Friends in odd places: A wide spectrum of groups file support for Christian Legal Society case 
Click to Print
Include Comments
Tiller murdered in church
Late-term abortionist George Tiller was shot and killed Sunday at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kan. Tiller was serving as an usher at the time. A suspect was detained in suburban Kansas City, and Wichita police believe the man acted alone.
Anti-abortion groups have denounced the killing. Operation Rescue President Troy Newman said in a statement, “We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning.”
President Obama was “shocked and outraged” by the shooting, adding, “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”
back to top306 Comments to “Tiller murdered in church”
I came to the blog to see the comments on this subject and no one had posted.
I have not heard anything about the suspect who is in custody, what his reasons were, but one wonders about the premeditation it took to find out where the man went to church, go there, wait to see if the man was there, etc. This required some planning and time. It is shocking that the murder took place in the church itself.
Not the way to change things.
Report comment to moderator
This will set us back.
Report comment to moderator
I also find it shocking that Tiller attended church. Being an usher means, I assume, that he was a “member in good standing.” I wouldn’t be in that pastor’s shoes for anything on judgment day, and I hurt to think of any children who might have attended church with such a man.
May God have mercy on his family; bring his pastor to repentance; protect the lives of those who were already scheduled to be murdered by this man (Tiller) in the days to come; give extraordinary wisdom to directors of pro-life clinics, particularly as they interact with those who work at abortion clinics and who are probably somewhat scared by this; bring more abortion workers to change careers; and protect vulnerable young women from being afraid of workers at pro-life clinics.
This was not the way this story was supposed to end; he should have been brought to justice in the courts, not vigilante-style justice.
Report comment to moderator
Obama: “However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.”
Tiller’s killer did engage in this act of violence.
Did Tiller engage in acts of violence?
Are both heinous?
Report comment to moderator
Suspect held in slaying of Kan. abortion doctor
AP Associated Press
The gunman fled, but a 51-year-old suspect was arrested some 170 miles away in suburban Kansas City three hours after the shooting, Wichita Deputy Police Chief Tom Stolz said. Johnson County sheriff’s spokesman Tom Erickson identified the man in custody as Scott Roeder, who has not been charged in the slaying.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31029377/
Report comment to moderator
The doctor’s murder is indeed a sad occurrence and a heinous crime. Its (presumed) relationship to the heinous crime Dr. Tiller committed requires the attention of more Americans.
Some interaction with the AP story:
… unlike Tiller’s clinic.
… as opposed to the children the women carried inside them.
Given the existence of only three such clinics in the U.S., I’m curious how many such late-term abortions are committed here annually.
Lastly, I have wondered on more than one occasion how legitimate/illegitimate it is for citizens to intervene with violence against abortionists on behalf of the unborn children they intend to kill. Although a German citizen in the ’30s or ’40s who undertook a suicide mission against concentration camp workers would certainly have been killed or caught and prosecuted for breaking the law, I don’t think anyone would argue that his attempt would have been inherently morally wrong.
Today, in America, I may intervene with violence against a person attacking another person who has been born, because in this case, man’s law coincides with God’s law. However, I may not intervene with violence against a person intent on killing the unborn, because man’s law sadly does not comport with God’s law re. the protection of the unborn.
So in the end analysis, I am content in my conclusion that I am in no position to legitimately act violently against abortionists, because I trust that the sovereign God a) has ordained that our nation undergo this curse, but also because b) I trust that He will either judge or save such a man.
Report comment to moderator
KBELLS (2): This will set us back.
Frank: Only in the minds of the radical, life- and God-hating pro-abortionists, I think.
Precisely because “we” — the vast majority of pro-lifers — have not been going about dispensing vigilante justice.
Any person who links this act with the pro-life cause in general is simply not being honest with the facts.
Report comment to moderator
… which is not the same thing as saying that pro-abort legislators and gummint functionaries, and abortion-rights advocates, will not try to exploit this occasion to attempt to reign in our freedom of speech to decry legal abortion in our pulpits and in political discussions and debates.
Report comment to moderator
A couple of things will determine how this plays out (and whether this murder will set back the pro-life side). First, is the murderer himself — if the person ends up being a radicalized member of a church, that would be very damaging; otoh if the person comes off as mentally or emotionally imbalanced, that provides a narrative many can understand.
A second factor will be the response of pro-life supporters. If the tenor over the next few days is one that suggests emotional, if not legal approval of the deed, that will serve to confirm suspicions on the pro-abortion side. To date, the official responses have been read fairly positively by the lefty blogs I’ve read.
At the very least this puts the Sotomayor nomination into a new dimension.
Report comment to moderator
“Any person who links this act with the pro-life cause in general is simply not being honest with the facts.”
There are such persons on this very blog. And their attempt to smear us all with their age-old mud slinging is disgusting.
Report comment to moderator
Every time another clinic worker is murdered, every time another clinic is bombed, every time another clinic worker’s life is threatened, every time another bomb threat is called in, the anti-choice movement claim total innocence.
Well, the aren’t innocent with their websites with “x”’s through people’s pictures who’ve been murdered, with their screams of “murderer!”, with their labeling of abortion as a “holocaust”. They directly create the climate that pushes people into planting bombs and murdering people.
Report comment to moderator
Nice try, Anlir. But you’re not sticking this one on folks who SPEAK passionately and truthfully against abortion.
As if there have been so many “every times” that you can pin it on a particular group. As if you can lump all those opposed to abortion into one big “they”.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
Since you have a dog on the other side of this fight from most of us, would you provide some links to sites that provide credible statistics on “anti-choice” attacks, murders, bombings, etc.?
I’m not under the impression that these occurrences are all that common. (And of course, I most definitely do not support any such attacks or threats.)
Report comment to moderator
Randall Terry called Dr. Tiller a “mass murderer”. The murder suspect was an active member of Operation Rescue. The anti-choice movement can’t get out of this one.
Report comment to moderator
Harris: if the person ends up being a radicalized member of a church, that would be very damaging; otoh if the person comes off as mentally or emotionally imbalanced…
It can often be hard to tell. If one believes that one can hear, or speak to a god, or is a god’s messenger or soldier, one’s “sanity” depends on which god and what period one live in.
By the way, Mickey, it is, or was Dr. George Tiller. who was murdered.
Cheryl D: …bring more abortion workers to change careers…
That’s as clear an endorsement by anyone of terrorism as I have ever read on this board.
I can just hear Osama making the exact same prayer—that his mens’ actions would encourage more Americans to stay away from working for financial and world trade firms.
Report comment to moderator
One other comment, which I have copied from the Washington Post’s comment page:
Language matters. Equating abortion with murder allows emotionally unstable people to feel they are justified in killing others. We’ve seen it before: the doctor in Buffalo, numerous bombing at reproductive health clinics and now this terrible assassination in Wichita. It’s time for all media — especially on the right — to deny a forum for those who cavalierly accuse others of murder. Language matters.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
At least have the courage to refer to me–us–in the second person instead of the third. You are saying to every person who has spoken against abortion, “You killed Dr. Tiller.” If Dr. Tiller’s blood is on my hands, all the blood of the babies he killed is on yours. After all, you have spoken out in support of his right to kill them.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, you are right, language matters. Not calling abortion murder allows people to feel abortionists are justified in killing others.
Report comment to moderator
“George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.
- Randall Terry
It’s past time the anti-choice movement reigned in it’s radicals and those who create the climate for terrorism and murder.
Report comment to moderator
You’re right Arcadia. Yes, language matters. Taking an innocent life with premeditation is “murder”. Do you have another name for that? Of course when it’s done to a large group for a common purpose, we call it “genocide”. Is that the word you were looking for? Or were you coming here hoping you could get someone to simply call it “free exercise of reproductive rights”, using language that puts abortion in the same category as giving a speech on a street corner? Just curious.
I’m not excusing this act and am quite certain that Tiller’s assassin will face the full force of our justice system (probably with a smile on his face). I’m not happy that this may lead to justification of government sponsored persecution of those who oppose the killing of the unborn with words rather than deeds.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir (#18), this is not terrorism, it is an assassination and there is a difference. Don’t trivialize terrorism by trying to apply the word to this situation.
Report comment to moderator
Can someone give a reason that this murder shouldn’t be classified as “terrorism”? Of course we don’t know details about the killer’s motives yet, but it looks a lot like an act of violence intended to intimidate for political purposes.
I’m really curious about why the media, the police, the president, etc. are all avoiding the word.
Report comment to moderator
Face it folks, nobody much cares when somebody kills “a murderer”. Lots of people love the death penalty.
RKG: If you can’t make your point any other way, that’s sad. It bespeaks a paucity of language skills and a lack of imagination. And, as noted, it does create the impression in many people’s minds that it is okay, or somehow acceptable to kill the object of your disdain or hatred, or whatever it is that you feel.
Report comment to moderator
Considering that Dr Tiller was previously shot in both arms, and that his clinics have been bombed twice, yes, terrorism is an appropriate term.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, asking God to bring more abortionists to change careers is an “endorsement of terrorism”? I’m sorry, sir, but that is libel, and it’s wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Bob2009,
So you agree that setting SUVs on fire isn’t really terrorism?
There’s nothing “trivial” about a man being gunned down in his church.
Report comment to moderator
Given the long history of bombings, violence, murder, and extremist language from the anti-choice side, yes it is absolutely accurate to label it “terrorism”.
Report comment to moderator
To be more on topic, I am reposting this here:
bortion is the most difficult and divisive problem in our society. I find no reason to believe that human beings have “souls” or exist after death.
It makes no sense to me that millions of babies die by miscarriage or other “natural” problems and that is “OK” with God and most people here, but an abortion is a terrible crime.
On the other hand, I have moral values based on my upbringing and conditioning and practical considerations and capacity for empathy. (Which has become the latest dirty word on the far right.)
I dislike murder of adults for sentimental reasons and empathy. By the same token, it makes more sense to me to let as many fetuses live and be born as possible, even if they don’t have “souls” or if there is no God to mourn one infant and destroy another at His royal whim.
Human sex drive is far stronger than it now needs to be and takes control of human bodies and hormones and minds at way too early an age. To me that fits with our evolution; as God’s intent, it strikes me as “whacko” as the now disappeared llama was so fond of saying.
Conservative leaders such as Nixon and Reagan and the Bushes considre abortion a gone they can ring and the Base dogs will come running and drooling. No Republican leader of any significance is really willing to put his butt on the line to try and do something serious about abortion.
Tillman was an accident waiting to happen. In legal terms, I think he was considered an “attractive nuisance.” Someone who couldn’t resist finaly came along and hit the target. Lots of people here wring their hands and talk about how much they oppose his murder while secretly thinking I am so glad he got his.
China is the worst abortion factory in the world. The United States and every Republican and Democratic leader is deeply in bed with China.
I have no solution. The best approach I can think of is to provide as many positive incentives not to have abortions as possible. Many of you say you do so. If so, good for you. The comments many people post do not particularly convince me, but I don’t know in each particular case.
Report comment to moderator
Most of the Christians here are skirting perilously close to excusing the murder. You don’t approve but he WAS a mass murderer, after all, so really it’s not so bad … is how it’s coming across.
How about everybody just SHUT UP about whether this helps or hurts any side of a debate, and God’s sake stop sounding like it even enters your minds that this might be a justifiable crime.
(I particularly object to the expressions of HORROR that a church lets a vile sinner like Tiller worship with them … isn’t that just where a vile sinner needs to be?)
I’m embarrassed by the lot of you.
Report comment to moderator
Arcadia, “murder” is simply shorthand for the unjustified kiiling of a human. That is what abortion is to those of us who believe abortion is the unjustified killing of a human. To call it something else would be tantamount to abandoning the reason we think it’s wrong. If it’s not murder, it’s not wrong. Help me with my paucity of language skills–what should I be arguing to make my point that abortion is wrong?
I agree with your point that people care less about a murderer being killed than a non-murderer. Perhaps you would agree that people also care less about a fetus or blastocyst being kiiled as compared to a baby human. Last time I checked the number of baby humans kiiled by abortion is in the millions. Which side should be calling for the other to use precise language?
Report comment to moderator
Here is a link to a post by someone with the same name (Scott Roeder) as the “person of interest.” It’s on Operation Rescue’s website, which I think is down for scrubbing right now. This is the google cache. It sounds like he’s a very religious person. Perhaps an Evangelical?
“Bleass everyone for attending and praying in May to bring justice to Tiller and the closing of his death camp. Sometime soon, would it be feasible to organize as many people as possible to attend Tillers church (inside, not just outside) to have much more of a presence and possibly ask questions of the Pastor, Deacons, Elders and members while there? Doesn’t seem like it would hurt anything but bring more attention to Tiller.“
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, how about this–since none of us here is approving of the bombings, murders, etc. (very rare, BTW), we’ll agree to call it “terrorism” if you’ll agree to call the willful killing of innocent young human beings “murder.” Deal?
The pro-”choice” people are the only ones on this thread supporting violence, it seems to me–violence against the unborn is somehow OK, and no matter how much we say we do not support any murder, y’all insist that our revulsion at killing innocent human beings makes us closet terrorists. Nope, it means we’re opposed to murder. And we get called “anti-choice” and “terrorists” as a result? Remarkable what a little language twisting can do!!
So, let’s say it clearly–we pro-lifers are opposed to the murder of the born and the unborn. Now, your turn. Is violence against the unborn OK? Is it OK to tear off limbs, etc. as long as the person isn’t yet born? Is it terrorism to insert scissors into skulls and suck out brains?
Report comment to moderator
Steve G,
Vile sinners belong in churches that lead them to repent from, not persist in, their sin. The horror (or is it HORROR?) is that this man could go to his death thinking he was justified before God when the fruit of his life was so thoroughly rancid. Killing babies does not make a man right before God. The “church”–so called–that this man attended claims to be Lutheran yet apparently can’t even recall the first of their namesake’s 95 Theses. Can you?
Report comment to moderator
I beg the pardon of anyone who thinks my comments suggest approval of the actions of the murderer who killed Dr. Tiller. I do not approve, and I take no pleasure in his killing.
Report comment to moderator
The only response should be the unequivocal condemnation of his murder. Period. Too bad the anti-choicers don’t get that. They never get this kind of stuff.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G., yes, absolutely, a “vile sinner” should be welcomed at church–but an unrepentant man should not be treated as a functioning part of the church; he should be under church discipline (and excommunication) if a member, refused membership if he is not a member. Allowed to attend, yes, but not more than that. Being an usher suggests (it doesn’t prove, but it strongly suggests) that he was a member in good standing. The Bible says we’re not even to eat with a man who’s under church discipline and unrepentant. This means his church is in sin, and I’m horrified at that, yes. His pastor will give an account to God someday for not guarding Tiller’s soul more carefully.
And yes, Tiller was a mass murderer–but the State has been given authority to execute murderers; individuals have not. So both parties can be, and are, wrong. Is that clear enough?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, would anyone in his right mind have said that the ONLY response to the news of Hitler’s murder should be “the unequivocal condemnation of his murder”? No, they would not. It really is possible to condemn both murderers when a murderer is killed by vigilante justice. Tiller was wrong, and so was the man who murdered him. Can it be said any clearer? Tiller wasn’t a sweet little martyr–he was a murderer. Murder of Tiller is still wrong.
Report comment to moderator
33.
Sorry, but there’s only one side in this debate that approves of murder.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D.,
I don’t speak for the others, obviously, but I certainly agree with you that most people who oppose legalized abortion are not “closet terrorists.” I personally believe strongly that they should have the right to attempt to bring about change in the law and in public attitudes through voting, (reasonable) protest, free speech, etc.
That said, this murder looks like terrorism, and Operation Rescue is probably responsible for incitement to terrorism by any reasonable standards.
Report comment to moderator
See – there CherylD goes comparing Dr. Tiller to Hitler. Stuff like that creates the climate for murder. It’s time the anti-choice movement faced up to it’s moral responsibility.
Report comment to moderator
Perce, I have no idea what makes something cross the line into terrorism, and am more than willing to call it that if it fits the legal definition. I really don’t know how terrorism could be worse than murder (the unjustified killing of a human being made in God’s image), however, and I’ve already called it that!
