A Group Which Supports the Cold Blooded Murder of Abortion Doctors
Around 2010, a man named Scott Roeder came up behind Dr. George Tiller in Tiller's church and fatally shot him. Tiller was murdered for performing abortions which were and remain legal.
All the big anti abortion groups issued public statements criticizing the murder of Dr. Tiller. Yet, I heard interviews with anti abortion protesters who said in effect, "These doctors should fear for their lives." Today protesters carry signs warning doctors they may be harmed.
Under the radar, so to speak, are anti abortion zealots who organize to support murders of doctors who perform abortions. They are funded enough to have their own website where they sell their books about hate and the religion that goes with hate.
Our country has a history of such groups. It was within my lifetime black people were accused of such things as looking at a white woman and hung from trees. Those who did this were no different from today's advocates of murdering doctors. They used religion to justify their violent crimes.
Today we do not hear of black people hanged in sight of the entire communities. There certainly remain people with racial hatred. Perhaps the acceptance of black people by society at large holds back the impulse to the old style of violence.
About 1920 there was a nationwide fervor against drinking alcohol. It went on until the general public recognized alcohol consumption continued and the entire effort was useless.
History has shown that even if the Supreme Court finds new state restrictions on abortion to be legal the number of abortions will continue about as they are. It would not be surprising if a majority in those states which outlaw abortions will see abortions continue and, as with alcohol, they will see the laws against it as useless.
Hopefully, that will reduce the danger faced by doctors who perform abortions.
P.S. I am starting a new policy in the comment section. It involves indentification of posters. No longer will it be possible to use "unknown" or "anonymous." Posters will need to use a name and continue using the same name. You do not, of course, need to use your real name. Those who already use a name like "Matt" and "Ardy" should continue to use those identifications. Thank you for your cooperation in this change.
Jon
Interestingly, just last week there was an hour long show on Roeder.
ReplyDeletehelper "hour long show on Roeder."
ReplyDeleteI think it is the 10th anniversary of the murder so it is being talked about.
The people who support murder as a way to fight abortion are striking out in a way that damages the pro-life movement. Peaceful, non-violent confrontation with the evil of abortion is required in order to change minds and change laws.
ReplyDeleteJon, you seem to make a big deal about the fact that abortion was/is "legal". Even if something is legal, doesn't make it moral or even just. Sometimes, disobeying legal or unjust laws is required in order to convince people to change the law. The Civil Rights movement in America and the Indian Rights movement led by Gandhi are two such examples.
I have no idea now many people are funded and to what extent, if ANY extent, to murder abortionists. Neither do you, I assume. If you KNOW about any individual financing murder, please step forward a name or names. It is your civic duty. I haven't heard of an abortionist being murdered in recent history. It's been 10 years since George Tiller was murdered. Four years ago, a man ruled mentally incompetent to stand trial killed 3 people in Colorado. So, 2 gunmen in 10 years.
More people are murdered in Chicago in a few days than the abortionists who were murdered in 10 years nationwide! Apparently, the well-heeled backers of murder you claim exist (without any proof or names) don't really exist or aren't that well-heeled. Black murder rates in Chicago, like the rates in many major US cities, are out of control, and the perpetrators are mostly other Black people! That's not counting the planned abortion of Black babies a la Planned Parenthood. Murder is murder and hatred is hatred, even if the style is lynching.
For a man who proclaims that the abortion rate will stay the same even after it is outlawed, you should not care if new laws restricting abortion are enacted.
Matt "..disobeying legal and unjust laws is required in order to convince people to change the law."
DeleteI agree with that. I don't agree with your self righteous parallel of anti abortion zealots to racial civil rights, peace movements and Gandhi. Mostly those protests were aimed at government offices and officials. Most of the anti abortion activity is aimed individual women coming to clinics and lower level clinic employees. Pictures are taken and people they know are contacted. These are not political protests but simply bully tactics. The mob uses bully tactics.
As to comparing murders of abortion doctors to inner city murders, I'm not aware of inner city murders done in the name of a god.
To our regular poster listed as "unknown" please note my new policy. Posts listed only as "unknown" will not be seen. You will have to find a name to use. If you find that hard to do, you can try putting a fictitious name at the end of your post and we'll see now that works.
Deleteas far as I can determine, there is nothing to be done that would allow me to change my nom de plume. I am, in effect, a prisoner of the company system. mark anthony
DeleteJust use "Mark Anthony" at the end of every post. That should work.
DeleteJon while you were mayor of Fargo did the anti-abortion protestors use graphic images on their signs similar to those on the linked website? It’s hard to tell if the images are authentic. At any rate the phrase “anti-abortion porn” comes to mind. On the site I see bible verses from Genesis, Ezekiel, Psalms, Jeremiah, Hebrews, Luke, John, Ecclesiastes, Lamentations, Numbers, and Revelations. It never ceases to amaze me how one can cherry -pick a set of verses from this book of books to provide moral justification for any narrative you please however delightful or dark and nefarious. Equivocacy is its strength and its weakness.
