The Shotgun Blog
« Random Thoughts - Volume 2 | Main | Why China won't get serious about North Korea »
Sunday, May 31, 2009
Prominent abortion provider murdered (suspected killer may be a libertarian.)
See below for updates about the suspect in the murder.
Dr. George Tiller was one of the only doctors in the United States willing to perform late-term abortions. He was shot inside the lobby of his church.
A suspect is now in police custody.
Anti-abortion groups have condemned the shooting.
While many anti-abortion leaders swiftly issued statements condemning the shooting, their expressions of dismay were not echoed by Randall Terry, a veteran anti-abortion activist whose protests have often targeted Tiller.
"George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that," Terry said. "He was an evil man — his hands were covered with blood."
Terry said he was now concerned that the Obama administration "will use Tiller's killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions."
The website for the organization Terry founded, Operation Rescue (which often featured Dr. Tiller) appears to have gone offline. It is not known at this time whether the shooter was connected to this organization, or any other anti-abortion group.
UPDATE:
According to news reports, police have detained a suspect in Dr. Tiller's murder. The suspect, Scott Roeder has connections to Operation Rescue, as documented here (yes, normally I would have qualms about the source, but everything is well supported with supplementary links.)
It appears that Roeder is also a tax protestor, linked to the Montana Freemen, a group that -- if not exactly libertarian -- espouses libertarian-like views about individual sovereignty and the illegitimacy of government.
This may come up over the next few days.
Posted by Terrence Watson on May 31, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
Randall Terry's comments prove that he is one of the few anti-abortionists who really believes what he says. I cannot imagine how someone could seriously believe that abortion is murder and not believe that Dr. Tiller was a mass murderer who got what he deserved. If someone had murdered Clifford Olson, I would expect little sympathy expressed for him, and he only killed about a dozen people.
I don't believe abortion is murder so I do not share Randall Terry's feelings about Dr. Tiller's death, but I do, at least, recognize that he does speak more authentically for what a true opponent of abortion must think and feel. Most people who claim to oppose abortion either are self-deluded or wimps in the face of what they see as a modern holocaust. They are morally worse than Vichy France ever was.
Posted by: Fact Check | 2009-05-31 4:53:30 PM
FC,
You're right, of course. If abortion is murder - equally or even more immoral than the killing of an innocent adult - then at the very least Dr. Tiller deserved to die.
In that respect, I have to at least admire Terry for his honesty.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-05-31 5:08:47 PM
I can't condone this murder--certainly under such circumstances, in the house of God no less--but for the life of me I can think of few more deserving victims. That said, Terry should not receive a lesser sentence for his motives. He acted knowing what the consequences would be, and while one can respect him for that, we cannot allow having a cause to become an excuse for circumventing the law.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-05-31 7:18:14 PM
FC thinks he knows what those opposed to abortion think, which is pompous rubbish. Anyone who is sincerely pro-life cannot condone this murder. Yes, Tiller chose evil over good which was made even worse in that he saw no objection to murdering fully formed babies, but that does not justify murdering him.
Posted by: Alain | 2009-05-31 7:40:51 PM
In New Zealand, abortion is not so intense an issue. I believe that the reason is moderation. In 1977, abortion was legalized for the life of the mother, health of the mother, incest, and fetal abnormality. The woman has to have the abortion signed off on by two doctors. Recently, there have been some questions about whether some women and doctors were taking advantage of the health exception. In fact, a judge recently ruled against a case where the health exception was rather stretched. However, both sides got some of what they want. Abortion proponents got it legalized and government funded. Pro-lifers prevented it from being on demand and no abortions are permissible after the 20th week. This restricted legal abortion situation represents the view of the broad middle of New Zealand society. It understands that there are some hardcases where it might be necessary. It also understands that unborn children are human beings and shouldn't be wiped out without a thought.
America appears to be a country with two states of mind on abortion. Abortion is only mildly restricted there. Yet, new polls show that most Americans(particularly the young) tilt pro-life. There are even some polls from over the last 10 years that show that even many pro-choicers want abortion restricted. One recent poll shows that 55% of Americans want abortion legal for only rape, incest, and life of the mother cases(with another 26% wanting it on demand but restricted to the 1st trimester). An old poll showed that Americans supported outlawing abortions after week 7 by 68%-25% when told that the baby had an active nerve system at that point. The same poll showed opposition to abortion by 61%-34% at week 3 when told that the baby has a heartbeat at that time. I don't know how Canadians feel about abortion. However, it would seem that the New Zealand option might be the answer for America( legal but very limited).
