Abortion provider Dr. Tiller shot and killed

And I hope the man that’s responsible gets the chair, what’s your point?

That conflating the use of speech to defame (speech that incites violence) is the same as defaming the right of speech itself is a nasty bit of false equivalence.

Sorry, I meant the right-wing… Not the right of free speech.

Fair enough.

On that note, a lengthy blog post on the murder from Slacktivist, my favorite evangelical blogger: http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2009/06/killing-in-the-name-of.html

Long, but worth a read. An interesting quote from Frank Schaeffer, son of one of the most prominent voices in the pro-life movement:

Like many writers of moral/political/religious theories my father and I would have been shocked that someone took us at our word, walked into a Lutheran Church and pulled the trigger on an abortionist. But even if the murderer never read Dad’s or my words we helped create the climate that made this murder likely to happen.
The blog post goes on to talk about how many pro-life and/or evangelical organizations routinely use highly charged language like “mass-murder” to describe abortion, but then recoil in horror when an honest-to-god murderer uses that same language as justification for his crime.

Or they could be like Randall Terry of Operation Rescue and say that this event shouldn’t change their activites in the slightest; they shouldn’t give an inch.

I honestly don’t know which is worse; the hypocrites who act horrified or the douchebags like Terry.

I don’t know about better or worse, but I think the Catch-22 that the majority of the pro-life people find themselves in is more interesting. Terry’s response is horrifying, but he is thankfully in the minority.

What Catch-22 is that? It’s early, perhaps I’m just not understanding something, but I don’t see a Catch-22 here.

OK. So, I’m the fascist, I’m the bad guy, I’m the problem. Not Tiller. No, he – no, no, no. He’s a good guy. Now, Tiller’s pumping all kinds of money into obviously the attorney general race. He wants the guy that’s gonna let him off the hook to win. Those of you listening in Kansas, you ought to know that. You know, I don’t – I’m not gonna tell you who to vote for. You guys know these guys better than I do, but I tell you what, anything Tiller wants, I’m voting the other way. And if I could get my hands on Tiller – well, you know. Can’t be vigilantes. Can’t do that. It’s just a figure of speech.

FUCK IT, WE’LL SHOOT HIM LIVE!

Mostly that, in condemning the murder, they find themselves having to reject the arguments that they themselves use pretty consistently. Specifically the argument that, if you believe that abortion is the mass-murder of unborn babies on the scale of the Holocaust, then you have a moral duty to act to stop it.

Read the article, it goes into greater detail.

I guess you meant anti-abortion? This is what confused me.

Ah, jesus, yes I did. Sorry. Fixed.

If you assume the pro-life position is correct, boy, yeah, pro-choice argumentation looks silly. What?

I corrected my confusing mislabeling. Try to keep up, Jason.

Oh. Well in that case, I still don’t see the conflict. Just being someone else murders someone and the cops won’t do anything doesn’t give you the right to go vigilante.

Of course it doesn’t, but it does put the arguments of the pro-life people in relief. They aren’t just saying “abortion is murder.” They say “mass-murder,” “holocaust,” “evil,” and a lot of other really charged words. They also urge immediate action to end what they see as a pure evil. Then, when someone murders a doctor, they have to go “yeah, but we didn’t mean THAT.”

I mean, if you really, sincerely believe that abortion is murder, isn’t something more than just voting Republican every 4 years morally required?

Yes, but it should be a nonviolent thing. I think the holocaust/nazi rhetoric from pr-lifers is okay as long as it always comes along with a message re-affirming a nonviolent approach to social change.

Unfortunately that re-affirmation is often absent, except when the movement needs some image polish because someone heard their rhetoric and got convinced it would be a good idea to firebomb a clinic or shoot a doctor.

So when do we get to see In-Utero Basterds?

I’m not sure I agree that a re-affirmation of non-violence cancels out the extreme rhetoric. You still get lots of “blame-the-victim” talk then. “Of course, murder is wrong, but this guy did kinda have it coming.” In any case, I do agree that a non-violent message is absent far, far too often.

Mostly I was just trying to point out the extreme disconnect between words and deeds amongst the pro-life movement.

I don’t know. Look at the case where I agree with the angry rebels - 19th century abolitionists. Were they correct to mostly disagree with John Brown attacking Harper’s Ferry?