George Tiller's Murder and Sotomayor
Shock seems to be the word that follows the murder of a fine doctor named George Tiller, who was gunned down while ushering people into church services as his wife sang in the choir. Everyone from the President of the United States to the president of NARAL expressed shock.
Frankly, that they are shocked is precisely the problem. Shock is a serious indicator that we are losing the battle for individual rights--which includes a woman's right to an abortion--and we are losing it fast. Both President Obama and NARAL are ostensibly pro-choice on abortion, but no one who is 100 percent pro-choice has reason to be shocked at the brutal killing of Dr. Tiller, who performed abortions for patients at his Wichita, Kansas, medical clinic.
Anyone who is shocked is not paying attention to the cause of this violent anti-abortion crusade: religion. Even Huffington Post writer Mary Mapes, a reporter with impeccable credentials on the subject, ultimately gives anti-abortion terrorists a pass, arguing in an otherwise articulate post that "violent behavior is not a natural outgrowth of religious belief or moral concerns."
Of course it is. This murder--unless the motive is unrelated to the nature of Dr. Tiller's work which is highly unlikely--is exactly what religious opponents of abortion have preached and practiced. They have attacked abortion doctors and clinics for decades--and they do so at the behest of religious leaders and politicians who, like their philosophical cousins, the Islamists, denounce Western civilization from pulpits and podiums at sermons and conventions alike.
Most readers are familiar with the anti-abortion rantings of Republicans and Catholic and Christian fundamentalists, who routinely (most recently at the University of Notre Dame) define abortion as murder, a theological view based on the belief that life begins at conception.
Religionists proclaim that abortion is therefore an evil sin which violates God's highest commandments. Among those who denounce abortion as the worst moral transgression in society is Fox News host Bill O'Reilly, who has railed against Dr. Tiller for years, falsely accusing him of executing babies--even a late-term fetus is not a baby--and practically pre-approving any action to stop what O'Reilly wrongly calls "murder".
What about moral culpability for the rest of us? Those who sit quietly in the pews or in the synagogue, or passively listen to our friends and relatives rail against abortion and declare that it ought to be against the law; we also bear responsibility. Silence implies consent and we who remain silent are indirectly complicit in the murder of those brave, bold medical professionals who perform abortion against the tide of religious fundamentalism. Dr. Tiller's murder is a warning that it is long past time to speak up for women's rights.
That means we must stop being shocked and start taking action--action to express defense of the separation of religion and state.
What does that mean in practice? For starters, it means our president, who recently nominated a judge to the Supreme Court whose views on abortion are ambiguous, must reaffirm his commitment to defending a woman's right to choose an abortion. It means Judge Sotomayor must address this issue without equivocation during her confirmation testimony and, if she is not in favor of individual rights, she should withdraw her nomination. It means President Obama must consider and, if necessary, deploy a military defense of the nation's abortion clinics, protecting their rights under the law.
Today, President Obama said he was shocked by the murder of Dr. George Tiller and he described abortion as a "difficult" issue. Wrong, Mr. President. You--and all Americans for a woman's right to abortion--must stop equivocating, stop being shocked that those who distort what constitutes murder are willing to commit murder and start defending our rights. Dr. Tiller's murder is an alarm telling us to unite against religious fundamentalism--and against those who tolerate it.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I'm sorry to point this out to you "votetob" but cells that do not have a central nervous system are not babies and they do not feel anything until at least the 26th week. The "glorious spark" you speak of is a bit too nebulous for my taste.
The real problem we face at this point is dealing with fundamentalist Christians and conservative Catholics who are committing domestic terrorism by murdering or assassinating health care professionals. Dr. Tillers assassination is an attempt to intimidate health care workers and subvert the rule of law and the legality of Roe vs. Wade. There was nothing wrong with Roe 30 years ago and there is nothing that needs changing today. What is needed is strong federal laws and preventative measures that hold people accountable for their actions and threats. People in 'Operation Rescue' have been turned loose because they couldn't pay fines for criminal activity. If they can't pay the fines... double their prison sentence for Christ's sake and throw away the key! Let's stop messing around and get serious with these people. If they are violating FACE laws or stalking a healthcare professionals or posting their "hit list" on websites...nail their ass! Take them down with stiff penalties and prison sentences. Let's have federal support in the form of the National Guard or U.S. military in defending healthcare and our civil liberties.
Well, speaking of nebulous, the idea that we got from some microscopic, protoplasmic, 'blob' to homo sapiens through a series of 'accidents' seems a little bit of a stretch for me, but that's another arguement.