Posted by: Ian | 2009-05-31 7:53:05 PM
Ian, if murder is wrong, you can't find a middle ground if you believe abortion is murder.
As a pro lifer, I find it offensive beyond description that I must pay for abortions through taxes. Complete defunding would be a step in the right direction and maybe middle ground enough for most people.
Posted by: TM | 2009-05-31 9:04:41 PM
Fact Check
I believe that killing is wrong.
Even if George Tiller "deserved it", it is not our place to kill him. That judgment is up to God alone.
I unequivocally condemn this act of violence. I want killing to stop.
Posted by: SUZANNE | 2009-05-31 9:24:17 PM
Tiller was a hero. He gave women a choice.
It is a sad day when one is at risk of being murdered in the house of God by hypocritical lunatics who don't know the difference between the born and the unborn and who absurdly claim to be 'pro-life'.
The thug who shot Tiller was a terrorist.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-05-31 10:47:54 PM
Okay...
Now let's just hope this extremist and religious terrorist gets the punishment he deserves for murdering an innoncent man.
Posted by: Marc | 2009-05-31 10:55:00 PM
Wow, I am truly having a field day over this. One man is killed by a "pro-life" sympathizer (no mention if the suspect was religious or not) and it becomes national/international news. Meanwhile all the honor killings, race killings, and terrorism is effectively downplayed, if at least for the time being.
I for one am glad he is dead. The culprit's true thoughts and beliefs will elude me forever, but the sense that justice was done will not. The shooter was a coward who does not deserve to be called pro-life. His actions will undoubtedly be used by liberal fools and slime (Fact check et.al) and paraded for their own moral grandstanding.
Nevertheless more innocent children will be given a chance at life.
There will be less would-be mothers who have to endure the pain and anguish of remorse.
Western civilization will wither and die if we continue killing our future children.
If none of you cowards will say it, I will:
I am glad he is dead.
Posted by: Cid the Cidious | 2009-05-31 11:25:43 PM
Terrence,
While the Operation Rescue site is down, Google cached this press release:
Search this site:
Operation Rescue Denounces The Killing of Abortionist Tiller
May 31st, 2009
Wichita, KS – It has been learned today that George Tiller was shot and killed while entering his church on Sunday morning, May 31.
Operation Rescue releases the following statement:
We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down. Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-05-31 11:58:49 PM
Mr Tiller as wrong as abortion is did not simply do what you would call a normal abortion procedure.
He focused on and made upwards of $6000.00 on a procedure called "partial birth abortion".
This involves giving partial birth to the unborn child so that the head is still left in the vaginal canal.
Then the babies head is punctured and the brains suctioned out and the baby evacuated from the womb.
This is what Tiller did over and over again.
Do I support Tiller being shot-NO, but Tiller was a terrible killer monster,of that there can be no doubt.
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-06-01 12:01:26 AM
http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/05/31/bad-news/
Posted by: JC | 2009-06-01 12:12:57 AM
"Tiller was a hero. He gave women a choice."
The same choice exercised by Terry--to kill? You can't be in favour of one without the other, son. "Choice" describes any decision you ever make, ever, even if it's to kill another human being. Using it as a euphemism for something despicable and then hailing it as a bellwether of freedom betrays a moral depravity beyond words. But then, the boomers who popularized abortion aren't noted for their morals.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-01 12:25:05 AM
Shane, just to clarify, Randal Terry isn't the killer.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-06-01 12:44:01 AM
Terrence!
Why destroying all the magic...?
Posted by: Marc | 2009-06-01 1:32:26 AM
Terrence, given that this murder was motivated by pro-life views and not by libertarian views, why is the latter fact worth mentioning?
Furthermore, libertarians are generally pro-choice, and even those who are self-described pro-lifers are more inclined to rely on education and persuasion than on legislation that would limit abortion.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-01 2:20:02 AM
Matthew,
It's worth mentioning for three reasons:
1. First, some people are already mentioning it, and looking into whether this guy was involved with the Tea Party movement or not.
2. Second, it's going to be used to justify the importance of a recent government report on right-wing extremism, which put anti-government and anti-abortion groups together.
