George Tiller, a doctor who performed abortions, was shot and killed today while serving as an usher at Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas:
Dr. Tiller, who had performed abortions since the 1970s, had long been a lightning rod for controversy over the issue of abortion, particularly in Kansas, where abortion opponents regularly protested outside his clinic and sometimes his home and church. In 1993, he was shot in both arms by an abortion opponent but recovered.
He had also been the subject of many efforts at prosecution, including a citizen-initiated grand jury investigation. In the latest such effort, in March, Dr. Tiller was acquitted of charges that he had performed late-term abortions that violated state law.
The shooting occurred at around 10 a.m. (Central time) at Reformation Lutheran Church on the city’s East Side, Dr. Tiller’s regular church.
Wichita police said that the shots were fired from a handgun in the church lobby during the morning service.
The shooter is still at large.
Anyone want to bet against the killer being a Jesus worshipper?
* * *
Here’s what Randall Terry of Operation Rescue had to say about Tiller’s death:
George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.
Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches. (source)
Notice he doesn’t say that Tiller shouldn’t have been murdered. What a despicable person.
* * *
Update: If the assassin had been a Muslim and the victim a politician or a pastor, wouldn’t we be calling this religious terrorism — the very thing the US is supposedly warring against?
How to bet unless there will be an “answer” after a certain time…
So that’s what they mean by Pro-Life?
Yep. It’s NOT okay to kill a little congregated bundle of cells, but it IS okay to kill an adult human being.
As far as these guys are concerned the right to life ends at birth.
Totally this. They honestly make my brain hurt.
Hope they catch the fucker and hang him by his vas deferens. The man is a hero and he got shot in a church, what would really piss me off is if the shooter was in the church right now under the sanctuary clause
Where is the “holy spirit of truth” the churches so believed in?
I don’t think there is a sanctuary clause in the US.
It’s homegrown terrorism, plain and simple. Let’s expand Guantanamo for all the American religious extremist terrorists who threaten the lives of American citizens.
Bonus fun, I’d suspect the majority of them support the U.S.’s right to torture detainees and/or don’t believe the techniques used are torture. Enjoy your Cuban “Vacation” fundy crazies.
I have to agree with you on most of the so called pro lifers support the torture of others.
And most are not pro-life so much as pro-conception and pro-birth. Once the baby is born, the baby and the baby’s parents must pull themselves up by their own bootstraps, regardless of circumstances.
The hypocrisy of the Christian Right is stupefying.
Guess the golden rule only applies to certain people.
Funny, here was I thinking a church was a place of sanctury.
The killing of doctor Tiller is an unjustified, criminal act and the shooter should be caught and swiftly brought to justice, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, it is cold blooded murder and nothing less. My heart goes out to him, his family and loved ones on this tragic occasion. This was done by a mad man who may have thought he was doing God’s work in his sick and deluded mind.
But calling Tiller a hero? I dont think so. Since when does sucking innocent, viable little ones from the womb by a vacuum with the aid of a scraping metallic implement merit being labeled a “heroic” act? There’s nothing remotely heroic about that. I’ll chalk that (calling him a hero) up to an “unreasonable”, emotional response in the heat of the moment.
Its all so very, very sad.
“But calling Tiller a hero? I think so. Since when does performing valuable medical services to women, suffering countless attacks, and being fearless, passionate defender of women’s reproductive health and rights should merit being labeled a “heroic” act. There’s everything heroic about performing your medical duties when faced with abortion opponents regularly protesting outside his clinic and sometimes his home and church. Not a hero? I’ll chalk that up to an Unreasonable Religious Kooks emotional response in the heat of the moment.”
There, I fixed that for you JohnC.
Nowhere in the article that was linked called him a Hero. Nobody here called him a Hero either, until you brought it up in another of your pathetic little rants.
with you on everything but the last sentence. Stuart called him a hero above (and I’ll join him and you on that.)
DOH!
Must have clicked past it on the ctrl-f function. Still going to go with the “pathetic rant” thingy.
Correction there Sunny…Stuart said “The man is a hero”. See his above post.
The term “hero” is usually reserved for someone like the guy who jumps on the grenade sacrificing himself so his buddies can live?? That’s an act of heroism, an abortion doctor doesnt nearly qualify.
Yah I guess getting shot for helping people and continuing to help people doesn’t count in the twisted world of John C.
Someone who stands up to terrorism, and prevents it from working, by not bowing to their demands no matter what kind of fear they attempt to induce.
I have no issues with abortion, however I do think that late term abortion (i.e. after 24 weeks) is extremely questionable, and that’s what this particular doctor was known for. Not that that’s any reason whatever to justify murdering him.
The majority of abortions are not late-term, and the vast majority of late-term abortions are for medical reasons (for example: the fetus has died, or is horribly malformed, or carrying the pregnancy to term would threaten the life of the mother). The decision to abort a pregnancy is almost never an easy one, but that decision and the procedure itself are especially tough in the case of late-term abortion.
I am aware of all of those facts. I’m asking you to be aware that we’re talking about adoctor who was known for carrying out very late term “lifestyle” abortions. Just because I agree with a woman’s right to terminate her pregnancy should not mean that I don’t recognise a point where a fetus has become a human being with rights of its own.
It’s hard for me to imagine anyone wanting a late-term abortion, and I certainly wouldn’t recommend one unless there were medical complications.
My feelings exactly. That’s why I strongly object to painting this doctor as some kind of women’s rights hero. I cannot fault a doctor for performing a lat term abortion out of medical necessity, because the life of her child does not outweigh her own life. What I CAN and DO object to is late-term abortion carried out when there is no medical need; that’s what this particular doctor did that made him so reviled.
This is not a black and white issue: Just because you are pro choice should not mean that you’re blind to the idea that a foetus stops being a foetus at some point and becomes a baby – and that moment is LONG before the baby is born.
As far as I can tell the only evidence that he performed late term abortions for any reason other than “continuing the pregnancy [would] constitute a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient’s mental function” was an unnamed “inside source” via Bill O’Reilly.
Joe B: Doesn’t it strike you as relevant that somebody who works in an abortion clinic would take issue?
I don’t trust a “unnamed inside source” when it comes from someone with a clear position on the issue.
“What I CAN and DO object to is late-term abortion carried out when there is no medical need; ”
Source?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1189915/Controversial-late-term-abortion-doctor-shot-dead-US-church.html
“Prosecutors had claimed that Dr Tiller had an improper financial arrangement with another doctor who provided a second opinion allowing him to carry out abortions.”
As I recall, the main crux was that natural childbirth might have been harmful in some of these cases, however C-sections would have been perfectly viable.
I was under the impression he was found innocent of those charges.
He was, it says so in the article he linked.
“He was, it says so in the article he linked.”
In Custador World, accusation is proof of guilt.
Well, to be fair, he was acquitted of violating state laws, not of doing anything that might be considered wrong. Things that are wrong are frequently not against the law. He definitely performed late-term abortions. How late? Where is the line? What are his motives? I don’t know.
@ Sunny Day: No. But the anonymous inside source had to have been named at least to the judge, which means he/she is a real person. Who works in an abortion clinic and who is still disgusted at George Tiller.
Different cases.
The accusations he was charged, but acquitted for was that he had an arrangement with another doctor to agree with him that abortions were medically necessary.
The unnamed Bill O’Reilly source claimed that he was performing late term abortions on the grounds of “temporary depression”.
Related, but clearly not the same thing.
@ Custador “What I CAN and DO object to is late-term abortion carried out when there is no medical need; that’s what this particular doctor did that made him so reviled.”
“No. But the anonymous inside source had to have been named at least to the judge, which means he/she is a real person. Who works in an abortion clinic and who is still disgusted at George Tiller.”
So What? He was accused. He was found Innocent.
Here you are trying to tar him with the brush of guilt because there Must Have Been Something to those accusations?
Smell what you are shoveling?
In Bizzarro Custador World, accusations are proof of Guilt? I’m glad I don’t live there.
Might not we wonder why anyone who worked with Dr. Tiller would turn against him? This was a highly stressful job for all concerned. There can’t be a single person there who isn’t sympathetic to their cause, if you ask me. If you even thought you’d have qualms about working there…would you work behind bullet proof glass, walk thru protestors daily and endure bomb trheats and the like if you didn’t firmly believe in what you were doing?
I wasn’t trying to push any buttons there; it just wasn’t clear to me from your initial comment (“I have no issues with abortion, however I do think that late term abortion (i.e. after 24 weeks) is extremely questionable….”) that you do entirely understand late-term abortion. And I felt the need to make sure that you understood– as it is obvious to me now that you do. I agree with you that there is a point where a fetus becomes a person with rights, and I think we both agree that in cases where medical necessity is not a factor, it is important to determine whether or not the baby has developed to the point of personhood.
As to whether this man was a “hero” or not… well, he was probably a hero to some people, just as he was obviously a villain to others. Either way, his actions should have been (and were) evaluated by the state justice system, NOT punished by means of vigilante “justice”.
I think I was explicit that there was no justification for murdering him, regardless of what any individual thought of his actions.
@ Sunny Day: I’m not going to have a discussion with you; you’ve leapt to conclusions about my beliefs, insulted me and put words in my mouth. I don’t see you as a person worth responding to more than to say that you’re the worst kind of troll – one who thinks they’re clever.
Funny, I’ve had those same thoughts today, old son.
You attempt to paint a man judged by a court of law and found innocent guilty and I’m supposed to be the Troll?
You let me know when you have a leg to stand on.
I agree with you completely, Custador. Pro-choice/Anti-life folks can get just as overzealous as Pro-life/Anti-choice folks.
All doctors are heroes. I bet if you check the records of the clinic you will find his main business isn’t abortions but helping people medically.
He is a hero, he has provided safe and supportive medical care for women in need. I wouldn’t be surprised if he had done the same before roe vs wade but didn’t emerge as a professional practice till after. He has been persecuted and denounced for his actions, including pgysical assault, he got shot, recovered and went back to work, he still persevered helping countless people, and now he has died for his beliefs. Sounds a lot like someone else the christians like doesn’t it.
Of course it had to be a mad MAN, didn’t it John C?
Couldn’t have been a woman, even though we’re supposed to be more hotheaded and emotional than men. Argh!
Karleigh…sorry, not sure I’m following you on that one girl. Today was a lose-lose all around, bad day for humanity, bad, bad day.
All my best
I on’t think John intended to make a point it was a man. “Mad man” is just a phrase. Tiller’s first shooter was a woman, BTW.
Re: Update
Check out the screen shot on from their site on this blog
http://kriswager.blogspot.com/2009/05/words-have-consequences.html
Bottom right corner a picture of Dr. Tiller with flames in the background and the text “America’s doctor of death”.
Update:
It just saw on MSNBC that they’ve arrested someone in connection with this shooting. Hopefully, justice will be served.
Killing in the name of…
Ha ha I love the Rage Against the Machine reference…
Ah, no way that killer was a Jesus worshipper. You know, they wouldn’t kill anyone.. No, wait. I mixed up something, didn’t I. :) If you ask me, their thinking goes something like “save the unborn and raise them into dead soldiers”.
All together: He wasn’t a TRUE christian.
So far for the 5th Commandment… Or is it the 6th?
Pingback: Abortion Doctor Assassinated « Third Helix
Things that make you sick…
for all of you that don’t know how late abortions work. well they pull the baby out with thongs and grab its head and stab the top of the soft spot in the head with surgical scissors then a vacuum is used to put in the hole and suck the brains out….typically the baby stops crying at this point the dead baby’s body is disposed of and nothing is typically used to help cure others such as the embryonic stem cells which could be used to save others life but not only do we throw away the baby but everything that it can be used for. Personally if I was a crazed gunman extremist like this guy I would have probably shot his whole family considering he killed a lot of innocent souls I think the guys family should have gone with him especially his wife…how did they explain the fathers career “listen kids…daddy is at work killing little children like you right now, he will be home soon unless there are extra babies to kill tonight…hopefully he will bring one home for dinner like he normally does in a jar with vinegar we all love those pickled baby! THIS NEEDS TO HAPPEN MORE OFTEN EVERY DOCTOR DOING THESE ACTIVITIES SHOULD BE TAKEN BY THE RATH OF GOD. IT SHOWS YOU VERY WELL THAT GOD DID NOT PROTECT HIM EVEN IN GOD’S HOUSE OF WORSHIP GOD WANTED HIM DEAD, LATE ABORTION DOCTORS SOLD THEIR SOULD TO SATAN AND LOVE SACRIFICING CHILDREN WITH MULOCK IN BOHEMIAN GROVE
By your own logic, God wants the little children dead because he doesn’t protect them.
However, you don’t seem a very logical person, so I’m sure you don’t care about logical consistency.
Abortions aren’t wrong if you are really a christian believer. Every thing happens according to your gods will doesn’t it. If it is the will of another being that the abortions happen, what does that say of your god?
After all, 1/3 of pregnancies end by natural abortion and the mother doesn’t even know. God is the #1 abortionist in the universe! Plus he does it with all the animals, too. What a great role model and loving father!
Its Wrath not Rath, also that is not how late term abortion are carried out. You have the tools right but that was about it
except he called them thongs and not tongs
That’s a Freudian slip. All those slu*s needing abortions as birth control wear un-godly clothes like thongs. (face-palm)
That must have been the problem! Wearing tongs definitely gives you a bad panty line.
You religious kooks are all the same. Always willing to make other people die for your beliefs.
Pickled Baby. Yummy!
Fairly sick comment there Clyde, making your atheist brethren proud I’m sure.
If eating babies is wrong, I don’t want to be right.
With beer, JC, ICE COLD BEER!!
Sorry, they dont serve that down there…
Just warm beer. Through a straw.
How about char-broiled kittens on a spit, John, do they serve that down there?
One of my favorites, actually.
KITTENS?! You’ve crossed the line.
Oh, err, sorry.
But wait, it’s JC’s fault. I was going to stop at babies but NOOO, he just kept agging me on!
It’s only a joke because some people seem to think atheist are evil. So if someone jokes about eating babies, it’s because they’re joking that someone might be stupid enough to believe that atheists eat babies.
However, contrary to some expectations, we do not usually eat babies.
Except eggs.
And veil.
Oh yeah, and baby carrots.
Oh, well, now you’ve done it, Daniel, you’ve given me away. Can’t you see, it’s their stupidity I’m counting on?
and lamb….just had some Gyro’s the other day
BAH, didnt catch, you already said veil, sorry!