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: This means his church is in sin, and I’m horrified at that, yes. His pastor will give an account to God someday for not guarding Tiller’s soul more carefully.
You have no way to know what kind of conversations the pastor and Tiller might have had. For all you know, maybe he was counseling him to renounce his profession, trying to persuade him.
You speak as if the church was just blithely ignoring the issue, but you are only assuming that. And where I come from, ushers help people find seats and collect the offerings, they’re not providing spiritual counseling. You’re very quick to condemn the church and the pastor when you have no idea what was going on behind the scenes.
You will give an account to God someday for your assumption and judgmentalism, which is maybe something you should think about.
Report comment to moderator
38.
Sure, as soon as you face up to your moral responsibility to stop supporting murder.
Report comment to moderator
Oh please, Anlir–I didn’t “compare Tiller to Hitler.” I asked whether one can justifiably (in your moral universe) ever point out that both parties are wrong without being said to advocate murder. Hitler was the most obvious example, and instead of answering the question, you try to make me look bad for asking it. Ridiculous.
Report comment to moderator
From Huffington Post:
***UPDATE*** US Attorney General Eric Holder is dispatching US Marshals to protect abortion clinic and doctors around the country.
Holder issued the following statement:
The murder of Doctor George Tiller is an abhorrent act of violence, and his family is in our thoughts and prayers at this tragic moment. Federal law enforcement is coordinating with local law enforcement officials in Kansas on the investigation of this crime, and I have directed the United States Marshals Service to offer protection to other appropriate people and facilities around the nation. The Department of Justice will work to bring the perpetrator of this crime to justice. As a precautionary measure, we will also take appropriate steps to help prevent any related acts of violence from occurring.
Report comment to moderator
See – there CherylD goes comparing Dr. Tiller to Hitler.
Come on, Anlir, that was an analogy—and a trite, tired one at that. There are more important issues here than bad taste in rhetorical figures.
Report comment to moderator
Perce,
And yet both you and Anlir completely ignored Cheryl’s point in order to focus on it…
May you could, I don’t know, answer her question?
Report comment to moderator
Steve, it is possible that other churches do things differently, yes. In any church I’ve ever attended, ushers are members in good standing, and quite often are deacons. If this church does things differently, and any person attending the church can be an usher, then I’m wrong. I was speculating based on my experience, and I’d be VERY happy to learn he was in fact not a member at all. And no, I don’t think I’ll have to account to God for suggesting that the church, in letting him be an usher, minimally appears to be approving of his spiritual state. But again, I’d be very, very happy if my speculation is wrong.
Report comment to moderator
For the record, I find abortion, and especially late-term abortion, abhorrent as well. But the fact remains it’s legal. While I think the law should be changed, I also think that (1) Tiller was better off in church than being excommunicated, even if it had not so far persuaded him to find another line of work, and (2) there is NO justification for murdering him.
And given that he’s been dead barely 12 hours, I think we should be more concerned about his family and his community than figuring out which “side” benefits or is harmed, and what historical mass murderer might be the most appropriate comparison.
Sheesh.
Report comment to moderator
Oh no, CherylD, you ain’t getting off that easy. You knew exactly what you were doing by bringing Hitler into the discussion and then calling Dr. Tiller a “murderer”. It has been a favorite tactic of the anti-choice movement to label doctors who performs abortions as “Hitler” or compare them to Hitler.
A man was shot dead in church today and you have the gall to come on here and call him a “murderer”. Were is your human decency?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
I’m sure he was a member in good standing, Cheryl. But in most churches I’ve been part of, ushers are simply volunteer members of the laity who help with tasks like I described. Doesn’t sound like they were trusting him to provide spiritual guidance, or anything like that.
As the late Ann Landers was fond of saying, the church is a hospital for sinners, not a museum for saints. You don’t go because you’re good, you go because you know you’re not. I have no idea — and neither do you — what was going on in Tiller’s heart and soul, or what he and his pastor might have discussed in private. For all anyone knows, maybe he was there because he was feeling something wrong and was planning to change … we’ll never know, but I think it’s awfully presumptuous for anyone to declare the church was “in sin” because Tiller was there and not getting kicked to the curb.
Report comment to moderator
48.
Where is yours? Oh right, you have none. You support murderers.
Report comment to moderator
It appears most people here are more concerned with doing damage control for their cause than they are concerned that one of their own has murdered a law abiding citizen in his place of worship, and in front of his family. What a sad state of affairs.
Report comment to moderator
We see that every time another anti-choice person commits another murder or bombs another clinic, RPN.
While the anti-choice movement will issue their platitude condemning his murder, they go right on creating the climate that makes it possible.
Report comment to moderator
You know what creates the climate for murder?
State-sponsored murder.
Report comment to moderator
I really don’t know how terrorism could be worse than murder…
The issue isn’t some degree of badness—this murder would be just as terrible if it were over something trivial.
The targets of terrorism aren’t just the immediate victims, though. The use of violence for intimidation demands a particular response, whether the violence is an “honor” killing in Canada or this murder in Kansas.
Report comment to moderator
Ringbearer at #54: You know what creates the climate for murder? State-sponsored murder.
What? Are you seriously claiming that this makes any sense? I could name a dozen nations off the top of my head where abortion is legal and murder rates are a fraction of the US’s.
Report comment to moderator
54-
How about an organization with the slogan: “If you believe abortion is murder, act like it’s murder.” Never mind that abortion is not murder. Just believe it is, and act like it is? Nut jobs.
Report comment to moderator
RPN, he wasn’t “one of our own.” Every one of us has repudiated his action. Oh, for the record, he wasn’t a “law-abiding citizen,” according to the state of Kansas. (That’s not particularly relevant except that you brought it up. He still ought not to have been murdered.)
Steve G., I’m not sure what a person could be excommunicated for, if not for this. Honestly. Think about it. If the bar is so low that a man could commit dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of late-term abortions, over a period of decades, and be in good standing at his church, the church surely couldn’t excommunicate unrepentant adulterers, embezzelers, wife beaters, or anybody at all, really.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, sigh. I have the “gall” to call him a murderer because he was. There’s no lack of human decency in speaking the truth. I also called his murderer a murderer.
Where do you get your moral compass, BTW, Anlir? I don’t ask that sarcastically, but in sincerity. You’re outraged at those who think Tiller an evil man–but on what basis does your standard allow what Tiller does, and not what was done TO him? Pro-lifers are at least being consistent here, basing our outrage on a consistent standard against all murder. You’re insisting we be outraged against the murder of Tiller–we are–but equally must NOT be outraged that he was the killer of many innocent human lives. On what possible basis, sir? I’m completely baffled. If the murderer of one human being is evil, wasn’t the murderer of vast numbers also evil? If this man who killed Tiller gets killed by vigilantes himself tomorrow, will we be required at that point ONLY to express outrage at the new murder, not at today’s murder? Or will it then be OK to mention that this man is a murderer?
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl- 58
The apparent murderer of Dr. Tiller is very much one of your own. Ardently anti-abortion, and judging by what he posted on Operation Rescue’s website, he’s an Evangelical Christian who believes exactly as you do, that Dr. Tiller should be excommunicated.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl-
You are supposedly an editor if I recall? Have you looked up the definition of the word “murder”?
The Legal Dictionary defines murder as: The unlawful killing of another human being without justification or excuse.
Abortion is not unlawful.
Report comment to moderator
RPN at #60: …he’s an Evangelical Christian who believes exactly as you do…
I’m not sure that this reflects on Cheryl’s position at all. If Bush had been assassinated while he was president, it could very well have been by someone who shared my belief that Bush was responsible for many deaths, for undermining the Constitution, etc. The fact that a murderer acted violently on the basis of those opinions wouldn’t invalidate them.
The enemy here is the murderer himself, his many, many apologists on the right, and the extremist voices coming out of Operation Rescue. I don’t think people like Cheryl fall into these groups.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl: Again (sigh) … you don’t KNOW that he was “unrepentant.” Why was he attending church to begin with? What did he seek counsel for? What did he feel he needed grace for? For all you or I know, maybe he was making plans to this week shut down his clinic and find another line of work.
And maybe not, but you don’t know … you are acting awfully certain of something you cannot possibly know.
And again, I’ll say, if you excommunicate the unrepentant sinners, you are tossing them out of the one place where they might find the needed conviction to repent.
There is a lot of judgment and very little grace in what you say.
Report comment to moderator
Perce-
Perhaps you missed it, or misuderstood the context of my comment. Cheryl has said (paraphrasing here) that Dr. Tiller did not belong in a church, and that he should be excommunicated. So did the person who posted on Operation Rescue’s website using the name of the suspected killer.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G., The Bible commands the church to excommunicate unrepentant sinners. Not my rule, not my choice. Yes, it is barely possible he had repented–and if that was the case, wonderful. I’ll see him in heaven, and rejoice. But the church should not put him as an usher (or any role at all) unless he had repented to the extent of ceasing to do his bloody business. Let’s put it this way–as a murderer of children, he should not have been around children, anymore than a pedophile should be. A church that would give him ushering duties, and thus allow him around children, was being derelict in it moral duties to the community, if there was no other reason not to allow it. I believe there are biblical reasons as well, but that’s a very practical one.
Report comment to moderator
I feel really sorry for Dr. Tiller’s 4 children, and 10 grandchildren who lost their father and grandpa today — while he was at church, no less. May the Lord bring peace to their hearts.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. I’ve been in more than one church service that involved church discipline, and I cried. I don’t think that excommunication needs to be void of love for the sinner. I actually think it’s unmerciful to let him continue in his sin and pretend it’s OK. It’s certainly unmerciful to his victims, whether they be an embezzled employer, an abused wife, or any other range of people.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl, abortion is not the same as murder. It is legal.
Report comment to moderator
Yes, RPN, I have prayed for that today as well. Amen.
RPN, abortion isn’t legally murder. This has been discussed many times before on this blog. If I dare mention Hitler again, his gas chambers were legal too–and thus not “technically” murder, if you really want to go that route. I give no credence whatsoever to a legal definition that so clearly conflicts with reality. (You’d allow me to call Hitler’s gas chambers “murder,” am I correct?) You don’t need to agree with me that abortion is murder, but allowing for the fact that a legal definition may be different from reality, and that Hitler’s gas chambers in fact were murder, and that a man killing his slave was in fact murder even if it was legal . . . whether you’ll actually agree with me that abortion is murder, you have to accept that one is morally justified in saying that the deliberate killing of an innocent human being is murder, even if it happens to be legal. You don’t have to agree with me on abortion being murder, but I don’t see how you can possibly deny the premise, that what is not murder legally might be murder in reality.
Report comment to moderator
Wow, RPN at 64–talk about guilt by association!! That’s low, even for you.
Report comment to moderator
RPN:
But my point was that making the same argument as a murderer doesn’t make you some kind of accessory or even necessarily sympathetic.
Operation Rescue, with its “Tiller Watch”, etc. was definitely wading into will-no-one-rid-me-of-this-troublesome-priest territory. I think that’s different from what Cheryl has been doing here.
Report comment to moderator
Sorry if the facts seem “low” to you, Cheryl. My opinion of you has changed today as well.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks, Perce.
RPN, my opinion of you hasn’t changed. That was simply below the belt. Do see post 69 too, please.
Report comment to moderator
Perce-
I have not suggested Cheryl is an accessory.
Report comment to moderator
So many people seem to miss one big act of terrorism. The police are detaining a man who was 170 miles away from the incident. After only three hours after Tiller was sent on the room temperature express. That is an average of over 63 miles per hour. In a straight line. Odds are that Scott Roeder is extremely innocent. and that he is now being persecuted for having spoken out. Free Scott Roeder
Report comment to moderator
Odds are that the distinguished doctor is not playing with all the children he killed.
Report comment to moderator
Odds are that the distinguished doctor is not playing with all the children he killed.
And here come the Free Republic trolls now…
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof – 76
montyfisherwoof 06.01.09 AT 1:26 AM
Odds are that the distinguished doctor is not playing with all the children he killed.”
This is not a clever remark – abortion is a terrible thing -
Report comment to moderator
RPN – 74
What have YOU SUGGESTED?
Report comment to moderator
You’ll have to read the thread.
Report comment to moderator
I have!
Report comment to moderator
“The last killing of an abortion doctor was in October 1998″
.
less than many other professions.
Report comment to moderator
On Roeder: “I’d say he’s a good ol’ boy except he was just so fanatic about abortion,” said Wilson, who now lives in western Nebraska. “He was always talking about how awful abortion was. But there’s a lot of people who think abortion is awful.”
Report comment to moderator
RPN – 83
Your source is?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria, what I was trying to imply was that the babies he killed who were innocent and that the abortionist who was no innocent would likely be going to different places in the after life.
.
I had to say ‘the odds are’ because no one on earth knows who goes to Heaven and who doesn’t. However the odds are….
It is sad to think that Hell gets even one more soul than it has to get.
We hope that sinners repent. and ask for forgiveness. From everything written about this Tiller character, he did not . But we are not given to know.
Report comment to moderator
84-
“In the rear window of the 1993 blue Ford Taurus that he was driving was a red rose, a symbol often used by abortion opponents. On the rear of his car was a Christian fish symbol with the word “Jesus” inside.”
Report comment to moderator
WHY NOT? – I know many people whom I am convinced are in Heaven OR are going there when they die. Their lives bear fruit, that’s how one can tell they are headed for Eternal Life with Christ.
Those who have given their lives to Jesus Christ ARE going to heaven, that I KNOW -
RPN – 86
If you can’t give a DIRECT LINK, I won’t read it. Your link is not to a direct NEWS source.
Report comment to moderator
Montyfish-
Google Maps says 2 hours 34 minutes drive time between Wichita and Gardener, KS. Gives the terrorist time to wash up, ditch the gun, and grab lunch.
What is “the room temperature express” to which you refer? Is that a joke about the murder of Dr. Tiller?
Report comment to moderator
88-
It is a DIRECT LINK to the story from which the citation is excerpted.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
Like you I feel that I know many people whom I am convinced are in Heaven. And likewise the other place..
I proclaim that I gave my life to Christ and I have. I know that I am going to Heaven. What I am saying is that none of us is given to know the true heart of others. The Tiller character could have repented . We are not given to know. The keys to Heaven are in Christ’s hand, not ours.
Report comment to moderator
montyfisherwoof – 91
Don’t bother to back-peddle to me -
Report comment to moderator
#89, I don’t believe Google maps..
What I am saying is that the police were quite quick to assume that Scot was guilty. He might be. I don’t know. But I would want to see a body of evidence before I just accept what the police did as righteous.
As far as the distance is concerned…. Scott could have taken a plane or helicopter as well.
Report comment to moderator
REFEREMCE: post number 75 -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
I am not back pedaling to you. Since I am not local to that neighborhood I have to assume innocence before believing guilt..
Report comment to moderator
How much TV do watch?
Report comment to moderator
Has anyone pronounced this man GUILTY, if so, WHO?
Report comment to moderator
Report comment to moderator
To use Montyfish’s vocabulary, odds are he’s the guy. Driving the powder blue Taurus with the same vanity license plate “225 BAB”, and anti-abortion stickers and fish, and his past linked to in 86, makes me confident the murderer is in custody.
Report comment to moderator
I hope you’re locked in a soundproof room doing all your yelling, Victoria?
Report comment to moderator
#13 Anlir- The murder suspect was also an anarchist who was arrested for possessing bombmaking materials back in 1996 and at one time was a member of the Freemen militia group. You cannot equate one whackjob with all the ordinary Americans who oppose abortion on religious grounds. How would you like it if I blamed you for every Christian that gets murdered?
Report comment to moderator
86- So if I post a gay rights rainbow sticker on my car window and go kill a Christian, does that mean that all gay right advocates can be labeled terrorists? This whole idea of branding an entire movement as evil because ONE PERSON who CLAIMS to be a member of that movement goes off the deep end is ludicrous. Believing that abortion is a crime against humanity and believing in not allowing vigilante justice are NOT incompatible beliefs.
