Home › Blogs › Jai Ho Tied's blog ›

Terrorism Kills One In Kansas, Many Extremist Social Conservatives Celebrate

Submitted by Jai Ho Tied on Sun, 05/31/2009 - 23:32
in

An act of terrorism in Wichita, Kansas has lead to the murder of Dr. George Tiller. A suspect has been apprehended. Tiller has been a target of anti-abortion rights extremists for being a rare doctor who performs late term abortion in cases where the mother’s life is threatened. Besides obviously taking an extremist to commit murder, it is also an extremist view to deny a woman an abortion when needed to save her life.  Such late term abortions, despite all the noise made by the right, are very rare and few doctors perform the procedure.

In addition to the current act of terrorism, Tiller’s clinic has been bombed in the past and he was shot in both arms in 1993.

Before we speak of a war on terror abroad we need to be more concerned with right wing terrorism in this country. Ironically many who support the misguided Bush administration’s war on terror are also responsible for inciting domestic terrorism, such as Bill O’Reilly.

Many on the right share in the extremism of the terrorist who shot Tiller and many are even applauding his action.  In case their comments should be taken down, Balloon Juice has archived them.  Christian News Wire issued a release saying, “Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue states, ‘George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God.’" The Next Right diarist DebraJMSmith writes, "I do not feel sorry for a family who loved a murderer. And I sure do NOT feel sorry for a church that had no problem allowing a murderer to attend."  Other conservatives do realize that “Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing.”

 

3.22222
Your rating: None Average: 3.2 (9 votes)

Comments

You say again that it is a lie to say "there were no WMDs"

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 14:15.

You say again that it is a lie to say "there were no WMDs". But there WERE no WMDs. So, to say "there were no WMDs" is to tell the truth. Which you call a lie.

So for you, telling the truth = lie in cases where that truth is not appealling to you.

And, BTW: the Bush Administration did the American people and Congress 50+ reasons for invading Iraq. It gave two: WMDs, and the link between Saddam and 9/11. Both of which turned out to be lies.

Logic 101

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 15:42.

The statement "there are no unicorns" cannot be logically proven true.  Ever.  We can scour heaven and earth looking for unicorns, but there is always one more place that we could have looked.  Nor can it be logically proven true to say "there were no unicorns", because it may be the case that there were unicorns at one time but they went extinct.  The most truthful statement that we can make on unicorns is that "there have not yet been any unicorns discovered".  This does not preclude the possibility that a unicorn may be discovered tomorrow, or that unicorns once roamed the earth in times past.

So Nando, as a matter of logic, you are simply wrong if you claim the statement "there were no WMDs" is a matter of absolute truth.  This isn't partisanship, it is logic.  The fact that coalition forces did not find significant WMDs does not exclude the possibility that (a) they have not yet been found, or that (b) they were present but destroyed immediately before the invasion.

Good lord - even W admits there w

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 16:00.

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t

President George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, August 22, 2006.

NextRightNannie's deep in the back pedaling

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 16:06.

you can back pedal all day long and it will still remain the simple, unavodiable truth, NextRightNannie... you think the claim that there were no WMDs in Iraq is the same as repeating the Great Liberal Lie that we invaded Iraq only because of the presence --certifiable with sealed documents in triplicate-- of WMDs.

It's the great liberal lie and you keep it going like some new version of an Energizer Bunny on speed.

You're wrong... again.

Me and W - now there's a combo I don't often cite.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 16:15.

 

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t

President George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, August 22, 2006.

 

logic

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 16:58.

Did you even read what I wrote?

Yes, and just because you want to resort to semantics doesn't

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 17:06.

mean I have to follow you down that blind alley when President Bush himself admits that there were no WMD.

BTW: as a resident of the reality-based community, I am also perfectly happy making the statement "there are no unicorns". Tacky porcelin objects and suchlike do not count.

nando and logic

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 17:18.

You don't want to follow me when I make a true statement?

