Your mother has been telling this to you since you were a little kid, taking revenge on the girl who stole your sucker by bopping her on the head. Or some variation of that reaction. It's still true today.
I read the newspaper during lunch today; something fairly rare for me, since I usually am absorbed in my latest book on my lunch break. But, the newspaper was just sitting there, begging for me to read it. The front page story was, of course, the article about the death of Dr. Tiller, one of the few doctors in the United States who still performed late term abortions. He was shot at his church in Wichita yesterday.
But, of course, this wasn't really what interested me. It was a quote from an antiabortionist (and forgive me, but I forget who, exactly it was), saying something along the lines of, "the baby killer now resides in Hell, where he belongs." Now, I don't care to debate abortion right now. I don't really care right now whether you are pro-life or pro-choice.
Rather, what strikes me about this quote is that this antiabortionist thinks it's morally right to have killed this man because he did an evil in this person's eyes. Now, obviously, this isn't the type of evil that would be punished by the justice system (at least, for now), so people are more likely to want to take things into their own hands. After all, this is how rulers get assassinated (corrupt or not).
Still, it goes back to the old mantra: two wrongs don't make a right.
What purpose did this killing achieve? Really? In two weeks, as horrible as this crime was, it'll likely be forgotten. And people are going to react against the person who did the killing, regardless of their views on abortion (for the most part, anyway; the members of the Westboro Baptist Church were among those who supported the killing). Regardless of what anyone thinks, Dr. Tiller did help people, albiet in ways that many would consider immoral. So, what is the point in killing him? What's the point of shooting him in a house of worship, of all places?
I guess I'll never understand.
That's my exact point in my blog. For a religion whos core principles is respect for human life, love and harmony; an atrocious act was committed in its name. It seems that human life is only valuable if it is a Christian life, and even then, not always.
I think that people are viewing "Tiller the Killer's" death as something like Hitler's or any other evil mass murderer. We're sorry he died, but we're having a hard time feeling sorry for him.
I'm a religious person, and I have quite a few religious friends. A friend of mine and I were talking earlier on Facebook about how we find it sad that so many people are assuming that Tiller's in Hell. As strong believers of God's mercy, we should be putting that to practice and be praying for his soul, not just assuming he will suffer eternal fire.
Also, let it be said that no one I've talked to and no articles that I've read (and I get quite a few things from quite a few pro-life groups) have come anywhere near hinting that this was morally correct. Everyone (that I've had any contact with) has condemned the killing as a cowardly act, because the pro-life message is peace and not violence. Because, as you said, what purpose does violence achieve?
Oh, and one side note for any religious people: Tiller did deserve hell. But so does everyone else, considering that we all sin, great or small.
Anyway, I plan on writing an article on this and will debate the subject there, but not now...now I gotta go clean the kitchen. :) Just wanted to add my $0.02! Peace!
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
Sorry, I don't liken Tiller's death to anything remotely like Hitler, Mao, or other such people. I also find it hard to believe that you are sorry he died when you liken him to people like Hitler and call him "Tiller the Killer". That alone shows how much empathy you really have for the women he has helped and his family. You may not see this murder as morally correct, but I find it hard to believe that you condemn it anywhere near the degree I do.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Hitler, Mao, and Tiller were all responsible for the deaths of numerous amounts of innocent people. That's how they're similar.
I'm not sorry that he's done preforming abortions, but I am sorry he died. I hope that he found peace with God and repented before he died.
I feel for his family just as I would feel for any other family who had a member shot to death. Sudden deaths are hard and I really do sincerely feel sorry for his family.
However, that does NOT mean that I'm going to bend over backwards to say nice things about a mass murderer just because he's dead. I'm sorry he died and I'm sorry for his family, but I am in no way going to dismiss his sins just because he's dead. He made his living off of killing people and he died because someone killed him. He is not an innocent victim, but someone who made culpable acts of muder, so it doesn't shock and amaze me that he died the same way he lived.
You can believe whatever you want. ;) However, I believe in the sanctity of every single human life, no matter how unworthy, because I believe that God loves us no matter what we do. Also, I believe that the only important thing in life is getting to heaven. Therefore, I find it to be the greatest tragedy that Tiller might have died without reparation for his countless charges of murder. Thus, we might view the tragedy of his death through different eyes, and thus, our "degrees" of condemning the murder are likely to differ.
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
And that pretty much sums up why I'm not a Christian.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
I think that people are viewing "Tiller the Killer's" death as something like Hitler's or any other evil mass murderer. We're sorry he died, but we're having a hard time feeling sorry for him.
This is actually the SECOND time that some crazed "pro-lifer" took a shot at Dr. Tiller. He survived being shot by one of these nut-bags back in 1993. And as usual, there is a significant chunk of the pro-life community that is all but cheering this REAL murder. For example...
Of course, there are a lot of pro-life organzations who have condemned the murder, but when reading those condemnations it sounds more like political lip-service than heart-felt horror at the crime. It also doesn't help your case when there are major players in the pro-life movement who say shit like this...
Rachel Maddow on the murder of George Tiller
It just sounds like more hypocrisy to me...but I suppose that's what we have come to expect from the "pro-life" movement and the christian terrorists that it harbors.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I would like to point out that not all pro-lifers are crazed, just the fanatical side, like every religion and movement has.
...since I have at no point even suggested that "all pro-lifers are crazed." However, in the context of comments like, "We're sorry he died, but we're having a hard time feeling sorry for him," and "Tiller did deserve hell," it seems appropriate to point out how the inflammatory rhetoric of the pro-life movement breeds and in many cases encourages this kind of radical action.