ReplyDeleteArby B "mayor of Fargo did the anti-abortion protesters use graphic images on their signs.."
DeleteThey most certainly did. Geraldo Riveria did a "60 Minutes" piece showing all of them. A lot of the signs back then were misleading signs with pictures of actual babies that were depicted as fetuses. They blocked access to the parking lot and entry door, glued themselves to the door and other such childish antics.
Jon @ 7:30 AM; According to Wikipedia, the Christian terrorist organization referred to in the link is designed as “leaderless resistance”. “The organization forbids those who wish to "take action against baby killing abortionists" from discussing their plans with anyone in advance.” This fact by necessity points to the need for maximizing the privacy of women, especially those that choose to use medication to abort in the comfort of their own homes. Are they then considered the abortionist? The laws passed in some states by anti-abortion conservative legislators that warrant practices like tracking menstrual cycles, recklessly exposing medical and prescription records of their female citizens, etc. are trading in mortal danger to their adult women voters. Many women that chose to abort a pregnancy already have children. Why increase the risk of creating motherless children. It doesn’t make any damn sense.
DeleteArdy B "It doesn't make any damn sense."
DeleteJust how large is the step between killing a doctor who performs abortions to killing a woman who performs her own abortion in her home? Abortion is always "murder."
Perhaps anti abortion politics could help this danger at least a little bit by stopping references to abortion as "murder." But, they have talked themselves into a box by proclaiming one fertilized cell is a human being. Once they buy that there is no stopping the rest of the dangerous package.
Jon “they have talked themselves into a box by proclaiming one fertilized cell is a human being.” – “What I’m concerned with is how you develop. I know that you all think about it perpetually that you come from one single cell of a fertilized egg. I don’t want to get involved in religion but that is not a human being. I’ve spoken to these eggs many times and they make it quite clear … they are not a human being. ” — Lewis Wolpert, CBE FRS FRSL FMedSci. https://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2009/03/17/a-fertilized-egg-is-not-a-human-being/
DeleteArdy B The cell human being is indeed laughable.
Deletelaugh as you will, laugh the laughter of stupid people. of course, you can't talk to an embryo, it's just the initial stage in the life cycle of a human being, speech and a lot of other actualities come later. for that matter you can't carry on much of a conversation with a new born. or, sadly, with pro-abortion nuts. BTW is a 30 month baby just another fertilized cell? How much do you want to bet that old Jon won't post this one. just like he hasn't posted quite a number of my recent ones. wonder how Jon will explain (spin?) his reasons for his heavy handed censorship. could it be that the points were a tad too sharp for his liking? Mark Anthony
DeleteThe number of single cell human beings being aborted worldwide is zero and has been since creation.
DeleteMark/Matt--I don't know why it is so hard for you to understand a flat out fact. The flat out fact is that some legislators believe one fertilized cell is a human being to be protected by law. I've said this repeatedly but you refuse to believe the facts right in front of your face. It has nothing to do with when abortions happen or that they never happen at one cell. The facts are what make the anti abortion crusade laughable.
DeleteA fertilized human egg is the beginning of human life. It is a human being. Your twisted argument that we, Mark/Matt, can't understand this "flat out fact" is an issue you need to work out in your mind. First, if the rapidly growing being isn't human, then what is it? Second, if the rapidly growing being isn't alive, then why bother killing it? Simple logic deduces that the rapidly growing entity is a unique, living human being. He or she deserves protection from conception until natural death. So, I ask you, why do you find it so hard to understand a flat out fact?
DeleteMatt --"the rapidly growing being..."
DeleteI guess you ignored my post and did not read the link or did not understand it. The link is about people who regard the single fertilized egg as a human being before attaches and starts becoming more cells. About half of these die it says. This group wants a death certificate and funeral for a microscopic cell. If it's not a human being than what is it? IT'S A CELL ONE CAN ONLY SEE TROUGH A MICROSCOPE.
You are unable to understand the absurdity of this because you agree with the unstated reason for the one cell human being. It is about controlling women. A woman I knew years ago who was a national figure in abortion rights told me anti abortion is all about men who hate it that women enjoy sex. They want to control sex.
not true. utterly false. ideological BS. as to cells and microscopes, you can't see it with the naked eye. that has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of it. as to protestant beliefs re the beginning of life, you better do a little research. your assertion here like many of your assertions is altogether to sweeping. mark anthony
DeleteJon “They want to control sex.” The whole anti-abortion agenda is about hijacking uteri, forced motherhood, and re-establishing traditional gender roles all dressed up in the guise of a right-to-life mission from god. “Protestant women account for almost 40% of abortions in the U.S. Add in Catholics and you’ve accounted for nearly 70% of all abortions in the U.S.”(1) No woman needs to birth a child unless she chooses to. She has a right to contraception. She has a right to terminate a pregnancy. It’s the law. By analogy if you believe a fertilized goose egg is a gosling no amount of science to the contrary matters. You need politics to legislate personhood to a zygote. That’s at best second degree personhood.