So Nando, as a matter of logic, you are simply wrong if you claim the statement "there were no WMDs" is a matter of absolute truth.

If you think I'm wrong, tell me why you think I'm wrong.  If I'm right, you could at least have the decency to admit as much.

Why do you feel the need to try to "win" rather than simply engage in an exploration of a topic?

oh I get it now

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 17:24.

Oh I get it now.  You don't want to be seen "losing" to a conservative, on any level.  That would be just too humiliating. 

Sorry but why would I bother to debate unicorns?

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 18:15.

Sorry but why would I bother to debate with you whether or not unicorns can be said to exist?

It is pointless.

However, there is a more important issue at hand - is it a lie to say there weren't any WMD?

Well, no WMD were found, and George W. Bush himself said their weren't any WMD in the August 2006 White House Press Conference.

So, the TRUTH is that there were no WMD, and therefore it is NOT a lie to say that there weren't any WMD.

But you go on, don't let me stop you.

you can't do it

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 18:37.

You can't do it.  You can't bring yourself to say I was right about anything.

Here's a hint: The unicorns were just an analogy.  I don't really care if unicorns exist either.

So, the TRUTH is that there were no WMD

The statement "there were no WMD" is not a logically provable statement.  I don't care if George W. Bush, the Dalai Lama, and Jesus himself uttered the words.  It cannot be logically proven.  And I showed why.  I repeat: if my reasoning is wrong, show how it is wrong, not by appealing to authority but by logic.  But if I am right, do have the decency to admit it, won't you?

chemjeff, you are correct.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 18:59.

chemjeff, you are correct. From the point of view that you are adopting, "there were no WMD" and "there are no unicorns" are, indeed, not logically provable statements.

I hope this makes you happy.

May I continue?

The point of view that you are adopting is esoteric and unimportant.

In the real world, people have no problems understanding what is meant when Bush himself says there were no WMD, and when I say there are no unicorns.

 

proofs and assumptions.

Submitted by chemjeff on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 22:07.

See, now that wasn't so hard, was it?

The real question isn't whether it makes me happy, but whether it makes you happy.

The point of view that you are adopting is esoteric and unimportant.

No, not really.  And that's my point.  If it cannot be proven that "there were no WMDs", then it is neither a lie, nor a statement of truth, to claim that there may have been WMDs.  It is merely an opinion which may or may not be true.

Now, it is a statement of truth that Saddam did at one point have WMDs, because of the physical evidence of their use.  It is also a statement of truth that he was ordered to destroy his WMDs as a result of the first Gulf War.  It is furthermore a statement of truth that later, most of the world leaders still believed he had WMDs, even well before 2003, because of the public statements made by world leaders from Clinton on down and from intelligence services from foreign nations, not just our own.  Of course we don't really know if he had WMDs, but people thought he did.  It's also a statement of fact that post-invasion, we didn't find the large cache of WMDs that we were expecting to find.

Let us assume that, in the 2002-03 timespan, Saddam did have WMDs.  So when Bush made the case for war in 2002-03, in part on the basis that Saddam had WMDs, he was, broadly speaking, telling the truth.  Therefore, because we didn't find the WMDs, it must mean that they were either (a) destroyed or (b) hidden beyond our grasp, perhaps transferred to another country.  If this is the case, then I think the most likely place that they ended up is either Syria or Russia.

But, let us assume that, in the 2002-03 timespan, Saddam didn't have WMDs.  Most of the world, however, still labored under the belief that he did.  So when Bush made the case for war in 2002-03, in part on the basis that Saddam had WMDs, was he lying?  It is a lie only if he knew for certain that Saddam didn't have WMDs but claimed he did anyway.  This is possible, but unlikely, given the results of the Senate investigation into the matter.  But, if Bush made the case for war in 2002-03 based on a sincere belief that Saddam did have WMDs, even though that belief later turned out to be wrong, it's not a lie by definition.  Call it what you will - an error in judgment, perhaps - but it's not an act of deception implied in the word "lie".

