Tiller was a controversial figure, and his Wichita clinic was the site of frequent protests for nearly 20 years. Police say he was shot in the lobby of his Lutheran church. No one has been arrested as of this writing.
In the ’80s and ’90s, Tiller was shot in the arms, and his clinic was bombed.
This is not the common ground we’ve been talking about finding in the abortion debate. There’s every reason to suspect that this was not a random act, that Tiller was the target of a killer.
Advertisement
My condolences to his family and community of friends and supporters.
What have we come to? Senseless. Violence.
It’s sickening.
Agreed. This is not going to make talking about this easier.
Why do ppl always forget the innocent victims here – the babies that are murdered? 43 million abortions have occured in the U.S. b/w 1973-2003, not to metion the millions of abortions from 2003 to present. http://www.guttmacher.org/in-the-know/incidence.html
Of course when a Murderer (abortion doctor) gets murdered, the Liberal media is all over that. WHY was he murdered? Not for doing plastic surgery. Violence in our society is met by violence, cops shoot criminals, homeowners shoot intruders. So…emotion aside (ha!), doesn’t shooting an Abortionist follow (not to condone it, but just for philosophical debate)?
You’re right, John Que. It’s very hard to put emotions aside, and while I understand some people believe that life starts at conception (I do not), does that justify killing an abortion doctor? Are we to take matters in our own hands and skip over our legal system and commit the sad crime of an eye for an eye? I’d hope we’d move past that, and that we could work together to eliminate the number of abortions in this country by increasing the amount of time we spend on comprehensive sex education — which would include abstinence — by seeking to eliminate the gross emphasis on sex-for-entertainment among the young, by giving young people the message that they aren’t weird to wait, by spending time with our young to ease them into this important part of their maturation process.
As it is, we’re kind of throw them to the wolves and can you blame them for being sexually active before they are emotionally ready? It’s free and it’s fun.
This? The killing of the doctor? It’s murder and it stops the conversation cold.
I know I’m stating the obvious, but abortion is not illegal. Abortion, according to law, is not murder. JQ, to call it murdering innocent lives is not legally correct and it is contrary to what many believe. It is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Shooting a person is murder. The doctor was doing his job legally. The shooter is a murderer. End of story.
I agree. Rock on, Jac.
It is illegal to murder in this country. It is also just as illegal to incite to murder.
Your attempt to rationalize murder is an incitement and meant to foment violent behavior against law abiding citizens. It is an obscenity. You should be ashamed. You make me ashamed.
Whats the difference between these religious nuts and Al qaeda
Sounds like a set-up to a joke. Sadly, it isn’t. Somehow, when an American religious nut (and we don’t know that it was a religious nut who did this, but we are given to understand that Tiller was the target for his abortion work) commits a crime like this, why do people rush to that nut’s defense?
Um, can we avoid the disablist language, please?
Very sad for his family…this is straight out murder. People really need to focus on their own lives.. maybe they will see inside themselves what they hate so much about others….Senseless.
Wouldn’t that be a wonderful day, if we all started focusing on our own lives?
What a shame that any church would have let him in the doors. Maybe he should be put on public display like they do with killers in Saudi Arabia.
Not sure what text you’re going by, William, but any church is open to any one. We’re all sinners. Would you really prefer severed heads displayed in public?
I neither condone nor condemn abortions, it is not my position to judge the actions of other that have been taken between families that have rights protected under the law. If the law needs changing then there is where action needs to be applied to effect change. But to hunt down this doctor while attending church services and murder him, thats premeditated murder. In addition, I believe that this goes way beyond a Federal crime, it strikes right at the cord of the basic freedoms that we are supposed to have in this country, one being the Freedom on Religion. The doctor was not doing anything that was illegal under the current laws, he was performing as a doctor under the law in what he was doing, whether you agree with it or not. I think any organization that this person was associated with that was in a position to influence the thinking of the person that committed this act also needs to be held accountable, the person that committed the murder, needs to pay. Legal damages need to be awarded to the family of the deceased. What the doctor was doing was not illegal in his practice and I dare anyone to legally dispute that anything was wrong. Just because something doesnt sit with a person because it may not be moral or may not be ethical, well guess what, lawsuits are not won based on moral or ethical issues, they are based on the law. Breaking the law to stop this doctor when the doctor was not doing anything to break the law, its a no brainer, the person that murdered this doctor should forfeit the rest of his life in prison at the least, death penalty is what should be upheld in my opinion.