I also think it is appropriate to call out the disingenuity of comments like, "Also, let it be said that no one I've talked to and no articles that I've read (and I get quite a few things from quite a few pro-life groups) have come anywhere near hinting that this was morally correct. Everyone (that I've had any contact with) has condemned the killing as a cowardly act, because the pro-life message is peace and not violence.", when there are major figures in the pro-life movement who are all but calling this murderer a hero and continue to call this kind of violence against abortion service providers "justified." As the interview below indicates, there is significant support for this kind of violence in the leadership of the pro-life movement that is denied in public, but privately encouraged.
Interview with former anti-abortion extremist Frank Schaeffer following the murder of George Tiller
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I know, I was just pointing out because I know some people out there automatically assume that they are all crazed because of the crazy ones.
I agree with you on everything you've said about this.
This is actually the SECOND time that some crazed "pro-lifer" took a shot at Dr. Tiller.
Yes, that was included in every single article about him recently. Both arms, if I recall correctly.
I don't condemn it [the murder], and I believe that what he [the murderer] did was justifiable.
Well, that's a pity that Dan Holman thinks that way. I strongly disagree with him.
but when reading those condemnations it sounds more like political lip-service than heart-felt horror at the crime.
Well, I think you'd find a reason to pick at them no matter what they said, so I'm not going to argue with you over a business making a business statement.
The thought of him leaving this life with blood on his hands for having killed so many thousands of children and not having been prepared to meet his maker is a dreadful, terrifying thought.
That, I agree with. I am a Christian who believes that the only important thing in life is getting to Heaven ("what does it profit a man if he gains the whole world, but loses his soul..."). Thus, these words (for me, IDK what goes through Randall Terry's mind) are not just shit, they're sincere words based on strong personal beliefs.
Oh, and one final note. You cannot blame the pro-life movement at large for this murder. The suspect in custody has a record of being mentally unstable. You cannot blame an entire movement for the actions of a single mentally unstable individual. In peoples' opinions, you cannot assume that Dan Holman speaks for the pro-life movement. He speaks for himself. Randall Terry speaks for himself. I speak for myself. In my observations, the pro-life movement has been one as a majority in condemning the murder.
RESPECT LIFE
SMILE EVERY DAY
"It is poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish."
~Mother Teresa
...when they are followed immediately by a series of excuses that frame the act being condemned as "justified" or "understandable." Thus, I think it is perfectly valid to blame the pro-life movement at large for this murder, and you provide us with excellent evidence of why we should do just that. In your comments thus far, you have referred to Dr. Tiller as "Tiller the Killer" and as a "mass murderer." You said that he "deserve[d] hell" and that he was "not an innocent victim." You compared this doctor who was performing a perfectly legal medical procedure with "Hitler" and "Mao," and made a statement of moral equivalency between Dr. Tiller's legal profession and the assassination perpetrated against him (i.e. that "he died the same way he lived").
This kind of inflammatory rhetoric not only exemplifies the very lip-service that I mentioned above, but it is demonstrative of the attitude that not only excuses but in encourages people like Scott Roeder to act out as he did. And, according to Frank Schaeffer, that encouragement is intentional, and I think that your statements in this discussion are supportive of that evaluation.
I am a Christian who believes that the only important thing in life is getting to Heaven.
If this is true, then your position would seem to be in conflict with the pronouncements of the catholic church, which teaches that the souls of unbaptized infants go to heaven. If we were to accept this kind of irrational drivel as truth, George Tiller (unlike Scott Roeder) would not be guilty of stopping a single soul from reaching the pearly gates. The "soul" argument is irrelevant, of course, since it is purely speculative, but it is fun to point out the twisted religious hypocrisy of people who use their religion to excuse an act of murder.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"I think it is perfectly valid to blame the pro-life movement at large for this murder"
So, when a mentally ill pro-choicer kills any pro-lifer all the liberal spokespersons such as Rachel Madow and your self will be at fault?
---
I have an abortion related moral conundrum for your consideration:
Assuming that there is a genetic basis (at least a gene combination that indicates high probability) for homosexuality. Once that sequence is identified a pre-natal test is developed to detect it. Would you be for or against a mothers right to abort her baby simply because she had reason to think it might be gay?
"There is but one indefectibly certain truth, and that is the truth that pyrrhonistic scepticism itself leaves standing, — the truth that the present phenomenon of consciousness exists."
- William James
So, when a mentally ill pro-choicer kills any pro-lifer all the liberal spokespersons such as Rachel Madow and your self will be at fault?
Hardly. For one, there is NO equivocation on my part (or to the best of my knowledge, Ms. Maddow's) that murdering someone because they don't agree with you politically is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!! Anyone who murders a pro-life activist is a MURDER and should be PUNISHED to the full extent that the law allows, and there is NOTHING in my rhetoric that would even REMOTELY suggest that such an act would be "justifiable."
Also, on the point of the Scott Roeder's mental instability...you're missing the point (several of them, actually). Roeder may be mentally ill, but he was encouraged to act out by other activists in the pro-life movement. He was in contact with groups like Operation Rescue and the Army of God which have a history of this kind of violence. The Army of God is especially vocal in advocating for its followers to take the lives of abortion providers. One could argue that Mr. Roeder was taken advantage of by these groups, and I would not object to it.
Would you be for or against a mothers right to abort her baby simply because she had reason to think it might be gay?
It would be for the mother's right to do just that. The reasons that women have a right to seek an abortion have nothing to do with the potential sexuality of the fetus.