Report comment to moderator
Victoria-
Here is the link you may have missed. Anti-government activist, anti-abortion activist, fish sticker Christian, bomb maker, doctor killer.
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/251/story/69151.html
“I’d say he’s a good ol’ boy except he was just so fanatic about abortion,” said Wilson, who now lives in western Nebraska. “He was always talking about how awful abortion was. But there’s a lot of people who think abortion is awful.”
Report comment to moderator
Barracuda-
Don’t bite the shiny reflections in the water. I oppose abortion too.
Report comment to moderator
#21, #23, and #25 – This is an assassination. Both terrorism and assassinations are “murder” but with different methods, motives, outcomes, and levels of concern for collateral damage. I never said this was trivial. I said that mislabling it as “terrorism” trivializes terrorism because they are very different things.
Had this been a bomb as has been previously used against his clinic, yes, I would say that it is “terrorism” because the potential for collateral damage/injury is great. The weapon of choice and aim of that weapon does not discriminate.
One man shooting another man as a planned target without intent to cause collateral damage is not terrorism, it is assassination, plain and simple. Had he gone in and shot up the church with the intent of causing fear in society, then you could label this terrorism. Frankly, I don’t think society at large fears for their safety because of this man or his aim anymore. Some abortion doctors may fear for their safety because of the liklihood that they will be assassinated or that their clinics will be targets of terrorist acts, but that alone does not classify this as “terrorism”.
As for burning SUVs and unoccupied homes, this is political violence against a large number of people designed to hurt them for political purposes.
I’m not saying that this killing is justfied or right. I’m not happy that it happened. I believe that Mr. Tiller should have been stopped by legal means. That the justice system failed to properly convict him of crimes doesn’t make him innocent of those crimes, but it also does not give a citizen the right to dish out vigilante justice.
Report comment to moderator
Tiller was one of the few providers of late term abortions precisely because late term abortion providers have been the target of a terrorist campaign.
When you refer to this murder as vigilante justice you are giving tacit supporters to this terrorism by saying it’s just.
Back in early April the conservative Christians on this site where scoffing at the government report on Rightwing Extremism, now their sending Marshals to protect abortion providers. Boy where you wrong.
Report comment to moderator
Even though all Christians condemn this murder, it will be used to condemn Christians. The presses are geared up and the media blitz has begun. Just as Christians were blamed for the burning of Rome, Christians are now being called terrorists and purveyors of hate.
And for what? For simply objecting to pulling the arms and legs off of innocent children because their mothers want to sleep with people they don’t care enough about to marry.
Report comment to moderator
First off…TWO WRONGS DO NOT MAKE A RIGHT
Second…is there a list of things somewhere I should and shouldn’t do such as have a fish symbol on my car and a red rose (what if it was just given to me and I tossed it in the back like I did a pink rose?). I used to be a Rainbow Girl but if I were to have a rainbow flag on my car that would make me gay. If I had a confederate flag that would make me racist. Really, I can’t keep up…I guess it is a good thing that I think “extra” stuff stuck to my car is tacky.
Report comment to moderator
kwatson (110): When you refer to this murder as vigilante justice you are giving tacit supporters to this terrorism by saying it’s just.
Frank: Uh, kwat? The term “vigilante justice” has a negative connotation. When the vast majority of people use it — e.g., my post at (7) — they are implying that justice was not served by the vigilante.
Report comment to moderator
My dear pro-aborts,
Every time you insist that Dr. Tiller was not a murderer “because abortion is legal,” remember that there have been numerous instances inhistory where people had their God-given rights violated under the law.
Germany’s treatment of the Jews and our treatment of Japanese Americans during WWII are but two examples within living memory.
Report comment to moderator
the killing is not the fault of a group of people
it is the fault of the one who did it
Report comment to moderator
#4 Did Tiller engage in acts of violence?
Yes, but . . . We don’t usually say that a worker in a slaughter house is “engaged in acts of violence.” We don’t even say that of a soldier carrying out orders.
Are both heinous?
No, because abortion isn’t murder IMHO.
Report comment to moderator
“Don’t bite the shiny reflections in the water. I oppose abortion too.”
Here’s a clue for folks who call other’s clueless.
If you attack the whole pro-life movement for the actions of an individual, and wonder why pro-lifer’s think you’re pro-abortion, you need to re-evaluate your strategy….
Report comment to moderator
108. Than according to Anlir, you are responsible for this too.
Report comment to moderator
“Don’t bite the shiny reflections in the water. I oppose abortion too.”
Pardon us if we’re a bit skeptical RPN, you’ve been known to lie about your political positions before..
Or don’t you remember how you weren’t a liberal democrat, and you weren’t rooting for… what’s that guys name?
Obama?
Report comment to moderator
At the risk of sounding repetitive:
It is logically possible to condemn the murder of George Tiller and to also condemn the murder of unborn children. In fact, it is logically consistent as far as I reason it out.
Most regulars on here have made it clear in the past and are making it clear now that they do not condone the murder of abortion providers. To accuse us of doing so (either implicitly or explicitly) is dishonest, at best.
I think that we would agree that Dr. Tiller’s life was just as sacred as all the lives he ended during his career.
Guilt by assocation is illogical as well as unethical. As others have said, nobody would want it applied to them. It is a statistical reality that most murders in the next few years will be committed by fans of Obama. (Unless the demographics change dramatically in the next few years.) That doesn’t mean that everyone who voted for Obama is a murderer or is guilty of inciting murder or condones murder. Those who are blaming all Christians for this murder had better hope that people don’t apply the same illogic and unfairness to them.
Isn’t it interesting that people have made references to tearing off the limbs of unborn babies and of sticking scissors in their heads, but nobody on the other side has said a word about those gruesome practices?
Report comment to moderator
KWatson: “Back in early April the conservative Christians on this site where scoffing at the government report on Rightwing Extremism, now their sending Marshals to protect abortion providers. Boy where you wrong.”
Just because the government does something doesn’t mean that it is right. What kind of logic is that?
The government makes little old ladies from Nebraska take off their shoes for inspection at airports. So what?
Report comment to moderator
Isn’t it interesting that people have made references to tearing off the limbs of unborn babies and of sticking scissors in their heads, but nobody on the other side has said a word about those gruesome practices?
If you are going to abort, what difference does it make how gruesome the practice is?
Kyle, how do you propose to “stop” abortion? Most people in our society do not perceive it as murder.
Also, what are you going to do about China?
Report comment to moderator
Am I the only one that sees the almost perfect parallel between these abortion doctor murders, and the highly praised (today) ambushes and murders by John Brown, anti-slavery fighter in Kansas and Harpers Ferry in the 1850s? Both said they were fighting to save the helpless victims of violence. I predict that in time, these modern versions will also be considered martyrs of a righteous cause. Only the passage of time will allow us to see things differently than we now do. Anybody else think this is possible?
Report comment to moderator
BOOT62 -
I think Operation Iraqi Freedom is a better comparison than Harpers Ferry.
Both the Kansas assassin and George Bush acted on mistaken information. Bush thought Saddam Hussein was sufficiently dangerous to warrant the killing of tens of thousands of Iraqis. The assassin also thought he acted to save persons from death.
In order for your prediction about the assassin to come true, people will have to come to the universal judgment that a fetus is a person. People gradually did come to the universal judgment that Negroes are persons with the the inherent rights of freedom and pursuit of happiness. People have facts and information on their side. Since a human fetus is not a human person, people are not likely to come to the judgment that is.
Report comment to moderator
If some whacko manages to assassinate former President Bush will you left-wingers take responsibility for that since Bush was routinely accused of being a murderer and like Hitler?
No, I didn’t think so.
But that won’t stop you from blaming us for this.
Report comment to moderator
I made several predictions in the last few months on here that some anti-choice idiot would go after Dr. Tiller.
The anti-choice movement has got a huge problem with it’s radical element. They’ve never made a serious effort to reign them in. We can see that radicalism at work in many of the comments on here, using words like “murderer” and “Hitler”.
It’s past time for the anti-choice movement to own up to it’s moral culpability for creating the climate that encourages intimidation, violence, and murder.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, you have yet to address the point that has been raised several times, that you would not want the same logic applied to you. You would not wanted to be blamed for the criminal acts of an individual liberal person. Why won’t you address your double standard?
Report comment to moderator
… he should have been brought to justice in the courts.
Hello? Earth to WMB! Anyone there? Does it occur to ANYONE that the COURTS
Report comment to moderator
… have to be brought to justice, FIRST?
Report comment to moderator
REE #123 –
Left-wingers say Bush was a danger to human life, but no more. That crisis has passed.
Left-wingers also have the law on their side. Bush can be prosecuted. If he’s not, then another Bertrand Russell may organize a moot court to prosecute Bush in the court of universal conscience.
Therefore, left wingers don’t need to accept responsibility for your hypothetical assassin. We want Bush alive in the ranch at the end of his mind, waiting for food to come through a slot in the bottom of his door.
Report comment to moderator
For those of you interested in a responsible response to the killing of Dr. Tiller, I recommend the following article by Albert Mohler.
http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3866
Report comment to moderator
Kyle,
If there was a radical element within the liberal movement that was was creating the conditions where people were bombing and murdering conservatives for their political views, then absolutely the movement should be called to account.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, please look up the word justice. Sticking “vigilante” in front of it doesn’t change it’s meaning.
First we had Jim D. Adkisson walking into the Tennessee Valley Unitarian Universalist Church, murdering 2 people. He said “he hated the liberal movement” and was upset with “liberals in general as well as gays.”
Now we have Scott Roeder gunning down an abortion doctor, again in a “liberal” church.
The April report on rightwing extremism warned against exactly these kinds of attacks. These men are Conservative Christian terrorists. Both should be charged with terrorism as well as murder. That probably won’t happen however, because conservative Christians will become even more outraged and violent if we prosecute “their” terrorists to the full extent of the law.
Report comment to moderator
128. So you think Bush could just walk safely around the Wal-Mart?
Report comment to moderator
Anlir – this is my first time to this thread and I have read all the posts. Before I began reading, I accurately predicted the tone and pretty much exact words in your knee-jerk response, and the broad brush painting you’re so fond of when applying it to Christians. I was hoping to be disappointed, but sadly, you did not disappoint.
Report comment to moderator
Should all Civil Rights supporters be held accountable for the violence of the Black Panthers?
Report comment to moderator
Well, KWatson, I certainly have never heard “vigilante justice” used approvingly, so I don’t know who you hang out with that your friends use it that way.
As someone said clearly earlier, this is assassination (murder) not terrorism. And how on earth do you see terrorism as a charge greater than murder?! I’d see it as such only if “terrorism” meant murder of many people. But adding “terrorism” to the selected murder of one man doesn’t strengthen the charge in any way, any more than saying that murder was caused by “hate” strengthens it. Murder is the killing of a person made in the image of God–can one get worse than that?
Saying that he is “our” terrorist is quite simply wrong. Christians on this thread have been called vile for saying that Tiller is a murderer, and accused of inciting to murder. And yet you all can call us terrorist sympathizers and that isn’t incitement to violence and hatred? Despicable. Conservative Christians do not murder, and we do not incite others to murder. Please get your facts straight.
Report comment to moderator
These men are Conservative Christian terrorists.
I hope you meant to imply that they are false Conservative Christian terrorists. The Spirit of Truth does not rest on the reprobate. They’re as far left as the court that ‘discovered’ the right to abortion.
Report comment to moderator
“The April report on rightwing extremism warned against exactly these kinds of attacks. These men are Conservative Christian terrorists. Both should be charged with terrorism as well as murder. That probably won’t happen however, because conservative Christians will become even more outraged and violent if we prosecute “their” terrorists to the full extent of the law.”
Sounds like a conspiracy to me. It’s a Homeland Security plot, having Tiller assassinated in order to frame those rightwing christians.
Its just as probable at this time, considering we dont know much of jack about who this guy is and why he murdered Killer…i mean Tiller.
The suspect even drives a powder blue car?? What straight conservative christian male does that?
/sarcasm off
But seriously, as much fun as it is to point fingers. Whoever killed Tiller needs to be brought to justice, just like any other murderer, by the due process of law.
Report comment to moderator
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523602,00.html?test=latestnews
I’m surprised no one is decrying the above. I guess strippers arent as important as Tiller…or is it they cant blame the shooter for being a conservative/liberal yet?
Report comment to moderator
Tiller is gone. Many others will now live that wouldn’t before.
.
Some that Tiller had scheduled will get their procedure done by some other “doctor”. But maybe instead of convenience, these ‘parents’ may reconsider their own actions. Maybe not.
Abortion is a sad sad sad thing. It is not surprising that many others are sad today.
Report comment to moderator
“If there was a radical element within the liberal movement that was was creating the conditions where people were bombing and murdering conservatives for their political views, then absolutely the movement should be called to account.”
Didnt the Virginia Tech kid hate christians? Guess we can implicate your incitement towards christians on the same basis.
Report comment to moderator
I’d encourage everyone to check out the link provided in #129 for the Mohler column on this subject. He also brings up the example of John Brown during the abolitionist movement and how wrong that was at the time (despite Thoreau’s defense of it — now there’s a beloved liberal icon if there ever was one).
Violence like this to promote a cause, no matter how righteous the cause may be, is simply wrong. This man needs to be charged with murder and tried in a court of law, as I’m confident he will.
I didn’t read this thread in detail, but has any Christian here disagreed with that? I don’t think so.
Meanwhile, abortion is still wrong, a position I believe people will come to see in time. They will look back on the practice and be horrified, just as we are when we look back on the practice of slavery in the U.S.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, it is so sad you are so filled with hate.
Report comment to moderator
Random, What are we going to do about China? Well for the last 10 or 15 years we have been adopting all the little girls they would let us have…if you read the adoption thread under Commentaries you will read that THEY are the ones who are standing in the way of that now, not U.S.
I am as anti-abortion as the next guy or gal but I have never understood the point in murdering the doctors who perform them.
I also do not completely buy into evolution. Does that mean I should drive around shooting at the people driving the cars with fish with little feet on them?
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR,
Your line of thinking in blaming all Christians for the act of one person(who clearly violated scripture in his act) is faulty at best. To blame a whole group for the actions of one, if that is fair, then let us take it to the extreme. It has been shown that evolutionary thinking in Germany led to the thinking that Jews and others were lower forms of life and that it was permissable to kill them. Should we blame all who hold an evolutionary point of view? A few priests within the Catholic church have preyed on male children. Should all gays be blamed for it? Some parents beat and abuse their children, should all parents be locked up and punished, or at least chided for their so called “association”. The answer, at least in my eyes, is of course not. One of the tenets of faith is that each individual is responsible for his or her own actions. In Ezekiel God tells the him that the father is not held accountable for the sins of the son, nor the son for the sins of the father. In an earlier post on a different thread, I hoped that others would not make wide sweeping judgments about a group of people and that I would not do like wise.
PS, Since some seem to like the term “anti choice” as a prejoritve term, would it be ok to refer to the abortion movement as “anti life”?
Report comment to moderator
Violence like this to promote a cause, no matter how righteous the cause may be, is simply wrong. This man needs to be charged with murder and tried in a court of law, as I’m confident he will.
I agree. The “ends justifies the means” mantra of the left is to do the wrong thing for the right reason. Even the Church has its share of false positives.
Report comment to moderator
THANK YOU!!!! Randy1964
Report comment to moderator
#129 Al Mohler states the Christian position. Nuf said.
Who ever did this is is no way any type of Christian, no matter what they may claim in the days ahead.
Report comment to moderator
From a 2002 FBI report on terrorism.
Terrorism is defined in the Code of Federal Regulations as “…the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” (28 C.F.R. Section 0.85)
——
Two acts of Domestic Terrorism)
On February 22, 2001, anti-abortion extremist Clayton Lee Waagner escaped from a county jail in Clinton, Illinois, where he was being held after a December 6, 2000 conviction on federal charges for possession of a firearm by a felon and interstate transportation of a stolen motor vehicle. Waagner was scheduled to be sentenced in a federal court on March 16, 2001. Prior to his escape, Waagner stated that if he got out of prison he would continue his mission to stalk and kill abortion providers.