I agree with a big part of what you say. The doctor was within his legal rights, performing abortions, and people taking the law in their own hands are frightening to the extreme. Look, I get it. Some people believe people like Tiller murder the innocent unborn — but this is not the way. It’s not ever the way. Ever. I am not approving all comments that have come to this particular blog entry, but if people really are about preserving God’s creatures — and I refer to people who believe life begins at conception, a tribe to which I don’t belong — it’s hypocritcal to the extreme to cheer or even condone the murder of anyone. And to call the doctor names is hardly bright. AND, in closing, an eye for an eye, Dave (your comment wasn’t approved because you called names) is not , as you say, the way it’s supposed to be, at least not for people who read their scriptures. I can speak to Christians on this, at least; we don’t get the luxury of an eye for an eye.
An eye for an eye and soon the whole world will be blind.
If those who believe that abortion is wrong spent their time on helping prevent unwanted pregnancy and offering support and alternatives to desperate pregnant women it would reduce the number of abortions in this country. I am in DJ’s camp on this one but I also pray for the day that abortion will be rare. Those on both sides of this question need to work toward a shared goal.
We agree. We can all work toward that eventuality, but it takes more than just talk.
I believe this sinner killing another sinner was a tragedy to outreach with the Gospel. I just posed something about this on my BLOG. Its so sad!
Thanks for this. This has me going, too.
http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/sexandgender/1509/abortion_provider_george_tiller_murdered_at_church
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/randall-terry-operation-r_n_209531.html
http://www.newshounds.us/2009/03/28/bill_oreillys_culture_war_attack_machine_failed_dr_george_tiller_acquitted_despite_bills_incontrovertible_evidence.php
…..there’s more…..lots more…..
The shooter is a murderer? Hmmm. Ok. I can buy that. Is the doctor a murderer? Legally (by laws of man) no, but by Laws of God, I would say the Dr. is most definitely a murderer.
So let’s say the Dr. killed a newborn baby at 5 minutes old (out of the womb)? That’s murder of course. Let’s say the 7 month (in the womb) was about to be born, but the Dr. aborted the baby at -5 minutes of 7 months in the womb, now, why isn’t that murder? Shouldn’t the laws of God and the laws of man match? END OF STORY!? (;-)
Ah, but we both know that’s not the end of the story. When talking about laws, to whose God are you referring? And to which man? And you skip over the debate as to when life begins — which has to be a part of this discussion.
Isn’t it a bit arrogant to assume that everyone agrees with the laws of [b]your[/b] god?
Yes. I think so, and I’m a believer.
JQ, this is the problem. You may say that the doctor is a murderer according to God’s law, but a lot of people don’t agree. That is your interpretation of God’s law. Not even believes in God or the same God. That is why we have laws that society must follow, no matter what your personal beliefs are. So, to answer your question, it is impossible to have the laws of women/men match the laws of every religion (God or no God) – there is no one set of religious law. No, they shouldn’t match because they cannot match.
If it really mattered all that much to God, wouldn’t he or she intervene? Or are there no more miracles?
Or is God offended by all the murders in done in his or her name?
Excellent questions. I’m stealing this for a blog entry, Humphrey. Look for your DJ Correspondent t-shirt in the virtual mail.
OK, let’s leave God out of it. Why then, per the law of man (and woman of course) is fatally shooting someone, or killing a 1 yr old or 6 mos. old or 5 minute old child murder; but killing (if we can agree that abortion DOES actually kill a living thing) of a -5 second, or -1 minute or -5 minute in the womb human, pre-human, baby etc? That seems to be really ODD to me?
I think our discussion is on when life begins — viable, on its own life. I know this is a sticking point and I’m not sure there’s much room for compromise — hence, the shouting and bad feelings.