Accused killer's history, connections overlooked
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"Hardly. For one, there is NO equivocation on my part (or to the best of my knowledge, Ms. Maddow's) that murdering someone because they don't agree with you politically is ABSOLUTELY WRONG!!! Anyone who murders a pro-life activist is a MURDER and should be PUNISHED to the full extent that the law allows, and there is NOTHING in my rhetoric that would even REMOTELY suggest that such an act would be "justifiable."
Perhaps I misunderstood you when you said that "it is perfectly valid to blame the pro-life movement at large for this murder." Your RHETORIC says that the entire pro life movement is complicit with murder and the reason they are is RHETORIC calling the doctor in question a killer.
Where do you find the "pro-life movement at large" equivocating on murder? I thought it was the pro choice extremists that equivocate that ending human life is a guilt free choice until a certain moment of legal hair splitting occurs about 9 months into a persons life?
If certain INDIVIDUALS that are pro life used rhetoric (which from your examples is no worse than that you just used yourself) those SPECIFIC individuals are as guilty as you would be if someone walked into an operation rescue meeting and opened fire. You have given examples that are no worse than your rhetoric here, and speculation that has minimal basis. You personally have done more to encourage murder in this thread than the vast majority of the pro-Life movement has ever done.
Actions and words are done by individuals. Guilt and innocence is not group based.
---
RE aborting potentially gay fetuses:
"It would be for the mother's right to do just that. The reasons that women have a right to seek an abortion have nothing to do with the potential sexuality of the fetus."
A similar situation has begun to occur in China and other countries where parents desire boys and female babies have been aborted. Genetic diseases are also currently used as decision criteria for abortion. I just wondered about how absolute your support for abortion would be if euthanasia of a group you belong to became a motive.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
nor has it only recently begun. For decades each couple is only allowed to have one child. The parents choose which one they will keep, and often that is a boy child. http://geography.about.com/od/populationgeography/a/onechild.htm
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
I did not mean to imply that it was new, although 'new' encompasses a longer time period as I grow older. I only mentioned it to demonstrate that my hypothetical question had near parallels that were already happening.
Not all reasons to choose abortion are created equal, or even necessarily the woman's choice.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Your RHETORIC says that the entire pro life movement is complicit with murder and the reason they are is RHETORIC calling the doctor in question a killer.
Bullshit. There are three big differences. The first difference is that there is a significant tone that is prevalent throughout the pro-life movement that actively encourages its members to act out violently. The second difference is that I'm not calling the pro-lifers who weren't directly a part of the violent act murderers. They are complicit, because the pro-life movement eggs people like this on. Your tactic suggests that it isn't valid to point out when people are contributing to a problem. The third and most significant difference is that my statements are coupled with a COMPLETE DISAVOWAL of any violent response. There is not way to spin my statements into an interpretation that I feel that such violent acts are in ANY way "justifiable."
Where do you find the "pro-life movement at large" equivocating on murder?
Here's an example from this very discussion...
...and here is yet another statement from a major pro-life group giving a wink-and-a-nod to Dr. Tiller's killer...
I thought it was the pro choice extremists that equivocate that ending human life is a guilt free choice until a certain moment of legal hair splitting occurs about 9 months into a persons life?
You thought that because you have a poor understanding of both the pro-choice position as well as the legal basis keeps abortion legal in this country.
If certain INDIVIDUALS that are pro life used rhetoric (which from your examples is no worse than that you just used yourself) those SPECIFIC individuals are as guilty as you would be if someone walked into an operation rescue meeting and opened fire. You have given examples that are no worse than your rhetoric here, and speculation that has minimal basis.
Your argument here might be more convincing if this were an isolated incident. You seem to be forgetting that the pro-life movement has a significant history of this kind of violence. This wasn't even the first time that a pro-life activist has tried to kill Dr. Tiller. Even if we ignore the daily assaults, incidnets of vandalism and constant harassment that these groups focus on the facilities and staff members at the clinics, there have been literally dozens of similar murders, attemtpted murders, bombings and attempted bombings.
It is also horsepuckey to think that that these were just an act of an "INDIVIDUALS." Even aside from the GROUPS like the Army of God and Operation Rescue who have a history of actively promoting this kind of violence, there is already signficant evidence that Scott Roeder did not act alone. Heck, Operation Rescue had an ongoing program in which they followed Dr. Tiller around and Twittered inflammatory comments about the Doctor along with his daily movements to their members.
When Mr. Roeder was apprehended by the police, he had the name and phone number of Cheryl on him. Ms. Sullenger, of course, is a senior policy adviser for Operation Rescue who initially denied knowing Mr. Roeder, but later admitted that she had been in contact with him prior to the murder. This contact would be less suspicious, if not for the fact that Ms. Sullenger spent two years in prison for her own unsuccesfully 1988 attempt to place a bomb in a California abortion clinic. "INDIVIDUALS"...yeah, right.
You personally have done more to encourage murder in this thread than the vast majority of the pro-Life movement has ever done.
I'll leave it to our readers to decide for themselves just how rediculous this statement really is.
Actions and words are done by individuals. Guilt and innocence is not group based.
I am not suggesting that the entire pro-life movement should be rounded up and prosecuted. I AM suggesting that these groups have an ethcially culpable when they encourage their members to act out in this way.
I just wondered about how absolute your support for abortion would be if euthanasia of a group you belong to became a motive.
This is not the first time you have attempted this kind of canard with me. One would think that by now, you would have realized that I nothing if not consistent in the application of my opinions.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"I am not suggesting that the entire pro-life movement should be rounded up and prosecuted. I AM suggesting that these groups have an ethcially culpable when they encourage their members to act out in this way."
If I understand your attempt to wiggle out of your earlier statement the only thing we need to do when we identify persons who it is "perfectly valid to blame" for murder is call them names?