So, to claim that "BUSH LIED" about WMDs, you must first show that Saddam definitively did not have WMDs in the 2002-03 time span.  And this goes back to my original point: you cannot logically prove that the statement "there were no WMDs" is true.  So, that's going to be a pretty tough burden for you to prove.  Furthermore, even if you do prove that, you'll have to show that Bush knew this definitively and told a different story anyway.  This may be easier to prove, but IMO not by much.

So, good luck with that.

See?  It's all logic.  It's not partisanship or defending Bush or defending the Iraq war or any of that.

You've missed the whole point.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Wed, 06/03/2009 - 08:16.

And this goes back to my original point: you cannot logically prove that the statement "there were no WMDs" is true.  So, that's going to be a pretty tough burden for you to prove.  Furthermore, even if you do prove that, you'll have to show that Bush knew this definitively and told a different story anyway.  This may be easier to prove, but IMO not by much.

But of course you have missed the whole point. We are not disucssing whether Bush lied. Go back and read the previous comments - it doesn't appear. We are discussing MM's ridiculous assertion that it is a liberal lie to say there were no WMDs.

Maybe if you are going to play the role of self-appointed policeman, you should pay more attention and not just assume it is the "libeal interloper" that is in the wrong.

The word games that you display above may seem like a good idea in your faculty lounge. However, in the real word, people recognize that "there were no WMDs" is a statement of truth, even if you can diagram it elsewise on your chalk board.

Now, look, I didn’t—part of the reason we went into Iraq was—the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn’t - President George W. Bush, White House Press Conference, August 22, 2006.

The classic "statement against interest" - those of us in the reality based community have no trouble understanding it.

right wing terrorism

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:48.

 

The question is whether the broader conservative movement should consider themselves part of the terrorism problem.

 

It isn't, and the fact that you even ask the question is deeply insulting to me, and, I believe, an attempt to cast dark aspersions on an entire group.  Maybe you don't point the finger at me directly, but you want it known that someone who holds strong pro-life views should be regarded as 'dangerous'.

We can all accept that the murderer...

Submitted by Stephen Gordon on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:41.

...is a wackjob.  However, comments like these paint with a much broader brush.

I, for one, don't wish to be lumped in with people saying gloating over a murder.

don't worry, sane liberals won't be conflating you

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 10:44.

with them. ;-) just remember to pass the popcorn, ya?

Re. 'Oh the irony' by chemjeff

Submitted by Chris S on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:11.

He attempts to insinuate that this terrible crime, truly the work of a nutjob, has some broader base of support.  And it's not just support among the extremists that is alleged, but "extremist social conservatives".  The shooter may have been mentally ill, he may have had a personal (rather than ideological) reason to commit the crime, heck it might not have been motivated by abortion politics at all.  But no, JHT is already convinced: social conservatives are to blame.

I don’t think he ever said that.

It is clear, however, that some pro-life advocates are willing to step outside the law and that natural mechanism of social change that exist in a democracy in order to stop abortion right now.

It’s like assassinating a head of state, a president, because you don’t like their politics.  This is an attack on all of us, our type of government, i.e., a limited constitutional representative republic. 

However, I do think this is rare.  Even Randall Terry’s public position, while personally, to me, is crazy and insane, is still, I think,  “legal” speech (however, I’m not a lawyer, so I could be wrong about this):

“”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. “Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”

In any case, whether or not Mr. Terry crossed a legal line here, I have to agree that there was an implication in the post that “Right wing” = “conservatism” and that mainstream conservatism tacitly support this type of behavior, or at least doesn’t care very much because, in their minds,  “the guy got what’s coming to him.” 

If these were significant mainstream attitudes, we’d be seeing much, Much, MUCH worse social violence than these occasional headline events.  We live in a peaceful society because there are legal and effective mechanisms to allow social change, and the vast majority on both the right and left hold civil liberties, the bills of right, as the highest of values despite what they might say in a heated argument.