Veil = thing a Bride, or Mourner, or Muslim wears over her face.
Veal = delicious baby cows.
Vale = low area between mountains; see also “Valley”
Vail = place in Colorado known for its ski slopes.
Hope this clears that all up.
I thought we ate ‘babby,’ not baby.
I love Babies too, I just can’t eat a whole one.
Well, that’s because a late-term “baby” serves four, with the proper side dishes of course (and don’t forget the salad).
Dont forget to baste it in a honey stem cell research glaze, with evolutionary pumpkin stuffing
But the early term ones are perfect for kabobs.
I see you
ROFL…you know your trolling is a FAIL when the replies to it cheerfully turn to speling erers and kitten and babby eating comments…
I’ve got just the thing
As much as I like your name, I have to say, what the hell are you thinking? I’m not crazy about late term abortion either,but a heinous act of murder should never ever be condoned, it should be condemned. Who are we to tell another human being what they can or can’t do with their body? Or dictate what is morally right or wrong? I say, if you don’t agree morally with abortion, then don’t get one. If you choose to get one, then it’s on you to deal with your conscience, gOd, or whatever else you may have conjured up in your head. The choice should be your own.
That’s right, abortion doctors kill for fun and evil Satan-worshipping freemasons run the world and sacrifice children in their secret societies. You’ve got it all figured out.
Man, you can’t even spell Molok correctly. Is it too much to ask that you at least get your demented conspiracies straight?
Ironically, it appears I can’t spell Moloch correctly either.
Don’t you just hate when that happens?
Indeed, although at least in my native language, Danish, it is actually spelled “Molok”. I mistakenly assumed it was spelled the same way in English.
I like the “if I was a crazed gunman”
I think you’re a gun store away from being one, and that is scary.
Kook alert!
Something about the capital letters, overemotional language and nonsensical writing.
babystabbedinhead, you’re clearly short of mental health. Consider getting some professional help.
Or he’s a poe.
Most Christians and most pro-lifers agree that there is no excuse in taking the law into your own hands. And there is no excuse for playing God and exacting revenge. There are other ways to rescue. At a time when more and more people are becoming pro-life, there can be a political solution in the not too distant future. Murder is murder, and two wrongs never made a right. Murdering a murdering doctor will not stop the slaughter of the unborn. Other murdering abortionists (pardon the redundancy) will take his place.
To explain, let me play Devil’s Advocate a moment. If this murder does have a chilling effect on abortionists, then wouldn’t more humans will get a chance at life who otherwise would have been slaughtered? The doctor’s murderer might have calculated in this manner, and it would almost be tempting to say that this murder served some good. Except, that would be a miscalculation. As seen in the above comments, this sort of thing just stiffens the resolve of the pro-choicers and gains them sympathy. I’m uncomfortable with this kind of macabre math, but if you are going to do the calculation, then consider all the variables. This murder ultimately put more unborn lives at risk.
I’m upset that someone was murdered. And I think it is wrong to rebelliously play God (an occult thing to do, when you think about it, since that is what the occult is all about). But what really has me steamed is that a mass murderer — for that is what this doctor indeed was, whether or not our legal system recognizes it — will now be viewed as a hero and martyr, and many more innocents will be slaughtered.
One of the things that made Rome more civilized than Carthage and many other conquered places, is that they did not engage in child sacrifice. The slaughter of innocents is one of the defining features of barbarism.
By the way, murder in church is harder to pull off if the congregants are armed. The doctor was murdered by his own poor choices, by idiotic and irresponsible anti-gun laws, and above all by a murderer who understands neither Christianity nor human nature.
All that being said, I am sorry that the abortionist was murdered. I am more sorry that this will result in the slaughter of even more innocents.
Oh please, can we skip this idiotic murder rhetoric, when referring to abortion? If the best argument you have against abortion is to bend the definitions of terms in your favor in order to be able to make an appeal to emotion, than you pretty much don’t have an argument.
I am shocked that you are more concerned about the political ramifications of this man’s death than the fact that a doctor was murdered in cold blood in church. That in itself invalidates your ‘pro-life’ positions. You aren’t pro-life, you’re pro-fetus. I also disagree with your contention that the country as a whole is becoming more anti-abortion. A Gallup poll has been conducted every year since 1975 and shows that public opinion of abortion has remained relatively stable since Roe v. Wade. Hopefully, with more reproductive health education in public schools, your point of view on the issue will die out in a few decades.
Bacteria are alive. Trees are alive. Fish are alive. No one thinks an embryo or fetus is not alive, they think it’s not a person. You have to demonstrate that abortion is murder, not that murder is wrong. I know murder is wrong. I don’t think abortion is murder.
“But what really has me steamed is that a mass murderer — for that is what this doctor indeed was, whether or not our legal system recognizes it”
I love it when Kooks say this. They want to call it murder, and its plain to see the people saying it don’t believe it themselves! If it was really murder wouldn’t more people be trying to stop it? It wouldn’t take much:
One person with an lunchbox, (a sandwich, a banana and a bottle of water) some hand cuffs and some chain and a padlock. Step inside chain yourself to the door and start shouting your moronic prayers at people. Wait for the cops to show up. Refuse to answer any questions especially about your lunchbox. Don’t hurt anyone, don’t defend yourself. Get arrested. Rinse – Repeat with your next volunteer. 1 – 2 person can shut a place down for about an hour. That’s about 20 people a day or 7300 volunteers for a Year. It works even better when your religious/political leaders are willing to do the same thing and get arrested. Instant Martyr and being persecuted for your beliefs! I thought you kooks liked that? What is a little jail time and community service too much for you?? Come On, there’s MURDER GOING ON! You should step up and stop it.
But you won’t because you don’t believe your own rhetoric.
Dr Tiller lived for what he believed in, providing medical care to women. What are you willing to live for?
“will now be viewed as a hero and martyr, and many more innocents will be slaughtered.”
Yah because on Bizzarro Ret world people are going to go out and get MORE abortions because a doctor was killed.
“For every abortion you don’t get, I’m getting three”
Hey, it worked for pro-meat activism.
Remember: Meat is murder. Tasty, tasty murder.
According to his bio on PRCH, Dr. Tiller started performing abortions, his father’s practice, after a young woman of his acquaintance got a “back alley” abortion and died.
You didn’t get the memo? It’s our secret atheists-Obama-Communism plan to pave the way to force every woman to have as many abortions as possible. To fulfill that, we also must constantly rape as many women as possible. See, that’s how True Christians know we just luuuurve the rape. Thereby we will reach opur two secret goals, which are a) sin as much as possible by constantly raping people (we also rape men and little animals just to stay in training) and b) then making God (who we all know exists but are just really angry at) really mad by making humanity extinct itself through abortion.
Making as many people as possible gay also helps, so we will also force all the people we’ve made gay (by television and CSD demos) to adopt a lot of children who will thereby also become gay.
Everything clear now? See, it all fits nicely.
Seriously, I’m afraid that those nutters actually believe such plans exist. If society acted more consequentially, I’d wager about ten percent more would go right into closed institutions for being mentally deranged and a long-term danger to their environment.
Seriously, I’m afraid that those nutters actually believe such plans exist.
OMG, they DON’T??
Unlike the true christians, I don’t have god stopping me from raping, murdering, lying and stealing.
I’m going to have to turn in my strap on. And get god!
wait-a-cotton-pickin-minute…What did I just write? Don’t those true christians say if not for god they’d be raping, murdering, lying and stealing? Wasn’t this shooter a true christian? Cause Scott Philip Roeder says he IS.
Sunny Day, I’m sick of you calling religious people “kooks.” My commenting about it won’t change anything, I realize that. You are who you are. You think what you think. You say what you say. But, it’s offensive to me.
So, I’ve said my peace and am moving on.
I think at least in the comment you replied to Sunny Day is calling people who call abortion doctors mass murders kooks. Given that what the doctors are doing is legal, I don’t think that’s too much of a stretch.
Legal does not mean moral. I think cheating on one’s spouse is immoral, and I would call anyone who does an adulterer. But it’s legal to cheat on one’s spouse. Am I a kook?
Maybe if you called the person, say, a serial rapist.
The kook is in the extremity. Calling someone who hasn’t done anything illegal a mass murderer is very extreme. So much so that calling someone
makes sense.
The other issue is that cheating on a spouse is widely considered adultery. Whether abortion is murder is a topic that splits the public. I think a more apt comparision would be if you called a married person who had “impure thoughts” about a person that wasn’t their spouse an adulterer.
Tough. Grow a thicker skin. Your beliefs offend other religions, their beliefs offend you, people with no religion can offend all of you kooks. Get used to it.
I wouldn’t expect any less from you, Aor.
I think they’re kooks!
Promise?
You don’t promote peace in your pieces.
Where have I not promoted peace, claidheamh mor? Clever pun and all, but unfortunately, you’re wrong about me and my comments.
“Sunny Day, I’m sick of you calling religious people “kooks.” My commenting about it won’t change anything, I realize that.”
You have a real Hard-On to play the victim, don’t you?
If you identify with the people who use the rhetorical device of calling Dr.’s who perform abortions, Mass Murderers, then you are a KOOK.
You are one Watermelon away from a fruit salad. You have joined the ranks of people who don’t believe what they say. Put on your victim shirt and cry.
If you are waiting for an apology you might want to pack a lunch.
Sunny, have you ever actually read any of brgulker’s opinions on abortion? Amazingly, this is not the first debate we’ve had about it. He’s not in favour of banning abortion, and in fact has some fairly sensible observations to make about it. You, on the other hand, are still a whiney little troll.
We debated things at length in the other thread, but I’m not sure if 1) I communicated clearly or 2) if I was understood.
For some reason, I’ve given her the impression that my understanding of human life is purely religious. That isn’t the case. For me, I value human life because I understand it to be sacred, i.e., created. However, others value human life just as much but for different reasons.
The biggest contributing factor to what constitutes a human life is my studies in physiological psychology (think development of the brain, cognitive capacity, etc), specifically with respect to physiological and cognitive development. In a word, I think humans, from the moment of conception, are either developing or regressing, and I think that’s illustrated by the way our brains develop –> regress over time. I’ve yet to be convinced that we can simply point to any static example and say, “Look, there’s a fully-developed human life.” If we could, we wouldn’t have to debate this.
Instead, we do try our best to locate various points in that chain of development, so we go (very roughly) from embryo –> fetus –> infant –> toddler –> etc., etc. Each of those periods have certain demarcation points, but in a very real way, all of those demarcation points are somewhat arbitrary.
So, is an embryo a person? I’m not convinced either way, and for that reason, I’m not going to kill one (kill is intentional, not murder, not abort, not terminate). If it’s alive, and I cause it to not be alive, I’ve killed it, whether it be a mosquito, an ant, or a cow.
Is a fetus a person? I’m not convinced either way, and for that reason, I’m not going to kill one.
It could be a person. It could become a person and probably will with appropriate care. I’d rather err on the side of caution and not kill it.
But, as Custador noted, I’ve said over and over and over that I agree with Obama with respect to public policy, for a variety of reasons.
First, because it’s a compromise.
Second, overturning Roe v. Wade won’t solve anything but will rather create an entirely new set of problems.
Third, the embryo/fetus might not be a human life, and killing it may be no different than killing a mosquito. I don’t think that, but it’s possible, and as long as it is possible — i.e., as long as that’s a possibility scientifically — then we don’t need legislation in place that prohibits such action. In other words, my perspective could be proven wrong, and I admit that. I’m not going to try to make policy out of my opinion that could be wrong.
Fourth, there are situations in which abortion might be the best of the available choices. I think those are the overwhelming minority based on current statistics, but I think people in those situations do have the right to choose what they want to do.
Fifth, there are things we can do to keep abortion from happening, education, contraception, etc.
Sixth, if we are going to encourage and fund abortion, then we should encourage and fund alternatives so that they are viable alternatives.
There are probably more that I’m forgetting. Oh well.
In short, I’m morally opposed to the majority of abortions that occur, because I think it’s possible that a fetus is a person with the rights of a person; consequently, I’m not going to have an abortion in our marriage. I’m never going to encourage abortion; in fact, I will do just the opposite.
But that moral opposition does not necessitate a civil opposition. I think adultery is wrong. I denounce the practice, and I will never commit adultery. But I have no interest in making it illegal. The only thing that would make the abortion example different is if the embryo –> fetus is a person that has rights and should be protected. I don’t know for sure, so I’m not ready to advocate for legislation that would do that.
Longer post than I anticipated but hopefully it demonstrates that I don’t identify with hateful rhetoric, nor am I playing the victim, nor I am arguing in a self-serving fashion. If you want to disagree with my position, I’m all for it. Let’s have a civil conversation. But, if you’re going to attack me as a person because of my views, well, that’s a different story.
brg wrote: “Second, overturning Roe v. Wade won’t solve anything but will rather create an entirely new set of problems.”
And Roe v. Wade won’t be overturned. If Roe v. Wade was going to be overturned, it would have been overturned in the last 8+ years (evangelical in the White House, Congress and Supreme Court sympathetic to anti-abortionists). “Pro-choice” vs. “pro-life” is a false dichotomy. Those who buy into it are pawns. They’re being played. The issue of abortion rights is a distraction, nothing more.
He needs quit trying to play the dammed victim!
It was plain to see I was referring to those two and others willing to make other people die for their beliefs, Kooks. Yet he attempted, poorly, to claim I was talking about ALL religious people.
Apparently the real issue here is you two have poor reading comprehension.
Apparently the real issue here is you two have poor reading comprehension.
Obvoiuslee.
I apologize for my fellow atheists, Gulker. Abortion talk gets some of us a little too fired up. They don’t call it a culture “War” for nothing.
Personally, I don’t want anyone apologizing for me.
Well I don’t want atheists giving me a bad name by acting like just as big a bunch of assholes as the fundies, so we are both out of luck.
(not saying you specifically were or were not one of the assholes in question, just generalizing.)
Ditto. If he identifies so much with Ret, and babystabbed he can share the lumps. He’s practically begging for them.
I’ve never once identifies with Ret, whoever that is. Read my posts and judge them on their merit, not someone else’s.
Then quit trying to play the dammed victim!
It was plain to see I was referring to those two and others willing to make other people die for their beliefs, Kooks. Yet there you attempted, poorly, to claim I was talking about all religious people.
Murder in church is also harder to pull off if the assailant is unarmed.
Pro-”life” and pro-gun. Interesting.
What we need is bullet control.
