"Abortion Doctor" Murdered

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, the period in which I was a Christian ranges from 1968 thru 1985, when I was a junior in high school. I don't remember them speaking about abortion bombings or muders much. Wasn't that more of an issue in the 90's? I certainly never heard a "abortion is murder" sermon, ever. But I did see bumper stickers at times.....

It began after Roe V Wade and was amplified during the Reagan years. It grew again when the Republicans fanned the flames to get one issue voters behind Bush.

You want me to condemn it? You bet. No problem at all. I absolutely condemn it as a terrible crime. Do you want me to get more exercised than that? I am no longer religious, and feel no obligation to take up their slack. But I'll tell you this, if the right get's in an uproar about this, I'll take them on with you guys.

The point was to condemn more than just the murderer. The point was to condemn the rhetoric that encourages the nutjobs. And to go further by recognizing that pushing the concept of dedication to God has an inherent risk of encouraging nutjobs so one who does push the dedicate your life to God concept should take specific actions to prevent the nutjobs from misusing the religious beliefs.

 

[eeyore1954]

Straw man. You are playing around with the meaning of "alive". Nobody is arguing whether or not a fetus or embryo is living, because all cells are alive; the argument is whether or not they equate to a human baby outside of the womb. I say they don't. Period.



Yes, yes, and maybe. The "maybe" is dependent upon the nature of the deformity - depending upon the circumstances it could very well be a mercy killing, as there are cases of babies being born only to suffer an excruciatingly painful and short life (on the order of minutes).

Btw, your skin cells are alive. When you take a shower, you're killing millions! Murderer!

I wasn't playing with the definition of alive. What I said to be alive is probably what you mean when you say equate to a human baby outsode of the human womb. You say they don't period. But I wonder when does that embryo become deserving of the right to become that human baby outside of the womb. If the embryo is viable is it deserving?

Hell, there are adults (really old babies, in case you didn't know) who are assisted in ending their lives or have others do it in order to bring an end to their suffering due to illness, etc.

I am all in favor of the right to assisted suicide if the patient is in controll of their mental faculties or if they made their desires know when they were in control. A fetus on the other hand doesn't have that luxury to make a life or death decision and in almost all cases I am against it being made against life for them.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

skeptigirl, I just want to say that, even if it's hard for you to believe, there are people in the Christian movement or who act in the name of the Christian movement that disturb and sicken many Christians every bit as much as other people. I think you have a strong tendancy to want to lump them all into one big pot of hate. There are bad people, and many of them high profile. Sure. But there are many many people who are just everyday people who are trying to live a good life, and believe in God. They really aren't out to hurt anyone. And they hate the extremists as much as anyone else.

I don't find this hard to believe at all.

I'm trying to point out the difference between saying you don't agree, and evaluating the role promoting god beliefs plays in the creation and encouragement of the nutjobs.

That doesn't mean one cannot promote god beliefs (though I admit that would be nice), and it certainly doesn't mean one cannot oppose abortion (everyone has their cutoff for when a fetus is a separate person from the mother and god beliefs are not the only variable there). But it irks me to hear, "I'm not a nutjob, therefore I have no responsibility to prevent nutjobs when I promote my religion."

I have said if one is just a believer and isn't out there promoting god beliefs, such a person bears little or at least much less blame than an evangelizer (most of us could stand to do a tad more for any number of causes). But for every person who promotes Christianity and especially for the promoters of the much more hazardous Evangelical brand, there is a predictable hazard inherent in promoting those god beliefs. If you know you might be encouraging a nutjob, then you should consider doing something to mitigate that hazard. And if you are going to condemn the murderer, how about condemning the damaging rhetoric being used by your colleagues?

 

[MattusMaximus]

I wasn't playing with the definition of alive. What I said to be alive is probably what you mean when you say equate to a human baby outsode of the human womb. You say they don't period. But I wonder when does that embryo become deserving of the right to become that human baby outside of the womb. If the embryo is viable is it deserving?

Ah, so by your arguments the definition of "alive" is fungible

Embryos, by definition, are not viable outside the womb. Show me one example to the contrary.

You really need to bone up on your terminology. Try doing that before you attempt to make an argument.