There’s plenty of so-called “left-wing” terrorist, e.g.,, “Earth First,” but I don’t believe there’s any sort of broad support, tacit or otherwise, for them from the main stream left.

I think it’s very clear to keep means and ends separate. 

Most Democrats support global warming initiative and they “care” for the earth. So does “Earth First,” but EF is willing to break the rules. Unless one is prepare to say the the left-wing generally supports “breaking the rules” of civil society to achieve their ends, calling EF a “left-wing” group is really kind of smear against the left-wing, an unfair insinuation against some abstract group to which we can then use as a brickbat against some particular individual who we of as a “member” of that group.  That’s clearly unfair.

Same with pro-life terrorists: that’s what they are, and, in the only important way, that’s all they are.

Sure, they, like most conservatives,  don’t like abortion, but they part company with mainstream conservatives because pro-life terrorists are willing to “break the rules.”

Again, that’s a very important, in fact, it’s the only critical distinction to have in mind.

On the hand, it makes sense to categorize these extremist groups as either right or left wing, but is that really the best category?  The better distinction to make is that there are groups and individuals that operate w/in the bounds of civil society (i.e., the Law) and there are those that don’t. 

Those latter groups are and always have been a huge danger to us all -- it doesn’t matter if some of their values overlap with ours. It doesn’t matter because they have placed themselves outside the bounds of civil society, they should be chased through the swap, hunted down with shotguns and bloodhound until they’re found, caught or killed, and I’m sure the mainstream left and right, despite their differences, agree on that.

I think calling pre-fixing “right-wing” and “left-wing” onto the word terrorists is a very bad habit we’ve all gotten into. 

In the end, there’s no difference between these two categories of groups. There is, however, a huge difference between “them” and “us.”

I totally agree...

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:18.

and yet the law enforcement people really do need to know which groups to go monitor... (please, stop monitoring the Quakers! they're PACIFISTS!)

In news reports and stuff, we just ought to say "domestic terrorists"

If you write a letter to be sent to ABC and the other news stations, i'll be glad to sign on.

n/t

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:27.

n/t

P.S. from my rambling post, I

Submitted by Chris S on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:16.

P.S. from my rambling post, I don’t want to leave the impression that JHT deliberately, pre-meditatively, consciously and willfully decided “yeah, I gonna use this incident to smear conservatives.”

My point is that when talking about these terrorists groups, by simply grouping them “right-wing” or “left-wing” categories, the “smear” automatically happens, unless one is very clear to avoid making the smear, and then to do that, you almost have to drop those labels.

labels

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:28.

It isn’t necessary to drop these labels to avoid the smear. I have no problem with people attacking left wing terrorists. I feel no affinity towards them and in no way feel insulted by attacks on left wing terrorists. I find it quite curious that mainstream conservatives have a problem with attacks on right wing terrorists–and even worse that many in the conservative blogosphere are showing sympathy for this act of terrorism.

Rather than avoiding the labels I thought the best way to make it clear that this did not represent the view of all conservatives was simply to link to a conservative who dissented, which I did at the end of the post. Even without this it shouldn’t be difficult to differentiate right wingers who support terrorism from right wingers who do not support terrorism.

  I thought the best way to

Submitted by Chris S on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:46.

 

I thought the best way to make it clear that this did not represent the view of all conservatives was simply to link to a conservative who dissented, which I did at the end of the post.

You certainty did do that. But it raises the question: why did you feel a need to do that?  To offset something? 

Then the question becomes -- why is it necessary to use those labels with this issue?

Yes, it’s so natual and easy to make a distincition along that dimension. You’d almost have to ask an expert on human reasoning why we do this.

I suspect the reason is this. Let’s say that I don’t “believe” in abortion (but I’m not willing to say it fits a legal definition of murder, though it is obviously killing something). Let’s say that you want to rally want to protect the planet because the current environmental problems are so bad. You’re not willing to break the rules, but you feel this is a crisis.  Just for an example, let’s just say that’s our respective positions.

