« I Walked Up to a Couple of Muslims on the Street... | Main | Biblical Mistakes »

May 31, 2009

Comments

>>What is pro-life about murder?

Murder is the unjustified killing of an innocent human being. If you kill someone in order to defend yourself or others (in this case, unborn humans) then the killing is justified. Therefore, it's not murder.

>>How does killing an abortion doctor end abortions?

The effectiveness of the act doesn't address the morality of the act.

>>How do you deal with Romans 12:17-21 where we are called to overcome evil with good and leave vengeance to God?

Was this an act of vengence or an act in defense of the innocent? If Tiller was still alive, he'd be butchering babies at this very moment.

The murderer was 100% wrong to kill Tiller, but yes God can work good in spite of the evil of the murderer. The Old Testament is full of God working his plan using sinful men in the process.

But the flip side is that there are also consequences to man's sins that maybe some things will get worse because of man trying to take things into his own hands.

Either way, God's ultimate goal is underway.

Adam,
It's hard to imagine any of us are saved by the pattern of our lives. God's Grace is beyond our imagination.

Justin,

#1:I think another poster said it best, who was being defended by killing Tiller at that moment?

And by the way, who's the killer? Think about it, Dr. Tiller's first patient on Monday morning, what is she most likely going to do?

#2 If the effectiveness of the act does not address the morality of the act, then the act was ineffective.

#3 This better be an act of revenge because the other option is unthinkable. Killing someone for something they have not done yet is certainly a scary law. Who of us could defend it. At best we can say Tiller would most likely have killed on Monday, but none of us can say it was a certainty. He may have repented in church, or had an epiphany, life course change, or simply gotten sick.

Justice belongs to God and from him to the government because, lets face it, we're bad at it. I'm reminded of a line from Lord of the Rings which says, many people live who deserve death and many people who die deserve life, can you, Justin, dispense it out to each one? Your argument saying this was justified says you can.

Lastly, and with much respect, I think you still have two questions to answer.

>>It's hard to imagine any of us are saved by the pattern of our lives. God's Grace is beyond our imagination.<<

Anair,

"If we claim to have fellowship with him yet walk in the darkness, we lie and do not live by the truth."
Go read all of 1 John and see how we know that we are saved - and the conclusion is that we can only really be sure by observing the patterns of our life. We cannot trust our hearts for assurance because "The heart is deceitful and desperately wicked, who can know it" The only true way is to observe how we live and to compare it to the scriptures. Again, I don't know Tiller's heart but observing the public pattern of his life, It's hard to imagine that he knew Christ. Hear Paul Washer's sermon on this subject: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uuabITeO4l8

>>>>Justice belongs to God and from him to the government because, lets face it, we're bad at it.<<<<

Kyle,
I agree with you but how do you know that God didn't use that killer to do just that - execute justice on Tiller, because the government, who God ordained to execute justice on evildoers, wasn't doing its job? The Bible is very clear that God has numbered all of our days and that the day and means of our death are planned by God, so this would have had to be God's doing, regardless whether the killer was right or wrong in doing what he did (I believe it was vengeance and is wrong according to the Bible). Remember Babylon? God used it as a tool to bring judgment on apostate Israel but later judged it as well for their wickedness. There are many such examples in the Bible. Yes we should condemn Tiller's killer, but at the same time I'm glad it happened this way because justice is done. As Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword"

Rebecca -

As soon as I learned of this man's death, I knew the pro-abortion side would jump on it. As far as they are concerned, anyone who stands for the pro-life side condones actions like this.

It does not matter how much we deny it or condemn such behavior. This is what they want to believe about us and this is what will be used against us.

It infuriates me beyond words.

Kyle,

Critical aspects of your post seem a bit naive (at least to me.)

>>"This better be an act of revenge because the other option is unthinkable."

Umm...I can remember when abortion used to be unthinkable.

But it went from unthinkable to thinkable...to common everyday practice sanctioned by law. Nothing is unthinkable.

Just when you think something's unthinkable, someone's congressman is writing a bill to sanction it.


>>"He may have repented in church, or had an epiphany, life course change, or simply gotten sick."

How does one repent in an unrepentant church?


How about this headline:
"George Tiller Aborted by Freelance Abortionist - Healthcare Services Provided Pro-Bono."