Sorry – typo, here it is again:
OK, let’s leave God out of it. Why then, per the law of man (and woman of course) is fatally shooting someone, or killing a 1 yr old or 6 mos. old or 5 minute old child considered to be murder; but killing (if we can agree that abortion DOES actually kill a living thing) of a -5 second, or -1 minute or -5 minute in the womb human, pre-human, baby etc – NOT MURDER? That seems to be really ODD to me?
And never apologize for typos here. None of us can speel for crap.
Because that is how murder is defined in the law. We write the law or elect people to write the law.
the problem is that not everyone agrees on your premise. Or perhaps more accurately, everyone does not agree that the rights of the fetus trump the rights of the mother.
Painful. Ugly. Essentially irreconcilable, but there it is.
Humphrey,
My point is that the law for a living thing with human DNA OUTSIDE the womb is different for a living thing with human DNA INSIDE the womb. Not only is that hypocritical and self serving, but is also nonsensical. No?
Everybody wants to kill the doctor, but what about the woman. Isn’t she as guilty in the eyes of the Christian as the doctor? Why aren’t Christians gunning down the women who seek out the doctor?
That’s an interesting viewpoint. Hmm…
leftyoversight (ha ha),
For the same reason authorities don’t always target drug users, they go after the dealers. If a shooter kills mom (and baby), that’s the killing of two lives, and the mother isn’t the one actually PROMOTING abortion by operating a clinic, for profit, glorifying & grandstanding the “legal right” (of man anyway) of performing abortions and by doing later term abortions.
John Que, that is the nature of law. A lot of it is nonsensical and based on fictions unsupported by fact. You believe one thing, others believe something else entirely,
No where is there an expectation that the law needs to be consistent.
Humphrey,
RE: “No where is there an expectation that the law needs to be consistent” – I couldn’t disagree more. I think that’s what we’re all striving for in Democracies, no? Justice, consistency, fairness…letting the LAW dictate itself, instead of people INTERPRETTING the law as they see fit in order to fit their selfish needs? Why are people so disgruntled when it comes to LAW? Because it is NOT always consistent and fair.
Of course justice, per Plato, is whatever you, or the powers that be, say it is. I guess that’s one way to handle it.
John Que, disagree all you want, I neither mind nor care. People only want consistent application of law when it benefits them. Any other time they look for a way out, mercy, or a deal.
Your suggestion above “of letting the law dictate itself” is the essentially infantile reasoning of morally bankrupt cause. The law can NEVER dictate itself as it is written by men and women in imperfect language. Further, with each passing day it grows in complexity to meet the needs of the citizenry through ongoing compromise.
If you want consistency of law, you need a benevolent dictator that eliminates judges and legislators. I’ll nominate myself as I certainly don’t trust anyone else.
Otherwise, as we used say to when were soldiers and were young, “Kill ‘em all and let God sort ‘em out.”
I don’t know if time will allow me much depth here, but here goes….
(Sister Jeanette, Lady of the House, guide my words…)
The Christian exceptionalism that drives the anti-abortion fervor is the work of male chauvinists seeking to subjugate women. Their attempt to deny women the most fundamental Blessing of Liberty, individual autonomy, is an effort to exert the same control over women they previously enjoyed in the areas of property and suffrage. They believe, because God tells them through His many male agents, women are inferior and need the stern controlling hand of a man to assure feminine salvation.
Christians aren’t gunning down women who seek abortions because the MEN who dictate Christian dogma believe women do not possess the emotional or intellectual sophistication necessary for informed consent. In their eyes, it is God’s will men have dominion over women. Having lost much of that dominion to (allegedly) secular government, they now seek to force adherence to God’s Will through violent intimidation and outright terrorism. Like the Taliban.
Thanks, Leftover.
leftover,
Terrorism? Hmmm. Sounds violent. You left out the violence with 43+ million abortions being done over the last 35 years…that’s more like a Holocaust really. Now compare those numbers to the numbers of doctors that were murdered.
John Que,
But I wasn’t speaking about abortion. I was speaking about power.
