The Killing of George Tiller: A "Pro-life" Murder?

There is such a thing as absolute truths We would all agree that slavery is a gross human abuse and that no one has the right to own another human being as a possession.Abortion like slavery treats a member of the human family like a disposable possession. We also know that the end does not justify any means and hence although I am ardently pro life I could never use violence to harm someone who did not share my views.I must continue to pray and write in defence of life just as those who knew slavery was wrong had to continue their efforts to inform people on this issue. Ultimately I have faith in people's inherent decency and believe that they will begin to vote in pro life politicians because abortion is never a choice It is always a death sentence for the baby and a life sentence for the poor soul who has one.

all these qualilfied if only statements about how Dr. Tiller deserved to die because he was killing unborns. such vicious hypocritical statements. Dr. Tiller had a right to believe what he believed just as you believe as you pro lifers do. there is no justification for such vile actions that refuse to accept differences of opinion.

sowing seeds of hatred and death for non believers is what you have succeeded in doing. and protestations to the contrary are just cover for the deeds prolifers have encouraged in the "weak of mind" which will be the excuse used for any killer who does your "christian work."

you choose to dismiss any other belief. such puritanical and fanatical, and deadly views will lead to violence as "one of your kind" has followed through with Dr. Tiller.

you pro lifers believe everyone else must follow your religious beliefs.
you are so dangerous to think that. if i wanted to live in a fundie state i would vote Republican or move to Iran.

killing Dr. Tiller just proved you have no intention of accepting a different point of religious belief.

talk about vile, hated filled and deadly. pro life i think not.
control freak yes!

"Given the exceptional circumstances that may necessitate a late term abortion, maybe we should start referring to it as benificial euthinasia instead?"

I've heard them referred to as "mercy abortions".

Facts about Dr. Tiller:

1. His clients were mostly referred to him by other ob/gyns because of severe fetal or maternal distress, and the resident doctors could not legally perform abortions that late in the term.

2. Most of his clients were women who WANTED to have the child, but could not because the fetus would not survive the birth, or would only live a few days.

3. Dr. Tiller and his staff counseled women extensively, and kept a list of potential adoptive parents in case a client decided not to have an abortion after all.

4. Some of his clients were young girls, some as young as 10, that were victims of rape or incest. He often flew these girls in on his own dime and performed the abortion gratis, because NO woman should be forced to bear a child of a rapist or molester.

5. He could have retired at any time, but chose not to do so because he wanted to help women.

6. In some cases, especially in the case of fetal death, an abortion HAS to be done to save the woman's future chances of having a baby. Many doctors, particularly in the Bible Belt, will not perform an abortion, even on a dead fetus. I've heard of one instance where a woman whose fetus died in utero was told that it was her responsibility to carry that dead fetus around for another few weeks until they could induce labor. WTF?

Given the exceptional circumstances that may necessitate a late term abortion, maybe we should start referring to it as benificial euthinasia instead?

Pro-life killer
Military intelligence
Peaceful religions

oxymorons are us...

The reason that Dr. Tiller charged $5K for his services was because he had to pay for extreme security for his clients, his staff, his family, and himself. He wasn't a rich man, unless you count the gratitude of the women he saved.

People don't want to think about this, but the women that get late term abortions aren't just walking in one day and thinking "I don't want to have this baby, I'll abort it." A late-term abortion is almost always done because the baby will not survive outside of the uterus, or the mother is severely ill and would die if the child is brought to term, or is a young victim of rape or incest and doesn't realize that she's pregnant until it's too late. I've seen one account of a girl as young as 12, who was raped by an uncle, who had to have a late-term abortion. It's not a choice that women make lightly. And, in a perfect world, one that women wouldn't have to make at all. But, as long as there's that one exception to the perfect world, the law needs to protect that one exception.

These "Pro-Life" people cannot grasp the concept of nuance. For example, when one attempts to point out the always agonizing factors which invariably precede a late term abortion (ie: seriously deformed fetal development combined with high risk of death to mother in childbirth), even the supposed leaders of this so-called "movement" respond with the intellectual equivalent of a toddler sticking his fingers in his ears and shouting "NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH NAH!!!" But then, perhaps this dumbing down of the populace is in the best interest of the religion industry. Keep them stupid and afraid and they'll keep open their wallets. I mean, seriously . . . we're talking about the same people who take their families to the "Creation Museum", where the bleakness of life on earth is sold as a reason to believe that their conformity will lead to paradise. It's not all bad, though . . . the kids do learn that dinosaurs coexisted with mankind. The kids can even wait in line to sit on a properly saddled Brachiosaurus. Really? Dinosaurs with saddles? OH. MY. GOD.

PaganPlace wrote "Frankly, trying to *force* someone into a really-messed up body and suffer so you can feel 'righteous' and elect Republicans is ...despicable to me."

You have written some presumptuous and ignorant rantings, but this is inexcusable. I have lived and suffered in a "really messed up body" for 53 years. I quite prefer that ride to no ride at all.

You always complain about people imposing their beliefs on you. I object to my terrestrial birth vehicle imposing any of her thought about the value of my life on me. Same goes for you!

Let's all take a deep breath, cool our jets, try to accept what is already happening, and see a better future.

I think we should recognize that this terrorist has dealt a much larger blow to his movement than to his enemies. I think in my reading of Matthew, this is a subtlety that hardcore conservatives are unable to understand: turning the other cheek is an example of a broader principle of forbearance which is intended to make more politically powerful through being more civilized.

"The most dangerous party member. In every party there is one member who, by his all-too-devout pronouncement of party principles, provokes the others to apostasy." --Nietzsche

Another way of looking at it (for people who don't like Nietzsche and especially for Judeo-Christians) is that God will take power away from those who attempt to usurp divine authority. You know: "vengeance is MINE [NOT YOURS]"--God [Heb 10:30]

By the way: everyone should go look that up. People who claim to be Christian, but tacitly or actively support killing abortion doctors just MIGHT be possessed by bad ol' SATAN. The least we could do is help them get their hands on some SSRIs...

* Killing to promote a political agenda can only be either war or terrorism, or some hazy wartime act somewhere in between. I leave out capital punishment which is carried out under judicial supervision.
* When political murder is carried out in absence of anything which can credibly called a war it is clearly terrorism. The goals of the murderer are clear: to demonstrate that violating a certain political agenda may have deadly consequences, thus terrorizing political enemies.
* If a person believes that it is OK to kill another person illegally because of some higher moral obligation, that is freedom of religion. When that person begins to organize around others who mutually support the same views, those people are exercising freedom of assembly.
* When another one of those people breaks the law, citing those higher mores as justification, all those who supported that persons belief in morally justified murder are complicit. They collectively share responsibility for providing the motivation to commit murder.
* If that murder is terrorist, then not just the murderer, but also the murderers' accomplices are terrorists. Though they did not pull the trigger, if they carry the banner and voice a message that they will support others who might pull the trigger they are not exercising protected free speech. They are terrorists attempting to advance a political agenda through murder even if the murder was committed by another person.
* So, PRO LIFERS, who feel that it is OK to kill an abortion doctor, I feel it is OK to lump you in with Islamic extremists who support suicide bombings. I think that our law enforcement institutions are justified in wiretapping your phone conversations, monitoring and tampering with your finances, and charging you with crimes for things you might feel have nothing to do with killing an abortion doctor yourself. I feel that our law enforcement is well employed to also infiltrate your churches to identify and prosecute all those who share your moral umbrella to promote terrorism.
* Though I think all of this is sad, unfortunate, nasty, and less civilized than hope wants, still necessary. The right thing to do is to use all the powers of the law to nip this cancer in the bud.

The moral absolute of "life" is not applied consistently, in my view, by the majority of those in this movement....unlike those who hold an ethic of life across a range of moral issues, not only abortion but also war and the death penalty, This makes "pro-life" in regard to abortion not only an inconsistent ethic, but an unstable one.

This argument is tantamount to saying: "an anti-abortion argument doesn't hold water unless the holder of said view also opposes the death penalty and war."

Inside my own moral compass, the point is hogwash.

I neither apply nor feel compelled to apply any "moral absolute of life" in finding abortion an egregious & horrifying procedure.

Dr. Tiller profited enormously from being one of the main late term abortion providers in the world. $5000 per, flat rate, come one, come all.

For the record, I have no empathy for his (I will say unhinged) assassin, either.

colinnicholas,
man...how right you are. were this "god" not so widely accepted to be "good", and people attributed the various atrocities done in his name to him, a rational person might think he is evil - or at least schizophrenic.

PAGANPLACE,
I'm talking about wordwide population figures. In South America ,for exam. Chatolic population is growing a lot.

The things that people do for God's love! I guess God's love also brings with it immortality. And that's what it's all about, isn't it. The fear of death. Faith is hoping you'll live forever. If God loves you, you gotitmade. Such a hope is one to kill for. Happens all the time.
The irony is - as far as we know there are no gods and never were.

PAGANPLACE:

I did not interject any religious beliefs or talk of souls in my post. I base the comments entirely on an observation of reality in this world. I am right now simply a clump of cells with a certain degree of mobility. Same for you.

I don't think human rights should be judged by the quantity of cells or their degree of mobility. It's a qualitative judgment. I stand by my previous comments.

"No Pope wants to go down in history as being the one causing a decrease in Catholic population.
And Churches don't tell us that abstinence-only does NOT work."

ThishowIseeit"

A little late for that. Checked out the population figures in Italy lately?

Yeah, CCNL. You're not spouting invective about 70 million "womb-babies" today, are you? Whassamatta? You afraid that you're going to be named as an accessory to Tiller's murder?

Susan,
I agree that voluntary contraception is not wrong, but don't expect the R. Catholic Church to change its stand against it any time, because the Church desire married catholic women to get pregnant quite often and increase the number of Catholic in the word: there is strength in big number. No Pope wants to go down in history as being the one causing a decrease in Catholic population.
And Churches don't tell us that abstinence-only does NOT work.

I believe this is an excellent and accurate article. I applaud your pointing out the hypocrisy of favoring war & the death penalty while criticizing those who perform abortions.

I myself favor abortion, while hoping of course that it will become unnecessary due to better birth control methods such as the OTC 'morning-after pill'. But abortion will never disappear. It's unrealistic to even suggest it would.

Life & death decisions are always hard to make. I hope they remain so. Preventing an unwanted pregnancy is still the best way, by whatever method.

The citizens/taxpayers of the USA do not tolerate murder and those who commit it.
For the record:

§ Timothy McVeigh was executed. Terry Nichols will follow soon.

§ Eric Rudolph is spending three life terms in prison with no parole.

§
Jim Jones, David Koresh, Kaczynski, and the KKK were all dealt with and either eliminated themselves or are in jail.

"Mythcantor: Paganplace: You said: ""Actually, that's the problem with 'pro-lifers,' ...you haven't the courage of your convictions to work with us toward making abortion *unnecessary* ...you just want to scream 'Ban it' even when that doesn't work, only criminalizes women.""

"I would invite you to look at pro-life clinics and advice centers before you make comment."

I assure you I have. Closely. The 'kindness' is too often just a means to the end of supporting anti-choice causes and 'guilting' women into having babies whatever comes.

Doesn't take much looking to see the agenda, there. Someone gets preggers in a community scorned by Christians, you do look for all the resources you can.

"Here is an anti-abortion message that has nothing to do with religion. Is it morally appropriate to value one human life as more significant than another human life based on the inconvenience the one life poses to the other life."

Is it morally-appropriate to call people 'murderers' so you can feel 'righteous' characterizing real life situations that way for any and all women you don't know?

That's still predicated on you defining 'human life' in your interpretation of Biblical terms when the human experience doesn't begin there, and it doesn't matter if the 'late term abortion' is the way to prevent pain and trauma to a woman who's going to 'lose the child' anyway.

A simpler argument: If it is alright for me to kill people that are putting a strain on me, why do we send mothers that kill their children to jail?

"I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, but they are made without religion."

Calling religious assumptions 'areligious' doesn't make them rational. Just 'Reasoney.'

" The funny thing about these debates is that we all react emotionally and not logically. Dr. Thistlethwaite even turned from attacking the ideology to attacking the ideologues, and as a Doctorate, she should probably have much better argumentation than that. The debate is not over life or choice, it is over whether abortion is morally defensible or not.mythcantor "

Actually, the argument is over whether or not you get to decide for other American citizens what's 'morally defensible.'

Abortion is murder? By whose law? Not the law of Kansas, which allows abortions up to 20 weeks. Not the various laws of the other 50 states.

Like it or not, this country is NOT a Christian theocracy. You can't go around killing people just because you don't like what they do for a living. (And I'm including the drive-by shooters of an Army recruiter in Little Rock in that sentence.) Dr. Tiller was a father, a grandfather, an usher in his church, and a doctor who helped thousands of people who were in tragic situations. And I can't believe that people are justifying his murder - in a CHURCH. In front of his wife, children, and grandchildren.

Right wingers of the nutcase variety don't do nuance. They believe what they believe and that is that. Take no prisoners. Logical consistency is not a requirement. They insist that other people behave according to some absolutist guiding principle that they have concocted. It is so important to them that their will be done that they will resort to violence to enforce it. A woman is going to die without an abortion. So, let her die. Her baby's importance far outweighs the baby's need for a mother. Stuff and nonsense.

Fundamentalists of every religion on earth are the source of most of the problems, ignorance, violence, hatred in every place on earth.

All extremes are bad. Why do we allow these people on TV?

What I find amusing and offensive with the so-called Pro-Lifers; is first off they are referring only to Human Life and probably only American potential Christian life at that! God, if she real exists, is clearly Pro-Life, ALL life, and She seems to favor non-human life and is probably appalled at the killing and destruction of her wonder varieties of life by this unatractive pestilence known as Humans! To "protect" eggs, cells, sperm, embyoes, and unborn feteuses in a world being literally buried under the flesh of a species that is destroying its very habitate and all other of God's creation in the name of civilization; is insanity, immoral by any definition, and a repudiation of any "special-ness" of humanity! Even your imaginary Ark was filled with all of God's creation; not just stuffed with Humans!

@ Paganplace: You said: ""Actually, that's the problem with 'pro-lifers,' ...you haven't the courage of your convictions to work with us toward making abortion *unnecessary* ...you just want to scream 'Ban it' even when that doesn't work, only criminalizes women."

I would invite you to look at pro-life clinics and advice centers before you make comment.

""The pro-choice camp likes to paint the pro-life camp as a bunch of religious nut jobs. Yet, if necessary, the case for life can be without falling back to religious arguments."
Then do it. May you do better than with the idea 'science' says our ancestors rode stegosaurs in the time of Moses.""

Here is an anti-abortion message that has nothing to do with religion. Is it morally appropriate to value one human life as more significant than another human life based on the inconvenience the one life poses to the other life.

A simpler argument: If it is alright for me to kill people that are putting a strain on me, why do we send mothers that kill their children to jail?

I don't necessarily agree with these arguments, but they are made without religion. The funny thing about these debates is that we all react emotionally and not logically. Dr. Thistlethwaite even turned from attacking the ideology to attacking the ideologues, and as a Doctorate, she should probably have much better argumentation than that. The debate is not over life or choice, it is over whether abortion is morally defensible or not.