Now, on some level, it seems a matter of common sense that there’s more of a chance  that I could wake up tomorrow with a change of heart and decide to align myself with these “right-wing” terrorists then there is for you to wake up tomorrow with a change of heart and decide to align yourself  with these “right-wing” terrorists.  Why does seem like there’s more of chance for me to do that than for you?  Because there’s more of an overlap of certain values. 

I can say the same about you, about there being more of chance that you’ll walk up tomorrow and decide to align yourself with a left-wing terrorist cause then there is for me to walk up tomorrow and align myself with the same cause.

OK -- fair enough, and if we could really objectively quantify such probabilities, we might find there really is a quantifiable difference.

But -- what are the chances really?  Small, very small?  If I said, ‘well, JHT, there is a “small” chance” you could become a member of Earth First tomorrow because  you share some of their values’, would you be offended?  What if I said, ‘ok, not a “small” chance, but a “very Very VERY small chance,’ would you feel better? No, you won’t. You would say there’s NO chance of that happening. None. Zip.

Again, it’s a question about making the right distinction. If the really probably of you joining EF is .1 to the 100th power (a super small chance) while the probably of me joining EF is .001 to the 100th power (and even smaller super small chance), is there REALLY some meaning difference between us?  Both numbers are vanishing close to zero.  Is this a difference I should really worry about?   That’s ridiculus, right?

This seems to be the only common sense basis for categorizing terrorist groups as left or right wing, because there’s some non-zero chance that members of a particular wing could be drawning into the ranks of such a group. And the chance IS no-zero and the chance is greater for a right-winger to join a right wing terrorist  group then for the right-winger to join a left-wing terrorist group. True enough.

But look at the absolute values and the difference between those values?  They’re vanishing close to zero.  That being the case, what’s the real point of using these labels?  I think they’re a distraction, they bring up a non-issue, and all that happens is you get a comment like you did from Mcihigan-Matt and Chemjeff.

The labels are meaningful

Submitted by JHT on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 13:36.

Then the question becomes -- why is it necessary to use those labels with this issue?

The labels are meaningful. There are right wing groups and there are left wing groups which support terrorism. This is why the two reports from Homeland Security (written by a Bush appointee) on the issue separate them out.  Each does draw from some of the more extreme elements from left or right (which does not mean that everyone on the extreme left or right either supports terrorism is prone to being recruited by them).

Nobody is saying that that everyone on the left is a terrorist because there are left wing terrorists or that everyone on the right is a terrorist because there are right wing terrorists. Examination of right wing terrorism is especially pertinent as this has been far more prominent than left wing terrorism in recent years.

The fact that I get responses like those from Matt and chemjeff is meaningless. I get a many comments from right wingers which distort what is written regardless of the topic. I also sometimes get similar comments from the far left, and I’m sure that conservative bloggers receive far more of them. There are lots of nuts floating around the blogosphere or residing here at NR and I’m not terribly concerned with their objections.

Don't spent too much time...

Submitted by jesdynf on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:55.

(Oh, phooey. Meant to reply to JHT.)

On Michigan-Matt. Right now he's my top pick for a false-flag troll. None of the other possibles are hitting all the right notes.

who exactly would be interested in trolling

Submitted by Knackers on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 11:59.

.. for moderation? That, despite his impertinence and general impudence, is his nominal position.

Liberals just come here to watch the fighting, and occasionally weigh in.

OMG! Figure he's a Paulite?

Not a false-flag troll, jesdynf... maybe you should stick to

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 12:05.

game boards and simulations about living... because when it comes to politics, you are all out of intelligent contributions to make in any discussion.

Quick, there's a new release coming on Ace Combat 7... the world needs your cheat sheet and crib notes.  Mom's done washing your pj's... isn't it time for you to head to the basement and all that fab computing work?  Or is today your day to play-act Dungeons and Dragons with the knarly 3rd graders from the local grade school?

