Patterico's Pontifications

5/31/2009

Questions for Those Who Believe Abortion Is Murder

Filed under: Abortion,General — Patterico @ 8:24 pm

1) Do you believe killing an abortion doctor is morally justified?

2) If you had an al Qaeda terrorist in the sights of your gun, would you pull the trigger? If you were the President and you were told one of our snipers had Osama in his sights, would you give the order to kill him?

I do not happen to believe that abortion is murder, although I believe it is wrong — and becomes more morally objectionable as we get closer to the moment of birth.

But some do believe abortion is murder, no different from murder of a fully formed human. It is those people to whom I put the question.

No doubt I will be criticized for raising the question. I do not raise it to mock the views of those who believe abortion is murder; I have friends who believe it is, and I respect them deeply. I just find it perplexing when people say that they believe abortion is murder, but they don’t support the killing of abortion doctors.

I realize that I run the risk of having people say in the comments that they do support the killing of abortion doctors. All I can say is that I do not support such actions in any way, shape, or form — implicitly or explicitly. However, I am interested in a frank discussion of the issue by those who believe abortion is murder.

I want people to be extra polite in this thread. If you’re not, your comment may be removed. Let’s show the world that we can discuss difficult and emotional issues without insulting one another.

UPDATE: If you answer “no” to the first question, and “yes” to the second, the obvious answer is “why”? And if your answer is that we are at war with al Qaeda, then are you saying that if the Democrats declare that we are no longer “at war” with al Qaeda, then your answer to question #2 would change??

UPDATE x2: The majority of the answers I’m seeing please me. In essence, readers are saying that whatever they might think of abortion, they recognize that’s it’s legal — and that to murder an abortion doctor is illegal. I’m pleased by that reaction. It almost makes me feel like the laws of this country mean something.

Michelle Malkin has more on the evil nature of this murder, and the need to avoid scoring political points.

106 Responses to “Questions for Those Who Believe Abortion Is Murder”

  1. copied from the other thread:

    Patterico,

    If I were still in the military and had Osama or another top Al Qaeda in my sights, I wouldn’t have any trouble pulling the trigger or dropping the bomb. I’d be in the military with an enemy of the People of the United States in range.

    It’s quite different with Dr. Tiller. He was never listed as an enemy of the People and the United States was not at war with him (and his people).

    The laws of Man and God. Murder is against both.

    kimsch (2ce939)

  2. And my response from the other thread:

    But if you believe abortion is murder, why *wouldn’t* he be an enemy of the people? Hasn’t he “murdered” more people than al Qaeda?

    I’m not trying to be argumentative; I’m trying to understand the distinction.

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  3. I notice those zealots only kill the doctors, and not the women who actually have the abortions.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  4. #

    It’s quite different with Dr. Tiller. He was never listed as an enemy of the People and the United States was not at war with him (and his people).

    But if you believe abortion is murder, why *wouldn’t* he be an enemy of the people? Hasn’t he “murdered” more people than al Qaeda?

    I’m not trying to be argumentative; I’m trying to understand the distinction.

    I’d rather have it take place in the other thread, however, at this point.

    Comment by Patterico — 5/31/2009 @ 8:29 pm

    Osama bin Laden is a legally declared enemy of the United States, Dr. Tiller was not. No matter how reprehensible I find his actions, he did not deserve to be murdered.

    I also believe that no matter what one has done while on this earth, if one truly repents, God will forgive. And it’s not up to me to decide what constitutes true repentance. That’s solely up to God.

    kimsch (2ce939)

  5. Questions for Those Who Believe Abortion Is Murder

    OK, that’s me.

    1) Do you believe killing an abortion doctor is morally justified?

    No.

    2) If you had an al Qaeda terrorist in the sights of your gun, would you pull the trigger? If you were the President and you were told one of our snipers had Osama in his sights, would you give the order to kill him?

    No to the first, yes to the second.

    David Blue (05685c)

  6. But if you believe abortion is murder, why *wouldn’t* he be an enemy of the people?

    I believe OJ Simpson is a murderer, too, but that doesn’t mean it’s right for me to kill him.

    The United States is not at war with abortion doctors and clinics.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  7. David Blue,

    The obvious question: what’s the difference?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  8. (1) Because they do abortions? No. (There may be other reasons that would be moral, legal, or both.)
    (2)(a) I’d hesitate, because I’m no longer serving. I’m not a private executioner, and I assume that they are not at this very moment acting on plans to kill millions. If I saw evidence of such, then I would feel that I was acting in defense of myself and my family, and shoot.
    (2)(b)Assuming that the ID is positive and the target is known to be planning, shoot him.

    How much evidence? I don’t know.

    htom (412a17)

  9. Patterico, by your logic, if one believes that cigarette smoke kills, then anyone who works for a tobacco company is an “enemy of the people”.

    I think abortion, once brain waves begin, is the taking of a human life. Not all takings of human life are murder. But even if I say that abortion is murder, it’s a jump too far for me to claim that anyone who performs (or assists in, or has) an abortion is an enemy of the people.

    Steverino (1b3695)

  10. htom,

    Do you believe abortion is murder?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  11. See the update. If your answer is that we are at war with al Qaeda, then are you saying that if the Democrats declare that we are no longer “at war” with al Qaeda, then your answer to question #2 would change??

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  12. My answer would be that, to me, abortion is murder; but, to Dr. Tiller it was, obviously, not. In this case, I leave his retribution to God. When someone, while knowing in his/her heart, it is the snuffing out of a human life, it is most definitely murder; but somehow Dr. Tiller believed it was not.

    I don’t know how, either you or he, could say that something was different from the moment the infant’s head crowns at the mouth of the mother’s cervix and a split second later slides into the doctor’s hand in the delivery room. What has happened that makes this little one inhuman one second and human the next?

    Does anyone remember the picture that circulated, several years ago, of the baby’s hand reaching out of the mother’s womb and grasping the doctor’s finger, during invitro surgery? I used to wonder if it was fake, but I recently saw an article and a picture about the baby whose hand this was–he is now 9 years old and living in Villa Rica, GA. His name is Samuel Adams, and the surgery was to correct spina bifida. To me, those two pictures just meld together and further reinforce my belief that life begins at conception. This child was just as human then as he is now.

    We have to believe that people made legitimate-sounding arguments to support the right to own slaves. These slave owners were not ignorant, and they convinced themselves what they were doing was right. Of course, we know now, much to our shame, this was terribly wrong. Fortunately for most who were held in bondage, they did not die at the hands of their owners. Unfortunately, this is not the case for the innocent victims of abortion.

    Donna (80ecd5)

  13. Patterico@ #11

    That’s more difficult, but I think even if the Dems decide that we’re not at war with Al Qaeda (which I don’t think they’re really dumb enough to do) Al Qaeda will still be at war with us.

    kimsch (2ce939)

  14. Abortion is not murder, just as late periods, miscarriage, and still birth are not murder. The baby lives when it breathes. (There can be very late term abortions where the baby might, indeed, unintentionally breathe; I would say those were not murder, but a form of unintentional, unforeseeable, accidental (and non-chargeable) homicide.

    There have been too many still-bornes for me to call abortion murder. The presumption of future live birth of a fetus is false-to-fact.