Does this help take the edge off a bit?

(It's kinda like calling abortion-on-demand a "right of privacy"...Unthinkable isn't it?)

"They're full of unrepentant murderers, adulterers, fornicators, homosexuals, etc and accepted because "Jesus loves you""

Adam,

if by that you mean unrepentant (attach sin), then I agree.
On the other hand, who comes to God with a clean slate? I just hope theres a distinction here.

Mo,
absolutely. and Its frustrating too, because people buy it

I wonder why no one ever thought of kidnapping him in a form of rendition. You don't kill him...you don't mistreat him(actually he should be treated like a king in hopes of changing his heart and mind)...but you keep him from killing any more unborn. Of course kidnapping is a crime also, but it is better than murder.

Adam, God didn't use men as an instrument to actively kill Ananias and Sapphira, He did it Himself. Peter was not to kill them as a punishment, he was to reveal their sin and rebuke them.

>>>>if by that you mean unrepentant (attach sin), then I agree.
On the other hand, who comes to God with a clean slate? I just hope theres a distinction here.<<<<
Absolutely. Another great example, Carrie Prejean ("Miss California"). A lot of evangelicals have put her on a pedestal as one "standing up for her faith". Is this the same faith we're talking about, the faith where Jesus (via Apostle Paul) commanded women to be modest? What is she doing prancing around half-naked in front of millions upon millions of hot-blooded guys and then daring to even mention Christ! How utterly shameful. We are not to witness to Christ in words only, but more importantly in life and love, which means keeping God's commandments.

>>>>Adam, God didn't use men as an instrument to actively kill Ananias and Sapphira, He did it Himself. Peter was not to kill them as a punishment, he was to reveal their sin and rebuke them.<<<<
Chris H. The point that I was trying to make and didn't explain very well is that Tiller's death could be have been a judgment on him By God (regardless who killed him) for the atrocities he's committed and for daring to name the name of Christ while doing such wicked things. Another parallel from the Bible is Eli's wicked son in 1 Samuel 2.

I am also conflicted on this. I do not support his killing, but I am not saddened by his death either. He deserved it, even though it should have been at the hands of the government, rather than the hands of a vigilante.

I understand the force of the "trot out the toddler" application here. If we knew our neighbor was killing toddlers in his home every week, which one of us would not make sure something was done about it? And if the polic wouldn't do anything about it, what would we do? Would we just let it continue, or would would we use physical force to stop it?

It seems to me that condemning Tiller's murder is a legal and practical good, but not necessarily a moral good. Legally, it was wrong. On a practical level, it will not do the pro-life movement good (although it has saved the babies he would have murdered in the future). But on a moral level, this man was a murderer who is deserving of death. Just because the wrong person gave it to him doesn't make his death any less just.

Again, I'm not advocating that we kill abortion doctors. I haven't even so much as particpated in a pro-life march for goodness sake! But I think the truth of the matter is that many pro-lifers (particularly non-Catholic ones) believe a moral good has been done here, even though it was done in an immoral way (by the wrong hand).

Adam,

>>"What is she doing prancing around half-naked in front of millions upon millions of hot-blooded guys and then daring to even mention Christ!"

Did she mention Christ then? I don't think so.

She just defended tradional marriage...the kind that usually begins with hot-blooded guys being attracted to the opposite sex an vice-versa. ;)

In fact, she didn't even defend traditional marriage...she just expressed her own position on the topic.

Dobson interviewed her (with her mother present) and he was forthright and upfront about rebuking the immodesty. She's not the poster child for Christianity nor tradional marriage. She's become a symbol of a person's right to speak a personal viewpoint in this nation without being ostracized and attacked simply by answering a question that had been put to her by someone she knew would disagree.

Seems you're content to cast stones here, brother...(at least from your particular angle.)

"Mr. Beckwith, you're saying that the morality of "obeying the law" trumps the morality of "defending the weak & helpless"."

No, I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that the rule of law is necessary to protect the weak and the helpless.

A citizen taking "the law" into his hands is lawless. It imperils the very system of rights and obligations that protect us all.

If the "law" may discarded by individual wills whenever one thinks that the weak and helpless need it, then why prosecute the hungry thief who claims that he requires money for a meal?

