Patterico's Pontifications

6/2/2009

Bill Saletan: Is It Wrong to Murder an Abortionist?

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 8:11 am



I recently asked: if you believe abortion is murder, what is the difference between killing George Tiller and killing Osama bin Laden? William Saletan has an article that explores the moral issues raised by my question (although he does not explore the parallel to Osama). Saletan’s piece opens provocatively:

If abortion is murder, the most efficient thing you could have done to prevent such murders this month was to kill George Tiller.

Tiller was the country’s bravest or most ruthless abortion provider, depending on how you saw him. The pregnancies he ended were the latest of the late. If your local clinic said you were too far along, and they sent you to a late-term provider who said you were too late even for her, Tiller was your last shot. If Tiller said no, you were going to have a baby, or a dying baby, or a stillbirth, or whatever nature and circumstance had in store for you.

Saletan viewed Tiller as brave. I agree, but I also agreed with Bill Maher that the 9/11 terrorists were brave. Morally despicable, but brave. Labeling as “cowards” people who put their lives on the line for what they believe in, to me, renders the word “coward” essentially meaningless.

Me, I condemn the murder of Tiller — but unlike Saletan, I don’t agree with what he did. But I don’t consider it murder, and Saletan’s piece addresses those who do, asking: if you condemn his murder, do you really consider abortion to be murder? Because, as Saletan explains, Tiller wasn’t really fungible. Late-term abortion providers don’t grow on trees, and murdering him may actually prevent a lot of abortions:

Tiller’s murder is different from all previous murders of abortion providers. If you kill an ordinary abortionist, somebody else will step in. But if you kill the guy at the end of the line, some of his patients won’t be able to find an alternative. You will have directly prevented abortions.

That seems to be what Tiller’s alleged assassin, Scott Roeder, had in mind. . . . .

. . . . Is it wrong to defend the life of an unborn child as you would defend the life of a born child? Because that’s the question this murder poses. Peaceful pro-lifers have already tried to prosecute Tiller for doing late-term abortions they claimed were against the law. They failed to convict him. If unborn children are morally equal to born children, then Tiller’s assassin has just succeeded where the legal system failed: He has stopped a mass murderer from killing again.

The interesting part, as Saletan notes, is that pro-life groups aren’t supporting Roeder’s actions. They are roundly condemning them, as they should.

I applaud these statements. They affirm the value of life and nonviolence, two principles that should unite us. But they don’t square with what these organizations purport to espouse: a strict moral equation between the unborn and the born. If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for “educational and legislative activities” to stop him. Somebody would use force.

When I raised the question, most anti-abortion absolutists here explained that they wouldn’t have murdered Tiller because of their respect for the law. But Saletan takes issue with that defense, raising a very interesting point:

The reason these pro-life groups have held their fire, both rhetorically and literally, is that they don’t really equate fetuses with old or disabled people. They oppose abortion, as most of us do. But they don’t treat abortionists the way they’d treat mass murderers of the old or disabled. And this self-restraint can’t simply be chalked up to nonviolence or respect for the law. Look up the bills these organizations have written, pushed, or passed to restrict abortions. I challenge you to find a single bill that treats a woman who procures an abortion as a murderer. They don’t even propose that she go to jail.

If abortion is really murder, why wouldn’t proposed laws target the mother as well?

Ultimately, Saletan suggests that many anti-abortion absolutists aren’t really as absolutist as they claim to be:

The people who kill abortion providers are the ones who don’t flinch. They’re like the veterans you sometimes see in war documentaries, quietly recounting what they faced and did. You think you’re pro-life. You tell yourself that abortion is murder. Maybe you even say that when a pollster calls. But like most of the other people who say such things in polls, you don’t mean it literally. There’s you, and then there are the people who lock arms outside the clinics. And then there are the people who bomb them. And at the end of the line, there’s the guy who killed George Tiller.

If you don’t accept what he did, then maybe it’s time to ask yourself what you really believe. Is abortion murder? Or is it something less, a tragedy that would be better avoided? Most of us think it’s the latter. We’re looking for ways to prevent abortions—not just a few this month, but millions down the line—without killing or prosecuting people. Come and join us.

I don’t sign on to this conclusion wholly, because I believe I am far more anti-abortion than Saletan, and far more disgusted by late-term abortions — at least those done for reasons of convenience, which are the majority of such abortions, the propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding. I condemn what Tiller did, which was to end the lives of babies whose mothers’ lives often were not at risk, at a point in time when those babies were no longer undeveloped fetuses, but rather babies.

But I’m torn, as I always have been about abortion. I’m not an absolutist. I’m not sure I consider what he did murder, the same as if Tiller had been an ongoing mass murderer of grown humans. I think if such a mass murderer existed, and the law were powerless to stop them, people would not be condemning the murder of the murderer — just as most of you would not condemn the murder of Osama bin Laden.

Where am I wrong? As always, be extra polite in discussing this very sensitive issue.

224 Responses to “Bill Saletan: Is It Wrong to Murder an Abortionist?”

  1. Labeling as “cowards” people who put their lives on the line for what they believe in, to me, renders the word “coward” essentially meaningless.

    I agree with this statement in general, but I’m not inclined to agree with the example outlined. If the terrorists had put their lives on the line without the wanton murder of innocents, then perhaps I’d agree – but they basically killed defenseless civilians who had no opportunity to defend themselves, so I’d call that cowardice. What’s brave about taking out individuals who can’t hurt you in the slightest?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  2. You can believe abortion is murder (many people do), but if you take the position that gives you the right to act unilaterally to inflict justice that you are also rejecting rule of law. We live in a democracy and you can change the laws if you wish (it may be very hard but you can do it). You do not have the right to force your views at the end of a gun.

    Acting with violence to oppose things you disagree with will lead to chaos and far more harm in the long run. Dr. King was right, in a country like ours non violence and through democratic means is the only way to challenge those laws you deem unjust and immoral.

    Joe (17aeff)

  3. As Ronald Dworkin has said, it’s more about enforcing moral seriousness than moral absolutes. Once you accept that, the question becomes when does/should the state have the right to enforce moral seriousness. Are we to be treated as adults or not?
    The morally conservative nanny state vs the liberal one.

    Duvel (62b020)

  4. Ah, yes, this is precisely what we need, Mr. Saletan…more people taking the law into their own hands. I condemn murder, in its legally defined form (self-defense, of course, is an entirely different matter…we’re talking pre-meditation here), in all cases. Yes, even in the case of bin Laden. I would fully support the death penalty for him, administered by our government, but not murder.

    Chris (6733a5)

  5. Forget the so-called “innocent children”. According to the libards at care2.com, Dr. Tiller should be honored as a womens’ rights “hero”.

    It is such a pity that more liberals have not been aborted. Of course it is not racism that the numbers of African American fetuses aborted is way more percentage-wise than other races. Blacks seem ignorant that dems have pushed for a policy that condemns so many potential Americans to genocidal abortion policies.

    Kill the babies and free the criminals on death row and serving life imprisonment terms. Free Mumia and Spector Now!

    aoibhneas (55634c)

  6. “at least those done for reasons of convenience”

    Having no money is not convenience. Having no access is not convenience. Having to escape an abusive relationship is not convenience, unless you agree with Sam Alito.
    And ID&X is safer and sometimes necessary, but you’ve said it never is.

    Duvel (62b020)

  7. I believe that Tiller essentially a mass-murderer, however I oppose his vigilante killing and not simply because it was outside the law.

    Ultimately, I acknowledge one must sometimes do things against the laws of the state if the laws of the state are tyrannical and so extremely morally baseless. Yet, one cannot be rash about these things. One must be pragmatic and acknowledge when one’s actions will cause more or less damage to both your cause and the society around it.

    This is why I believe John Brown to have been a terrible man, and this is why this murderer is terrible as well.

    It is worth noting that even efforts of noble men, such as the conspirators that assassinated of Julius Caesar, can lead to results that make their efforts seem foolish in retrospect.

    Jim (7d4c7b)

  8. Personally, if I were inclined and competent to kill the murderers of children, I would head down to Darfur, to start with.

    nk (157acd)

  9. The “convenience” descriptor is false. That is where you are wrong.

    SarahW (fdd722)

  10. Saletan viewed Tiller as brave. I agree, but I also agreed with Bill Maher that the 9/11 terrorists were brave. Morally despicable, but brave. Labeling as “cowards” people who put their lives on the line for what they believe in, to me, renders the word “coward” essentially meaningless.

    Bravery, as in showing courage, is not a morally neutral quality. Are suicides brave or cowards? I call them cowards and suicides who take out thousands along with them are the absolute worst cowards. The hijackers were prepared to die so they were taking absolutely no risk–where is the bravery in that? Rash lunacy in the service of evil is a more apt description of the hijackers. If we call such people “brave” then that word becomes essentially meaningless.

    hoglet (3322f0)

  11. I would be for certain murder prosecutions of the woman carrying the victim child. But only if the whole supporting, pro death, apparatus is charged equally with her.

    Frizzbee (d1b4a0)

  12. Difference between the terrorists and Tiller was the terrorist tried on 9/11 to kill 60,000 people whereas Tiller succeeded

    EricPWJohnson (7033c9)

  13. I could argue rule of law like I did before, but I think there is a more important issue.

    A lot of people have abortions. These people think it is OK. They buy into the lie that the fetus is not a life. On the other hand, many women abort admitting that the baby is a human life, but they abort anyway. Either way a child’s life is just not important to a lot of people.

    How do we make the issue of life important, and change the thinking/culture of a nation to value life more than lifestyle?

    Not by killing abortionists. It is counter productive. What will end most abortions is changing hearts, not eliminating perpetrators. We need to focus on life, not death. Focus on the reasonableness of the fetus being an obvious living child.

    This has worked. This has made us mainstream in spite of virtually every institution being against us. Saletan’s option would marginalize us and abortions would skyrocket.

    It’s not about being cowards, it’s about looking at the big picture over the long haul. It’s a lot harder to persuade than it is to shoot. That’s the quick fix, and it won’t work.

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  14. As for the Osama Bin Laden thing, the two don’t equate. We are at war with Al Qaeda, we are not at war with abortionists. This is not a combat situation. Not in any sense of the term. Murdering an abortionist is not only morally wrong and illegal, but it’s an ineffectual way to stop abortion.

    I disagree with Saletan that Tiller’s murder will make it more difficult for women far along in their pregnancy to obtain abortions. Roeden made a martyr out of Tiller. In his wake, strong minded pro-abortion advocates will step up and take his place… they may not have been late term abortionists earlier for a variety of reasons, but now it will feel to them as if they are “duty called” to do so. That, and all the positive treatment the media will give the abortion proponents side will bring in a new crop of people willing to stick it to the evil right wingers.

    Jewels (dec12d)

  15. The question, I think, involves actions taken by a private individual vs. those taken by the state. I’m not entirely sure that it would be right for me to kill bin Laden in my current status. To believe so means that I can kill anyone who is a murderer if I want to, and I’m pretty sure that is not the case. On the other hand, soldiers should kill bin Laden, and murderers should be executed.

    Question for you re: “…far more disgusted by late-term abortions — at least those done for reasons of convenience” : If late term abortions are performed on viable babies, that is, they are capable of surviving outside of the womb, when is there ever a reason to justify a late term abortion? If the life of the mother is in jeopardy, what abortive process is less extreme and therefore safer for a pregnant woman?

    Croaker Norge (9ed08c)

  16. If abortion is really murder, why wouldn’t proposed laws target the mother as well?

    For several reasons, but let me first ask you something. Did we lock up every former slave owner after it became illegal to own slaves? Did we arrest every bartender once prohibition came into effect? If they make smoking illegal, do you propose that we lock up everyone who used to smoke?

    Jewels (dec12d)

  17. In our society, the use of force in cases like this (absent the threat of immediate harm) is the monopoly of the State. The Social Compact, if you will.

    What the pro-life folks protest is not only has the State has abdicated this responsibility, it protects the abortionist in the extreme.

    That does NOT mean that the State’s monopoly should be ignored and matters taken into private hands. It means that the State needs to be continually reminded of its error. The change must come FROM the State. Otherwise we have nothing; no law, no justice and no social compact.

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  18. Kevin Murphy,
    Well spoken, and valid not just for the abortion issue, but for those with any grievance.

    Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R., (1e4cb0)

  19. Error in logic:

    Tiller’s murder is different from all previous murders of abortion providers. If you kill an ordinary abortionist, somebody else will step in. But if you kill the guy at the end of the line, some of his patients won’t be able to find an alternative. You will have directly prevented abortions.

    NARAL already complains that there are not enough abortionists, or, in their formulation, not enough abortion providers — a term which can include facilities — in the United States. If the murder of one first-term-only abortionist shuts down a clinic, it, too, has prevented some abortions.

    Further, the logic of the statement assumes that there will always be someone else to step in. Abortion is a nasty procedure that the vast majority of OB/GYNs want nothing to do with. There may well not be someone ready to step into the dead abortionists’s shoes, especially if the killing makes the prospective replacement abortionist uneasy about his own safety.

    The realistic Dana (3e4784)

  20. A more interesting question is this:

    If you were inside a doctor’s clinic and you saw that the doctor’s next physical act would be to terminate a healthy 35-week pregnancy, what force would you be morally allowed to use to save the fetus?

    Kevin Murphy (0b2493)

  21. The people who kill abortion providers are the ones who don’t flinch.

    Why is it that they never kill the women who have had abortions?

    Yes, even in the case of bin Laden. I would fully support the death penalty for him, administered by our government, but not murder.

    So he should be killed before he has a chance to step on American soil.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  22. If abortionists are murderers then every woman who kills her baby in an abortion is a murderer as well. But you don’t say that. Women are “the victim.”
    So women are moral children who need to be protected.
    It’s all about power, and mostly about men who want to protect their right to the womb.
    And for those who argue that women are in the movement as well, I’d remind you that most “female circumcisions” or clitoridectomies, which is sexual mutilation to destroy women’s capacity for sexual pleasure, are performed by women.
    It’s all about punishment and power.

    Duvel (63f90e)

  23. Duvel, oversimplication much? Human societies have long differentiated between the culpability of people involved in a crime/immoral act, and the culpability of those who perform the crime/immoral act for money as an ongoing enterprise.

    SPQR (72771e)

  24. Shooting Tiller will not persuade one person that a fetus is worth saving. But it will give our opponents a host of new ways to distract attention from the human life in the womb.