I am all in favor of the right to assisted suicide if the patient is in controll of their mental faculties or if they made their desires know when they were in control. A fetus on the other hand doesn't have that luxury to make a life or death decision and in almost all cases I am against it being made against life for them.

As long as it is inside the woman, it's her call. I may or may not agree with her decision, but there it is. And the fact that you don't have a say in it either appears to really bother you.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

No, we are recommending that he be brought up on charges.

This is an important point. There was a lot of rhetoric within the anti-abortion crowd that Tiller was performing illegal abortions. Yet they failed twice to get a Grand Jury to agree. If you continue to incite your flock to pursue punishment and there is no legal recourse, that essentially encourages taking matters into one's own hands.

Calling for a criminal to be charged and tried is a different matter.

 

[Robster FCD]

How are you so special to be so all knowing as to when life begins.

I'll tell you what I tell my students.

Sperm cells are alive. Egg cells are alive. A fertilized egg is alive. Life does not begin at conception, but rather continues. If you want to ask when the soul enters the body, you are leaving the realm of science and are entering a metaphysical and philosophical realm. You won't find the answer to that question in science.

I don't believe in the existence of a soul, and your superstition regarding its existence has no place in law.

----

Skeptigirl, thanks for the clarification.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

My understanding was BenBurch was arguing they are not human yet. I could be wrong but I think that is a common belief amongst people who support abortion. Actually I think it is a common belief they are not alive not that they are not human.

Do you believe an embryo in the third trimester is alive? If you do you believe it is ok to terminate its life because of a deformity. If so do you believe it would be ok to terminate its life after birth because of a deformity?

Your terminology is misleading. If a fetus has no brain, we have no expectation it will survive outside the womb. Terminating such a pregnancy is not the same as terminating an infant with a deformity. It is a matter of not risking the mother's life any further (and pregnancy just by itself carries a greater risk than not being pregnant) by carrying a futile pregnancy to term.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Btw, your skin cells are alive. When you take a shower, you're killing millions! Murderer!

I do believe that outer layer is quite dead. But your point was valid.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The problem you're not seeing, Skeptigirl, is that you cannot define Christianity as a product like a gun. You don't get a receipt when you buy it, you don't have to buy a license or ammunition, there aren't any tests you have to take or certifications you have to acquire. Anyone can claim to be a Christian, and there's nothing to be done about it. Anyone can claim to be a licensed driver...but the state can check the validity of that claim. You can't put a safety on faith like you can on a firearm.

I addressed this already.

First, I took apathetic god believers out of my list of those responsible. I am speaking of Christian religion promoters. If you are going to promote a religion which you know some nutjobs are going to misconstrue, then you are promoting a product with a well recognized hazard. You have an obligation to address the hazard if at all possible.

I have no desire to go around the mulberry bush arguing with people who don't think producers/manufacturers/promoters are responsible for misuse of the products they promote. It's an argument of values, not one of evidence. In medicine, many of us take responsibility to attenuate the hazards of misusing our products. If you can predict misuse will occur, you should try to address it.

It isn't a product. It's a belief system.

It's both.

...I don't know what you want. I gave you a MAJOR national faith group that directly opposes the "religious rights" extremism, and you said it wasn't good enough. This isn't about everyone who has faith, it is about groups that advocate or protest social policies and laws BASED ON faith--it is THOSE groups that promote the kind of extremism we're talking about here, not people who just happen to have faith in God and live their own personal lives according to that. We're talking about specific people who attempt to influence social policy/law. Otherwise, I wouldn't call the murder of an abortion doctor terrorism, I'd just call it murder.

There's a continuum from believing in God to dedicating your life to promoting that belief. There's a line there somewhere where believing changes to promoting. The further down the continuum away from promoting one is the less responsible they are.

But the answer, "I/We don't condone what the murderer did," does not by itself automatically absolve people who promote the religion that results in extremism. Condemning extremists is one thing. Taking an honest look at how promoting one's religious beliefs contributes to the creation of extremists is another.

 

[eeyore1954]

Ah, so by your arguments the definition of "alive" is fungible

Embryos, by definition, are not viable outside the womb. Show me one example to the contrary.

You really need to bone up on your terminology. Try doing that before you attempt to make an argument.