Great article - "The Killing of George Tiller: A "Pro-life" Murder?"

I think the organizations that push Pro-Life agenda ought to be treated like the terrorist that they are. I see no difference between extremist fought in Afghanistan and Pro-Life extremist.

I hope the FBI and our judicial system purge our streets of these extremist.

Great article - "The Killing of George Tiller: A "Pro-life" Murder?"

I think the organizations that push Pro-Life agenda ought to be treated like the terrorist that they are. I see no difference between extremist fought in Afghanistan and Pro-Life extremist.

I hope the FBI and our judicial system purge our streets from these extremist.

Matthew:
"Pro-choice" and "liberal" positions also exhibit a contradiction which is even graver than what you describe in your article."

Actually, no, it doesn't:

"The contradiction is the refusal to protect a class of people who are in a stage of existence we all passed through prior to emerging from the womb."

Actually, trying to redefine what is a 'class of people' to involve clumps of cells because that's your particular religious belief is no excuse for a religiously-defined faction to remove rights and freedoms from others to make that decision, ...which removals are on the part of 'pro-lifers' irrespective of whether or not the 'potential human' is or will ever develop such that they'll have a human experience.

" From a human life/rights perspective, that group should also be an object of our concern, just like other groups in society. "

I don't believe that souls are 'created' by people having sex. (I'd have a hard time believing that, since if I popped into existence nine months before this life, I'd be hard pressed to explain certain memories and technical details from before, but be that as it may. )

I don't, and many in the *world* don't believe that a 'conception' creates a soul ex nihilo, and is that soul's one and only chance to not burn in some idea of Hell forever.

Frankly, trying to *force* someone into a really-messed up body and suffer so you can feel 'righteous' and elect Republicans is ...despicable to me.

We have the tech now where we can see when a fetus is nonviable, and not have to wait and wail and gnash teeth at 'God' when a mother dies in childbirth... or otherwise is all messed up cause they were expecting a baby and got a corpse and uterine scars.

Touchy subject, but blind absolutism, whoever it hurts, won't help.

"Good causes one and all, but I fail to see how a nation that murders its unborn on an industrial scale, will ever find the moral courage to achive these other goals."

Sex ed isn't 'murdering the unborn on an industrial scale.'

Actually, that's the problem with 'pro-lifers,' ...you haven't the courage of your convictions to work with us toward making abortion *unnecessary* ...you just want to scream 'Ban it' even when that doesn't work, only criminalizes women.

"The pro-choice camp likes to paint the pro-life camp as a bunch of religious nut jobs. Yet, if necessary, the case for life can be without falling back to religious arguments."

Then do it. May you do better than with the idea 'science' says our ancestors rode stegosaurs in the time of Moses.

I'm serious.

Let's work so that no mother or child is unloved or desperate, *then* maybe start talking your absolutes about what clump of cells you think is a once-and-forever-and-only-created human soul.

"Some of history's most notable opponents of religion are also some of humankind's bloodiest killers. Even the por-choice crowd can't deny this."

Actually, the people you keep claiming were *against* 'religion,' (ie, your religion,) were trying to *supplant* religion, with a religion-of-say Stalin... not have a pluralistic, secular society with freedom for *all* religions.

Susan,

Accurate article. Disagreeing with something done legally by killing someone is murder. It makes no sense and certainly is not a religious act. Thank you.

"Anti-abortion" and "pro-life" should be carefully distinguished. They are both commendable positions but they do not always overlap. Caring for the unborn and having no time for the born should not be compatible positions.

"Pro-choice" and "liberal" positions also exhibit a contradiction which is even graver than what you describe in your article. Traditional liberalism wants to extend government protection and assistance to all human beings. That is a good thing in my opinion, even if it costs us money.

The contradiction is the refusal to protect a class of people who are in a stage of existence we all passed through prior to emerging from the womb. From a human life/rights perspective, that group should also be an object of our concern, just like other groups in society.

Liberalism as currently constituted is tripped up by this problem. It wants to extend the social safety net to everyone, but then stops at an artificial barrier. Liberals need more courage to take their position to its logical conclusion, which is concern for the unborn, not killing them so we don't have to face the problem.

As for pro-lifers trying to call it an 'isolated incident,' how about one more fact.

Just this one doctor... Was previously... Shot. A lot. And blown up. (very nearly) And sites calling him a 'mass murderer' were ones the *actual* (apparent) murderer posted to, suggesting infiltrating his church.

Is that Christianity?

No thanks.

With the exception of avowed murderers, the vast majority of human beings are "pro-life" - whether or not we support reproductive rights for women. The terms "always" and "never" can be extremely dangerous when applied to infinitely complex issues. If there is a god, I suspect it is against abortion. And that god, if it exists, will surely display its wrath to those who practice it. In the president's words, "this is above my pay grade."

Very few women have abortions on a whim - it is a painful and traumatic experience, as it should be. And I don't think it's surprising at all that many women later regret it. But that isn't a reason for banning abortion.

Also, how many women have late-term abortions for convenience's sake? There are generally serious medical issues involved, and the parties involved - men as well as women, are devastated by the experience.

Name-calling and religious rhetoric add nothing to the debate. Let's act like grown-ups, folks, and have an honest discussion. Stop the hate.

Save the whales, save the pandas, the spotted owls, the tigers. Stop geneocide, and, as Tiiler's murder reminds, stop killing abortionists.
Good causes one and all, but I fail to see how a nation that murders its unborn on an industrial scale, will ever find the moral courage to achive these other goals.
The pro-choice camp likes to paint the pro-life camp as a bunch of religious nut jobs. Yet, if necessary, the case for life can be without falling back to religious arguments.
Some of history's most notable opponents of religion are also some of humankind's bloodiest killers. Even the por-choice crowd can't deny this.
Adolf Hitler is rightfully reviled as a monster for the murder of at least six million Jews and millions of others.
Joseph Stalin, responsible for killing some 40 million of his own people, is also rightly reviled as a monster.
China's communist leaders have been little better since taking power.
As these demonstrate, not all monsters are religous monsters.
The sad truth today is that here, in America of all places, you are considered to be in the wrong if you choose to defend the innocent. While the Left, it's mouthpiece, the left-leaning media, Planned Parenthood and other proponents of the Culture of Death, are elevated to the status of the noble victims, the saviours of womankind.
They have done an excellent job of propogating the murder of the innocent while making us complicit in it. The clever part of it all is that, unlike the affore mentioned 'monsters', there is no one figurehead at which to point the finger at, no single face to hold up as the culprit.
The pro-choice movement (and the industrial scale of the abortion industry)would have made Hitler and his goons green with envy for its effectiveness and the deep, all-entangling reach of the roots it has spread through out our culture.
As of Roe v. Wade, we have murdered right at 50 million innocent children, and counting. We, either through our support and participation, or through our indifference, are the new face evil.
Until we recognize that, until we come to our senses and afford everyone the Rights we hold so dear for ourselves, there is little hope that we as a people will ever live up to our poetential.

If I may be so presumptuous as to quote part of something I wrote after reading Dr. Susan Wicklund's memoir, This Common Secret,....

You preach of death, and call us murderers
Of quarter-size, translucent, formless disks.
Idolaters of blind, unfeeling cells,
You count for nothing those already born,
Their hopes, fears, agonies, their very selves,
For nothing all the morgue-slab failures of
Your fevered dogma dreams. And still they come,.
The patients come, each seeking her own life.

"Ironically, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's article led me to the amazing fact that in Texas, it can be a capital offense to perform an abortion. There's nothing on the books justifying or excusing abortion and thereby making it justifiable homicide. Had the killing (I call it murder) of Dr. Tiller occurred in Texas, he could attempt a defense of protecting third parties (fetuses) against the imminent threat of more unjustified homicides (i.e., abortions). This situation demands the attention of those who are pro-choice."

I think that dolphins and whales are pretty much sentient beings. Can I shoot a whaler or tuna fisherman, now?

(no, I don't want to)

I would be more than happy to support so called Pro-life groups if they really suppported life in all stages. These groups only care about the pre-born. Once you take your first breath, they are willing to let you die.

There are real cases where abortions are done to save the life of the mother. I know from personal experience. These extremists would have rather sentence my son to life without his mother rather than allow me to have a life saving abortion.

The United States of America was founded via the US Constitution to give people religious freedom and the right of self determination. These extremist groups will not stop until all of our rights are stipped from us.

In my eyes, extremist Christians who call for people to be murdered in cold blood are just as evil as the other extremists who murder in the name of their gods.

"Ghandi did so for a while and won limited concessions,"

Like a *free nation,* "Lovingcare?"

Like the *largest pluralistic democracy in the world,* Lovingscare?

You trivialize Gandhi's accomplishments in the name of justifying 'pro-life' murders and terrorist acts.

"...To say he represents the Pro-Life movement is like saying that Jihadist Terrorists represent all Islamist. Just as the mainstream Islamic community is non-violent so to is the mainstream Pro Life movement."
TKite | June 1, 2009 12:04 PM
___________________________________

i would actually say that's a great comparison. tiller's killer WAS a radical anti-abortionist, just like osama bin laden is a radical muslim.

if MikeL4 [@ June 1, 2009 11:27 AM] is correct in saying, "eight (8) doctors in the United States have been murdered because of their affiliation with the abortion industry",

then the only difference between radical muslims and radical anti-abortionists is the prevalence of radicals. there are a lot more muslim jihadists than anti-abortion jihadists.

AT some point the government is going to have to do its job and crack down on Christianist terrorists and the repugnant industry they have created around interfering with women's lives. These tiny tyrants, these foetus worshippers, are living in a fantasy world where foetuses wave at them and smile from the womb like some kind of cartoon. They delusionally believe the founding fathers of our country, who wrote down their beliefs so we could read them, were as deluded as they simply because they cannot imagine their fantasy world being flawed or outright wrong. The founding fathers would be disgusted by what this nation has become, Gladys Kravitz on a meth bender.
These foetus freaks nosily violate the privacy of other people and assume that every woman seeking help from an ob/gyn is seeking an abortion. They similarly operate under the delusion that abortion is a desirable thing, as if abortions were like heroin and doctors are dealers. Like the anti-gay activists, they operate expressly with the notion that what they oppose is some Dionysiac pleasure that must be denied and not a fact of life.
Parasitic human dross like Randall Terry have made their livelihoods by victimizing doctors and revving up the crazies, making Mr. Terry a wealthy Media Star and human tapeworm profiting from the suffering of others. With cynical sociopaths like Bill O'Reilly finding an easy button to push with their degenerate audiences it was only a matter of time before some marginal specimen did their bidding.
These murderous scum ARE the "Pro-Life" movement, a movement that stands for oppression of women, a Talibanesque world view, and a tyrannical religious extremism that is diametrically opposed to the American ideal.

I mean, Mucho, you don't know from 'murder.' ... You're basically justifying the actions of a man who *quite clearly murdered someone* and trying to claim that's got nothing to do with you or your view of your religion or the barrage of hateful 'pro-life' rhetoric we *constantly hear* on these boards.

Stand between a couple monotheists trying to escalate things, or have to defend yourself or someone else from some brute who thinks he's 'righteous,' then you know where 'murder' comes from.

Ironically, Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite's article led me to the amazing fact that in Texas, it can be a capital offense to perform an abortion. There's nothing on the books justifying or excusing abortion and thereby making it justifiable homicide. Had the killing (I call it murder) of Dr. Tiller occurred in Texas, he could attempt a defense of protecting third parties (fetuses) against the imminent threat of more unjustified homicides (i.e., abortions). This situation demands the attention of those who are pro-choice.

I'm unsure whether Kansas has the same laws. If so, we're about to see a a very interesting process of the killer (murderer) claiming that he was justified under Kansas law in preventing more capital offenses. Although even in Texas that defense wouldn't succeed unless the killer acted to stop an imminent abortion (that the killing occurred in church means the threat of imminent death of a fetus probably didn't exist), the defense would be a powerful one. So I ask: is the law in Kansas the same as in Texas?

Indira Gandhi said it best. "I love your beautiful and kind Christian God...... He's nothing like your Christians"

Stop the hate! Stop the bigotry! Stop the intolerance! And stop thinking you have the God given right to force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy. If you don't approve of abortions, don't have one. It's that simple.

So you think it's okay to kill a father of four, a trained doctor no less, just because he's following the Laws of the Land?

No religious Laws are not really "LAWS" of the land, despite your adamant disagreement.

If that's okay with you, then you just lost any shred of compassion from me, someone on-the-fence about right-to-life issues and morality.

The right-to-life movement has no moral legs to stand on any longer, once the right-to-lifers start killing innocent doctors just for the heck of it.

Reminds me of the perverse thinking surrounding the Jehova's Witness lady who merely "prayed" to save her child, and diceided against taking any doctor's advice. She put the law of ""God" above the law of earthly regularity and lost the bet, and the child lost its life. Because she was ignorant, and didnt know the difference between fact and fiction.

Freeeking loons, all of you for taking such a hard-lined stand on Abortion, and putting the taliban-like opression on professional, law abiding doctors.

You just lost your game.

Mucholucho:
"I do use theology to determine who is a murderer. What do you use?"

A jury of our peers, and American law, and standards of real evidence that convict beyond reasonable doubt.

" BUT NO, I never said, nor do I agree with your evaluation that a "murderer...deserves whatever I do to them." Most Fundamentalist christians would agree with me on this. Other fundamentalists (Islamic, Jewish, etc.), I don't know and will not speak for."

ie, 'It's OK if a Christian does it, but I'll keep saying what I say and call it 'God.'

Yes, if you run around calling people 'mass murderers,' or 'Against God,' someone might believe you. That's on you.

And not a way to do good.

"I believe in using due process through the laws instituted. My theology, that of Jesus Christ, does not allow me to murder.
I do not believe in blind absolutism but there is no denying that absolute truth is a reality."

There most certainly *is* denying that your 'absolute truth is reality.'

That's why we call it a *controversy.*

What you say reduces real people to abstractions and stigmas and 'sins' and ...yes, is used to inflame people, some of whom will resort to real and incontrovertible murder and terrorist actions.

Again, the 'fatal flaw' at the heart of 'Pro-life' politics is that it *has* no heart. Real people and real circumstances and the fact that no good end can come of unjust means don't even enter *into* all this we hear here. And all over. Emotions, and what passes for reason among some these days, are just a tool for it.

No matter who it hurts.

If you don't want to see abortions, I'm not your enemy.

But it's all about *having* enemies to some, isn't it?

The frightening thing about some of these posts is that there are those who voice support for the murder of Dr Tiller; and that by using Scriptures.

That is what "taking the Lord's name in vain" actually means.

To think that extreme pro-lifers, such as the murderer in this case, are Christians is to not understand what Christians or Christianity is about.