I was speaking about the Christian exceptionalism that drives men to subjugate women to satisfy a perverted view of God’s Will.
I was speaking about the religious extremism in which men use terrorist tactics to force their perverted view of God’s Will upon an unwilling population, and then attempt rationalize their heinous acts as”respect” for life, and law.
For the Christian terrorist, as it is with the Taliban, it has nothing to do with “respect” for life or law. It’s all about power.
At no point here have I even alluded to my personal view on the issue of abortion. Because that’s not the subject. Christian extremists incite domestic terrorism to force adherence to their religious dogma. That’s the subject.
(And having felt the collective virtual slap of just about every other woman within a keystroke of this blog, I, as a man, confess to being a piss poor representative of feminist theory. The opinions expressed are mine and I do not wish to bring disrespect to Ms. Rankin and her powerful, active legacy.)
JQ – A kidney is a living thing, with DNA, inside the body. In fact every cell in our body has DNA and some of those cells in our bodies have the ability to differentiate and become other cells. (which is why cloning possibilities exist from human cells). These cells, organs, or fetus cannot sustain themselves outside of the body. To claim that this is a person is just not something everyone agrees on since as you go back in development in the womb, it is not a viable, independent human. It only has the potential to become an independent human. Similarly, eggs and sperm have the potential to become human, but they leave the body and are discarded without a second thought.
It doesn’t seem hypocritical at all to me. In fact, I had a converstation with a pediatrician at a family function about a week ago and she described her concern for babies who are born very prematurely. This addresses the advanced fetus (baby once outside of the womb) that is born prematurely and cannot survive without medical intervention. As science advances, we are better able to handle a baby born earlier. However, she was concerned about the quality of life and life long chronic problems that occurr with very early births. (We weren’t discussing abortion) I mention this because there are responsibilities and considerations with delivering a very premature baby also. Life long problems are common and one should ask, at what point is it more humane to not save an extremely premature baby even if our medical capabilities allow us to sustain the life. Is it selfish of a parent to insist that an extremely premature baby be kept alive and somehow endure a shortened life and life of chronic and severe health problems? I don’t have answer for myself, but I think these are difficult questions that should be considered and can help one ponder the fetus/baby question.
…which kind of reminds me of a song from — oh — 25 years ago, maybe, called “I’m A Friend of The Foetus” — I doubt if the lyrics are available, I’ll look, but the point of the song was that there are those who oppose abortion but once the child is born (to a parent possibly not able to care properly for it), all concern for that once-fetus-now-baby disappears.
JAC,
Sperm and egg cells aren’t human by themselves, when they meet, the human being STARTS to be created. If the man & woman do not want to deal with this issue, they shouldn’t get themselves in trouble in the 1st place. It’s EXTREMELY hypocritical to disregard a “living thing” as NOT a “living thing” when it’s INSIDE a womb vs. OUTSIDE the womb, but that’s just selfish, devilish, human nature I guess.
You are not a viable creature either if you were dropped down stark naked in the middle of the South Pole or the middle of the ocean or the middle of a dense jungle w/o assistance. Does that make you any less alive or important the moment you hit the ice, water or jungle bush?
Sperm and egg are human, JQ. They aren’t alien! They are human cells and have potential to become a baby. You are choosing to draw the line one place and not everyone draws the line of when the living mass of cells has rights.
I absolutely agree with you that if the man & woman do not want to deal with having a baby, they shouldn’t get themselves in the position of becoming pregnant. We are in sync on that and that is what I hope the 2 sides of this issue can work on.
No one claimed that an embryo or fetus is not a living thing. An embryo is living, yes, but it isn’t a viable person that can survive anywhere outside of the womb. The South Pole or ocean have nothing to do with it.
If a girl or a woman is raped, do you claim that it’s selfish for that person to decide to not allow the pregancy to continue? Or, is it selfish to force the girl or woman to go forward with the pregnancy and deliver a baby? Which kind of selfishness do you prefer?