---
"You thought that because you have a poor understanding of both the pro-choice position as well as the legal basis keeps abortion legal in this country."
Two issues with that one.
First the "pro-choice position" is not a single monolithic opinion held in unison. It is a spectrum with a great deal of variety. A sizable majority supports the basic right, but only a small percentage support late term, partial birth, and refusing medical care to survivors of the procedure as EXTREMISTS do.
Second the Roe v Wade decision is one of my favorite pieces of legislating from the judicial bench. I have read it, and while it does go a ways out onto a limb to infer a right to privacy, implied rather than stated in the Constitution, that right is one that I would rather see expanded than contracted or abolished.
---
"One would think that by now, you would have realized that I nothing if not consistent in the application of my opinions."
First we test, then we trust. ;-)
One of your most admirable traits is the strength of your convictions. In this specific case that force of opinion led you to equal the opponent you are faulting.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
but I did not find anything so horrendous as you describe in blackout's participation in this thread. i do not recall him resorting to "name calling" or any kind of the advocacy of violence that you have suggested. Perhaps I am tired? Would you care to enlighten us by providing quotes? I realize you quote him in each of your responses, but even here I think that your interpretations of his statements is reaching quite far and not really based in reality? Perhaps you can explain your position better so I, and others, can grasp what you are actually accusing blackout of.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
What do we call people that are "to blame...for murder"?
"I think it is perfectly valid to blame the pro-life movement at large for this murder"
-blackout
"I think that your interpretations of his statements is reaching quite far and not really based in reality? Perhaps you can explain your position better so I, and others, can grasp what you are actually accusing blackout of."
Blackout is guilty of Demonizing those he disagrees with.
It seems quite simple to me that he feels calling this doctor a murderer is to blame for the killing. So he calls millions of people that never even said this accessories to that murder. How helpful is that? Our society uses deadly force to imprison people that are actually guilty of what he accuses.
In the end the rhetoric in either case is not to blame for ACTION, but his rhetoric is just as guilty as that of his opponents in making the situation worse.
Love your enemy and you can solve or minimize the problem and reach peaceful compromise, Hate your enemy and escalate the conflict and what does that get us?
To the topic of this blog: isn't he providing the second (rhetorical) wrong?
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
I think you're misinterpreting him a great deal. Consider this...
A woman is walking down a street when she is attacked, raped, and subsequently killed. All the time, she is shouting 'help, I'm being raped!' or something along those lines. The homes lining the street are not empty, but rather filled with people who would rather watch tv than to listen to what is happening outside. And so, her cries are not responded to, even by someone picking up the phone and calling the police for help. The next day, when the news of the rape and murder hits the papers, the neighbors all say 'she had it coming, because she was a slut and deserved such treatment. If only she had been modest, this would have never happened.'
Are the neighbors responsible for the murder? Not in the strictest sense... they, after all, were not the ones who actually murdered the woman. However, they did nothing to stop the murder, and even blamed her for bringing it upon herself through her actions.
That is what blackout is accusing the pro-life movement of doing. Did they have a direct hand in the murder? Some members did, perhaps, but not the movement at large. Rather, through their actions, they are making it seem as if this murder is not detestable as it should be. It's justifiable, because the victim was a murderer himself.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
"I think it is perfectly valid to blame the pro-life movement at large for this murder"
blackout
The only reason I can see to blame everyone on the opposite side of any issue for actions that they had no involvement in is to discredit that position.
Since the pro life position is AGAINST any killing I have a strong suspicion that this misrepresentation, and defense of it, may be motivated by secret guilt.
Why would anyone whose position on an issue resulted in millions of deaths feel subconsciously guilty?
Ask any woman that has actually had to make this choice.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Since the pro life position is AGAINST any killing I have a strong suspicion that this misrepresentation, and defense of it, may be motivated by secret guilt.
Putting the back handed ad hominems aside, the fact remains that the "pro-life" movement has a pretty significant history of violence. This movement has learned to clean up its rhetoric in recent years, but the same people who were calling for and in some cases participating in these acts are still involved in the pro-life movment, and are are even sitting today in positions of leadership among those groups. How legitimate can denunciations of violence really be when its founders are on record excusing murder, and its senior policy advisers are actually convicted abortion clinic bombers, themselves?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/52306-two-wrongs-dont-make-right#commen...
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
If I understand your attempt to wiggle out of your earlier statement...
...in the things that I have said and the things that I have quoted from various pro-lifers only indicates the inherent flaw in your own moral compass. There is no "wiggling" going on in my position, despite what you are attempting to imply through your intentional misrepresentation of that position.
First the "pro-choice position" is not a single monolithic opinion held in unison.
There are always at least minor variances in the positions of individuals within a given issue-driven group, but for the most part the pro-choice position is pretty consistent. At its most basic level, that position is that it is the woman's right, rather than the government's right, to determine if that woman will carry her pregnancy to term. The reason behind this position is that very few people are truly comfortable with the idea that the government should be able to use deadly force (not an exaggeration...all law enforcement relies on the implicit threat of deadly force to ensure compliance) to compel a woman who does not want to carry her pregnancy to term. To the best of my knowledge, there is no significant disagreement on this point within any major sector of the pro-choice movement. You are welcome to offer examples if you feel otherwise.
Second the Roe v Wade decision is one of my favorite pieces of legislating from the judicial bench.
Factually incorrect. Roe did not enact ANY laws, and thus your accusation is demonstrably false. Striking down unconstitutional laws, also known as Judicial Review is a well-established power of the Courts. In my experience, accusations of "legislating from the bench" is more often than not just a meaningless pejorative that is based more in political disagreement with a given judicial ruling than in any firm understanding of the law and the role of the Courts. This seems to be the case with your objection, as well.