We are indeed a nation of laws and not men. According to our laws, the murderer must be tried and if found guilty, punished. But according to our laws, the abortion doctor is innocent: he has not violated any laws. This circles right back into the real point. When a man considers a law to be injust, and there is no reasonable belief that the injust law will ever change, Civil Disobediance is in order, supposedly. On the face of it, fighting violence with violence is wrong -- it assert that two wrongs _can_ make a right. But non-violent Civil Disobediance against an intrenched system of violence is an exercise in futility. Ghandi did so for a while and won limited concessions, but people forget that eventually, Ghandi lost all the concessions he gained. Any political gains after that were a result of the cult of his personality -- i.e. no one cared how many ahimsa protesters suffered, but when Ghandi engaged in a hunger strike, politicians took notice -- only because if Ghandi died, his followers would revolt and violence would reign. Threatening slow suicide is hardly "classic non-violent Civil Disobedience". To protest slavery, Thoreau didn't pay his taxes and went to jail. Only fighting violence with violence on a massive scale -- The US Civil War -- could eradicate slavery. Unfortunately Ghandi and Thoreau were fighting giants with pea-shooters. The bottom line is: what principles would you die for, and even further, what principles would you kill for? If you say none, you had better consider the implications of that assertion. I could say I would neither die nor kill for abortion rights. But if I watch a man enter a building knowing that murder takes place there, and I sit by and do nothing, am I aiding and abetting the murderer? Since abortion is not considered murder, legally I am not guilty of anything. But am I morally? That is the question.

Yeah, y'all love those adorable, precious little bundles of joy. I get it. It's hardwired in me as well, though stopping well short of your pathological proportions. Cats like kittens, frogs like tadpoles, flies like larvae, and we love babies. There are billions of us teeming on this lonely rock circling through space, with yet no practical means of exploring other planets, and with our own literally groaning under our weight. Still the cry is made to reproduce like mad and use all the resources but none of the understanding of science to keep alive even the horribly deformed and suffering. You insane, narcissistic people are the death seed of our species, you will doom us all, ironically out of your ostensible love of your own kind. This goes beyond the murder of one decent human being by a fanatic, but reflects an out of control worldview. You would doom a woman to death in order to give birth to some horror that couldn't even live and only a few heroes (yes, heroes) like DOCTOR George Tiller gave them hope. Congrats, Death Cult members. If you can't have heaven on earth, I guess you'll give us hell.

Paganplace:
I do use theology to determine who is a murderer. What do you use? BUT NO, I never said, nor do I agree with your evaluation that a "murderer...deserves whatever I do to them." Most Fundamentalist christians would agree with me on this. Other fundamentalists (Islamic, Jewish, etc.), I don't know and will not speak for.

I believe in using due process through the laws instituted. My theology, that of Jesus Christ, does not allow me to murder.
I do not believe in blind absolutism but there is no denying that absolute truth is a reality.

Anyone that thinks they have the "right" to carry out their own perceived "justice" is not only misguided and self-righteous, but more than likely on the side of evil themselves. Was Jesus going around killing those he perceived as murderers?

There are too many people reading the Old Testament literally. These people are all nuts. They are evil. They are stupid. They are often criminals in their empty hearts and their feeble minds.

You see, *that's* the fatal flaw at the heart:

All this 'Pro-Life' stuff... It has nothing to do with real life, real people, real compassion.

Categories and agendas are substituted for it, sure, designed to stir up a lot of emotion, often violent emotion... But it doesn't help a single baby, living or potential. The people ...and issues, and even the liberties involved are all just a means to an end for you.

Look at the Terry Schiavo family: how much *pain* did you, and Bush* put that family through cause you *wanted* to believe something about a death you fear?

The fundamental flaw in the 'Pro-life' ...anti-choice movement is in fact that it's *not* about life. It's about religion. And it just uses people to those ends.

You want to call stem cell research from your own fertility clinics' waste 'murder' (as long as it's not for science, under Bush corporate R&D could use as many 'baby corpses' as hey wanted, don't hear much about that, do you? It's 'murder...' Unless it's for holy profit... Attack a liberal...)

In my religion, sexuality and motherhood are *sacred* things, not 'taboo and shameful' things. It's not hard for *me* to see, at least, that the 'pro-lifers' are really in the business of looking to 'punish sinners'... they're pro death penalty, pro war, pro-torture, pro the 'choice' of having automatic weapons... anti-knowledge, anti-reality, anti caring for our own people, anti-*freedom and responsibility.*

It's not about 'babies,' never mind *babies,* Nothing to do with *Life.* It's not *Life* to take someone whose brain died and liquefied of anorexia from *your* culture, hook her body up to machines, and 'celebrate life' about making her remains a public spectacle and indignity. It's not about life. ...it's about 'Give me an excuse.'

And you construct these excuses constantly and call it the height of 'goodness and mercy.'

You can do better. This is not the way.

Justin's point is spot on - professors should be students first, and being a student involves unbiased study and interpretation of the facts. This article was at the complete other end of this spectrum, filled with unfounded claims and speculation, most of which crumble under the most basic analysis. You wonder why we are part of a society in which a wedge exists between differing viewpoints - it is because we are subject to leadership and media that presents their personal agendas as unquestionable truth. Unfortunately it is the few (and not the majority) who possess the capacity to observe such statements, question their factual truth, and draw their own informed conclusions.

The murderer was a true christian. He carried out both the letter and spirit of the gospels. Matthew 10:34 - "I come not to bring peace, but to bring a sword" Yup, the sword of Jesus was in Kansas yesterday, with all true christians rejoicing.

Osama bin Laden is probably praying for the killer of Dr. Tiller. Osama bin Laden, Timothy McVeigh, Randall Terry, the Pope, they're all terrorists. It's time to rid ourselves of this infestation.

Susan Brooks asserts that Tiller’s murder was not the result of excessive political passions, but a “logical outcome” of the “self-righteousness” inherent in pro-life beliefs. Far from carefully demonstrating this logic, however, Brooks makes the grave charge in reckless, hit-and-run fashion.

By self-righteous she means claiming to possess moral knowledge. She cites a Dr. Charles Kimball, who holds that “absolute truth claims” are a sign that a viewpoint is becoming “evil.” The assumption is that once we know moral truth, any means is justified to achieve a moral goal. The opposite is true. Knowledge of moral truth tells us precisely which means are impermissible, because they violate a higher end.

We should pursue the moral truth rather than fearing its consequences of such knowledge. Because judging between competing moral goods is a complex task, people’s views are complex. In her pursuit of Manichean simplicity, Brooks reduces her opponents’ position to the evil of George Tiller’s murderer. Denying the existence of any knowable moral reality leads Susan Brooks to the worst kind of blind absolutism.

"However, to say that the pro-life cause "has a fundamental flaw at its heart" because of this incident is ignorant, extreme, and desperate."

No, actually, it's pretty dead-on. The 'movement's' flaw at the heart is that it's really based on calling people 'murderers' and thereby claiming the right to 'punish' people as it will, even with violence, death, and lies.

The flaw is, it's *not* based in 'reverence' for life... it's based in blind, categorical, fear, control and hatred.

It's not *pro life* cause it doesn't *respect and revere motherhood or living people,* only seeks to control sexuality and breeding and even medicine.

"You might as well say that the pro-choice movement is "fundamentally flawed" because some doctors lose their right to choose whether to provide abortions ..."

Doctors do not have to perform abortions: they just aren't allowed to violate the principles of informed consent and make a religious excuse.

They also aren't allowed to enforce pregnancies upon women cause they want to call emergency contraception 'murder' if they get a pharmacist's badge from Wal-Mart.

So, I agree wholeheartedly that it is complete hypocrisy to be a pro-lifer and murderer of abortion providers. It is heinous and unjustifiable.

However, to say that the pro-life cause "has a fundamental flaw at its heart" because of this incident is ignorant, extreme, and desperate. You might as well say that the pro-choice movement is "fundamentally flawed" because some doctors lose their right to choose whether to provide abortions ...

Why must we address issues from contorted extremes rather than from a common ground where solutions can be drawn? I invite the author to rewrite this piece in an effort to invite peace to those behind this issue rather than drive a wedge between them.

Thanks.
Justin

So, I agree wholeheartedly that it is complete hypocrisy to be a pro-lifer and murderer of abortion providers. It is heinous and unjustifiable.

However, to say that the pro-life cause "has a fundamental flaw at its heart" because of this incident is ignorant, extreme, and desperate. You might as well say that the pro-choice movement is "fundamentally flawed" because some doctors lose their right to choose whether to provide abortions ...

Why must we address issues from contorted extremes rather than from a common ground where solutions can be drawn? I invite the author to rewrite this piece in an effort to invite peace to those behind this issue rather than drive a wedge between them.

Thanks.
Justin

"This article is an awful piece of "reporting", it is more politicking and view promotion than it is is reporting."

And your post, mucholucho, is an awful piece of writing.

Please go back and learn what a sentence is and how to write one.

No, 'Tompaine' *spit at your taking that name.*

Those aren't 'facts,' they're propaganda.

The actuality of Tiller's practice involved protecting a lot of women from horror and risk of death carrying a lot of potentially-necrotic tissue to 'full term' at great personal risk and further psychological trauma... to please zealots.

Facts are not involved in what the pro-lifers portrayed him to be.

Remember when Napolitano and the FBI issued their warnings about rightwing domestic terrorism and the conservatives went off in a self-righteous howl about how unfair that was?

Sounds like Napolitano and the FBI got it right. Lots of posters here sound like the typical "arab in the street" interview-"yes, we oppose terrorism but that was a pretty neat explosion..."

No one should rejoice at Tiller's killing. We are a nation of laws after all and even Tiller's life had value.

But that said, the uncomfortable fact that Susan apparently doesn't want to acknowledge that Tiller and his enablers are the extremists. He used his medical license to specialize in operations that were no different than the sick experiments performed at the German death camps. These "procedures" - as the press and Democrats like to call them - were appalling and should shock the conscience of any feeling person (which excludes former governor Sebelius, who apparently has no conscience).

Susan, Obama and the pro-abortion Democrats may try, but to call Tiller an upstanding and kind "doctor" is to remove any meaning from the term.

"Terrorism is terrorism, we need to apply the 9-11 laws on the books to break up these groups. Fundamentalism inevitably produces violence, regardless of the religion."

What garbage. I think your fundamental a-religious belief "produces violence." The vast majority of the founders of this country were religious "Fundamentalist" Christians and they produced the most free and welcoming country in the world. Your biased against theism has clouded your reasoning abilities.

"well that was an easy, broad brush shot at catagorizing the "pro-life" movement by one horribly wrong act."

It's always 'just one horribly-wrong act' ....every time it happens, and nothing to do with the violent, hate-filled rhetoric you can see here which lets any Fundie call anyone they please a 'baby-killer' or even 'mass-murderer.'

Even the denouncements from the 'Pro-life' engines are formed in such a way they'll stir up even more 'jihad' while mostly denying responsibility for what they are saying out the other side of their mouths.

About people who even want the full rape kit.

This article is obviously biased. It's like saying talibans represent the Islam. It's like saying KKK represents Christianity. Whoever murdered Dr. Tillman does not represent pro-life movement. Whoever promotes violence does not represent pro-life movement. 99% of the pro-life movement supporters act and promote their views peacefully. Unfortunately, this article attempts to blackmail the entire pro-life movement with the actions of few extremists.

well that was an easy, broad brush shot at catagorizing the "pro-life" movement by one horribly wrong act.
Ms. Thistlethwaite and The Post should be better than that and not use this tragedy to stereo-type and discount the fact that abortion is - to use your term - "pro-death"

Peace to Mr. Tiller, Mr. Roeder and all who are struggling with their conscious over what is murder.

"Murdering doctors does not demonstrate pro-life. In fact, murder demonstrates pro-death." I couldn't agree more. Which is why the 40 million babies murdered by the pro abortion advocates should be ashamed. The "pro choice" label is indeed misplaced, "pro-murder" fits better. Thanks, Susan for advocating pro life as the only way.

This is not part of a disagreement over when life begins. This is terrorism. And if we believe this is terrorism, we need to act like it's terrorism. No mercy.
Mary Mapes is spot-on. May every anti-abortion group be named in a civil suit and litigated out of existence. Free speech does not cover yelling fire in a crowded theater. Nor such free speech provide a free ride for those inciting murderers for "the cause".

The killer of Dr. Tiller is a criminal who should be punished to the full extent of the law. What should differentiate us from failed societies is that we are a country of laws and institutions. No one person or group has the right to take the law into their hands. To change laws we use ballots and not bullets. If those who call themselves pro-lifers find satisfaction in the elimination of one doctor, they should reconsider

I think for a President of a Theological Seninary, her blog is lacking in Biblical understanding or any real knowledge of the pro-life movement. I think she needs to understand things before she argues them.

All pro-life Christians I know are against such behaviour. We know, as the Bible says, that violence against offenders is not the individuals right. There is honestly no crime more horrible that this man perpitrated. But we know it is first God's place to judge and second the state. We know the state has allowed the practice so we must leave it to God to do the judgement. In this case the murderer is way out of place.

The pro-life movement is not violent and does not approve of violence. If that is the case we should blame Martin Luther King for inciting blacks to violence for being discriminated against. We all know this not to be true. While King may have encouraged boldness against injustice that may have led people to violence, that isn't what he preached. He preached non-violent protest as do modern pro-lifers. We work through legal means to bring an end to abortion and other practices against humanity.

Pro-lifers are also consistant in their views. We view all human life (conception through natural death) as important. Simply because we understand that giving one's life in battle and punishing murderers fairly as reasonable, does not make us inconsistant. It simply shows that a person's life has greater meaning.

I am also shocked that this woman doesn't even mention the crime against humanity that this victim practiced. Take a babies life, moments before birth, is probable the worst crime possible. At least I can think of nothing worse. It is hard to believe that anyone would defend this man and his practices, even though the murder was unjustified.

Loving_Care says, "Abortion is murder. This is a defensible truth." And: "You may not like it, but give the currently existing laws in the USA, there is a clear, sound, unemotional moral argument supporting the killing of a murderer (in this case, an abortion doctor) as justifiable."

Unfortunately for Thistlethwaite, and for pro-choice persons like myself, Loving_care appears to be correct. The second statement logically follows from the first. The first used to be untrue, but in my home state of Texas it is now capital murder to intentionally or knowingly kill an unborn fetus. The only thing preventing charging abortion doctors with capital murder in Texas is a reluctance to do so on the belief that the authors of the law didn't intend this result of the clear language they enacted (Penal Code Sections 1.07 (a)(26)and 19.03 (a) (8)).

Loving_care complains, "That there is such a logical reasonable and sound moral argument is a measure of how immoral our laws have become -- and how unspeakably cruel and heinous abortion is." Actually, the problem is that our law (Texas law, at least) now virtually invites actions like the killer's.

Sorry, incomplete sentence in post. "What a woman decides to do with an unwanted pregnancy should be low on the priority list of pro-life issues."

It's pretty obvious that pro-lifers are not really concerned about life. They have not ended poverty, hunger, lack of medical care, gun violence, horrendous prison conditions, lack of housing or shelters, inadequate educational opportunities. These should be the primary concerns of those who purport to favor "life". What a woman decides to do about an unwanted pregnancy. These god-believers might consider adhering to the mandates, "judge not lest thee be judged" and "whatsoever you do to least of my brothers, that you do unto me". Both commands refer to the living and not the "unborn." So get to the real work, pro-lifers.