As long as it is inside the woman, it's her call. I may or may not agree with her decision, but there it is. And the fact that you don't have a say in it either appears to really bother you.

Whether or not I have the decision is not what bothers me. The lack of rights of a viable fetus does bother me.
What is it that causes it to have no rights while it is in the mother and then suddenly rights when it is born

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You betcha! This is the same DHS report that the Obama administration withdrew after being attacked by the far right for a variety of reasons, including pointing out that extremist groups often targeted veterans for recruitment (as if that was, somehow, in an alternate dimension riddled with goatees) an attack on veterans.

"Paralleling the current national climate, right wing extremists during the1990s exploited a variety of social issues and political themes to increase group visibility and recruit new members. Prominent among these themes were the militia movement’s opposition to gun control efforts, criticism of free trade agreements (particularly those with Mexico), and highlighting perceived government infringement on civil liberties as well as white supremacists’ longstanding exploitation of social issues such as abortion, inter-racial crimes, and same-sex marriage. During the 1990s, these issues contributed to the growth in the number of domestic right wing terrorist and extremist groups and an increase in violent acts targeting government facilities, law enforcement officers, banks, and infrastructure sectors."

I want to get back to this for a minute.

This murder goes to prove the point of the Homeland Security Report. That's already being discussed in some blogs and op eds. Michelle Malkin's reaction to the report was mind boggling:

Confirmed: The Obama DHS hit job on conservatives is real.

Unfortunately, the right wing attack wolves are as alive and vicious as ever. With the echo chamber talking points attack on this report, condemning it with such BS as claiming the report called returning Iraq vets terrorists is not surprising. Seeing Obama cave to this kind of pressure is unfortunate. I wonder if the timing of this murder won't put the credibility back into this report?

We really need to stand up to the damaging talking points crowd (or should I call them the screaming points crowd?). They've done tremendous damage to this country. The fact they lost the Presidency did not also mean they've gone away.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Whether or not I have the decision is not what bothers me. The lack of rights of a viable fetus does bother me.
What is it that causes it to have no rights while it is in the mother and then suddenly rights when it is born

What makes you think this is medically what goes on with late term abortions? This is the lie Dr Tiller was trying to combat.

The anti-abortion crowd merely asserts that infanticide is going on. Either these fetuses were not viable as you suggest, or trying to salvage them when the abortion was necessary for the mother's sake was not reasonable.

Is it reasonable to make a 9 yr old carry a pregnancy to term? How about a mother who may die from cancer without an abortion? Is it reasonable to gamble with her life?

When the baby of a mother with cancer or pre-eclampsia that requires terminating the pregnancy is viable, generally a million dollar effort is made to save the infant. Sometimes that effort is unreasonable.

 

[oldhat]

Whether or not I have the decision is not what bothers me. The lack of rights of a viable fetus does bother me.
What is it that causes it to have no rights while it is in the mother and then suddenly rights when it is born

But the fetus does have rights in the third trimester in states with post-viability statutes. It's not black and white.

I see what you're saying, though. "Viability" is pretty vague.

Personally, I begin to bump up the limits of my moral framework in cases such as the fetus having something like Down's Syndrome. Is that in itself enough to warrant an abortion at 6 months? 7 months? 8 months? What if the parents are poor and won't be able to afford the tens of thousands of dollars more it will cost per year to take care of and school a child with Down's Syndrome? It's a moral thicket.

 

[eeyore1954]

I'll tell you what I tell my students.

Sperm cells are alive. Egg cells are alive. A fertilized egg is alive. Life does not begin at conception, but rather continues. If you want to ask when the soul enters the body, you are leaving the realm of science and are entering a metaphysical and philosophical realm. You won't find the answer to that question in science.



----

Skeptigirl, thanks for the clarification.

I agree the sperm cell is alive , the egg is alive and the embryo is alive but when if ever does that embryo or later a fetus get a right to not have its life taken away . My question has nothing to do with when a soul enters the body.

I don't believe in the existence of a soul, and your superstition regarding its existence has no place in law.