    Saletan’s argument is short sighted. He assumes that there is no other way to end abortion. He assumes that if one is against abortion one must want the abortionist dead.

    If we had shot Norma McCorvey, where would that have gotten us?

    Amphipolis (fdbc48)

  25. Nature seems to provide what is necessary at times. Dr. Tiller would be alive if he did not perform the acts he did. So would a lot of innocent humans. If you believe in Karma, a man who performed the act of partially removing a nearly born baby from the womb, and killing it by inserting a tube into its skull to suck out its brains, was killed by someone who found him in a house of worship of a God that condemns both acts.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (57cae1)

  26. Partial birth abortion, as described sounds like murder to me. Tiller would be alive had he not be a provider of this procedure, no doubt. Hard to feel remorse over the loss of this man who protected his moneymaking practice with political contributions. He actually held funerals for those he killed.

    Zelsdorf Ragshaft III (57cae1)

  27. “Me, I condemn the murder of Tiller — but unlike Saletan, I don’t agree with what he did. But I don’t consider it murder,”

    That surprises me. What do you consider it to be?

    cassandra (5a5d33)

  28. I know of no moral system that does not distinguish between actions acceptable to punish past wrongs and actions acceptable to prevent future wrongs. As Megan McCardle pointed out yesterday, from the pro-life position, Tiller was on a play ground shooting children and his assassin did what was necessary to stop the carnage. Tiller is not to be morned. His death is no tragedy.

    But I oppose his murder, just as I oppose putting women who have abortions into jail, strictly for tactical, pragmatic reasons. These acts of violence, while defensible in isolation, defeat themselves if they delay the institution of more restrictive abortion laws. However many specific children may have been saved that day, many more will die in the future.

    tim maguire (4a98f0)

  29. Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

    By definition abortion is not murder, so the only purpose of calling it so, or even asking if it is so, is to inflame people. If abortion is made illegal, then it would, from that point on, be murder, and both the mother and whoever performs an abortion (assuming the mother requests it, of course) would then be murderers (as in hiring a hitman).

    If one believes Tiller’s killer is justified because the current abortion laws, or lack thereof, are unjust, how would one have any credible standing to say that a mother and abortionist would be unjustified for performing an illegal abortion?

    What’s more, how can a person rationally come to the conclusion that killing a person is the moral solution to the very same act?

    Perhaps the answer is simple: it is not a moral solution. It is one person believing he or she knows what’s best for everyone else, disregarding whatever everyone else (government) has decided, and doing whatever he or she thinks is right. If that sounds like an ok thing to you, what about when some nut decides your clothes indicate that you are possessed by demons, and the only solution is to kill you? Does it still sound ok?

    Far-fetched? Of course it is, but the principle is exactly the same. If you support people taking the law into their own hands, you are opening Pandora’s Box.

    Buzz Killington (3da0e1)

  30. “…If they make smoking illegal, do you propose that we lock up everyone who used to smoke?…”

    O/T…I just returned from a week at a vintage sportscar race. The track has extensive spectator facilities, mostly outdoor seating set into hillsides. Many PA announcements were made stating that the facility only allowed smoking in designated areas.
    Even when outdoors, smokers had to go “stand on the sidewalk, away from the entrance”.
    I was surprised they still sold junk-food at the concession stands.

    Roeder did a dis-service to the Pro-Life agenda by making Tiller into a martyr, but he saved many lives in the future; just as the killing of Saddam Hussein and sons saved the lives of thousands of Iraqi’s, and possibly uncounted thousands of lives of citizens of other countries, too.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f5973e)

  31. I don’t care for Saletan’s construct in that it creates a conclusion like you cannot truly be pro-life unless ___ insert new ridiculous metric here.

    SPQR – Duvel is of the “throw crap against the wall and see what sticks” school. Very little, if anything, of what it argues provides any justification of partial-birth abortion.

    JD (d6df01)

  32. Why is this so hard for some to grasp? Being pro-life means being pro-life for all, even criminals. You do everything in your legal power to prevent and punish criminal acts, but you certainly don’t commit murder. The only inconsistency is when you are only pro-life in some instances, like pro-life with abortion but OK with killing criminals. Or anti killing criminals, but OK with abortion. This is really much simpler than many are allowing.

    Ray (9c6b5f)

  33. Tiller’s assassination was a morally reprehensible and indefensible act. Full Stop.

    To let you know where I am coming from. I am an agnostic on the issue of whether abortion should or should not be legal (and an atheist as regards religious sentiment) alhtough I lean towards the position that a woman should be allowed to control her own body.

    What matters here to me, is that even though I find that the court produced the legal standard in Roe that I am very much in agreement with, their reasoning was badly flawed and legality was way off the mark! Our constitution says nothing, one way or another about the pro-life or pro-choice position (except perhaps if one argues that a woman’s body is her property, which is how I see it). As a result, our SCOTUS and Federal government had no business imposing a law on the nation. In so doing, they have taken from us one of our most precious rights, that of self-determination! Their crime has sterilized all civil forms of debate, because whatever the majority wants was mooted by them. I want those who differ from me to have their chance to persuade me of the errors of my ways. But, since debate is futile, our SCOTUS has produced a frustrated populace who view themselves as having no recourse but violence. This in now way excuses Roeder or the scum who are in support of him. But I think that we would be remiss if we failed to allocate a large portion of the blame where it belongs, on the shoulders of 9 robed oligarchs.

    MJBrutus (fdc0cd)

  34. Cowards as people who put their lives on the line…

    So the embittered ex-husband who holds off a SWAT team before murdering his family and then killing himself (because he truly believes that no one can have them if he can’t) is brave? Are you f’in kidding me? Death-cult zombies aren’t courageous for stacking themselves like cordwood while trying to murder innocents — they’re zombies.

    Saddens me that the bloghost subscribes to Bill Maher’s stunted moral calculus. Like Col. Kurtz in “Apocalypse Now” admiring the tremendous will of the Vietcong for amputating the arms of village children vaccinated by US medics.

    I don’t buy Saletan’s conclusion, because that way leads to vigilante mayhem or Stone Age shame/honor vendettas. If “Meat/Fur is Murder”, which some people believe, then PETA fanatics are justified in murdering chefs and furriers. Or they must, if they are sincere in their beliefs. Uh uh. I’m sure alot of Jim Crow lynch parties thought their victims were guilty, too.

    Dr. Tiller was murdered, and Mr. Roeder, if found guilty, should suffer the full force of the law. Each, as far as I’m concerned, have a special place in Hell reserved for them.

    furious (a74982)

  35. Human societies have long differentiated between the culpability of people involved in a crime/immoral act, and the culpability of those who perform the crime/immoral act for money as an ongoing enterprise.

    In jurisdictions where abortion is legally considered murder, the people who ordered the hit (the pregnant women who have had abortions) are just as guilty of murder as the hit man (abortionist).

    If abortion is made illegal, then it would, from that point on, be murder, and both the mother and whoever performs an abortion (assuming the mother requests it, of course) would then be murderers (as in hiring a hitman).

    Not necessarily.

    In the U.S., abortion was never treated the same as murder even in jurisdictions where it was illegal.

    As Megan McCardle pointed out yesterday, from the pro-life position, Tiller was on a play ground shooting children and his assassin did what was necessary to stop the carnage.

    No, he was not.

    He was at a church . At the time of his murder, he was not killing anyone or anything.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  36. “I also agreed with Bill Maher that the 9/11 terrorists were brave.”

    Making war on people who can’t fight back is brave?

    Capturing children, little girls, and killing them by flying them into the sides of buildings is brave?

    Committing suicide is brave?

    Man, you guys have some strange ideas about what constitutes bravery.

    Just because you do something that endangers your life, it doesn’t follow that you’re brave. Take it from a cigarette smoker. I know what I’m talking about.

    Dave Surls (5da709)

  37. Arguing that Tiller was helping women with no money and no access is to be completely ignorant.

    He did what he did for profit, and a whole lot of it. A Tiller abortion cost the mother $6,000, and a significant portion of his clients travelled from states where that abortion was illegal to kill their babies. How many poor people do you know who can afford to do that?

    That’s what I thought….Tiller was a crass opportunist who got rich doing the dirty work that the vast majority of the medical profession refused to do because of its moral repugnancy. He charged more than 10 times the rate of an earlier gestation abortion. That’s not a hero: that’s a black market profiteer.

    Do I condemn the act of murder? Yes. Am I sorry he’s gone? Not in the slightest.

    Jim B (3552e7)

  38. “It’s all about power, and mostly about men who want to protect their right to the womb.”

    Baloney. You can carve your womb out with a butcher knife for all I care. I just don’t want you killing babies, in the womb, out of the womb, makes no difference.

    Dave Surls (5da709)

  39. How about this — Saletan, in a thought-experiment way, is trying to goad pro-lifers into condoning murders of abortion doctors in order to prove that pro-lifers are no better than terrorists.

    furious (a74982)

  40. The basic assumption that opponents of abortion are extremists is flawed; so is the assumption that murderers should always be punished with death.

    Saletan is projecting his own extreme beliefs and is arguing the case of the straw, whom he imbues with all of the goofy ideas which are espoused in his crank article. Pathetic.

    trentk269 (086ecc)

  41. Okay, I’ll play lightning rod here. I’m an anti abortion absolutist. The only exception I think is moral is a direct threat to the life of the mother. Any other exception will be misused. I believe the abortionist is equivalent to a hit man and the person who hires him or her as guilty as the active killer. I will work for laws that hold exactly that. You can call me all the names you’d like or justify my beliefs as anything that makes you happy. I no longer care.

    Killing Tiller was wrong, just as murdering Charles Manson would have been wrong. Roeder should face the same punishment as if he had shot anyone else. If you can’t see my reasoning, I’m afraid I cannot be any more clear. Murder is wrong. The individual has the responsibility to demand the state punish murder. Unless he is willing to forego all the protections of the state and call for revolution ( seriously ) he has no right to perform the actions reserved for the state.

    Ken Hahn (ce3779)

  42. Ken Hahn, what about in cases of involuntary pregnancy?

    Buzz Killington (747191)

  43. “I think if such a mass murderer existed, and the law were powerless to stop them, people would not be condemning the murder of the murderer — just as most of you would not condemn the murder of Osama bin Laden.”

    I would. Consistent with the following opinions.

    1. Changing the culture so that the murder of the unborn is no longer approved or tolerated is a vast, long-term task, but doable, provided we steer clear of things that make us automatic bad guys, like violence.

    2. The killers are simply people who want to kill, and are fastening on this cause as their ‘reason’ regardless of the harm they do the cause and the millions that will die in consequence.

    In other words, I think the guy that would kill an abortionist, or a serial involuntary euthanasia-ist if we get those, or any other class of atrocious persons, would have been dreaming of bombings and shootings years before anyway. They already knew what they wanted to do, only “who” and “when” were really in question.

    David Blue (cfc4e8)

  44. The reason these pro-life groups have held their fire, both rhetorically and literally, is that they don’t really equate fetuses with old or disabled people. They oppose abortion, as most of us do. But they don’t treat abortionists the way they’d treat mass murderers of the old or disabled. And this self-restraint can’t simply be chalked up to nonviolence or respect for the law. Look up the bills these organizations have written, pushed, or passed to restrict abortions. I challenge you to find a single bill that treats a woman who procures an abortion as a murderer. They don’t even propose that she go to jail.

    Well, I think there’s an obvious answer to this. Murder requires the knowledge that one is killing a human being. The women who have abortions and the doctors who perform them do not believe the fetus is a human being. Ergo, they are not guilty of knowingly killing a human being, that is, murder.

    Jim S. (ee0b7b)

  45. Jewels: For several reasons, but let me first ask you something. Did we lock up every former slave owner after it became illegal to own slaves? Did we arrest every bartender once prohibition came into effect? If they make smoking illegal, do you propose that we lock up everyone who used to smoke?

    I don’t believe Patterico is talking about retroactive punishment (correct me if I’m wrong). He’s asking about the consequences of considering abortion murder.

    The problem can be stated easily:

    – I know of no pro-lifer who disagrees with the notion that a woman who contracts with an assassin to kill her husband should not be punished for murder.

    – I know of vanishingly few pro-lifers who assert both that abortion is murder and that a woman who contracts with a doctor to perform an abortion should be punished for murder.

    The only semi-coherent explanation I’ve heard was from a pro-life relative of mine who does believe women who seek or have abortions should be punished (though not for murder, oddly), but that it is tactically unsound to suggest doing so in today’s political climate (that’s paraphrased a bit, but basically what she was suggesting).

    fishbane (2397b0)

  46. I realized my last comment may have been too vague. When I said involuntary pregnancy, I meant cases of rape, or anything else that qualifies in that context.

    Buzz Killington (747191)

  47. I wonder if there is a line that could be crossed that the partial birth abortion supporters wouldn’t support.

    Let’s try this assumedly ( “assumedly” because it might happen all the time and I don’t know about it ) hypothetical example: If the doctor leaves a foot in the birth canal and gives the mother an hour to see if she can bond with the child and then give thumbs up or thumbs down, would an abortion at that point be wrong? Would it be illegal? Should it be illegal?

    jcurtis (3093ea)

  48. But I’m torn, as I always have been about abortion. I’m not an absolutist.

    The pro-choice stance recognizes that this is an issue over which many individuals are, to use your word, “torn”. Therefore, there can be no “absolutist” position, pro or con, as a matter of policy.

    I think that’s why Roe vs. Wade is what it is. It allows for the “freedom of conscience” that each woman contemplating an abortion must face. (well, freedom of conscience up to a point — the third trimester — and then it gets murkier). Isn’t that the best way to handle something for which there is no clear consensus?

    ****

    On a related point, if abortion opposers believe that (a) abortion is murder and (b) “justified murder” (as is in the case of Dr. Tiller) is okay, then aren’t they tacitly conceding that some abortions could — at least in theory — be “justified”? It seems to me that the Tiller murder reduces the abortion debate to a question of when abortion can be justified, rather than whether or not it is a wholesale bannable practice.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  49. So women are moral children who need to be protected.
    It’s all about power, and mostly about men who want to protect their right to the womb.

    Another ignorant comment, unless you are referring to the fact that the highest level of pro-abortion sentiment is in males 18 to 35. Was that what you meant? Or were you making another trollish comment about some delusion about male dominance. They want the “right” to that womb but it’s actually the vagina that they want access to.