Thats funny…:)
a crowded room full of armed panicked people most of them don’t actually have any idea how to use their gun. The body count will be huge.
I was rated as a marksman by the Ministry of Defence (admittedly we’re going back a few years now), and have fired full and small bore rifles in international competitions. I was security cleared to be allowed to carry a side-arm in public at one point. And you know what? I do not believe that I would be safe to keep a firearm in my home, much less be allowed to keep one on me at all times. Taking all of that into account, I have to completely concur with you: 99.99% of people would be nothing but a total menace if allowed to carry weapons – through both fear and stupidity.
Anti-choice (miscalled “pro-life”), and anti-birth-control (go figure!) pro-gun, anti-choice-assisted suicide, pro-death-penalty, pro-bomb, all in the same people:
seeming contradictions more easily understood when explained by xians being ‘anti-’ people having choice and control over how to live their own lives.
Being “anti-” anything in which people control their own lives, and “pro-” anything in which people are forced and controlled, makes it clear.
Well, the pro-gun doesn’t exactly fit in that picture, does it?
Maybe it’s better to say these people are cynics who don’t care for nuances.
Do you know what I find chilling, Ret? I find it chilling that people like you have for centuries crawled along behind humanity, nipping at our heels like a pack of hyenas as we struggled out of the dark and middle ages into the Enlightenment and are now striving for a world fit for humans. You and those like you, wielding your obscene Bible and screaming in protest at each new advancement we make toward human happiness and well-being. Oh yes, you know what murder is; and you also know that legal abortion has nothing to do with that concept.
I’m going to go out on a limb and say that you’re a Christian. That makes this statement so deliciously ironic:
Y’know when you consider the whole Abraham/Issac thing, the whole Jephthah thing (Judges 11), and by far and away, the most relevant of all, the whole Jesus thing, Christianity fits your defining feature of barbarism pretty darned well!
Lol. Not very familiar with Roman culture, are you?
And
Yeah, it’s bad when it’s a sacrifice to the gods, but totally OK if it’s expected by civilized Roman law.
I, however, agree that killing children is wrong. Except foeti are not children…
Yeah, a shoot-out in a church, good idea!
If we follow the same logic, then abstinence from sex is also murder.
Contraception, too. And every time a male masturbates, he murders more people than Hitler.
and even when having sex with his wife he dooms millions since only one can survive.
Is Christianity/The Pro-Life movement Pro-Orgy?
Here is a link to a great short movie on Abortion volunteers
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WT9GMkmi8r0
“To explain, let me play Devil’s Advocate a moment. If this murder does have a chilling effect on abortionists, then wouldn’t more humans will get a chance at life who otherwise would have been slaughtered?”
No. A fetus is not a person. If you actually care about saving human lives then you can adopt/give aid to ACTUAL born people.
“The doctor’s murderer might have calculated in this manner, and it would almost be tempting to say that this murder served some good.”
Just like Blowing yourself up with a bomb killing other people serves some good?
“Except, that would be a miscalculation. As seen in the above comments, this sort of thing just stiffens the resolve of the pro-choicers and gains them sympathy.”
Most acts of Terrorism do and only serve to highlight the utter bankruptcy of the “other side.” Because logic, reason, and emotional appeals have failed, “Do what I say or I will hurt you.” Yah that will always persuade people of the justness of your cause.
“I’m uncomfortable with this kind of macabre math, but if you are going to do the calculation, then consider all the variables. This murder ultimately put more unborn lives at risk.”
Yes because there is one less medically trained individual in the state to provide care to women.
67 years old? Now that’s what I call a “late term abortion”!
Another heinous act by “loving christians”. “Pro-life” indeed.
Abortion is choosing the lesser of problems if a pregnancy wasn’t prevented in the first place. Adults have the rights to control their own life. Prevention of pregnancy is better; and if it wasn’t prevented, abortion is preferable to back-alley butchering, to anyone except people full of hatred who want to control women.
Ironic that many anti-choicers are also not helping provide contraception, sterilization, and education to prevent pregnancies. People I know who don’t like abortion are all for contraception and birth control. It takes an ulterior motive to be against abortion and to avoid preventing pregnancy. (Wanting to control women and to stop sexuality, with “babies” as the false front and cover story.)
John C is much sicker than I thought. “Loving Christians”, Jesus’ ass. That’s psycho and sicko.
So few of them have gotten off their holy ass and done something compassionate and useful to provide birth control, which prevents abortions. That would only be done by people without an ulterior motive. It would only be done by people who want to help people rather than control them. It would only be done by people who don’t want others to be forced breeders (women’s place) to keep them under control.
What in the world are you talking about? Did you get me or my post confused with someone else’s there Claid’ster?? I only made one “reasonable” statement about today’s tragedy, not sure where you are getting your info…check your sources please so we can return to a civil dialogue.
You won’t take part in actual dialogue, John. You witness to us and when people dispute your claims you respond with mindless babbling or you disappear from the conversation. You are an anti-intellectual, so don’t expect people to treat you like an intellectual. That would be silly.
Again here is another example of typical American Christianity which says “Hate the sin but love the sinner.” Sadly it never works out that way. When you preach hate, people fail to make the separation and so the so-called sinners end up getting beaten or shot to death for being gay, for performing abortions or for whatever the perceived offense may be.
It’s very easy, after the fact, for all the right-to-lifers to proclaim their shock, horror and disapproval of this doctor’s murder, but I have no doubt that most of them are secretly pleased deep down in their stupid little hearts. Ignorance is ignorance is ignorance is ignorance.
Again here is another example of typical American Christianity which says “Hate the sin but love the sinner.” Sadly it never works out that way. When you preach hate, people fail to make the separation and so the so-called sinners end up getting beaten or shot to death for being gay, for performing abortions or for whatever the perceived offense may be.
That’s a good point.
It’s very easy, after the fact, for all the right-to-lifers to proclaim their shock, horror and disapproval of this doctor’s murder, but I have no doubt that most of them are secretly pleased deep down in their stupid little hearts. Ignorance is ignorance is ignorance is ignorance.
Why you would make such a great point in the former paragraph and such a bad one in the latter? Calling people stupid does not help the discussion. It does the opposite. It inflames emotions and ends discussion.
People on the pro-life side think abortion is murder. Some of them believe so because they consider the fetus to be a human being, and that belief is often informed by science, just as yours is. They come to a radically different conclusion — but that conclusion does not make them stupid or ignorant. In fact, a lot of us are as informed as we can be/are able without having courses in medicine.
“Some of them believe so because they consider the fetus to be a human being, and that belief is often informed by science, just as yours is.”
Bzzzt!
You’ve already admitted that your underlying precept for believing a fetus is a Human Being is a religious one. You might want to just stick with what you believe instead of trying to hide in the smokescreen about “some other” people informed by science but supporting your views believe
Hahahahahaha! Sunny Day, Excellent call for an unlikely honesty.
If you had read my posts in the previous thread on abortion, I talked at length about my understanding of developmental psychology and embryology. Once again, if you’re going to judge my posts and me in the process, then read what I have to say.
There’s no smokescreen here. My opinion on abortion is informed by science. If you don’t agree with how I understand science, that’s one thing. To accuse me of being dishonest is another.
Br, give up on Sunny Day. He/she is a complete ‘tard and has proven it more than enough now.
It’s hard when my integrity is attacked. It angers me, because I value my integrity… even in the anonymity of the internet.
The thing is, though, it’s so obvious that Sunny Day has not actually read what you’ve written, but rather has got two lines in and then incorrectly assumed that she can guess the rest, that I don’t see her as somebody whose opinion it’s worth getting worried about. She debates by ignoring your point of view and attacking you personally, and if you don’t have views which are exactly aligned with her own, she just plasters a label on you and switches off to input even more. Seriously, not worth getting upset over somebody like that.
I know that you’re right. I just have to calm the emotions… and not post in the heat of the moment so often.
I did, you are as unconvincing in this thread as you were in that one. You continue to attempt to pick fights where none existed, and play the beleaguered victim where no attack was intended.
In the previous thread you completely missed the part where I said, “Re posting here something that another person said but can sum up my thoughts on the morality of abortion.” a dreadful misunderstanding your part where you took umbrage and replied, “Second, you have made some incredibly condescending assumptions about me”. It was during that exchange where you admitted the philosophical underpinnings of your “moral” stance was religious. It’s a human life and needs to be defended because you say so.
Furthermore you are inconsistent. You are OK with killing the Human Life if it was created by a non-consensual act. This gives the impression that’s all you care about. You care about the act. If the act was intended to create life You’re fine with that. If the act was intended to express power and torture over another person you’re ok with Aborting. If the act was intended to promote pleasure and a relationship between two people, suddenly you are NOT OK to Abort.
I read your stuff, it’s all about making sure the woman FEELS bad enough. You want them to hold their grief, their health care, and their lifestyle up for your inspection. Which is utter bullshit.
It’s OK to abort as long as the woman was psychically tortured enough, sounds like punishment and condemnation to me.
At no point has brgulker ever said that or anything like it. You’re a liar as well as a troll.
I spent some time rereading the other thread and using the find function.
Hey, you’re right!
I’m sorry.
The fault was mine.
I conflated something that you said, “Fine. That doesn’t mean that you can take the decision to terminate the pregnancy lightly.” as something that brgulker said. When combined with some of his initial postings and not reading everything he had to say in the other parts of the thread, it lead to an, assumed on my part, illogical consistency and I attempted to flog brgulker for it.
The results were not good, It was my mistake.
The misunderstandings about who/type of person I was calling a Kook I let stand. The talk around the “Cheap Shot” still smells of a willingness to play the victim.
I apologize for the other parts.
For my part, thank you.
We’re not going to agree about the victim part, but I’ve said my peace.
Thanks for the apology and for taking the time to read what I had to say.
Obviuosly, this murder is immoral, and the killer should be brought to justice. I don’t think anyone who posts/reads here is going to disagree on that one.
Anyone want to bet against the killer being a Jesus worshipper?
Any word on this yet? I know they found a suspect, but AFAIK, no details about him or his motivations have been released.
But seriously, Daniel, was that cheap shot called for?
It’s not a cheap shot, it’s an almost certainty.
Wow, I’m sorry to hear you say that. Even if you are proved to be right, it’s unfortunate in my view.
I suppose your response would be something like: “A pro-life activist is likely to have committed this murder. Most pro-life activists are Christians. Therefore, a Christian is likely to have committed this murder.”
What if i posited something like this: “Per capita, blacks are nearly 3 times more likely to commit murder than whites. So, if someone is murdered, we know that on a per capita basis, a black person is likely to be the perpetrator. So, anyone wanna bet against the black guy?”
Do you think that would fly? And should it?
It’s the exact same logic. And it’s the same conclusion. The only difference is the group being stereotyped.
Even if you’re right (and you probably are, frankly), your comment isn’t justified — unless you find that type of profiling acceptable. Which, of course, you might.
Oh, and I misquoted my source. Blacks are seven times more likely to be the offender in a case of homicide, not 3.
I’m willing to bet that the rate that those who murder abortion doctors being Christians is MUCH higher then 7 times that of non-Christians.
Yes, I’m sure you’re correct. But my point isn’t the correctness of the statistics and hence the assumption Daniel made. It’s the fact he was willing to make the stereotypical assumption in the first place that bothers me, because he knows full-well that not all Christians are murderers.
I think my point stands: Based on Daniel’s comments and subsequent comment to me, it’s safe to assume that Daniel believes it’s okay to stereotype people based on the statistical likelihood that they are guilty.
If it is factually correct, why is it wrong to say it? You are agreeing with me that the likelihood of it being someone other than a Christian is very, very small. I think that matters — only a Christian would do such a thing. We all know that.
It’s like a Jew being killed with the words “Praise by to allah” carved into him, and me saying, “wanna bet it wasn’t a Muslim?” It matters that it was a Muslim, because their stupid ideology was a contributing factor.
You are confusing two points. Yes, not all Chirstians are murders, that’s obvious, but all, or very nearly all those that commit extremist acts against abortion doctors/clinics are Christians.
If we had said Dr. Tiller should avoid all Christians then we’d be guilty of making the first assumption (though actually it could have saved him, but that’s beside the point).
Brgulker…I have to agree with Daniel on this one. Given the history of all this, its only logical (and apparently correct) to assume the shooter will be found to be a radical extremist, survivalist, etc. Candidly, weren’t we all thinking the same thing at the time of the shooting?
The problem is that the shooter and his ilk will be associated with anybody who finds the practice of abortion, particularly late-term abortion a vile and reprehensible thing. Unfortunately there are a number of readers here who will gladly make that leap in thinking since it only empowers their pre-existing mindset and bias towards pro-life advocates regardless of how “unreasonable” that position is.
From what I gather, this murder was a “justifiable homicide.” Is that a specifically “Christian” or “religious” ideology? Not as far as I know. If, in fact, the article to which Joe B linked is meritorious, then “justifiable homicide” ideology is as much to be blamed as anything, right?
You are confusing two points. Yes, not all Christians are murders, that’s obvious, but all, or very nearly all those that commit extremist acts against abortion doctors/clinics are Christians.
No, I’m not the one confusing the two points.
Brgulker…I have to agree with Daniel on this one. Given the history of all this, its only logical (and apparently correct) to assume the shooter will be found to be a radical extremist, survivalist, etc. Candidly, weren’t we all thinking the same thing at the time of the shooting?
If that had been the language of the original post, I wouldn’t have been bothered. It wasn’t. It was “Jesus worshipper.”
I don’t want to be lumped in with a guy like this.
@brgulker
So which is it, brgulker? The murder was immoral and nobody would disagree, or the murder was justifiable? Personally, I think you truly believe it was justifiable and were just pretending otherwise because it would make you appear hateful and immoral, and you prefer a pretty lie to an ugly truth.
There is a reason why you can be lumped in with a guy like this: because your words support his actions.
Respectfully, Aor, you have misread me completely.
I am opposed to the murder, as is everyone else here.
When I said,
From what I gather, this murder was a “justifiable homicide.”
I was speaking specifically about the murderer’s justification / rationalization for committing the murder. I didn’t say I agreed; I didn’t even imply it.
I was simply saying that “justifiable homicide” is not a specifically religious rationalization for murder — and that’s the justification presented in the article. If that’s what the murderer thinks justifies his actions, then it’s not an exclusively religious defense; in fact, it’s a civil one.
There is a reason why you can be lumped in with a guy like this: because your words support his actions.