3. It's not entirely clear to me that a person's anti-government views couldn't work with an anti-abortion position, in a way that might (in that person's mind) justify violent action. And if his connection to the Freemen gets traction, that's going to be part of the narrative.
(Think about it: if government is wrong and evil, then I'm not going to listen to it when it tells me not to protect the lives of the unborn.)
We need to distance ourselves from that.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-06-01 2:40:15 AM
Yep, the guy probably falls under Ron Paul libertarian and you know why? The libertarian movement has been hijacked by conspiracy theorists nuts, which this guy is.
Little Green Footballs has dug up a lot of information up on this guy. Apparently in 1996 he was arrested for having bomb making material in his truck.
The report the US government released about terrorist right wingers... well this is the type of people they were talking about. People that believe in Jews taking over the world and Ron Paul-esque racist crap.
Makes me sick that they let this terrorist out of prison when they first caught him.
Posted by: Chris | 2009-06-01 5:08:38 AM
Terrence, I think you mean 'the killer may be a "libertarian"'. The quotation marks make all the difference.
Posted by: Robert Seymour | 2009-06-01 5:20:24 AM
http://www.prowomanprolife.org/2009/05/31/bad-news/
Posted by: JC | 2009-06-01 12:12:57 AM
I don't know who posted this, it wasn't me.
Matthew, can you check the ISP address please?
Posted by: JC | 2009-06-01 6:01:23 AM
"If none of you cowards will say it, I will: I am glad he is dead."
I already said it, in slightly different words: "I can think of few more deserving victims." But if you must have it straight between the eyes, here: May the fiends tear his heart in Hell for a million and a million and yet a million years, and his flesh be singed on harrows of hot iron and forever burn; earned it he has. Is that adequate?
Does Terry also deserve this? No. But the law is obliged to treat him the same nonetheless, and he knew it going in. If he felt sufficiently moved by grief or outraged over this "doctor's" depraved practices, we can sympathize with and respect him, but we cannot absolve him.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-01 7:03:48 AM
"Shane, just to clarify, Randal Terry isn't the killer."
My mistake--I misread the article. It seems strange that they have not released the suspect's name.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-01 7:08:39 AM
"We need to distance ourselves from that."
Yes we do.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-01 9:16:32 AM
Matthew,
Check it out:
http://www.lifenews.com/state4194.html
The pro-lifers are denying his connection to their movement and amping up his connection to "anti-government militia groups."
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-06-01 1:16:04 PM
I heard that the suspect was a believer in the "sovereign citizen" concept which does not acknowledge the federal government's authority. So much for that idea. Libertarianism is no more, and Ron Paul is (and always was) a clown. Time to come back to the nest.
Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2009-06-01 1:23:48 PM
I wonder where they got that idea?
An unstable pro-life advocate kills an abortion doctor and this gets spun as a libertarian-motivated crime, when libertarians are almost universally opposed to prohiting abortion? This was a crime against a private citizen, not a crime against the state.
What a joke.
Posted by: Matthew Johnston | 2009-06-01 1:39:42 PM
Matthew,
The anti-abortion side knows that Roeder is the worst thing to happen to their movement in 10 years, at least. They can minimize the fallout if they can successfully link him to another band of kooks.
That's my theory, anyway.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2009-06-01 1:45:49 PM
"The anti-abortion side knows that Roeder is the worst thing to happen to their movement in 10 years, at least."
Well, that's the problem, isn't it, Terrence? One side can kill a million a year, and call it freedom. Let someone on the other side kill even one and they holler for his head. I wonder if pro-abortionists have any idea how sick and depraved their descendants are likely to find them.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-01 2:43:47 PM
When's the last time you heard of a pro-choicer gunning down an anti-abortionist in the streets?
I've yet to hear of a single one.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-01 4:54:09 PM
As to whether or not the murderer had libertarian views, slept with a bible under his pillow or bowed towards mecca three times a day none of that is particularly relevant. What is, is that he's an anti-abortionist who believes in killing and terrorizing people to try and further his cause.