There's always going to be nutcases and fringe-dwellers on either side of the cultural or political spectrum that cross the line. Did we not have a Muslim convert murder a soldier at a recruitment center the next day? Are we to blame all Muslim groups for that young man's actions? Considering the number of attacks made and/or thwarted over the years by followers of Islam, we could make a better case for that than Catholics or Fundamentalist Christians.
But that's not what scares me. What scares me is your call for MORE "strong federal laws and preventative measures" or "federal support in the form of the National Guard or U.S. military in defending healthcare and our civil liberties."
You have fallen for the biggest scam since Manhattan being sold for $50. Its obvious that you think our federal government is SUPPOSED to take care of everything. Roe v. Wade? Should have been dealt with at the state level. SCOTUS should have never ruled on it. Now, with anything that happens, we need the feds? What are ya'...nuts?The 10th Amendment says "no". No matter who you voted for (assuming you're old enough) you're having your freedoms taken from you. Wake up.
Tell me if you see a pattern here Guitanguran. 8 healthcare providers killed by Christian Right Fundamentalists. This isn't an isolated incident. And space doesn't allow for all the clinic bombings and vandalism. This is pure and simple domestic terrorism that seeks to intimidate and prevent Americans from exercising their rights under the law. And thanks for making my point for me. Yes the man who shot two soldiers at the Arkansas recruitment center is a domestic terrorist as well. Not unlike the guys picked-up in New York and they don't have to know each other for it to be a terrorist act. They can be completely separate incidents. Again...thanks for making my point. The Christian Fundamentalist right and the conservative Catholic right should be monitored for terrorist activity. The F.B.I. already monitors them to some degree but I would like to see a clear definition like we have with "hate crimes". If these people are planning a terrorist act....let's treat it like a terrorist act and not simply an isolated incident. Tillers death was not just murder it was directed at healthcare professionals and those who support women's rights.
So... am I to assume you do not believe the "Big Bang" occurred? Are you serious? You do understand evolution?.
Democracy is about government. Do you think Jefferson and Madison were thinking about how everything could be turned over to so-called "free markets" and corporations? If so you have no understanding of democracy.
Re Obama's comment that it is a difficult issue: hard to deny unless you want to demonize everyone who disagrees with you. Re the possibility that Sotomayor might actually have a nuanced view of the issue: amazing! Unacceptable to both extremes! Pretty good argument for having her on the bench, I'd say.
Nice. According to Ms King "religion" is to blame for the death of Dr. Tiller. This is an astounding oversimplification of a complex issue and can only fuel a completely unproductive ragefest between the two extremes on this issue. Most people, me included, find something morally repugnant at the idea of "partial birth" and late term abortions. It seems totally reasonable to have some regulation on abortion when a baby is viable out of the womb while not making an issue, whatever ones personal beliefs may be, about women having the option of early abortion without big brother looking over their shoulder. The idea that only a religious person would be sickened by the completely counter-intuitive idea that a fetus about to be born is somehow in a completely separate category from that same creature seconds later and thus can be snuffed without a second thought is laughable, and keeps the caricature of the "pro-choice" movement as wanton baby killers alive. The fear that if any regulation at all is permitted no one will have the freedom to get any kind of abortion is completely unfounded and the kind of scare mongering that both ends of the spectrum feed on.
This was a brilliant article, thank you so much for stating the truth. Indulging these fundamentalists reinforces their beliefs that they are in the right and justified to trample over individual freedom to achieve dominance of their ideological views.
Give these people an inch and they will take a mile, there should be no tolerance for them, they have none for anybody else. Women and girls must be protected by the state, the job of the government is supposedly to protect individual liberties. If people don't want to have an abortion they have the right to incubate their pregnancy to term, that does not entitle them to inflict a forced pregnancy on another. Not your body, not your choice.
I agree, I also think it is time to refute the idea that having an abortion is always a difficult DECISION, if the pregnancy is wrong, it is wrong, the decision to end it can be obvious.
This does not mean there is no emotion or loss with a pregnancy, there very much is, just because something is difficult does not mean it is wrong, or that deciding something difficult was "agonizing."
Kali
Any thoughts on this?
"Today, President Obama said he was shocked by the murder of Dr. George Tiller and he described abortion as a "difficult" issue. Wrong, Mr. President. You--and all Americans for a woman's right to abortion--must stop equivocating, stop being shocked that those who distort what constitutes murder are willing to commit murder and start defending our rights."