    Live birth is a miracle.

    htom (412a17)

  15. Patterico, game over.
    It simply doesn’t matter any more.
    Before this happened, more Americans than ever were leaning towards some kind of abortion restriction, although 68% still supported Roe. But what will the polls say tomorrow?
    Have you seen the Operation Rescue youtube on Dr. Tiller that Sully is playing?
    In ten years we will have operational ectogenesis for humans, the japanese are gestating goat fetuses to full term right now.
    By the time the prolife movement recovers from this disaster, abortion will be a non-issue.
    This is very, very bad PR for the prolife.
    I don’t think they can recover in time for it to make a difference.

    wheeler's cat (483126)

  16. Abortion is (based on Scripture and therefore what I believe) evil.

    To perform abortion is evil.

    But, Killing an abortion doctor is not morally justified (unless the law makes it a death penalty offense).

    And yes the trigger should be pulled regarding the terrorist. The difference?

    A culture that is wicked and a morally perverse society is judged by God. (See e.g. Deuteronomy 9:4 (but for the wickedness of these nations the LORD doth drive them out from before thee.)

    If our culture and laws are wicked, God judges our culture for that, and indeed God will. (Galatians 6:7 Be Not Deceived God is not mocked, a man reaps that which he sows). But is for God to do not man. Romans 12:19 Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.

    Gov98 (c335f5)

  17. 2b, new circumstance: Why, I’d ask the person who won! Oh, that’s me. Sorry, we can’t, it seems, unless there’s a new executive order allowing for such. Where’s my pen and “Top Secret” stamp?

    htom (412a17)

  18. htom – I had three miscarriages, and I felt that there was human being that died in each case. Two were relatively early (under 10 weeks) one was 16 weeks. I delivered a perfect, tiny, dead boy. From his butt to the top of his head he was as long as my hand from the tip of my middle finger to the heel of my hand. Skinny little arms and legs with perfect feet and hands, toes and fingers.

    I had had an amniocentesis, and was one of the 1 in 250 with “complications”. My little boy died of a staph infection.

    Not every pregnancy comes to term, that’s true, but the babies that Dr. Tiller aborted were so near term that they probably would have survived birth. That’s far different than other types of miscarriage, where there is a defect in the child and nature takes care of it. The correct medical terminology is “spontaneous abortion”. I hate that term…

    kimsch (2ce939)

  19. That’s more difficult, but I think even if the Dems decide that we’re not at war with Al Qaeda (which I don’t think they’re really dumb enough to do) Al Qaeda will still be at war with us.

    Why? Because they want to kill innocent Americans? Or some other reason?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  20. #19, because they want to remove the infidels, and we are such in their minds. Those radicals believe that’s it’s perfectly appropriate to kill infidels.

    kimsch (2ce939)

  21. adding: I certainly don’t think that if the Dems decide we’re not at war that Al Qaeda will say, “Okay then. We won’t be at war with you either. Let’s all go home and forget about it.”

    kimsch (2ce939)

  22. #19, because they want to remove the infidels, and we are such in their minds. Those radicals believe that’s it’s perfectly appropriate to kill infidels.

    They believe it’s perfectly appropriate to classify humans as something other than humans, correct? If they did that, but there was no religious component — they simply reclassified us as nonhuman for some nonreligious reason — would the situation be different?

    Patterico (cc3b34)

  23. Hi,
    No
    There is a grave danger to society when the people take the law into their own hands. There is grave danger of feuds, with al least a possibility of escalating hostilities. We all know this, at soon level.

    Also, the murder of an abortionist will not sav lives. There will be others who will step in to continue the slaughter.

    This murder is bad for the nation, of no utility in saving lives, and harmful to the pro-life cause.

    Trudy (321b4a)

  24. kimsch — my sympathies. Your feelings and mine are different, but I don’t think that you’re a murderer, which is the logical consequence proposed by some advocating earlier definitions of life than live birth. The pain of the loss of a dream or hope can be as great or greater than as the loss of the reality.

    htom (412a17)

  25. I should clarify, if the abortion did become a death penalty offense…then it would still be wrong to kill an abortionist unless and until, the person committing the crime was lawfully tried, convicted, sentenced to death and then executed by the state.

    Gov98 (c335f5)

  26. 1.) Hey, if you go around killing everyone who has performed or had (just as guilty, right?) an abortion, you’re talking about killing millions of people.

    2.) Like it or not, abortion is legal under the law, and you can’t really go around killing people for doing something that’s legal. If that starts happening, society will collapse in about ten seconds.

    No matter how people feel about it, they need to restrain the urge to kill people who perform abortions…’cause if you don’t, all kinds of people, including guys like me, who don’t like abortion, are going to insist that you be punished to the fullest extent of the law…and I guarantee you that’s what’s going to happen.

    Sometimes killing folks is the answer…but, this ain’t one of those times.

    Dave Surls (49742a)

  27. I don’t believe I would be morally justified in killing an abortion doctor for performing late term abortions.
    I can think of a reason or two why I wouldn’t vote for first degree murder for someone else who’d decided differently. A scenario involving a father to be and a late term abortion could get me feeling empathetic..

    I’d pull the trigger myself on Bin Laden.
    I’d order it done.
    Additionally I’d certainly give anyone my country asked to do so the full cover of my protection if I was President…. in other words, if my predecessor had ordered the shooting and there was some legal nonsense surrounding the shooter, I wouldn’t stand for it.

    SteveG (c99c5c)

  28. htom, I also have three living children, my eldest, a daughter, has special needs, the two boys are fine. My poor baby girl has a developmental delay, epilepsy, a moderate hearing impairment, and now lupus too. She had two genetic anomalies, extra genes on her 10th chromosome pair and her 19th pair is in a mosaic ring pattern. Chromosome pairs usually look like 11’s her’s look like 11 10 11 10.

    We did the amnio to see if that baby would have the same issues or not. Only so we could know what to expect. There was no consideration of abortion if he did.

    I felt each loss deeply and I am very thankful I have my three.

    kimsch (2ce939)

  29. Re: #7: Patterico: “The obvious question: what’s the difference?”

    There are many differences.

    If I picked one difference, or a mere selection of differences which might not be complete, I would be guilty of creating a misunderstanding, or offering up words which could be misunderstood, with the aid of the usual “ransom note editing,” creative misunderstanding and so on, to be denying that there were any other relevant diffferences, and thus I could be misunderstood as advocating terrorist killings under slightly different circumstances, or misunderstood in other dangerous or bad ways.

    You yourself have condemed speech that could offer any purchase at all to such misunderstandings.

    Practically speaking, the alternative is silence.

    Or if you choose to speak anyway, just say your “yes” or “no” and leave it there. That’s the option I have chosen. You have my “yes” and my “no”. That’s all.

    I’m not trying to make a sarcastic point. That’s the best answer I can give.

    David Blue (6dc531)

  30. #22 – would it be logical for them to consider us other than human? Even if they did so without any religious component, wouldn’t it still be war against a nation?

    kimsch (2ce939)

  31. Those are good questions. 1)No 2) Yes

    I don’t believe it is morally justified, because the rule of law & the Constitution carry more weight for me than my personal moral judgments. I do believe it is murder and it is morally wrong to take a truly innocent human life. An unborn child’s only crime is the desire to live and I cannot justify the taking of their life. The cases of rape, incest, & direct threat to the health of the mother(late term abortion, when the child is viable, would not be covered under this) are exceptions to this statement.