The strongest common denominator is the anti-abortion stance.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-01 6:42:02 PM
And judging by the number of cheerleaders he has on this thread, he's not alone.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-01 6:43:11 PM
Farmer Joe: Well, the pro-lifers aren't killing babies, there's no moral mandate of protect the innocent on the pro-choicer's sides. Pro-lifers believe in pro-choice... it's a choice to have sex protected or not. And you live with your own, consequences, you don't make children pay for them with their lives. Murder is wrong though, on 6/2/09 Dr. Tiller's murder will be discussed on the Bible Answer Man's show in case you're interested in hearing what most of the community of Christians think about what happened. http://www.oneplace.com/ministries/Bible_Answer_Man/
Posted by: Brooke | 2009-06-01 7:21:41 PM
"pro-lifers aren't killing babies", neither was the good doctor, your straw dog doesn't hunt.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-01 8:07:52 PM
"there's no moral mandate of protect the innocent on the pro-choicer's sides."
Yes there is, there is a moral mandate to let women decide for themselves what they want to do with and too their bodies.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-01 8:13:07 PM
"What is, is that he's an anti-abortionist who believes in killing and terrorizing people to try and further his cause."
And what do you call one abortion for every three live births, over 1.1 million per year in the US alone? Especially THIS doctor, who punctured the skulls of babies who would likely survive outside the womb? The life of a single murderous opportunist is not much to offer in the balance against a holocaust like that.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 6:37:52 AM
"When's the last time you heard of a pro-choicer gunning down an anti-abortionist in the streets?"
When was the last time you heard of a pro-lifer slaughtering children by the millions?
If you want to ratchet up the rhetoric, F.J., go right ahead. I'll meet you and beat you. You're backing a losing horse.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 6:39:40 AM
""pro-lifers aren't killing babies", neither was the good doctor, your straw dog doesn't hunt."
Science says he was. Not only does this straw dog hunt, he's treed you and bitten your balls off.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 6:41:31 AM
"Yes there is, there is a moral mandate to let women decide for themselves what they want to do with and too their bodies."
But not with nor to those of others. RIM SHOT!
Keep it coming, F.J. Show us what a depraved, delusional twit you really are.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 6:45:09 AM
"Science says he was"
Science calls it a fetus. A fetus is not a baby. And before it was a fetus at one point it was an embryo, at another a zygote, these are not babies either.
Maybe you should try more name calling and getting more hysterical, that seems to be working well for you.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-02 8:22:23 AM
"Science calls it a fetus."
Which describes any unborn child until the moment of birth.
"A fetus is not a baby."
This is your opinion, not science. It's also a false opinion. Our first son didn't like the ultrasound and regularly swam away from it. For two months before he was born, my second son regularly got the hiccups. "Clumps of cells" don't get the hiccups, nor do they register their displeasure by moving elsewhere. It was at just such stages of development that this "doctor" practiced his murderous trade.
"And before it was a fetus at one point it was an embryo, at another a zygote, these are not babies either."
True. But it's a baby with heartbeat, brain waves, fingerprints, and a functioning nervous system by the time most abortions are carried out. And at all stages, it IS a human being. Science says that too.
Give it up, F.J. You have neither the facts nor the wit necessary to win this argument. Not that you're interested in winning.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 9:24:05 AM
P.S. The "straw dog" has now bitten your balls off, AND made balloon animals out of your lower intestine. Next stop: liver.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-02 9:25:30 AM
I for one am not crying for that mass murderer Tiller the killer!!!
Posted by: Merle Terlesky | 2009-06-02 6:22:57 PM
While there is great debate as to the status of a fetus, there is no debate what-so-ever that the doctor was a human being.
He was murderered by a "pro-lifer", other doctors have been murdered by "pro-lifers", while still other "pro-lifers"(Merle, Shane,Brooke,Cid,etc) cheer these murderers on. "Pro-lifers" have shown themselves time and again to be a clear and present danger to doctors.
Yet, no pro-choicer,to my knowledge, has ever gone on a killing spree to avenge these doctors. I would say that puts them on a moral high ground well above the "pro-lifers" who have given up on logic and reason and choosen the gun as their means of argument.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-02 11:16:54 PM
"...heartbeat, brain waves, fingerprints, and a functioning nervous system.."
Rights, are not a result of these mere biological functions.
A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a persons freedom of action in a social context. And life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action. A fetus does not have this ability and therefore does not have rights until it lives(as a baby) apart from it's mother. That which lives within the body of another can claim no right against its host. Rights belong only to individuals, not to collectives or to parts of an individual.
A child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because, unlike a fetus it is an actual, separate human being.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-03 12:15:07 AM
"Rights, are not a result of these mere biological functions. A 'right' is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a persons freedom of action in a social context."