    It’s all about no responsibility.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  50. Patterico as a prosecutor let me ask you this question: If a late term abortion is not murder then what is it? A late term abortion is destroying a fetus at a point that it is already medically possible to survive outside the womb. If the fetus is removed from the mother instead of destroyed and put in a incubator it is legally a live baby. Killing it in the incubator is at the minimum a homicide and probably a murder. Furthermore if a late term fetus is not a child, then why is Peterson on CA’s death row for a double murder? So unless Tiller performed abortions on fetuses that could not have possible survived outside the womb with or without medical intervention he did not prevent any miscarriages (indeed is there even a way to know with a complete certainty that a given pregnancy will result in a still birth?) so that line of argument is false.

    So if a late term fetus is sufficiently human and alive to render one guilty of murder for killing it in it’s mothers womb under one set of circumstances how is the same fetus not sufficiently human that it’s destruction is not a homicide when done at the mothers behest for another reason? Tiller is and was nothing more than a contract killer, a hit man. I have no sympathy for the killing of a killer. Again Scott Petterson is on death row for killing his wife and unborn child. Had he just killed the wife he may not be facing the death penalty but by killing the unborn child he committed an aggravating circumstance that conformed to the law’s requirement to impose the death penalty. Tell us how as a prosecutor you square the circle. The guy who killed Tiller is a nut. I do not doubt that for a minute. But since Tiller had been performing these types of abortions for 35 years without any serious effort by Kansas to stop him,indeed Tiller is supposed to have performed 60 thousand of these abortions, would you have charged him in CA (Tiller’s killer) since the state failed to uphold repeatedly it’s own laws against late term abortions (in the example that CA and KS had the same laws and the the situation occurred in CA instead of KS) ? Would you not agree he could bring up the defense that he was stopping a killer from further killings? If Tiller had been performing the late term abortions in California would you have prosecuted him? If the mother had died during the procedure, one that is almost never medically indicated to save the life of the mother, would you have prosecuted Tiller for a double homicide?

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  51. first off, I don’t agree with the shooting of Dr. Tiller, however, if you are pro-choice I have a thought to comfort you. Don’t think of your hero as having been murdered…think of it as someone performing a procedure on him to terminate viability

    Leslie H. (1ee9e9)

  52. Ken Hahn, what about in cases of involuntary pregnancy?

    Name one person, just one , who experienced involuntary pregnancy.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  53. Duvel @#3 – “…The morally conservative nanny state vs the liberal one.”

    Guess he should have read the following blogpost before launching yet another shallow leftie canard:

    “How Sex Sells the Loss of Freedom”

    http://chicagoboyz.net/archives/7168.html

    The left wants to limit your freedom of expression, at least as long as it doesn’t create a harmonious chord along with theirs. The current administration is working to limit what kind of jobs you can do, what you can be paid for your work, how much carbon dioxide you can produce, where you can send your children to school, and what medical tests or treatments you may obtain. And the left welcomes each new coddling, nanny-ing restriction with open arms – just so long as you stay out of their bedrooms.

    Dagwood (3c9bd4)

  54. Individuals walking around violently enforcing their moral beliefs = Afghanistan under the Taliban.

    poon (093c46)

  55. I think if such a mass murderer existed, and the law were powerless to stop them, people would not be condemning the murder of the murderer — just as most of you would not condemn the murder of Osama bin Laden.


    Patterico–

    But that’s just the point. The law is NOT powerless to stop him. It just doesn’t want to. Much different case than Osama.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  56. #30 — Comment by Buzz Killington — 6/2/2009 @ 10:15 am

    Exactly. I agree whole-heartedly.

    #53 Name one person, just one , who experienced involuntary pregnancy.
    Comment by Michael Ejercito — 6/2/2009 @ 11:56 am

    Medical privacy, and all that. It has happened, I assure you, even with modern birth control, and even with non-consensual intercourse. Probably not as often as it’s claimed, but that does not mean that it never happens.

    htom (412a17)

  57. Man, you guys have some strange ideas about what constitutes bravery.

    Who is “we” Kimosabe?

    Name one person, just one , who experienced involuntary pregnancy.

    Are you suggesting that rape is not the example here?

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  58. Is it wrong to murder a journalist?

    happyfeet (71f55e)

  59. It should also be pointed out that the accused killer considers himself a “sovereign citizen”, meaning he basically rejects the power of the State, at least as regards to himself. So, this guy is operating in a completely different worldview than most (all?) posting here. What I might think are limitations on my rights and duties may not seem reasonable to him.

    How aberrant does a worldview have to be before one is considered insane?

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  60. blockquote>But I’m torn, as I always have been about abortion. I’m not an absolutist.

    Abortion is an absolute issue. If your mother had chosen an abortion, you ABSOLTUETLY would not be here to write “I am not an absolutist”.

    Ending an ordinary life whether in the womb at 6 weeks or 6 months or a person of 80 years old is murder.

    On that matter of mother as murderer I agree with Ken Hahn above who said this:

    blockquote>I believe the abortionist is equivalent to a hit man and the person who hires him or her as guilty is the active killer. I will work for laws that hold exactly that. You can call me all the names you’d like or justify my beliefs as anything that makes you happy. I no longer care.

    I also believe that those laws that convict mothers as murderers will not happen near term because, unlike other types of murder, abortion has been so softened-over so that much of our society does not deem it wrong…as a matter of fact, it is considered a “right” by many for a mother to terminate her very own child’s life….It is clear that for other types of murder we don’t justify the actions of the murderer in that way…that holds true especially for those who kill a 2-year old, 5-year old or 16-year old children!
    It is an uphill battle, but a noble one to change abortion laws and American minds on the matter.

    While Dr. Tiller was able to perform abortions, and therefore murdered thousands, his actions are abhorrent to our morality and our society. The FACT that he did it for large amounts of money is almost inexplicable and morally repugnant as Jim B alluded to above.

    Someone above mentioned the “freedom of conscience” rights of a woman. Sure that exists…but the right is exercised at the point of conception….you choose to have sex, you know the consequences….you see, most of this philosophical mumbo jumbo about women and abortions is a quite successful attempt at relieving women (and men) of their moral responsibilities when it comes to sex….
    In an attempt to keep from calling the woman responsible, many in our society have chosen to neglect the life that has formed, snuff it out, and defend those actions —-all so the woman can her right to sex whenever she feels like it with no responsibility.

    Did Tiller deserve, in a moral sense, what he got? YES. He killed thousands…
    I won’t miss a man on this earth who was responsible for the death of thousands of innocents. I do grieve for his family and for the thousands he killed….

    Before you call me crazy, I also believe that what Roeder did is also murder and out of the bounds of law. He should be punished to full extent of the law for what he did. He also did no favors to those of us who understand that INNOCENT life is precious at any age and he hurt our efforts in the fight to save those lives.

    SharpRightTurn (e04454)

  61. Sorry the blockquotes were messed up in my first post. Here is it again.

    But I’m torn, as I always have been about abortion. I’m not an absolutist.

    Abortion is an absolute issue. If your mother had chosen an abortion, you ABSOLTUETLY would not be here to write “I am not an absolutist”.

    Ending an ordinary life whether in the womb at 6 weeks or 6 months or a person of 80 years old is murder.

    On that matter of mother as murderer I agree with Ken Hahn above who said this:

    The only exception I think is moral is a direct threat to the life of the mother. Any other exception will be misused. I believe the abortionist is equivalent to a hit man and the person who hires him or her as guilty as the active killer. I will work for laws that hold exactly that. You can call me all the names you’d like or justify my beliefs as anything that makes you happy. I no longer care.

    I also believe that those laws that convict mothers as murderers will not happen near term because, unlike other types of murder, abortion has been softened over so that much of our society does not deem it wrong…as a matter of fact, it is considered a “right” by many for a mother to terminate her child….It is clear that for other types of murder we don’t justify the actions of the murderer in that way…
    It is an uphill battle, but a noble one to change abortion laws and American minds on the matter.

    While Dr. Tiller was able to perform abortions, and therefore murdered thousands, his actions are abhorrent to our morality and our society. The FACT that he did it for large amounts of money is almost inexplicable and morally repugnant as Jim B alluded to above.

    Someone above mentioned the “freedom of conscience” rights of a woman. Sure that exists…but the right is exercised at the point of conception….you choose to have sex, you know the consequences….you see, most of this philosophical mumbo jumbo about women and abortions is a quite successful attempt at relieving women of their moral responsibilities when it comes to sex….
    In an attempt to keep from calling the woman responsible, many in our society have chosen to neglect the life that has formed, snuff it out, and defend those actions —-all so the woman can her right to sex whenever she feels like it with no responsibility.

    Did Tiller deserve, in a moral sense, what he got? YES. He killed thousands…
    I won’t miss a man on this earth who was responsible for the death of thousands of innocents. I do grieve for his family and for the thousands he killed….

    Before you call me crazy, I also believe that what Roeder did is also murder and out of the bounds of law. He should be punished to full extent of the law for what he did. He also did no favors to those of us who understand that INNOCENT life is precious at any age and our fight to save those lives.

    SharpRightTurn (e04454)

  62. I think if such a mass murderer existed, and the law were powerless to stop them, people would not be condemning the murder of the murderer — just as most of you would not condemn the murder of Osama bin Laden.

    The problem comes when one confuses rhetoric with legal terms of art. “Murder” is a legal term of art. It has an objective definition which is clearly speeled out. Technically and literally, Tiller was not a murderer. Technically and literally, most abortions are not murder.

    Neither is the death penalty. Or a soldier killing somebody in combat.

    If one takes the view that any of these things are “murder”, then the United States itself is a “mass murderer” (Hiroshima, etc.) and one would therefore be justified in acts of violence to prevent further “mass murder”.

    Annoying as it may be (to some), it’s important to distinguish technical fact from hyperbole/emotion as these debates occur.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  63. There are, supposedly, those who have survived abortions, and they could be old enough to be posting.

    I am reminded of an old button:

    “If MEN were unwillingly pregnant,
    abortion would be a sacrament.”

    htom (412a17)

  64. There’s nothing particularly thought-provoking about Saletan’s piece. It’s a cute little rhetorical cheap shot.

    Alo Konsen (3867ca)

  65. htom, its an old line and does nothing except demonstrate contempt for pro-life women.

    SPQR (72771e)

  66. Someone above mentioned the “freedom of conscience” rights of a woman. Sure that exists…but the right is exercised at the point of conception….you choose to have sex, you know the consequences….you see, most of this philosophical mumbo jumbo about women and abortions is a quite successful attempt at relieving women of their moral responsibilities when it comes to sex…

    To the contrary, the anti-abortion position relieves a woman of her moral responsibility, and places it into the hands of the nanny state.

    As for your attempt to limit women’s “freedom of conscience” right only to the “point of conception” (and no time thereafter), I wonder what is your justification for limiting rights that way, and if you would be willing to have YOUR rights arbitrarily limited without some justification. Perhaps your right to medical treatment for a heart attack should be limited, because you chose to eat all those cheeseburgers throughout your life, knowing the possible consequences. Get what I’m saying?

    Furthermore, your argument equates “choosing to have sex” with “choosing to conceive”, as if they are the same thing. The flaws in that argument are, I hope, rather obvious.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  67. We live in a secular country. I hate abortion. I knew of and was disgusted by Dr.Tiller. The morality issue is interesting. If you believe that abortion, especially the sick late term kind performed by Tiller is murder (I certainly do), then how would you be morally wrong by attempting to stop the murder of innocent children??
    If he tried to kill my child, I would have killed him gladly. I would also have paid societies consequences. Liberals have a hard time with this notion. They object to terrorists being dunked, but not to babies being stabbed in the head at full term by Dr Tiller.
    The man who killed Dr Tiller must suffer societies requisite consequences, but I believe the murderer probably has saved hundreds of babies from being stabbed in the head.

    gus (36e9a7)

  68. I thought it showed contempt of the Roman Catholic Church; your eyes obviously see things differently.

    htom (412a17)

  69. 67: Actually, I’d say there are far more flaws in your argument that choosing to have sex and choosing to conceive are two different things than in the opposite. Sexual intercourse and procreation are inextricably intertwined; sure, you can take precautions against conception, but those are not foolproof, and anyone with a modicum of sense knows this. If you choose to have sex, you know that there is some level of chance that conception will occur.

    But, really, all of these arguments boil down, in the end, to one simple question, and one that I’d like to hear everyone’s response to: Is an unborn child human or not?

    Chris (6733a5)

  70. It is human, but it is not deserving of full legal or ethical protection until later in pregnancy.

    Jim (743658)

  71. 71: Why is the unborn not deserving of full legal or ethical protection until later? Where is the cut-off line for applying said rights; who makes the decision on when these rights are to be applied?

    Chris (6733a5)

  72. if you would be willing to have YOUR rights arbitrarily limited without some justification

    You seem to have NO problem in doing that very thing for the unborn. You should be thankful your mother didn’t “arbitrarily limit your rights” before birth!

    Your example of cheeseburgers and heart attacks is very different from abortion. Eating cheeseburgers and having a heart attack DO NOT personally allow me to snuff the rights of another human being in the name of “rights”.

    your argument equates “choosing to have sex” with “choosing to conceive”, as if they are the same thing.

    They are nearly the same thing since we all know that sex is the mode for conceiving. If you choose to have sex, you had better be fully aware of the responsiblities of conceiving. Separating the two is a “flawed argument”.

    The ONLY 100% dependable way to avoid conception is by not having sex.

    On the flip side, if you have sex, you had best understand that a life may be formed and have the maturity and willingness to take on that responsiblity — not avoid it, or convenience yourself, through abortion. Pro-abortionists have (sucessfully so far) attempted to remove that responsiblity inherent in having sex….

    Rhetorical food-for-thought: If you drive a car are you not aware that there always stands the possiblity that you may have an accident? Do you believe that if you do have an accident that you should be relieved of ALL responsiblity by having someone else’s rights removed?

    SharpRightTurn (e04454)

  73. Since 1973 abortion has been seen by immoral unethical Americans as a harmless proceducre.
    But if you are Miss California and have breast implants that is immoral.
    When confronted with the fact that Tiller stabbed full term babies in the head before removing them fully from the birth canal. Liberals close their ears and prattle on about a WOMAN’S right.
    Who gave the woman the right to have her baby stabbed in the head and is this “RIGHT” a good thing?
    I and my son were both born at 7 months of gestation.
    My mom didn’t have me stabbed in the head.
    My wife didn’t have my son stabbed in the head,
    Were these choices equally moral as those Tiller made?

    gus (36e9a7)

  74. But, really, all of these arguments boil down, in the end, to one simple question, and one that I’d like to hear everyone’s response to: Is an unborn child human or not?