    However, the abortion procedure is currently legal and we are a nation of laws. In this case I believe the law is wrong, but there are ways to remedy this situation. I cannot endorse the murder of a citizen who has been judged innocent, though I do not personally feel bad about his death.

    The killing of Bin Laden would not be covered under the Constitution, because he is not an American citizen and enjoys none of its protections. International Law is a myth, and therefore nothing would hold me back from giving that order or pulling that trigger.

    Very good questions, Sir. The conflict between personal moral judgments and the reality of the law is not easily resolved.

    Stickeenotes (d49e3b)

  32. I am personally opposed to murdering late term abortion doctors, but I do not feel I should impose my religious beliefs on others.

    W Wilson (057d54)

  33. 1) No
    2) A) Yes
    2) B) Probably would still shoot, or like to hope I would

    My views do not condone the murder of a murderer.

    As many stated, Tiller was not an enemy of the State, and though that does not make his actions any less noxious to me, what was done to him is beyond any of the teachings of the Church. I guess I am not arrogant enough to place my beliefs before God’s laws and Man’s laws.

    As an aside, wheeler’s is positively giddy over this, and continually proves how revolting of a person it is. The Left and the MSM (redundant) has already started their standard operating procedure of making this murderer and groups like Operation Rescue into the spokesmen for conservatives, pro-life supporters, and Republicans. It is so fundamentally dishonest.

    JD (870a39)

  34. JD – wheeler’s is positively giddy over this

    Exactly. Well said. No concern whatsoever for the doctor’s family, just an intense desire to get the maximum political play out of the murder.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  35. Do I Think abortion is murder?
    If it is not, than this killing is merely a late-term abortion. I see no difference between the two acts.

    But there are two problems:
    One is public -relations, the other is I do not have the right to carry it out.

    The cause of the pro-life movement is damaged by the negative publicity from this type of event. Besides, killing one doctor doesn’t stop a single abortion. The public must be won over and the process outlawed once and for all.

    But yes, I would kill Al-Qaeda. They have declared war on us, and continue to seek to murder civilians, including children.

    Bart998 (e4a094)

  36. As St Augustin (Nancy Ps Sorority party date) once opined, killing, sinfulness and crime are different things. Abortion (oddly, his medics in the year 390 came up with the same 1st trimester viability teat as the 1973 Supremes) he held was always killing, sinfull if done for selfish reasons in the 1st trimester and criminal murder if done after viability. Killing in a just war was sinful but not criminal. Killing in peacetime was sinful and criminal without self-defense cause. An accident, where we have no intent or control is an accident, neither sinful or criminal. Unlike ol’Nancy, I’m not sure my reading of Gus is absolutly correct, but I think if he saw your post and knew you were a lawyer, he would murder-board your thinking.

    EdGi (b4b8d5)

  37. 1) Do you believe killing an abortion doctor is morally justified?

    In our current culture, perhaps a more telling, revealing question is whether the average person (particularly in supposedly progressive areas like California or Massachusetts) believes the killing of a household pet is more emotionally and symbolically troubling or upsetting than the flushing down of a fetus. Or whether cruelty to animals is emotionally and symbolically not too less disturbing than the cold-blooded murder of someone like Tiller (I won’t be even more cynical and say “more disturbing than…”).

    2) If you had an al Qaeda terrorist in the sights of your gun, would you pull the trigger? If you were the President and you were told one of our snipers had Osama in his sights, would you give the order to kill him?

    I know that Bill Clinton apparently thought it too heartless or ruthless — or perhaps illegal, based on, say, the UN charter, or the World Court, or the People’s Court, or Judge Judy — to have ordered US special forces to kill bin Laden several years ago. And we all know what ensued in the years leading up to 9-11. So I have to say that if I’m going to be a truly protective, decent, humane person, then yes to both questions posed in number 2.

    Mark (411533)

  38. Now, as much as I like and respect y’all, I am going to bow out of this discussion. This whole no soda, no cigarettes, good diet, much exercise has left me with the temperment of a rattlesnake, and I am afraid I may respond in an inappropriate manner to my friends, over a highly charged and divisive topic, like I almost did twice in the other thread with Brother Bradley. The ones like wheeler’s are just infuriating in their complete lack of humanity, and quite saddening.

    JD (870a39)

  39. JD,
    wheeler’s is not worth raising your blood pressure over.

    And while testy words can at times fly, there’s no doubt of the good faith of all on this board, a very few trolls excepted.

    Rest ye well for the night, sir.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407)

  40. “This is very, very bad PR for the prolife.”

    wheeler, we Pro-Lifers have NEVER had good PR. We’re now strong and growing well into the second generation of the movement, and the murder of Dr. Tiller is but a momentary speed bump. It took a lot of heartache and pain to get to the point we are at today, but we’ll thrive well into the future.

    As to your questions, Patterico:

    1. While I believe abortions of the type Dr. Tiller performed are murder, it is murder that is state-sanctioned. And as Jesus commands us to do, we are to pay proper respect towards the state’s laws and actions, WHILE AT THE SAME TIME bearing witness to the lawless injustice that the abortion rulings pose to the world at large. Thus, Dr. Tiller’s killer dishonor’s Jesus’ command, and thus will face swift and certain justice at the hands of the state and God.

    2. The United States has declared Al Qaeda to be the state’s enemy. Again, paying attention to Jesus’ commands, I would have no trouble whatsoever both pulling the trigger and in giving the Presidential order to kill.

    Brad S (5709e3)

  41. 1. No
    2. Yes (to both parts)

    Mike (34a88d)

  42. I believe abortion is murder and the sniper should take out the terrorist. An enemy of the state and a murderer are in completely different categories in the eyes of the law (as they should be). However, an abortion doctor isn’t even considered a murderer under the law. Walking up and shooting a run-of-the-mill murderer is bad enough. Doing the same to someone who has broken no law is even worse.

    If the law ever changes to recognize a fetus’ inalienable rights, I would support handing down the same punishments to those who perform abortions as any other murderer. Even then, I would still find no justification for vigilante justice against illegal abortion doctors.

    NukeRidingCowboy (2cef42)

  43. My answers:
    1) No, murder is never morally justified. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    2) If I were a sworn officer of the government and received a proper order to do so, yes. If I were a non-government official, then only if they were directly threatening innocent people at the time. So my answer is conditional.
    If I were the President, then yes. I would have the authority to order Osama killed, and since he (in my opinion) deserves it, I would give the order.
    I do believe abortion is murder. “Pro-life” means that we don’t believe people should be killed whose actions do not merit death. See my blog for an extended analysis of today’s murder.

    Why, you ask? My beliefs regarding the ending of a human life are based on principles found in the Bible. The first question we have to answer is: is the killing justifiable? And if so, then we need to ask, “Do we have the authority to do this?” If the government (Dem or Rep) declared that we were no longer at war with the terrorists, then no, we would not have the authority to kill the terrorists.