But also a person's freedom from persecution, which includes freedom from being dismembered alive so that Mindy the Wonder Trollop won't have to worry about stretch marks.
"And life is a process of self-sustaining and self-generated action; the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action. A fetus does not have this ability and therefore does not have rights until it lives(as a baby) apart from it's mother."
And the baby's life is self-sustaining, until someone comes along, punctures its skull, and Hoovers out the pieces. A newborn can't survive without care either. In fact, babies are a lot more work once they're out. Take it from someone who's had two children. And at the age at which the good "doctor" operated, the baby would very likely have survived if separated from the mother.
"A child who depends on its parents for food, shelter, and clothing, has rights because, unlike a fetus it is an actual, separate human being."
You don't progress from a clump of rightless cells to a fully emancipated human being simply from the cutting of a cord, F.J. That argument is an artificial line drawn in an artificial sandbox. You're denying what science has long known to be true, and what any twit with an ultrasound can see to be true, by trying to bury it under an avalanche of legalistic jargon and existentialist bafflegab.
Give it up. Your viewpoint is legally, morally, ethically, and scientifically indefensible. You're cooking up rationalizations after the fact to support a decision you've already taken based on a belief, not facts. I would pit my knowledge of biology against yours any day. It's over. Your chicanery is exposed. The emperor has no clothes.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-03 6:51:46 AM
"While there is great debate as to the status of a fetus, there is no debate what-so-ever that the doctor was a human being."
You mean like Jack the Ripper was a human being?
"He was murderered by a 'pro-lifer', other doctors have been murdered by 'pro-lifers', while still other 'pro-lifers'(Merle, Shane,Brooke,Cid,etc) cheer these murderers on. 'Pro-lifers' have shown themselves time and again to be a clear and present danger to doctors."
Excuse me, in my first comment I quite clearly said that I did NOT condone this murder, and most of the others here have said the same. I also said that NO reduction in his sentence should be considered. So congratulations: Until now, you could have claimed sincerity if not lucidity or moral clarity; now you have not even that. With this bald lie, you have destroyed your credibility forever, what little you had.
"Yet, no pro-choicer,to my knowledge, has ever gone on a killing spree to avenge these doctors. I would say that puts them on a moral high ground well above the "pro-lifers" who have given up on logic and reason and choosen the gun as their means of argument."
No, they're content with 1.1 million dead a year. And while women, the primary supporters of abortion, may kill children (more so than men, even not counting abortion) fairly easily, most will not attack a grown man unless he's asleep. That doesn't make them principled, morally superior beings; it makes them cowards who butcher only the helpless. And what you would say is not to be trusted, as this lamentable effort at mass deceit and character assassination demonstrates.
You shouldn't try to manufacture moral legitimacy by pulling down your opponents, F.J. Especially when your attacks can so easily be proven false. Your arguments should be able to stand on their own merits. If you can't craft good arguments, the proper course is to withdraw, not start chucking mud in the hopes that something will stick.
P.S. Women have shown themselves time and again to be a danger to children. I wonder if we should start basing policy on that?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-03 7:07:00 AM
farmer Joe :
look out the window.. Behold ! a tiny bird sitting in a nest warming her eggs is guardian of embryos-non birds-
Dare you disturb these inert calcium spheres, geometry without rights --- and she will peck your fucking eyes out
Posted by: 419 | 2009-06-03 7:50:34 AM
"Dare you disturb these inert calcium spheres, geometry without rights --- and she will peck your fucking eyes out."
And if she doesn't, the cops will very politely clap you in jail for poaching. Yes, even an egg.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-06-03 9:25:54 AM
"The life of a single murderous opportunist is not much to offer in the balance against a holocaust like that."
"If none of you cowards will say it, I will: I am glad he is dead."
I already said it, in slightly different words: "I can think of few more deserving victims." But if you must have it straight between the eyes, here: May the fiends tear his heart in Hell for a million and a million and yet a million years, and his flesh be singed on harrows of hot iron and forever burn; earned it he has. Is that adequate?
Whose words are these Shane? You can't even spot your on contradictions. Saying you don't condone the murder in one post, and then cheering on the murderer in others? You can't have it both ways. If you think the doctor deserved to be killed and say so you are in fact condoning murder.
Posted by: Farmer Joe | 2009-06-03 10:02:51 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.