In this specific case that force of opinion led you to equal the opponent you are faulting.
My response to this should be equally predictable to you, as I will let our readers decide whether or not your criticism is valid, rather than the gross exaggeration as which it appears to me.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"I think it is perfectly valid to blame the pro-life movement at large for this murder"
-Blackout
"There is no "wiggling" going on in my position, despite what you are attempting to imply through your intentional misrepresentation of that position."
Actually it is your STATEMENT as directly quoted, not any 'position' which I make absolutely no representation of. Either millions of innocent people are ""... to blame ...for this murder" or they are not. If they are not to blame your statement is 'rediculous'[sic] extreme and equal to the examples you gave accusing this doctor of murder. Thus your statement makes you as complicit in any murder that is committed against pro-lifers. Which we all know is just as unsupportable as your original statement.
---
"The reason behind this position is that very few people are truly comfortable with the idea that the government should be able to use The reason behind this position is that very few people are truly comfortable with the idea that the government should be able to use deadly force (not an exaggeration...all law enforcement relies on the implicit threat of deadly force to ensure compliance) to compel a woman who does not want to carry her pregnancy to term. To the best of my knowledge, there is no significant disagreement on this point within any major sector of the pro-choice movement. You are welcome to offer examples if you feel otherwise."
I see it in exactly the same way. The difference is I can also see the perspective of the pro-lifers, the vast majority of whom do not support "deadly force" being used against women, doctors, or babies.
---
Can you quote the 'right to privacy' in the constitution? I can't seem to find it, but I wish it was there in a much more clear and forceful form.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
You are applying a logical fallacy by attempting to extrapolate my argument to an absurd level. You are also intentionally ignoring repeated attempts to clarify this position for you. I will attempt to do so once again.
The only thing that EVERY SINGLE MEMBER of the pro-life movement is guilty of AS INDIVIDUALS is a lack of respect for the rights of the women who seek these procedures. However, when you associate yourself with a political movement, you are acting as MORE than just an individual. If a few radicals within a movement do something that is uncharacteristic of the movement as a whole, then it is fair I think for other within that movement to distance themselves form any responsibility for those acts. If however those acts NOT radical to the goals of the movement, and it is in fact relatively common for members of that movement to act out in the way in question, then it becomes difficult if not impossible to claim membership in the movement without being associated with those acts.
In other words, there are degrees of blame. Scott Roeder is (in all likelihood) guilty of the murder of Dr. George Tiller. Assuming he is found guilty, Scott Roeder should be convicted of that murder and sent to prison of a very long time. But, Scott Roeder didn't come up with the idea of shooting Dr. Tiller all by himself. Heck, he wasn't even the FIRST pro-life activist to attempt it. There are others in that movement, many of whom sit in positions of leadership within the pro-life movement, that encouraged Mr. Roeder to act as he did. Many of those same leaders are themselves guilty of similar acts of violence. Many more pro-lifers are guilty of rhetoric that ranges from excusing the crime after the fact to actively encouraging similar crimes in the future. Former prominent members of this movement who have come forward admit that there is a common double-standard in the movement which involves the public denouncement of violence, but a private encouragement for the same. THIS is the culpability which I have described and (repeatedly) explained in this discussion.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I'm with you until you apply the term "relatively common" to 8 murders since 1977 contrasted with 141,837 incidents of picketing or millions of dead babies. There is no question that the most extreme activists have committed an alarming number of violent acts. Yet it is just as obvious that most abortion opponents do not engage in any violent acts against abortion providers.
60 million think abortion should always be illegal, eight times those extremists resorted to murder in 22 years. In that same time period the US murder rate varied from 10.2 to 5.5 per 100,000. So about 3,300 murders were committed in the most peaceful year, and about 100,000 over the same period by the average 60 million Americans.
Assuming the murder rate among pro lifers is representative of the population as a whole only 1 murder out of 12,000 actually committed by the most extreme was directed toward abortion providers.
Common relative to what?
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Actually, I would suggest that 8 murders specifically targeted against citizens because of their chosen, legal profession does indeed represent a higher than average rate of incidence. And let's not forget that these were only the SUCCESSFUL murders. The verified ATTEMPTED murders during that same period is more than double that figure, along with more than 150 assaults and batteries and literally hundreds of death threats. Oh, and let's not forget the 3 kidnappings. Tack onto those figures "41 bombings, 173 arsons, 91 attempted bombings or arsons, 619 bomb threats, 1630 incidents of trespassing, 1264 incidents of vandalism, and 100 attacks with butyric acid ("stink bombs")" (LINK), and suddenly your implication that this kind of violent behavior is somehow uncommon is revealed as the fraud that it is.
Oh, and your "1 murder out of 12,000" contains a statistical oversight. You forgot to balance your equation by limiting the pool of potential victims. If you're going to limit your pool of potential pool of perpetrators to people who think that abortion is legal, then you need to similarly limit their pool of potential victims to the likely targets. On this case, I think that limiting that pool to the roughly 1,700 abortion providers seems appropriate. So, when we add weight for the difference between the 300,000,000 Americans in the general population to the smaller population of 1,700 abortion providers, your "1 murder out of 12,000" actually equates to 18,000 "murder[s] out of 12,000."
I also take umbrage with your pejorative attempt to compare these illegal acts to the legal procedure of abortion. In fact, I would say that your use of the term "dead babies" in your comparison makes you guilty of EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF HYPER-EXAGGERATED RHETORIC THAT LED TO DR. TILLER'S DEATH. In a sick way, you have actually made my point about the way that the pro-life movement excuses the violence it passively promotes and excuses through its back-handed rhetoric. Thanks for that.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
if it makes you feel better.