I do not think you appreciate the horror of anarchy. It is far, far worse than abortion.

"Francis, so are you suggesting that nothing should have been done about Hitler and his regime, because he was following the rule of law in Germany at that time?"

Argumentum ad hitlerum.

Did I miss something? But, if I'm not mistaken, something was done about Hitler: he was defeated by the Allied Nations in the Second World War.

So was Claus von Stauffenberg right or wrong -- when he broke German law and put a bomb under Hitler's foot.

David H,

I am completely aware that she didn't verbally mention "Christ". But in a way she did, because she spoke out against homosexual unions. If you remember the events after the Prop 8 decision in California, what group was being persecuted after that? Was it not the Christians (regardless of which denomination). I don't remember hearing of any Muslims being affected, even though many of them voted against it. The point is, because the anti-homosexual marriage and anti-abortion view points are predominantly "Christian" ones, if you usually mention anything as supporting such view points, you will automatically be put into that group, even if you don't even support the same views. And of course, soon after, it was all over the news that she was an evangelical. If she's an ignorant Christian then I hope that Dr Dobson's rebuke will cause her to repent. If she doesn't, I hope she stops calling herself a Christian and stop shaming Christ's name.

>>>>Argumentum ad hitlerum. <<<
That's my point. Look Francis, I obviously know you don't hold that view but isn't that where your argument leads to? Maybe I don't understand. If in WW2 Germany, the rule of law stated that it was okay to kill innocent people, and we were morally obligated to protect them, then we commend our veterans for sacrificing their lives fighting against Hitler. How is this different in our current situation? Aren't we morally obligated to go and fight the wicked abortion system to help protect the innocent people even if it means a few of us sacrificing our lives? If not, I just don't understand why were justified in the former and not the latter. If we were morally obligated to fight in WW2 then why didn't we go and attack Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, and countless other dictators and tyrants who have killed and are killing innocent people? Please explain your view, I would like to understand you better.

Adam, even if that is where Franscis's argument logically leads, the question is then is that the best course of action, consider there are other perhaps "more logical" (if there is such a thing) options? Given the parameters of this situation? PERHAPS, we are justified in both, but be careful when stripping each scenario of its real-life ramifications, that being the scenario of war hungry tyrants and genocidal regimes, more speciffically men and militaries at the center of these regimes. And our current situation, policy, warped consciousnesses, and strange laws. These are two completely different things, even though their root consequence is virtually the same evil.

I mean, if your going to wage war on abortionists, who are you going to kill? Doctors? Pharmacists that give morning after pills? Teenage girls who had abortions? Pro-Choice advocates? Many of whom are not "directly" (emphasis on quotes) involved with the atrocities at hand? And the question can still be asked is that honestly going to make the situation any better?

Sorry my opening paragraph is a bit hard to read

"Considering there may be other 'more logical' options",

is what i ment to type

Critical aspects of my post? You're hung up on one word and it was a word I chose because I was short on time. If it makes you happy, unlivable will work better.

Who cares if someone can think about it or not? Justin said the murder was justified because Tiller was GOING to kill again.

David, do you want to live in a world where people are brought to justice because they had an intent that was never acted upon? Do you think justice is served then? How long until you get put in prison because it seemed logical that you were going to break a law even though you never put your thoughts to action? Do you think that's livable?

As for your comments, at no point do you address any of my issues, you only pick on these little details. "How does one repent in an unrepentant church?" Who cares? The point is something could happen (besides his murder) that could have prevented him from aborting the very next day.

Also, I'd like to know when was abortion unthinkable? The practice of killing babies due to a decision not to raise them (especially after birth) has been around for thousands of years.

You have contended with none of my points and all you have given me is a meaningless ad hominen.

Adam,

I don't disagree with anything you said until "I'm glad it happened this way". I'm not. If God wants to take his life, let God do it, that's his job, not the job of a vigilante.

Adam, can you please expound on what you mean by I'm glad it happened this way? To me it sounds like you approve of what happened and would support further action in this manner. If I am understanding you correctly, where do we then draw the line on who should be killed and who gave you the authority to draw it?

I could be misunderstanding you on that second section, so please do correct me if I am wrong.