Terrorism Kills One In Kansas

Submitted by joe_is_in_the_r... on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 12:00.

It's a shame that someone felt they had the right to take aother persons' life.Who thinks that way?When do you gain the right to kill another human being? Where does that sense of entitlement come from?Why?

Terrorism took more than the victim and the killer today.  He killed my country, just a little bit.    

Lawless violence, lawful violence & error of utilitarianism

Submitted by Freedoms Truth on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 14:07.

NextRightNando linked to a FreeRepublic thread ... but the article linked to had this to say, an article by Robert George that was posted on Nation Review online:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished.

This is 100% the correct way to look at this situation.  99.99% of those who find abortion immoral find the killing of an abortion doctor immoral.

There is a simple reason why: The ends dont justify the means. If life has inherent value, then killing is wrong, end of story. The 'seamless garment' phrase is used by some to say that we believe in preciousness of all life, from beginning to end. The wrongness of it trumps the utilitarian argument that says taking a life is justified for some other good.  The pro-life creed reject applying utilitarianism to pre-born life -  the idea that you can kill a preborn human, if you have a good enough reason. Do the ends justify the means? So it is with life overall.

There are exceptions, that might include the rare lawful execution of a criminal via process of law. Some will speak of hypotheticals like Osama Bin Laden or Hitler (ie would you kill them or condemn their killers?)  but those men are outside our civil society. As such, we might contemplate a 'just war' reason to kill Osama, but Tiller is a member of our society, who, if not convicted of any crime, had rights to live peacable and unmolested, even by those who found his abortions detestable.

More comparable might be: If you met OJ Simpson in an elevator, just had a new handgun you got at a store, and knew OJ to be guilty (but scot-free) killer of Nicole Simpson, would you take the law into your own hands? What about, say, the local Tony Soprano who was dumping bodies in the local creek and getting away with it? "A Time to Kill" or Charles Bronson type vigilante-ism. ... or more comparable, a warped type of terrorism akin to the Black Panthers and Bill Ayers-types of the 1960s. Domestic terrorism of a 'pig' for a cause.  Justified? Certainly not. In all the above cases, the right way is work within the law.

We have an unfortunate situation where our courts have trumped the ability of the people to protect pre-born human beings, with heartbeats, brain function, and fully functioning bodies and minds in the womb; they are not protected in law against procedures which kill them. This roadblock has created a frustratring situation for the prolife movement who for the most part have the patience of Job in dealing with unfair and unjust court rulings that have consigned the unborn to mistreatment. They plod along making minor yet critical changes - parental consent, informed consent, caring for pregnant mothers, sharing/promoting alternatives like adoption, making abortionists live up to the medical standards of real medical care.

The failure to decide this democratically has also created in some cases violent extremists, who see that working within the law and system doesnt 'work' to fix the problem and so go outside the law. They take up the false creed of the 'ends justify the means'.

The offensive statement; "The question is whether the broader conservative movement should consider themselves part of the terrorism problem."  Should be rephrased: "The question is whether people who take up 'the ends justify the means' as their guide to political action should consider themselves part of the problem."

We should perhaps put utilitarianism on trial. Do we not always end up, in the end, underming our goals by violating a moral code in order to advance it? ...

  • This may include those who justify waterboarding terrorists 'if it works'
  • This may include judicial supremacists who justify bending the constitution in order to win their political battles, even using absurd oxymoronic constructs like 'substantive due process'
  • This certainly includes those who kill to advance human rights for the unborn
  • This includes Bill Ayers and his 60s pals who bombed the Pentagon etc.
  • "We had to destroy this village in order to save it" - said in Vietnam, and done in more wars than one; is not the killer of Tiller engaging in the logic used in war, and condeming him is condeming the 'logic' of war as well? The response to this might be that we need to treat civil society and those outside it as different.

The killer may have been many things, but the ONE THING that led him to kill was an understanding that his actions would "work" only if he breaks a moral code. A true pro-lifer would not break that moral code to advance his goals, because its wrong.