    You mean, “Is an unborn child a ‘life’ or not?”, I think.

    Anyway, it’s an entirely subjective question, because the answer depends on each person’s definition of when life begins. Even among those who oppose abortion, there is no consensus at to the precise moment that occurs (conception? when the egg attaches to the uterus? when a brain is formed? when the fetus can live on its own?)

    At the end of the day, asking “when does life begin” is like asking, “Which religion is the correct one?” There’s no “right” answer — at least no answer sufficient enough to establish a blanket rule to govern everybody.

    That’s my particular problem with the anti-abortion side. While I certainly understand and am sympathetic to some people’s answer about when life begins, it is after all, just their view. Even if I agree with some of them about their answer, I’m not arrogant enough to think that I have THE answer.

    The question, when all the arguments are boiled down, is this: WHO GETS TO DECIDE THE ANSWER TO THAT “ONE SIMPLE QUESTION”?

    And call be libertarian on this issue, but since the answer to the question involves matter of faith and conscience, I feel very comfortable NOT having the government tell me the answer and force women to comply with it, thank you very much.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  75. htom, there have been polling that show pro-life sentiment higher among women than men.

    So shall we settle on the line just showing contempt for reality?

    SPQR (72771e)

  76. I have no problems making those determinations on my behalf and on behalf of any kids I might have.

    If you are so cowardly to be unable to make those types of tough decisions, you’re mentally and emotionally incapable of being a good lawyer or a good business executive, IMHO.

    Jim (743658)

  77. I’m sorry Ashford, maybe you didn’t get the message, but Tiller killed thousands of babies well after the 5th month and often stabbed babies in the head at full term.
    Would you care to comment on the issue here or would you like to pretend to be intelligent?
    I’m sure you’d rather pretend to be intelligent.
    Ok, let’s play that game too. Where in the Constitution does it permit stabbing 5,6,7,8 and 9 month gestated babies in the head for mommies convenience?? I’ll wait.

    gus (36e9a7)

  78. I have a problem with the government telling me how many beers I can drink.
    But if I choose to drink 20, and I drive, I’ve maken the choice to risk others lives.
    If you choose to have sex and become pregnant, the baby should not be murdered for your concenvience. Killing a baby is not a choice. It’s immoral. Are you immoral? If you support abortion you are immoral.

    gus (36e9a7)

  79. Rhetorical food-for-thought: If you drive a car are you not aware that there always stands the possiblity that you may have an accident? Do you believe that if you do have an accident that you should be relieved of ALL responsiblity by having someone else’s rights removed?

    –If you have an accident, you’re not criminally charged with a felony in most instances, even if you’re at fault, right? And insurance usually covers damages.

    Do you think that a woman who drives a car and gets into an accident because her brakes fail should be criminally charged if she had the brakes checked recently?

    Jim (743658)

  80. if you would be willing to have YOUR rights arbitrarily limited without some justification
    You seem to have NO problem in doing that very thing for the unborn

    Correct. I don’t think the unborn have rights (or responsibilities, for that matter) that living citizens have. Nor do dead people, for the same reason.

    I think that in order to be protected as a citizen, you have to be a citizen, which means you have to be, well, alive. I realize you disagree, but my position isn’t unreasonable.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  81. Where in the Constitution does it permit stabbing 5,6,7,8 and 9 month gestated babies in the head for mommies convenience?? I’ll wait.

    You think if something isn’t in the Constitution, it can’t be done?

    Seriously?

    Where in the Constitution does it permit you and me to comment on a blog post? Hey, it’s not in there! We must be breaking the law right now!

    Anyway, if you want to have an “intelligent” conversation, try asking me a question which isn’t so obviously loaded (and loaded with misinformation and bad facts). Even an unintelligent person can those.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  82. but my position isn’t unreasonable

    No, just selfish and wrong.

    SharpRightTurn (e04454)

  83. I have officially had it with this kind of self-serving bullshit.

    Let’s turn this question around, shall we? Many a leftist said Bush was a murderer, a war criminal, a tyrant and the rest of it, right? Let’s stamp our foot and demand that they answer why or why not they would have supported his assassination?

    Is this what it’s come to? You can’t regard something as wrong and horrible unless you are willing to shoot people in the face over it? And if you aren’t, then that means it’s something less?

    Were Saddam’s mass killings murder? I guess not, to the proggs, since they opposed any measures to kill or stop him.

    Mars vs Hollywood (f062b9)

  84. 75: Actually, no, I meant human. See, the thing is, the question of when life begins actually isn’t subjective. At no point in an unborn child’s existence is he made of non-living material. The egg and the sperm that combine to form the zygote are alive; they have life. This isn’t arrogance. It’s biology. (I’m willing to hear arguments about this, of course, but this seems to me fairly certain.) Sure, you can bring up “non-viability” and what have you…but all those arguments can be applied to severely brain-damaged people (we can bring up specific points in this if you want, I’m just compressing the argument for the sake of this comment). So, when you get down to it, the question is: is the unborn human, or not? If he’s not human, then you have no need to explain abortion. However, if he is a human, then why are we denying him the rights granted by our Constitution?

    Chris (6733a5)

  85. If you choose to have sex and become pregnant, the baby should not be murdered for your concenvience. Killing a baby is not a choice. It’s immoral. Are you immoral? If you support abortion you are immoral.

    All these arguments just assume that a one-celled zygote is the moral and functional equivalent of a “baby”. And it may be for some; I don’t begrudge anyone their right to believe that.

    But it’s arrogant to project that belief on to everyone else, requiring as a matter of law that they must conform to that belief.

    Personally, I think there is a qualitative difference between an acorn and an oak tree, which is why we call acorns “acorns” and oak trees “oak trees”. By the same token, I don’t think aborting a day-old fertilized cell is the equivalent (morally) of an actual typical “murder”. You can tell me I’m “wrong” in my belief, but you can’t PROVE it, because it is entirely subjective.

    My beef with anti-abortion people is that they have no respect for people who have reasonable beliefs that happen to differ from their own.

    P.S. Nor do I assume (as many abortion opposors do) that every single abortion (late-term or otherwise) is done for the “convenience” of the mother. That’s simply not true, and everyone honest person here knows that.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  86. Americans have seen abortion fairly consistently over the last few decades.

    Between 10-20% think all abortions should be illegal.

    Between 10-20% think all abortions at any point in pregnancy for any reason should be legal, if not paid for by the government.

    The rest of us think some abortions should be legal, others not.

    A vast majority think that 3rd trimester abortions for all but the most extreme reasons should be illegal. Tiller made a business of 3rd trimester elective abortions. In this, he was supported only by the furthest fringe.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  87. K Ashford asked:

    Where in the Constitution does it permit you and me to comment on a blog post? Hey, it’s not in there! We must be breaking the law right now!

    Right here:

    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

    I’d say that pretty much fills the bill!

    The First Amendment absolutist Dana (3e4784)

  88. What if evil was stronger than good? Would you sacrifice your morals in order to conquer a greater evil?

    Lelouch (4e3a54)

  89. 80-Jim,
    My rhetorical question was about understanding responsiblity and embracing it….it was not a critique of the criminality of abortion.

    If you drive a car, have sex, walk down the street, eat a meal, fight with a spouse, or do just about anything, you must be aware of the consequences and responsiblities that follow.

    Pro-abortionists believe that one consequence (a baby, a life) of sex should be snuffed out instead of being dealt with morally by the responsible parties.

    Abortion is abhorrent and its fall out seems to be getting even worse….largely because pro-abortionists have been so successful in making many people callous to the life of a baby….to the extent they can actually believe a baby in the womb is not life.

    We were all at the stage of conception at some point in our life–this is absolute fact….at the very core of our being we all should understand that the life that some would love to terminate for convenience (at any stage of pregnancy) is the same stage of life WE existed at in some point in our life….we were given the chance to continue our lives ….thank God our mothers took their responsiblities seriously.

    SharpRightTurn (e04454)

  90. Comment by Jim — 6/2/2009 @ 1:36 pm

    She would be criminally charged if her BAC exceeded the State’s legal limit.
    She could also be charged if she disregarded expert advice on suggested maintanance proceedures whose lack of completion contributed to the failure.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f5973e)

  91. The First Amendment doesn’t permit you to post on this blog or any other one. They’re privately owned and controlled. The First Amendment would only apply if the US Congress passed a law that prohibited you from posting on blogs.

    Jim (743658)

  92. And my point is that, in those other cases, you have a defense in that you took reasonable precautions to prevent something but an accident occurred anyway.

    So if I’m walking down a street and a car whose driver has had a heart attack and hits me on the sidewalk, should I be responsible for my injuries because I was aware that there was a chance that something like that could occur?

    Jim (743658)

  93. So if I’m walking down a street and a car whose driver has had a heart attack and hits me on the sidewalk, should I be responsible for my injuries because I was aware that there was a chance that something like that could occur?

    Yes

    SharpRightTurn (e04454)

  94. Comment by Lelouch — 6/2/2009 @ 1:58 pm

    In combat, individual soldiers sacrifice their morality to battle evil all the time; and, once the battle is over, they rejoin civilized society and (in most cases) regain – and live by – their morality.
    It is how we survive!

    AD - RtR/OS! (f5973e)

  95. K Ashford…try this allegory out for size:

    A Southern slaveowner in the early 1800s is fully convinced that his slaves are not human, and he is thus free to do whatever he pleases with them, up to, and including, killing them for any reason whatsoever. Let’s add the condition that, by law, he is allowed to do this.

    An abolitionist of the time, however, believes, and knows in his heart, that these slaves are, in fact, human, and will not stop until the law has changed so that these slaves will no longer have to fear being murdered for no reason.

    Let’s also stipulate, for the heck of it, that the science of the time could not fully determine whether or not slaves actually were human or not.

    Can you see why this desire to end abortion does not come from arrogance?

    Chris (6733a5)

  96. “Man, you guys have some strange ideas about what constitutes bravery.”

    “Who is “we” Kimosabe?”

    In this case, “we” or “you guys” is Patterico and Bill Maher.

    “but I also agreed with Bill Maher that the 9/11 terrorists were brave.”

    Can’t quite wrap my head around the idea that suicidal terrorists, disguised as civilians, who make war on defenseless people and murder children can be considered brave. Same thing for abortionists.

    The fact that the terrorists killed themselves seems pretty irrelevant. You don’t usually hear suicide described as an act of courage.

    Like I said, I smoke cigarettes, and it’s killing me too, but the idea that because I’m putting my life at risk everytime I spark up a cigarette somehow makes me brave, is frankly absurd.

    Stupid, yes.

    Brave, no.

    Dave Surls (5da709)

  97. Actually, no, I meant human. See, the thing is, the question of when life begins actually isn’t subjective. At no point in an unborn child’s existence is he made of non-living material. The egg and the sperm that combine to form the zygote are alive; they have life.

    Chris, I believe the sincerity of your belief, but I simply don’t equate cells “having life” with actual human LIFE. Heck, if someone dies, many of their cells go on living for days, months, even years. But that person, while human, is not a living human. It’s a dead one.

    In fact, doesn’t your argument mean that every guy who masterbates, (stop snickering, people) or every woman who makes a conscience decision not to have her monthly egg fertilized, is committing the same crime as an abortionist? And if so, isn’t the number of “babies” supposedly “killed” by abortions is a relatively minor when compared to the number of “babies” “killed” by masterbation?

    is the unborn human, or not? If he’s not human, then you have no need to explain abortion. However, if he is a human, then why are we denying him the rights granted by our Constitution?

    To reiterate, the unborn is human, just not a living one in my view. That’s why I treat the unborn human like a dead human — not entitled to rights granted by our Constition.

    Sidenote: The Constitutional protection for “life, liberty, and happiness” doesn’t protect “humans” anyway, but rather “U.S. citizens”. And the Constitution defines a U.S. citizen as someone “BORN or naturalized in the United States”, neither of which apply to the unborn.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  98. Yup.
    I feel the exactly the same about fundamentalist christian terrorists as I do about about fundamentalist islamic terrorists.
    Don’t like the rule of law?
    GTFO.

    That includes you, Megan McArdle, Will Saletan, and Patterico.

    wheeler's cat (d3f439)

  99. In combat, individual soldiers sacrifice their morality to battle evil all the time; and, once the battle is over, they rejoin civilized society and (in most cases) regain – and live by – their morality.
    It is how we survive!

    Comment by AD – RtR/OS! — 6/2/2009 @ 2:05 pm

    By sacrificing your morals to defeat a greater evil, you become the lesser of two evils. In either case, whether you choose to uphold your morals and lose or sacrifice them and win, evil will still exist in the end.

    Lelouch (4e3a54)

  100. Wheeler, yeah we know, you are law and order guy.
    But how do you feel about Doctors stabbing babies in the head.

    gus (36e9a7)

  101. Can you see why this desire to end abortion does not come from arrogance?

    I don’t think the desire to end abortion comes from arrogance. In fact, I think it comes from those with good intentions. Listen, I don’t know anybody with ANY view on abortion who thinks the best thing, all around, is to make them (if nothing else) unnecessary.

    The “arrogance” that I refer to comes from taking the stance that there is one, and only one, “correct” answer to questions surrounding abortion (when life begins, if the fetus is a human being, whatever).

    In your slavery allegory, you speak of the abolitionist “knowing in his heart” that slaves are human. I have no problem with that. The arrogance, however, comes from disrepecting the equally-strong “knowledge in the heart” of others that believe the opposite.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  102. The Constitution protects all people in America, not just citizens.
    Thank you for paying attention.

    gus (36e9a7)

  103. 97: Let me ask you this: does a prematurely born baby have all the rights of a living human? And, if so, what is the difference between that prematurely born baby and another baby, at the same gestational period, or perhaps even later, still in the womb, besides their physical location at the time?

    Chris (6733a5)

  104. Yes Ashford arrongance is worse than stabbing babies in the head with scissors or forceps.
    Need a bigger shovel??

    gus (36e9a7)

  105. How is shooting an unarmed person brave?

    Gerry (fad653)

  106. Chris 103, I believe the answer to all of your questions is that Tiller stabbing babies in the head is okay with the left.