    Steve (d369bd)

  44. Argh. I didn’t realize there was a new thread. This is puzzling to me and I would like to understand what you mean,

    I believe abortion is wrong, and becomes more and more wrong the closer you get to live birth. But I don’t see it as murder, at least not in the early stages. When you get to late-term abortions, things start to get more black and white.

    What makes it wrong in your eyes? If it’s not murder, why is it wrong? Further, if it is wrong because a life is being eliminated, is that not murder? If it’s simply tissue and matter being evacuated, then why would that be wrong?

    Dana (aedf1d)

  45. My answers:
    1) No, murder is never morally justified. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
    2) If I were a sworn officer of the government and received a proper order to do so, yes. If I were a non-government official, then only if they were directly threatening innocent people at the time. So my answer is conditional.
    If I were the President, then yes. I would have the authority to order Osama killed, and since he (in my opinion) deserves it, I would give the order.
    I do believe abortion is murder. “Pro-life” means that we don’t believe people should be killed whose actions do not merit death. See my blog for an extended analysis of today’s murder: http://biblesandbedpans.blogspot.com/2009/05/abortion-doctor-murdered-or-thirty-nine.html

    Why, you ask? My beliefs regarding the ending of a human life are based on principles found in the Bible. The first question we have to answer is: is the killing justifiable? And if so, then we need to ask, “Do we have the authority to do this?” If the government (Dem or Rep) declared that we were no longer at war with the terrorists, then no, we would not have the authority to kill the terrorists.

    Picky (d369bd)

  46. “2) If you had an al Qaeda terrorist in the sights of your gun, would you pull the trigger?”

    I’d do it, but I wouldn’t be too happy about it.

    A few thoughts on killing and abortion…

    I have to admit that the older I get, the more I wish to avoid killing. I quit hunting and fishing years ago, just because I detest the act of killing so much (killing anything, any time for any reason). I still like to eat meat and fish, but I prefer leaving the killing to somebody else, just because I find killing so distasteful.

    If it needs to get done, I can still do it, and I have done it…but I don’t like it at all. I’ve seen enough killing, and I’ve done enough killing to last me for a lifetime, and then some.

    I don’t know if fetuses are even human beings, so I’m not sure if abortion is murder or not (and since I’m not sure…I’m not likely to pull the trigger on an abortion doctor, or support anyone who does). Unless God comes down and tells us that a fetus is a human being, then we’ll just have to take a guess on our own, and hope we get it right, because I think (or feel) that it’s beyond the ability of human beings to know that for sure. At least I know it’s beyond my ability.

    That being said, I do know this for sure, a fetus whether a human or not, isn’t hurting anyone, isn’t a threat to anyone, and I’m pretty sure no one is planning on eating one, and I can see no justification for taking the life of a fetus under that set of circumstances.

    If it was up to me, abortion on demand would be illegal, but I’m willing to go along with the majority, if the majority wants it legal.

    Anyway, those are some of my ideas and feelings, for what their worth.

    Dave Surls (49742a)

  47. Abortion is murder.

    Tiller was murdered.

    Why can’t both be wrong?

    A major component of any crime is the mindset of the perp. Just as a lie isn’t a lie if the speaker does not know s/he is speaking a falsehood, a murder is not a murder if the killer does not understand it to be murder. It may be a crime, but it cannot be murder.

    I absolutely admit that my main feeling around Tiller’s murder is “Good riddance.” This guy absolutely murdered completely viable humans. Late term, schmate term. A viable human is a viable human.

    If I were on the jury, somehow having survived voir dire, I would give as much weight as I could to a state-of-mind defense. I think I would vote to convict, but I absolutely won’t swear to it tonight.

    Ed from SFV (a53c07)

  48. Just as a lie isn’t a lie if the speaker does not know s/he is speaking a falsehood, a murder is not a murder if the killer does not understand it to be murder. It may be a crime, but it cannot be murder.

    And your source is . . .?

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes (0ea407)

  49. Yes, I believe abortion is murder.

    However, killing abortionists is also murder. *I* might believe that abortion is murder, but the law currently doesn’t, and it ain’t at all likely to any time soon. And since I have no ambitions to be a vigilante psychopath, there you go.

    As for question #2 — shoot the sonofabitch. And if President Obama says that we’re not at war with them… well, he could say that all he wants, but it still wouldn’t be *true*. No matter what President Obama’s opinion of the matter would be, Al Qaeda would still consider itself to be at war with *us*, and since it only takes one side to start a war… again, there you go.

    Chuckg (6d0332)

  50. 1. In the same way and with the same procedures that any other murder might be prosecuted and the guilty party executed, yes. Otherwise no.
    2. Yes and yes
    Why? Abortion is a killing of convenience. The abortionist is like any hit man, better dealt with by the criminal justice system. That the state has chosen not to prosecute does not give me the option of killing the abortionist any more than any other killer who is no direct threat to me. I do not have the right to execute, that is reserved for the state.
    Bin Laden and al Qaeda are direct threats to anyone with whom they come in contact. Killing an al Qaeda member is self defense except in the narrowest of circumstances. I would not hesitate to take any action, including deadly force, unless the person had been rendered harmless.
    As to whether the Democrats consider themselves at war with al Qaeda, it does not matter. Al Qaeda has declared war on us and the fact that Democrats are unable to understand that makes no difference whatsoever.

    Ken Hahn (3166c9)

  51. Tiller had a retroactive abortion performed on him, so what is the problem?

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  52. Rule of Law

    Just like even as Border Patrolmen – you cannot shoot an unarmed suspect

    If we circumvent the very system that stripped the power from the Monarchies and Nobilities and placed justice and the ability to self govern in the arbitrary hands of unelected activists – no matter what the cause – we as a society have given up those hard fought freedoms

    EricPWJohnson (7033c9)

  53. I am pro-life. I am not certain if the fetus is a human being, but presume it is (until or if ever, scientific proof is offered to the contrary). I do understand the pro-choice position which reflects similar ignorance of the state of the fetus but instead presumes that the mother should make the decision.

    1) No. This is not war although the magnitude of victims is comparable. Killing the doctor (for performing a legal activity) would do nothing to stop abortion, as it would remain the law of the land. Furthermore, it would likely result in a more entrenched position by those who favor a pro-choice nation. Better to work to reduce abortion – with voluntary and educational measures, without the law — until it becomes taboo (just like the hated institution of slavery is today). Under such circumstances, legal codes could catch up at their leisure.

    From a moral point of view: the doctor performing an abortion truly does not think the fetus is a human being, then I am not certain if an act of murder is being committed. If however, I was to become a doctor and committed an abortion, then that would be murder because of my presumption that the fetus is a human being. Since I cannot know the mind of an abortion doctor, there is no way I could morally justify killing such a person.

    2) No, I would gently and carefully squeeze the trigger rather than pull it 😉

    As POTUS, yes; I would give the order provided that his death would result in a strategic gain.

    Pons Asinorum (03ef30)

  54. I’m Christian, Pro-Life. I believe as soon as the sperm enters the egg and the DNA mixes that a new human being comes into life.

    God has commanded that people submit to the law, both the law of their country and to the natural moral law.

    God knows human nature very well. therefore he was quite purposeful in NOT commanding Christians to be teh self-appointed busy-body morality police of their societies in such as manner as to assume the authority of the State and empower/instruct them to wield justice.