JAC,
Snot from your nose has human DNA, so does sperm and eggs cells – by themselves. But those things by themselves will not grow to become a full-fledged human being. That’s all I meant to say. When the sperm hits the egg (the moment of conception), the new organism can (if allowed to do so) become a human being. That to Pro-Lifers is somewhat sacred and where the line is drawn, and I realize others have different views on this. Defining an embryo or a fetus as living thing is one thing, defining it/them as sacred, having rights etc is quite another (as we all know).
I don’t think abortion should occur unless:
1). The life of the mother is mortally threatened (why kill two living things?).
2.) Rape/incest has occurred.
Rape is a horrible forcible act & crime; the mother should not be subject to effects due to that (pregnancy).
RE your comment: “An embryo is living, yes, but it isn’t a viable person that can survive anywhere outside of the womb. The South Pole or ocean have nothing to do with it.” — —I’d agree that an embryo cannot survive in the ocean or the South pole (if that’s what you meant)….my point is, and it IS a valid point, either could you, a full grown human being (assuming), WITHOUT assistance or care. That means just because a living thing, human, or destined to be human, isn’t viable on its own, that doesn’t mean the living thing is less alive, less worthy of life, less desiring to live in a concious or biological sense, or should or can be destroyed. Now, that point may actually contradict (some would say) my view on rape/incest, as the human life or pre-human organism that was created by rape or incest, may want to survive conciously or biologically.
I do believe in birth control (unlike the Catholic church, though I’m Catholic too, kinda…still). I believe in capital punishment, but only for heinous, DNA proven crimes (there’s another debate for you! Ha ha ha). To abort a living thing that is predestined to become a human being (if allowed & healthy), that was created, via an act that the mother and father knowingly condoned and performed…is wrong. It would be like a bank robber wiping his crime away after the fact with an “indulgence” (Damn Catholics! Ha ha ha). Very convenient to do that, but where’s the life lesson/justice etc?
I’d like to point out that you have determined, in your view, a hierarchy or worthwhile life. In your mind, you are claiming that “murder” is ok in some situations as you see fit, and it is not ok in other situations. You are also drawing the line when a life has rights over the mother’s rights at a point that is in disagreement with popular opinion (i.e. at conception).
Do you see that these are your opinions and not law? … and that your opinions are hypocritical?
Jac,
Being prepared for criticism on that point:
The Pro-Life + Pro Capital punishment positions can be explained by the “innocence of the victim”, based on old religious doctrine. The baby/fetus etc., is innocent; the inmate on death row for murdering someone is not, and has had his/her chance in life and has failed to live by society’s standards. Furthermore, to kill a violent criminal, is to protect the rest of “innocent” society from that criminal.
So to support the killing of human life (self defense, war, guilty criminals of heinous acts), is indeed **NOT** hypocritical (by church & religious doctrine anyway).
That’s actually not what a lot of the pro-lifers say. They say they are a culture of life, and that is from conception to death — brought on by God, not the state.
I’d agree datingjesus….I’m not really a wacko right wing religious nut – like an “all or nothing” type. I am however a wacko (tongue in cheek) right wing “kill ‘em all let God sort ‘em out” kinda guy though (similar to what Humphrey alluded to above…not that he’s a right-winger).
Sorry to get off topic (abortion).
To get back on topic though, one of my initial points above was merely to say that, though legal, abortion does kill a living thing (whatever that thing is) and is a violent, unjust and immoral act to many. That can then ATTRACT more violence like the shooting thereof an abortion doctor. It’s human nature, unfortunately (eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed stuff).
So, you claim there was a footnote to “Thou Shalt Not Kill”. I don’t recall that.
Are you condoning this violence against the doctor? Are you condoning taking the law in your own hands?
John Que, are you familiar with the history associated with the statement “Kill them all. Let God sort them out.”?
http://hendersons.net/straitway/2001/03012001.htm
leftover,
Re: “Kill them all. Let God sort them out.” —–Google is great, isn’t it?
Jac,
Assuming the condoning violence question was for me? If it was – No, I have never condoned that (see my remark above on May 31, 2009 at 4:00 pm). I’m simply alluding to the fact that violence, or percieved violence, or even injustice or perceived injustice for that matter can breed violence.