Rebecca, I don't mean to say that I support any of those things or such actions against abortionists, etc. My question is more in regards to how we come about justifying one action against another. I just see an inconsistency in the reasoning and am trying to reconcile them. And I will reiterate it again, I do not support violence against abortionists - the Bible cleary teaches against vengeance.

Kyle, what I meant was that I'm glad that, well, he's dead. I don't know how else to say it. He was a murderer, plain and simple. Just the same way I'd have been glad on hearing the death of Hitler, or Stalin. When he was alive I was praying for his salvation but was still hoping that justice would be done. At the same time I wasn't hoping that harm would come to him. I'm glad that his death will hopefully save a few childrens' lives but at the same time I'm extremely sad, based on his actions, that he most likely went to Hell. I wasn't wishing anything bad to happen to him. I believe (based on my understanding of the Bible) that It's ok for me to think this way. If I am in error, someone please correct me. As for his killer, well he did commit murder and should be judged as one. However, based on God's sovereignty over all his creatures, we cannot say that this wasn't God's will. If it wasn't it wouldn't have happened this way. And I'll say it again, no I don't believe we should be killing someone unless it's for self defense of oneself or another. If the government authorities don't obey God by punishing evil doers, well God will find another way to punish them and bring them justice, as is in the case of Tiller.

Adam,

I'd say you and I feel the same way. I don't think your feelings are wrong. Some think it's wrong to have enemies, but Jesus said to pray for our enemies, not deny we have them.

God will use sinful actions to accomplish his motives (Christ on the cross, anyone?), I just don't like to say God was working through this man because it makes it look like this unstable man reflects on God's character. I know that is not the case, but then it just takes longer and more complicated to explain what you mean.

"No, he (the killer of the abortionist) should not have been killed like that. He should have been tried by the court (for abortion) and the state of Florida should have done it (executed him)."

Thanks for this reflection JR - and everyone who is here trying to nut this out. It is very helpful.

>>>>I just don't like to say God was working through this man because it makes it look like this unstable man reflects on God's character.<<<<
Kyle, I don't see how that follows. Just a few examples: in the old testament God used the evil Assyrian and Babylonian nations to judge evil Israel and then later punished them as well. In the new Testament, he used the Romans to judge Israel in 70AD and then judged them as well.
God is free to use those who he wills for whatever purpose. God does not temp anyone with evil but sometimes stops restraining them and they do what their natural hearts desire to do - which is to do evil. Then God judges them for their evil actions too. It seems perfectly logical to me. Sometimes I wonder what causes me to be less evil (relatively speaking) than say Hitler. And I realize that God's grace restrains me. I believe it was in Revelations that speaks of a time in the future when God was going to let the restraints go for a time and there would be evil like never seen before, before His return. Now we're getting into a whole different topic of God's sovereignty and man's free will.

I just wanted to say words can work.
My husband used to be pro abortion all the way, now in most cases he is against it. I think this battle will best be won one heart at a time. Killing abortionist whether justified or not will only alienate the people we are tring to convince.

Adam,

I don't disagree with you.

When you discuss these things with most people (who are intellectually bankrupt on the character of God) and say God used that lunatic to kill Tiller, the people who hear this will (I believe) most likely begin to associate God's character with the character of the unstable murderer. Maybe I'm wrong in my assumption of people's response, but that is what I mean by being cautious to say God was using that man. I have no problem saying that with my friends who are grounded in theology.

Kyle, I agree with you and I hope all those reading are mature enough to understand that. I wouldn't say this outside such a forum.

Could we say that the pro-life movement needs more Martin Luther King Jrs and fewer Malcolm Xs?

Well, well, we see that christians can use their bronze age fairy tales to justify and rejoice in the gunning down of an unarmed man, in a church, in front of his family. Bravo, bravo. And my mom always taught me that two wrongs don't make a right. It seems she was not reading her Bible close enough.

I read only the first few comments, so others may have said this...

The one way that we always have to deter an abortion that has not yet happened is talking and providing for those mothers who are in the situation that has brought them to the place of desiring to terminate their pregnancy. I am without a doubt pro-life but I will never picket outside of a clinic (and probably not anywhere else) because I am not willing to stand out there and shout at the people making policy (and certainly not the women) when I am not willing to take the time to care for and show love to the women who are in these positions. I have nothing put disdain for people who only fight abortion with their shouts and signs but fail to get their hands dirty in the lives that are most closely affected.