    No, that is not what God wants. Perhaps that is what Allah wants , and thus the Muslim lands are joyless hellholes.

    Christians are to respect the monopoly of power that is vested in the State.

    Plus we know that in the end, God is entirely just and justice will prevail in the end. Human beings are not just and not competent to render final judgement on another person.

    I have never heard another christian suggest abortion doctors should be killed. I have never heard another Christian give implicit approval that someone elese should murder them.

    When it comes to Bin Ladin, that falls under international relations… Jesus didn’t have much say about this area… I personally do not believe that Biblical morality as it applies to individuals always scales up to the natioonal or international level.. somewhere along the way a different set of ethics apply.

    All throughout the Bible God uses nations as a whole to punish those he wants to punish even if the nation he uses for this is eventually destined to be punished itself.

    As an asparant for a new Caliphate, Bin Ladin would be the founding father of a new evil empire and so I think killing him would be entrrely appropiate.

    VinceP1974 (d618f1)

  55. Is it wrong to own Slaves?? It is now, but used to be legal, was confirmed by several Supreme Court decisions. Took a civil war and burning down the Slave Owners plantations to end it…

    Frank Drackman (1ff0ad)

  56. Pons,

    You seem to be indicating that the morality of an action is dependant upon the beliefs of the person performing the action. Is it murder? Only if the doctor BELIEVES it to be murder.

    You can’t form a society of laws around that kind of thinking. There must be absolutes. It is either murder or it isn’t. You believing it to be murder does not make it so.

    Picky (d369bd)

  57. 1. No, killing the abortion doctor is not justified. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do everything legally possible to end his practice.

    2. “Getting” OBL lies under the state and under the doctrine and theology of Just War. I agree with Vince P re: ethics as they apply nationally vs personally. I, individually, can not make the person who murders my child pay for the crime. That is the state’s job.

    Vivian Louise (c0f830)

  58. […] Questions for Those Who Believe Abortion Is Murder Patterico’s Pontifications – PeopleRank: 4 – 7 hours ago … Michelle Malkin has more on the evil nature of this murder, and the need to avoid scoring political points… + vote […]

    Michelle Malkin - Radio-People (72987f)

  59. In all cases, a Christian must defer to God’s ‘final answer’, or, in this instance, commandment. “You shall not commit murder”. Exodus 20:13. Therefore, the killing of an abortion doctor is a sin against God. Period. In answer to your second question, I do believe wartime killing is not automatically considered to be murder. I think it could be murder in some circumstances, but should not be altogether in the same category. If wartime killing by Christians were not permitted, anarchists would have ruled the world since the beginning. If an end of the War Against Terrorism was announced unilaterally by the Democrats, with no resolution of the conflict, the terrorists would just declare they had won the battle and would commence despoiling their victims. Would we fight back then, or just passively present our necks for separation? I guess that will be someone else’s choice, not mine.

    Paul Totten (6dbc7e)

  60. For the record, I am an agnostic and a retired biologist. The conceptus is, starting with the zygote, an organism. That means a human conceptus is an individual human being. So, yes, abortions of convenience, 95% of all abortions, are legalized murders.

    And yes, I would kill Al Qaeda members. And yes, I would give the order to kill Al Qaeda members. And, if I had the power and IF I COULD GET AWAY WITH IT, I would kill every baby murderer in this country.

    There are at least two reasons, in general, for NOT killing someone. The first reason is that it is usually morally wrong. The second is that it will often result in ones own death or incarceration, i.e., in punishment.

    In the case of killing an Al Qaeda operative on the battlefield neither of these is a deterrent. There is nothing immoral about killing such filth and one would generally not be found guilty of murder for doing so. One would not be punished for doing the right thing.

    In the case of killing a piece of human garbage like Tiller, the first deterrent no longer applies either. That baby killer had forfeited any moral right to live. The only reason for not killing such a piece of garbage is, frankly, the fact that we live in such a filthy, worthless, piece-of-garbage country that one would actually be prosecuted and punished for doing such a good deed. In other words, the only reason for not killing filth like Tiller is that, in a country of filth, one will be punished for it.

    LIfsabsurd (592110)

  61. 1) Do you believe killing an abortion doctor is morally justified?

    Could Tiller’s accused murderer claim that he was merely performing a really late term abortion?

    drjohn (862e69)

  62. I do think Abortion is murder. When unborn babies begin flying jets into buildings I will address the comparison to Al Qaida.

    Dennis D (ae900a)

  63. Ok, I’m going to be a jerk here. Instead of Tiller, what if the Dr. in question is Josef Mengle and this is 1944 Germany. Is is morally right as a German citizen to kill Mengle for his “experiments”?

    PCD (02f8c1)

  64. 1 – To murder an abortionist is murder. No, it is not justified. That would be lawless vigilantism.

    2 – You cannot compare war with abortion. It has it’s own rationale, a rationale that dies not question the life of the enemy. You may or may not accept that rationale, but you must admit that a government’s order for its armed forces to use lethal force if necessary to defend its citizens bears no relation to a woman’s decision to abort.

    And even war does not justify indiscriminate killing. Enemy prisoners must not to be gunned down, for example.

    Many pro-life people are pacifists, or nearly so. All this line of reasoning could possibly accomplish is to show potential contradictions held by some pro-life people. It does not resolve anything regarding abortion itself.

    The war argument is a red herring used to distract from the core issue of life which, once admitted, removes all justification for abortion beyond triage situations.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  65. Question for Patterico.

    A bike gang moves into your neighborhood. They terrorize everyone, rape women and young girls, and beat to death those they just don’t like. The police rarely respond, or respond slowly, to any calls. Your wife is a victim and your 12 year old daughter may be next. You have a chance to take out the leader. Are you morally justified in killing him?

    To kill the innocent unborn is legal and therefore acceptable. To kill the baby murderers is illegal and therefore immoral.

    What a twisted world.

    Marko (97c5c7)

  66. So you don’t support terrorism you just understand it.

    Ward Churchill question of the day:
    Are doctors who perform abortion “little Eichmanns?”
    Question for those who believe that America has supported and committed criminal acts including murder, against the populations of foreign countries?
    Do you think that an attack on American soil is justified?

    Why do you hate America?

    Duvel (8843e6)

  67. So you don’t support terrorism you just understand it.

    Ward Churchill question of the day:
    Are doctors who perform abortion “little Eichmanns?”

    duvel (62b020)

  68. I love when Patterico engages in the same “false straw-man” arguments the left does. Much like juxtaposing “racial quotas” and “social justice” side by side and asking for opinions. But first things first,

    Counselor, what is MURDER?
    Counselor, what is ABORTION?
    Counselor, what is a TERRORIST?
    Counselor, what is MORAL versus ETHICS?

    The problem is folks have different opinions on the very definition so of course … ALSO never confuse morality with law, order and ethics counselor.

    Was it ethical to kill Tiller? NO
    Is 3rd Term Abortion Murder? YES
    Was Tiller a murderer? YES
    Was Tiller unethical? Possible, but not proven
    Was it moral to kill Tiller? YES
    Should the Tiller murderer go to jail? YES
    Was this person a terrorist? NO
    Should the memory of Tiller be vilified? Yes.