My words do absolutely nothing of the kind, and I resent the insinuation. If you had taken the time to read my comments fully, you wouldn’t have made such an outlandish claim about me or my words.
What this man did was horrible and inexcusable. Period. Clear enough for you? Or, will you find a way to twist a statement as clear as this to make me into a “hypocrite” and a “coward” — words you seem to be fond of?
@ Aor:
So which is it, brgulker? The murder was immoral and nobody would disagree, or the murder was justifiable? Personally, I think you truly believe it was justifiable and were just pretending otherwise because it would make you appear hateful and immoral, and you prefer a pretty lie to an ugly truth.
There is a reason why you can be lumped in with a guy like this: because your words support his actions.
And one more thing: have you read anything I’ve posted about my feelings on abortion, why I have them, and what US public policy should be?
What the hell are you basing these accusations on?
From my limited interactions with you, you seem to specifically pick out the religious posters here and attempt to trap them, regardless of the topic and without respect to what they are actually attempting to communicate. This seems to be another example.
It seems to me that you are a troll who gets his/her jollies off of picking on posters who don’t think like you do. And, unless you give me a good reason to think otherwise, I don’t really see what other conclusion I can come to.
@brgulker…
It seems you are quickly learning about Aor and his preferred tactics, regrettable as they are. I will engage anyone here, regardless of how crazy they think I am, or however much they disagree, ridicule me, etc. But when it comes to Aor there is sadly, no point in attempting to discuss matters with him since it is all too apparent he is only here to hate and hurl insults at anyone who holds a disparate viewpoint than his.
Its sad that he has chosen to behave in such a manner, I do feel for him and try to value, honor everyone but found it best to altogether ignore him and his many cruel and unkind words. Responding to him seems to only add fuel to his angry fire.
@brgulker
If you spoke unclearly, then you shouldn’t be surprised if that lack of clarity makes people question what you mean. I understand that you wish to say that justifiable homicide is not specifically religious.. and in general, you would have a point. In this particular however, the justification seems to be that Dr. Tiller violated some religious precept and therefore should be killed. I’m sure you understand that, but instead you choose to pretend not to. As usual, you choose self serving and selective interpretations.
As for picking out religious people and trapping them.. duh! Shouldn’t that be obvious? This is an atheist blog, where deluded theists come to back up their delusions with bible quotes that only they properly understand and everyone else is misinterpreting. If I disagreed with an atheist, I would argue with them also. In fact, you have seen my do so if you pay any attention at all. This is another example of your self serving approach to discussion. You willfully ignore anything that makes your position look false, and selectively highlight anything that makes it look true. This is why you get poked fun at. There wouldn’t be traps to avoid if you didn’t choose a path that was littered with spike-filled pits. Amazingly, if you take a rational approach to the world those traps stop being a problem.
@John
I understand that you lack the guts to respond to me honestly. This is nothing new. When challenged, you run away. People refute your bizarre claims and you disappear from that part of the conversation, like a coward. You refuse to concede points even when they are made in a decisive manner. You have displayed your anti-intellectualism countless times. You don’t even try to deny it anymore. Convincing people is not your goal, you merely feel a compulsion to witness and yet you lied about being here to proselytize.
It makes your life easier to pretend I attack anyone who disagrees with me, but the reality is that you have no rational response to many of the questions I ask so your only alternative is to somehow cast doubt on the person asking the questions.
This is just another example of your cowardice. You run from questions that an intellectually honest person would answer, you relentlessly witness to those who clearly don’t care to hear it at all, and expect to be treated with respect when you deny science and reason. Fuck that. You can’t deny reason and expect to be treated like a reasonable person, because you simply are not one. When you start respecting reason things may change.
If you spoke unclearly, then you shouldn’t be surprised if that lack of clarity makes people question what you mean. I understand that you wish to say that justifiable homicide is not specifically religious.. and in general, you would have a point. In this particular however, the justification seems to be that Dr. Tiller violated some religious precept and therefore should be killed. I’m sure you understand that, but instead you choose to pretend not to. As usual, you choose self serving and selective interpretations.
I didn’t speak unclearly, as is evidenced by the fact that you are the only one who thought I was supporting Dr. Tiller’s murder. Everyone else in the conversation took my statement in context, or at least I can assume so since no one else responded, accusing me of empowering such heinous actions as Dr. Tiller’s murder. My comment about justifiable homicide was clearly, undeniably in response to an article I referenced earlier in the comment — the article claimed that justifiable homicide was the murderer’s defense of his actions. Had you read the conversation and the article that was linked, it would be as obvious as the nose on your face what I was talking about.
But instead, you chose to assume the worst about me and my intentions and created an inconsistency in my comments which wasn’t there in order to villify and demonize me — all so you could claim that me and people like me enable people like this murderer. That is despicable.
But, rather than admit that you are wrong and apologize — which is the reasonable action as I see it — you will place the blame back on me for being unclear. This only further demonstrates my points about you, I think. You are a hostile troll that is looking for a fight with any religious person you can find without respect to what they are trying to communicate.
But, just incase I was unclear and am in the wrong, and so I can avoid being lumped in as a cohort who is complicit in a murder, I will fully explain what I meant in my comments above.
(Preface, I’m assuming I understand the motivations of the killer, and I could be wrong.)
Dr. Tiller was killed because his murderer understood Dr. Tiller to be a murderer. The killer’s definition of murder was, I would imagine, religiously informed, i.e., that the fetus is a living human being created by God. But we don’t need religion to think that murder is morally wrong, correct? Because the law does not provide punishment for abortion (or “murder” in the mind of the killer), the killer rationalized the murder of Dr. Tiller by employing “justified homicide” theory.
So, while his motivation for the murder, i.e., the Dr. was a murderer himself, was informed by his religious understanding of what constitutes a human person, the justification for the murder was a-religious, namely, “justified homicide.”
There is absolutely nothing self-serving about my comments here or in my less-developed comments above. That is how it is. Take it or leave it. Like it or lump it.
As for picking out religious people and trapping them.. duh! Shouldn’t that be obvious? This is an atheist blog, where deluded theists come to back up their delusions with bible quotes that only they properly understand and everyone else is misinterpreting. If I disagreed with an atheist, I would argue with them also. In fact, you have seen my do so if you pay any attention at all. This is another example of your self serving approach to discussion. You willfully ignore anything that makes your position look false, and selectively highlight anything that makes it look true. This is why you get poked fun at. There wouldn’t be traps to avoid if you didn’t choose a path that was littered with spike-filled pits. Amazingly, if you take a rational approach to the world those traps stop being a problem.
When I respond to posts about the bible here — and mind you, I respond and do not initiate — I respond based on my academic background in higher biblical criticism. If you read this comment thread, you will see that I engaged susan and GBM in conversation about the bible and abortion. susan asked a question, I responded, and GBM responded to me. You will find that there is nothing self-serving in those comments.
In short, I don’t willfully ignore anything. If you have seen me do it, or if you ever see me do it in the future, then by all means, call bull shit on me. I’m capable of making mistakes, and I’m willing to be corrected. But I have not done so in this conversation.
When it comes to the bible, I do not shy away for a second that it’s filled with grotesque stories that condone actions that are morally reprehensible. I don’t ignore them. I don’t explain them away.
If you think otherwise, prove me wrong.
And with respect to my reasons for being here and the intent of this blog:
I don’t see anything in Daniel’s posts or pages that makes this blog exclusively for atheists. In fact, just yesterday he asked a question in one of his posts that was directed specifically to Protestants. Best I can tell, it’s an open blog for anyone.
I don’t come here quoting Scripture as divine law that the heathens need to submit to in order to be spared from damnation. You are putting words in my mouth that have never been there, nor will they ever will be. Don’t prejudge me. I would think you would ask the same of me.
There wouldn’t be traps to avoid if you didn’t choose a path that was littered with spike-filled pits. Amazingly, if you take a rational approach to the world those traps stop being a problem.
It is incredibly unfortunate that you are unable to or choose not to see past my religiosity in this discussion, because my faith has absolutely nothing to do with it. Like you, I believe murder to be wrong. We agree about… as long as I don’t assume the worst about you as you have done with me. My approach to this discussion is “rational,” even by your rigorous standards. There is evidence by way of news stories and interviews and blog postings. I have analyzed it rationally, and I have come to a conclusion.
If you are unwilling to have a civil conversation with me on your own terms, then it is not my way of thinking that is the problem.
And to make it all worse, you distorted that conclusion and assigned complicity to me in Dr. Tiller’s murder. And the worst part is that you simply don’t care. It’s part and parcel with how you choose to interact with folks who think differently than you do.
I have been called some nasty things in my life, but never before today have I ever been associated with murder. That is a serious, serious accusation, and one you should retract.
“(Preface, I’m assuming I understand the motivations of the killer, and I could be wrong.)…”
Associating you with murder?
“Associating you with murder?”
Victim, he’s playing it.
@brgulker
Obviously you did speak unclearly or you wouldn’t have anything to explain. I quoted you, you went back and clarified. Pretending that isn’t a clarification is just silly. Then to follow it up with this:
You do understand how and why it was unclear or you wouldn’t know how to go about being more clear. Again, pretending those things is silly. See how easy that was? The first third of your last post is gone by that sentence. Next time just skip it.
I notice how you could only find a small number of examples of times when you weren’t self serving. Very nice. I also remember going at it with you on another thread where you absolutely did use self serving methods. Do your carefully selected examples destroy my opinion of you? Hardly, this is again an attempt to choose certain things that support your position and disregard anything that does not. Your very attempt to refute my accusations of your self serving methods is self serving! Wow. Interesting, but not surprising.
And this.. well.
Again, an attempt to misdirect. Nobody told you did not have the right to speak. You are taking a straw man position, and it is difficult to see how you aren’t doing that deliberately. This is a common theme from you, which is why I point it out so often. If you want to be treated as someone who is being honest, start by being honest.
Now lets get back to the real issue. Lets look at another quote of yours:
There we have it. The ideology of justifiable homicide is, in your mind, as much to be blamed for the murder of an abortion doctor as generations of hate speach and enducements to violence. This is why I called you out. That is typical shifting of blame. That kind of thinking is why you are part of the problem. You attempt to obscure how absurdly dangerous the anti-abortion movement is, shifting the blame to another, and again it is hard to see how you can’t know that even as you type those words.
By the way, are you ever going to have an honest response to the hypothetical I posed about the lack of value of the teachings of a Maya university? Or would admitting that your religious education is inherently untrustworthy something that would make you feel ripped off by the school?
Aor,
There we have it. The ideology of justifiable homicide is, in your mind, as much to be blamed for the murder of an abortion doctor as generations of hate speach and enducements to violence. This is why I called you out. That is typical shifting of blame. That kind of thinking is why you are part of the problem. You attempt to obscure how absurdly dangerous the anti-abortion movement is, shifting the blame to another, and again it is hard to see how you can’t know that even as you type those words.
Just so we’re clear about what I mean by “justifiable homicide,” which is what the killer has self–identified as his justification for his actions, let me post this from wiki:
“The normal rule in the criminal law is that those accused of crime should be convicted of an offense only if they have committed the actus reus (the Latin for “guilty act”) of an offense, accompanied by the necessary mens rea (the Latin for “guilty mind”) element. Thus, if one person has killed another, intending to do so, the normal consequence would be a conviction for murder. But, for a variety of different public policy reasons, societies over the centuries have considered it morally acceptable and/or merely expedient for one person to kill another and to treat this killing as “justifiable” in a number of different situations.”
That’s how the man will defend himself. And mind you, that’s a civil concept, not a religious one. I’m not denying that the man’s motivations for killing the Dr. were informed by a religious understanding, namely, that the fetus is a human being.
But yes, I am saying beyond any shadow of a doubt that given this man’s background, the concept of ‘justifiable homicide’ was as much an enabler for him as a twisted religious ideology. You call it shifting the blame. And I guess in a way it is, but if it’s an accurate shift — which it seems to be given the evidence we have — then I don’t see a problem.
If there is a problem, then why not respond to my argument logically? Demonstrate that I’ve misread the article that was linked earlier. Or demonstrate that I’ve misunderstood the concept of ‘justifiable homicide.’
Again, an attempt to misdirect. Nobody told you did not have the right to speak. You are taking a straw man position,
You words,
This is an atheist blog…
What did you mean by that? Or perhaps you were just being unclear?
Hardly, this is again an attempt to choose certain things that support your position and disregard anything that does not. Your very attempt to refute my accusations of your self serving methods is self serving! Wow. Interesting, but not surprising.
I don’t know what incident you’re talking about. But, I would think that since you’re the one making accusations, the onus is on you to show me what you’re talking about.
This is another example of your self serving approach to discussion. You willfully ignore anything that makes your position look false, and selectively highlight anything that makes it look true.
As best as I can tell, I haven’t willfully ignored anything. I’ve read and responded to Daniel’s opening post and the additional articles that have been linked as well as bits from the news media here and there. The killer is clearly religious, and he’s using ‘justifiable homicide’ as a defense for his actions. Those are the facts as I see them.
By the way, are you ever going to have an honest response to the hypothetical I posed about the lack of value of the teachings of a Maya university? Or would admitting that your religious education is inherently untrustworthy something that would make you feel ripped off by the school?
I don’t know what you’re talking about… I don’t remember that hypothetical. I probably didn’t ever read it.
—————————————
@ Sunny Day:
I’m not playing the victim. Aor said this to me,
There is a reason why you can be lumped in with a guy like this: because your words support his actions.
He accused me of supporting a murder with my words. If I remember correctly, the same type of charge was levied by some pro-life folks in the last abortion thread and just a few posts up in this one by a troll, no? I ask you, were those of you who responded to that charge “playing the victim” as well? Or, were you responding to an incredibly serious, albeit absurd, accusation?
Obviously, the latter. When someone accuses you of supporting murder, the natural response is defense, I think. I’m not a murderer, and I don’t want to be lumped in with them. Neither do you.
“From what I gather, this murder was a “justifiable homicide.””
If you would have said “From what I gather, this murderer believed this was a “justifiable homicide.”, nobody would mave misunderstood you.
Now lets get back to the real issue. Lets look at another quote of yours:
If, in fact, the article to which Joe B linked is meritorious, then “justifiable homicide” ideology is as much to be blamed as anything, right?
“There we have it. The ideology of justifiable homicide is, in your mind, as much to be blamed for the murder of an abortion doctor as generations of hate speach and enducements to violence. This is why I called you out. That is typical shifting of blame. That kind of thinking is why you are part of the problem. You attempt to obscure how absurdly dangerous the anti-abortion movement is, shifting the blame to another, and again it is hard to see how you can’t know that even as you type those words.”