This article is spot on, and demonstrated with no better argument than LOVING_CARE's post.

Loving care argues that the right to life is not absolute, and that there are cases where murder is justified.

Mind you - there is absolutely no legal rationale for this in any document, religious, secular or otherwise. The only philosophical basis that can be found is the same interpretation of the Koran by islamic terrorists. Loving care and his ilk make up their own rationalizations out of nothing - whole cloth, so to speak.

The bible is clear: "thou shalt not kill." No conditions, no "except if" statements, no tortured logic to justify taking life in certain cases.

Loving care, aside from the ludicrous and purposefully-baiting screen name, and those who support his philosophy should not call themselves "pro-life," but more importantly should give up any claim to moral authority. They put themselves on the same level as the Klan or other terrorist organizations. They have made enemies of American and society in general, and they will hide in their closed circles until we are able to weed them out, jail them or kill them.

Good column – remarkable how the column’s point is so completely and automatically supported by the extremist comments being posted!! Amazing!
Religious extremism under any guise or religion, be it Muslim, Christianity, or Judaism, is the same. Followed by those who have a very weak self image and huge amounts of inner anger. They are anxious to hang their hat on the closest hook which provides a salve to their conscience. In the process, they devalue life itself, and show a total lack of compassion and love for their fellow human being. This extremist group is not about life at all – it is about uncontrolled anger, hate, rage and death.

"The idea that a few terrorists are indicative of the majority of those who carry out their lives with peaceful integrity and compassion is incredibly insulting."

I hope you think of that statement when someone starts putting down Moslems.

Did you people who made Dr. Tiller into the equivalent of Dr. Mengele know what he REALLY did? He provided health services to a large number of women, not just abortions. He arranged for adoptions for his clients that had changed their minds about aborting. He was proud to provide services and wasn't afraid to do it.

DHS was right. It was only a matter of time before someone proved it.

Err, Mucholucho, if you use theology to call anyone a 'murderer who deserves whatever I do to them' that you please, then, yes, blind absolutism leads to violence. All the time.

"Murdering doctors does not demonstrate pro-life. In fact, murder demonstrates pro-death." Ditto on this toward the Doctor's who are ending lives in the womb!

This is crazy, so to believe in absolute truth is the road to murder?! What insanity is this. The only way this evaluation makes senses is because it helps you in your cause. I don't agree with this killing at all and I don't agree with killing innocent, unborn life. This article is an awful piece of "reporting", it is more politicking and view promotion than it is is reporting.

@ MOBEDDA... belief in "absolute truths" by pro-life zealots and ways to reduce abortions through education are 2 issues addressed in Ms. Thistlewaite's article. Sorry if my comments about absolute truths and prevention efforts was a diversion.

(The below goes for issues of violence, too. Speaking hate and inciting violence... right up to the point where people *have* to be held in check by a religious 'do not kill' ...is the *cause* of so much violence.

When violence in people is whipped up to a frenzy that is only reined in by a pose of piety... Some of those leashes will *inevitably* break, and you can't sit around and denounce the breakage while continuing to try and keep the frenzy going.

This should be a splash of cold water for you pro-lifers, not an excuse to vent and whip up more violent hate.

"As far as the nonsense about efforts to improve education and reduce unwanted pregnancies - a terrific idea because the first step is to stop making the problem worse - but good luck with all that since the thrust of that misguided effort is to remove the stigma from unwed motherhood and to build day-care centers in high schools and to change the 3 R's"

Actually, removing the stigma from *sex* is the first step toward preventing unwanted motherhood. People have sexual instincts whatever 'pro-lifers' say, and simply telling kids 'Be ignorant of safer sex and contraception and stick a cork in it' ...does not lead to lower rates of underage sex and teen pregnancy: quite the contrary.

What it leads to is a sexually-repressed society, kids *guessing* what kind of sex counts as 'sex,' to your God, and generally not having any way to cope with their sexuality when they find themselves desperate, impassioned, or, all-too commonly, *intoxicated.*

If you rely on fear, inhibition, and ignorance, in hopes of forcing sexual continence, or restraint of any kind, ...then all of that can be taken away by a number of drinks.

Respect and honor for sexuality, and the human body, and those of others... When you have that, it's *yours,* and it doesn't go away, even if there's been drinking or something.

It's one thing I observe of the same people who are big on social *control* of others, ...a bit of in vino veritas shows they're actually, internally, essentially, *out of control.*

"Though I strongly believe in the wrongness of murdering a later term abortion practitioner, I am equally dismayed at the holier than thou attitude of the abortion community. I wonder if you would get the same righteous proclaims of indignation if some crazed Code Pink person murdered G W Bush?" The point is that no 'crazed Code Pink person' DID murder W!

This black-and-white view of the world is what attracts the unbalanced to the so-called pro-life cause. Such thinking leaves no room for thoughtfulness, nuance, reason, nor discussion. This IS the thinking of a terrorist: kill and enemy and you get rid of the problem. Only, we all know that just is not the case. At least reasonable people know that is not the case.

Thistlethwaite's analysis of "pro-life" is wrong. Being pro death penalty is a different issue than being pro life. They are differentiated by the fact that an unborn child is by nature and by definition innocent. The man put to death by the state as punishment for a murder is guilty. His moral right to life is forfeit. The right to life is supremely important but it is not absolute. This has nothing to do with self-righteousness. It has to do with the sanctity of life. Abortion is murder. This is a defensible truth. If you want to talk about violence, you should also mention the violence perpetrated by George Tiller against innocent unborn children. This is a slaughter of the innocents morally equivalent to Herod's slaughter of the innocents in the New Testament. Late Term abortion doctors do NOT have the moral upper hand here. Sadly, our society has devolved to a point where the killing of a doctor does, in fact, save many innocent lives. You may not like it, but give the currently existing laws in the USA, there is a clear, sound, unemotional moral argument supporting the killing of a murderer (in this case, an abortion doctor) as justifiable. That there is such a logical reasonable and sound moral argument is a measure of how immoral our laws have become -- and how unspeakably cruel and heinous abortion is.

Susan has clearly misunderstood the ProLife movement and has based her opinion on false information.
George Tiller's killer is an extremist. To say he represents the Pro-Life movement is like saying that Jihadist Terrorists represent all Islamist. Just as the mainstream Islamic community is non-violent so to is the mainstream Pro Life movement.
The suggestions made about stepping down from the pedistal and helping to stop the need for abortions is based on a lie. Many ProLife organizations have been doing this for years. Providing expectant mothers with free care, clothing, food, shelter...

Regarding the "Warning Signs" The "Pro Choice" movement holds to an absolute right for women to choose and justifies termination of life to support that end.

Tiller's murder was evil. By the definition Susan provided, the "Pro Choice" movement demonstrates the two warning signs of being evil as well.

Give children the choice to live.

Personally, I want abortions to happen in back alleys where I don't know about it. All I want to hear is that another silly girl died by coathanger so I can feel justified. I don't want to know about gay people's problems, or anyone else's for that matter. I've got enough of my own, and I want to keep them between me and my priest so I can walk the streets in righteousness. Like Papa Bear says, SHUT UP SHUT UP SHUT UP! I want the world to be like it was when the sheriff didn't carry a gun and Opie didn't go around making trouble and Aunt Bea was our Virgin Queen.

@ "tielementary": Hurry-up-and-change-the-topic is one of the saddest things that happen on this board. "Nice point on topic 'A', but let's skip right to 'E'" does not contribute to the conversation; it confuses things and starts fights. But maybe a resolution to this issue isn't what you seek.

The moral absolutes about which Ms. Thistlethwaite speaks are oddly reminiscent of the moral absolutes that she uses to drive home her point. She makes no allowances for any of those in opposition to her argument and even suggests that those who disagree with her point of view may be mentally unstable, a classic example of the logical fallacy of "Poisoning the Well".

The simplest form of her point is that the anti-abortionist movement is violent and evil and morally unguided while the pro-abortion movement is pacific and good and morally sound. She is forgetting or ignoring that this was the action of an individual, not an organized terrorist attack. Even when they are organized efforts, such as the harassment of women seeking counsel, the harassment of doctors offering it, and the firebombing of abortion clinics, these are actions of groups or networks. Condemning all anti-abortionist thinkers, especially those who subscribe the the pro-life thought is akin to condemning all Muslims for Al-Qaeda, or worse, all liberals for the actions of an eco-terrorist.

There is a clear reason that pro-abortionists don't become more violent than anti-abortionists. Many anti-abortionists feel that abortion is a crime, regardless of whether against nature, the unborn child, or god. These people may feel that those who allow this crime to go on are criminals who are escaping justice in some way. This leads them seek justice through legal battles, through social change, or through violent action.

On the other hand, the arguments supporting abortion have a different perspective. It is the defense of a right in their eyes, and not the assault on a crime. The right must be defended, but they are, for all intents and purposes, winning at the moment. Even so, there is still violence against anti-abortionist demonstrators on the pro-abortion side as well. Were abortion to still be illegal, there would probably still be a lower level of violence because it did not become viewed as a right until after Roe v. Wade (1973), and pro-abortionists do not view carrying children to term as a crime, just the act of forcing a woman to do so against her will.

In the end, Ms. Thistlethwaite's argumentation shows that she's not yet willing to listen to what the other side is actually saying. She is more interested in winning a debate about abortion by attacking the opponent and not attacking the opponent's argument. Worse, she has abused the tragedy involved with this murder to increase her argument's reach. This is a tragedy that highlights the danger of ANY irrationally held view leading one to take an unprovoked violent action.

In a related story: Sales of RU-486 are strong in the catholic community.

As long as you're complaining about zealots claiming to know absolute truths, let's not forget proponents of safe, cheap, available abortions. (This doesn't mean I advocate dangerous, expensive, and scarce.) Do they believe that a woman enters the delivery room with some extraneous tissue and is wheeled out with a baby showered with all the protections the state can provide? Now THAT'S some neat piece of magic. When the state says, "Note the time", life begins and a new constituent is welcomed to the fold. Is that not state-sanctioned absolute truth? How about a reassuring notice like the ones that roll with the credits of a movie that uses animals. "No persons were harmed in the performance of this abortion." Up until that moment an abortion is not so different from removing a cyst except that no one protests the fate of that cyst. As far as the nonsense about efforts to improve education and reduce unwanted pregnancies - a terrific idea because the first step is to stop making the problem worse - but good luck with all that since the thrust of that misguided effort is to remove the stigma from unwed motherhood and to build day-care centers in high schools and to change the 3 R's of education to Reading, Writing, and Removing the condom from its wrapper. (Could I possibly be spared the proclamations about America's best days are ahead?) I wonder if politicians elbow one another to get to the microphone to announce the latest big proposal for children because they feel a twinge for the ones that never made it that far. I suppose it would be natural to overreach and wrap the survivors in the warm smothering embrace of the state.

Religion and their followers are ruining the world. I suspect their "prayers" aren't as fruitful as they thought they would be.

BE A LOVING "PRO-LIFER"!!! (like most of America is) NOT A BIGOTED "PROFILER" (as is this extremely biased author - ms. thistlewaite)

As long as you're complaining about zealots claiming to know absolute truths, let's not forget proponents of safe, cheap, available abortions. (This doesn't mean I advocate dangerous, expensive, and scarce.) Do they believe that a woman enters the delivery room with some extraneous tissue and is wheeled out with a baby showered with all the protections the state can provide? Now THAT'S some neat piece of magic. When the state says, "Note the time", life begins and a new constituent is welcomed to the fold. Up until that moment an abortion is not so different from removing a cyst except that no one protests the fate of that cyst. As far as the nonsense about efforts to improve education and reduce unwanted pregnancies - a terrific idea because the first step is to stop making the problem worse - but good luck with all that since the thrust of that misguided effort is to remove the stigma from unwed motherhood and to build day-care centers in high schools and to change the 3 R's of education to Reading, Writing, and Removing the condom from its wrapper. (Could I possibly be spared the proclamations about America's best days are ahead?) I wonder if politicians elbow one another to get to the microphone to announce the latest big proposal for children because they feel a twinge for the ones that never made it that far. I suppose it would be natural to overreach and wrap the survivors in the warm smothering embrace of the state.

Fitz5, what is your point? I have adopted 3 children. Does that make me more Pro-life then another who can't afford to adopt? Adoption is about $20,000, lower that and many would step up to the plate.

Maybe you missed the point, why would you challenge Pro-lifers to fix or take care of your problem? Where is the personal responsibility? How about this idea, use protection to avoid unwanted pregnancy, or just use abstinence. Wow that is too easy isn't it? Guilting Pro-lifers into taking care of your problem for you is just asinine. How about this, you mess up and get pregnant, then take personal responsibility not an escape route!!

As for practical ways to reduce abortion, I do not think the giving of contraceptives to kids as minor as 14yrs old is practical. It certainly will not reduce "undesired" pregnancies. Did a research not say that "53% of unplanned pregnancies occur in women who are using contraceptives"? That is a pass mark for unpracticality.

The fact is that pro-lifers are daily engaged in practical ways to reduce unwanted pregnancies which lead to abortion. One of such ways is teaching on abstinence. However way you look at it, there is some success with that method. Check out http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/05/abstinence/

Pro-lifers also offer support, economic and moral, to poor pregnant women. Just visit the churches to see their programs.

If you are trying to reduce abortion, are you not therefore saying that abortion is wrong? If, however, you say abortion is ok, then why are you trying to reduce it? Do you see the contradiction?

http://www.abortionviolence.com

Very interesting website !!

fact or fiction?

Susan is absolutely right! I know/have known many "pro-lifers" and everyone but one was for the war in Iraq and all were for the death penalty. So, Susan calling out the majority of the "Pro-life" movement as being hypocritical is obvious and warranted.

The majority in the movement are inconsistent with their “Pro-life” stance. Also, most in the movement don’t adopt the unwanted children who were not aborted by their mothers and did not ask to be born. And these same people are the ones who want every social program slashed and welfare stopped. Here is their stance as I understand it: – “We’re pro-life only until your born and then we’ll fight to make sure all programs are slashed so your parents don’t have enough money to house you or feed you and once you’ve grown up in poverty and you turned to crime to feed yourself, we’ll lock you up for a long period of time and then once you’re sufficiently sociopathic and actually kill someone, we’ll hook you up to some lethal injection for some payback, but hey, thanks to your mother for choosing life over abortion!”

And besides being hypocritical, the members of this “movement/terrorist group” don’t understand that there are so many reasons that people choose to abort and most of them have to do with medical reasons, so since we can’t govern all of the possible medical reasons to do so, let’s let the woman and her doctor come up with a decision that works for that woman, why don’t we? Most decisions are agonizing and I’ve known plenty of people who actually wanted their baby, but had to abort for medical reasons. And I’ll be damned if a two celled organism has more right to life than I do, so your movement’s drive to ban ALL abortions, even ones that would save the mother’s life, is murder of a living breathing woman who’s loved and may be a mother to other children.