On September 7, 2001, Waagner was involved in a “hit and run” accident in Memphis, Tennessee. Responding police officers discovered various items in the stolen vehicle Waagner had abandoned at the scene, including a pipe bomb and bomb-making components. Additional bomb-making components were later discovered in a hotel room Waagner abandoned in Tunica, Mississippi.
Between October 15 and October 17, 2001, Waagner allegedly mailed more than 300 anthrax threat letters to reproductive health clinics on the East Coast. The envelopes, marked “Time Sensitive” and “Urgent Security Notice Enclosed,” bore the return addresses of the U.S. Marshals Service and the U.S. Secret Service. The letters, signed “Army of God-Virginia Dare Cell,” contained a white powdery substance that tested negative for anthrax. Between November 5 and November 8, 2001, a second wave of anthrax threat letters, again signed “Army of God-
—–
On November 30, 2001, Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams were sentenced for setting fires to three synagogues on June 18, 1999, and an abortion clinic on July 2, 1999, all in Sacramento, California. Benjamin Williams received a sentence of 30 years in prison, while his brother was sentenced to 21 years and three months in prison. The brothers were also ordered to pay $1 million in restitution. The Williams brothers, who are followers of the World Church of the Creator and the Aryan Nations, pled guilty in September 2001. The Williams brothers are also awaiting trial on murder charges for their suspected role of killing a homosexual couple on July 2, 1999. If convicted, the Williams brothers could face the death penalty.
—–
JUNE 6, 2000
Two Men Plead Guilty to Firing into Eric Robert Rudolph Command Post
On June 6, 2000, Eddie Dewayne Carringer and Wayne Henry Burchfield pled guilty to firing into the command post coordinating the search for accused serial bomber Eric Robert Rudolph. A third man, William Claude Lidseen, pled guilty to making false statements regarding the shooting to investigators. The shooting occurred on November 11, 1998, at the Southeast Bomb Task Force in Andrews, North Carolina. A bullet pierced the wall of the building and brushed past the head of an FBI Special Agent; no one was injured. On February 8, 2001, Burchfield was sentenced to 13 years and five months in prison for his role in the shooting. On June 6, 2001, Carringer was sentenced to 18 years and four months in prison. On July 25, 2001, Lidseen was sentenced to a two-year prison term, followed by three years of supervised release.
There is no doubt that some anti-abortion groups are willing to take lives for their cause. And there seems to be no doubt that few of the really dedicated anti-abortion folks here are willing to condemn them or, MORE IMPORTANTLY, to moderate their tone in order avoid giving these groups and agents encouragement to engage violently.
Such tacit support for violence directed at others cheapens their cause. And, given that many of these groups purport to be “Christian” it cheapens their religion.
Report comment to moderator
PS, Since some seem to like the term “anti choice” as a prejoritve term, would it be ok to refer to the abortion movement as “anti life”?
A cartoon I recently saw showed a little girl calling out ‘ectomies, such as appendectomy and tonsillectomy. Then she wondered, “Shouldn’t an abortion then be called a ‘life-ectomy?”
Report comment to moderator
Thorn: I’m surprised no one is decrying the above. I guess strippers arent as important as Tiller…or is it they cant blame the shooter for being a conservative/liberal yet?
According to the story you linked, no strippers were killed or seriously injured.
Seriously though, I decry every act of senseless violence. However, as much as I understand the Christians here are not defending Tiller’s killer or condoning murder, Anlir is right to point out that much of the rhetoric used by Operation Rescue and similar groups is deliberately inflammatory and incting. It is not really surprising that now then some unhinged person takes it to heart and acts on it, and I think the groups and people who encourage that kind of thinking do share some responsibility for the effects their rhetoric has on their audience.
Report comment to moderator
I posted the Mohler link (http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3866) to coincide with the statement I made in yesterday’s Rants and Raves when the Tiller killing was brought up.
“Regardless of the cause, making someone a martyr never takes care of the problem.
This ill-fated, unconscionable act has to be called what it is, murder.
The full weight of the law needs to be applied to this killer. In the meantime, responsible, sane, intelligent people need to rise up to condemn this act while also condemning irresponsible statements from extremist on both ends.”
Responsible liberals, conservatives, independents, straight, gay, white, black, hispanic, Christian, atheist, agnostic, Republican and Democrats will come to the correct conclusion. What Tiller’s killer did was wrong. Unfortunately it will be the shrill voices of the left and right who will try to use this sad, tragic event to further their misguided position on their cause.
For the most part, the responsible commenters have appeared on this thread. There have been a few exception from both sides and they are conspicuous by their choice of words and lack of cohesive, responsible, and balanced tone.
While I believe that the media will choose to highlight the sordid opinion of the few in public opinion, after all if it bleeds it leads, the majority of Americans will see this as it really is. A misguided man, doing a misguided deed, for all of the wrong reasons.
Report comment to moderator
I decry every act of senseless violence.
To further qualify your meaning of ’senseless’, the court has ‘discovered’ that violence is not senseless for the pre-born.
Report comment to moderator
CCC: Are you aware I am pro-life?
Do you care?
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone think this kind of rhetoric did not help create the climate where a pro-life obsessive would act out violently “in defense of babies”? Here’s Bill O’Reilly on “Tiller The Baby Killer”
Report comment to moderator
Steve, they’ve been saying I’m pro-abortion too, quite wrongly.
Report comment to moderator
RPN, Never once that I can remember have you ever spoken out against abortion, other than to say that you’re not in favor of abortion. All your rhetoric seems to be supporting those who do abortions, and chastising those who don’t. So, you may well be pro-life, but I rather put that in the same category as pretending, early on in the election, that you were supporting someone other than Obama, while all your actual rhetoric was in favor of Obama. I’ll believe you’re pro-life when I see you speak out against abortion rather than only speaking out against those who oppose it.
Report comment to moderator
I’d be interested in hearing more about RPN’s pro-life views as well. Why didn’t we pick that up before?
I realized SteveG was pro-life and I respect his views, though I disagree with some of them. Steve’s mentioned his position on abortion on several occasions. But I can’t recall RPN ever saying anything against abortion in the past. Perhaps I just missed it.
Report comment to moderator
It’s amusing when someone who plays the troll as regularly as RPN puts on the hurt face when people don’t seem to adequately recognize the nuances of his views.
Report comment to moderator
“I’d be interested in hearing more about RPN’s pro-life views as well. Why didn’t we pick that up before?”
As I said here, earlier (the spam filter kept it in quarantine), and just now on the Rants and Raves thread, I’m a bit skeptical of a liberal poster who gleefully accuses the pro-life movement of condoning, aiding, and abetting murder, and then in the same breath asserts their pro-life stance.
This poster has been known to be…. ah… “deceptive” about their political stances in the past. (Not to mention every other thing they do on the blog.)
So pardon me if I am a “tad” skeptical of this Johnny Come Lately pro-life assertion….
Report comment to moderator
Ladies, I’ve said many times that I oppose abortion. It’s ok that you apparently skipped those posts. I skip some of yours as well.
SG- I’m not hurt. It’s just apparent that many here imagine things that are not based in fact.
Report comment to moderator
A misguided man, doing a misguided deed, for all of the wrong reasons.
Your presuppositional bias clearly puts you in the pro-choice (a euphemism for pro-abortion) camp. But if you leaned pro-life (sorry, euphemisms have no purpose in exposing righteousness), you would have written, “A misguided man, doing a misguided deed, even if for the right reason.” But, doing the wrong thing for the right reason (i.e. ending abortion), is still wrong.
Report comment to moderator
156. So what did he say that wasn’t true?
Report comment to moderator
Re 156
What do you guys think of the O’Reilly compilation? Does rhetoric like that encourage unstable people to act out violently?
Report comment to moderator
Are you aware I am pro-life?
No, I was not. I do care and I’m happy for you. If you were a lefty though, qualifying ‘violence’ with ’senseless’ has infinite permutations.
Report comment to moderator
“Ladies, I’ve said many times that I oppose abortion.”
Oh. I get it now…
You’re “pro-life” like Obama is pro-life….
Spin it baby, spin it.
Report comment to moderator
Thing is, RPN, it doesn’t really matter what you think when what you do is limited to discouragement and snark. Kind of like during the election when you posed as an undecided voter who didn’t like either candidate. Your behavior makes what you think (whatever your views) very uninteresting. Sorry. You like acting the troll so much, you can stay under the bridge.
Report comment to moderator
“Kind of like during the election when you posed as an undecided voter who didn’t like either candidate.”
Exactly what I was saying. You didn’t set a very good precedent then with that deception, and so I don’t believe you now… Nor should I. Your credibility is shot.
Report comment to moderator
Don’t then. I really don’t care what you think.
Report comment to moderator
You want some credibility in your assertion that you are pro-life RPN?
Then link to at least five times on this blog where you asserted your pro-life stance.
Before the last three days…
Report comment to moderator
Does rhetoric like that encourage unstable people to act out violently?
No more so than what you read on Daily KOS or HuffPo. But then it depends on what is meant by ‘unstable’. The leftist dictionary defines ‘unstable’ as anyone who opposes the SCOTUS’s obviously correct ‘discovery’ of the right to abort.
Report comment to moderator
You don’t care? Then why post a response?
Report comment to moderator
“Anlir is right to point out that much of the rhetoric used by Operation Rescue and similar groups is deliberately inflammatory and incting”
Can you please provide any links to support your statements of actual quotes or policies from such organziations like Operation Rescue?
Have they ever said to commit violence? Is it a policy of theirs?
No it is not, nor have they.
If protesting is equal to incitement, then maybe the Constitutional Right to peaceful assemble should be revoked. We have the right as americans to protest what we disagree with, peacefully. 99.999999999999999999999% of abortion protestors do so. 99.9999999999999999% of those for homosexual marriage do so as well.
I would hate to lump all homosexuals into the same group as the few that beat an old woman who was simply carrying a cross around.
Anlir is off his rocker as usual, with the same ole rehashed garbage.
Report comment to moderator
Re: #146
Excuse me Randy, but you won’t find any reference in my comments on this thread to “Christians”. I have repeatedly referred to the anti-choice movement.
And again, y’all don’t get it. We’re calling the anti-choice movement to account for creating the conditions that leads to this sort of thing. Language matters. And the anti-choice movement has for too long used irresponsible language that has led to violence and murder.
Report comment to moderator
MiM, I’m sure I’ve said it more than 5 times, but you’ll have to be the one to go wade through the archives. I have better things to do.
Interesting that you choose to change the subject to me (against blog policies) when I ask about O’Reilly’s inflammatory rhetoric and how it relates to the killing of Dr. Tiller….
Report comment to moderator
I have seen RPN state before that he isn’t pro-abortion . . . but in the same kind of way he’s doing today, asserting that he’s pro-life while he attacks only the pro-life side. That’s why it reminded me (and others) of the nonsense during the election. So his assertions that he isn’t pro-abortion don’t convince me. Most of us who are pro-life speak out against abortion itself, not only against those who oppose abortion and in support of those who do abortions. I habitually skip most of his posts and will continue to do so, but really thought that this one needed not to slide past.
Report comment to moderator
Well Anlir’s in drama queen mode so there’s no sense trying to reason with him folks. And as usual, I think my IQ is lower since I took the time to read RPN’s posts. Reading them is a waste of time and brain cells. I know I should know better, but I guess I’m like Charlie Brown. So that leaves Arcadia, who gives us little gems like this one-
“There is no doubt that some anti-abortion groups are willing to take lives for their cause.”
To which I must ask Arcadia, do you even see the irony here? Your entire cause is about your willingness to take lives for your cause. Every year your cause takes millions of lives and yet here you whine about 1 life lost, and the tradgedy of it, but not a whimper for the millions of others. Others who, unlike Dr. Death here, were innocent. They had no blood on their hands, unlike this so-called Dr.. It’s disgusting that such is the case here in America. He’s a hero for murdering near term babies, but the guy who snuffed him is a monster. Faulty logic, or a complete lack of if you ask me.
And one other thing. If the guy is an usher, and is in good standing, is this church taking money from him as well? Talk about blood money. What kind of a poor excuse for a church would do that? How could they take a tithe from a man who murders innocents for a living? Disgusting.
Report comment to moderator
“We’re calling the anti-choice movement to account for creating the conditions that leads to this sort of thing.”
So tell me… Would you be all for banning video games which create the same conditions?
Report comment to moderator
“…but you’ll have to be the one to go wade through the archives. I have better things to do.”
Well. I guess your credibility is still shot then.
“Interesting that you choose to change the subject to me (against blog policies) when I ask about O’Reilly’s inflammatory rhetoric and how it relates to the killing of Dr. Tiller….”
Hmmmm. Seems to me that you’ve made yourself the subject by asserting something about yourself that we find hard to believe. And now you’re telling us we’ll have to take your word for it. As several of us pointed out, we’re not willing to take your word for it since your word about yourself has historically and continually been… ah… “deceptive.” In addition to your political deception in the run-up to the election, you refuse to fill out a “regulars” column, or even reveal your gender.
Why should we start believing you now?
You refuse to become part of the community in those things, and then on top of that, you snark at the conservative Christians, and the conservative Christian position almost every time you post. And now you’re whining that we won’t believe you when you say you’re pro-life… Have you ever given us good reason to believe you?
As for making this thread about you? I guess that’s why you called me “clueless” in another thread. You had that rule in mind then didn’t you?
Report comment to moderator
Reminder: This thread is about the horrific murder of Dr. Tiller at the hands of an obsessed pro-lifer. Not a place for your personal attacks on those you disagree with.
Report comment to moderator
Real AJ, I hadn’t even thought about the tithe money. That literally made me shudder. I know that if I showed up at church one day in a new town, and a man handed me a bulletin and I knew that man to be George Tiller, I would probably have thrown up. Not just at being that close to him, but on the whole idea that he could so “represent” a church. My horror yesterday was deep–I simply had no idea he ever went close to a church, let alone was treated as a trusted part of the church. Does the church have any pregnant women in it? Could they even bear to be near him? Did they cordon off the nursery so that he couldn’t go near it, as would be proper?
Report comment to moderator
Can you please provide any links to support your statements of actual quotes or policies from such organziations like Operation Rescue?
Gladly, Thorn:
George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.
- Randall Terry
*****
In defense of RPN, I have seen him state numerous times that he is “pro-life”.
Report comment to moderator
“And again, y’all don’t get it. We’re calling the anti-choice movement to account for creating the conditions that leads to this sort of thing.”
How? You’ve failed to demonstrate any reasonable reference.
If your still equating “mass murder” from your post number 19 as inciteful, thats poor. The same quote has the same man condemning the suspect for murdering Tiller.
Charles Manson is a mass murderer…did I just incite anyone to go kill him? Dont think so…
You need to show an actual link between the suspect and an organization. Considering the article states that the police indicated he was working ALONE…means he was not incited, inticed, or led to do this by anyone or any other group.
Believing abortion is murder, and thus those who practice it, murderers…in no way incites, justifies, or even suggests its okay to take matters into one’s individual hands.
Report comment to moderator
At least Anlir’s paying attention
Report comment to moderator
Btw if thats a radical statement…then how many people have been “incited” by Obama’s buddy in chicago?? Remember that guy? William Ayers…
Report comment to moderator
Hearsay from Anlir doesn’t make ot so.
Report comment to moderator
And personal attacks don’t make it less so.
Report comment to moderator
Cheryl D: Does the church have any pregnant women in it? Could they even bear to be near him? Did they cordon off the nursery so that he couldn’t go near it, as would be proper?
Oh good LORD!! You talk like he was a homicidal maniac stalking little children everywhere he went.
I swear, there are some topics that turn otherwise ordinary people into total nutjobs.
Report comment to moderator
Here are some thoughts I’ve had:
The government declaring something “legal” changes a lot, doesn’t it? If I or anyone else were to assassinate a tyrannical mass murder (for instance, Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, Osama bin Laden, or anyone else like them, I believe they’d be lauded as a hero and as a deliver of the people. On the other hand, those people who have murdered abortion doctors have been looked upon as insane, extremist radicals (forgive the redundancy).