    Your laws, and how you choose to implement them, are no more moral than the ones in the bush governing Lions and Antelope counselor.

    Never ceases to amaze me how lawyers confuse right and wrong with legal and illegal. We need a class of five-year-olds to clear up the differences for our legal community.

    Tiller knew this as he murdered thousands of children with the FULL PROTECTION OF THE LAW.
    He cared not a wit except for the MONEY!!!!!!

    A drug dealer is 10x the person Tiller was. At least there was free will between the effected parties.

    I know if hell exists, Mr Tiller is right there. Enjoy Mr Tiller.

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  69. The taking of innocent life, that of a foetus, is wrongful homicide, murder. The taking of the life of a person who is not at the (near) moment threatening oneself or one’s family is murder. While it is true that an abortion doctor takes the life of a foetus, s/he does so, unfortunately, under cover of law and (presumably) with the mother’s consent. It is a moral outrage, but the judgment must fall on the polity that allows it; that is, that polity has stumbled so much farther down the slippery slope which, absent self-correction by a revision of the laws, will inevitably lead to its demise.

    The United States is at war with Al Qaeda. OBL is a legitimate target.

    Noesis Noeseos (40e47d)

  70. Almost everyone, a variety of pro-lifers included, has to admit they treat (or perceive) not even a fetus but a new-born infant in a different manner than if that human life were 2 years old, or 7 years old, or certainly 25 years old.

    A major example of that?

    The practice of male infants being circumcized without the use of anesthesia. It would be considered cruel and barbaric to do such a thing to a much older male. But the fact that a large number of both parents and people in the medical field have accepted that particular procedure going back a long time (although less common today) does indicate a sense of reality as seen through the eyes of an infant is judged differently by, among others, most adults.

    Personally, I think the biggest sign of just how morally or ethically bankrupt modern society has become is not the existence of abortion but the greater teary-eyed emotions and concerns directed by high percentages of people towards animals and, in particular, the household pet, than human fetuses.

    Mark (411533)

  71. As much as I will shed no tears over the death of an abortionist, to kill him without the due process our system of governance demands is as morally objectionable as his acts which we abhor. Nor could I condone the mere targeting of his practice, else I would have to accept the eco-terrorist’s actions. As distasteful as it is sometimes, we must accept and work within the law, and work to change the law where it is flawed. As Thomas More is credited with saying, if we tear down the law to achieve an otherwise laudable goal, where will we hide when the tables are turned?

    As to bin Laden, it is hard to say that I could order the death of a particular man, but if that man had declared war as bin Laden has, and had backed that up via numerous acts of murder, I could accept the moral burden of ordering his death to prevent future acts of violence. Except within recognized int’l rules of warfare, due process does not exist on the battlefield. bin Laden has declared himself a viable target. To avoid be targeted and be able to claim due process rights, all he need do is surrender himself from the battlefield.

    Chris (d098d0)

  72. never mind animals. How about the deaths of Iraqis? How about the millions of refugees; the young girls who are now prostitutes in Syria because their father is dead and their mother is too old to be of any value on the flesh-market? You want a run down of callous indifference to human suffering?

    How about the women who had late term abortions of severely deformed fetuses using a procedure that allowed them to become pregnant again? That’s the procedure you call “partial birth’ abortion.
    Testimony that Intact D&X can be necessary? You’ve ignored it or lied about it.

    http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2644487&ref=fpblg
    incitement.

    hilarious.

    bored again christian (e65df2)

  73. Someone who kills a murderer on death row, is still a murderer (except for the “official” executioner). In this case both are guilty of murder and will be facing similar punishments in the afterlife. Since we cannot see what that punishment is, all we can do is prosecute, convict, and punish according to the law of the land.

    sabbahillel (e534cc)

  74. I wish everyone would stop this faux Christian shtick, or at least explain to us why their God, Whom they pray to to send the dead man to Hell, did not stop the abortions in the first place.

    nk (157acd)

  75. Hey, everyone, nk thinks he’s just rediscovered The Problem Of Evil. Hint: Theologists been workin’ on that one for centuries already. Nice try tho.

    Chuckg (6d0332)

  76. bored again christian is off its meds again. Why is it that people like duvel, bored again non-at-all-christian, etc … seem to be practically dancing in the streets over this opportunity to smear others for the actions on one?

    JD (ca9da7)

  77. Yes, abortion is murder. If you shoot a pregnant woman in the stomach, and you kill her fetus, why are you charged with a murder?

    Tiller was not just an abortion doctor – he was a sadist. He took fetuses that were viable, up to the point of natural birth, pulled them out of the womb, shoved a needle into the backs of their heads and pierced their brains to end their lives. If that is not unlike Josef Mengele, I do not know what is. Mengele deserved to die, as did every Nazi associated with him – SO DID TILLER.

    I personally could not commit violence, but I can understand those who do it to end abortion. Just as I can see why John Brown did what he did in 1859 to end slavery.

    Imagine if you could go back to the morning of 9/11, and you saw Mohammad Atta and his gang arriving at the airport. You know who they are; you know what they are going to do. If you shot them, or butchered them with an ax, would it be wrong? Would it be wrong if you saw a terrorist in the subway carrying a suicide bomb and you killed him? Death is death, violence is violence, but some violence is necessary in the terrible world we live in.

    If you see a moral wrong and use violence to end it, is it wrong? I think not. You may condemn me for that view, but that’s what I think and to hell with it.

    Dave Thompson (8ede97)

  78. nk,
    a vast majority of Christians do not pray that God send Tiller, or anyone, to Hell. I would pray that in the second or so before his death, he repented and is on his way to Heaven. I would so pray for bin Laden or Manson or anyone else. It is not we desire anyone’s damnation, it is we realize that we ourselves are worthy of being damned and accept the gift of salvation. I hope Tiller did. I hope Roeder will.

    Christians are not more virtuous than anyone else, except by grace. And we deeply regret the necessity of Hell. There is no joy in a lost soul.

    Ken Hahn (3166c9)

  79. nk,

    I don’t pray to send anyone to hell — that’s God’s decision — nor do I know why God allows evil to exist in the world. I think it has something to do with Adam and Eve, free will, and allowing us to develop character so we can have a deeper relationship with Him.

    DRJ (180b67)

  80. Patterico – It almost makes me feel like the laws of this country mean something.

    Good that you put in the almost, as it seems we still need to get the government on board with that notion.

    Dave Thompson – If that is not unlike Josef Mengele, I do not know what is.

    Mengele did not have the permission of the mother to do that kind of ‘experiment’, which is what separates him from Tiller. Tiller did not, even once, to the best of my knowledge, perform an abortion without the mother’s consent. How can you compare Tiller to a murderer like Mengele without acknowledging the complicity of the mother? The mother’s complicity is what makes it exactly unlike Mengele.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  81. Good point re: Mengele and mothers, Apogee.

    DRJ (180b67)

  82. #1 No. It’s murder, plain and simple. What the Dr. was doing was perfectly legal, although I am opposed to abortion under most circumstances.

    #2 Yes. He’s the supposed leader of the group that basically declared war upon us. Taking him out is legal under the rules of war.

    Laddy (2fbb24)

  83. This silly straw-man about being Christian is nonsense.

    We all have our limits and Tiller clearly violated it.