So, “Pro-lifers” stop with the absolutes and start putting your energy towards doing good in the world like ending poverty or war, not a woman’s RIGHT to choose what she does with her OWN body. If you don’t agree with abortion, then don’t have one!

"I tend to agree with those who posit that our society is largely uncomfortable with female sexuality and that it makes a lot more sense to have sex education and contraception than all this hysteria when we can control pregnancy much earlier..."
*********************************

I would go further and postulate that our society is largely uncomfortable with sexuality period, whether it is male or female. These folks use the fact that abortions occur due to unplanned pregnancies and the fact that sex tends to spread STDs as vehicles to promote their abstinence views. But make no mistake; these just happen to be convenient and unfortunate side affects that allow their preaching and grandstanding. The real issue for most of these people is simply the fact that they don't like the idea of other people having sex.

Wait just a minute. I am a conservative who is pro-life, anti-war, and anti-death penalty, yet I will defend those conservatives who are also pro-war and pro-death penalty because Thistlethwaite makes very unintelligent arguments that are not fair to them. Many conservatives are pro-war because the ultimate goal is to save American lives and they are pro-death penalty because it would be punishment for people who themselves have committed murder and a deterrent for would-be murderers.

As far as abortion, especially late-term abortions, a very small number of extreme pro-lifers are willing to get violent and even murder. In the case of Tiller's murder, his death is easily justified in the mind of his killer because Tiller himself had murdered countless innocent babies and would have continued to do so had he not been killed. I am not saying that someone should have gone into church and shot him or that he should have been killed at all, but how can anyone not see that the motive behind his murder was ultimately about saving lives. Tiller was an unrepentant serial killer and nobody was stopping him. I am sure that his death was not as painful, gruesome, or inhumane as were the murders that he committed. Just look up what happens during a partial birth/late-term abortion. Methods include dismemberment, sucking out the brain, and crushing the skull. About 1.3 million babies are murdered each year in the US and tens of thousands of those are late-term abortions. If you look up the methods used for any abortion, early or late, you will find that they are all gruesome.

Anyways, couldn't this article have just as well been about how ridiculous it is that liberals are often against the death penalty for convicted murderers and against war intended to protect our country yet they are in favor of murdering innocent babies whose only crimes were to be conceived by women who didn't care enough about them to at least give birth to them and let them be adopted by parents who would love them?

Jesus stated "He without sin among you let him cast the first stone at her." Some religious still stone raped women & own women. Who should own them as a slave? Exodus describes no penalty for women who choose to terminate pregnancy, nor does any Bible verse.

Medically, a fetus becomes a baby at its first breath. Then, siblings recognize it & it's named, christened, given citizenship, & celebrates zero. Unless you're a surrogate, the only way to give rights to unborn is to take away women's.

So my guess is you will remove any post that attempts to bring any balance to the back and forth jaw jacking of people who will pull any thing they can find from both extremes of this issue. This is the reason that we as a nation cannot come to a common ground on this issue. as long as the extremist on this subject are given the stage to show case all of their so called facts, we will be debating this forever and no one wins. Sucks for the kids...

Sure and we'll see still more of the violent hatespeech that incites people to kill in churches and call it 'Christian.'

AMEN JIMINCA! Yes, where was Susan and the other liberal journalists mourning the deaths of these pre born babies about to be born? Where were they while Tiller, the Late-Term Abortionist, was ripping their heads and limbs apart, throwing their body parts in the trash, and not allowing them to be born in a week? Where were they while Tiller bragged about how many thousands he was able to murder?

There is another issue that few mention and that should delineate true Pro-Life believers and nut-cases. True Pro-Life believers should have to have at least one adopted child in their household or, an application for adoption pending, in order to qualify for admission to the club. You should not kill the man who kills the child that you would't adopt if it had lived.

The most fundamental and absolute truth in this tragedy is that Dr. Tiller's death was a despicable, reprehensible act of cowardice. Without absolute truth, we are left with no moral basis to universally and unequivocally condemn Dr. Tiller's slaying. My heart and prayers are with Dr. Tiller's family and church family.
I am strongly pro-life, which means we love all our fellow human beings, even those we strongly disagree with. Prayer and peaceful discourse in the public square are the means for addressing difficult societal issues.

You lecture the Pro-life movement on violence? Over 1.4 MILLION developing human beings are killed in the womb every year in the United States and you lecture pro-life folks on violence?

My dear, since 1977, eight (8) doctors in the United States have been murdered because of their affiliation with the abortion industry. While wrong, it is not a wave of violence.

Random crazy people will commit evil acts. No one should suffer violence in the United States, but to say abortion providers are somehow at risk from the pro-life movement is a lie.

One more thing: abortion opponents have a knack for offering statements like this when objecting to critiques like those of Ms. Thistlethwaite:

"Christ says that the ends do NOT justify the means! Most pro-lifers are also against the death penalty, violence, and certainly Tiller's murder." (See Mr. Thatguy's comment.)

I state an absolute--some biblical injunction, usually--, then add that *most* of my fellow believers adhere to the injunction; ergo, Ms. Thistlethwaite is slandering my movement.

But that merely proves her point: the movement is constituted, at least in part, by the disappointing tendency to excuse itself from any confrontation with its extremism when the confrontation would imperil the movement's intellectual underpinnings. An absolutist movement with room for relativist thinking is unsound.

I've heard several comments from the pro-life crowd that justifies the killings in war by using the principle of "taking one life to save many". They justify, for example, the bombings of Hiroshima and the quarter of a million deaths that resulted using this very logic. It is only a small step for them to justify the killing of an abortion provider using exactly the same logic.

You Americans! You criticize the Taliban for forcing women to accept a harsh interpretation of Islamic law. You criticize the Taliban for killing people in their own Mosques. How are you different?

As always, the abortion wedge issue must be removed from analysis of this event. The killer plotted an execution in a public place, and carried out the killing in cold blood. The law calls for the suspect to be tried for 1st degree murder, among other charges. It's pretty cut and dry. We can't let this killing become a platform to argue about irrelevant political wedge issues.

I have felt for many years that the pro-life movement was really pro-birth more than concerned about life - how many of these anti-choice people worry about what happens to an unwanted child after its born? How about the babies born with severe disabilities, who will become a burden on society as well as on their parents? The murdered doctor helped women who were faced with the tragic choice between having a severely handicapped child, or of having a late term abortion. Before roe v. Wade, thousands of women died every year, from botched abortions -- is that what the anti-choice people want to go back to? To lessen the number of abortions, an excellent goal, we need to make birth control readily available (and cheap), especially the morning after pill, and we need to educate our children about the responsibilities of keeping themselves safe from sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy. Sex is every where, on TV, in the movies, in the music kids listen to -- the reality is that extramarital sex is here to stay, (always has been) and unwanted pregnancies will end in abortion. Killing a doctor who helped women, often married women, with a difficult, heart wrenching choice is not pro-life. Susan, you are absolutely right.

Interesting what minute details someone will cling to in a larger movement as long as it supports their ideology. There is no doubt violence has permeated throughout movements in our great country's history - but am I to ask minorities to remove themselves from their "pedestal" when a single individual acts on their beliefs in violence? Am I to claim the Catholic faith is invalidated by those who have been corrupted by power? Am I to claim all Muslims are extremists b/c the media reports on only the select few? So why then does "Dr." Thistlethwaite feel she can invalidate the pro-life movement by singling out the few who misinterpret what it means to be pro-life and react in an evil manner. Is it impossible to justify holding to the belief that an innocent unborn child has the right to a life while those who have taken lives of others by force have foregone this right themselves? I don't ask here that you agree with this assertion, but only how Ms. Thistlethwaite can carte blanche claim that this is an invalid belief, that it is somehow impossible to justify one's belief in such a matter. Obviously for one to believe in something (anything), there always stands the opportunity for someone to punch holes into the areas that seem inconsistent. In my entire life however, I've never been presented with a belief, a faith, an opinion, a thought that could withstand such scrutiny infallibly. Such is uncertainty. So kudos to the Dr. for taking the easy shots:)

Those who claim to be "pro-life" while supporting capital punishment and war only do so out of selfrighteous delusion. It's a reason for them to feel they're more noble and therefore more worthy than others when their judgement day comes. More hypocracy.

The heinous murder of Dr. George Tiller was a violent act that authenticates you cannot be pro-life if you as a pro-lifer kills a human life. A life that will be missed by those who loved him, a life our Creator put here in his own image, a life the Creator has asked each of us in His Commandments not to kill.
The Sixth Commandment “Thy shall not kill,” does not come with the exception: you can kill someone because they choose to be a doctor who performs abortions that kills the unborn lives of babies and you disagree with that. Killing this man does not make you a martyr, a hero or increase favor for you in the eyes the Creator. It only makes you a murdering terrorist and a criminal. And we are very familiar with terrorists; people whose ideology of violence is intended to threaten and cause fear, for the purpose of exerting pressure on a decision, or a belief.
I fail to see anywhere in Catholicism, Christianity, or any faith that states God would be ok with this. Keeping in mind that the Bible states that God created man in his own image. I don’t think God, (I’m not speaking for God I’m just guessing here) is ok with people killing any of his “images,” abortion doctors or the unborn.
I believe that the best way we have to try to end abortions is as Susan stated in her article. Education is a powerful tool far more powerful than violence, violence only breeds more violence. When anti-abortionist say such things as Dr. Tiller got what he deserved, they are not being good people of any faith, they are condoning terrorism. I think God is disappointed that we as human beings continue to fail this great gift of life he has given us. We are not the ones who choose who lives and who dies despite our knowledge and physical ability to do so. We need to find non-violent means of dealing with our differences of opinions on abortion and more.

TKITE wrote a great response and all should read it. I as a pro-lifer do not believe in the death penalty or unjust wars. To lump all pro-lifers into one category is wrong. Why doe the Washington Post continue to place a very strong liberal writer on its editorial page and then when I write they tell me most are conservatives?? How can Ms. Thisltewaite be the leader of a Seminary and not teach abstinence is the best, most proven method for having no babies.

Given issues with doctor / patient confidentiality, this may be a question that's impossible to answer, but:

Are there any statistics available (from a reputable source) regarding the # of late-term abortions performed that are simply the birth-control-of-last-resort versus those that are performed due to health concerns (unborn unlikely to survive, health of mother, etc.)...?

The arguments from the anti-abortion side often make it seem like the unborn is always perfectly healthy and the mother is never at risk...

The pro-choice side rarely seems to deal with the moral issues surrounding terminating a late-term pregnancy simply because it is unwanted...

My bias...?

I tend to agree with those who posit that our society is largely uncomfortable with female sexuality and that it makes a lot more sense to have sex education and contraception than all this hysteria when we can control pregnancy much earlier...

Dr Thistlethwaite, is it not ironical that you, who is a professor of theology, would say "Pro-Life" is fundamentally flawed?

Few questions for you. Would it be ok for the prosecutor to seek the DEATH PENALTY for the suspect in this murder, if convicted? What of the case of Timothy McVey, was his execution wrong?
How about when Iraq invaded Kuwait and began moving in on Saudi Arabia? Was it wrong for the Saudis to ask the US to help fight back?

These questions concern "moral issues" of WAR and DEATH PENALTY.

bbb444: If pro-lifers are complicit in this death, then all pro-choicers are complicit in all abortions done everywhere. You think on that.

You leftoids cheer the death of an unborn child, early or late term. But you will protest to the earths end to save a murderer from his deserved lethal injection. Is it me or does anyone see the flawed logic here? I have seen all of the obama talking points "lets work to reduce abortions". No moron, lets work to stop killing babies that have done no wrong to anyone.

At the end of the day the bottom line is that no more babies will die at the hands of this murderer George Tiller. Would I go out and kill an abortion Dr.? No I wouldn't, but I will not cry for, morn for, or feel sorry for a so called doctor that is as evil as Tiller. My sorrow goes to the man that was pushed over the edge by this liberal judicial activism. I am Pro-life for the innocent, Pro-death for the murderers, I am not religious and do not belong to any group. So save your attacks and labels for someone who cares. Where was all this liberal compassion when he was slaughtering babies? Ya that's what I thought, there isn't a political opportunity in defending a baby.

The "pro-lifers" who feel compelled to type in all caps are, as usual, missing the point.

It's not about "life," it's about "What's human."

Some people feel that 16 cells in a womb is human because it's a result of a man and a woman. Others don't.

A recently dead person with no brain activity would qualify as "human" under those terms, at least for a few hours.

If you're "pro-human" then the death of an immature, unaware, fetus is not a problem, but the death of a self-aware walking, talking, intelligent doctor is.

I'm sorry if this comes across as arrogant and condescending to the "pro-lifers," however, you might want to think about the fact that if oh, half the population seems arrogant and condescending to YOU, then perhaps you might just be inviting it.

Susan, How can you be a theologan and have a difficulty understanding the difference between an innocent human baby and a violent criminal? If you are a thinker you would understand that it is pro-life to be for the death penalty because the death penalty is used for protecting our society from violent criminals. They had a chance to live but blew it by murdering. How is it logical to compare the two types of people? You just totally lost credibility with because of your inability to think. And regarding Tiller, he's bragged about the murders of thousands of babies who were just about to be born, who were in their late term of development, and you actually feel sorry for the creep. I don't believe in taking justice into my own hands but I have a hard time understanding how you can sympathize with a brutal murderer like him!

Professor Thistlethwaite is absolutely right. As some of the comments here prove, the tragedy is that the "pro-life" side will never see the truth about how the absolutism and singular focus of their movement promotes murder.

"Blaming a Pro-Life position is like blaming a gun manufacturer for the gun."

Both have some degree of culpability. Baisically what it boils down to is Americans are bloodthirsty. The murder rate in the US is about 2.5 per 100,000 whereas in other Western countries it's about 1% of that. To get a higher murder rate than the US you have to go to some garden spot like Columbia, or Uganda or Nigeria or someplace like that. Yes crazy people exist everywhere but do you reall believe that we have 100 times more crazy people here than anywhere else in the civilized World? The flaw is therefore most likely rooted in the culture. And about the only material distinction that I can see is Americans as a nation are far more apt to agree with the statement that it is right and correct, justified if you will, to impose our views on others. We believe people must do as we say and if they don't, then they must be dealt with using firmer measures. Just crazy.

It is sad that in the midst of this event, each side uses it to demonize the other. I read comments like "... this is typical of the fundamentalist right..." or "... leave it to the liberal left to use this to..."

The fact is that our country has fallen into the abyss of categorizing each other to the point of being incapable of having a genuine discussion that leads to any kind of solution, or any kind of genuine discourse for that matter.

In short, this divisiveness is making us impotent to solve our own problems. We need to heed the words of Abraham Lincoln: "A house divided against itself cannot stand."

BRAVO Chaotician....BRAVO!