Good post.

>>>>"David, do you want to live in a world where people are brought to justice because they had an intent that was never acted upon?"<<<<<<

Actually we do. If a dude is caught with an Al Qaeda manual, a list titled "Targets" and a truckload of fertilizer, he is going to be arrested.

There is a difference between intent and desire. Your statement would be valid if you used the word desire. Intent/intend means you have a plan or design in mind to make something come about. There is overwhelming evidence that Tiller was planning multiple legal murders.

Using your logic, no violent crime could be prevented because the assaulter could always change their mind at the last second.

"My question is more in regards to how we come about justifying one action against another. I just see an inconsistency in the reasoning and am trying to reconcile them. "

I think we are in the same boat to some degree Adam. Although, ide go a bit further and say the inconsistancy is just an inability to cope with the prospect that perhaps, it was justified (even if it was not neccessairily the best course of action)

Kyle, I agree completely. That would be hard to share with those not grounded in theology or atleast with a somewhat biblical understanding of Gods character as revealed in scripture. Esp your reference to God using x to judge israel, and then also judging x. I was going to mention that earlier. Thankyou for that addition!

Pro-Choice, perhaps you would like to share more of your thoughts with us? Im sure most of us here would enjoy your company * c:

Pro-choice,

Fact: George Tiller had practiced his trade for roughly three decades.

Fact: In that time, about 60,000 of America's youngest citizens were slain at his hands.

Opinion: Tiller (and Kansas) had his own little private holocaust going on right here in midwest USA.

You use the term "bronze age" to describe those of us who would oppose actions such as Tiller's,...but do you think abortion is a by-product of genuine elightment?

Your empty rhetoric is tiring.

I would hardly call Tiller unarmed...he'd had the law and his clinic at his disposal for 30 years...and made about a million $ a year selling butchery.

If I may quote the Prez's beloved Jeremiah Wright: "The chickens (came) home to roost."

>>>>>>>>"David, do you want to live in a world where people are brought to justice because they had an intent that was never acted upon?"<<<<<<

Actually we do. If a dude is caught with an Al Qaeda manual, a list titled "Targets" and a truckload of fertilizer, he is going to be arrested. <<<<

Jake,

Thanks for the response, it was thought provoking.

If the 'dude' is driving the truckload of fertilizer toward these 'targets' then he is certainly acting on his intentions. The action does not have to be completed, that's nonsense, but it has to begin. Otherwise you are dealing with a bunch of circumstancial evidence that you have to prove beyond reasonable doubt.

So what about Tiller's intent?

>>>>There is overwhelming evidence that Tiller was planning multiple legal murders. <<<<

I'd like to see this overwhelming evidence since Tiller's abortions never broke Kansas state law. That's a very sad fact, but it is the case.

Your probably right on the desire/intent thing. My vocab is not as great as I desire it to be. Maybe I should intend to do something about that.

Fact: What Dr. Tiller did was legal and was preformed for health reasons. I would recommend going over to Andrew Sullivan's blog and reading some of the accounts of women who have had to go use Tiller's services. Every story is heart-rending and complex. If I were in a similar situation I would like the ability to make my own medical decisions in consultation with my doctor and family, not to have it made arbitrarily by government fiat.

Fact: This is an act of terrorism designed to frighten those who think differently. It is designed to frighten people like myself, doctors, clinic workers, and women
in general.

Opinion: The use of inflammatory language, 'holocaust' 'killer' etc... in my view helped to create the environment that allows for an unstable person to go ahead and commit murder. This has been fostered across the pro-life movement.

In the end Pro-life people need to realize that there are legitimate differences of opinion concerning abortion and I don't think that violent intimidation is going to work in the long run.

"Tiller's abortions never broke Kansas state law. "

Apparently he did. There is a law that late term abortions require a second opinion from a second doctor with no ties to the primary abortionist. But he used someone he was paying to do that. (Or is this Federal law? I don't remember. Either way, he broke the law.)

He was being prosecuted for that crime, right up to the point where he received political cover from our new pro-abortion administration.