    Does that clear things up?

    gus (36e9a7)

  107. Comment by K Ashford: “All these arguments just assume that a one-celled zygote is the moral and functional equivalent of a “baby”. And it may be for some; I don’t begrudge anyone their right to believe that.”

    Yawn, a fatuous comment in my opinion. Actually, if a woman has a zygote she won’t know it as a zygote is typically the undivided result of two gametes. Even when an egg is fertilized, it must go through roughly 6-8 days development before implementation. Then, there is only a chance in 5 or less that the zygote will implant and move through the embryo to the fetus stage. Lastly, when a woman knows she is preggers, via measurement of hCG or Human chorionic gonadotropin. hCG is a glycoprotein hormone produced by the developing embryo soon after conception (no longer officially a zygote) and even then, many implanted embryos are flushed for a variety of reasons having to do with genetic flaws or other reasons and the woman just doesn’t know it. Human life (conception to birth) is a “miracle” and is against the odds.

    GM Roper (85dcd7)

  108. How is stabbing an unarmed baby in the head with scissors brave?

    gus (36e9a7)

  109. The simplest way to destroy the “Why don’t you kill abortionists?” challenge is “Why don’t you kill O.J. Simpson?”.

    Gerry (fad653)

  110. When Tiller stabbed full term babies in the head, they weren’t zygots or zebra’s. They were fully formed children who would have been crying in 15 seconds and their mothers would have been holding them if the good Doctor had not thrust a scissors in their skulls.
    Why do none of you libs want to talk about what Tiller actually did?
    I know why. You’d have to face the truth about your sick immorality.
    Right?

    gus (36e9a7)

  111. If O.J. Simpson was stabbing children in the head with scissors on a daily basis and it was legal.
    Should he be stopped?

    Wow, that is so easy. Truth trumps nonsense every time.

    gus (36e9a7)

  112. Let me ask you this: does a prematurely born baby have all the rights of a living human? And, if so, what is the difference between that prematurely born baby and another baby, at the same gestational period, or perhaps even later, still in the womb, besides their physical location at the time?

    The answer to your first question is “yes”.

    The answer to your second question — the difference between the prematurely born baby and the fetus in the womb (of the same gestational period) — is that the former one is, well, born.

    I don’t know why this is a mystery. Being born is a pretty important marker, both culturally and constitutionally. We celebrate our BIRTHdays; we don’t celebrate our CONCEPTION dates (in fact, it’s so unimportant that most of us don’t care enough to find out).

    And as for rights, there’s no mention of conception dates in the constitution. It’s all about being BORN. Google the 14th Amendment (the one that protects life liberty and happiness) — I’m not making this up.

    K Ashford (d25c82)

  113. If we all work together, we could kill a lot of “murderers” and make the world a better place.
    For example, I believe that more than a few big pharmaceutical companies have hidden and/or faked data, as well as using other corrupt means, to get blockbuster drugs on the market and keep them there. I don’t know of a single big drug company that hasn’t gotten caught at this.
    They make billions in profits and pay out tiny fractions in settlements and judgments. They have “murdered” thousands of persons this way.
    Is it OK, Mr. Patterico, for one or more of us to act as vigilantes and “murder” some of the corporate officers who have been proved in court, albeit civil suits, to have knowingly caused deaths to ensure profits? (Sort of the Ford Pinto exploding gas tank cost-benefit analysis.)
    Other industries, other examples. Think of the deterrence possibilities. We’d no longer need regulatory agencies. Just vigilantes.
    One difference perhaps: Tiller was working within the law. If he stretched and bent it in ways that prosecutors couldn’t stop him, legislatures could tighten it. The drug company leaders broke and break laws, they don’t just bend them. Doesn’t that make them worse “murderers?”

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  114. I refuse to be forced into the corner of absolutism.

    People who are 100% pro-life, non-violent, tend to live in mushy headed utopias that are under the protection of other persons who hold more pragmatic views. (these societies can also exist for a time without human protection if their is physical isolation ie: Tibet, but once the physical barrier is breached, the predators move in.)

    The converse goes to people who are absolutely pro choice, pro freedom; and the anarchy, chaos that ensues without the pragmatists. Think Somalia, or just watch Animal Planet.
    In the abortion debate, they are the “fetus is a parasite, so am absolutely free to choose to rip it out whenever and however” crowd AND the “I am free to murder the abortion MD because I’ve chosen to define the voice in my head telling me to commit murder as God’s” idiot.

    My world view is shaped by the reality that the absolute fringe is ultimately unworkable. So while I am pro-life, I am not absolutely pro life.
    I am pro choice, pro freedom but choices can have foreseeable horrible consequences so I cannot be absolutely pro choice

    As examples,
    I can envision myself being persuaded to go for the death penalty for some gruesome crime.
    I am OK with the military that represents my country killing its enemies and pragmatic about collateral damage to civilians in the pursuit of them.
    I understand that women often need to make tough choices and refuse to absolutely elevate the interests of an innocent unborn above the interests of the woman who carries the fetus.
    I realize that some people who are sick, old and/or incapacitated may want to die.
    The families of the incapacitiated may need to terminate a life even if that life may be sustained otherwise through extraordinary means.
    I know that families will disagree about how to deal with life and death and some (hopefully, but increasingly unlikey) sagacious judge will have to decide a no win situation and that a sage needs some foundation to work with.

    I know if I am in the bush of Papua New Guinea and I fall and break my neck, then I may get left to die. Here in the USA I may survive to live as vegetable and I would want my family to suspend any pro-life feelings they may have and let me go meet the Maker I think is out there.
    I’m not afraid of an after life. If God is who Christians teach Him to be, let me get on with it… if He’s not then I’ll either just disappear into dust or deal with whatever unforeseen cosmic afterlife unchosen problem that does come up.
    I guess what I am saying is that some types of “pro life” are really just fears wrapped up in religious and/or superstitious drapery.
    The flippant pro choice sometimes mock the religious with “Kill them all and let God sort it out”. I think their bluff should be called: “OK you just volunteered to be first, unless of course your life is too precious…”

    Another thing I want to lose from my own life is judgementalism on abortion.
    I know a woman who was a single parent working multiple jobs at the oddest of hours to ensure survival of her two kids. The husband showed up after being away and because the drive to survive in the now overcomes her, she has sex with him (thinking that by not denying him that desire maybe he’ll stay and provide). Of course he takes off again and she now has a two year old and a 3 1/2 year old and one in the bucket. She felt like her choices were narrowed down to survival of herself and her kids vs. termination and she chose termination.
    Who am I to criticize that choice… it isn’t my call.
    I do reserve the right to critique the problem and try to improve furture situations to the point where saving the fetus becomes a viable alternative and the default position is not abortion.

    I don’t believe that abortion on demand is an absolute right.
    Ridiculous demands are made every moment under the mantle of freedom of choice… someone has to be able to say no.
    I don’t think the tax payer should have to fund most abortions nor should they have to fund Planned Parenthood. Pro choice people are a loud but penurious group who should quit wasting time squawking and go get that second job so they can fund Planned Parenthood themselves. Tithe 10%-20%-30%-40% of their wages to Planned Parenthood. Make it happen.
    If the funding for Planned Parenthood isn’t there from private individuals and groups, then I assume the people are choosing not to support them and they will need to cut back on staff and services until the pro choice people choose to put up their own $$$ again.

    SteveG (c99c5c)

  115. Comment by Lelouch — 6/2/2009 @ 2:20 pm

    Evil is like water;
    It cannot be destroyed, only contained.
    As someone wiser than myself commented long ago:
    All it takes for Evil to prevail, is for Good Men to do nothing.

    AD - RtR/OS! (f5973e)

  116. Larry Reilly, was it okay for Tiller to stab babies in the head at full term.
    That is a yes or no answer.
    See if you can handle that k?

    gus (36e9a7)

  117. “Sidenote: The Constitutional protection for “life, liberty, and happiness” doesn’t protect “humans” anyway, but rather “U.S. citizens”. And the Constitution defines a U.S. citizen as someone “BORN or naturalized in the United States”, neither of which apply to the unborn.”

    What unmitigated twaddle.

    There is no such thing in the Constitution. That concept is in the Declaration of Independence, and the right to life, liberty and the puruit of happiness applies to “all men”, not just U.S. citizens.

    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    And to say that that passage, which is the philosophical basis for this nation and the justification for its existence, supports the pro-abortionist position is utterly absurd.

    The biggest problem with democracy as a form of government is is that the ignorant and uninformed have input into the political decision making process.

    Dave Surls (2f7af9)

  118. 113: I think you just glossed completely over the entire point. How can the physical location of a baby be the only reason to allow his life to be ended? Or, more to the point: if you agree that there’s no difference between the two babies, how can you say that six inches of a birth canal make all the difference between life and death (if the mother so chooses)? We celebrate birthdays because they are an obvious physical event; conception days are not necessarily so easy to determine, but they are still celebrated in some cases…for instance, the Christian festival of the Annunciation, celebrated on March 25th…you do the math. 🙂

    Chris (6733a5)

  119. I think courage isn’t in and of itself noble or virtuous.

    Courage needs to be viewed in context. Same goes for generosity, sacrifice, faith.

    Whoever thought the Viet Cong were courageous for chopping off the vaccinated arms of helpless kids is an idiot. Fanatical, myopic, heartless, sociopathic idealogues is much more accurate word palette… throw in racist, because the Viet Cong would do that sort of thing most frequently to villagers of other ethnic, tribal, clan background.

    SteveG (c99c5c)

  120. Gus,
    If it were not legal for Tiller to be doing whatever it was he did, he should have been prosecuted, put out of business and into jail.

    Did he get put out of business or get put in jail for breaking the law? That’s a yes or no question.

    I’m no fan of late-term abortion. But I am a fan of the law and of democracy. Are you a believer in the rule of law and democracy? That, too, is a yes or no question.

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  121. Dave, the left cannot argue this issue without either misinforiming, or by acknowledging their immorality. They do not want to deal with the truth of the issue.
    Dr. Tiller stabbed full term babies in the head.
    None of the Pro-abortion crowd wants to deal with that. Unless they dodge or divert.

    gus (36e9a7)

  122. Larry, if you are a fan of democracy, I suppose you are willing to have the question of abortion law freed up for the voters to decide?

    SPQR (72771e)

  123. Larry, do you wear a skirt? You didn’t have the balls to answer the question. Was it okay for Tiller to stab babies full term babies in the head with scissors?? I don’t need you silly nonsense. Either you believe it’s wrong or you don’t believe it’s wrong.
    Can I call you Laurie??

    gus (36e9a7)

  124. Larry is not a “big fan” of late term abortion.
    He’s just an average sized fan.
    Oh by the way Larry, I’d like to answer your question.
    Yes Tiller did get put out of “business”.

    gus (36e9a7)

  125. Ease up, please, gus. How far do we take it? We knew that Obama (not Osama) was the most pro-abortion candidate to have run for President. He voted against Illinois’s Children Born Alive Act which demanded that if the abortion failed and the child managed to survive, it should be helped to survive further. Should we have taken him out when he looked like he would win?

    the nk who wants every single idiot in Washington to fail (157acd)

  126. And still, people wonder why I left the Republican Party.

    htom (412a17)

  127. Didn’t our esteemed host have a thread, a few months ago, concerning the hypothetical of having a scientific system for removing an unborn child from the woman’s body, and allowing him to complete gestation in an artificial womb, whether mothers would still have a right to see him killed?

    The Dana who thinks he remembers this discussion (474dfc)

  128. “He charged more than 10 times the rate of an earlier gestation abortion. That’s not a hero: that’s a black market profiteer.”

    No, you spectacularly ignorant individual, that’s called a “specialist”.

    The sole premise of the Slate article was that there was nobody else in the country who could do the proceedures with the same skill that he did.
    You’ve read this and concluded that if he charged $6000 more than what what a walk-in clinic will, this is naked profiteering.

    To be this out of touch with what serious medical proceedures cost in America, I fear for your safety. You may be locked in a basement somewhere and have been there for quite some time.

    Kilo (f7376a)

  129. http://www.boomantribune.com/story/2009/6/1/05557/09911

    Tiller’s Admission Criteria
    In order to offer you an appointment, we require that a physician refer you to our center. In addition, we need your genetic counselor or doctor to provide us with gestational and diagnostic information regarding your pregnancy. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter’s syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.

    bored again christian (4d8227)

  130. Gus,
    You are silly, the master of your own debate. Enjoy. Though I advise against playing with sharp scissors. The rounded ones can cut out your blow-up paper dolls just as well.

    SPQR: Are you talking about democracy, or national referenda? There’s a difference. If we put everything up for national referendum, perhaps now feasible with the intertubes, there would have been no Bush 43 administrations. Would that have worked for you?

    Our state and U.S. legislative bodies are elected. They make the laws. Our state judges are either elected or appointed, with various permutations, and our federal judges are appointed by an elected official — nowadays by a colored fella you despise. They decide — this is shorthand — whether the laws are legitimate and which cases fit within those laws. With me so far?

    Our democracy is of the small-r republican variety. That means the majority rules. You know what majority means. Still with me in this civics lesson that you launched?

    Now, the ruling majority, through these elected legislators and elected/appointed judges looked at what Tiller did and did not stop him from doing it.
    Ya got that, SPQR? Did I ‘splain too fast?

    Please do come back with one of your glib ripostes. I’ve never seen you offer anything here but glibness. That’s a method used by folks who might occasionally come up with a clever lick and play it to look like they know whereof they speak.

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  131. Getting back to a point that Will Saletan tried to make: I REFUSE to be bullied or harassed into any “logical conclusion” argument that says I, as a Pro-Lifer, should punish women who get abortions. I would say that in about 85% of the abortions performed in this country, they were done because the women who had those babies aborted were pressured into getting those babies aborted. By their family, by the men who sired those children, by the George Tillers themselves.

    It’s very hard to make a rational decision about keeping your children when you’re told you will not be loved or supported if you intend to keep the child. THAT is why I focus on the grisly abortionists themselves: The option to take away the life of the child needs to be reduced as much as possible so that the people in that pregnant woman’s life don’t have an option to assuage their own guilt, and to bully that woman into submission.