@Aor didn’t call “…it shifting the blame”.
I don’t know if you can see it or not, it’s not about your person, but how your arguments sound in your choice of words and your responses.
@brgulker
You don’t see a problem with shifting the blame from the individual to the law? Exactly. This is a admission that what I have said is indeed correct. You want the law to be responsible and not the man, or those who encouraged and led him to murder another human being. This is exactly why you are part of the problem and I am not surprised at all that you fail to see something that obvious and elementary. When a crazy religious anti-abortionist murderer kills a doctor, you want to shift the blame to some other source, any other source. Your words support the actions of a murderer by attempting to absolve him (even partially) of blame. Rather than it being a wacko nutjob murderer, you pretend it is a wacko nutjob murderer who did it for justifiable reasons. You see? You are part of the problem. People like you give those murderers justification and moral support. You asked me to respond logically, and I have. Again. Are you going to pretend yet again that I haven’t explained my reasoning?
As for your repeating your complaint about this being an atheist blog… I don’t understand you. You know it is an atheist blog, you surely have read the title at the top of the webpage, you know that the readership is predominantly atheist, you know that non-atheists post often and are not prevented from speaking, yet you want yet again to shift the blame to someone else. You want to imply that I am trying to deprive you of the chance to speak, and yet you have nothing to back that up and must use deceptive tactics to trick people. More self serving deception. This is just another straw man and each time you repeat it you dig yourself deeper into a hole. People can sense that kind of deception. If you have an actual complaint to make, make it. If all you are doing is trying to shift the topic, you have failed. Again.
To go back to the hypothetical that you can’t remember.. here is the link. I posted it originally in response to you.
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/05/11/the-first-couple-yahweh-and-asherah/#comments
It is quite simple. You get a choice.. speak the truth and say that you wouldn’t expect a university that truly believed in the Maya religion to give an accurate and reliable education on the subject of Maya history and religion, or lie and misdirect in some way so that you can keep believing that your religious education is reliable. I’m sure you agree with the rest of the world that that would be nuts to think that the only way to understand the Maya would be to sacrifice blood from your penis. In all likelihood you will be unable to admit that because to do so would make your own education seem unreliable. This is a trap, absolutely. This trap forces you to either tell the truth or make your hypocrisy clear for the readership to see.
You don’t see a problem with shifting the blame from the individual to the law? Exactly. This is a admission that what I have said is indeed correct. You want the law to be responsible and not the man, or those who encouraged and led him to murder another human being. This is exactly why you are part of the problem and I am not surprised at all that you fail to see something that obvious and elementary. When a crazy religious anti-abortionist murderer kills a doctor, you want to shift the blame to some other source, any other source. Your words support the actions of a murderer by attempting to absolve him (even partially) of blame. Rather than it being a wacko nutjob murderer, you pretend it is a wacko nutjob murderer who did it for justifiable reasons. You see? You are part of the problem. People like you give those murderers justification and moral support. You asked me to respond logically, and I have. Again. Are you going to pretend yet again that I haven’t explained my reasoning?
You’re not reading what I’m saying. I am not absolving the man in any way, shape, or form. I merely pointed out that there were two ideaologies at play here, the religious moral ideaology and the civil concept of ‘justifiable homicide.’
The man’s religious morality was the motivation: he was angry with the Dr. because he perceived the Dr. to be a murderer.
The man believed his actions were justified because: he believes in a civil concept called ‘justifiable homicide.’
And I’ll say it again, even though it won’t make a difference: This murder was completely unjustified; it was a criminal act; and, it should be prosecuted as any other murder would be. I said as much in my very first post in this discussion. Further, I don’t even share the man’s views about abortion as murder, which I have said over and over and over and over and over. But, you are choosing to ‘willfully ignore’ my comments — something you’ve accused me of repeatedly but have no problem doing yourself. I think there’s a word for that … is it hypocrite?
I am not saying that the man is in any way absolved by appealing to the concept of ‘justifiable homicide.’ You are repeatedly putting those words in my mouth. I am saying that there are two faulty ideaologies, and both are to blame. Obviously, the people here will single out his religious conception of morality. And they should, because it’s wrong. But by his own admission, the man has appealed to the civil concept of ‘justifiable homicide’ as a defense for his actions. I believe that concept is just as wrong and just as much in need of correction as the former.
How you can continue to twist comments like this and accuse me of enabling the murderer and then absolving him is beyond me. Anyone with a basic grasp of the English language and primitive critical reasoning should be able to see my point clearly: that the murderer is guilty of murder, regardless of his shoddy, two-fold defense that appeals to his religious morality and the civil concept of justifiable homicide.
As for your repeating your complaint about this being an atheist blog
You excel at putting words in the mouths of others, Aor. I have never complained about this being an atheist blog… you’re the one who brought it up in the first place. I know full well what this blog is, and I’m not complaining about it. Stop putting words in my mouth just so you can get your jollies knocking down another strong man.
You want to imply that I am trying to deprive you of the chance to speak, and yet you have nothing to back that up and must use deceptive tactics to trick people.
That’s what it sounded like. No self-serving deception.
People can sense that kind of deception. If you have an actual complaint to make, make it. If all you are doing is trying to shift the topic, you have failed. Again.
Obviously. In fact, why don’t you ask some of the other posters how deceptive I am. Have I responded emotionally and defensively here? Sure. Have I overreacted at times? Sure. Am I the only one? No. Does that make me deceptive and disingenuous? Ask around, Aor. I would welcome it if you did. You will be proved wrong.
You are part of the problem. People like you give those murderers justification and moral support. You asked me to respond logically, and I have. Again. Are you going to pretend yet again that I haven’t explained my reasoning?
You have either:
1) Misunderstood me. I’ve made myself clear. I don’t support the murder. I don’t accept the man’s religious moral grounds for his actions, nor do I support his civil defense. A person with basic comprehension of English and moderate cognitive capacities can understand my position on the matter. Yet, you do not. So the alternative is…
2) Are intentionally twisting my words so you can get your jollies being a troll.
And for the fourth time you have accused me of being an enabler of murder, and you don’t even sweat making such a weighty accusation. You don’t even think twice about it. It’s second nature to you. You have no problems with it. And you won’t retract the comment no matter what I say.
You’re in the wrong, Aor. It’s painfully obvious.
It is quite simple. You get a choice.. speak the truth and say that you wouldn’t expect a university that truly believed in the Maya religion to give an accurate and reliable education on the subject of Maya history and religion, or lie and misdirect in some way so that you can keep believing that your religious education is reliable. I’m sure you agree with the rest of the world that that would be nuts to think that the only way to understand the Maya would be to sacrifice blood from your penis. In all likelihood you will be unable to admit that because to do so would make your own education seem unreliable. This is a trap, absolutely. This trap forces you to either tell the truth or make your hypocrisy clear for the readership to see.
First, you know exactly squadoosh about my educational background, other than the fact that it’s from a religious institution. And furthermore, I don’t care what your opinion is of me or my education. I know where I went to school, and I know how well-respected both of my degrees are as a result of where I attended school. I don’t need the validation of an internet troll to enhance that.
Moreover, it won’t matter how I answer this question: you’ve made your mind up about me based on one simple fact: I am a religious person. That’s all you see. And you’re blinded by your prejudice.
Your question is hardly the clever trap that you think it is, for a variety of reasons. The most obvious of which is that every single person on the face of the planet is biased. I’m biased by my religious, cultural, and ethnic perspective. I’m also biased because I’m a male and not a female. I’m also biased as a result of having been born into a working class family as opposed to being born in a rich family.
In college while studying philosophy, the head of our department did his dissertation on Kierkegaard. Naturally, I learned Kierkegaard better than others, because my professor know Kierkegaard better and was biased toward him.
Bias definitely can be and often is a hindrance to clear thinking, and we are all guilty of it at some point or another. But it’s not an insurmountable hindrance, and frankly, accepting and admitting to oneself that “I am biased” is half the battle. I did that a long time ago.
So, Aor, you and I have found something to agree upon: I am a biased person.
However, we part ways shortly after this point of agreement because you seem to think that such personal, academic, and socio-cultural biases are insurmountable — at least for religious people. Therefore, we are all unreliable, and so are all of our institutions. Frankly, it’s none of your business where I went to school, and I’m not going to disclose that online anyway. More likely than not, you’ll use that to attack me and accuse me of side-stepping the issue. Go for it.
I will not deny for a second that the institutions which I attended were and remain biased by their various perspectives, because ultimately, the institution is made up of people — and all people have their personal biases. That’s just a fact of life. However, unlike you, I do not conclude that they are unreliable as a result. They’ve earned credentials by law, and they meet and surpass educational requirements. They are legitimate educational institutions that happen to also be religious.
For you to claim that every religious educational institution is unreliable based on the sole fact that it is religious in nature — which you have clearly implied with your hypothetical — only further demonstrates your prejudice.
I’m anticipating an accusation that I didn’t answer your hypothetical. I didn’t. Instead, I chose to answer my own education background. Why bother with a hypothetical when you can talk about the real thing? It’s too bad I didn’t read your trap sooner. I could have exposed it as ridiculous earlier and saved us both the time today.
So, long story short… you refuse to respond clearly and honestly to a simple hypothetical which would make you acknowledge that you would feel little respect for any education that had belief in some particular religion as a requirement unless it is your own particular religion and your own particular religious education. Lovely, completely unsurprising. When challenged, you refuse to respond because speaking the truth would make your education seem second rate and you chose to not respond rather than speak the truth. Completely understandable, and completly serving. No honest person would need to avoid such simple questions. Your dishonesty and evasiveness is a clear indication that you prefer to avoid the truth if it conflicts with your religion. Your long winded response is just another shallow attempt to distract and evade when an honest person would simply say “yes, beleving in the Maya religion would not lead to a true understanding of Maya history” because you know that would clearly apply to your own religion and religious education. You are unable to speak the truth when it conflicts with your religion, and you have shown that to all the readers repeatedly. This is a good thing. Your presence here and your behavior plays a key role in deconverting others.
Sorry, DM, but you’ve missed something increidibly important in Aor’s response to me.
You said,
@Aor didn’t call “…it shifting the blame”.
Right after you quoted this, which Aor said to me:
“There we have it. The ideology of justifiable homicide is, in your mind, as much to be blamed for the murder of an abortion doctor as generations of hate speach and enducements to violence. This is why I called you out. That is typical shifting of blame. That kind of thinking is why you are part of the problem. You attempt to obscure how absurdly dangerous the anti-abortion movement is, shifting the blame to another, and again it is hard to see how you can’t know that even as you type those words.”
Based on your comment, I’m assuming you’re siding with Aor — that I’m self-serving and dishonest. And you’re basing that on a misunderstanding… Aor did say that I was “shifting the blame,” and it’s right there in the comments you quoted.
Aor said that I am “shifting the blame” in those exact words, and because I was shifting the blame from a “religious” to “civil” ideology, I am part of the problem.
I responded by saying that there’s undeniably some religious worldview at play here — the murder self-identifies as Christian — but he has also justified his actions by appealing to the concept of “justifiable homicide,” which is a civil, legal concept, not a religious one. If me pointing that out and wanting to call both ideologies out as insufficient is “shifting the blame,” then fine. I would call it being balanced and reasonable — looking at the evidence, analyzing it, and arriving at a conclusion that’s supported by the evidence.
If you would have said “From what I gather, this murderer believed this was a “justifiable homicide.”, nobody would mave misunderstood you.
Yes, that’s true. Had I written a couple more words, Aor would have understood what I was saying better. I don’t think that would have mattered, frankly, because I think he’s made up his mind about who and what I am without respect to what I say or do not say.
But, in the context of the conversation I was having with others and given my follow-up comments later, it is very clear exactly what I meant. You were able to recontruct it quite easily, when you typed what I just quoted of you — weren’t you? It’s not hard to figure out what I mean; it’s quite clear.
Yet, Aor still claims that I’m complicit in this man’s murder as “part of the problem” and “a supporter of his actions (i.e., murder) with my words.” That’s ridiculous. I’m not complicit in this murder. I don’t even share the murder’s views on abortion, for goodness’ sake.
So, even though I have been clear, his accusation against me is still there — I’m complicit in this murder — even though his accusation is based on a misunderstanding of my comments, one that I’ve gone to great lengths to correct. He accused me of being an enabler of murder — something I’ve taken personally and quite seriously, and I’ve asked for an apology, which he has not given.
DM, I’m willing to be wrong. If I am, I’m willing to be shown. But I really don’t think I’m wrong on this point — I’m not an enabler of murder, and I’m not going to back down on that point.
That is quite shocking by what you say about “this murder was a “justifiable homicide.” it seems, not that this is what you are actually are trying to say by your clarification now.
Why do you want to assume?
“If, in fact, the article to which Joe B linked is meritorious, then “justifiable homicide” ideology is as much to be blamed as anything, right?
There we have it. The ideology of justifiable homicide is, in your mind, as much to be blamed for the murder of an abortion doctor as generations of hate speach and enducements to violence. ”
See the misunderstanding?
I think I don’t have to explain the blaming part if you can see the misunderstanding. I can’t speak for @Aor but, for me, I don’t see you as a murderer and I don’t think you want to spent the rest of your time here justifying yourself because of this issue that started by your wrong choice of words.
The hate speech part by pro-life should be addressed by all.
“If, in fact, the article to which Joe B linked is meritorious, then “justifiable homicide” ideology is as much to be blamed as anything, right?
There we have it. The ideology of justifiable homicide is, in your mind, as much to be blamed for the murder of an abortion doctor as generations of hate speach and enducements to violence. ”
In these quotes, Aor and I are saying the same thing. In my view, the concept of “justifiable homicide” is just as much to blame as the murderer’s twisted religious ideology. They are part and parcel with each other, two peas in a pod.
Aor is interpreting that to mean that I am “shifting the blame” from where it should be — the religious ideology, which he calls generations of hate speech, et al — to a civil and legal concept. Consequently, I’m “willfully ignoring” the evidence and being “self-serving.”
Thank you for saying that you don’t see me as a murderer or as complicit in the murder. But, you’re right; you can’t speak for Aor.
In two separate comments he’s indicated as much. He had a chance to retract, but he didn’t. Instead, he blamed me for being a bad communicator. Could I have been more clear? Sure. I’ll try to be next time. But, it’s painfully obvious what I meant now, and I do think it was reasonably clear what I meant at the time — so the question remains, what right does Aor have to implicate me as an enabler of murder?