Deborah, it seems that you also may be guilty of the absolutist thinking of which you complain. Abortion is not murder as you state, but does that mean that it is not a "difficult" moral issue? Is it not understandable that some might be uneasy with the termination of what would otherwise be a human life? Simply because one might be pro choice and simply because the law does not consider abortion to be murder does not mean that it is wrong to consider abortion a "difficult" issue.
Somebody wrote the following:
"Too much to pull out in
this space, but take a gander at Psalm 139.
That gives you God's position on when life begins,
how important every individual life is...just read it. "
Sorry, whoever you are, but Psalm 139 says God KNEW
David before he was even formed. That speaks to God's
foreknowledge. (knowing who is going to be born
before they are actually born.)
But, Psalm 139 says absolutely nothing about when
God actually places a spirit into a human body, so that
it becomes a living soul.
To find out when God actually places a soul into a body,
see Genesis 2:7.
It tells us: . "God formed man out of the dust of the ground, "breathed into
him the breath of life, or spirit-and (and only then)
man become a living soul.
Your exegesis of Psalm 139 is flawed.
did it ever occur to you that if God abhorred
abortion, He would have inspired the writers to say
something specific about it??
God, in the Bible, catalogsall kinds of sins
such as gluttony, usury, fornication, drunkeness..
but says nothing about abortion.
Why not?
Maybe its because he is not as worried about it
as you.
And dont say "thou shalt not kill" refers to
abortion; it doesn't. The word "kill" is the Hebrew
word for murder-not abortion.
Abortion, (actually miscarriage due to
trauma), is mentioned only once in Exodus 21:22.
And it does NOT equate abortion with murder.
Actually, SOMEONE said that, claiming to be God.
But may I remind you that the bible was written BY HUMANS.
I'm not sure I provided a whole lot of analysis. That's for others to pray about, read, study, and understand for themselves.
What I do understand is this: There's more to what's going on in the conception/gestation/birth process than we fully understand. One might surmise that if God knew David, and by extention, all of us before he was even formed in the womb, that there is existence even before conception. One might surmise. That would take the conception idea off the table. Sounds like we really don't know diddly about when life begins, and shouldn't be monkeying around with it.
As to the actual word 'abortion' not being in the Bible as you say:
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Perhaps in those uncivilized times, the idea of purposely ending life in the womb was so abhorrent, it didn't need to be brought up. Here in our more erudite, sophisticated, scientifically superior, philophically advanced age, we don't consider abortion the same way those savages back then did, huh?
Closest thing I can come up with is in Numbers. God didn't want the Israelites cooking their newborns alive on a red-hot altar as a sacrifice to Molech.
Abortion was known and practiced in Biblical times. Yet, the Good Book seems to have little to say on the topic. The writers, who in many other passages, are perfectly happy to run on at length about rules, regulations and laws hardly give it a mention.
Numbers 5:12-28 explicitly encourages abortion in the event of a married woman impregnated by a man other than her husband. However, this is more of a concern for the husband's rights rather than those of the fetus.
Wow! That's a pretty pathetic retort Guitanguran. I coud make that statement about anything and it wouldn't mean diddly...except you don't seem to be able to form a reasoned response. That's not even an answer.
"Anyone who is shocked is not paying attention to the cause of this violent anti-abortion crusade: religion."
I don't buy it. That's like saying that all religious people will go out and shoot abortion doctors. Obviously not true.
What we need to do is ask these fervent anti-abortionists: What are you doing to make it easier for a single mother to finish college? What are you doing to make it so that a teenage mother will not feel that her life has been ruined because she had a baby? I'm sure that with most of them we will find that the answer is: Nothing!
I do buy it. The unceasing ranting that "abortionists are murderers" is bound to have consequences. Why does it this surprising?
Logical fallacy:
Some people who consider themselves religious rant that abortionists are murderers.
Abortionists have been murdered.
Therefore All religious people will go out and shoot abortionists.
You buy this?
Fanatical religious insanity and murder in the name of god. What poor wretches. The crimes spawned by religion continue.
It really gets old listen to the uninformed, the uneducated, rant and rail against religious fundamentalist. I am a Christian Fundamentalist and I do not feel in any way compelled to protest against abortion or abortionist.
A fundamental concept of my religion is that all of mankind is damned and scheduled to be interned in hell to be tormented for eternity unless a decision is made on an individual basis to repent, to renounce a life of self indulgence.
The term "scheduled" is of paramount importance in this fundamental belief. A very quick perusal of the New Testament will prove that neither God nor His Son, Jesus Christ, are willing to violate the "scheduled" execution of His final solution to sin. And so, as a fundamentalist I am constrained from resisting anyone who might commit any form of moral or spiritual outrage.