    I love when folks presented this discussion as if to say sitting around like a potted plant is Christian while doing something about it is not.

    I guess it was Christian for Germans not to violate Facist Gov.t rule and sit around watching the holocaust.

    What nonsense.

    He is dead. I don’t like how it happened but I could care less about him or his family. Just like I could care two shats about some suicide bombers family sitting around crying that Muhammed was a good boy.

    GFY and rot in hell. Let God sort out the mess. That about sums up how I feel about it.

    HeavenSent (1e97ff)

  84. The question posed by Patterico in the title of this post, and in his specification of his target audience, can’t be answered without a specification of the context in which it is asked — “murder” as a legal judgment, or as a moral one?

    If the former, then one looks to the law — starting with the local state laws regarding homicides, but possibly extending to other laws as well — to find out whether the plain words of the statute evidence an intention by the legislature which passed the law in question for it to apply to as-yet-unborn children, and if so, under what circumstances.

    If the question is instead posed as a purely moral question, untethered to any particular set of statutes, then one still must ask whether the debate is to include a discussion of extenuating or mitigating circumstances — the classic example being a medical situation in which the physician faces a mutually exclusive choice between saving the life of the unborn fetus (or child; I’m equally comfortable using either word) or the mother. I suspect that by asking the question using the term “murder,” you mean to only ask about situations where no such defense is available. But even so, you might well come out with an entirely different answer than what you got when asking the question in a legal context.

    That said: I don’t believe that most abortion are “murder” under the current law because Roe v. Wade and its progeny forbid states from prosecuting it as any sort or crime, be that murder or some lesser offense. I also think that Roe is a constitutional abomination and ought to be overruled, and if that were done I would support at least some laws which restrict and limit abortion on demand as a general matter, and in particular I would support laws which would directly and vigorously protect at least those fetuses/unborn children who are (or may be) viable outside the womb (given the then-current state of medical science) by including them within the definition of “persons” protected by statutes against homicide, including the murder statutes, in exactly the same way that a post-partum infant would be protected.

    So I suppose, with that long qualification, I’m probably part of Patterico’s target audience for his enumerated questions. As to them:

    (1) I don’t believe any individual would ordinarily be legally or morally justified in killing an abortionist. I believe that if the law were rewritten in accordance with my suggestions above, then under some circumstances, after a proper trial with all process that’s due, some abortionists may properly be convicted of capital murder, and could then both legally and morally be executed by the State acting in the public interest. But the private citizen who shortcuts that process by killing the abortionist in cold blood is himself guilty of murder, and the fact that the abortionist was guilty of criminal and morally repugnant actions is neither a legal nor moral defense to that private citizen’s actions. (My “in cold blood” qualification sets aside, for now, the difficult question of whether a bystander might have a legal or moral defense to killing the abortionist who’s very literally on the brink of committing murder himself, were the laws changed to accord with my suggestions. If the fatal shot were fired by the bystander after he’d attempted every other reasonable means to stop the abortionist from breaking the law, just as the abortionist stood, scissors in hand, about to plunge them into the partially extracted neck of the full-term but as-yet-unborn infant, then that would be a different story too.)

    (2) If I were a private citizen with an al Qaeda terrorist in my sights and the terrorist was in the process of surrendering, then my killing him would be murder, both legally and morally. If he were threatening me or others, or if he were in the process of effecting an escape, or I were either a soldier or Commander in Chief and there were exigent circumstances like those on the battlefield or in a covert operation, then the analysis would be more complicated, and the homicide might then well be legally and/or morally justified, depending on all the circumstances.

    Beldar (9bf4d5)

  85. 1) Do you believe killing an abortion doctor is morally justified?

    No, not under any circumstances.

    2) If you had an al Qaeda terrorist in the sights of your gun, would you pull the trigger? If you were the President and you were told one of our snipers had Osama in his sights, would you give the order to kill him?

    Part A) Absolutely – been there and done that.

    Part B) Absolutely – war is hell and I have the scars to prove it.

    Mark Harvey (aka Snooper) (1ac98f)

  86. How Should Congress Respond to George Tiller’s Murder?…

    The title above is from Ezra Klein’s article at the Washington Com ……

    The Snooper Report (f4fcc3)

  87. Every Politician Since Roe v Wade Killed Tiller…

    Here is an outtake from Memeorandum with the “discussion”:
    Donald Douglas / American Power: Andrew Sullivan: “Christianists” Killed George Tiller – UPDATED!!  —  George Tiller, the Wichita, Kansas, abortion doctor, was sh…

    The Snooper Report (f4fcc3)

  88. Weep For Tiller and Praise the Murder of the Unborn…

    Priorities AFUOur Nations’ direction sure is in a quandary, isn’t it?  While the murders of the innocent go on like nothing is wrong, the Leftinistra that have brought this upon themselves are now whining because their hero has been struck down….

    The Snooper Report (f4fcc3)

  89. #56 — Comment by Picky — 6/1/2009 @ 3:51 am

    You seem to be indicating that the morality of an action is dependant upon the beliefs of the person performing the action. Is it murder? Only if the doctor BELIEVES it to be murder.

    Hi Picky. Yes, I really jumbled it up — late hour, sorry. I was thinking of intent — if the doctor really, truly believes that abortion does not involve a human being, then how can that be murder by the doctor (at least morally, because as a matter of law the issue is settled).

    Our best minds in science, theology, philosophy, etc, cannot prove when a human being begins. It comes down to a matter of belief.

    You can’t form a society of laws around that kind of thinking. There must be absolutes. It is either murder or it isn’t. You believing it to be murder does not make it so.

    You are correct that such a position is nebulous and as a practical matter would not work for a nation. Agreed on all points except one; as for “it is or it is not” – well that is the crux of the issue. Without absolute evidence, it is a matter of belief. If we (as a society) had absolute evidence, we could make an absolute judgment. Instead, we made a judgment-call (which I think is an incorrect call and am hopeful that non-violent means will correct it). That’s the good thing about our country; positive changes do (eventually) seem to rise to the top.

    Let me try again 😉

    1) No, for two reasons.

    First, using violence to force societal change on abortion is unlikely to work and indeed would probably backfire resulting in a more entrenched and change-resistant opposition.

    Second, my obligation as a citizen is in conflict with my obligation to my moral code. Using non-violent measures to support change (both in law and behavior) and provide means (like resources and education) to reduce abortion through voluntary action is more rational and consistent with my moral code and obligation as a citizen (not to mention; it will keep my butt out of prison).

    2) Yes and yes, reasons unaltered.

    Pons Asinorum (03ef30)

  90. I would have no problem pulling the trigger on a terrorist about to detonate a bomb, or in some other similar situation.

    Killing Dr. Tiller (probably) didn’t save anyone’s life. The pregnant women that would have gone to his office today (Monday) probably can and will get an even later abortion elsewhere. Killing the doctor was just a senseless, evil act of violence.

    I think a more interesting question is why do the people who tend to be the most pro-abortion also tend to be the most anti death penalty?

    Renee (fe6b27)

  91. Just a quick note:

    I don’t believe it is morally justified, because the rule of law & the Constitution carry more weight for me than my personal moral judgments.

    This is called “moral relativism”: the rules of a society dictate what is right.