BE A LOVING "PRO-LIFER"!!! (like most of America is) NOT A BIGOTED "PROFILER" (as is this extremely biased author - ms. thistlewaite)

So Ms Thistlethwaite writes a well reasoned, balanced article that says if one is pro-life than one has to be anti-death, ANYONE's death. It is very unclear whether many of the commenters actually read the entire article because their comments are inconsistent with Ms Thistlethwaite's thesis. Yet those ready with their philosophy bombs and labels lept to the page, writing without thinking. Nothing that was said in this article reveals either a liberal bias or any other political sentiment. In fact there is not one word of poitics in any of the article. Susan Thistlethwaite merely notes that if one claims a pro-life stance, it is inconsistent to champion the death of any other person. Her thesis is anti violence and anti death. Period.
The comments that present her words in any other description are simply desperate anti abortion proponents who know this latest violence brands them ALL as hypocrites. It is high time that the anti abortion movement find a new label for themselves, or the courage to divest their ranks of the pro-violence contingent.

Those who are against abortion should work to eliminate the need--instead of murdering and marching. Think about why a woman would opt for abortion: child care is too expensive, employers don't hire pregnant women, employers don't allow employees to go home in time to care for the children after school, health insurance is unaffordable, grandparents would rather golf than provide daily care, fathers are non-existant, careers stop, education ends. If all the pro-lifers would focus on eliminating these reasons for necessitating abortions then the rate would greatly reduce. Let's see you pro-lifers hire pregnant women for a change, and vote for health insurance reform, and set up free child care. All you have to do is think about it a little more and offer true support and solutions instead of marching in circles.

susan,

i agree with you on one point, and one point only: scott roeder committed murder, for which he ought to be found responsible.

your point about "fundamental inconsistency" in pro-life movement demonstrates your serious lack of knowledge in the very object of your attack. pro-life movement does not espouse this grandiose notion of "moral absolute" of all "life," as you put it. its purpose is much more focused than that: protection of "innocent" life. so while scott roeder is indeed a murderer, there is nothing "fundamentally inconsistent" about him holding a pro-life stance, which advocates protection of innocent lives, and deciding to kill george tiller, who had been a perpetrator of crime against these very innocent lives.

your article, i'm sorry to say, is just another sound byte from an uninformed bystander to this life-choice struggle. you have just stripped yourself of all credibility to meaningfully participate in this debate.

Those persons pointing out the inconsistency of support for "reproductive rights" and opposition to the death penalty, for example, are simply insisting on a dichotomy that keeps them warm, wrong as it is.

The argument is not based on a dichotomy but on the (somewhat vague) notion that, even in cases when the state has an interest in personal intervention--conscription or imprisonment, for example--, it's best to exclude life and death from the scope of the state's power over the person.

This is why we find anti-war protesters in support of abortion rights, say: it's not life on the one hand and death on the other, it's the belief that the government ought not to have the power of life and death over its constituents.

If you believe in the sanctity of life, find abortion abhorrent, and want to argue your point with your opponent, poke holes in the reasoning they use, not the reasoning you impute to them.

Wow, Susan either knows absolutely nothing about the pro-life movement, or more likely, is falsely characterizing pro-lifers as violent to support her own twisted ideas.
Christ says that the ends do NOT justify the means! Most pro-lifers are also against the death penalty, violence, and certainly Tiller's murder.
Such goofy nonsense.

I am not a religious person and am not sure there is a heaven or a hell.

From my personal perspective however - I think Tiller would be somewhat lower on the ladder of good and evil than his "terminator" if for nothing else than the number of lives he has prevented from being fulfilled.

The rationalized ignorance spread by the left is nothing short of stupefying. Save snails, save fish, save birds, save the environment for "future" generations - but it's perfectly fine to slaughter millions of those who would make up future generations when it's convenient for them.

What is really happening is that the Democrats have seized the vilest method imaginable to garner votes and in the process, have allowed the purification of not only basic morals but common sense as well.

No surprise the WaPo would print this rubbish about pro-lifers. The "legitimate" pro-life community condemns such actions. The lunatic fringe that exists is not part of the rational debate, nor do we "own" them, according to k2isnothome. Just as legitimate Muslims didn't "own" the 9/11 terrorists, we don't "own" these clowns.

Dr. Tiller's murder is an affront to those who are pro-life. Legitimate pro-life organizations have strongly condemned this murder. The suspect is connected to fringe elements of various anti-government organizations. A little fact checking would be nice before you jump to conclusions.

@MHoust:

You said: I loved gamiller1's comment, "Nobody has the right to take another life, except perhaps in self-defense or defense of family, etc." because that is EXACTLY the reason why women need and seek abortions."

So, you think women seek (and "need") abortions and partial birth abortions - that is, cruelly aborting a viable baby at 21+ weeks - for reasons of self-defense and defense of family? That's just stupid. Please stop flailing around trying to defend the undefensible.

Two wrongs do not make a right. The Killing of Dr Tiller sad and will not help the the prolife cause.

I do strongly disagree with the gross generalizations in this article regarding the prolife movement. Most prolifers are non-violent and respectful of others. The children murdered by way of abortion are no different than the childeren murdered by war in Iraq and Afganistan. It is equally disturbing.
Both are the result of decisions and actions of others. If we as adults accept responsibility for our actions make mature decisions these lives can be saved.

Choice is very important... All Children deserve the choice to live.

Call this for what it is: Christian Fundamentalist Terrorism. It's this era's version of the far-left terrorism of the 60s.

It's interesting how people continue to lump all pro-lifers into one category, as Ms. Thistelthwaite does in her article. People should be judged on their own merit. Period.

As a pro-life Catholic, I can tell you that I feel what Dr. Tiller did was horrific in every aspect of the word. There is no justifying murdering innocent children to accommodate the whims of those who do not want children in their lives. Do I feel that Dr. Tiller deserved to be murdered - of course not. Someone who would carry out this sort of thing is in a class all by themselves.

In any case, Ms. Thistelthwaite really needs to do her homework. Lumping all of us into one category is not acceptable. In today's society, it's not fashionable to stereo-type people by race, nor should it be fashionable to do so by pro-life beliefs.

Thistlethwaite never mentions that the killer killed to defend the unborn against abortion, which is an application, except for the presumption that the unborn are protected as fully human, of the moral and legal law of defense of others. The real problem for pro-lifers is rationalizing NOT killing people like the doctor. To be logically consistent, they have to be FOR such killing (what I would call murder, but to them is justifiable homicide). That's the insidious nature of the pro-life assumption that life begins at conception.

I can understand the frustration that pro life advocates feel in the fact that, although they feel morally right in telling a person that they should not get an abortion, that this is killing a living child, the government has not seen fit to pass legislation to outlaw this act. I think people should stop looking to control others actions and start controlling their own. If this is truely a moral outrage then surely the majority of people will agree and vote to elect government officials that will inact laws against it. It seems to me people in this country are quick to jump on one side or the other, but very slow to work, through legal means, to correct what they see as wrong. If however the majority of people see a womans choice is absolute, then I think everyone should take a step back and look at other ways to combat the rising tide of abortions. There are children already in this world who would benefit greatly from the all the energy wasted on who is right and who is wrong. Lets feed, clothe and protect the ones we can and put the question of choice in gods hands. He has the final word in the end...

Max -- the question isn't "why blame the pro-lifers for one man's actions?" If Dr. Tiller had not been a highly controversial doctor who performed abortions, would he still have been killed? If he hadn't been at the center of an emotionally-charged issue in an area of the country known to be highly conservative, would an uninformed extremist still have murdered him?

Of course the pro-life movement is to blame, because that is the mindset that took Dr. Tiller's life... which is why it's all the more hypocritcal.

Ms. Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite,

Your moronic, hypocritical, and VERY, VERY uneducated article is a testament that reveals just how ignorant and arrogant you and the pro-choice/pro-death movement are.

Pro-life movements around the entire world have denounced this act of murder. Please get your facts straight before spreading your inaccurate, ignorant bull$h1T.

Pardon me Susan, but as someone else here commented earlier, your liberal arrogance is definitely showing.

The absolutes in this article clearly are used to make a point. In the real world, there are many shades of gray. This incident clearly crosses the line. FYI, the bible does not say "Thou Shall Not Kill". The word is "Ratsach", which means Murder. In every society in the world people understand this distinction. Self Defense and War for Self Defense are justifiable reasons for the taking of a life. Though I would try to find alternatives, I would not hesitate to take the life of a person who was trying to take the life of my kids.

This article is flawed from the very beginning. The majority of the pro-life movement does not support any taking of life, your opinion notwithstanding.

I find it odd that pro-choicers see no wrong in the killing of babies, yet find the killing of an abortionist the epitome of wrong. What is the difference? Someone made a choice, true, the wrong choice, but a choice just the same. Pro-choicers cannot have it both ways.
For the record, I believe that murder is murder, whether the victim is an innocent baby... or even a baby killer. No one's "rights" should supercede another's rights, especially the most basic right. The right to life.

ALL pro-lifers I know (and there are MANY) oppose this kind of action, abhor this kind of action, and speak out against this kind of action ....(if nothing else, it hurts their own cause)... the leftists and pro-abortionist crowd do so clearly show their hateful colors by articles such as this and comments such as these suggesting that all or even most anti-abortion activists are in favor of violence - I suspect they already know this fact, but spew their hate such as ms. thistlewaite does here out of mindless and hatefilled agendas - BE A LOVING "PRO-LIFER" NOT A BIGOTED "PROFILER" (LIKE THIS BIGOTED AUTHOR MOST SURELY IS)

The view of the columnist is no better than the view of the killer. Skewed, narrow-minded and working in absolute terms.
I consider my sympathies to be pro-life oriented (against abortion, death penalty and war in general), but I also understand the need for legal avenues to provide abortions. While I certainly do not like it, I like the idea of women and hangers in their uterus even less. Make it restrictive, add counter-balance mechanisms, ban third trimester abortions if you will (I never understood why it is necessary to have those to begin with... too brutal and inhumane for the child) but allow abortion nontheless under certain conditions nontheless. To the hard-core pro-lifers: Let God and law be the judges of people's actions, but give them the liberty to make the decision. To the pro-choice group: be respectful of people's religion and belief system and give them the liberty to (peacefully) express their ideas.

Interesting point, oldroadsandnew, that these attacks only happen under Democratic administrations. Funny, since the abortion rate increased under Bush's term, yet protesters were silent.

Maybe it's not really about the rights of the unborn at all, maybe it's really just about power.

She's 100% right, which means of course that she's infuriating nearly everybody. Neither logic nor consistency have any place in this "debate."

Murder is murder, not terrorism unless the murder is to terrorize someone or to make someone else not do what you do not want them to do then it is terrorism. These “pro-lifers” are in fact in a terrorist organization. With the purpose to terrorize others. This is their mandate and mantra. Saying O’ this one and that one is just one of them going off and committing murder for the others is not a part of the “pro-lifers” is full of it (lies and more lies). What the “pro-lifers” want is to stop everyone and anyone that is doing what they do not want and by any means. So they will say that this is not true. Would they have stopped anyone form killing a doctor NO they would not. The “pro-life” movement is a terrorist organization and a threat to the USA and they should be dealt with as such. Doing anything else is to allow a terrorist organization to life, prosper, and enforce their beliefs on everyone with terror and death. All of these “pro-lifers” should be charged as terrorists and have the law do what must be done to these terrorists in order to save the USA for us all.

As a person who has taken in 2 UNWANTED CHILDREN due to their health problems and mental development problems - yes people there are hundreds of thousand of unwanted children out there.

I have only 1 question for Scott Roeder and all the other "pro-lifers" out there.

HOW MANY UNWANTED CHILDREN HAVE YOU TAKEN ADOPTED?

If you have taken some of these children in, then you have the right to lend your opinion on pro-life positions.
If not THEN SHUT UP and start taking in one of the thousands of unwanted kids that are already here!

This tragedy is the sort of thing I've come to expect from the "pro-life" movement. They tend to be pro-war, pro-death penalty, and want to kill anyone who performs one rare medical procedure.

I'm glad to know that the Department of Homeland Security is following up on the domestic terrorists who committed this crime.

Susan,
I can understand someone writing an article against the killer in this case, however I am appalled by the ignorance and bias presented in this article. How can you attack a general group of people because of one man's actions? Ok so there has been violence and murders in the past, but the extreme actions of these particular individuals does not prove the pro-life movement itself to be the cause. The Pro-Life movement centers it's protest against the murder of "Innocent life". That's important to keep in mind when comparing it to other issues such as the death penalty. Unfortunately there are nut cases out in the world such as Scott Roeder who use violence and murder to protest abortion but any sane pro-lifer understands that these actions are contrary to the fundamental basis of pro-life. I'm not even going to comment on your "strategies" of decreasing abortions. The main point is that your article is extremely ignorant and mis-informed. Please don't put the actions of some insane murderers on the shoulders of a movement which defends the blood of millions of innocent lives. You should be ashamed and I pray that God will shine grace upon your heart.

-Max

Murder is murder, not terrorism unless the murder is to terrorize someone or to make someone else not do what you do not want them to do then it is terrorism. These “pro-lifers” are in fact in a terrorist organization. With the purpose to terrorize others. This is their mandate and mantra. Saying O’ this one and that one is just one of them going off and committing murder for the others is not a part of the “pro-lifers” is full of it (lies and more lies). What the “pro-lifers” want is to stop everyone and anyone that is doing what they do not want and by any means. So they will say that this is not true. Would they have stopped anyone form killing a doctor NO they would not. The “pro-life” movement is a terrorist organization and a threat to the USA and they should be dealt with as such. Doing anything else is to allow a terrorist organization to life, prosper, and enforce their beliefs on everyone with terror and death. All of these “pro-lifers” should be charged as terrorists and have the law do what must be done to these terrorists in order to save the USA for us all.

We are living in a Culture of Death. Got a problem - kill it. Chaotician, I pray for your soul and may God bless you.

You gotta be kidding Susan, you call this reporting?! Good grief. Take a pill and relax and think on what your saying overnight. I think you're reaching so far you've dislocated your elbow. Good night and may God bless :).

Two points --

Pro-abortionists have indeed murdered pro-lifers; you just never hear it reported except on the local level. For documentation, see the Abortion Violence Web site at http://www.abortionviolence.com. The sources referenced are all secular newspapers. You can see state-by-state reports on this Web site; interesting that more than a thousand pregnant women have been murdered by "pro-choicers" for refusing to get abortions over the past thirty years, but you never hear the pro-abortion crowd talking about that.

Second point -- did you notice that all of the previous violence against Gunn, Slepian et.al. took place under Clinton, and there were no shootings as all under Bush? Now the violence is starting again under another "pro-choice" president, Obama. Anyone got any theories on that? I am truly baffled.

This article is slanted in such a manner to cast a wide net over anything pro-life and associate it with this murder. I am innocent and love life for all.

Boy Chaotician it sounds like you've got some real issues. Kinda on the dark side aren't we? :) Take a deep breath and breath out real slllooowwwllly

This article says more about the writer and her university than it does about either side of the abortion debate. I find it disturbing that the president of a seminary would resort to such a base and insulting attack. And one completely devoid of either reason or logic.

Yes, the pro-life movement is compromised by their loyalty to the Republican Party and it's unyielding support of the death penalty and it's recent aggression in the theatre of war.