Delete(1) https://livinglifewithoutanet.wordpress.com/2011/07/06/abortion-its-not-really-about-murder/
maybe you could find a community evening course in logic: with a little bit of bloomin' luck you might learn how to think strait. if a fertilized goose egg is not a goose then what is it? a frog? gosling is just a term to describe a hatched goose, it is not what we would call a substantive term. that said, I'm sure that you don't have the foggiest idea re what I am saying. if you did you might knock off the ideological drivel. mark anthony
Deletemark anthony "if a fertilized goose egg is not a goose then what is it?"
DeleteI looked it up. I suggest you look it up. It is always called a goose embryo, never called a goose. In humans the term is fetus.
Mark Anthony “maybe you could find a community evening course in logic” What is argumentum ad hominem? Drivel.
DeleteMark Anthony--Got to thinking about the goose embryo. There is a way it could be renamed "gosling" or "baby goose." That would be to have clergy declare these latter are the names of what was previously called "goose embryo." Here is the statement from clergy, "Henceforth, any fertilized reproductive cell of the female goose shall be referred to as 'gosling' or 'baby goose.' We will start immediately legal maneuvers that will confer on these baby geese all the rights now given adult geese. Further more, any member of our faith who still considers them 'goose embryos' will no longer receive communion."
Deletestupid response. a goose embryo is a goose, not a frog. as I said earlier you don't have the slightest comprehension of the position set out by Matt and I. loosely speaking you and your friend Arby are philosophical nominalists. which is to say that you have no notion of an intrinsic substance that perdures through time and space. for you a human fetus is not a human being, it is just a name tacked on to something "out there". no substantial continuity. kinda like old Heraclitus and "never stepping into the same river twice". tried to explain that once to old Arby. apparently he didn't get the point. BTW, somebody here said that Protestants believe that one becomes a human being at birth. wrong! both Luther and Calvin, like Christianity generally, disapproved of abortion. look it up. mark anthony
DeleteMark Anthony "wrong! both Luther and Calvin, like Christianity generally, disapproved of abortion. look it up."
DeleteI have looked it up, in the Bible. No where in the Bible is abortion disapproved of. Find a passage that condemns it. You are not allowed to use the phrase, "What this means..." because that becomes subjective.
mark anthony "maybe you could find a community college with a night course in logic.."
ReplyDeleteThis game you play here about logic and philosophy is the same game Matt used to play about "science." He used to say "science" proves the fetus is a human being. I pointed out to him there is not one, not one, article or book in a established and refereed journal or science publishing house which concludes the fetus is a human being.
You are trying the same trick here. If you are going to persist I must demand of you the same. It's a little different in logic/philosophy. In this case, you must provide us with evidence the majority of articles about abortion/the establishment of a human being begins at conception. Without this you cannot claim that by studying logic or philosophy one will conclude the fetus is a human being.
I saw the other day liberals in the humanities outnumber conservatives by about 10 to 1. This makes be even more skeptical the study of logic and philosophy leads to the conclusion the fetus is a human being.
Just to note the rules on this. Unless you come up with evidence a majority of professors or publications in the fields of logic and philosophy find the fetus is a human being I will not allow posts making the claim these fields lead to that conclusion.
truth by majority opinion. interesting notion. there is the old saying: fifty million Frenchmen can be wrong. of course, there are many profs that would deny the humanity of the fetus. unfortunately there hold the same metaphysical views that you do. tragic. mark anthony
ReplyDeleteJon, since there are more Christians than atheists in the US/world does this prove that atheism is false and Christianity true. that would seem to follow if one were to follow your logic. and back to a previous post: you asserted that Protestants believe that human life begins at birth. Just for the record Luther and Calvin disapproved of abortion. then you countered with the usual line: it ain't in the Bible. you sure do like non-sequiturs don't you? mark anthony
ReplyDeletemark anthony "you asserted Protestants believe human life begins at birth..."
ReplyDeleteThis comes from my own parents and my wife's who were Protestants and believed in abortion rights. So did all their circle of friends. At the time there was a huge magazine, "Christianity Today" that came often with just joining a Protestant church. In 1968 there was a special edition devoted to just birth control and abortion. Prof. Bruce Waltte of the conservative Dallas Theological Seminar wrote a article explaining the Bible plainly teaches human life begins at birth. "God does not regard the fetus as a soul." He went on to site Exodus 21:22-24 which says it is not a capitol offense to kill a fetus.
Of course there were those who disagreed. And, yes, I wrote that no where in the Bible is abortion condemned. I will keep writing that for one reason: It is true.
would seem that some of the evangelicals "wised up" somewhere along the way. might say that they recovered from the silly 60s. mark anthony
Delete