@brgulker
You are an enabler of murder, you just don’t understand how and why. You take the concept of justifiable homicide and use it to excuse (partially or completely) a murder. You want a law that protects people who kill in self defense to be EQUALLY at fault for this killing. Somehow you fail to see that this would mean that the ideology of justifiable homicide would be equally at fault for terrorists blowing up buildings. You would provide an excuse for these horrible actions, absolving those murderers at least partially of the blame for their murders. Can you see now how utterly ridiculous that position is?
So just what is it you expect me to retract? Your words lead to my conclusion, so if you want something retracted you should start with your own words. I can’t imagine that you have really thought deeply about what you are saying, because the flaws are obvious and clear.
Aor:
I reject ‘justifiable homicide.’ I don’t agree with it. I think it’s rubbish.
The only reason I mentioned it at all was because the killer is using it as his defense. If you read my conversation with DM, you will see that. I have made it painstakingly clear… over and over and over…
Justifiable homicide is a flawed concept that should be rejected, and it will be rejected in the court of law. But that’s the defense the murderer has given for his actions.
My only point has been this: There are (at least) two factors at play in the mind of the killer.
1) The Dr. is a murderer — based on the killer’s belief that a fetus is a child and an abortion is a murder. That view is almost certainly informed by a religious worldview.
2) There are some cases in which the law does not allow justice to be administered to the guilty, in which case it is appropriate for someone to take lethal action to administer justice (justifiable homicide).
Most of the comments in this thread, including yours, have focused exclusively on #1 and have thus placed the blame on the religious worldview. It is self-evident to you and others that he’s a killer because of his religious objection to abortion.
My argument is that you are only partly right.
There is an equally important concept at work here, that of “justifiable homicide,” which enabled him to justify taking the law into his own hands.
I do not agree with him. I do not accept justifiable homicide. I made that clear to you repeatedly. You have ignored that. And you have named me as being “part of the problem” (the violence and hate speech of anti-abortionists, such as this murder) and as having “supported the murder with my words.”
You have made serious accusations against me without carefully reading what I had to say. No matter how you look at the situation, you are in the wrong. You read one comment of mine out of context and immediately jumped to the worst possible conclusion about me — that I would support Dr. Tiller’s murder.
I attempted to explain myself, and you ignored me — and then accused me of arguing in a self-serving, dishonest, disingenuous faction. You claim that I “willfully ignore” the facts, and all the while, you ignore my posts that are in direct response to you lumping me in with the likes of a murderer and his supporters.
You labeled me as a supporter of murder… How dare you? Who in the hell do you think you are?
And this entire chain of events stems from you taking one statement of mine out of context and refusing to accept and ignoring my explanations of it.
You should be ashamed of yourself. You should admit your arrogance and hypocrisy. And you should apologize.
You are an enabler of murder, you just don’t understand how and why. You take the concept of justifiable homicide and use it to excuse (partially or completely) a murder. You want a law that protects people who kill in self defense to be EQUALLY at fault for this killing.
No one who can read and speak English and is capable of meager critical reasoning could read the past several of my comments and come to your conclusions.
So either,
1) You didn’t read all my posts, and you are capable of critical thinking.
Or,
2) You read all my posts, and are not capable of critical thinking.
I will assume the former, which only affirms my suspicions about you: you have made your mind up about me based on prejudice and stereotypes. If I’m right, it doesn’t matter what I say or don’t say, you will find a way to spew insults and slander my way. And I will know for certain once you have responded.
If you’re willing to admit that you’ve completely misunderstood me and my position, I will be happy to be proven wrong.
If not, well, so be it.
Now I see you are.
Now I see you are.
Now you see I am what?
A true real life christian!
@brgulker
You don’t actually reject justifiable homicide. You are just pretending, again. More self serving behavior. You lie about your opinion of justifiable homicide in order to make your position seem more coherent. Its not. Just stop lying and then you will make much more sense.
If you saw a person in the act of committing rape or murder or torturing a small child, and the only choice you had was either to run away or attempt to kill that man, you wouldn’t reject justifiable homicide at all. I doubt you will reject a homeowner having the right to defend his property from violent thugs with a gun, so that would be supporting justifiable homicide. If you were on a hijacked airplane moments away from crashing into a building full of people, would you reject justifiable homicide and not make an attempt to kill the hijackers? Stop pretending that you reject justifiable homicide.
Or are you speaking unclearly, again? Are you only saying that you reject the justifiable homicide defense in this case and not in general? At least that would make sense. Again it seems like you are just lying in a self serving manner.
Here are your words again:
“is as much to be blamed” – equally to blame
There it is, brgulker. You said that justifiable homicide is as much to be blamed as anything. If you spoke unclearly, again, then clarify rather than defending those contradictory positions. If you think you haven’t been proven wrong, it is only because you don’t seem to even understand your own position.
There it is again. You try to shift the blame from the hate speach and those who urge others to kill, and put it on a legal concept. This absolves the murderer and those who encouraged him and led him to those actions, and puts it on an legal concept. Of course it is self evident that he killed because of his religious objection to abortion! You even admit that his actions were ‘informed’ by his religious beliefs. You absolutely cannot deny that this is an attempt to shift the blame. You even used the word ‘blame,’ and then attempt to shift it!
Maybe you are too blind to see the effect of that behavior. Maybe you don’t understand your own words. Or, maybe you got caught taking a position that you later realized makes no sense and rather than change your position you went back again and again and again trying to defend the indefensible.
PS. I linked to the post about that hypothetical. You haven’t responded yet. Are you going to, ever?
PS. I linked to the post about that hypothetical. You haven’t responded yet. Are you going to, ever?
Yes, I did. Directly below.
Just more proof that you don’t read my comments, which is why you continue to misunderstand my position.
I don’t have any desire to have a conversation with a person who doesn’t read what I say before responding with accusations.
Ironically, after reading this, I realized that we actually agree quite a bit about this topic, although I suspect you won’t admit that … or won’t take the time to read my posts and see it for yourself.
But, either way, I’m not going to waste my time typing to someone who willfully ignores what I have to say.
Your response was another attempt to evade. How hard are yes and no questions for you that you must spew paragraph after paragraph in an attempt to present the illusion of an answer?
Yes or no: Believing in the Maya religion and attending a university that required belief in the Maya religion would be an unreliable way of learning about Maya history and Maya religion. Very simple, very clear, and a yes or no question. Your running around and avoiding is perfectly clear. Show some guts. Show some intellectual honesty. Give a yes or no response.
Have you stopped raping people at interstate rest stops, Aor? It’s a yes or no question, please don’t attempt to evade it with anything less than a simple yes or no.
I am surprised that Gulker is even still bothering to engage your inane, badgering line of accusatory interrogation. He is under no obligation to.
If the question was “Is Aor an asshole?”, I would have to show some ‘courage’ and ‘intellectual honesty’ and say “yes”.
@phrankygee
I’m not sure quite what your point is, but the begging-the-question tactic won’t get you anywhere. It just makes you appear to have something to hide. If you want to offer up a response to the hypothetical, please do. If you all you have is bullshit that will be fine too. The more people obviously lie and evade instead of make simple and honest responses the more they assist in deconverting those who see those lies and know them for what they are. Not a single person I have ever met would respond “yes” to the hypothetical I asked, instead they go off and respond to some entirely different question like “aren’t secular educations flawed also” or some such thing. Not a single one of these believers has had the intellectual honesty to admit that believing in blood sacrifice from your genitalia would be a ridiculous way of learning about Maya history. If you have the guts to say something that ridiculous then please do so. If you lack the guts, why did you speak up about it at all?
Or are you just another believer who thinks others can’t tell when they are lying?
@Aor,
I actually laughed when I read this:
Your response was another attempt to evade. How hard are yes and no questions for you that you must spew paragraph after paragraph in an attempt to present the illusion of an answer?
Yes or no: Believing in the Maya religion and attending a university that required belief in the Maya religion would be an unreliable way of learning about Maya history and Maya religion. Very simple, very clear, and a yes or no question. Your running around and avoiding is perfectly clear. Show some guts. Show some intellectual honesty. Give a yes or no response.
If I had simply answered, “No,” you would have attacked me for being naive, intellectually dishonest, etc., etc. I can hear it now. “What a coward. You hide behind the obvious facts that I presented. Another attempt at being self-serving and disingenuous…” And on and on and on.
So instead, I answered, “No,” and I explained my answer. And you say the exact same rubbish as you would have said had I declined to explain my answer.
Aor, I’m done with you. Bring on the insults and hate-filled, prejudice-filled slander. I welcome it, because it only exposes you to be exactly what Phranky said you are.
But, for the sake of others who might read this conversation, I want to make sure my position is clear. Please ignore this, Aor, because I am not going to respond to you (unless you retract and apologize for your slanderous accusations about me being complicit in murder).
Everyone is biased. I am biased. Phrankygee is biased. Daniel is biased. We all are in some way or another biased, by our geographical region, our socio-economic class, our race, our gender, etc.
I am a white, working-class male, who was born in a Christian home in the Midwest (USA). I am biased by all of those factors, and that barely scratches the surface.
Aor’s question was simple one, as was my answer. Does an institution’s bias automatically make the institution unreliable? No.
A institution that is religious will present the history of its own religion that will include its own bias. An institution that is secular will present the history of that same religion with its own bias.
The bias, in and of itself, does not make the education unreliable. If bias is the sole criterion, and if bias necessitates unreliability de facto, then everyone, everywhere, past, present, and future is unreliable. That is an absurd conclusion, but it is the inescapable conclusion of the logic of Aor’s question, a question he is quick to put to me but very slow to put to himself, ironically.
Of course, a Christian institution like the two I have attended will present their own history and the history of their particular stream of Christianity and the history of Christianity in a certain way, because institutions are comprised of people, and all people have biases. A secular institution across the street might and probably will present that very same history differently, because of its bias, which happens to be a bias in a different direction.
However, I have argued that neither one is unreliable by de facto simply because they are biased one way or the other. That’s ridiculous, and that ridiculous is self-evident to anyone who thinks about and admits their own bias. Further, I would say that only the most extreme, arrogant, fringe perspectives on either side of the aisle would insist that bias automatically results in unreliability, and that’s probably because they’ve failed to admit their own.
You didn’t answer the question, brgulker. Perhaps you think you did, but I read your comment and all I see is answers to a completely different question, something along the lines of ‘are people biased.’ I never asked that question, as I’m sure you are aware. You went on for paragraph after paragraph when all you had to do was take a simple yes or no position. If you said ‘no’ was your answer, highlight exactly where in exactly which comment. All I see is evasions and misdirections, yet again.
You lack the guts to come out and admit that believing in sacrificing blood from your penis cannot be a prerequisite for proper understanding of the Maya. Plain and simple, you lack the guts to say openly what everyone reading this can be absolutely certain you truly believe. Nobody would believe otherwise, and yet you avoid saying it in so many words. I can’t see many reasons for you to avoid something to easy, unless this ‘trap’ is actually quite difficult for you to deal with. You say it wasn’t hard, and yet.. it forced you to lie publicly in order to not admit your religious education is an inherently flawed way of learning about the history of your religion. Was that another self serving lie? I think so, its hard to find any other reasonable interpretation.
It serves your purposes to pretend that hypothetical isn’t a difficulty, and yet you have gone on paragraph after paragraph in several comments in repeated efforts to avoid giving that clear answer that everyone knows you truly believe. It serves your purposes to withdraw from the conversation when you know you have failed to answer and shown that you can and will lie in order to support your religious beliefs.
So, by your words and by your actions, you are someone who will lie to support your beliefs. You will lie to avoid admitting hypocrisy. Nobody believes that belief in the Maya religion would be an asset in the search for the truth, even you know it, but when push comes to shove you make obvious lies rather than admit it.
Your lies help to deconvert others like you.
If someone other than a Christian commits this, I’ll happily eat my words.
But I think ONLY a religious fundamentalist would kill someone for performing abortions — because yes, almost all anti-abortionists are religious, but also because if someone to be extreme enough to kill someone over this, they must be fanatics, which means they will invariably be attracted to religion.
I with I had the time to debate profiling/stereotypes, but I think they can be good as well as bad. When I lived in the hood, I’m sure my stereotyping saved my life numerous times, even though I’m sure other times I thought I was in danger when I was not.
But I think ONLY a religious fundamentalist…
Then why not use that language in your opening post? Why lump a person like me in with a person like him?
I realize that you’re trying to be brief, succinct and all, but I hope you see how that could be unnecessarily offensive to a person like me…
Tough. If you choose to participate in public discourse about your beliefs you will have to become accustomed to being offended. Nobody has the right to never be offended by the words of others. That would be fucking ridiculous.
Because you’re both Christians. He didn’t say all Christians are probably murderers, he said this murderer is probably a Christian.
“But I think ONLY a religious fundamentalist would kill someone for performing abortions”
Probably true, and I accept that the likely motive was always pretty clear – but wasn’t it just as possible that the good doctor had been dabbling with the wife of another and been murdered for that? It’s a fairly common motive for murder, after all. I know that’s not why he was killed, but we didn’t really know that from the outset.
“Just as possible” is not the same thing as “a possibility.”
Daniel,
You are way off base on that comment. I experienced many (dozens) of radical lunatics outside of abortion clinics that did not have any connection to the church, or Christian faith.
Example: I witnessed a man named wayne, who repeatedly threatened abortionists for their life and made radical statements about killing homo’s. This man was far from a man of faith. He was mentally deranged. This was common amongst the protests that have occurred over the last decade. The only thing that these lunatics and faith based organizations that are pro-life is that all life is sacred. None of these crazies in my experience are motivated by Christs love for human life.
“have in common” I meant to say…
Dwade…do you know the origins of that hamburger analogy? Who first said that now famous saying?
John C,
Keith Green, my first pastor
Keith Green was your first “pastor”?
Yes, his music was all I had after I first accepted Christ, I consider him my first pastor…
Dwade…I knew the answer when I first asked the question about who’s quote it was…and yes I understand why you would refer to him in such a manner. He also made a big impact on me in my own “early years” now going on a quarter century ago. “make my life a prayer to you” is still one of my all time fav’s, blessings.
my favorite is the Prodigal suite, my band used to play this and it was quite a challenge to pull off…Keith’s songs still live on!!