And in the end, it is self-defeating:

If these were significant mainstream attitudes, we’d be seeing much, Much, MUCH worse social violence than these occasional headline events.  We live in a peaceful society because there are legal and effective mechanisms to allow social change, and the vast majority on both the right and left hold civil liberties, the bills of right, as the highest of values despite what they might say in a heated argument.

This is a good point. Slavery was an evil, and it might have persisted longer without the civil war... but who wouldnt avoid the civil war and its 1 million dead if we could? I'm sure most all would prefer a different way if we could. Who would prefer govt by bullet over our current govt by ballots? Few to none I hope.  Our civil society limits our ability to stop certain ills, but the ill of political violence is thereby taken away, and given the 100million killed by nazis and communists in 20th century, that's no small accomplishment.

So we need to condemn this lawless violence 100%. we also need to remind ourselves of the error of utilitarianism and 'end-justify-means' thinking, and work to reduce the *lawful* violence of rampant abortion that continues to dehumanize our society and raises the ongoing specter of cycles of violence.

 

agreed

Submitted by chemjeff on Mon, 06/01/2009 - 15:48.

Thank you Freedoms Truth, I agree with you 100%.  You wrote this much more eloquently and dispassionately than I could have.

Comments about Debra JM Smith

Submitted by GordonWayneWatts on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 08:36.

Your blog quotes another blog as follows:

'The Next Right diarist DebraJMSmith writes, "I do not feel sorry for a family who loved a murderer. And I sure do NOT feel sorry for a church that had no problem allowing a murderer to attend."  '

I personally know Debra and know her to be respectful, but as a matter of absolute truth (absolute truth does exist, even if we ignore it), you should realize that GOD says the late abortionist is a murder, so Debra's feelings are justified. Observe:

41And it came to pass, that, when Elisabeth heard the salutation of Mary, the babe leaped in her womb; and Elisabeth was filled with the Holy Ghost:--LUKE 1:41, Holy Bible, KJV 

44For, lo, as soon as the voice of thy salutation sounded in mine ears, the babe leaped in my womb for joy.--LUKE 1:41, Holy Bible, KJV

 

 Note: It said BABE, not "blob of tissue." Thus: I understand the concern of people who are upset by Debra's comment. Jesus and I both hate people being hurt and dying -yes, even 'bad', people like this murdering abortionist-however this dude committed a crime, and, legally, what the other guy did, was self-defense or defense of another in God's court.

While I do not support the killing of the abortionist, his passing certainly has saved lots of lives -young children who live in wombs.

Conclusion: It is God's business to execute vengeance, not mine, but this does not any more make the abortionist's actions right than calling a slave a non-person. In both cases (baby inside a womb and Black slave), the person in question *is* a person -even in spite of people trying to define the words differently.

Fortunately we make laws based on reason, not theology.

Submitted by NextRightNando on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 09:18.

Fortunately we make laws based on reason, not theology, so what you are talking here is pile of crap.

While I do not support the killing of the abortionist, his passing certainly has saved lots of lives -young children who live in wombs.

Tiller's specialty was late-term abortions, permitted under Kansas law in only two circumstances.  The first exception allows for the procedure to save the life of the mother. The second allows a late term abortion if continuation of the pregnancy would result in a "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" of the pregnant woman.

So, what you are celebrating is that more women are going to be killed or harmed in the future becasue they cannot get the competant medical treatment that they need for their exceptional circumstances.

One of the procedures that Tiller practiced was the removal of dead fetuses - cases where there was no fetal heartbeat. Your dogma requires that they be brought to term and then still-born - health of the mother be damned.

Oh yes, you love those little fetuses - but why do you hate the women who carry them so much?

correction to NextRightNando

Submitted by GordonWayneWatts on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:29.

NextRightNando writes: ""Fortunately we make laws based on reason, not theology, so what you are talking here is pile of crap.""

