The ones I do read are frustratingly contradictory enough, that I could literally spend all day long going line-by-line trying to sort them out. My posts are long enough already. I think I give you more time than anyone else. I can't believe I'm being criticized for not giving you more. Honestly, I don't think anyone wants more Malik responding to every line of Wayfriend's post. I respond to the points *I* want to respond to, among the posts I bother to read.

But since you've mentioned it . . .

Except the parts when I asked him to explain how does saying "Tiller was a baby killer" explain why abortion is wrong.

And when I asked how does adding "That's how he made his money" advocate anything about the pro-life position.

If killing babies isn't immediately obviously wrong to you, then I don't know what I could possibly say to convince you that it's wrong.

If making money killing babies isn't immediately obviously wrong to you, then I don't know what I could possibly say to convince you that it's wrong.

THAT'S why I didn't respond. What's the point? You want me to explain why slavery is wrong, too?

People got away with slavery because they thought blacks were less than human. People get away with abortion because they think unborn babies are less than human. If you can't see humanity in a person, it's because you choose not to, and no amount of words from me will open your eyes.

[Tjol]

Well, abortion ISN'T murdering babies. If it was, those doctors would all be arrested. So that's not a good start.

Just because slavery was legal doesn't mean it wasn't slavery. Just because abortion is legal doesn't mean it's not murder. I'm not making a legal argument. I'm not a lawyer trying a case. I think anytime you knowingly, premeditatively, kill another human being you've committed murder. We're not arguing about the definition of murder, but the definition of a human being. And I can't hold my belief about what a human being is without simultaneously believing that abortion is murder, because I believe a baby in the womb is a human being. Therefore, it's impossible for me to hold this belief without viewing the intentional act of ending its life as murder. I don't care if you think it's a good place to start or not. Of course you don't think it's a good place to start, because you think it's okay to kill the unborn.

Actually, at this time, abortion is legal. I personally don't like it, but it is legal, therefore, abortion, by the definition, is not murder. Murder is the unlawful taking of a human life. Obviously this is the lawful taking of a human life.

Homocide, certainly. Murder, no.

Legality is not the same as morality.

Murder = unjustified/ immoral killing

The law has definitions for what is immoral or unjustified, but those are not the only defintions of what is unjustified or immoral. It is a bad idea to equivocate the law with morality. Many immoral things can be done which are entirely legal.