    Brad S (5709e3)

  132. I see a problem here. Assassinating Osama bin Laden would not be murder because he’s an enemy of the state.

    NukeRidingCowboy (4a3a0d)

  133. You remain clueless, Larry. If abortion was subject to the democratic process, voters in individual states could vote to ban it. But the US Supreme Court removed that option.

    However, this line from you: “nowadays by a colored fella you despise.” is just more of your cheap, sleezy troll tactics calling people who you disagree with racist. Its the kind of offensive stupidity I’ve come to expect from you.

    SPQR (72771e)

  134. Over the past twenty-five years, we have had experience with pregnancy terminations in such situations as anencephaly, Trisomy 13, 18, and 21, polycystic kidney disease, spina bifida, hydrocephalus, Potter’s syndrome, lethal dwarfism, holoprosencephaly, anterior and posterior encephalocele, non-immune hydrops, and a variety of other very significant abnormalities.

    Comment by bored again christian — 6/2/2009 @ 3:44 pm

    Ok, now show us where he says those were his sole criteria for performing a late-term abortion.

    the nk who wants every single idiot in Washington to fail (157acd)

  135. Saletan: “We’re looking for ways to prevent abortions”

    Really? How long and how hard have you been looking? Have you found any yet?

    Saletan is just a liar.

    Jim C. (b33a68)

  136. Gee, SPQR….you say the “Supreme Court removed that option…..”
    So it seems you have but one option in your fervid sanctity. I invite you to fall back on the Declaration of Independence (sorry to continue the civic lesson you so obviously need):
    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Sorry dude, the Supreme Court says abortion is OK. That makes it I suppose you could call for the assassination, oops, morally correct “murder” of enough justices to get your way. But, harkening back to the civics lesson you forced me to give you, the Supreme Court is…..uh, the arbiter of the Supreme Law of the Land.

    A lot of folks have a lot of grievances with the Supreme Court, including the zillions denied cert. (Look it up: that’s not a breath ment.)

    And I’m sorry for saying you aren’t an admirer of Obama. Welcome aboard. Your abundance of melanin, if only psychic synchronicity, is noticeable.

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  137. Gee, SPQR….you say the “Supreme Court removed that option…..” for legislation against abortion.
    So it seems you have but one option in your fervid sanctity. I invite you to fall back on the Declaration of Independence (sorry to continue the civic lesson you so obviously need):
    “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    Sorry dude, the Supreme Court says abortion is OK. That makes it THE LAW OF THE LAND. Capiche? I suppose you might call for the assassination, oops, morally correct “murder” of enough justices to get your way. But, harking back to the civics lesson you requie, the Supreme Court is, encore une fois, the arbiter of the Supreme Law of the Land.

    A lot of folks have a lot of grievances with the Supreme Court, including the zillions denied cert. (Look it up: that’s not a breath mint.)

    And I’m sorry for saying you aren’t an admirer of Obama. Welcome aboard. Your abundance of melanin, if only psychic synchronicity, is fantastic.

    Your biggest fear, I expect, is that the grim reaper might start gaining on your hopes for the health and longevity of that very big-C Catholic Supreme Court.

    If that doesn’t work out, I suggest you get very active in the afterbirth stuff: making sure kids get good environments, especially in health care and education. Your ilk tends to ignore babies once they’ve seen the light of day, literally, and then wants to off them, e.g. execute, if once grown up they stray too far from the norm. You do support capital punishment, don’t you? Because the life of a bad, bad, bad guy really isn’t life, right? At least not in the sanctified sense.

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  138. The noble Dr Tiller claimed that he, personally, had performed 60,000 abortions. Is anyone here naïve enough to think that they were all somehow “medically necessary?”

    The Dana who is just plain disgusted (474dfc)

  139. Here is a test that (I think) uses morally equivalent Saletan argument:

    If you truly believe (inset a, b, c, or d) murders people, do you not have an obligation to kill (insert a, b, c, or d) in order to save the potential victim?

    a) legal tobacco / tobacco execs
    b) legal but unjust war / soldiers
    c) capital punishment / the executioner, judge, or lawyer responsible for it.
    d) abortion / the abortion provider

    What Saletan failed to take into account is the balance of multiple obligations each person has (moral, legal, family, citizen, social, etc).

    #13 –Comment by Amphipolis — 6/2/2009 @ 9:05 am

    It’s not about being cowards, it’s about looking at the big picture over the long haul. It’s a lot harder to persuade than it is to shoot. That’s the quick fix, and it won’t work.

    Well said (the whole comment #13, not just the last couple sentences)!

    At a minimum, a pro-life advocate has a moral obligation to not murder abortion providers as that will do more harm to unborn children in the long-term.

    Using murder to advance a cause will backfire. Already the horror of what Tiller had done is being mitigated in favor of his martyrdom.

    The opposition to pro-life is becoming even more entrenched, late-term abortion is now metamorphosing into a “right”, and Tiller is being celebrated (on local news, I saw a candle-light vigil celebrating how this man helped women “when no one else would” – yes, I live in CA).

    A pro-life advocate would be wise to avoid such violence and instead concentrate on long-term strategy. Education for the long-term, coupled with a focus on reducing abortion in the short-term (an actual area of agreement between pro-choice and pro-life advocates) might provide a more successful and morally consistent strategy as opposed to violence.

    This is of course contrary to Saletan who apparently thinks that murder is the rational response of a pro-life advocate who believes abortion is murder. He ignores the variety of obligations a person might have and failed to address the harm to the pro-life cause as a result of using violence (that is currently on display).

    Pons Asinorum (03ef30)

  140. K. Ashford said: “In fact, doesn’t your argument mean that every guy who masterbates, (stop snickering, people) or every woman who makes a conscience decision not to have her monthly egg fertilized, is committing the same crime as an abortionist? And if so, isn’t the number of “babies” supposedly “killed” by abortions is a relatively minor when compared to the number of “babies” “killed” by masterbation?”

    A sperm or an egg by itself is not a viable human being. It is not a stage of human’s development. An unborn baby is alive and has all the same identical DNA and genetic attributes as it will have as an adult. To accept it is not alive, one must somehow identify what additional step during birth happens that makes a baby inside the womb different than one outside the womb. Everything else is a legal distinction to somehow denote a state of being that current medical science does not support. There is non living matter, there is life, and there is something called a fetus in the womb which is legally called a potential life??? Nothing potential about it. It is alive and growing. It is as himan as you and me, just in a different stage of development.

    LoneStarJeffe (728204)

  141. I suspected that this thread would turn into a cesspool for the likes of bored again christian, Mary Reilly, duvel and their ilk. They rarely disappont.

    Mars v Hollywood got this one spot on.

    JD (1910a1)

  142. Are you suggesting that rape is not the example here?

    I asked for an example.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  143. “Sorry dude, the Supreme Court says abortion is OK.”

    If I started listing all the stupid lying crap the SCOTUS has spewed over the last 200 or so years, we’d be sitting here ’til the sun guttered out, listening to me drone on.

    Dave Surls (0fed8f)

  144. Mawy uses big words now, since she’s a big, grown – up girl! But Mawy doesn’t understand what the big words mean, just that she heard some big people using them yesterday at her birthday party at Chuck E. Cheese.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  145. The ONLY 100% dependable way to avoid conception is by not having sex.

    Really?

    Do gay men worry about unplanned pregnancy?

    It should also be pointed out that the accused killer considers himself a “sovereign citizen”, meaning he basically rejects the power of the State, at least as regards to himself.

    If he is, he has no protection of the laws.

    If you believe that abortion, especially the sick late term kind performed by Tiller is murder (I certainly do), then how would you be morally wrong by attempting to stop the murder of innocent children??

    Whom was Tiller killing when he was killed?

    Did he perform abortions at the church?

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  146. “Me, I condemn the murder of Tiller — but unlike Saletan, I don’t agree with what he did. But I don’t consider it murder,”

    I condemn what Tiller did, which was to end the lives of babies whose mothers’ lives often were not at risk, at a point in time when those babies were no longer undeveloped fetuses, but rather babies.

    How can these statements co-exist? They appear contradictory and inconsistent. If it’s not murder, what then is it?

    Dana (aedf1d)

  147. Larry, you still are clueless. For example, your comment: “Sorry dude, the Supreme Court says abortion is OK. “ is in fact false.

    The Supreme Court did not say that abortion was “OK”, it said that the issue was one that they were taking out of the democratic process.

    That was why I ridiculed your earlier comment about rule of law and democracy. Because it showed just how clueless you are, and remain, about the issue.

    Doubling down on the racist innuendo just confirms that you are bush league, Larry.

    SPQR (26be8b)

  148. SPQR – Give Larry a break. He was writing in complete sentences for a change. He must not be drunk yet.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  149. […] by EricPWJohnson, commentor, Patterico’s Pontifications. […]

    Snark of the Day: EricPWJohnson | BitsBlog (33ff78)

  150. I asked for an example.

    It’s not too hard to find:

    http://www.afterabortion.org/news/WPSApetition.htm

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  151. Using Saletan’s disingenuous construct, and turning it around, would it be fair to say that one cannot truly be pro-choice unless they are willing to allow the baby to be killed, at any time, for any reason, until the child can survive by itself without assistance outside of the womb, and that mothers should be able to have their babies aborted after giving birth if the baby has any type of problems unknown prior to birth?

    JD (df39e3)

  152. If you legalize post-partum abortion up to the time of self-support, there will be a lot of middle-age liberals who will be eligible to be “aborted” – perhaps a few seniors too (We could start by looking in the Congress).

    AD - RtR/OS! (f5973e)

  153. “We, therefore, conclude that the right of personal privacy includes the abortion decision, but that this right is not unqualified and must be considered against important state interests in regulation.”–Blackmun (worthless) majority opinion in Roe v. Wade

    What the court said is that not only is abortion o.k., but that women have a right to decide to have one, unless (in the opinion of a bunch of dickheads on the SCOTUS) there is a good reason for the state to take that right away. The same hogwash they usually come up with when it comes to rights, whether it’s a real right, like the one talked about in the 2nd Amendment or a phony one like the right to decide to have an abortion, that they conjured up out of thin air in Roe.

    ASIDE: This is what the worthless libs on the SCOTUS pretty much always say about rights: You have a right to do this, that or the other thing, unless a bunch of aging alzheimer-victim judges on the SCOTUS feel like ignoring what the law says, and arbitrarily and capriciously take that right away (in the interest of the state), which means, of course, that you don’t have a right to anything.

    Every single word of what Blackmun said in Roe is a total lie (and he drones on for ages, with dicta, dicta, and more dicta-dicta being a latin legal term meaning: “irrelevant bullshit thrown out to confuse the issue”), but hey we’re talking about the SCOTUS here, so that’s hardly surprising.

    Dave Surls (dada03)

  154. I don’t understand why Tiller is accountable, when it is the women that volunteered for the procedure.
    Did Dr. Tiller run around kidnapping women in their last trimester and aborting them by force? Did he hypnotize them and steal their will?
    Didn’t those women seek Tiller out, pay Tiller’s fee and lay down on the table?
    Conservatives treat women like fleshdolls, incapable of autonomy and independent thought.
    Conservatives are still slaveholders, and women are the slaves.

    wheeler's cat (d3f439)

  155. Nishi is still nishiing. There’s a third person in the equation, Nishi, the baby.

    the nk who wants every single idiot in Washington to fail (157acd)

  156. SPQR……as per Supreme Court opinion, abortion is legal. You say they took the “issue out of the democratic process.” Well, yeah, duh. Their OPINIONS tend to make issues either concrete or powder.
    I think that’s what you should have learned in the earlier civics lesson. What’s your point, other than the shape of the top of your small head?
    As for Dmac and JD, youse guys give glib a bad name. If it weren’t for ad hominem, you’d have no hominem at all. And as for your purposes here, and putting you with Gus where you belong, let’s just posit that perhaps I’m a shemale wearing a mini-skirt. Let’s say I’m a girly-man. Uh-huh. Does that excite you? Prolly.

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  157. I don’t understand why Tiller is accountable, when it is the women that volunteered for the procedure.
    Did Dr. Tiller run around kidnapping women in their last trimester and aborting them by force? Did he hypnotize them and steal their will?
    Didn’t those women seek Tiller out, pay Tiller’s fee and lay down on the table?
    Conservatives treat women like fleshdolls, incapable of autonomy and independent thought.
    Conservatives are still slaveholders, and women are the slaves.

    In cases of wrongful abortions, both the abortionist and the pregnant woman would be morally culpable.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  158. wrongful abortions

    Huh? Would you define a wrongful abortion?

    Dana (aedf1d)

  159. “Conservatives treat women like fleshdolls, incapable of autonomy and independent thought.”

    nishi – Are you addressing that to the conservative women commenting on this thread, moron?

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  160. Sorry, I meant dailyrox. In this tiny room many of them sound alike, despite the discordant bleats.

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  161. “I don’t understand why Tiller is accountable”

    Probably has something to with the fact that it’s the abortionist who does the killing.

    Dave Surls (dada03)

  162. “I don’t understand why Tiller is accountable, when it is the women that volunteered for the procedure.”

    nishi – Police usually arrest the prostitute and not the John. Think about it, moron.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  163. Larry – Now you’re getting back to your normal blabbering incoherent self! Congratulations.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  164. Great to see you back at the intellectual trough dailyrox. When you get a chance, my housepainter wants to come by tomorrow and pick up a gallon of the ultra-white semi-gloss. He said you mix it best. You’re an artist.
    God bless.

    Larry Reilly (45e7a4)

  165. A sperm or an egg by itself is not a viable human being. It is not a stage of human’s development. An unborn baby is alive and has all the same identical DNA and genetic attributes as it will have as an adult. To accept it is not alive, one must somehow identify what additional step during birth happens that makes a baby inside the womb different than one outside the womb. Everything else is a legal distinction to somehow denote a state of being that current medical science does not support. There is non living matter, there is life, and there is something called a fetus in the womb which is legally called a potential life??? Nothing potential about it. It is alive and growing. It is as himan as you and me, just in a different stage of development.

    Sperm, no. Ovum, maybe. Without them, there aren’t any human development, so they’re obviously a stage, just a stage that you don’t want to pay attention to. Identical DNA and genetic attributes … wait a moment, what about the genetic damage that can be done in the uterus? It is living tissue, but not alive as a being in itself; that calls for live birth. (See Wikipedia: adaptation to extrauterine life) Both parts were already living tissue; the new life begins with the separation. Not all of them make the journey completely, hence I say “the baby lives when it breathes”. That is the line that is crossed, that makes the live baby different than the potential live baby. Breathing air, and the changes that makes in the body.