John C, good connection, now I see why we both like to hang out on unbelievers sites…
bless you! remember, he’ll take care of the rest
Maybe not, but I bet if you asked them, they’d consider themselves religious.
I could be wrong. Send me links if you find anything crazy like that, I’m happy to make fun of them, too.
links?
Dwade’s stories don’t have links?
but as you know personally, being religious doesnt make you a Christ follower any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.
heres a link for Joe and Eor,
http://mcdonalds.com/
That analogy would properly be:
Being religious doesn’t make you Jesus Christ any more than going to McDonalds makes you a hamburger.
Or:
Being religious doesn’t make you a Christ follower any more than going to McDonalds makes you a fast-food customer.
Was this Wayne the owner of the flying monster truck you refuse to admit never actually happened?
You are a liar dwade. Maybe you should come clean.
Well, I think there is a distinct difference in the religious/racial profiling arguments. The MOTIVE for the crime is built in to the assumption of a Christian attacker.
If a Liquor Store is burned down, in many cities it is reasonable to assume that Farrakhan-style Black Muslims did it, because they oppose liquor stores in black neighborhoods, and have a history of burning them down. If a Black church gets burned down, it is reasonable to assume that that it was a White Racist. If a nut (or a “kook”) opens fire in the middle of a GOP rally, it is a safe bet that he/she was a Democrat. If a black man is found hanging by a noose from a tree, I would bet you a HUGE sum that the perpetrator(s) were white.
So, while I agree with your general calls for civility, I don’t think Daniel’s comment was a “cheap” one. I will surely have your back when he does take a cheap shot, which happens from time to time.
Is begging the question a cheap shot, phrankygee?
Lutheran (like the church he shot Tiller in) according to his uncle.
http://blogs.kansascity.com/crime_scene/2009/05/who-is-scott-roeder.html
I’m actually rather suprised by this. I was raised Lutheran and I can say, at least from my experiences, that they’re just lazy Catholics.
Not really true, Slurms. There are several different Lutheran denominations. I was raised in the ELCA before I deconverted, which is typically much more liberal than say, the Missouri Synod. The attitudes vary among Lutherans by denomination and individual congregation — there are many literalists and many who are quite liberal in their view of the Bible, some who are creationists and some who acknowledge evolution, some are politically conservative and some are politically liberal. Pretty fascinating, actually, to observe the diversity of differing attitudes.
*I* bet that the killer was a jesus worshipper!
I am relieved and grateful for police with some ethics to keep the christians from running completely amok.
Indeed it was!
Thank FSM for a legal system with enough ethics to keep nasty whacko christians in line, or at least to bring them to trial.
In today’s movie, brgulker will be playing the part of the Victim.
“But seriously, Daniel, was that cheap shot called for?”
Quick! Name 3 other likely belief systems the accused gunman could belong to!
I didn’t think so.
So the killer kan never go to heaven again ever?
I saw this on TV news today, and was once again relieved and grateful that we have police and a legal system with some ethics, to keep christians from running entirely amok murdering as they wish.
…and a surprising number of christians will tell you Jesus IS what keeps them from running amok murdering, raping and stealing.
Daniel or anybody- I wasn’t raised on the bible so I’d like to know if the bible really does say, anywhere, that killing unborn babies is murder. And how is that phrased? I’m well aware that people love to shake it like a magic 8 ball & skim off just the bits they want. I’m asking because up until the late 1800′s, a woman could use herbs or such to induce an abortion up until “quickening” which in the parlance of the time meant when you could feel the baby move. That’s around 4-5 months. So clearly it was not thought of as problem until, say, 5 months along. Now all those cool science movies show sperm bursting into egg & our ability to pinpoint the start of a pregnancy is enhanced. But you see, the pro-lifers can only say life begins at conception due to science. 150 years ago, they might have had a much later cutoff.
susan,
Nowhere does the bible say that ‘abortion’ is wrong, so there’s no way for me to point you to how it’s phrased specifically.
In fact, there are passages in the OT in which deities endorse the murder of women and their fetuses. And there is at least one passage that talks about the fetus as ‘property,’ but I can’t locate it at the moment.
On the flip side, there are more humanizing passages, such as a famous poetic passage that speaks about God knowing the child while the child was still in the womb of the mother.
Anyway, my point is that the bible doesn’t condemn abortion in those simple terms, so a ‘biblical’ argument against abortion is difficult to find.
My personal moral opposition to abortion is actually based on my understanding of the science in concert with my religious views on the inherent value of the human person. But, that’s not a ‘biblical’ argument, per se.
“My personal moral opposition to abortion is actually based on my understanding of the science in concert with my religious views on the inherent value of the human person. But, that’s not a ‘biblical’ argument, per se.”
Do you think your moral opposition should to extend to the states or govermental law? Is it blibical?
At the risk of beating an already dead horse:
In short, no, I’m not advocating for my moral opposition to be turned into law. In the last abortion discussion, I said that over and over. I agree with Obama with respect to policy. We should do everything in our power to minimize abortion (sex ed,. affordable adoption services, etc.).
The reason I don’t think we can outlaw abortion is because we have very legitimate disagreements about what constitutes a human person. When does the fetus have rights, and what are they? People can come up with different answers in good conscience with the same evidence. If we’re honest about the complexity, it becomes very difficult to imagine legislation that takes that complexity seriously, I think.
I said before, I don’t know if a fetus is a person with all the human rights afforded. But, from my reading of the science, the fetus might be, and I’d rather err on the side of caution. If the fetus could be a human life, then I think it’s best to take extreme care.
Is it biblical?
Is what biblical? Making laws out of morality? Or my moral opposition to abortion?
“In short, no, I’m not advocating for my moral opposition to be turned into law.”
Sadly, you are a lone voice.
“Is what biblical? Making laws out of morality? Or my moral opposition to abortion?”
What does your bible say?
From directly above, a quotation from yours truly:
susan,
Nowhere does the bible say that ‘abortion’ is wrong, so there’s no way for me to point you to how it’s phrased specifically.
In fact, there are passages in the OT in which deities endorse the murder of women and their fetuses. And there is at least one passage that talks about the fetus as ‘property,’ but I can’t locate it at the moment.
On the flip side, there are more humanizing passages, such as a famous poetic passage that speaks about God knowing the child while the child was still in the womb of the mother.
Anyway, my point is that the bible doesn’t condemn abortion in those simple terms, so a ‘biblical’ argument against abortion is difficult to find.
My personal moral opposition to abortion is actually based on my understanding of the science in concert with my religious views on the inherent value of the human person. But, that’s not a ‘biblical’ argument, per se.
“But, that’s not a ‘biblical’ argument, per se.”
That is the problem with christianity.
What’s the problem?
Christians who argue for their “god” with unblibical arguments.
Christians who argue for their “god” with unblibical arguments.
What’s wrong with that?
I wish more christians would do that.
I am thoroughly confused.
You aught to be.
Well then pat yourself on the back, because you have succeeded.
Although your sublteties aren’t lost on me.
One further point: I’m not nor have I ever argued for God here. So I’m not even sure how the statement applies to me.
By “unbiblical”, I think DM didn’t mean arguments based on things besides the Bible, but arguments that contradict the Bible. “Counterbiblical”, or something. Still confusing.
So damned if I do, damned if I don’t, right?
Damned: If I think the bible is God’s word and therefore unquestionable.
Damned: If I think the bible is a human document and therefore fallible and worth questioning.
That about sums it up, at least according to what you just posted.
There are some piss-poor debaters on both sides, BR, old son. By DM’s logic, my argument would be more valid than yours simply because I’m an atheist – despite our arguments being the same.
I’ve moved up to “old son” status, eh? I’m honored. :P
Aye. It’s one above “My good man”, and a short step below “chum”.
Sorry to put words in your mouth, but I’m guessing that you were talking about this psalm right?
“For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, And my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, The days that were ordained for me, When as yet there was not one of them. (Psalm 139:13-16)”
The funny part about that, of course, is that the psalms are not the word of god, they’re a bunch of songs written by (supposedly) David, thus there really isn’t any indication that the view expressed by the psalm is actually god’s view, as opposed to David just waxing poetic.
Funnier still is that if one takes the view that it is appropriate to remove verses from context you can come up with great gems like this;
“Why dost Thou stand afar off, O Lord? Why dost Thou hide Thyself in times of trouble?” (Psalm 10:1)
and even better
“If a man fathers a hundred children and lives many years, however many they be, but his soul is not satisfied with good things, and he does not even have a proper burial, then I say, `Better the miscarriage than he, for it comes in futility and goes into obscurity; and its name is covered in obscurity. It never sees the sun and it never knows anything; it is better off than he.’” (Ecclesiastes 6:3-5)
So once again, the bible comes down firmly on both sides on this issue. Which is (of course) only part of the reason that it’s ridiculous to make policy based on scripture.
GBM, that’s kinda what I was saying, although with some differences.
First, you’re right about Psalms insofar as YHWH isn’t the speaker; it’s a Psalmist. So yeah, it’s not the word of God in that way. Of course, literalists sidestep that by saying the whole thing is inspired…
Second, I wouldn’t say that Ecclesiastes supports abortion. I posted all of the why’s in Daniel’s previous post about Ecclesiastes. The book is a lament; the author speaks in hyperbole; and, each phrase should be set in the context of the broader thematic elements of the piece of literature.
Finally, and most importantly, as someone else noted, “abortion” as we think of it is wildly different than the people who wrote Christian Scripture, because we have been informed by the discoveries of science. The point being that we can’t expect the ancient stories of the Hebrews to speak to a topic that didn’t yet exist.
So, to say that the bible is for or against abortion is really a non-starter, in my view. We Christians will invariably look to it for council, but we won’t find a simple “for” or “against” in its pages.
I love how science becomes valid whenever it’s convenient. Don’t you?
@brgulker
Yeah I’ve heard that response, which is why I included the psalm about God being absent, since that one tends, in my experience, to surprise them a bit. Granted it ends with the expectation that eventually someday God will intervene, but still…
Ultimately I suppose that I agree with you on Ecclesiastes, but my point was more that when you remove verses from their context, you can get all kinds of absurdities (I know I didn’t express that particularly well, sorry.) I agree that Ecclesiastes is best understood as something like existentialist literature, but I equally think that the psalms are best understood as songs about god, rather than somehow authoritative (are we really supposed to believe that god wants us to dash Babylonian babies against stones, for instance?)
Of course as an atheist I don’t view the bible as particularly authoritative, but it has always seemed deeply bizarre to me that there appear to be a large number of christians who do view the bible as authoritative, but don’t appear to acknowledge clear internal distinctions about which parts purport to be from god and which parts merely purport to be about god. (At least the distinctions generally seem pretty clear to me.)
Anyway it seems like we are basically in agreement about the bible’s position on the matter, so I’ll shut up, since agreement is boring, lol.
Anyway it seems like we are basically in agreement about the bible’s position on the matter, so I’ll shut up, since agreement is boring, lol.
QOTD :)
I love how science becomes valid whenever it’s convenient. Don’t you?
I can’t figure out of this is a rhetorical statement or not, or if it’s directed at me or not…
But, incase it is, I don’t object to accepting science, FWIW.
It wasn’t directed at you. I haven’t had the time to read the whole thread, but I see you’ve been cornered on a thing or two. I just needed to express my thoughts on that – Christians who don’t believe science or are suspicious of a lot of it, and then turn towards it when it fits their agenda. Whether or not you fit in that slot is not what I’m accusing you of in particular.
But a few lines after that lovely “For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb.” is
“19 O God, if only you would destroy the wicked! Get out of my life, you murderers!
20 They blaspheme you; your enemies take your name in vain.
21 O LORD, shouldn’t I hate those who hate you? Shouldn’t I despise those who resist you?
22 Yes, I hate them with complete hatred, for your enemies are my enemies.”
How poetic!
cypress,
justice and mercy, they can both co-exist with God
Are you thinking of Exodus 21:22, where the fine for striking a woman and causing a miscarriage but no other serious injury is determined by the husband of the woman injured?
The Bible talks about life being a precious gift, that God created us in our mothers womb, that He knew us before he created us in the womb, that life is sacred, that children are a treasure from God, just to name a few references…
cites please
Don’t call bible verses cites. He might get the idea they are valid for anything beyond arguing his belief system is internally consistent.
Right. Sorry. Verses please, dwade.
Sons are a heritage from the LORD, children a reward from him.
Psalm 127:2-4
From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother’s womb you have been my God. Psalm 22:9-11
For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
Psalm 139:12-14
As you do not know the path of the wind, or how the body is formed in a mother’s womb, so you cannot understand the work of God, the Maker of all things. Ecclesiastes 11:4-6
This is what the LORD says— he who made you, who formed you in the womb, and who will help you: Do not be afraid, O Jacob, my servant, Jeshurun, whom I have chosen. Isaiah 44:1-3
“This is what the LORD says— your Redeemer, who formed you in the womb: I am the LORD, who has made all things, who alone stretched out the heavens, who spread out the earth by myself, Isaiah 44:23-25
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Jeremiah 1:4-6
dwade I find these verses weak and not really supporting the anti- abortion position. Most of the christians I know say that their god knew me even before I was conceived. I could just as easily say that all abortions are right using these verses. If a woman becomes pregnant and your god doesn’t know him then he is aborted, since he isn’t a part of the plan or will. If your satan caused a pregnancy wouldn’t god have the fetus aborted? All your verses do is say that those not aborted are a known product of your gods plan. Think about things instead of just blindly following those that tell you want is right or wrong.
Baconbud,
God’s Word is only words on a page without the Holy Spirit. These versus will be weak without His Spirit to guide you.
The God of all creation, knows His own creations…
That’s weak and you know it. You only say what you do because you know I am right. None of the verses you used provide anything to really support your view from your beliefs.
You are another one of those that says he knows the mind of his god but will also say no one can know the mind of your god. How do you know from these verses that your god is anti-abortion? I have been told by many christians that their god already knew I would do what I have done before he even created the universe. If you believe that then you are saying that abortions aren’t a part of your gods plan. If they aren’t a part of it then who is making them happen against your gods plan.
Why would a being that is prefect need people worshiping him?
Dwade 69:5-9
And lo, the monster truck did fly over the abortion protestors, and land on the other side. None of the local newsmedia did reporteth upon this event. Not a single blog did deign to writeth about it, nor did a single abortionist mention seeing the flying monster truck. When the Prophet Dwade did mention it, and was challenged to provide a source, he did run away to avoid admitting he could not find one.
I like the one about children being arrows in the quiver.