But what does the side that supports abortion call itself? "Pro-abortion"? No. They use an equally inconsistent euphamism. "Pro-Choice". Let's see. Do they support my right to choose to defend myself by bearing arms? To choose my own private health care plan? To choose whether or not to take whatever drug I want? No. And you know what? Everybody knows that. Everybody understands the term is a euphamism for pro-abortion. Just like everybody knows what pro-life stands for.

But this writers wants to use an act of cowardice by a madman to pile on people around the globe who disagree with her. This us the worst kind of fascism. She attacks the millions of Catholics who are both pro-life in terms of abortion and the death penalty. And war.

This is beneath any distinguished seminary or any institution that strives for truth. It's nothing more than character assassiation of the lowest common denominator. President Obama urged the nation to elevate the argument. This woman seeks to take deeper into the hate filled mud.

Although I don't agree with anti-abortion movement and this tragic murder. I also don't agree with writer's point of view. So we have to respect the criminal's right to live but ignore the victim's right? How do you justify with that. Liberals always talks about that human beings are equal regardless of their color of skin, their profession etc. But why we have this stupid Affirmative Action. So black or Latino people have more chance to go to college than white or Asian people. where is the consistency with that?

Oh please. Now the kooks will start coming out of the woods to rebut the kook who murdered this doctor. The doctor is a victim of murder by another depraved person. Blaming a Pro-Life position is like blaming a gun manufacturer for the gun.

For the professor to attack Pro-Life groups as inherently violent while defending the slaughter of utterly innocent human beings is also rather silly. What is more violent than the dismembering or saline burning of a child in the womb of the mother. That is a horror show too violent to even watch.

As for the inconsistency of the Pro-Life position on death penalty and war, there can be some discussion there. But you are talking about murderers and capital punishment (not innocent life) or wars that are often fought to protect innocents (would you object to war to defend Darfur victims?). In any case, trying to prevent abortion of innocents is not the same as either capital punishment or war. There are very stark differences.

Abortion is a careless form of birth control in the US. It reflects the pro-abortion side's utter lack of regard for human life. The talk of "reducing abortions" from some is utterly insincere as all the programs about " honest sex education of young people, safe and available contraception, and the provision of health care and other economic supports for poor women who want to have a child" already exist throughout the country. Therefore there is really little excuse for abortion, and yet millions of babies die every year. 49 million or more since Roe. This is in the US. The current position of the other side is not "pro-choice" but clearly "pro-abortion". Even those people supporting choice in the time leading up to the Roe decision would honestly tell you that they had no idea that abortion would be used millions of times every year.

Put your money where your mouth is. Rare it is not, but should be. Abortion is just a sickening procedure that is not taken seriously by the people who use it as birth control or the defenders of it like the good professor. Fortunately, her sad position is losing ground as people realize that abortion should be rare given the prosperity and programs currently available in the country. That it is still so rampant speaks to the marketing job of the abortion providers. They are like a drug company pushing their product.

Erex23, you're a beautiful example of the kind of mental and social disconnect that infuriates the pro-choice side of the argument. No pro-choice activist has ever forced a woman to have an abortion against her will, but thousands of pro-life activists have forced their views on women and made an emotionally difficult decision nearly impossible to make. Grow up and realize that pro-choice does NOT mean "abortions for everyone", but it means "I respect a woman enough to give her the right to make her own decisions about her body." Just because the decisions I make are not the decisions you would make, that doesn't automatically mean you're right and I'm wrong, or vice versa.

Calling the movement anything but anti-abortion is where the confusion lies. Many members in this movement strongly support the death penalty, war and are avid hunters. It's nothing but a lie to call this movement pro-life. I applaud Thistlethwaite's commentary and support her call for "practical and cooperative ways" to reduce abortions in the world. This act of violence is not an isolated incident and the movement ought to be examined as a whole.

MBUZDOR says many people are offended by Ms. Thistlewaite's blathering ignorance. Ms. Thistlewaite was president of Chicago Theological Seminary and is now with the Center for American Progress - blathering ignorance is her specialty.

The debate between those on the left who favor abortion, and those on the right who favor the death penalty, will be settled only when both sides agree that it is individuals who have rights - and individuals who violate others' rights risk losing theirs.

Ayn Rand defined "rights" more clearly and rationally than anyone on the left or the right:

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

monsters, oops

I so agree with the author of this article that the pro-lifers SHOULD climb down off of their pedestals and be pro-active instead, pro-vididng sex education, etcetera. I have worked in the field of special education for 28 years and have seen the by products of the unwanted, neglected, and abused children. I am completely against abortion as a form of birth control, but I am pro-choice under certain circustances, but in the 3rd tri-mester? I guess I naively didn't know that was still happening, or when that would ever be justifiable. That being said, My point is, all of this pro-life/pro-choice rhetoric leaves out one very important issue. It always has. What becomes of these children after they're born to homes where no one is able to, or no one wants to care for them? Where are all the protesters and do-gooders then? No one seems to give a rat's patootie then! Why is that? That has always been my beef and still is.

Call the Waaaammmmbulance for the apologists for the "Right to Life" crowd. No sane person accuses you all of being murderers, but you "own" these crazies that your rhetoric has emboldened. You have an ethical, moral "ownership" of the extemists you have created, even without intending to do so. In my entire adult life I've never heard of a pro-choice person ever harming an anti-abortion believer for their beliefs nor have I ever read anything condoning violence against their person or property.
Stop whining, you have a moral responsibility for your [Frankenstein's] monters.

This is the most ridiculous piece filled with flawed assertions that I have read since the tragic murder of Tiller. Unfortunately, I am sure that there will be much more rhetoric to come. Oh where to start?

"Violence is a logical outcome of the extreme self-righteousness of those who claim the "pro-life" label" If this were true then there would be more than a mere 8 abortionists and abortion workers who had been killed since Roe V. Wade was instated. To equate everyone within a movement with one extremist radical with ties to that movement is ludicrous. There are plenty of rabid abortion supporters on your side,Madam. Would you want to be seen as no different from the few in your movement who give it a bad name?

Inferring that being pro-life and pro-death penalty is hypocrisy is flawed logic, dear. Abortion takes an innocent life and oftentimes emotionally and physically harms the woman who sought the abortion. The death penalty takes the life of a person who has committed a heinous crime and usually multiple crimes against an innocent victim. Civilized society demands that those who harm it or threaten its order be punished. Or perhaps you would prefer we just pat all these murderers and baby rapists/child killers on the back and send them on their way with a stern warning?

I understand that his is merely an opinion piece and well, God bless America you are entitled to your opinion even if it is seriously flawed. But, honestly this was just over-the-top. I'm pro-life and would never even consider picking up a gun and blowing away an abortionist or blowing up an abortuary. Just because one nut job went too far does not mean that the sane people within the movement are just like him.

What is wrong with the Lady who wrote this article. So because 1 person killed George Tiller ALONE all pro-life people are inconsistent in their moral beliefs and thus the pro-life movement is unjustified. Hate to break it to you lady, you are outnumbered. Not only do more people now consider themselves pro-life, but most pro-life members do not condone the murder of George Tiller. In fact I haven't met 1 that does. Let's stop the clear huge bias that is in this article, can't just news agencies write the news instead of putting an incredible amount of bias into it to try and sway peoples opinions.

Generally speaking the practice of worshiping a fetus while devaluing the human life of those already born fits the pattern of Gnostacism. People who worship things not of the World like a fetus. But once the fetus is born it becomes part of the World and therefore worthless. I only mention this to point out that these people are real far from being Christian.

erex23: we prefer homosexuals over superstitious cavemen.

Wow. The Taleban movement finally has a christian branch! If god's on your side then the ends justify the means. Religion is a club for the mentally unbalanced.

Susan, your view is as overboard as the murderers. Religion does't become bad because of an individuals choice. If that were the case the green movement would be evil because enviromentalists cut power in Santa Cruz to make a point and someone on life support died. This is simply an opportunity to vent on a group you dislike. By the way, the evangelicals support of Bush and his war would have been a better choice. Jesus said love your enemies.

RSKK: As much as you would like to do so, you cannot claim that the anti-abortion movement is peaceful. You harass people, post their private details on the net, and kill doctors.

You are complicit in this death. You should reflect on that.

The Dalai Lama once suggested that we should "heed those who seek the truth, not those who have found it."

I live in Wichita, KS. I want to thank the writer for her eloquence expressed in this article. My only wish is that the media could and would do more thinking, researching, and analyzing the real truth in
every newsworthy article. Dr. Tiller was killed in one of our Lutheran Churches. He was harassed, threatened etc. in these past years. Yet, he continued to offer help to real women who were experiencing problems with their pregnancies (confidentiality concerning their issues was never broken). He cared for many patients through the years, not just women who requested an abortion. He counseled many, including women in need of an abortion. I am sad, very sad that his family lost their father, grandfather and
husband. I never met him, but I have come to admire his balanced view, approach and kindness as he helped many women. It is indeed a sad day in Wichita, Kansas D.R.

Why do Liberals love Homosexuals so much and hate precious babies? Its like they want us all to be gayHomosexuals, and at the same time thyy make all of our women have Abortions. Liberals are the ones who are "Pro-Death"!

Ms Thistlethwaite's point is valid and logical.

The extremists in the abortion debate are ALL on the Pro-Life side. I have never seen pro-choicers bombing or killing Pro-Lifers over the right to an abortion. You can't say the same thing about the Pro-Lifers.

I loved gamiller1's comment, "Nobody has the right to take another life, except perhaps in self-defense or defense of family, etc." because that is EXACTLY the reason why women need and seek abortions.

No woman wants an abortion, but viable alternatives do not usually exist. Abstinence is not a viable, realistic alternative. Contraception is not a reliable alternative. Adoption is not a viable, realistic alternative. And no combination of those is a viable, realistic alternative program.

Until the Pro-Life coalition ponies up to absorb all costs and risks to a woman to bear an undesired child, and provides everything for the raising of that child to adulthood (and does not impose those costs on the rest of society!) then their words of protest are empty, and their efforts merely the imposition of misery on everyone.

Susan, isn't it equally inconsistent for those people who hold anti-death penalty, pro-choice views? It's telling, I think, that you chose not to mention this as a way of pointing out that both sides of the abortion controversy may hold some inconsistent beliefs. But then, equal treatment wasn't really your point was it? Pardon me, but your liberal arrogance is showing.

This is the mose basic of arguements - what part of "thou shall not kill" does either side fail to understand?
Murder in the name of intolerance is just as wrong as the taking of innocent life - abortion. Man is prone to error, I have even come to oppose the death penalty as so many innocent persons have been convicted by our flawed judicial system.

The anti-choice movement is a terrorist movement that poses a clear and present danger to society. The refrain of "the murder was wrong, but I totally understand why someone would do it and the doctor really deserved it anyway" coming from the anti-choice fringe says it more eloquently than I ever could.

It's clear that the "Pro Life" movement is actually constructed to monitor and control the sexual activity of women. It's not about "life"; that's simply a smokescreen to controlling women. That's why their next and self-avowed campaign will be to eliminate birth control medications and devices.

Spare us the "it's about the unborn" because we all know it's about control and only that.

This article is a perfect example of the pious, self-righteous pro-choice crowd labeling everyone who is pro-life as a viscious murderer who bombs abortion clinics. You are an absolute moron if that is what you actually think. Those who bomb abortion clinics and kill people in the name of the pro-life movement are no more pro-life than Hitler was a christian (although he CLAIMED to follow the christian faith). These people are anti-abortion; not to be confused with pro-life. They do not truly hold life sacred and have a twisted sense of morals that; to them; justifies killing a person.

To be a pro-lifer and be bunched in with those would would kill someone in cold blood is offensive, and you really should apologize for doing so. There are a lot of people who are offended by your blathering ignorance...

This is a ridiculous column. Saying that the majority of pro-lifers are in favor of murder is as dumb as saying all muslims participated in and/or supported 9/11.

The vast majority of pro-lifers condemn Tiller's murder. The perpetrator will be caught, tried and punished. Tiller was no hero and was engaged in an abhorrent, violent practice, but no one has the right to take another person's life, whether it be Tiller's or anyone else's. The way to end abortion and particularly partial birth abortion is through legal protest and by changing people's minds - not murder.

I do find it interesting that most liberal columnists and commentators are quicker to blame the Catholic Church - which had nothing to do with this incident - and all pro-lifers for inciting violence than Islamic terrorists and their facilitators. The pro-lifers should have no rights, but don't you dare interrogate any captured terrorists until their lawyers are present!

Like almost all pro-lifers I am appalled by this man's murder and lives he took. May God have mercy on his soul and may his killer be brought to justice. We are land of laws and we follow them.

They're religious extremists, one step away from killing people to save their 'souls'. Another example of the twisted "value voters" that support the pro-torture party.

Every pro-lifer should be sued for false advertizing.

It is clear that many will politically take advantage of this senseless murder to prove their own points about this sensitive issue. This shooting creates a convenient excuse to stereotype all pro-life people as murderous zealots that will stop at nothing. Shame on the shooter, and shame on the people who take advantage of it.

It's pretty obvious "pro-life" means protecting the lives of innocents. Murderers, rapists, and those who would attack us if we did not defend ourselves are not innocents and have therefore lost their right to life.

It's not difficult to understand, unless you're *trying* not to understand it.

My wife and I are Pro-Life, we do not believe in the death penalty, euthanasia or any outside intervention in a life decision. The catholic church has been consistent in it's stance in life issues and match our views. Mr. Tiller (I refuse to call him Dr.) will be made a martyr and Pro-Life views will be marginalized because of one very radical action. I would submit that Mr. Tiller was as radical as his murderer but this will not be debated in any meaningful way. I would hope that those of you who support Pro-Choice views could understand how deeply held the belief that abortion is an assault on those of us who are most vulnerable and innocent. Late term abortion is an act that I believe we could all agree on if it is understood in it's pure brutality. Do not lump all Pro-Life believers into a generalized picture that this author paints. Ninety Nine percent of us are sane and non-violent protesters against something that we passionately believe is ripping at the very fabric of being human.

The inconsistency is the unwarranted connection being made between "pro-life" and war and death penalty. There are nations that haven't waged a war in years or have had the death penalty, yet are rampant with abortions. Is the case for "pro-life" more stable and consistent in those nations? This kind of shallow reasoning is fallacious at best.

CHAOTICIAN - There's no way anyone could have said it better than you just did. Bravo, for being brave enough to look these mainstream religions in the eye and tell them they're hypocrites. Organized religion is the ultimate exercise of control over people's hearts and minds. We are a worse species because of their existence, not despite it. All of them use morals dictated by bloodthirsty "gods" to underscore the inherent "badness" of humanity from birth, when they should be espousing ethics instead, based on the inherent goodness of humanity before it is corrupted in its youth by religious cults and sectarian orthodoxy.

You are my hero.

I believe that God alone should take life. The murder of Dr. Tiller was senseless and unjustifiable. All life is precious and should be protected. In my view, I am part of the majority of this "Pro-life movement".