    I don’t especially like that line, but it is observable at autopsy (if done correctly) and can resolve some questions of whether the birth was live or not. Accept that there’s a miracle for most, mourn the others, and stop trying to create independent life where it isn’t, yet.

    htom (412a17)

  166. Comment by htom — 6/2/2009 @ 7:50 pm

    Disingengous.

    nk (157acd)

  167. *disingenous* Sorry, fat finger syndrome.

    nk (157acd)

  168. Oh good grief, what a mess.

    I don’t understand why Tiller is accountable, when it is the women that volunteered for the procedure.

    Don’t be dishonest. You clearly know why Tiller is accountable. Hint: who is the one who gouges the scissors into the base of the baby’s skull? One guess.

    Didn’t those women seek Tiller out, pay Tiller’s fee and lay down on the table?

    Yes they did. Whether from pressure, fear, desperation, or any other reason, ultimately it was indeed their decision to lay down. Unfortunately there is a dreadfully horrible aftermath to work through when one comes to terms with this truth (if they do). Because it’s so fraught with difficulty it’s easier to assuage oneself with the pro-abortion p.r. and keep it all at arms length: it was just a glob of tissue, “I had no choice”, it was my right, and if none of that works, one can always start drinking. There is no easy way out. However, with the 3rd tri abortions, one really has to ask, why did they wait so long? It’s perplexing because the longer one waits, the more one knows life is inside.

    Conservatives treat women like fleshdolls, incapable of autonomy and independent thought.

    Wow, you’ve really lapped up the liberal feminist slop, haven’t you? What nonsense. If women are treated like fleshdolls by anyone, it’s because they themselves have given the greenlight to do so. You set the bar low and you will be treated in kind. It’s a shame you don’t understand the power of women. We set the standard. Others respond to the standard we set.

    Conservatism represents principles of self-sufficiency, self-reliance and independence. I think you are attempting to somehow equate an antiquated “traditional” (= repressed) role of women (especially in marriage) and women’s historically traditional role of repressed homemakers and caretakers as conservatism. Wrong.

    Conservatives are still slaveholders, and women are the slaves.

    Still??? Heh.

    Dana (aedf1d)

  169. Conservatives are still slaveholders, and women are the slaves.

    And, of course, liberals (er, uh, make that “progressives”!) are such humane and generous people…

    Nicholas Kristof, New York Times:

    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.

    Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

    Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so.

    According to Google’s figures, if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do. But Mr. Brooks says that if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

    Conservatives also appear to be more generous than liberals in nonfinancial ways. People in red states are considerably more likely to volunteer for good causes, and conservatives give blood more often. If liberals and moderates gave blood as often as conservatives, Mr. Brooks said, the American blood supply would increase by 45 percent.

    Mark (411533)

  170. So let me see if I understand Htom as the baby is sliding down the birth canal and as Dr Tiller stopped it, in some cases turned it around stabbed it in the head with scissors.

    That was not a baby.

    Is that correct htom?

    gus (b1a191)

  171. Do not expect a rational discussion with nishi. She is incapable of it. Perhaps when she grows up into a big girl it will be different.

    daleyrocks (5d22c0)

  172. Mark, it’s really very simple. Liberals expect you vis a vis taxes to pay for THEIR CONSTITUENCIES.
    Liberals are luke warm to the ideals they espouse.
    Obama says we have man made climate change and the planet is in peril.
    He drove a CHRYSLER 300 up until January.
    Obama says we need shared sacrifice in a time of financial crisis.
    He flies to New York on date night at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    Obama says he transcends race.
    Obama attends a RACIST CHURCH for 20 years.

    Liberals in power don’t believe what they sell.
    They sell to those who believe in THEM. Or at least believe the message that Libs/Obama sell.

    Liberals promise the “needy” that if they vote for libs, the needy won’t be needy any more.

    How could that possibly be??? How can a 23 year old with 7 kids an no husband nor daddies for her children ever be made WHOLE by a liberals promise???

    gus (b1a191)

  173. Mark, it’s really very simple. Liberals expect you vis a vis taxes to pay for THEIR CONSTITUENCIES.
    Liberals are luke warm to the ideals they espouse.
    Obama says we have man made climate change and the planet is in peril.
    He drove a CHRYSLER 300 up until January.
    Obama says we need shared sacrifice in a time of financial crisis.
    He flies to New York on date night at the cost of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
    Obama says he transcends race.
    Obama attends a RACIST CHURCH for 20 years.

    Liberals in power don’t believe what they sell.
    They sell to those who believe in THEM. Or at least believe the message that Libs/Obama sell.

    Liberals promise the “needy” that if they vote for libs, the needy won’t be needy any more.

    How could that possibly be??? How can a 23 year old with 7 kids an no husband nor daddies for her children ever be made WHOLE by a liberals promise???

    gus (b1a191)

  174. well if you actually wanted to protect teh Unborn, you would dissuade women from aborting, wouldn’t you?
    Because another abortion provider will just oblige, legally or illegally.
    I don’t think you can kill them all or frighten them all off.
    It is going to be much, much harder to kill abortion providers now the DHS report has been validated.

    wheeler's cat (d3f439)

  175. Obviously not in your eyes, but in mine, yes. That’s how the law has drawn the line for a very very very long time (back to the Code of Hammurabi.) Those not yet born are accorded a different (and usually lower) status than they would have if they were born and breathed.

    htom (412a17)

  176. Yes they did. Whether from pressure, fear, desperation, or any other reason, ultimately it was indeed their decision to lay down. Unfortunately there is a dreadfully horrible aftermath to work through when one comes to terms with this truth (if they do).

    See? You are taking their responsibility away. They laid down, but it wasn’t really their fault, lol. It was somehow Dr. Tiller’s fault.
    Saletan is wrong….abortion providers always arise.
    Supply and demand….freemarket enterprise.

    wheeler's cat (d3f439)

  177. Htom, I give you credit. You are immoral, but you are honest. In fact, I may even need to give you a little more credit. You may not be immoral at all. Though it pains me to tell you, you may in fact be amoral rather than immoral.
    I wish you the best. I think there is no point in us arguing or even exchanging invectives. You are entitled to your beliefs and the law in many ways lends it’s credence to you.
    I was born at 7 months.
    So was my son.
    Those 2 facts may have no bearing on your logic or opinion, but I give you leave with my thanks for you honest answer and your lack of evasiveness.
    I have a bittersweet respect for a person such as you sir.

    gus (b1a191)

  178. The genocidal eugenicist nishi is positively gleeful about this. It is a sick twisted amoral inhuman griefer.

    JD (df39e3)

  179. Wheeler’s pussy.

    If I brought my strapping 8 year old to Dr.Wheelers clinic and it was legal for Dr Wheeler to inject my son with lethal drugs.

    Who would be culpable for the death that followed?
    And if it happened at Dr Wheelers Death Hut 60,000 times? And if it was common knowledge that Dr Wheeler was one of only 3 Doctors in America that would provide the lethal injection, and Dr Wheeler was “referred” to parents. And if Doctor Wheeler became a millionaire and wealthy man via this practice….
    Who would you blame for the 60,000 dead children.

    I’d blame both. I’d pray for the parent who’s misguided illogical immoral decision led her to sacrifice the childs life at Dr.Wheeler (Tillers) office. After suitable payment arrangements were reached. And I’d blame the parent as an accomplice, despite the ignorance, lack of morals, the “socialization” as to this being legal and not wrong, by virtue of liberal propaganda.
    But the one who SNUFFED 60,000 babies, for PROFIT, would be equally evil TIMES 60,000 plus a Lexus or 2..

    One thing that amuses me in this equation.. is the fact that MANY MANY AMERICANS, have no COMPUNCTION nor MORAL RESERVATION against this practice. 36 years have passed and in that time, there are no women of child bearing age left, that were alive and aware of a time in which killing your own baby was frowned upon. Not to mention illegal IN SOME CASES. The issue has been framed as a RIGHT. And we all know that if you have a RIGHT, it must be RIGHT to exercise that RIGHT!!! RIGHT???

    gus (b1a191)

  180. Huh? Would you define a wrongful abortion?

    I do not know.

    The unborn clearly have a lower value than the born- even the Judaism which the Lord Jesus Christ practiced placed less (though not zero) value on the unborn. And yet, few people claim that the unborn are of no value regardless of stage of development.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  181. You respond to this: “ultimately it was indeed their decision to lay down.”

    with this: See? You are taking their responsibility away. They laid down, but it wasn’t really their fault.

    On what planet is this taking away their responsibility?

    Dana (aedf1d)

  182. Scott peterson is on death row for killing his wife and inborn child. Killing the kid is the aggravating circumstance that got him the death penalty. Are the libs posting here saying he should have his sentence commuted?

    Now as for the argument that a woman has complete autonomy over her body, if it were so prostitution would be inherently legal, organ donations for money would be legal and having babies for money equally legal. Yet none of these actions are. There are accepted limits to what one can do with their bodies, and the unborn child is a biologically distinct entity from the mother, yet the court simply invented a political outcome where there was none in the constitution. Funny thing a liberal court can find the basis for gun control in spite of the rather obvious second amendment, control speech in spite of the rather obvious first amendment but can find a right to abortion despite the total absence of any reference to abortions in the constitution.

    Indeed if the woman has the sole and arbitrary right to continue a pregnancy why should a man ever be compelled to pay any level of support when he has no say in the outcome? If she cannot provide for the child when she had the legal means not to have one, why should taxpayers be compelled to support her and her child? Better to put the kid up for adoption and bill her for the costs involved. She made the choice to conceive and carry to birth, not the taxpayer. If it is in the best interest of the child to require support from someone who has no say in the matter, how can killing it ever be considered in its best interest?

    To say what Tiller did was not a crime is equally bogus, every state killing of political undesirables in the USSR and throughout the Communist world was legal under their statutes at the time the killings occurred. Yet no one except a died in the wool leftist would argue those killings were anything but murders. Tiller performed 60 thousand late term abortions and would have done more this week if he had not been terminated. A retroactive or depending on ones views a retrospective late term abortion was performed on Tiller. I have no more sympathy for Tiller than that for a gangster killed for any reason nor do I have any sympathy for his family who quite happily lived of the fruits of his crimes, no less so than the families of criminals who live off the crimes committed by their criminal relative.

    Indeed one can make the case of Tiller’s being killed in church was proof of divine retribution for a man who so wantonly disrespected his own church’s teachings and so disrespectful to attend the church despite his ongoing actions for more than thirty years.

    Although I like most people believe sex should not solely procreation but for pleasure as well, nature intended sex for the purpose of procreation and the pleasurable aspect presumably to induce us to procreate. That said all sentient people know that sex between a man and woman who are capable of conceiving always run the risk of conception. So either abstain or have congress with people too old to conceive or are medically incapable to conceive or use contraceptives properly knowing there is a small but nevertheless real chance of a pregnancy arising and if you can’t accept the risk of being one of the parties to the conception keep your clothes on.

    Libs want to have the right to do what they want and not to have the obligation to deal with the consequences of their actions.
    Save the whales, OK, kill the kid OK as well. Abolish the death penalty but abortion on demand for any reason is OK up to the point of birth. Innocent life disposable but the life of proven scum, priceless. Michael Savage was right about one thing, liberalism is a mental disorder.

    cubanbob (409ac2)

  183. In a post called “Two Monsters” philosopher Edward Feser has some interesting comments.

    Fritz (05ef42)

  184. The weakness of the losing argument sickens me.
    Blah blah blah in Jesus time…
    Blah blah blah, Tiller wasn’t convicted of a crime…
    Blah blah blah.. controlling a womans body.

    It’s tedious. It’s silly.

    George Tiller stabbed full term babies in the head with scissors. Thousands of times.

    IS THAT OK?

    Blah blah blah blah law, rule of law, blah blah blah…

    IS THAT OK?

    Liberals will never delve into the morality of it, nor the wrongful nature of this being LEGAL.

    gus (b1a191)

  185. Buzz,
    The world is a tough place and the victims of rape or others who might become pregnant against their will have my sympathy but life is life. Unless a life is in the balance abortion is wrong. The child ( or fetus, if you prefer ) hurt no one. The child deserves life. Any exception other than an immediate threat to the life of the mother will be abused and expanded until, like today, there is essentially no control at all.

    If you begin to stack exceptions, you eventually reach a place where killing Tiller is acceptable because it prevented abortions. A murder of convenience should be morally and legally reprehensible whether the victim is a saint, a psychopath or a fetus. I see anything else as inconsistent.

    Ken Hahn (022fe7)

  186. Ken, the diversion is epic.
    I thank you for your logic and reason, BUT….

    ARE WE TO ASSUME that Dr George Tiller…1 of 3.. 7,8, and 9th month killers of babies, was just the man to help a RAPE VICTIM who happened to wait until 7TH, 8TH, AND full term and in KANSAS!!!!!

    FUCKING SPARE ME THE BULL SHIT PLEASE.

    gus (b1a191)

  187. A hitman murders for money. Tillman did the same. What is the difference. Why would anyone shed a tear for such a man?

    Thomas Jackson (8ffd46)

  188. I’ll get right on the problem of not insisting on the prosecution of abortive mothers when the left decides to prosecute Obama for not going after the genocidal warlords in the world (think Darfur and Somalia).

    The practicalities overwhelm, don’t they?

    However, in my perfect world, I would have zero problem going after any abortive mom and any and all who abet her – especially the bio dad urging her to murder her baby.

    And Notre Dame never loses a football game.

    Ed from SFV (a53c07)

  189. Aren’t the very persons who need/seek abortions the very sort of persons who I would not want to procreate in the first place? Indeed, should not the societal default position be that only the “qualified” should be allowed to procreate? Sex? Sure, let it be the opiate of the masses – but procreation? Comrade/Companero/Citizen…now you are in the domain of the state.

    Abortion? Bah! Let Obama work his magic – he lays the groundwork for America’s destiny – a united country, with government, industry and the people working cooperatively to advance the goals of the People (as represented by the State). Not Bullsh*t socialism, but a nationalist communitarian model – I think they call it fascism. “Come Join us……” (my favorite quip from the article – “pod-people” meet creepy politicos.)