But let me make it clear that I don’t approve of murdering abortion doctors. I guess the reasons for the double standards I mentioned run deeper than meets the eye.
For one thing, many people don’t consider infants in the womb to be people deserving of life. While people like Anlir push for freedom and equality for “all people,” he just means those who he calls people. He supports “gay rights” (not gay and not right, as someone put it), but he doesn’t believe unborn children have the same rights to life and freedom and not being as everyone else.
Also,
Assassinating someone like Hitler would likely save lives because he was the leader and mastermind, the one the Nazis looked up to,
and unlike the many, many abortion doctors, he and the few other mass-murderers were responsible for killing millions of innocnet people, so taking him or the others out would probably prove effective.
I don’t understand the motives of people who kill abortion activists, because there are so many of them, and for one killed, there are still many ready to take his or her place. So their thinking is not even logical. Anlir and others, these people are probably more often then not insane or at least mentally unbalanced, not just against abortion.
Something puzzling:
If “pro-choice” (pro-death) supporters had been aborted as infants, they wouldn’t be here to push for the murders of babies…so if they’d had their way, many of them would not be here to push for their agenda…is that slightly paradoxical or circular?
Like this:
“If we already had our way, we might be dead, so we woudn’t be able to push for our the “rights to this or that.”
Oh, and why is it that criminals on death row must be executed in “humane” ways (lethal injection at the moment), but innocent babies who haven’t killed people or committed various atrocious crimes are killed in extremely gruesome and inhumane ways?
I assume most of you have heard the touching and I would say, miraculous* story of Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor?
*Scott, are botched abortions where babies live to tell the story common? If not, perhaps this is a miracle.
[Deep breath. Speech ended.]
Report comment to moderator
Several posts here join METANOIA in recommending Albert Mohler’s “responsible response.”
I consider Mohler’s comments to be misdirection. He says, “We have no right to take the law into our own hands in an act of criminal violence.” But that’s not what the assassin did. Abortion is legal. The assassin didn’t use his hands to perform a lynching to enforce law, he used his hands to write a new law in blood and force.
Mohler is almost as anti-democratic as the assassin. In order to stop murder, Mohler advises Christians “to persuade governing authorities concerning what is good, right, just, and honoring to God.” Mohler explicitly blames “governing authorities” for not stopping Dr. Tiller and not ending murder. Yet abortion is legal. Like the assassin, Mohler is demanding the enforcement of a law that does not exist.
We cannot trust Mohler when he urges Christians to operate within the “moral consensus” of government. He undermines the very meaning of that consensus when he demands prosecutions that have no basis in a universal consensus about the activities he wants to prohibit.
Mohler wants the same thing as the assassin wanted, but he wants the government to do it — use police authority to stop abortion.
Mohler is afraid to tell you that that his real problem is not with governing authorities but with the American people, and democracy itself. Instead of doing his job of persuading people to adopt his ethical outlook, Mohler tries to blame governing authorities like Obama.
Report comment to moderator
Murderers in our country should be left up to the legal system here. I do sort of have a grudge against it, but that’s irrelevant. Vigilantism will cause chaos, anarchy, and lots of other bad consequences.
Report comment to moderator
I simply had no idea he ever went close to a church, let alone was treated as a trusted part of the church.
Same here. Tiller’s church’s web site says, “A Congregation of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America”, which has no statement. However, there Social Issues page on Abortion is huge! Here is a pertinent section:
Because of our conviction that both the life of the woman and the life in her womb must be respected by law, this church opposes:
the total lack of regulation of abortion;
legislation that would outlaw abortion in all circumstances;
laws that prevent access to information about all options available to women faced with unintended pregnancies;
laws that deny access to safe and affordable services for morally justifiable abortions;
mandatory or coerced abortion or sterilization;
laws that prevent couples from practicing contraception;
laws that are primarily intended to harass those contemplating or deciding for an abortion.
This position fits Mr. Tiller’s vocation nicely.
Report comment to moderator
Did you read my thoughts on “equal rights,” Scroop?
Report comment to moderator
CCC #163 – I have been clear that I am pro-life all the way. You may have misread, or I may have used words that were not clear to you. My post of Al Mohler’s column also verifies my unequivocal pro-life stand.
Tiller’s killer is misguided. This writer says it well:
“At this time we certainly do not know all the facts surrounding Dr. Tiller’s murder. We do know that the abortion doctor was extremely controversial, had received countless death threats and had been shot once before. By his own account, he had performed over 60,000 abortions and he was a strong supporter of the pro-abortion former governor of Kansas, Secretary of HHS Kathleen Sebelius. He was detested by pro-life advocates, including this particular pro-life advocate. I must admit that I would not have been personally saddened had he died by slipping on a banana peel, but I am profoundly saddened and truly mortified by his murder. This killing was not the act of a pro-life supporter. It was the act of a person who profoundly misunderstands pro-life principles, democratic ideals and further, had no self control.”
That is why I believe the killer was misguided for all the wrong reasons.
Anlir,/b> -True pro-lifers are no more responsible for creating the conditions that lead to this tragedy than Steve Bartman is responsible for the Cubs not getting into the world series. Tiller’s killer is an anamoly. A rare act when one considers the millions of prolifers who have marched, sat, protested, worked in pregnancy centers, adopted, fostered, became Big Brothers/Sisters, etc.
The true facts don’t match the charges that pro-lifers are conspiratorials murder wannabees who are gleefully but secretly celebrating this man’s murder.
Report comment to moderator
CCC,
That section sounds somewhat contradictory, eh?
Report comment to moderator
My bad, the bold should have cut off after Anlir’s name. I need to consult with Victoria to see how to use this bolding feature better.
Report comment to moderator
Amen, Metanoia.
Report comment to moderator
Well Scroop it was a 5 to 4 verdict only about 30 years ago…thats 1. a short time, 2. not unanimous
Yes its legal governmentally, but not understanding the emotions that run deep with those who consider killing an unborn child as even more wrong than slavery means you miss the point entirely.
Can you not understand those emotions? The whole point is that the law should still exist, that it should be illegal.
Your misdirection is ill founded. Moehler is not being anti-democratic.
Report comment to moderator
#189 I swear, there are some topics that turn otherwise ordinary people into total nutjobs.
The killing of tiny children does that to some people.
Report comment to moderator
RPN
I looked at the DailyKos link you provided. I haven’t been able to watch an entire episode of O’Reilly in years, but he seems as bombastic as ever. What I didn’t see, was any indication that he was trying to incite violence in any way. As far as I’m concerned, the man is just entertainment news—and not very entertaining at that. Although it would probably be wisdom to tone it down when violence does erupt, I don’t think it’s a good idea to try to create a causal link to an ordinary exercise of free speech.
As for the “Tiller the baby killer” rhetoric, well the man did kill viable unborn babies for money. The fact that it is legal doesn’t make it less repulsive to an increasing number of people. That very legitimate dissatisfaction is what can lead to changes in law. I suspect that is what O’Reilly has been attempting to do.
Report comment to moderator
Very similiar to Vietnam, DJ..show the right images and you can get an anti movement quite easily. Reality is harsh, and its very hard to go against. Show enough before and after of abortions and it will very well start to have the same effect.
Report comment to moderator
“Abortion is legal”
Sacrificing children was legal in many cultures throughout history…does that justify it?
Report comment to moderator
You talk like he was a homicidal maniac stalking little children everywhere he went.
******Sounds about right.
Report comment to moderator
You need to show an actual link between the suspect and an organization. Considering the article states that the police indicated he was working ALONE…means he was not incited, inticed, or led to do this by anyone or any other group.
Believing abortion is murder, and thus those who practice it, murderers…in no way incites, justifies, or even suggests its okay to take matters into one’s individual hands.
******Amen! You’ve got it right.
Report comment to moderator
For all we know at this point…Scott could be a member of the GBLFA….he does drive a powder blue car…
Report comment to moderator
195: That is why I believe the killer was misguided for all the wrong reasons.
So, are you implying that “stopping abortion” was not one of the reasons why Tiller’s killer did what he did? Isn’t stopping abortion a righteous end?
Report comment to moderator
If the anti-choice movement truly wanted to “stand tall”, they’d do the following:
1. Issue a condemnation of Dr. Tiller’s assassination with no codas attached. None.
2. Issue a clarion call for the movement and it’s followers to refrain from using language and tactics that lead to violence and murder.
3. Make a serious and concerted effort to reign in or expel the extremist elements in the movement.
Short of that, the American people will continue to see it as a movement that has gone off the rails.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Steve, I don’t think he was going around throwing pregnant women to the ground and forcibly aborting them, or killing born little children, no. But this was a man with the blood of babies on his hands. Pregnant women had reason to be repulsed by him, and mothers had reason not to want them near their children. This is a man who broke limbs not very much smaller than those of their newborns in the process of murdering the babes. Rememer, he killed viable unborn babies. So, if you have a week-old baby that was small at birth, he quite literally could have crushed bones of the same size within the last week. If someone in your neighborhood is known to prey on five-year-olds, do you feel OK letting him hang around your seven-year-old simply because he only preys on five-year-olds? No, you don’t. It’s morally and potentially physically dangerous to have him around your children, and he doesn’t deserve the honor, either.
No, I don’t think the man was killing babies after they are born. But I would never, never, never let him touch my own baby. That’s not paranoia. It’s a lot of other things, but not paranoia.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, you who believe it is OK to kill a baby weeks or days from birth, stop lecturing us on how to “stand tall.” We’ve declared his killing murder. We WILL NOT stop declaring the man himself to be a murderer. You refuse to stop defending his “right” to kill babies. We aren’t the ones coming up short here. Everything you suggest has ALREADY been done by the pro-life movement except that we simply will not refrain from calling a vicious killer a murderer.
Report comment to moderator
ANLIR,
All I can say is you missed the forest, because you were so focused on one tree. Ok then, substitute the word, prolife (I reject your term anti choice) for Christian, the post still applies. The whole point is that you are painting a whole group of people with a broad brush, and are outraged when others do the same. Neither is correct, and yet you chose to fixate on one term and not the merits of the post. Someone once said, “Those who define the debate, control it”. It seems clear that this is your attempt in using the terminology of “anti choice”. Does a woman have a choice, really? Does she have a choice whether or not to engage in an act that will risk her becoming pregnant? Does she have a choice to raise a child, or give the child for adoption (and before you rant about putting up, my wife and I adopted 3 children). To call the pro life movemnt, “anti choice” implicitly says that the only choice is to abort. And yes I understand about rape/incest, which amounts to about 3 percent of annual abortions, the other 93 are, in the common terms “reproductive choice”. You did not reply about the idea of calling the abortion movement anti life. My assumption is that you would think that is not fair or valid, that you are not against life? But there again those who frame the debate control it.
Report comment to moderator
See – there CherylD goes comparing Dr. Tiller to Hitler. Stuff like that creates the climate for murder. It’s time the anti-choice movement faced up to it’s moral responsibility.
******What hypocrisy!! I can’t tell you how many times Liberals have referred to George Bush as “Hitler.”
Report comment to moderator
Steve,
Let’s put it another way. Most churches I know either encourage or require all adult members to take “their turn” in the nursery. Couples would be in the nursery together. Well, I’d never leave children in a church nursery, certainly not if I was visiting a church where I didn’t know anybody. But for the sake of argument, let’s say I had a two-week old baby and had left her in the nursery in the care of sweet-looking older woman, and her husband was in the background holding a baby. At the end of the service, I go to pick up my baby and the man is holding her, and I realize for the first time that man is George Tiller. Holding my baby, a baby he would have willingly killed a month ago. No sir. Any church that would allow such a scenario (if his church did) is morally irresponsible in the deepest way.
That’s why I said his church should have cordoned off the nursery from him–because they owe it to parents not to let the man touch their babies. That’s not paranoia, anymore than it is paranoia not to let David Duke babysit a black baby even if he promises not to hurt her. We keep pedophiles (even repentant ones) away from children, yet a church might let child murderers hold them?! My position on this isn’t extreme–letting a pedopile or child murderer near children is the unjustifiable position.
Report comment to moderator
THORN —
Consensus is the burden of those who propose to use the police to stop abortion, not of those who want to keep it legal.
Abortion rights are inherent in the constitutional right to a trial by jury. Here’s the argument: In order to enforce prohibition, the government must persuade a jury to return a unanimous verdict of guilt. Without a universal consensus about the evil of a crime, the verdict cannot be unanimous. The unlikelihood of a unanimous verdict therefore is a sign that the prosecution lacks a constitutional basis in consent of the governed. The right to be tried by a jury sets up a constitutional challenge that abortion cannot meet. Thus, criminal laws that cannot obtain unanimous support are unconstitutional.
It’s impossible for prohibitionists today to overcome the settled conviction on the part of many productive, admirable, and reasonable people that abortion is a justifiable right. Tiller himself was acquitted of a number of abortion-related misdemeanors.
Report comment to moderator
#207 CCC – Stopping abortion is a righteous end, but the ends don’t justify the means. Sounds trite but we do live in a nation of law and order.
Currently there is a law on the books (in my opinion it was unfortunately written by judges who read a “right” in the constitution that does not exist) that allows abortion on demand. We are to do everything we can within the law to change the current law.
Christians provide a great service to the non-christian world by living out their convictions that abortion is wrong. How that is played out has a variety of ways, but killing an abortionist is not one of them.
We witness to the world by loving our wayward sons and daughters when they create life outside the boundaries of marriage. We provide them with the support to bring the new life into the world or counsel them to bless a couple who is not able to have children but have all the love and means by which to provide for him/her through an adoption.
We engage ourselves in politics using the means that are available to us in the form of prayer, persuasion, and confronting our politicians when they vote in ways that we are in disagreement. We exercise our conscience in the voting booth.
We teach our children chastity and honor the institution of marriage through our own committed marriages. We use our time to reach out within the community to those who need our counsel, and support when pregnancy occurs outside of stable committed relationships.
We peacefully march, stage sit-ins etc. But we speak out loudly against violence in the abortion clinics and when that violence spills out into the streets because of a misguided murderer who confuses and justifies the very concept of being pro-life with murder.
I personally believe that many Christians have sold out the abortion issue by engaging in a political arena that was not a level playing field. After over 20 years of being played like a fiddle by the Republican party, many Christians voted for the other party out of frustration more than out of principle.
The pro-life cause has been dealt a series of setbacks over the years. This killing of Tiller can potentially be another one. But justice ultimately prevails. We must stand tall and not compromise our value of life, even when the person whose life was taken may have a perception in the eyes of some as being unworthy of it.
Report comment to moderator
TRS, I thought the same thing. A man can murder thousands with his own hands (not even with the distance of a gun–with his own hands), and not be compared to Hitler, but let one disagree with an American president, and “Hitler” is the first name to use.
Report comment to moderator
Good post, Metanoia.
Report comment to moderator
#214
Wow. I haven’t read such a big bunch of hogwash in a long time.
We are a country ruled by the majority. No where, and I do mean no where, is it required to have unanimity to create or enforce criminal law.
It’s not only not reasonable, it’s downright ridiculous to even present such an argument.
As for consensus, we already have one that late-term abortion should not be acceptable. It is the courts that keep over-throwing that one.
Report comment to moderator
Agreed. Good post, Metatonia.
I know lots of Christians who didn’t vote at all in the last election, or who voted for 3rd party candidates they knew couldn’t win, out of disgust for the Republican party.
The sad thing is that Liberals have taken that to mean that they have some sort of “mandate” (at 52%…don’t ask them to do math either.) When, what they really have, is a lot of Christians “sitting out” an election and “letting” them win to prove a point to the party that “played them like a fiddle.”
Until and unless Democrats (and the Republican party) realize that, they will continue to make a lot of political mistakes.
Report comment to moderator
Lutherans For Life (LFL) joins pro-life groups across the country in extending our sympathy to the family of George Tiller, the late-term abortionist who was gunned down Sunday morning in his church. We join other pro-life groups in denouncing this action as evil. No circumstances justify the violent murder of another human being.