As a fundamentalist I do not oppose abortion at all. I do not know if a soul is conceived at biological conception! I do know that God, if he so wills, is able to retrieve such from the depths of hell and provide all the comfort necessary to overcome the trauma of a late term abortion. That God has power over death is a FUNDAMENTAL doctrine of my faith!
Those who justify the commission of murder in the name of the unborn are heretics, unredeemed sinners, who indulge themselves in a delusions self righteousness that condemn them to eternal separation from the God they claim to represent.
WOW! Well, if GOD is that cruel, to sentence some 90% of the world's population to be TORTURED FOREVER, just for being what they were created to be - FLAWED - and unlucky enough or stupid enough to pick the wrong religion, then abortion looks like an act of kindness by comparison.
My only question is: Just WHY would you want to spend all of eternity with a being that is SO CRUEL???
And we wonder why there is evil in this world...with a "God" like that...and God's supposed to be the GOOD guy???
WTF??? What is wrong with this picture???
I have no problem with you having your own beliefs, as long as this doesn't result in the trampling down of my beliefs. Is a fundamentalist person able to live side by side with others that hold different beliefs without wanting to change them or limit them in some way either politically, or physically?
The "final solution"..... hmmm, where have I heard that phrase before?
Why would you choose to live a life this way? How do you have any hope? Always scraping, bending, bowing in some possibly futile attempt to gain... what... after you are dead? Do you not see how... what's the word... silly... that is?
Enjoy your life, the past is gone, tomorrow isn't promised... but today is a gift, that's why it's called "the present".
With the millions of dollars Tiller earned each year did he have a body guard outside of the clinic?
I heard it reported that he wore a bullet-proof vest and drove an armored car. Is that true?
The litmus test for Sotomayor, as with previous nominees, is not going to happen and for a straightforward reason: supreme court judges are in charge of, among other things, breaking with precedent where no one else can. A litmus test, by definition, is a restriction on that power.
That having been said, the rest of this article is spot on. Anti-abortionists have gotten a pass in this country's corporate media in their attempt to meld religious fervor with political action. The gross contradiction that has resulted is yet one more of many, many contradictions between the life and message of a religious leader so obscure in his day that his biography was not written until several decades after his death, and the lives of those leaders that claim to follow that original message even as they live in luxurious palaces (e.g. the Vatican) and all too often engage in hatemongering.
Scientist are trying to prove when the origin of life began. They are looking for evidence of that spark of life that occurred in some primortal soup billions of years ago. If science someday proves that all of life began with one tiny cell then will science have also proven that life does begin at the moment of conception?
Abortion is not a religious issue, it is a moral and ethical issue. Certainly there are those that do not believe in a god that believe that abortion is not something they themselves can support. If science is asking those around them to believe in that glorious spark of first life, they cannot ask those around them not to believe in that same glorious spark that occurs in a woman, they can not say, this spark is not life, this is just a un-named tissue that can scraped away without out second thought.
And if it is life...if that spark is life...than what is abortion?
According to the Bible, unborn babies are not people. They have the same value as animals. Only babies that will/do live to be born are sent souls. Exodus 21 v 22. If the Bible says they are not the same as a person, why do you?
You're kidding right? You're pulling Bible verses out here?Somebody told you to use that chapter and verse, or what?
Too much to pull out in this space, but take a gander at Psalm 139. That gives you God's position on when life begins, how important every individual life is...just read it.
Biggest problem? A 100% 'pro choicer' has to deny both who they really are and who God really is. Otherwise, they understand that they are accountable, not just for abortion, but even THINKING it's OK. Many people find the idea they are accountable to the entity responsible for Psalm 139 as offensive. Its meant to offend. Hey, I was offended, once. Even so, denial or non-acceptance doesn't change the truth of the matter.
Although I can understand your compassion on this issue, your argument is an equivocation fallacy. If that isn't so, then using mouthwash to kill germs would be murder. Likewise, using disinfectants and antiseptics to kill germs and bacteria on your countertops, cuts and bruises on your body, and bacterial diseases in your body will get you a life sentence in jail. If that first prokaryotic cell was 'life', then it would follow, that every other cell from then on is also 'life'. Do you have an aversion to killing (and even eating) plants? How about insects, mice, and fish? They are made up of cells, too. Are they not all 'life'? Here's your first definition of 'life': the ability to pro-create.
The real difference is that according to Abrahamic religion, at the moment of conception, that single cell (which they didn't even know was a cell 2,000 years ago) had a soul injected into it by their deity. And, of course, Homo sapiens is the only entity on this planet that has one. This is your second definition of 'life': a cell that has a soul.