"I also take umbrage with your pejorative attempt to compare these illegal acts to the legal procedure of abortion. In fact, I would say that your use of the term "dead babies" in your comparison makes you guilty of EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF HYPER-EXAGGERATED RHETORIC THAT LED TO DR. TILLER'S DEATH. In a sick way, you have actually made my point about the way that the pro-life movement excuses the violence it passively promotes and excuses through its back-handed rhetoric. Thanks for that."
So, is the term 'aborted fetuses' more palatable to you? What do you gain by denying the reality of the controversy? Those dead babies are the only reason there is opposition to the right to have an abortion. Which part do you find "HYPER-EXAGGERATED" Dead, or babies?
---
"Figures don't lie, but liars sure do figure"
Your math is a bit off, and your conclusion is stated in a nonsensical way.
Perhaps I stated my statistic poorly. 1 time out of 12,000 actual murders committed by those that think abortion should always be illegal the motive has been the victims position as an abortion provider. The number of potential targets is irrelevant to the statistic.
Perhaps you could provide some clarity on how you arrived at that 18,000 figure and why it is significant to this discussion
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
So, is the term 'aborted fetuses' more palatable to you?
Actually, yes. I always prefer to use the correct term instead of a pejorative exaggeration that is intended to evoke an emotional response rather than a carefully reasoned one.
The number of potential targets is irrelevant to the statistic.
I disagree. You "statistic" is based on murder rates generated in comparison to the general population. This methodology is insufficient, however, because the people in your limited pool aren't choosing their victims from the general population. Their victims come from a much smaller pool of potential victims...specifically abortion providers. There are approximately 1700 abortion providers in this country, which is of course 1/18,000th of the approximately 306,000,000 people in the general population. Thus, the impact of 1 targeted murder from within that pool of 1700 potential victims is 18,000 times statistically more significant than your 1 murder drawn from the general population.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Dreaded
skinny
boxes
Posted at the top.
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/52306-two-wrongs-dont-make-right#commen...
This is an excellent question to ask. To be fair, us lefties may be to blame when our ideology contributes to killings (and I'm sure you could find examples of when it does). Maybe some crazy PETA guy assassinated a slaughterhouse owner, who knows. I will argue that there are relevant differences in our beliefs, and that at least one feature of yours is inherently more dangerous.
The biggest difference seems to be that your ideology makes a virtue of religious faith, a sort of false confidence in one's beliefs. It is true that people on both sides believe all manner of nonsense, but you (as a group) hold that a a great deal of your nonsense is somehow exempt from rational criticism. When you reject the moderating force that accompanies a healthy skepticism, you let insanity seep in through the cracks. It may not manifest as murder, but it will almost certainly corrupt your habits of mind.
"...us lefties...
...our beliefs...
...yours is inherently more dangerous...
...both sides...
...you (as a group) hold that..."
One type 'nonsense' that 'both sides' tend to fall for is assuming that there are (only) two sides. This is true of the abortion issue as well as many others(religion?). This assumption is one that contributes to many of these problems. Pro-choice people largely do not advocate killing babies, and pro-life people largely do not favor imprisoning women.
The reason that a debate exists at all in this area is that a conflict of interests exists. On one side is the right of a woman to control her own body, and on the other is the right of a living being to continue life. When two sets of rights are at odds the choice is conflict or compromise.
Obviously the extremists on both sides reject compromise, and insist that the others are absolutely Wrong! Most people are willing to reach a reasonable compromise and go on with their lives. I fall into the compromise category with most people.
Do you really think insisting on absolutes, or dividing people into us and them is ever going to solve anything?
Black vs White is an illusion, shades of gray is the reality.
Peace is possible.
We are ALL individuals, not groups.
It is what it is, and it is all good.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
I criticized righties for making a virtue of religious faith. You responded:
-there are more than two positions in the abortion debate.
-the abortion debate involves weighing conflicting interests.
-you, and most people, are willing to compromise.
-reality isn't black-and-white.
Do you deny that there is a meaningful left/right political distinction (even if many people fall in the middle)? Do you deny that those on the right overwhelmingly approve of strong religious faith? I did not intend to unfairly pick on conservatives. I mean to blame everyone who thinks any of his or her beliefs are beyond rational discourse for the death of Mr. Tiller.
My approach differs somewhat from Blackout's on this matter. I see dangerous rhetoric as a symptom of a deeper problem: the glorification of sloppy thinking. I want to encourage vigorous debate that cuts right to the heart of the issue; I'm not happy suggesting the crazies should just tone down their rhetoric. To this end I have made some pretty big accusations, and I would love for you to tear 'em apart!
"Do you deny that there is a meaningful left/right political distinction (even if many people fall in the middle)?"
I think there are dozens of flavors that are artificially polarized into those pigeon holes. The primary perpetrators of the illusion are those that care for nothing more than power on 'both' sides. Divide and conquer?
---
"Do you deny that those on the right overwhelmingly approve of strong religious faith?"
Are you a weak Atheist? If you admit that your views on religion are wishy washy and easily influenced then perhaps that is a distinction, but I doubt it. I have never seen any appreciable difference between the strength of conviction held by right or left wing opinions on ANY subject including religion. Religion is nowhere near a strong indicator of conservatism, or liberalism. Republicats just found a faction to exploit and did it. Can you think of a few factions exploited by the Democans?
---
"I see dangerous rhetoric as a symptom of a deeper problem: the glorification of sloppy thinking. I want to encourage vigorous debate that cuts right to the heart of the issue; I'm not happy suggesting the crazies should just tone down their rhetoric."