God’s Word tells us not to fight evil with evil but to “overcome evil with good” (Romans 12:21). Based on that same Word of God, LFL believes that abortion is a great evil, the violent murder of another human being that deeply grieves the Author and Redeemer of life. But we oppose the use of evil to overcome this evil. We have the greatest “good” there is to use against it, the Gospel of Jesus Christ. LFL strives to apply the Gospel to the life issues, to change hearts and minds so that people will turn to the Lord of Life and not the god of death as the solution to difficult circumstances. We want to make the killing of children in the sanctity of the womb as unthinkable and deplorable as the killing of George Tiller in the sanctity of his church.
While George Tiller was a member of a Lutheran denomination that does not officially oppose abortion, it should be noted that almost all other Lutheran denominations do take an official stance that opposes abortion and asserts the God-given value of human life from conception to natural death.
We commend the Tiller family and all affected by this tragic event into the loving arms of a crucified and risen Savior. May He be at work in all of this according to His good and gracious will.
Report comment to moderator
Thank you AJones. Well spoken.
Report comment to moderator
For those interested in learning more about the Roeder’s right wing extremist tendencies:
Suspect in Tiller’s death supported killing abortion providers, friends say
Report comment to moderator
#218 is argument by contradiction
Report comment to moderator
195: That is why I believe the killer was misguided for all the wrong reasons.
Perhaps I misunderstood your sentence. I think in terms of cause and effect. For every cause, there is an effect. A cause is also called a ‘means’ and an effect is called an ‘ends.’
The killer “caused” Tiller to die. Therefore, the “effect”, presumably, was to effect the abolition of abortion, which is what pro-lifers ultimately want. When you wrote, “the killer was misguided,” I took that as the cause and “all the wrong reasons” as the effect, which would be the same as saying, “The ends (effect) justifies the means (cause)”, which is false. Now, I’m thinking you were saying the ends does NOT justify the means. In that case, we’re in agreement.
Report comment to moderator
In re 214
Maybe I’m confused by all that rambling you just did, but as TRS explains, it dont take a unanimous universal decision to determine what is legal ANYWHERE IN AMERICA. It takes a majority, whether by court, legislature, or the people’s vote. Even amendments to the Consitution only take 2/3rds ratification..not unanimous. Prohibition was over turned by an additional amendment, not the courts. Potential to enforce does not = legality.
For criminal offenses…if abortion were illegal, it would be very easy to prosecute the abortionist. Youd already have one witness who was aborted on and the phsyical evidence of the procedure, the remains, and potentially other witnesses to it.
The problem with prohibition was that it was quite easy to smuggle it around and consume…abortion is not so easy. But enforcement had nothing to do with its legality.
The interesting thing about prohibition is that, it was done long before you had DUI’s…
Report comment to moderator
217: Good post, Metanoia.
I’ll second that. I’m tracking with you, brother!
Report comment to moderator
Well, Worldmag has been a home for some of the anti-choice extremists. And boy are they screaming like a stuck pig!
Report comment to moderator
While George Tiller was a member of a Lutheran denomination that does not officially oppose abortion…
“He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me, scatters.” Luke 11:23 NIV
There can be no fence-sitting on this issue. Arguing from silence tends toward tacit approval.
Report comment to moderator
Wow Anlir…thats probably the biggest piece of slander youve ever written…
You still sore that youve lost in California?
Report comment to moderator
And boy are they screaming like a stuck pig!
Been watching Deliverance lately?
Report comment to moderator
Help me Anlir, just who is screaming? Who is it that is shouting rhetoric that is intended to inflame rather than discuss? I see post after post denouncing the murder of Tiller, still it is not enough in your eyes, in your opinion. People present valid arguements, designed to be debated, arguements that can be disagreed with, and yet more shouted rhetoric? Again, for the third time, what’s up with the anti choice? Are you really ok with being labled part of the anti life group? Most posters here have treated you with respect, pointing out resonable differences, will your anger be satisfied only when all agree with you?
Report comment to moderator
THORN & TRS, you are correct that majorities can pass laws at will. Legislation doesn’t require unanimous assent. However, you are wrong to suggest that majorities can convict a defendant in court. The right to a jury is essentially the right to a unanimous judgement.
Justice department rules prohibit prosecutions that are unlikely to succeed. Defendants can ask state courts to dismiss charges on similar grounds. It’s unconstitutional to prosecute people just to harass them, because that’s a denial of due process.
Report comment to moderator
#233
Juries are not run by personal OPINION of the matter at hand, but by whether on not a law was broken.
This means that — should abortion become illegal (or at least late term abortion) — then the jury would convict on whether or not the court made its case, not on their personal opinions of abortion.
And, since late-term abortion is actually condemned by most, if we could get the activist judges to pay attention, it is likely that it could become illegal, and then it could be successfully prosecuted in a court of law with a jury.
That is simply law. If you needed a unanimous OPINION on the subject (rather than on whether or not the law was broken), then you could never convict anybody of anything.
Report comment to moderator
CCC, I thought we were on the same track. I’m glad we are.
Report comment to moderator
The “slander” is coming from the anti-choice extremists on here who are calling a man who was just assassinated a “murderer” and comparing him to Hitler. They have no decency and no honor.
And that’s why more and more American have come to see the movement as an extremist one.
Report comment to moderator
You’re right, Anlir, it’s not appropriate to compare Tiller with Hitler. It would be more apt to compare him to Mengele.
Report comment to moderator
The ones who are quickest to accuse others of hate are those who are the most full of it themselves.
Report comment to moderator
The anti-choice extremists are just like the Rev. Phelps and his “God Hates Fags” movement. They have no sense of decency or decorum. But that’s because they’re operating on rage. They’re spitting on a man who was murdered yesterday. They aren’t shedding any tears – they’re happy he’s dead.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, if Roeder was assassinated in prison, would you be sad?
Report comment to moderator
#130 Scroop Moth,
And pro-lifers wanted to see George Tiller brought legally to justice. One nutcase, though, wanted to exact vengeance himself. Yet you people blame us all. But you wouldn’t accept blame if one nutcase assassinated former President Bush. And still you miss the glaring double standard. Not surprising.
Report comment to moderator
“We don’t have to invade Iraq to find terrorists. They’re right here killing abortion doctors.” “Every doctor that does abortions has been under an assassination threat for decades,” Hern said. “The anti-abortion movement message is, ‘Do what we tell you to do or we will kill you,’ and they do. This is a fascist movement.”
Hern laid blame for Tiller’s death at the feet of the anti-abortion movement’s encouragement of violence against abortion providers and the Republican Party’s “exploitation” of the extremist rhetoric. “Dr. Tiller is dead by an anti-abortion assassin, and this is the absolutely inevitable consequence of 35 years of anti-abortion fanatic rhetoric and intimidation and assassination violence and exploitation by the Republican Party of this movement,” Hern told the Independent.
- Dr. Warren Hern (Boulder Abortion Clinic) in an interview with The Colorado Independent
I couldn’t have said it better!
Report comment to moderator
2 doctors killed in the last 11 years.
Truly an epidemic.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir,
I find it interesting that even though each and every person has denounced the killing of George Tiller, you seem to think that their proclaimations are disingenuis because they make statements in holding with their world view. Do I believe that innocent lives were cost at the hands of Dr Tiller? Yes I do. Does that make my denouncement any less meaningful? If it does, then what would make it meaningful? Do I have to go to the degree of praising him as a humanitarian? What I find interesting about most people (again I said most) in liberal thinking is the intolerance. Ironic, isn’t it, that a movement that proclaims tolerance and diversity react so strongly and intolerantly to those who disagree. Yes conservatives are prone to the new definition of tolerance(the traditional understanding of tolerance was to disagree, but put up with, modern understanding seems to be one must fully embrace the others views), but the liberal bases the whole premise of their movement on tolerance. And yet, if I disagree, I am guilty of slander at best, or Fred Phelps hatred at worst. Seems pretty intolerant to me. By the way Anlir, the percentage of self identified “pro-lifers” reached 51 precent this year, that would seem to me to be a majority.
Report comment to moderator
A total of 5 physicians have been assassinated. If an organization in the United States had targeted 5 conservative Christian leaders and gunned them down in cold blood, y’all would be raising holy hell.
The anti-choice extremists should save their crocodile tears and platitudes about how awful Dr. Tiller’s assassination is. We know that in their hearts they’re glad he’s dead.
Report comment to moderator
What organization has killed these 5 physicians, Anlir?
Report comment to moderator
Since we are making broad generalizations, let me have a stab at this. It is not the prolife organizations that are happy at the death of George Tiller, but the pro choice organizations. How can I say that? Just take a look at this blog site and many others. Those in the prolife group are told to apologize, to cowtow, in fact that the debate must end because the debate over abortion is the very thing that caused this violence. If all Americans would just accept abortion then this violence would end. By the way, a Army recruiter was killed and another was wounded today in a shooting, I am wondering if all those against the wars in Iraq and Afganistan would stand up and categorically denounce this violence. And I wonder, did all the war protesting lead to this shooting?
Report comment to moderator
TRS, Thorn and ScroopMoth (re. jury powers and rights):
I’m as pro-life as it gets, and TRS and Thorn are correct that majority, not unanimity is required usually required in the formation or administration of law or government policies.
But Scroop also raises a valid point re. the required unanimity of the jury’s decision, and thus the ultimate power of just one juror to hinder the government’s prosecution of an accused.
The legal doctrine is known as “jury nullification,” and it goes back to the Magna Carta (1215). It essentially says that juries are to judge not only the facts in the case (as they are routinely — and falsely — charged to do by judges), but also to judge the justice of either the application of the law, or even the justice of the law itself.
Juries were never intended to be a rubber-stamp to government prosecutions — else, how would citizens be protected against government tyranny that is being enforced under color of law?
All it takes is one juror to say “Not guilty” in the case. Even if the state’s testimony shows beyond any shadow of doubt that the accused committed the illegal act of which he is accused, just one juror can prevent a successful prosecution.
For more info on the matter, start with the website of the Fully Informed Jury Association (FIJA).
And don’t make the mistake of dismissing jury nullification as some tool of godless populism or anarchy. One of the foundational cases that upheld the legal principle of jury nullification was that of the 1670 case of William Penn, who was charged in London with illegally preaching the Quaker religion:
Tyranny may be upheld by legislatures and kings, but just one juror can make a difference — at least in the case upon which he sits as a juror.
Report comment to moderator
Oops, I meant to include a link for that last pull quote: it’s from the International Society for Individual Liberty’s “History of Jury Nullification” page.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, please state the number of “pro-life” murderers as a percentage of all pro-life people. It’s way less than 1%. What a huge problem!
I’m guessing that most murderers in America are pro-choice, based on demographics. I’m also guessing that most of the murders in the next few years will be perpetrated by fans of President Obama. Furthermore, I’m guessing that more homosexual people commit murder than “pro-life” people, based on the general murder rate and the murder rate of abortion doctors.
Conclusions?
Report comment to moderator
I did not mean to imply that murders of abortionists is not a huge problem. It is. That was a stupid way of saying that such people as the murderer of Dr. Tiller are not at all widespread in the movement.
Report comment to moderator
KyleA, your lack of moral clarity on this matter is disturbing, but not surprising. Those doctors were specifically targeted for helping women exercise their constitutional right. Any doctor that performs abortions remains under a fatwa from the anti-choice movement. These weren’t random people picking out random people to kill. These were anti-choice extremists who specifically targeted another group of people for death (doctors).
The anti-choice movement needs to face up to it’s complicity in creating the climate in this country that allows/causes people to bomb clinics, murder workers, phone in bomb threats and death threats, and all the other acts terrorism and intimidation they engage in. So far it has not shown the moral courage to do what’s right. Until they do, they’re going to find fewer and fewer Americans willing to identify with them.
From all indications the conservative Christian element in the anti-choice movement seems bent on radicalizing it even further. That will be to their detriment.
Report comment to moderator
I hope you wiped the blood off your hands before you typed up that screed, Anlir.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, you continue to confuse “right” as defined under man’s law with right as defined by the universal justice and morality of God’s Law.
I remind you once again that many (if not most) of man’s greatest depredations against his fellow man were committed under the auspices of man’s law. I.e., it was not illegal in Germany to round up, imprison and exterminate Jews. Nor was it illegal in America to imprison loyal Americans of Japanese descent.
Which serves to point out that such immoral “laws” usually only serve to empower one class of humans against another.
Germany’s laws once empowered the Aryan race against Jews.
And Roe v. Wade served to empower the already-born at the expense of the unborn.
Report comment to moderator
Fortunately, Anlir’s histrionic screeching isn’t representative of most who identify themselves as liberals in America. I’m talking about the kind of folks who don’t routinely imagine evil motives behind even the most genuine expressions of disappointment and disapproval from Christians, who don’t profess with adolescent certitude that they know what we’re really thinking and feeling. The same kind of folks who have enough maturity of perspective to distinguish deranged outliers from the rest of the group and don’t confuse the fringe with the fabric. Tiller’s murderer wasn’t a condoned or incited extension of a complicit anti-abortion movement any more than Anlir’s dramatics should be taken as emblematic of how the left in America really thinks.
Report comment to moderator
I shouldn’t, but…
My goodness, Anlir!
From all indications the conservative Christian element in the anti-choice movement seems bent on radicalizing it even further. I’m not sure about everyone else, but you for one must have ignored my post at #190.
I have concluded that Anlir is extremely biased against Christians, and it is even more hopeless to engage in conversation (let alone arguments) with him than with some of the other liberals with preconceived notions about Christians.
Report comment to moderator
Rio, ya think?
Report comment to moderator
I’ve been saying for a long time that conservative Christianity’s moral compass is broken, and this issue shows it to be true. They can’t even condemn the murder of Dr. Tiller without kicking his dead body. No human decency. No respect.
Which is why many people think the expressions of regret about his death are a total scam. They created the climate that led to his death and they denigrate him after his death. They are no better than Rev. Fred Phelps and the “God Hates Fags” people who picket soldier’s funerals.
Report comment to moderator
So, let me make sure I understand.
Pro-abortion groups are free to praise Tiller’s life, dedication to the cause, love and compassion for women everywhere (exempting unborn ones, of course)–but pro-life groups dare not mention what this man did for a living for many decades because he is, after all, dead. And all dead people are automatically good and worthy of “respect.”
I’ll make a note of it.
Report comment to moderator
Well, Cheryl, if you can’t say something good about a man who was just murdered, it’s better not to say anything at all. At least that’s what decent people do. Screaming “murderer!” at a man who was just murdered is beyond the pale. You should be ashamed of yourself, but I know you’re not.
Report comment to moderator
Anlir, praising the murderer for his foul deeds and making him out to be some sort of hero or martyr seems to me far worse, and no one is refraining from doing that just because he’s dead. So no, I’m not going to pretend that late-term abortion is OK. And no, I don’t feel “ashamed.” I don’t feel ashamed of having bad thoughts about Stalin or other brutal murderers who are now dead, either. Since when does death erase one’s evil deeds?
If the guy who assassinated him were convicted tomorrow and assassinated himself the next day, would you tell pro-abortion groups that they weren’t allowed to speak badly of him or call him a murderer, now that he’s dead? Think about it. If you’d think it was wrong to refer to this man as a murderer in such a circumstance, then you’re consistent at least in that. If you would still want to call the assassin a muderer if he himself were dead, then you should be able to see my point–that death doesn’t cancel out evil deeds. (In fact, the real judgment doesn’t happen till after death. In life, Tiller might have repented. Now, it’s time only for justice; the time for repentance is gone.)
And BTW, I’m not screaming “murderer” at Tiller, or rejoicing in his death. I’m saying to you, the living, and a man who as far as I know wasn’t a personal friend of Tiller’s, that Tiller was a murderer, and I think you’re a big enough boy to handle the fact even though he’s dead.
Report comment to moderator
The undercurrent of all the comments, Cheryl, is that he somehow deserved to be gunned down because, after all, “he was a murderer.”