    LongHairedWeirdo (0052b9)

  92. Could Tiller’s accused murderer claim that he was merely performing a really late term abortion?

    No. Abortion is the ending of a pregnancy before it has ended naturally. The pregnancy that produced Tiller has long since ended naturally.

    LongHairedWeirdo (0052b9)

  93. Silly me…I didn’t include The Why Question 2 was a yes.

    I don’t care what the Democrats say or do nor do I care what the Republicans say or do. I have served this nation from 1976 to 2004 and “terrorists” have been at war with the USA and every other Western Nation since 1973, officially from their point of view.

    Denying that or declaring the war is over just to say the war is over is tantamount to mental instability.

    We “officially” went to war with the terrorists on 91101 and a good and proper military leader won’t call the war over until one side or the other can no longer wage war no matter how many politicians say otherwise.

    The politicians and diplomats don’t fight wars…they send us in to fix their retarded and failed diplomacy.

    NOTE: to compare war with the murder of Tiller the Baby Killer is indeed “Rather” odd. My heart does not bleed for Tiller at all but the manner of which he was cut down was cowardly and against the law. The perpetrator must pay the price in accordance with the Rule of Law, something foreign to the current Disadministration.

    Mark Harvey (aka Snooper) (1ac98f)

  94. Patterico, you stated you did not believe abortion was murder. If you take a human out of the environment necessary for it to survive in and cause its death and this is done for the purpose of kill it, what would you call that act? If you deny that which is contained in the womb of a pregnant woman is human, take a good look at the latest in ultrasound pictures. Notice facial expressions, hand and foot movement, etc, etc. Notice how human like those pictures are.
    To the individual who said the mother and the doctor had to agree on the abortion. True, but I want to ask if there are two humans in you life today to whom you would assign that power over you? I do not know at what age a human is self sefficient, however it is past the age of 5 years old and if not supported will die. Should a mother have the right to terminate the life of a child post natal? If not, why not?

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (8aff22)

  95. A hit man takes money for a murder. Dr TILLER DID THE SAME. WHAT WAS THE DIFFERENCE?

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  96. Patterico – If abortion is not murder, why can someone be charged with 2 counts of murder when they kill a pregnant woman and the child?

    I have never understood this seeming quirk in the law. Either it is a person or it is not.

    JD (6675bb)

  97. 1) No, murder is wrong on all counts

    2) Yes, because murder is not war with mutual enemy, and we have a right to engage those who wish to kill us (as Bin Laden does with his own rhetoric) and who have killed ours (as in the 9/11 attacks). We are responding to murderers and their wishes rather than out of nowhere killing them. There is an underlying precedent.

    In Biblical history, there is an interesting parallel in that good sometimes came from something that was initially evil and against God’s law. For instance, King David’s sin of sleeping with Bathsheba (adultery) and putting her husband (Uriah) on the front lines of the infantry so he would die (i.e. murder) resulted in the birth of King Solomon, who was one of the greatest Israeli and world kings and through his lineage came Jesus Christ, the proclaimed Savior. So, murder is awful, and I am praying for Tiller’s family, but for lives which will be spared, those who view voluntary abortion (not medically necessary for mom’s survival) as murder, this particular result of an otherwise completely heinous situation can be softly rejoiced. Christian Pro-lifers should reject such vigilanteism, pray for justice to be done on the shooter, but not allow the late doctor’s acts in his profession as honorable. In this way, we hold to our principles, and respect human laws which are in place to govern.

    Tim Bilsky (c0a220)

  98. In the case of killing a piece of human garbage like Tiller, the first deterrent no longer applies either. That baby killer had forfeited any moral right to live. The only reason for not killing such a piece of garbage is, frankly, the fact that we live in such a filthy, worthless, piece-of-garbage country that one would actually be prosecuted and punished for doing such a good deed. In other words, the only reason for not killing filth like Tiller is that, in a country of filth, one will be punished for it.

    And what about the women who have had the abortions?

    Did they forfeit the right to live too?

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  99. Suppose it was justifiable to kill people to stop abortion.

    Tiller was at a church ; he was not performing an abortion at the time. Killing him is no different in principle than killing those who had killed Pedro Navarro-Oregon (absent an immediate unjust threat to life, or pursuant to a lawful execution).

    Also, I note these people never kill the women who have had abortions.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  100. “but the manner of which he was cut down was cowardly”

    Good point, Mark.

    If I decide I need to kill you, I’ll call you out, and then we’ll shoot it out face to face, like men.

    I have no respect for maggots who kill unarmed men from ambush.

    You walk into a church and shoot a guy who has no chance to defend himself (while his wife is in the next room), you’re not even a man.

    You’re just maggot.

    Dave Surls (af5780)

  101. Zelsdorf Ragshaft III – To the individual who said the mother and the doctor had to agree on the abortion. True, but I want to ask if there are two humans in you life today to whom you would assign that power over you?

    I assume you were speaking to me, since I was the one pointing out the error in comparing Tiller to Mengele.

    Yes, there are two humans who I have already given that power to – my mother and father. If I am incapacitated in an accident, they will have the ability to decide my fate. I trust them absolutely, and am thankful that I feel I can do so.

    Apogee (e2dc9b)

  102. Its simple.. Follow the golden rule.

    I was a fetus once. i would not want to be mutilated, tortured, raped and murdered while in the soft, quiet, supposed to be safe environs of the womb. THIS out weighs the same rule applied to a woman who has knowingly had sex and found herself pregnant.

    In the case of rape. Sure. She has the ability to utilize measure to end the pregnancy early.

    But folks.. YOU WERE FCKING FETUSES at one time.. Stand up for those who cannot speak.

    It just irks me that you libs are so un able to personalize this heinous act of rape on an innocent human being.. innocent baby WOMAN..

    Innocent baby African American Woman.

    Do you WANT baby african american women Raped and Slaughtered?
    IS that what liberals stand for.

    it is in my book…. 0Bama will march us all back on the plantation while raping and killing black women. WAHOOOO.

    FCK ALL YOU LIBERAL CNTS. a

    DO NOT have a nice day.. go get fcked.

    Liberal men are bigger cnts than the women that control their brains.

    Kent J (e3e237)

  103. 3) Why don’t you kill O.J. Simpson?

    Gerry (fad653)

  104. ‘the law is an ass’ basdtiat.
    babies are innocent.
    abortion is wrong and evil
    roeder threw himself on a grenade effectively to save future innocent babies sacrificing his future
    murderer and martyr

    willis forster (c45a08)

  105. ‘the law is an ass’ basdtiat.
    babies are innocent.
    abortion is wrong and evil
    roeder threw himself on a grenade effectively to save future innocent babies sacrificing his future
    murderer and martyr

    So is killing someone while breaking into a house to look for drugs.

    And yet I do not see you advocating the killing of the police officers who killed Pedro Navarro-Oregon.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  106. There are many who believe that murder is murder, yet they do not support the death penalty.

    You might say that those people believe that killing someone is wrong, even if that someone deserved it or the taking of their life served the greater good. You could call this consistently held belief “anti-murder.”

    I suspect that many of those who believe that abortion is murder, but also condemn the murder of Tiller are being logically consistent. They’re “anti-murder.”

    lud42 (a3860c)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.6787 secs.