Crazy rhetoric makes these problems more persistent, but 'crazy like a fox' rhetoric is also a hindrance.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/jun/05/coverage-uneven-for-abortion...
The two most different individuals in the human race, if described in sufficient detail, are 99% identical. Hating your opponent is the problem, loving your opponent leads to solutions.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
The thrust of my argument deals with religious faith. Regardless of political groupings, there are people out there encouraging religious faith, which I claim is essentially false confidence. I claim that these people are eroding our mental faculties, that they are largely responsible for many of our problems including ideological violence, and that they cause far more harm than good. Please address this argument.
Have I misunderstood the nature of religious faith? Is this faith not responsible for a great deal of ignorance and violence? Does the good of religious faith outweigh the bad? I am interested in your responses to these questions. You don't like conventional political labels, so I'm sidestepping that issue in order to get at what really matters here.
Love isn't good enough. Maybe someone loves fetuses so much that he would kill to defend their chances at life. The issue is, as you know, much more complicated. If you are accusing me of hate, I assure you I hate bad ideas but not bad people.
"Have I misunderstood the nature of religious faith?"
Yes. Human belief is the starting point which we all have. Those beliefs vary wildly even when they share a label such as Left, Right, Christian, Atheist.
Since we are wandering quite a ways from the subject of the blog lets get back to the question of abortion. Do you think that all Atheists define the beginning of human life at an irrefutable moment of development? If so which? (conception, independent heartbeat, First brainwaves, muscular movement, Survivable outside the womb, birth). Certainly all Christians don't share any particular view.
---
"Is this faith not responsible for a great deal of ignorance and violence?"
Have you considered that question as though it were a scientific hypothesis?
The first question is has there ever been a completely faithless human society? I would answer that with a no. The closest examples are societies based on a philosophy that specifically rules out religious faith. Marxism is the most recent glaring example. While the bloody history of these anti-religious societies does not prove that Atheism is inherently bloodthirsty they do show quite clearly that removing religious faith does not magically eliminate ignorance and violence.
On a small scale pacifist religious and Atheist groups have existed. Obviously each would consider the other ignorant by definition.
Social Darwinism seems to rule out the possibility that any truly peaceful culture will enjoy long term success. The violent cultures tend to eat them up. This may account for the evidence you see that religion causes violence. A pacifist religion such as Jainism exists only when the dominant religion is tolerant. Some less purely pacifist religions such as Christianity or Buddhism have found rationalizations that allow them to coexist with, and even support violence. Atheism does not inoculate a person from violence, ignorance, or rationalization.
---
"Does the good of religious faith outweigh the bad?"
Wouldn't that be best left as a question each of us should be free to decide on our own? If the answer is yes should Atheism be outlawed?
---
"Love isn't good enough. Maybe someone loves fetuses so much that he would kill to defend their chances at life. The issue is, as you know, much more complicated. If you are accusing me of hate, I assure you I hate bad ideas but not bad people."
If love is not good enough what is? I am not accusing you of hate only pointing out how the false polarity of us vs them LEADS to hate, from both sides of each issue. Rather than focusing on how right your opinion is, and how wrong theirs is it is more productive to find the areas where agreement is possible and build from there. Extremists ARE hating and worsening the problems. People that respect each others right to disagree love their own freedom enough to give freedom to everyone else too.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Yes our beliefs must start somewhere, but we don't all question our beliefs. Many speak of 'taking a leap of faith' or 'knowing by faith' to explain their beliefs; its not about where you start so much as how you proceed thereafter.
No; we tend to see 'a human life' as a fuzzy concept because of intermediate stages between it and: 'an ape life'; 'a dead human'; 'a robotic life'; and most relevant, 'human sex cells' (which are 'human life' but not 'a human life'). This concept describes a set of conditions, especially: a certain capacity for emotion and thought, a range of genetic codes, and a fleshy bipedal body. If you ask me, a human fetus gradually becomes 'a human life' as it develops to meet the first and third conditions. Of course other atheists may disagree. What is the importance of being human?
Sort of. I identified a mechanism by which religious faith leads to ignorance - mental habits - and noted that 'Xtreme Xianity'+courage+justice nicely explains the phenomenon of abortioner-killings. Replace Christianity with Islam or Marxism and it nicely explains other forms of ideological violence. In each case, belief is decoupled from reality by religious faith. Ironically, Marxism is typically believed with the same 'leap of faith' rationale as the religions it tried to displace.
Neither does Sanity. Sanity only prevents specific kinds of violence, ignorance, and rationalization. Ask your doctor if Sanity is right for you.
No: we can't make every bad thing illegal. Even really bad things can be too hard to regulate for a law to be worthwhile. What we can do is preach thoughtfulness instead of ignorance.
Truth. Our beliefs stay under control to the extent that we're honest with ourselves. Self-honesty means holding your beliefs up to reality and rejecting any that don't match. It is the opposite of religious faith.
"What is the importance of being human?"
An excellent question. As humans we all automate nearly all of our decision making by acting out of habit. Fundamental values like 'thou shalt not kill' have traditionally been taught through religion. If no strict 'take it on faith' rules are to be taught, what is wrong with killing an inconvenient human or two as long as no one finds out?
---
"Replace Christianity with Islam or Marxism and it nicely explains other forms of ideological violence. In each case, belief is decoupled from reality by religious faith. Ironically, Marxism is typically believed with the same 'leap of faith' rationale as the religions it tried to displace."