You’re trying to argue that it’s just a clinical statement of fact and not a justification, but it doesn’t come across that way. It sounds like an insincere condemnation if every time you say his killer was wrong, you feel compel to append, “but, what can you expect, Tiller was a murderer.”
Of course, you think he should have not been allowed anywhere near children because (as near as I can tell) you think he probably enjoyed killing them. Back during the presidential campaign, a few people spoke about Obama and his abortion stance with a suggestion that he really, really loves the thought of dead babies.
As much as I have come to see abortion as evil myself, I don’t think that kind of demonization is any better. I know a lot of pro-choice people and I don’t know any of them who hate children. Most of them are parents and love their children, in fact. But they have different belief than you do about at what point life becomes sacred. And you will not change any of their minds to tsk tsk over how they support murder.
But then, maybe changing their minds isn’t important to you. Maybe it’s enough just to be able to bask in your own rightness.
Report comment to moderator
Steve, I’m not basking in my rightness, not even close.
How does the “undercurrent” of saying plainly that murder is wrong say that he “deserved to be gunned down”? There’s no wink, wink anywhere in my comments–I have said very, very clearly that his murder is wrong. I have not had even one moment of feeling glee about this. Tiller shouldn’t have been murdered, period. For the record, a very close friend of mine might be in danger this week (I won’t go into any more detail except to say that this isn’t a “pro-life extremist,” just an ordinary pro-lifer) as an indirect result of Tiller’s murder. A pro-life clinic I’ve only recently become affiliated with (loosely affiliated–making cards for babies and praying for the director) will be hurt if anything by this act, not helped by it. So in addition to seeing this action as clearly wrong, I see it as uniquely unhelpful.
But the fact remains that the whole reason this is major news and not some little blip is because of who Tiller was. In the weeks after Hitler’s death, Saddam Hussein’s capture, the execution of some notorious murderer or other, etc., part of the “story” is the evil that the man did while he was alive. The idea that there’s some moral code in place now that suddenly says that Christians can’t even mention what he did for a living is patently absurd. There is sort of a polite rule that one “doesn’t speak evil of the (recently) dead,” meaning that one doesn’t go around at someone’s funeral whispering that he still owed you that $500 he borrowed last summer. This really is a different issue entirely. A man just died who has lived his life defined by only one thing. And we’re not going to pretend we forgot what he did for a living so that Amlir’s feelings don’t get hurt.
I’m opposed to murder, period. And that’s why I simply can’t pretend there’s only one murderer involved in this story. It isn’t true.
Report comment to moderator
No, Steve G. The undercurrent is that he was wrongly gunned down, outside the law, and outside of Christian morality, and at the same time was a legally sanctioned murderer himself. There’s nothing justified about it, but rather a recognition of ugliness all around. We are complicated people, despite Anlir’s simplisms, and can condemn murder in the same breath used to recognize the sins of the murderer. You want folks to say an innocent man was killed? It’s not true. You want folks to say that a guilty man (despite his actions being legal) deserves murder? That’s not true either. How about we leave it at that. A heinous crime was committed against a man who legally kills. Nobody wins. Least of all those who want killing stopped, with 2nd place to those who try to make political hay out of the notion that a deranged outlier represents the tacit intentions of those who oppose the ongoing slaughter of the youngest and most helpless among us.
Report comment to moderator
BTW, I have no idea whether Tiller “enjoyed” killing babies. And frankly it doesn’t really matter whether he did. His conscience was seared by the act, and his ability to see human beings as gifts of God was tainted. When I say that he needed to be kept away from babies, it was in the very same sense that I myself don’t want to be in the presence of a man who’s a serial adulterer who lusts by second nature–and I definitely don’t want him touching me. Even if he can touch me without lusting, I don’t want him touching me, because his touch is “defiling.”
In the very same way, I’d never want my child touched, even “innocently,” by a pedophile or an abortionist. That touch is defiling. And I don’t want a man who’s capable of breaking a baby’s arms–who has done so–touching the arms of my baby. If he had gone into hospital nurseries and killed 100 babies, you’d agree with me without hesitation, I think. Well, he killed babies a little earlier than the nursery (not much earlier), but in far greater numbers. And if George Tiller were to touch my baby (or, say, one of my nieces or one of my foster children), I think I would have nightmares the rest of my life.
I don’t mean this in a demeaning way, but it’s possible that you as a man can’t quite understand this. A woman is a mother bear about her children–no one hurts them, and no one who might hurt them is given half a chance. A mass murderer would never, ever be willingly allowed in their presence. Nothing self-righteous about it at all. It’s just that a woman’s nurturing instinct has a fiercely protective side to it, and men like this trip it big time.
Report comment to moderator
P.S. Perhaps the closest you can get to a comparison is whether you’d be willing to allow a serial rapist in the same room with your wife, mother, or sister. Even if he is for some reason no possible threat to her (say he has been surgically sterilized), you wouldn’t leave him sitting in your living room with her while you go off to play basketball.
Report comment to moderator
MSNBC had an interesting graphic,
1993-1998: 7 incidents under Pres. Clinton
1999-2008: 0 incidents under George Bush
2009- : 1 incident under President Obama
It certainly appears as if Christian terrorism drops when they think they have one of their own in power.
Report comment to moderator
#264 “I’d never want my child touched, even “innocently,” by a pedophile or an abortionist. That touch is defiling.”
Cheryl D.,
I am a mother, and I can’t identify with your sense of an innocent type of touch being defiling because of who is touching the child. I wouldn’t want my child to have his views shaped by someone whom I did not trust, but touching or holding a child is not defiling, unless it is the wrong kind of touch. I would be much more concerned about a pedophile. An abortionist is not looking for opportunities to kill outside his office.
As for the serial rapist, rape is at least as much about power as it is about sex, so sterilization would not alleviate my concerns.
Report comment to moderator
STEVE G: As much as I have come to see abortion as evil myself, I don’t think that kind of demonization is any better. I know a lot of pro-choice people and I don’t know any of them who hate children. . . But they have different belief than you do about at what point life becomes sacred. And you will not change any of their minds to tsk tsk over how they support murder.
Steve, if abortion is murder, why do many admirable people not abhor it like all murder? In other respects, they have the same conscience you have, and the same moral capacity to judge.
If I thought the fetus was a person, I would be just as opposed to abortion as you are, but I’m sure that it isn’t. Is it possible, from you point of view, that abortion is a different sin than murder and therefore a different crime?
Report comment to moderator
What “admirable people” believe says nothing about truth. It’s just question-begging.
If a person believes that something evil is good, he is by definition not “admirable.” He may be otherwise socially respectable, but his respectability says nothing at all about the question of whether the object of his belief is good or evil.
Whether abortion is murder depends on whether there is a life that is being destroyed or cut short by the violent action of an outsider. Unquestionably, there is. If you think this good, you cease to be “admirable,” except to people whose consciences and moral capacities have been corrupted, like yours are.
And you’re begging the question again, Scroop Moth, when you say that people who support abortion rights have consciences and “the moral capacity to judge.” Not if they approve of evil, they don’t. By definition.
Report comment to moderator
All I can say CherylD is that the mercy you measure out to people will someday be measured back to you. You, like so may other conservative Christians, think your faith give you the right to be unmerciful and judgmental toward others. But your own Bible says that what you measure out to others will be measured back to you. So, your self-righteous arrogance will be repaid someday.
Report comment to moderator
Pauline,
My sister would agree with me; I can’t speak for all mothers, but I know for sure that my sister wouldn’t want her children cared for in a church nursery by the likes of Tiller, nor would I. No, I don’t think he would be likely to murder them, but a man who’d casually counted those limbs he had broken, to see if they were all there, wouldn’t touch my child’s limbs.
Anlir, there’s no lack of mercy here in my revulsion. I already said (possibly on another thread) that I’ll rejoice if I find out Tiller has repented and I’ll meet him in heaven. But treating a killer of 60,000 babies with horror is NOT unmerciful. I imagine you yourself might treat Stalin or some of history’s other mass murderers with horror. (Oh, by the way, it isn’t “judgmental” to call sin sin. It’s judgmental to think another person has sinned and I haven’t. But it’s not judgmental to label it sin.)
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L. #269
Is the human embryo or fetus a person, and how do you know?
Is conscience universal? Are morals, like the concept of the triangle, accessible to all fair people? Or, are only certain people favored with moral understanding?
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
First of all, I didn’t point out the flaws in your thinking so we could argue about fundamentals. You’re changing the subject, I suspect, because you can’t defend your constant attempt to justify the evil of abortion because so-called “admirable people” support it. Do you always respond with questions when people point out your question-begging?
Second, the burden of proof is on you to explain why the embryo isn’t a person. You made that claim above. You know I think it’s a person, and part of the reason is that there is no line of demarcation at which the “fetus” stops being a “fetus” and starts being a “person.” (But this conversation is tired out by now.) Another reason I believe the baby in the womb is a person is because I have kids. Do you? I know that, if my wife had had abortions, my very unique children whom I love wouldn’t be here now. I’ve seen them move in the womb on ultrasound, I’ve heard their heartbeats. They have unique DNA and personalities from conception that they can exhibit in the womb. I also think that once the mother is aware of the baby inside her, the question of personhood is answered. The woman considering abortion recognizes her baby as a killable entity separate from herself. She can kill her baby without killing herself. She acknowledges its ontological reality, its distinct being. If left alone, that baby will exhibit the characteristics of personhood that we can’t observe although they are there. To deny all this is to shut your eyes like a stubborn child who doesn’t want to acknowledge or submit to any authority outside of himself.
I think conscience is universal in the sense that everyone has one, although what conscience convicts us of in many areas differs from culture to culture. Within cultures or subgroups the consciences of individual people differ less and less than it would between individuals of different groups or nations. However, I do believe that there are some basic areas where uncorrupted consciences will agree even across wide boundaries. The sanctity of life is one of those areas. And since in America we are all products of a Judeo-Christian culture, the consciences of most people living in this country agree. I find it ironic that most of these “admirable people” you posit who support abortion probably also think any war whatsoever is morally wrong and that the death penalty is always wrong and that the lives of animals are entitled to more protection (i.e., are more sacrosanct) than the lives of their political opponents.
Moral understanding is also a result of upbringing/education (which is not necessarily formal) and the result of environment. Growing up in a house in which pornography is constantly present, an individual will not normally have a bad conscience about it later in life, whereas a person growing up in home that strives for sexual purity will always have a bad conscience about pornography. The same goes for the sanctity of life. People today, students, being educated in public schools and universities and always having it drilled into them the slogan that “the fetus is not a person” will grow up copying arguments from other people to reinforce that belief and having no moral understanding of anything else.
Your attempt to relativize abortion with your questions isn’t convincing. You’re trying to distract attention for that issue by throwing in the thought of a lot of minor ethical disagreements to cloud over the fact that it is just about universally held that killing innocent children is wrong. I have to wonder how you were brought up and educated as to be so callous to that thought.
Report comment to moderator
David L.,
Wow! I enjoyed your post.
Report comment to moderator
DAVID L. . . . the burden of proof is on you to explain why the embryo isn’t a person.
On the contrary, our legal system assigns the burden of proof to the prosecutor.
You argue that the fetus is human and alive and will become a person, but I sense anger in your inability to demonstrate that the fetus is a person. Mosaic law excludes the fetus from the protection of the law of personal injury, treating it as property. This blog has seen many discussions of this topic, all ending with the denunciation of pro-aborts as bad people.
You say, Whether abortion is murder depends on whether there is a life that is being destroyed or cut short by the violent action of an outsider. In other words, abortion is murder because it ends the life of the fetus.
But that’s a tautology, I think, and begs the question of why “a life” is entitled to the protection of murder laws. (BTW, your definition includes justifiable homicide, and leaves out malice.)
We have irreconcilable judgments about our living fellow human beings, as well as about human fetuses. I believe that many supporters of abortion rights are admirable people, but you don’t. Your judgment about them deprives me of a strong argument in favor of abortion rights, but I don’t think it does very much good for you. You are forced to reach the shocking conclusion that a major portion of the human population is murderous (by thought, word, and deed). That’s a terrible thing to think about your fellow human beings.
Wouldn’t you rather think that abortion is different than the familiar crimes against persons about which we all universally agree?
You are also forced to deny an assumption of rationality. When we talk about a triangle, we can all see the same triangle in our minds. You and I don’t have to be of the same religion to agree about the pythagorean theorem. We have similar confidence in our ability to agree about time, place, and other facts of nature. Finally, we agree about fundamental moral rules, and fully expect fair juries to arrive at unanimous verdicts. However, when it comes to abortion, you retract your ordinary presumptions about people and claim that they are unreasonable, not cognizant of nature, and not at all admirable. They are murderous.
So I think your stance leads to an absurdity.
At the time my first child was born, my mother-in-law warned me that the baby would not become a person for several months. She was wrong as a matter of law, but wise as to nurture, and her advice did not diminish my love.
Report comment to moderator
At the time my first child was born, my mother-in-law warned me that the baby would not become a person for several months.
******Wow. How could your mother-in-law have been more wrong???
I’ve had three. I can testify with full certainty that, not only were they persons at birth with some definite personality traits, but some of these traits were well set before birth and still carry on until this day.
Nothing like basing your entire belief system on your very-flawed MIL’s very poor opinion.
Report comment to moderator
You can pick out the temperament of a newborn puppy, but that doesn’t make it a person.
Report comment to moderator
“You are forced to reach the shocking conclusion that a major portion of the human population is murderous (by thought, word, and deed). That’s a terrible thing to think about your fellow human beings.”
Shocking? To you, maybe, but not to the history of Western civilization.
Terrible? To you, maybe, but absolutely normal in the tradition of our culture going back 2,000 years, plus.
“for we have already charged that both Jews and Greeks are all under sin; as it is written,
‘THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;
THERE IS NONE WHO UNDERSTANDS,
THERE IS NONE WHO SEEKS FOR GOD;
ALL HAVE TURNED ASIDE, TOGETHER THEY HAVE BECOME USELESS;
THERE IS NONE WHO DOES GOOD,
THERE IS NOT EVEN ONE.
THEIR THROAT IS AN OPEN GRAVE,
WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY KEEP DECEIVING,
THE POISON OF ASPS IS UNDER THEIR LIPS;
WHOSE MOUTH IS FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS;
THEIR FEET ARE SWIFT TO SHED BLOOD,
DESTRUCTION AND MISERY ARE IN THEIR PATHS,
AND THE PATH OF PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN.
THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES.’” (Romans 3:9-18)
“Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.” (Genesis 6:5)
“But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders.” (Matthew 15:18-19)
“The LORD has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men To see if there are any who understand, Who seek after God. They have all turned aside, together they have become corrupt; There is no one who does good, not even one.” (Psalm 14:2-3)
“The heart is more deceitful than all else
And is desperately sick;
Who can understand it?” (Jeremiah 17:9)
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth,
What a ridiculous comment. Nobody claims a puppy is human but a human baby with a *personality* is indeed a person.
Report comment to moderator
#277 Scroop Moth,
That is truly one of the most outrageous statements I’ve ever heard on here, but I suppose that’s why you said it.
All I can say in return is “Bull.”
I don’t even think Anlir would call a newborn a “non-person.”
Report comment to moderator
#275 Scroop At the time my first child was born, my mother-in-law warned me that the baby would not become a person for several months.
Why did she think that the baby was not a person, if you don’t mind me asking. I’ve never heard anyone say that. Do you know how she came to that conclusion? Just curious….
Report comment to moderator
#277
Of course, I don’t go around ripping puppies limb from limb, or crushing their heads and sucking their brains out either.
Report comment to moderator
This thread has been quite eye-opening in many ways. Quite a few people here, I’m glad aren’t my next-door neighbors . . . or my doctors. Human life really is cheap today, isn’t it?
Report comment to moderator
And we’re glad the anti-choice fanatics don’t live next door to us. Who wants a neighbor that’s screaming at you and calling you a “murderer!”? Not to mention, we’d be living in fear for our lives.