The death of Tiller is a tragedy, no doubt. This guy was at a church and brutally gunned down. The person responsible should be given the death sentence or convicted to life in jail (depending on your views). However, the left again tries to stereotype all anti-abortionists as people who only care about their beliefs and will resort to extreme measures to accomplish their goals.

Are Republicans, whites, men tired of this? Of course people want to blame the Pope or any other high official who leads this belief.

Why can't we do the same with ACORN? Because we will be stereotyping blacks. That's bad. However, when we stereotypw whites or Republicans or men in general, that's good.

In the past 4 months, we have seen reports about "civil disobedience" from the likes of Bertha Lewis (ACORN) and James Hansen (NASA - global warming). When the media stands quietly and accepts these statements as, "helping Americans" (namely the irresponsible homeowners and environmentalists), more people are going to think this is the way to get your message across. And then, one person takes it upon himself/herself to create "civil disobedience", the MSM's position is if the left did it, it's because of a few bad apples. If the right did it, it's a corrupt organization that brainwashes its followers and needs to be investigated and disbanded.

I reiterate again that this is a travesty. Someone needs to go to jail. If the organization as a whole is corrupt, it needs to be disbanded, regardless of political affiliation.

I understand and respect both views, but please read this if you want to justify the killing of this man. These are not my words, but words of Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

>
King James Bible
-------------------------------------
1 Jesus went unto the mount of Olives. 2 And early in the morning he came again into the temple, and all the people came unto him; and he sat down, and taught them. 3 And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst, 4 They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act. 5 Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou? 6 This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not. 7 So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. 8 And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground. 9 And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst. 10 When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee? 11 She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.
----------------------------------------

When you justify like this then you justify the defense of this. Meaning a doctor could shoot someone because he felt threaten and he may not have been. Then it goes on from there. See how you end up in a recursive loop with no ending and no solution??? Imagine if everyone took these actions based on every man or womans sin??

Brava, Dr. Thistlethwaite. Not only for a rational approach but a reasonable approach to solving our problems. During the last administration, all forms of birth control were pulled from any US aid to foreign countries. In addition, Planned Parenthood was not allowed to send trucks of birth control to the victims of Katrina. If we had a more rational approach to sex education and birth control, we would have less unplanned pregnancies and, therefore, less abortions.

No reason was given for Dr. Tiller's continuance of late-term abortions but Dr. Tiller's values are not the value discussed in the commentary, and should not be. Dr. Thistlethwaite hit it right on target: it is not an abortion doctor's values we should question, but our own and the convoluted value system that allows people to kill people for differences in religious values.

This column is offensive. The premise here is that holding the view that absolute truth exists leads inexorably to violence. This is lunacy.

Of course this murderer is evil. Not only is he evil, he's an idiot if he thinks that his act of violence helped the pro-life movement in any way. But implying that this murderous act is somehow the inescapable result of believing in absolute truth is as ridiculous and perverse as suggesting that this crazed killer is in any way representative of the pro-life movement in general.

The fact that there are acts of evil committed by those who claim to be pro-life does not change the fact that abortion is as morally and logically indefensible as those very same evil acts.

The anti-choice movement is a terrorist movement that poses a clear and present danger to society. The refrain of "the murder was wrong, but I totally understand why someone would do it and the doctor really deserved it anyway" coming from the anti-choice fringe says it more eloquently than I ever could.

Murder is murder. And while I oppose abortion, I also oppose cold-blooded murder, which is what happened this weekend. And in a CHURCH. It kinda defies logic, doesn't it? But not all people of faith are 'extremists'. Tiller was actually an usher in a house of worship. So, we need to think carefully how we frame the upcoming debate.

Let's not be so hasty to label everyone who is opposed to abortion as a nutcase. Unfortunately, what this does is set the debate back for everyone. Now it's once again a debate about extremists instead of a debate about abortion. Personally, I don't think it would take much to convince most folks that late term abortions are unethical. A look at the evidence, an honest review and understanding of the science and the development stages of the fetus. It's a pretty weak argument in favor of it. But that does NOT justify a vigilante response.

Unfortunately, we won't be able to have such discussions for along time because this guy decided that vengeance was his. Wrong approach. Totally wrong.

We need to be careful about how we respond (on both sides). What about anti-war protesters? What about folks like William Ayers. He justified his actions because he was against the war. He has never denounced his actions. In fact, to the contrary, he says he wishes he had done more. Isn't this they same type of mindset? But we won't ever see the Post do an article condemning Bill Ayers. We won't hear anyone suggest that the POTUS showed poor judgment in his associations with Ayer's. (note that I said "poor judgment", I didn't say that the POTUS shared any of Ayer's opinions). But if an "R" had these types of associations, it would get much more press.

I'm not trying to change the subject. What happened this weekend is wrong. Justice needs to be served. We are a nation of laws and we need to work within those laws. But let's not use this incident to stifle the discussion/debate about abortion or to cast all those who are against abortion as being the same as this nut-job.

As long as we demonize each other within debates such as these, we remain weak as a nation. Until we can discuss issues objectively and critique all sides of a debate equally, we will continue to struggle.

peace.

Thistlethwaite makes an excellent point about the limitations of the pro-life movement in terms of the ethics of nonviolence. I imagine there is a great deal of overlap between these activists and those who want to see the Ten Commandments posted in courthouses, who cheer the state-sanctioned murder of foreigners in war, and who support the (pro)death penalty.

I have seen no asterisk by the commandment “Thou shall not kill.” Why would there be an exception to that commandment and not to the others? Would any Judeo-Christian believer argue that given certain circumstances (including the orders of the state) you should worship false idols or commit adultery? I’ve never heard it argued. Or that you should have other gods before God? No asterisks by any of the commandments.

Obviously it's not permissible to murder an abortion provider by the law of the Judeo-Christian god. Likewise, how can it be permissible to engage in state-sanctioned murder in war? There is no asterisk following "Thou Shall Not Kill".

When we talk about ’sacrificing for one’s country’ we usually think that means dying in the line of duty for one’s country. But it can also mean sacrificing your innocence as a non-murderer by engaging in state-sanctioned murder - against the commandment of God.

We are brought up to respect the rule of law - including the prohibition on murder. Judeo-Christians are taught the Ten Commandments in church. And yet many of them volunteer to engage in premeditated murder on the state's command or valorize those who do. They are taught through their whole upbringing that "Thou Shall Not Kill" by ordinance of divine and secular, earthly law and then they go off and practice state-sanctioned murder. And we wonder why so many of our soldiers come home psychologically afflicted…

The killing of George Tiller is sad indeed. Being a prolife person, I strongly disagree with what happened to Mr.Tiller. On the other hand, the violence done to the unborn everyday is just as evil and wrong as the killing of Mr. Tiller. Mr. Tiller is only one man. 50 million babies have been killed making the womb of a woman the most unsafe place in America. So when you say something is morally wrong at the heart of the prolife movement it is better to say something is morally wrong in the heart of a woman who chooses to kill her unborn child. Killing is killing. Your view has led to 50 million babies dead. No one in their right mind thinks an abortionist should be killed. You are on the wrong side, the evil side when you agree with unborn babies being killed. And I agree that killing Mr. Tiller is an evil act. May God help us all.

Come one Susan, be intellectually honest. Consistency about death is something neither side has. Only one side allows death to protect the innocent, the other allows death of the innocent. Second, by your own definition, believing in absolute truth as a sign of dangerous fanaticism cannot be absolutely true can it?

Murder is wrong no matter what the political beliefs. Murder is not the way to have a political or moral discussion. Yes, as you state, the pro-lifers sometimes go to the ridiculous extreme to make their point. Many times past the point of hypocrisy to the actual criminal, as in this case. However, the pro-lifers are not the only ones guilty of hypocrisy. The pro-choicers are also guilty of acts of violence, though the stories don't seem to make it into the MSM as much as the pro-life violence. Many pro-choice people are also anti death penalty. Why is it ok to kill a baby, but not ok to kill a murdering child rapist? I guess the debate will continue, hopefully without any additional violence.

Abortion is pro-death. The murderer's logic is that if you can kill one abortion doctor, you can save many innocent unborn children from being murdered by said doctor. But all is not lost; the murderer here is simply a victim, overcome by emotion like the lady that drowned her own children in a bathtub because she couldn't take it anymore. I mean do you really want to open this can of worms? Abortion is STILL the problem, and pro-lifer's are still hypocrites...at least the murderous ones.

The idea that a few terrorists are indicative of the majority of those who carry out their lives with peaceful integrity and compassion is incredibly insulting.

I am sorry the Tiller was killed, and I hope that those who might try to rationalize it get their heads screwed on straight. But you're doing him a diservice by trying to martyr him. He didn't ask to die to further your idealogy so why don't you let him rest in peace and may God have mercy on his soul.

Our government is at fault here. They allow these Religious groups that are really hate groups to florish. they give tax exempt status to hate-mongerig tele-vangelists and "mega churches" who's only message is hate and only purpose is to enrich themselves. We need to clamp down on these Taliban-like groups. Take away their tax-exempt status and investigate their hate crimes.

Accept Jesus into your heart, and become a cold blooded murderer. The Department of Homeland Security must start investigating right wing religious groups as possible terrorist organizations!

Though I strongly believe in the wrongness of murdering a later term abortion practitioner, I am equally dismayed at the holier than thou attitude of the abortion community. I wonder if you would get the same righteous proclaims of indignation if some crazed Code Pink person murdered G W Bush? To the right to life community an abortion doctor kills children with legal impunity. It is not hard to push the more zealot members of those that wish to protect children over the edge of acceptable behavior. I do not agree with such actions but certainly understand the inclination. If you kill unborn humans almost certainly you are going to incite actions of those that fervently wish to protect those same individuals. Why the shock and bewilderment?

Murder is murder, not terrorism. The murderer, despite his affiliation and alleged affections that led to his act, needs to be tried and treated as such. He does not represent all anti-abortionists or "pro-lifers". I am pro-life, have marched in favor of it, abhor murder, and do not feel that the ends justifies the means. HOWEVER, there are absolutes in life, Ms. Thistlethwaite, despite what you try to espouse via liberal rags like the WaPo. The issue is to what extent and when does acting on an absolute truth violate another's rights. Nobody has the right to take another life, except perhaps in self-defense or defense of family, etc. and here, as in all circumstances, the ends NEVER justifies the means when others are violated like this. We CAN take action based on absolute truths but they CANNOT violate another's rights; the rights I refer to are conferred on us by a far higher power than the US Constitution, but that is our presiding document.

Rev. Haffner, I agree. We need to speak out against violence at all turns, especially one as blatant and contradictory as this one. All belief systems, religions, or doctrines, have those who take it to the extreme - Machiavellianism - but that does NOT excuse their behavior. They must be prosecuted and rooted out before able to act. The groups, unlike to commentor above, must be allowed to function lest we forget about the 1st ammendment. Heaven forbid that that person have someone tell SCREWYOU that his/her rights to assemble and to free speech have been cut off. Then he/she would be singing a different tune about breaking up groups. It is the individuals in the group, not the group itself, that breeds violence.

The position of the killer is logically consistent in the way it would have been logically consistent to kill Nazis involved in operating the concentration camps. He believes he is defending the fully human unborn from unjustified killing. The problem with this position is in the presupposition that the unborn are fully human persons, so that moral rules related to defense of other persons from unjustified deadly force come into play. Unless you make that presupposition, which is a religious view not shared by most people (unlike the theory that born humans are fully human), you don't get to the point of thinking that killing an abortion doctor is morally justified.

In response to chaotician's comment, I suggest you learn about these religions that call for a bloody and violent God and give me a few rexamples of such cases.

While I definitely do not advocate this cold-blooded murder, it is disingenuous to twist the word pro-life (an anti-abortion term) to mean anti-death penalty or against all taking of life. There is a huge difference between the killing of a completely innocent person (infant) and the killing of a guilty person (serial murder). That being said, both Roeder and Tiller will have to face the ultimate judgment for their crimes.

I love how people are instantly thinking that all people "pro-life" are radicals and comparing them to the Taliban as a whole. This would in essence be calling world leaders such as Gandhi a terrorist. This was carried out by a man with radical ideas that did not support true "pro-life" ideals and should not be affiliated with other "pro-lifers" as a group of terrorists.

Killing every abortion doctor in this country, won't overturn Roe vs Wade. It could be only done by those who promise you every four years that they will do it, but they never did. For instance, Bob Dole promised that (never even attempted), George Bush promised (never even attempted, although he had a great chance at it), almost every republican senator promises that every ellection, but nobody even triggered a question for supreme court or senate. They never will; because it works evey time to make you vote reoublican and how would they fool conservative view voters if abortion is illegal, duh? Either they don't care about abortion or their loyal voters. Whatever it is, it cost them last ellection and people voted for those who don't give such empty promises. It is legal and it will always stay that way and we have to deal with it some other ways besides killing a doctor who just followed the law and practice federaly protected medical pratice.

Susan, you are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. The vast majority of those who are Pro Life have consistently Pro-Life positions on war and the death penalty (most are Catholic) and give more to feed the poor than the wine and cheese party crowd. Can't you do at least do a little journalistic research?

It is sad that this doctor was gunned down. He didn't deserve to be murdered; nor did all the babies he has aborted since 1973. A violent life often leads to a violent death.

May God show more mercy to George Tiller than he showed to the unborn.

Susan is absolutely correct. Contraception and sex education is fundamental to reducing abortion. "Pro-life" groups, particularly the Catholic Church is hell-bent on making abortion illegal. And if you read Catholic forums, it's obvious that after abortion, contraception and sex education are next on the agenda.
It's absolutely imperative that the Government step in to ensure the safety of doctors and clinics and take swift action against those who advocate violence.

Any serious study of the Abrahamic cults such as Christianity or rather Paulism; would have to admit that they are death cults from start to finish! What absurd perversity to worship the violent torture, murder, and defilement of their God as a divine act of Love? What cowardice to make up some imaginary divine malady that can only be fixed by a divine “human” sacrifice as a justification for such human brutality. One only need to gaze at the bestiality of the Zionist Jews, the barbaric murders of our Christian Soldiers, and the bloody, inhumane brutality of Shiite worship practices and the genocide practiced by all 3 “faiths” against each other and the various sub cults striving for the dominance as God’s “chosen”! Their God’s are evil, petty creatures represented by “nothing”, a “Cross” and a “Meteorite”! Their followers are rabid “dogs” willing to commit any inhumane act to demonstrate their piety. Pro Life is just the latest blasphemy of humanity’s corruption by its propensity to grovel in hate, despair, and death!

Terrorism is terrorism, we need to apply the 9-11 laws on the books to break up these groups. Fundamentalism inevitably produces violence, regardless of the religion.

I was the director of community affairs when one of the clinics I worked with in metropolitan D.C. (which provided contraception NOT abortion) was bombed in the middle of the night. I remember only too well how violated we felt, how shocked the staff were, the staff who felt they had to quit their jobs after the bombing. My heart and prayers are with the people who are going to work at clinics this morning. I imagine they all feel a little less safe. I hope you'll reach out to the providers in your community with your support. And that regardless of your position on abortion, you'll speak out against violence.
Rev. Debra Haffner
http://debrahaffner.blogspot.com