I never said I believe in a soul.
I was just responding to Ben Burchs statement of fact that there is no such thing

 

[Puppycow]

LGF doesn't mince words

Here’s Randall Terry, founder of the extreme anti-abortion group Operation Rescue, with a deplorable statement on the murder of Dr. George Tiller that may make you nauseous.

Quote: “He reaped what he sowed.”

This is domestic terrorism, in your face. It’s the equivalent of an Al Qaeda video following a terrorist attack, disavowing responsibility but encouraging more attacks.

 

[Robster FCD]

I agree the sperm cell is alive , the egg is alive and the embryo is alive but when if ever does that embryo or later a fetus get a right to not have its life taken away . My question has nothing to do with when a soul enters the body.

Viability is an important feature, as no embryo can make it for long without being in the uterus. Mid 3rd trimester is about that line for a fetus. Acephaly is not viable. Tay Sachs is not viable. The list of nonviable and serious (low quality of life) defects is very high.

Rape, incest and life of mother are also important.

Dr. Tiller, to the satisfaction of a court of law, considered these issues in his cases.

But sadly, innocence of crime was not an excuse. Now we are down to two doctors publicly known to be performing this vital service. But hey, if you have the money, you can travel elsewhere and get one... And if you don't, I hear there are some poisonous herbs you can buy from your local naturopath that will cause abortion... Who knows what else they will do?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But the fetus does have rights in the third trimester in states with post-viability statutes. It's not black and white.

I see what you're saying, though. "Viability" is pretty vague.
....

That's the problem when you try to write laws dictating medical practice. The medical professionals have much less problem with such a term.

 

[Whiplash]

And if you are going to condemn the murderer, how about condemning the damaging rhetoric being used by your colleagues?

First off, I'd rather you not call them my colleagues. I'm speaking about people (families) I knew through church growing up. The only religious people I know now are family memebers, and none of them even remotely involved in anti-abortion issues at all. If you like, I'll give them a ring and ask if they'll prepare public condemnations, and post them later.


But to your question, in post #264 I said:

skeptigirl, I just want to say that, even if it's hard for you to believe, there are people in the Christian movement or who act in the name of the Christian movement that disturb and sicken many Christians every bit as much as other people. I think you have a strong tendancy to want to lump them all into one big pot of hate. There are bad people, and many of them high profile. Sure. But there are many many people who are just everyday people who are trying to live a good life, and believe in God. They really aren't out to hurt anyone. And they hate the extremists as much as anyone else.


ETA: For the record, looking into this a bit more and some of the videos, and sites, I am disgusted with what I see. I can't condemn it enough, or the people who follow these animals.

If you missed it because it was a late edit, my apologies. I can't condemn it enough. Inciting to violence, angry vicious rhetoric, acts of terror. None of it. I have zero tolerance for this. Even if I was still a Christian I would feel the same way. Because I was taught that this sort of thing was wrong (killing, terrorizing, etc).

I don't know what more you expect me to do. I threw off the religion yoke over 20 years ago. I only occasionally take up for them here because I feel that some people go a bit too far in demonizing them, and clearly have a perception of them that is very much diffrerent from my own reality. I know it's only anecdotal, believe what you want. I'm just throwing in my opinions and experiences for whatever little value they may be worth.

 

[Kopji]

Not to be contrary just to be contrary, (well yes, ok, this is probably true) but the idea that one person could/should sacrifice their life so that many others might live is not unique to a religious framework or mindset. We honor this sacrificial behavior in our secular history books and culture. We raise our children on myths that support and honor the small, helpless minority over the powerful, controlling, 'wrong' majority.

It seems unfair to slather Christianity with a broad brush of blood and guilt as if the roots of human morality had some special home there. I at least, will not give that much credit to religion. Why, given the right circumstances an Atheist is perfectly capable of acting out violently as an extremist. Sure, arguably not as single-minded and unable be deterred by reason as a faith-driven true believer, but secularists can make darn good extremists.

Violent extremists are fairly effective at finding support groups.

The Doctor underestimated the risk, or more likely knew the risk he faced and worked in spite of it. Killed while working unguarded in his church with his wife in the choir, I'm sorry... how quaintly naive.

Hero or villain, this tragedy seemed like a matter of time.

 

[Kopji]

Of course with conservative Christianity, you work with applause...