Report comment to moderator
DJ — Of course, MIL would have agreed that a newborn has all the rights of a person under law, and must be treated and nurtured as a person. MIL was in part warning against thinking of the baby like Einstein, in part advising us to let the baby enjoy being a slug. The baby’s development was very quick, but I don’t think it began life with the capacity to express personhood. A puppy dog is more “human”.
That’s the best short answer I can give. Now may I ask you a question? Some people here evidently think the only reason people say such things is that they are depraved (#278). They refuse to believe that admirable people can agree to abortion. So, what do you think?
Report comment to moderator
What makes a person “admirable” in your book, Scroop Moth. And why should your subjective opinion of such a person be binding on me or anyone else?
You never managed to tell me why your question-begging shouldn’t be dismissed as the illogic it is.
Report comment to moderator
DAvid L. – Look who’s asking questions now. I’ve already answered yours (without acknowledgement) but you’ve answered none of mine. Nevertheless, one more:
Re: “admirable” Aristotelian that I am, admirable people are virtuous in following the norms that we accept unanimously. Yet, as you know, I’m not a Worldmag virtuecrat obeying a rule-based system. Admirable people in my view are prudent. They are skilled in the performance of physical and cognitive feats, and they are compassionate of suffering.
Contrary to your claim, temperament isn’t “personality.” Animals have strong differences in temperament without developing personality. This is a characteristic of humans, and it depends on cognitive abilities, free will, nurture, experience, beliefs, language, and memory. All the things without which we would be like lab mice. Look up personality theory in Wiki. Newborns have rudimentary temperaments (the classic four, perhaps) but have not yet developed the traits that are necessary to make personality.
What I can’t figure out is, why you discuss this with someone you consider morally incapable of worthwhile thought.
Report comment to moderator
#286?
Scroop,
Thanks for answering my question. I did a double-take when I first read your post—thought I must be seeing things.
Do I think that someone can support abortion and still be an admirable person? I supported Barack Obama for president because I do not believe that blindness (even moral blindness) in one area necessarily means one is completely ‘depraved’. It could be indicative of complete depravity, but it is not necessarily so. The evidence I saw of his proposed policies and the way he has lived his life, indicated to me that his stance on abortion was not an entirely encompassing depravity. And that he would, in practice, make a good leader…..given our choices.
But all that aside, I still think what you are doing is dangerous. You’re equating a puppy with a baby—though I have a hard time believing you’re really serious about that. You also appear to me to rely too much on the law to provide a moral basis for your position in favor of abortion, especially as you must know that the law has a very bad track record of deciding what classification of human is or is not worthy of life.
In our democracy it is the people who create the laws, and the people must also articulate the moral basis for those laws. The proLife community has done that; the pro Choice community is less convincing.
Report comment to moderator
“What I can’t figure out is, why you discuss this with someone you consider morally incapable of worthwhile thought.”
Because the Holy Spirit can do miraculous things when He chooses.
“admirable people are virtuous in following the norms that we accept unanimously. Yet, as you know, I’m not a Worldmag virtuecrat obeying a rule-based system.”
So you give a rule and then immediately nullify it. Strike one. Earlier you seemed about to argue that no morals are universally held. Are they or aren’t they? Which ones are on the list and which ones aren’t?
“Admirable people in my view are prudent. They are skilled in the performance of physical and cognitive feats, and they are compassionate of suffering.”
Does a person have to have all three of these qualities to be admirable? What if I only have two of them? I can think of many qualities that aren’t on this obviously very arbitrary list (strike two). Why did you leave them off?
I have a real problem with the last item on your list: compassionate of suffering. Why are those who are compassionate of the suffering of pregnant women not admirable? Because you don’t think they’re smart enough? What about the suffering of the unborn? They feel pain, don’t they? Especially late in the pregnancy, which is when Tiller performed abortions. This suffering doesn’t count to you? Why so callous? (Strike three.)
As you can tell, I find this a very weak attempt to justify yourself. You want people like me to shut up about abortion for who knows what convoluted personal reasons. And so you invoke this putative “admirable person” who is some kind of sinless liberal hero (really just a projection of yourself) in order to cow me into acquiescence. But it’s all just kind of pathetic sophistry. This “admirable person” is totally unreal and totally arbitrary. Like I said, it’s question-begging to assert that abortion is morally acceptable because some admirable person supports it, and then define admirable as someone you already subjectively approve of. I don’t care what some hypothetical person endorses.
Yes, many people who are pro-abortion Democrats are nice people; they chew with their mouths closed and don’t fart in public. But that has absolutely nothing to do with the morality of destroying life in the womb. The same people might distribute child pornography, for all you know, and that certainly isn’t “admirable,” even by your definition.
Report comment to moderator
DJ: Not to speak for Scroop Moth, but to me, what’s important about the legality of abortion is this: People who support it, people who have abortions and people who perform them are not doing anything legally wrong. Because of this, and because so much of what defines right and wrong in our culture is about legality rather than morality, I think it is counter-productive to approach the debate from the pro-life side assuming presuppositions that the other side doesn’t share.
I don’t think a lot of the pro-life people really grasp that abortion rights supporters are not, in their minds, doing anything wrong. So when they hear talk of “murder”, “baby killers,” etc., the people using those terms just sound like lunatics, and are not taken seriously.I think, for people who think that’s an effective tactic, the assumption is that abortion rights supporters really know it’s murder and just won’t admit it. Maybe that is true in some cases, but in a lot of them, you’re talking to people who truly do not see it that way.
If we really want to change minds, we have to start with where the others’ minds are.
Report comment to moderator
Steve G.,
It’s irrelevant whether a person thinks he’s doing anything wrong. For all I know, Hitler might have thought he was right–so what? The fact of the matter is, killing innocent human beings (even doing so legally) is murder. The pro-life movement mostly seeks to speak to individual women, one at a time. But we can’t stop calling it murder because some people don’t agree.
BTW, when I read that Tiller baptized his victims after killing them, it appalled me–partly because it proved he knew he was doing wrong. You don’t baptize a lump of tissue; you baptize a human being with a soul. But honestly, any abortionist who could kill a late-term fetus (probably without anesthesia) has to know he is doing wrong, or he’s dangerous and depraved in a whole different way. Maybe some abortion providers still have consciences; I believe he very actively killed his, but it still beat some, and he staved it off with such things as baptisms for those he’d killed.
Report comment to moderator
I’m not at all interested in shutting people up, DaviD L., even to stop them from crying “Murderer!”.
I want people to discuss the phenomenon of personhood, interferences in personal destiny, and our dramatic lack of unanimity about abortion in contrast to the crimes against persons. Perhaps I also want people to discuss their need to characterize pro-aborts as bad and deny that they may be manifestly admirable.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG
If the prolife community needs a justification for the stridency of its voice, I think the urgency of so much death more than provides it. I agree that communication is helpful, but I’m not sure to what degree that we have “to start where the others’ minds are”. If that means accepting the others’ assumptions, then it’s usually just a simple logical maneuver to end up at their dead end—and that defeats the point.
Part of the cultural struggle we’re engaged in is over how the language of the discussion will be defined: life vs choice, freedom vs rights, etc. It can be an endless loop….unless you believe that God really does ‘enlighten’ people, and that He opens blind eyes. It also helps if one enters the discussion with enough humility to realize that you yourself may be one of the people He wants in some way to enlighten.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth says, “Perhaps I also want people to discuss their need to characterize pro-aborts as bad and deny that they may be manifestly admirable.”
Well, that’s what I’ve been doing with you the whole day.
Pro-aborts indeed are bad, but so are the rest of us. The thought of abortion crossed my mind when my wife got pregnant before we were married, and only the supernatural grace of God snuffed that thought out before we acted on it. Having that child (Calvin, now 8 years old) turned my life around completely, and though it was a difficult experience to go through, God meant it for the good of all of us. I’m not trying to give you some kind of happy-ending story but to show how murderous and selfish my own heart is. All of ours are. Even (especially) those who are “admirable” or respectable.
Report comment to moderator
Another view of Tiller’s work.
An excerpt:
In 2002 I found out I was carrying triplets. My husband did not want me to have them. The day of my appointment I was scared and not sure this was the right decision. They took me back and did an ultrasound. I asked if they all had heartbeats and the nurse said yes. I asked if I would have the chance to talk to the doctor and right away she went and got Dr Tiller. He came in and looked at my babies on the screen. Then he looked at me and said “God gave you these babies, it’s not my job to take them away.” He asked if I agreed and I immediately said yes. He told the nurse to take me to the counter and have them give me my money. You know that day was a turning point for me. I ended up having a great pregnancy and three healthy baby girls. I can never thank Dr. Tiller enough for sending me away that day.
And also:
One commentator there told of learning – in the eighth month of pregnancy, that the twins his wife was carrying were conjoined, and were connected in such a way that “at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants.” The man and his wife made their way to the Wichita clinic, and, the father wrote, “the nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff.”
Judge not.
Report comment to moderator
God have mercy on us as a nation, to have put these traumatized people in the position of actually believing that killing their own children is a ‘choice’.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
In the same chapter, Jesus says:
“You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they? So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. So then, you will know them by their fruits.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; DEPART FROM ME, YOU WHO PRACTICE LAWLESSNESS.’”
Without the least hesitation, I can say that Tiller’s life bore the ugliest fruit imaginable: 60,000 viable babies murdered for money.
“Then the disciples came and said to Him, ‘Do You know that the Pharisees were offended when they heard this statement?’ But He answered and said, “Every plant which My heavenly Father did not plant shall be uprooted. Let them alone; they are blind guides of the blind, And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit.”
Report comment to moderator
Steve: Dr. Tiller performed thousands upon thousands upon thousands of incredibly shocking murderous acts against the most innocent ones of our society, and you want to present a few isolated examples of his humanity? You surely won’t see the NY Times do a comprehensive piece on Tiller’s whole body of work, will you? That you seek to defend him is unconscionable.
Report comment to moderator
Tychicus: Sigh. I’m not defending him.
But I am pointing out that not everything is morally simple. People are complex, situations are complex and most of us, thankfully, will never be in a position such as the second couple in the bits I quoted above.
If you call Tiller a murderer, you have to say that they were accomplices.
I am not going to self-righteously sit in judgment like that. You may tell yourself that if you were ever in that situation, you would make a different decision. And maybe you would … but until you’ve been there, you don’t really know.
Why is it, by the way, that so many people think only in binary good/evil terms? I pointed out evidence that Tiller (1) turned away at least some patients when there was not a real medical reason for them to be there (calling babies a blessing from God), and (2) performed legal, medically indicated abortions when having the babies would cause great physical suffering if the babies survived at all (rather than just happily murdering healthy babies, as so many of you are portraying.)
You rush to accuse me of “defending him” and calling that “unconscionable.” Why? Why is my pointing out that things are not as simple as you might like to portray them wrong? This is truth … you should want the full truth to be known, no? And if Tiller was in fact morally ambiguous rather than pure evil, should Christians — who are supposed to be all about grace and forgiveness — not welcome that information?
I do not get you all sometimes.
Report comment to moderator
To be clear, I am pro-life.
However, I am not blindly so. I see a major difference between a promiscuous woman getting a quick abortion without qualms as retroactive birth control, and a couple who very much want a child but find something’s gone terribly wrong with the pregnancy and the child will certainly die after a short and painful life, and who have an abortion with great sorrow and regret.
Abortion in both cases may be wrong, but in the second case it is much more understandable and shows none of the callous disregard for life that I think some of you think all abortion is.
I don’t know what the “full truth” about Tiller is. Beyond the 60,000 number (which may or may not be accurate) I doubt any of you do either. I do know that real life is very rarely as simple as most here seem to think it is.
Report comment to moderator
SteveG,
First, you may pat yourself on the back for not sitting self-righteously in judgment on Tiller, but it seems to me you have no hesitation in doing so on the Christians here.
Second, focusing attention on moral ambiguity is the refuge of a post-modernist who doesn’t want to make Biblical distinctions. I think the Bible gives us plenty of warrant for thinking in terms of good and evil. Just see the words of Jesus that I quoted above. There is no middle ground with Him.
I’ll be happy to admit that there are gray areas all over the place, but it is indisputable that the fruit of Tiller’s life–what he is known for and what he spent his entire career doing–is completely, unambiguously evil. Jesus Himself said that bad fruit cannot come from a good tree.
I mentioned this on another thread, but it seems hypocritical to me that you get upset when anyone judges Tiller’s life, and yet you presume to know that he’s a Christian with certainty. If it’s arrogant for me to conclude he wasn’t saved, then it’s just as arrogant for you to conclude he was. But you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, while pronouncing all sorts of judgments on us (terrible witness, dancing on graves, no love or grace, and so on and so forth).
Report comment to moderator
I mentioned this on another thread, but it seems hypocritical to me that you get upset when anyone judges Tiller’s life, and yet you presume to know that he’s a Christian with certainty. If it’s arrogant for me to conclude he wasn’t saved, then it’s just as arrogant for you to conclude he was. But you want to give him the benefit of the doubt, while pronouncing all sorts of judgments on us (terrible witness, dancing on graves, no love or grace, and so on and so forth).
Where did I presume to know he’s a Christian? I don’t know. Neither do you. That’s the point I’m trying to make.
You are right that I have my own judgmental streak. I plead guilty on that score, and it is something I do try to recognize and avoid.
However, my Christianity is rooted in the idea that we are all sinners and have no place to judge others. Where evil is going on, we should try to stop it, but when we start pronouncing people “evil” and acting as if we can fairly judge every aspect of another person’s soul, I think we cross the line.
I hope my comments in the other thread were limited to the actions I could observe there. When I spoke of “dancing on his grave” it was a diagnosis of a specific comment, not an entire life or spiritual state.
But it may well be that I should temper myself better than I do. I can’t deny that.
Report comment to moderator
You’ll notice I said the fruit of Tiller’s life was evil, not every aspect of his soul. It’s one thing to judge a person’s behavior, as you acknowledged, and another to judge his soul. And yet…
“…my Christianity is rooted in the idea that we are all sinners and have no place to judge others.”
Do you think, then, that Jesus was wrong to tell us that we will know a tree by its fruit, whether it is good or bad?
Report comment to moderator
Steve (299): Okay, maybe ‘defend’ is not the right word. And it could be that Tiller made the morally right decision with some of his patients – those aren’t the cases that I’m referring to in ‘judging’ Tiller. It seems clear that in thousands upon thousands of cases he made the morally wrong choice that resulted in thousands upon thousands of deaths. There’s no moral ambiguity there – it is pure evil. The evil actions of Tiller aren’t any more dignified than the actions of a mass murderer, just b/c he was a doctor.
Btw, it isn’t judgmental to point out God’s concept of morality and those who abuse it.
Report comment to moderator
Do you think, then, that Jesus was wrong to tell us that we will know a tree by its fruit, whether it is good or bad?
I think the distinction Jesus was making is that it’s appropriate to evaluate a person’s “fruit” (including our own); but not to claim superiority over anyone.
Any of us, if we look at ourselves honestly, will find plenty of poisonous fruit. If we’re examining others with greater depth and honesty than we evaluate ourselves, I think we err.
Motes and beams, y’know.
Report comment to moderator
Fair enough, SteveG, but what I see here is the judging of Tiller’s fruit, almost exclusively. I don’t see any claims of superiority over him. Do you? If so, please tell me where. But it’s this very judging of his fruit to be so bad that seems to bother you so much.
Of course we all have very ugly fruit in our lives, but (as I said a long time ago on this or a similar thread) the life of a Christian is the life of repentance. If you point out to me where I am (legitimately) bearing ugly fruit, I will work and pray to repent of that. Tiller was disciplined/excommunicated by a Missouri Synod Lutheran church before he moved on to his ECLA church. (Link) He rejected that discipline and refused to repent when confronted by the terrible fruit that his life was bearing. And it’s ironic, too, because the first of Luther’s 95 Theses is about the Christian life being a life of repentance, and this Reformation Lutheran Church Tiller belonged to seems to be completely unaware of this truth taught by its namesake.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!