Deborah is correct. The argument is entirely religious. And once again, the only way to be moral is to be religious, err... Christian.
The egg was alive before the sperm (also alive) met with it. So I guess all 40000 lives in my ovaries are going to be murdered when I die.
Define 'spark'.
Sorry Vote2bfree...this is exactly the problem with fundamentalists. There is no debate among scientists as to when life began....it began with the "Big Bang". Similarly there is no debate concerning Evolution. Scientists and most thinking people on the planet already understand that we didn't depart from Noah's Ark.
To say life begins at conception is to say that a "spirit" enters the womb at that moment. Since I am an atheist and do not believe in superstition of any kind I find that argument absurd and harmful to our society. It attempts to subvert scientific knowledge and what is already known.
Abortion is a religious issue. The movement generally speaking is made up of conservative Catholics and fundamentalist Christians. It is this belief in superstition that prevents us from helping our fellow man with stem cell research... it's primitive...backward thinking and based on false dogma. There is no problem with Roe vs. Wade and it is not a moral dilemma. If anything Roe was about ten years late in arriving on the scene. It probably should have occurred around 1962 or 1965 rather than a decade later in '72. Likewise I have absolutely no qualms about late term abortions where a woman's health is in serious jeopardy because of a "still-born" fetus or a horrible abnormality that prevents the fetus from living outside the womb.
EVIL PEOPLE DONT HAVE qualms BECAUSE THEIR CONSCIENCE HAS BEEN BURN AWAY BY THE EVIL BELIEFS.ITS CALLED BEING HARD-HEARTED.
To say that murder is not a "natural outgrowth religious belief or moral concerns," is not to say that it cannot grow out of them, but that if it does, it is aberrant. And it is. If you, in you're "Of course it is," smugness, were right, we would not have any more physicians willing to perform abortions, because most religious people would be out there ready and willing to murder them. If the left's response to Dr. Tiller's (who was himself a Christian) murder is to argue that religion or Christianity is the problem, then the debate about how to solve the problem will be over before it even had a chance to begin, and we will have lost.
JUST BECAUSE HE WENT TO CHURCH DOESNT MAKE HIM A CHRISTIAN. A TRUE CHRISTIAN HAS TRUE RESPECT FOR LIFE. IT REALLY DOESNT MATTER WHAT YOU OR I BELIEVE. GOD WILL HAVE HIS WAY IN THE END.
In my opinion, these Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists and their enablers need to crawl back into their holes and reassess their hypocritcal religious views that they've forced upon this country for far too long. I just want to know, how is their religious certitude and convictions about cultural issues any different than that of the Taliban's or al-Qaeda's? This brand of "christianity" is just as scary, and just as insane.
"Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists"?
I'd have to classify that as an oxymoron.
As far as being hypcocrites, I think its more a matter of knowing about right and wrong, but not always adhering to what's right. That's where that pesky "Sin" thing rears its ugly head. Doesn't make the right thing wrong, just shows us that we're off the mark, so to speak.
"I just want to know, how is their religious certitude and convictions about cultural issues any different than that of the Taliban's or al-Qaeda's?"
Try "Mere Christianity" by C. S. Lewis. You can get the straight skinny without touching one of those scary Bible things.
I, and others, purposely intend to label this fringe element as Christian Fundamentalist Terrorists. It describes the oxymoronic and un-Christ-like behavior of those in the Evangelical Christian movement today that are belligerantly intolerant, and whose ideology is so far removed from the original teachings of Jesus Christ. Sadly, their belief system is misinformed and has led to a demographic that arrogantly professes to know God's intentions for humanity, when in fact, what they really need to do is mind their own business when it comes to a woman's individual human right, and treat others how they would want to be treated. Their religious arrogance is appalling, and has hindered the progress of this country in too many ways to count (whether it be in science, foreign policy, cultural issues, etc).
I will check out "Mere Christianity". My only comments regarding moral law is that it can be ambiguous and open to interpretation, which is dangerous when hijacked by evangelical christian zealotry. Instead of right/wrong, how about something based on functionality, such as "what works" and "what does not work". And when someone like Operation Rescue's Randall Terry interprets with such certitude the "Law of God" as he states ("Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God" - source http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/31/randall-terry-operation-r_n_209531.html), that is not for him to decide, and is troubling b/c lunatics act on such misinformed zealotry.
"That means we must stop being shocked and start taking action--action to express defense of the separation of religion and state."
One does not need to be religious to be pro-life. An atheist can be pro-life. Can a human being be worth something without religion? Yes, of course.
Roll on, Mr. ellison! I think I can take a break now
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