As for "intent", I think a better analogy might be that of a serial killer. This person has killed several people already. Unless the killer has actively repented and turned himself in, law enforcement assumes that the serial killer will kill again because that is the normal pattern of things.

Furthermore, even if the serial killer stops his killing spree voluntarily, he is still responsible for the previous murders. Therefore, law enforcement will continue to look for him.

Even though Tiller engaged in "legal" murder, it is still murder. Furthermore, we have zero indication that he had decided to stop. Therefore, it is as certain as anyone can be, that he was going to resume his killing spree on Monday morning.

As for the "unrepentant church" comment, I had thought the same thing. Remember Paul's outrage over the scandal in the Corinthian church? (1 Corinthians 5) There are just some things that no church belonging to Christ should allow in their midst. It seems to me that someone with the blood of tens of thousands of children on his hands should certainly qualify for giving him the boot.

"The use of inflammatory language, 'holocaust' 'killer' etc... in my view helped to create the environment that allows for an unstable person to go ahead and commit murder."

Im not sure if this follows from the fact that both of these things are actually taking place. And I say this with absolute sincerity, would it really make a difference if we used "softer" words and strange rhetoric? Would, "mass pre-birth tranquility" & "health enforcer" be better terms to play with? Would they suddenly make this whole abortion deal a non-issue? And please, I hope you understanding I am not trying to come accross as rude.

I should add, would he have changed his mind about murdering him, had he come to the same conclusion on the fact of abortion, under 'non-inflamitory language'?

P.C.,

No reasonable person will deny that there are very difficult stories out there. I fully expect some to be highly emotional. But how does emotional pain or other difficulties justify the pre-meditated killing of an innocent human being?

Furthermore, anecdotes are not data. You cannot cherry pick the kind of stories which would be highlighted on any web site and claim that such stories are the norm. They're not, otherwise why would they be featured?

By comparison, studies are a primary technique used by scientists to get actual data, and not mere anecdotes. So what do the studies say? Here are reasons women choose to get abortions:

- Wants to postpone childbearing: 25.5%
- Wants no (more) children: 7.9%
- Cannot afford a baby: 21.3%
- Having a child will disrupt education or job: 10.8%
- Has relationship problem or partner does not want pregnancy: 14.1%
- Too young; parent(s) or other(s) object to pregnancy: 12.2%
- Risk to maternal health: 2.8%
- Risk to fetal health: 3.3%
- Other: 2.1%

How does "wants to postpone childbearing" fit into any reasonable definition of "health"?

There are two items on that list which do have direct bearing on health issues. They highlight one situation where I believe even staunch pro-life people view abortion as justified.

Unfortunately, situations do arise where both the woman and baby will die if an abortion is not performed. Tubal pregnancies are one example. In such cases, we are faced with only two choices: allowing both to die, or choosing which will live. In such cases we do not have a choice about whether or not someone will die. We can only save as many as possible.

The bottom line is that the unborn are distinct human beings. If they were not, you would not need to justify abortion because it would be no more morally relevant than removing an appendix or intestinal polyp. Yet they are fully human in every way we can possibly measure, therefore, you cannot justify taking their life any more than you justify killing a full grown (innocent) adult.

Good words ed.

Inflammatory language?

(Rebecca has spotted the problem here.)

It has, for some time now, been the growing tendency of this increasingly secular society to allocate blame for a heinous act somewhere other than on the perpetrator of the act. We soften sin by calling it something else ("right to privacy", "alternative lifestyle", "euthanasia", "adult entertainment", "new age", ad nauseum). It allows us to quietly, subtlely, apathetically, and ignorantly allow the vilest levels of our nature to slowly take center stage in our culture, and likewise be celebrated, encouraged, and promoted.

When all the rhetoric is torn away, the essential argument is saying people are not responsible for their own actions. ...that society is to blame for "manufacturing" people who are not able to make better decisions on their own.

This is wonderful because it removes accountability and responsibility...

...just like Roe V. Wade did.

>>"Fact: This is an act of terrorism designed to frighten those who think differently. It is designed to frighten people like myself, doctors, clinic workers, and women
in general."

I think (unless he said/says otherwise) it was designed to...umm...kill George Tiller.