I knew someone would not trust the Bible. So, how about this?

By the biological definition of life (you can look it up in an medical dictionary), the unborn children are alive. Also, as a legal matter, when a person causes the death of a pregnant's womant's child, a lot of times it is treated legally as manslaughter. Finally, as a practical matter, the pregnant woman is called the "mother" -why?

So, by legal, scientific (biological) and common sense practical definitions, the "Biblical" definition you hate, is supported. All four definitions say the same thing: The baby is alive. Do you think?

NextRightNando writes: ""So, what you are celebrating is that more women are going to be killed or harmed in the future becasue they cannot get the competant medical treatment that they need for their exceptional circumstances.""

No one is forcing these women to get pregnant -not in most cases anyhow. It's on them, not the doctor.

NextRightNando writes: ""- but why do you hate the women who carry them so much?""

You put words into my mouth that I didn't say -and then you believe those lies. I never said I hated any women. I fact, I know that some abortions (ectopic pregnancy, for example) ARe necessary to save the life of the mother -self-defense, as her life's in danger by a chgild in her falopian tube.

Lastly, a Christian friend implied that I didn't love the guy who got killed. Fasle - My Christian beliefs are as follows:

I am not elated or overjoyed  at all over this abortionist's death - let me be clear:Ezekiel 18:23 Have I any pleasure at all that the wicked should die? saith the Lord GOD: and not that he should return from his ways, and live?Ezekiel 18:32 For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dieth, saith the Lord GOD: wherefore turn yourselves, and live ye.Ezekiel 33:11 Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel?    ** Here, God Himself is SAD that a sinner dies ... So am I. Furthermore, I agree with Jesus on this point: Matthew 5:44 - But I [JESUS] say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; However, let's just put it this way: I know this dude's not gonna kill any more babies in their mom's wombs any time soon. And, like Debra, for THAT, I'm VERY glad. Plus, with all due respect for the dead -I ALSO agree with her that this dude asked for it.

 

It's the illogic of the Left catching up with them...

Submitted by Michigan-Matt on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 11:58.

GWW offers:

Also, as a legal matter, when a person causes the death of a pregnant's womant's child, a lot of times it is treated legally as manslaughter.

Exactly true in liberal and conservative venues across the US --with liberal prosecutors and conservative ones.  When viablity is now established professionally to be about 22 weeks and certainly by 27 weeks, late term abortions are manslaughter.  Done by the doctor and nurses, decided upon by the mother.  Allowed by the courts.

It's still wrong and morally repugnant to all who value human life.  But what can we expect when the other side spends more time grieving over a beached whale or lost baby seal than they do a viable, living, functioning human being in the womb?

The vast majority of late term abortions are elective procedures done for non-medical reasons without a risk to the mother/infant but a great risk to enriching the doctors' bank account.  It's equally criminal but it doesn't warrant unlawful actions... it warrants enforcemenet and prosecution on all levels.

 

Did murdering Tiller save lives?

Submitted by JHT on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 09:15.

Did murdering Tiller save lives? The types of abortions he performed were in cases where the mother typically wanted the baby but something had gone wrong with the pregnancy. In these cases the mother’s life was in danger by the continuation of the pregnancy and the survival of the fetus after birth was doubtful. As there are very few doctors who do such later term abortions, his murder could wind up costing more lives.

Re: G.W. Watts

Submitted by Mike Poole on Tue, 06/02/2009 - 10:42.

Gordon -- I personally accept Bible scriptures as fact.  But what happens as a fact in one case isn’t necessarily true in all cases. Balaam’s donkey talked to him on one occasion. I truly believe that occurred but I don’t believe all donkeys talk. Hey, I know this is off the subject, but I just read in Exodus 30:15 New King James Version: “The rich shall give no more and the poor shall give no less than half a shekel…”   You have your tithe based on your increase then you have your flat tax.  I wonder what the dollar amount of tax people would vote for if all voters had to pay that amount.