    Californio (6657ce)

  190. The idea that killing Tillman is acceptable because this one murder would represent a net decrease of murders committed (due to Tillman’s future inability to murder others) is reprehensible. Two wrongs do not make a right.

    This is situational ethics at its core. Now, if the murder was in self defense, that’s another story. For instance, if I see an abortion doctor on the street, I don’t have the right to kill him, since God has not given me the authority (via govt) to do so. However, if said abortionist comes into my house to kill someone in my family, I now have the right…no, obligation to stop him, even if that means killing him.

    And I would do it, too. I very much agree with the sentiments of Liam Neeson’s character in “Taken.”

    Picky (d369bd)

  191. _____________________________________

    George Tiller stabbed full term babies in the head with scissors.

    Simply put, a person has to be pretty f’ed up in the head to perform such a procedure, not just one time but apparently thousands of times through the years.

    The interesting irony of this story is that I imagine there were truly dark sides to the nature of both Tillman and his murderer, even though both of them likely thought their philosophy gave them a leg up in nurturing a humane, caring society.

    But I don’t think their broken-down morality or warped sense of do-goodness was unique or limited to them. I suspect a good percentage of people in modern society, certainly in the “Golden State” (aka — and also literally and figuratively bankrupt — California), is also quite f’ed up in the head.

    All of us (meaning if not oneself in particular than definitely a good portion of the people around each one of us) need to look in the mirror when trying to figure out who is most screwed up in understanding and defining truly humane, decent behavior.

    Proposition 6 was an initiative statute which appeared on the November 3rd, 1998 California general election ballot. It was passed with 4,670,524 “Yes” votes, for 59.4 percent of the total votes cast.

    The law puts horses (including ponies), donkeys and mules under the same pet classification as dogs and cats, thus making it a felony for any person in the state to possess, transfer, receive, or hold any such animal with the intent to kill it, or have it killed, where the person knows, or should have known, that any part of the carcass will be used for human consumption.

    An additional provision makes it a misdemeanor to sell horseflesh within the state as meat intended for human consumption. The law further allows for anyone previously convicted of selling horsemeat to be charged with a felony in any future prosecutions for the same offense.

    November 08, 2006

    For the second time in two years, voters rejected a proposition that would require doctors to inform a parent or legal guardian prior to a minor’s abortion. Proposition 85 was nearly identical to last year’s Prop. 73, which lost by a 6 percent margin. The measure trailed by a slim but consistent margin throughout Tuesday night’s vote count.

    Mark (411533)

  192. “Conservatives are still slaveholders, and women are the slaves.”

    Just about all slaveowners were Democrats, if I recall correctly.

    And if, nowadays, the function of a slaveowner is limited to preventing a slave from taking innocent life and nothing more, then I guess I’m o.k. with slavery

    Dave Surls (e279d6)

  193. […] questions regarding the humanity of the late-term unborn. Turning the question around, if Saletan believed that Vietnam or Iraq were murderous, illegal wars of aggression, why did he not … Or if, to reproduce the proposition of one of the commenters, Meat Is Murder, Tasty Murder, then […]

    Hate-F*ckGate [Dan Collins] (7a2640)

  194. htom said: “Not all of them make the journey completely, hence I say “the baby lives when it breathes”. That is the line that is crossed, that makes the live baby different than the potential live baby. Breathing air, and the changes that makes in the body.”

    OK, let’s use your definition. Are you willing to accept that once an unborn baby is capable of surviving with medical assistance outside the womb that it is entitled to be considered alive? While not every baby will survive, should we not extend, based upon your definition, at least the label of being alive to those who might? Otherwise, should we not also apply that same standard to anyone who cannot survive outside the womb without medical assistance (no matter what age) should be legally considered as “not alive”? Under your own definition, what does that say about 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions? What does that say about adults who require assistance to breath on their own?

    LoneStarJeffe (728204)

  195. “Conservatives are still slaveholders, and women are the slaves.”

    I would actually agree with this statement except for the tiny fact that for it to be true regarding abortion, one must deny the rights of the unborn baby exist. How valid is it to support the right of a woman to “choose” if that means denying any right to live exists for an unborn child? Once that baby exists the womb it all of sudden assumes equal rights to the mother. The mother than has to support those rights and that expectation – that a mother cannot put her own rights above those of her baby who is outside the womb – is not considered “slavery”. A mother cannot kill her baby outside the womb for convenience or because she was raped. The only way you can accept the “slavery” premise is to define what changes, other than a convenient legal definition, when a baby is outside the womb compared to inside. I have yet to see a good definition which is why I finally decided the only position I can support is pro life. Certainly there is no medical change. By any medical definition of life, the baby is considered alive while inside the womb. The cost of the right for a woman to choose is you must deny other person the right to live.

    LoneStarJeffe (728204)

  196. Whether from pressure, fear, desperation, or any other reason,

    You absolve them right there, Dana.
    If you really believe abortion== murder, then women who seek abortions are murderers.

    wheeler's cat (d3f439)

  197. Amazing cognitive dissonance here.
    Am I right Patterico?
    Dr. Tiller didn’t run those women down and abort them by force.
    C’mon, O Honest Man.
    If late-term abortion is murder, then the mothers are murderers.
    You can say it.
    It’s not hard.

    wheeler's cat (d3f439)

  198. So in answer to Saletan’s question, I guess I would have to say yes, as long as you kill the women that murdered their fetuses too.
    😉

    wheeler's cat (d3f439)

  199. I mean, its not WRONG to kill an abortionist, as long as you kill all abortionists equally. If you kill the woman, she sure won’t ever murder a fetus again, will she?
    Just like Dr. Tiller.

    wheeler's cat (d3f439)

  200. wheeler’s cat, there is always a motive, a reason or something that causes, incites or influences our decisions. This does not absolve these women of the choice they made. It simply suggests possible motive for making that choice.

    Dana (aedf1d)

  201. Well, yeah, duh.

    It took Mawy less than 30 minutes to go into her usual drunken rants – awesome.

    Dmac (1ddf7e)

  202. (Good-looking) Dana, bless your patience but you getting a fair argument from nishi (now wheeler’s cat) is smaller than me getting a date with Sophia Loren.

    nk (157acd)

  203. *is a smaller chance*

    nk (157acd)

  204. Is it true that “wheeler’s cat” was banned and deleted from Jeff Goldstein’s blog? If true, I wonder why?

    Clearly she was being treated unfairly, right?

    Eric Blair (5a226d)

  205. gus — I am glad that you are both alive.

    LoneStarJeffe — Briefly, no. “Capable of breathing” is different than “is breathing”. The others you mention are already on the other side of that line. Abortion, basicly, is not your choice to make or impose or require or forbid (unless you’re the pregnant woman involved, in which case it is your choice, about yours but not about others’.)

    htom (412a17)

  206. Yes, she was deleted, Eric. As she is doing here, but to a far lesser extent here, she was gleefully dancing next to the body of a murder victim, and using the corpse to tar anyone that does not share her taste for genocide and eugenics with the responsibility for the murder. It is a vile hate-filled evil thing, that bastardizes “science” as its religion.

    JD (cb1063)

  207. And, JD, speaking as I scientist, “wheeler’s cat” understands biology just about as well I as I understand ACORN voter registration procedures.

    Eric Blair (5a226d)

  208. And, JD, speaking as a scientist, “wheeler’s cat” understands biology just about as well I as I understand ACORN voter registration procedures.

    Eric Blair (5a226d)

  209. Wow. Sorry for the electronic stutter. I guess I was bemused by the Frank Herbert references that worked against WC’s point.

    Eric Blair (5a226d)

  210. […] I’ve written comments on a couple of blogs since Tiller’s murder.  One blogger, Patterico in particular, linked an articlethat debated whether abortion is murder, and if so, why […]

    Abortion and murder « Sharp Right Turn (4797e5)

  211. “I would actually agree with this statement except…”

    I don’t know why, it doesn’t make a lick of sense.

    Slavery is illegal (except as punishment for a crime) in the United States. I know of no conservatives who have slaves, and I know of no women who have been enslaved.

    So, the statement seems nonsensical on its face.

    Dave Surls (0e8e98)

  212. The idea that killing Tillman is acceptable because this one murder would represent a net decrease of murders committed (due to Tillman’s future inability to murder others) is reprehensible. Two wrongs do not make a right.

    This is true.

    Remember the case of Pedro Navarro-Oregon? Several officers from the Houston Police Department broke into his home without a warrant to look for drugs and killed him the the process. A clear cut case for murder if there was ever one. And yet, the police officers have yet to be prosecuted.

    It would not be okay to kill those police officers absent an unjust threat to life, let alone any Houston PD officer.

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  213. “Ultimately, Saletan suggests that many anti-abortion absolutists aren’t really as absolutist as they claim to be”

    I completely reject all attempts of the left to try to define what “conservative” or “pro-life” means. I will listen respectfully as they define their position, but they cannot under any circumstances even try to define mine.

    tyree (158c98)

  214. The argument that you have to be for the killing of abortion providers in order to “truly” be an opponent of abortion is flawed.

    There is no inherent conflict between opposing abortion and opposing murder. The two are philosophically compatible. If you are looking to prevent what you consider to be murder of one kind, then you shouldn’t be promoting other (albeit fewer) murders to stop it.

    Both Christian and Pacifist philosphy embrace only nonviolent means to prevent violence. In the New Testament, Jesus stops his apostles from attacking the guards who come to arrest him. The Catholic Church opposes abortion and the death penalty. Ghandi promoted nonviolent rebellion against the occupying British. Are you saying these various factions are somehow less viable because they are not for proactive use of violent force to achieve their means?

    The point of view you have expressed is the lesser of two evils axiom. (i.e. the ends justify the means.) That line of reasoning would also justify vigilante justice. One could justify taking back one’s own property that had been stolen without going through the appropriate legal process, or a local mob assaulting and castrating rapists. That way leads to anarchy.

    In my opinion, if you are willing to kill to stop abortion, then you are not morally superior to those willing to perform abortions. It is nothing more than shouting “Caedite eos! Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius”.

    JD (04ef4c)

  215. http://aheartbreakingchoice.com/
    http://aheartbreakingchoice.com/kansasstories.html

    One woman described her elation at being pregnant and how the possibility of motherhood offered a glimmer of hope through several family deaths. Then she found out her fetus had severe spinal and cerebral deformities. “I laid on the table crying and knowing in my heart at that point my son was not going to make it,” she wrote. At almost 23 weeks pregnant, she was too far along for an abortion in her own state, and so, like many women in her situation, she made the anguished pilgrimage to Wichita.

    Writing five weeks after her abortion, she said, “I hate that my son is gone. I hate that I had to make the decision to end his life. I hate that my womb and my arms are empty. But I am strengthened in the fact that I made my decision by focusing on him and what was best for him. I am eternally grateful to the wonderful people that guided me through this horrible experience with compassion, love, and understanding.”

    Her gratitude toward Tiller and his staff is not unique. Ayliea Holl, the administrator of the site, saw a different doctor for her own abortion, but she’s met many of Tiller’s patients. “Every single one of them received the kindest, most caring and compassionate, the best health care that they could get,” she says. “Dr. Tiller was extremely compassionate. He was so helpful to so many women.”

    http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_compassion_of_dr_tiller

    bored again christian (925dae)

  216. That was a different JD than me, though I tend to agree with him.

    Does the previously banned bored again christian ever tire of copying and pasting materials and links from overtly partisan sites ?

    JD (878a53)

  217. bless your patience but you getting a fair argument from nishi (now wheeler’s cat) is smaller than me getting a date with Sophia Loren.

    Comment by nk — 6/3/2009 @ 7:22 am

    nk, I read and re-read, triying to understand her/him, but admit I wasn’t too successful. It made me a little dizzy. 🙂

    Dana (aedf1d)

  218. #192 Just about all slaveowners were Democrats, if I recall correctly.

    And if, nowadays, the function of a slaveowner is limited to preventing a slave from taking innocent life and nothing more, then I guess I’m o.k. with slavery

    Comment by Dave Surls

    It gets better. The Republican party was created as the abolitionist party. They’ve always been against slavery. And I might add, still are against slavery.

    Tanny O'Haley (83a3bb)

  219. “Dr. Tiller was extremely compassionate. He was so helpful to so many women.”

    Makes me think of people who make comments along the lines of: “But Mussolini [or insert name of another tyrant here] kept the trains running on time!”

    Mark (411533)

  220. This is a case where we must say the correct thing (this is lawless and must not be allowed) and then say in the heart – the murderer got what he deserved. The movement against the killing of full-term babies will not be hurt by such few random killings of murderers like Tiller the killer.

    Does that sound like hypocrisy – tough. I can live with it.

    Colorado (cb9e76)

  221. Is it wrong to murder drunk drivers?

    If someone does murder a drunk driver, is MADD to blame?

    Michael Ejercito (365b6d)

  222. It would depend on whether or not the drunk driver has killed someone, I would think; and Yes!, we could blame MADD – but that would be taking the Liberal position of precluding personal responsibility for one’s actions, and using the Geraldine Defense.

    AD - RtR/OS! (1f03ac)

  223. http://parenting.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/patients-remember-dr-tiller/?hp

    “We always sent the really tragic cases to Tiller,” said Hill, who knew the doctor for 20 years. This included women who were newly diagnosed with cancer and who could not start chemotherapy unless they terminated their pregnancies; women whose babies would be born only to suffer from genetic illness and die; women – no girls – who were victims of rape or incest and who were so young that they didn’t know enough to know they were pregnant until they were many months along.

    Salon links to Balloon Juice, another place where stories can be found. One commentator there told of learning – in the eighth month of pregnancy, that the twins his wife was carrying were conjoined, and were connected in such a way that “at best only one child would survive the surgery to separate them and the survivor would more than likely live a brief and painful life filled with surgery and organ transplants.” The man and his wife made their way to the Wichita clinic, and, the father wrote, “the nightmare of our decision and the aftermath was only made bearable by the warmth and compassion of Dr. Tiller and his remarkable staff.”

    A commenter on Metafilter tells a similar story, writing: “My wife and I spent a week in Dr. Tiller’s care after we learned our 21-week fetus had a severe defect incompatible with life. The laws in our state prevented us from ending the pregnancy there, and Dr. Tiller was one of maybe three choices in the whole nation at that gestational age. He spent over six hours in one-on-one care with my wife when there was concern she had an infection. We’re talking about a physician here. Six hours…”

    bored again christian (56163a)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.1777 secs.