If you are frightened about something, that would be a by-product...a side-effect.

P.S. - What is it about the words 'holocaust' and 'killer' that are inaccurate about describing the practices of one late George Tiller? I am not concerned about being "warm and fuzzy"...I am concerned about truth. What are you concerned about?

Yet all the late-term abortions preformed by Dr. Tiller were for health reasons. He was acquitted by a court on this very point.

Also it is not just about language, there has been a systemic campaign of violence and intimidation against health clinics by the pro-life camp.
According to the National Abortion Federation, since 2000 abortion providers have reported 14 arsons, 78 death threats, 66 incidents of assault and battery, 117 anthrax threats, 128 bomb threats, 109 incidents of stalking, 541 acts of vandalism, one bombing, and one attempted murder. And now one murder.

Yet I don't really see moderate pro-life people repudiating the extremists and from some of the comments on this blog and others they are full of justifications for these acts.

"If you are frightened about something, that would be a by-product..."

So 9/11 was an act to improve the New York skyline? The act was not intended to have broader implications? That is what terrorism is all about, to intimidate others and certain elements in the pro-life camp are actively engaged in this process.

>>"Yet all the late-term abortions preformed by Dr. Tiller were for health reasons."

Headaches and depression are not "reasons" to kill children.

(As is typical pro-choice rhetoric, the whole story is never told.)

You can call it health reasons...or right of privacy...yet neither reveal the truth. It is a signature move of the pro-choice camp to misdirect, misrepresent, and mislead women in order to maintain its strength. I am glad to say the veil is finally being lifted though. The nation's stance is changing. People are wising up. And truth is beginning to win out.


>>"since 2000 abortion providers have reported 14 arsons, 78 death threats, 66 incidents of assault and battery, 117 anthrax threats, 128 bomb threats, 109 incidents of stalking, 541 acts of vandalism, one bombing, and one attempted murder. And now one murder."


Since 1973, 48 million babies (and counting) have been put to death in these places by dismemberment and other means.

Pro-Choice, apples and oranges. Your compairing the acts of a known terrorist organization to that of a perhaps, deeply grieved and misguided man. We have statements on behalf of al-qaeda to back up those allegations (as well as thier reputation). Its certainly possible that he did this on behalf of "pro-life terrorism" (If there is such a thing), sure. But given the parameters of this situation, is it plausable that this is truly what it is?

To the last point of your post. Is it the responsibility of pro-life moderates to constantly repudiate the acts of 'pro-life extremeists', when anyone regardless of allegiance can use their own God-given intillect to measure wether or not these are rational methods to go about changing hearts? It doesnt take an agenda to understand that. With respect, its not the strict responsibility of 'pro-life' moderates to be on repudiation watch. Likewise its not the responsibility of pro-choice advocates to repudiate obviously strange human behavior. Thats just politics and hot air.

P.C.,

"I don't really see moderate pro-life people repudiating the extremists"

The only conclusion I can draw from this claim is that you have not seen a single statement from any of the pro-life groups, or even the post you're commenting on. Every single one of them has condemned the murder of Mr. Tiller.

If your "systemic campaign" claim was accurate, then there would have been far, FAR more incidents than you claim, considering how many millions of people who are active in pro-life.

On the other hand, there actually is a "systemic campaign" to put an end to abortion through legitimate means. That means creating and supporting crisis pregnancy centers, educating people about what abortion is, and pressuring lawmakers to pass laws against abortion.

Do you honestly think that those of us who see that abortion = the killing of an innocent human being = murder should be at all ashamed of using legitimate pressure to put an end to "legal" murder?

If you can somehow show that what is being aborted is not a human being, then all of us will stop opposing abortion. It's that simple. Since this is the core issue, why are you wasting time attacking secondary issues such as pressure (as opposed to actual crimes which are also condemned by pro-lifers) which are entirely legitimate actions given that abortion actually is murder?

P.S., As for "intimidation", any murderer feels intimidated by the mere presence of a police officer, even if the officer is not aware of the murder. That's because the intimidation comes from the murderer's actual guilt, not from any external source. It would not surprise me that those who kill the most innocent and helpless members of our society for a living would feel the same.

The comments to this entry are closed.