That’s an analogy that gets lost in translation, and I chuckle when I hear it.
I am not ready to call this religious terrorism unless there are further evidences. I would guard my reasonings from extremism in this particular case.
I posted this earlier on my home town paper’s website:
Dr. Tiller has been shot before (by a christian activist, Shelly Shannon) and threatened and harassed by religious groups for years. Scott Roeder, the person apprehended for Sunday’s murder, was a member of The Montana Freemen, a Christian Patriot group. (and has allegedly posted on Operation Freedom’s page).
Doctors who perform safe, approved forms of abortion stop the suffering that the women know will befall those that must be born to their life. Doctor killers are just killers with malicious intent. Dr Tiller saved lives and the potential futures of those who already exist and know suffering. The unborn can’t know of this suffering ,yet there are still people out there that demand it, because their god comands it?
I will be very surprised if this person isn’t a christian or has religious affiliations that he will try to use as some sort of defence.
As a recovering christaholic and ex subsurviant I have found that many faithful christians have no empathy whatsoever for the plight of woman faced with the decision of abortion. I have seen pastors and there wives convince women that abortion would lead to a life full of horror and regret
Many of those women ( and alot of young girls) have been forced into a life they knew they weren’t prepared for through intence guilt tactics. ( yes this is in America ) They are disillusioned and angry, and guess what, their children get a eat huge piece of that pie. The good pastor and his wife are no longer ” in for the assist” Their work is done, they saved a life, their ego substantially fed , then they check out when the humanity begins and move on to the next soul to be saved.
Dr Tillers death may be rejoiced by those with hate in thier heart, but he is more likely rejoiced by the many lives he changed by those who sought out his ethical and compasionate service.
“Those who know Roeder told The Kansas City Star that he believed killing abortion doctors was an act of justifiable homicide.”
Justifiable?
No its just another case of a scumbag theist not believing in their own rhetoric.
Proved by his own actions. The miserable coward was found 3 hours later 150 miles from the scene. Even he didn’t think his actions were justifiable.
Wasn’t a similar situation was part of a Law & Order episode? I seem to recall a priest or something getting his ass handed to him by Jack McCoy.
Check these links out:-
http://www.armyofgod.com/PHill_ShortShot.html
http://www.armyofgod.com/ShelleyJoinAOG.html
The Tiller Murder Wasn’t a Lone Killer’s Sick Plot; It Came Out of the Radical Anti-Abortion Movement:-
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/05/31/abortion-doctor-shot-to-death-in-church/#comments
You just posted a link to this thread…
???
Why, true real life christian?
First, why are you calling me that?
Second, what? It just seems odd that you would make a claim in this thread, then link to what one would think is support for the claim, and just end up right back in the comments to this thread.
Of course, I could have avoided that had I paid closer attention to the text of the link; I just clicked. (and that can get you into trouble, you know)
Continue, it’s interesting, true real life christian.
Okay, true real life atheist.
No! help me banana, I know you answer my prayers. Pls forgive brgulker, for he does not know what he is saying.
Into Your Hand, I commit his banana.
This is getting annoying, DM, and is bordering on being disrespectful.
I’ll check with the banana first about your opinion, true real life christian.
OMFSM, bless his meatballs.
DM, respectfully, stop calling me that please.
I don’t know if Banana will get angry with me, He has not reply me, yet.
Respectfully,
DarkMatter.
FWIW, a website I follow, http://www.change.org, is asking for signatures that will support a letter to be sent to Dr. Tiller’s family and also as a petition to stop this kind of violence:
http://www.change.org/actions/view/condemn_the_killing_of_dr_george_tiller
Even more outrageous is that the major media took the opportunity to incite that this was a pro-life radical (and attempting to pin this on the Christian community) and neglected to cover the story on the muslim lunatic that shot and killed an army recruiter:
http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/2/7/gunman_shoots_2_at_arkansas_military_recruitment_center/
I guess that would have conflicted with Obamas speech to the muslim community in Cairo…hmmm.
I can tell you that every event that Operation Rescue has staged over the last 20 years brings the crazies out. These folks do not represent OR and are not condoned by peaceful prayerful protests against killing children at abortion clinics.
FYI:
Mr Tiller was 1 of 5 abortionists (all involved in late term abortions) shot and killed by lunatics since the legalization of abortion in the US.
No, OR didn’t condone violence against Tiller at all. They just ran a link/image of Tiller behind a background of flames with the text “America’s Doctor of Death” on the side of their webpage, including on the story about his murder.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_6vydZpzxYgU/SiLIOrmJm7I/AAAAAAAAAGc/n-LzGDM9dLg/s1600-h/words+consequences.JPG
The Tiller story got more press because he’s been in the news (and had an attempt on his life made) before.
I am sure that Tiller has loved the attention that he’s received for the last 20 years, it has lended to more late term abortions and more cash in his pocket.
OR doesn’t condone justifiable homicide. Nor do I.
So literally demonizing a person in your communications isn’t inciting violence at all?
As I stated before, the link you posted doesnt prove anything. It only appears to be an OR site link, it wasnt an actual link to their site.
I guess making up links is better than no links at all?
Why not what they have up right now?
It’s a piece of evidence for my claims. You don’t have to believe them, but it’s a big clear step up from your unsupported anecdotes.
You say they don’t condone violence, with no support.
I say they do their best to incite, without outright (illegally) saying it and give a screenshot of their website.
JoeB,
its great chatting with you about these things, but I have to abstain from sharing too much information with you.
Sorry to let you down. I’ll just say that I know people from OR and they are not a violent people. Even the most radical Catholic groups that I am aware of “The lambs” for instance are very peaceful in their approach.
If you can’t back a statement up for whatever reason, don’t make it.
JOeB,
respectfully….its a free country (at least this week), I can share whatever I wish, however I wish.
Ok, don’t get upset when no one is convinced and people call you dishonest.
@dwade
Didn’t you make up an entire flying monster truck story? Just who are you to require evidence from others and yet refuse to provide any yourself?
I envy him. I would just LOVE to have my family terrorized.
Mr Tiller was a soldier in a war on values. He chose to enter that war, he knew the cost. He continued to practice abortion despite the threats. I would say he had many opportunities to reconsider his involvement. He put his own family at risk by practicing this grueling technique of terminating late term children.
Dwade was a soldier in a war on values. He chose to enter that war, he knew the cost. He continued to fight against personal freedom despite the threats. I would say he had many opportunities to reconsider his involvement. He put his own family at risk by practicing this denial of human rights.
Sound reasonable?
sorry I dont follow
A person isn’t a soldier in a war subject to killing just because they are on one side of a emotionally or politically charged issue.
Ignoring threats doesn’t mean the victim is to blame. Is the US to blame for 9/11 because they didn’t cave to the demands of Muslim extremists?
It’s pretty revealing that after you stress the non-violence of the pro-life movement and deny the OR was demonizing or inciting violence against Dr. Tiller that you would turn around and use such violently themed words towards Dr. Tiller.
I dont know where that link actually exists, but the actual site at OR states:
Operation Rescue released the following statement, attributable to Troy Newman, President:
Scott Roeder has never been a member, contributor, or volunteer with Operation Rescue. Mr. Roeder may have posted to our open blog web site, as have thousands of members of the public, including those with pro-abortion views, but he is not affiliated with this organization.
We deplore the criminal actions with which Mr. Roeder is accused.
The pro-life ethic is to value all human life from the moment of conception until natural death. Operation Rescue has diligently and successfully worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see to it that abortionists around the nation are brought to justice. Without due process, there can be no justice.
In spite of these horrific events, we remain dedicated to working through all peaceful and legal means available to bring an end to the killing of innocent children through abortion.
Ties to OR coming out.
And as for OR being peaceful. Their “Senior Policy Adviser” did two years for conspiring to bomb an abortion clinic.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/dereliction_of_duty.php
Yeah, “Mr Tiller.” Like it or not, the man was a DOCTOR.
If he was a doctor he must have been following something other than the oath that all DOCTORS pledge:
specifically:
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
HAhaHAhaHAhaaaa *choke-gasp-for-breath* … HAAAAH!
I am glad I was near a bathroom when I read this or I might have crapped my pants I laughed so hard.
You are not a real doctor unless you swear BY APOLLO?!?!?!
20 bucks says dwade didn’t know what a pessary was when posting that, hence why he thinks it’s relevant.
20 bucks says dwade doesn’t know sh*t from shinola… nor his ass from a hole in the ground.
He repeatedly uses offensive language designed to denigrate women in addition to his appalling habit of spouting stupid crap he can’t back up.
I really have to start skipping his posts. He irritates me so.
The “Shinola Hypothesis” is looking quite promising. More testing is needed, though.
In his defence, he has a greater than 50% chance of accurately identifying a hole in the ground.
I dunno… he thinks doctors swear to Apollo, that foeti are “children,” and the OR isn’t a domestic terrorist cell lead by people who have already served jail time for planning to bomb women’s health clinics.
So, at this point, I’d say that the “Hole Hypothesis” is looking quite difficult for him, while the “Shinola Hypothesis” is right out!
LRA, you forgot that anyone who doesn’t buckle to a terrorist threat deserves whatever attack on them and their family the terrorists carry out
http://unreasonablefaith.com/2009/05/31/abortion-doctor-shot-to-death-in-church/#comment-45093
Well, unlike dwade, I’m able to back up my claims. Here is a rather simple defense for late term abortion:
First, let me preface it by saying that late term abortion is NOT for women who suddenly don’t want to be pregnant anymore. If you didn’t take care of it in the first 6 mos, too bad for you! And that is exactly what the law is here in the US.
Late term abortion is for women who wanted the child, but found out that there were complications that threaten the life of the mother or that result in a irrevocably genetically damaged child. Cases such as acephaly (a child without a brain) are instances of this because such a child will die upon birth. Another case is ichthiosis– a skin disorder in which the child’s skin is so keratinized, that it is cracked and bleeding, among other complications– It is extraordinarily painful for the child, who dies within a few days
(WARNING! this video is NOT for the faint of heart!!!)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iuAktiLlDO4
Late term abortion is a medically merciful option for women facing an extraordinarily painful choice of ending a WANTED pregnancy:
(See medical doctor speak on this a few minutes in):
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2009/06/dereliction_of_duty.php
Abortion in general is about a woman’s right to control her life, and people like dwade who call women who dare to control their bodies (like me) murderers are using verbally abusive language. People who act on this abusive attitude are terrorists, who only have their agenda of emotional, drama-making in mind rather than a reasonable defense of their position:
(Slogan: The Pill Kills– Protest to be had on day of Dr. Tiller’s funeral):
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/
These people must have no life of their own, or else why would they continually harass women and their doctors day in and day out? It’s pathetic. They waste time on this, rather than help the children who are actually here and who are actually suffering– all for some potential life. Talk about messed up priorities.
… and it’s taken you this long to notice?
dwade regularly ignores comments put to him, spouts utter drivel and generally acts as though he left his brain at the door before he decided to post. Trying to engage him in a debate is like a broken pencil … pointless.
dwade is one of those xians who impersonate people capable of thinking by spouting pseudoscience worded to fit their beliefs.
They are not interested in stopping abortion, or they would be out providing sex education and contraceptives. They fight tirelessly for their true motive of forcing people not to have open, fearless sex, and nearly all of those efforts are directed toward controlling women.
Word.
here’s a modern version
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/doctors/oath_modern.html
Hmm… I can’t say I really like the modern version, really. It lacks a certain flair, and sounds arbitrary.
Show me a doctor who wrote his own oath, and you’ll show me one who can be held accountable to it. As I learned from church, a creed, or oath, or prayer, has an amount of sway inversely proportional to the number of people saying it in unison with you.
I stood up and said, out loud, that I believed in “the communion of the saints” once a week for several years without really a clue what it meant. But, hey, everybody else was doing it….
My WEDDING vows, on the other hand, I said all by myself. I understood ‘em, and I meant ‘em.
There are some medical schools that allow the students to write their own oath these days. Some use an ethical statement based on the 1948 World Medical Association Declaration of Geneva. It probably depends where in the world you are, but I don’t think there are many using even a modernised Hippocratic Oath in my end of the world.
Incidentally, the Declaration of Geneva originally included a statement about respecting human life from conception. I don’t know if schools using that statement leave that phrase out or not.
also: from wikipedia…
["I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners,” a clear warning for physicians against the "cutting" of persons "laboring under the stone"; an act that was better left to surgeons (who were distinct from physicians at that time in history).]
There ya’ go. MISTER tiller wasn’t a real DOCTOR; he was a lowly SURGEON.
Pingback: Mr B’s Hot Link Injection for the week ending Friday, 5th June « Mr Blackett’s House o’Sex
Go ahead, aor, tell me more about what I believe. I’m all ears. If you can mistake me for a believer, then you obviously know something I don’t about me.
Still waiting for the answer to my simple yes or no question. Your answer was an attempt to evade. As well it should be, because my question was just a stupid as yours which gulker “evaded”.
Until you respond to my yes or no question I will ignore your “retarded pit-bull” method of argument, unless I feel like simply mocking and ridiculing you. Cause that’s kinda fun, and you deserve it.
I made a hypothetical, you can respond to it if you wish. It began on another thread, which I linked to above. What you did is use a fallacy(begging the question) as part of an attack on me, which seems like an odd thing to do. Your method is a misrepresentation of my hypothetical, so that implies that either you have no idea what this conversation is actually about or you chose to misrepresent what I had asked. Which was it? I can take your attacks, no problem. I just want you to say things without needing to use misrepresentations. Know what I mean? You have no reason to lie about me, so you picked a damn odd way to join the conversation if you actually had any idea of what it was about.
If you just want to attack me because you don’t like my methods, thats fine. No problem. Its silly, but I can take it. If you want to answer my hypothetical, feel free. If you are trying to imply that just asking it is wrong, then I think you may want to take some time and reconsider.
If you think my question was stupid, then maybe you can explain that why. If you think making people realize that an education that requires belief in any particular religion is inherently flawed, you can say that too. If you don’t actually understand the conversation at all and were just jumping in for kicks, then that would be a nice thing ot mention also.
And whats with this telling you what you believe? I read my comment to you and it does nothing of the sort. Considering that you chose to begin our conversation with a misrepresention of my position and an outright fallacy, I think my snarkiness is entirely justified. Maybe you need to clarify just what you are saying, because it is difficult to see just what you are trying to accomplish. Isn’t it simpler to just call me an asshole and not use deception in the same post?