What is next? One of my favorite books is Extraordinary Popular Delusions And the Madness of Crowds By Charles MacKay which deals mainly with financial hysteria. Since the internet communication revolution we have certainly seen a series of financial bubbles (tech stocks, real estate, commodities). I am also expecting some non financial mass idiocy, spreading via this best comunication medium the world has ever known, soon. People are simply not rational, and wishing they were will not make them so. What you see as irrational religious beliefs is not the CAUSE of this merely one EFFECT.
---
"Sanity only prevents specific kinds of violence, ignorance, and rationalization."
We are not Spock. Sanity is not a true/false binary value. It is an analog spectrum, and each of us oscillates over a range on that scale.
---
"Self-honesty means holding your beliefs up to reality and rejecting any that don't match. It is the opposite of religious faith."
Not exactly. The word Repent isThe Greek word translated repentance means "to change one's mind." So, in a way "holding your beliefs up to reality and rejecting any that don't match" is REQUIRED by some religions, but not by Atheism.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
I asked that question in the context of the abortion issue - why is it wrong to end a human life? If we're supposed to take it on faith, what about pseudo-humans (neanderthals, androids, gametes, and braindeads)? I'm making a drawing-the-line argument here: you say killing humans is wrong but killing {X,Y,Z} isn't, I respond by identifying intermediate cases and challenging you to draw the line where it becomes murder (I must be careful to avoid the drawing-the-line fallacy). I claim there is no line where moral importance jumps significantly. Draw the lines. If you can't, this suggests that human value comes from some feature which humans happen to have more of than {X,Y,Z} do.
To answer your question (how can you have morality without religious faith?), I admit that objective morality seems to depend on religious faith, but maintain that weaker forms of morality do not. For example, you might use moral language simply to express desires. I disapprove of murder, and this is what I mean when I say "I believe murder is wrong". I'm not describing a perceptible feature of murder (as in "I believe murder is messy"), I'm just expressing how I feel about murder. I don't have to "take it on faith".
Maybe my terminology is confusing. I'm arguing (not just wishing) against religious faith, by which I mean "belief in excess of rational evidence". I use 'religious' to distinguish it from beliefs proportioned to rational evidence, such as faith in science. Maybe I should just call it 'overconfidence'. Overconfidence causes many kinds of mass idiocy, including financial.
...and our susceptibility to violence, ignorance, and rationalization oscillates with us.
Christians are good at using core beliefs to police other beliefs and actions, and I agree that it takes self-honesty to see your own errors. Christianity, to its credit, discourages overconfidence in one's self. But I have never heard of penance/repentance involving rational examination of Christianity. Every religion seems to promote overconfidence in the religion itself.
Let me revise my statement: self-honesty means trying to get [belief = evidence] and religious faith means allowing [belief > evidence]. Not exactly opposite, but close.
I just wanted to chime in about one comment you made.
I admit that objective morality seems to depend on religious faith...
The idea of objective morality requires that there be an objective standard against which the morality of actions can be measured. Such a standard must by definition exist independently of the human mind. Since neither christianity nor any other religion can be demonstrated to be true through actual, objective evidence, the claim that religion offers its followers an objective moral code is baseless. The evidence suggests that moral codes of various religions are created in the minds of the followers of those religions in the exact manner as all other moral codes, and are thus equally subjective.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Patriotic Atheism
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"you say killing humans is wrong but killing {X,Y,Z} isn't, I respond by identifying intermediate cases and challenging you to draw the line where it becomes murder (I must be careful to avoid the drawing-the-line fallacy). I claim there is no line where moral importance jumps significantly."
Any 'line' in the question of when "life begins" is arbitrary. I follow a morality based on relative values which often conflict, as they do in the abortion debate, rather than a simpler illusion of absolute right or wrong of either side. Extremists on both sides find comfort in over simplification which helps them feel good for being on the 'right' side and unfortunately this emotional high comes with the cost of demonizing their opposition.
On a more humorous note:
"While experts remain at odds over the issue of when life begins, most agree it is sometime after work."
---
"To answer your question (how can you have morality without religious faith?), I admit that objective morality seems to depend on religious faith, but maintain that weaker forms of morality do not."
I would not say that morality is based on religion, but most of our popular religions are based on a single advanced moral thinker and teacher or traditional morality that is centuries old. The followers of those teachers rarely absorb all of their teachings, which often oppose violent human instincts, but at least there is a higher moral goal or ideal.
The most disturbing aspect of most Atheist apologists here is not that they oppose unreasoned ignorance in the form of religious traditions, but rather that they offer no superior alternative. Amorality is not better than morality except in the rarest of cases. Most often it merely frees angry violent human instinct from any constraint. Ancient religious values are often far from perfect, but they are preferable to even more ancient kill or be killed instinct which lurks just below the surface. It would be a welcome relief if an Atheist on this site proposed a superior morality rather than just bashing the religious beliefs of others.
---
"I'm arguing (not just wishing) against religious faith, by which I mean "belief in excess of rational evidence". I use 'religious' to distinguish it from beliefs proportioned to rational evidence, such as faith in science. Maybe I should just call it 'overconfidence'."
Fear of God (reality) is the beginning of wisdom -Proverbs 1.7
All of us believe many things that we lack the time and/or talent to arrive at independently each time the need for them arises. I can agree that overconfidence is often a bad thing. The fear that we may be wrong about any part of our perceived reality is an important part of the wisdom we each need to continue learning. What name you give the Truth that is larger than you or your understanding is not as important as knowing that is is there, and all powerful.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
Agreed. Your earlier comment suggested we ought to "take it on faith" that murder is wrong - how do you decide what counts as murder if human lives have unclear boundary conditions? What makes human lives valuable?
Superior or not, I have made an attempt:
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/51255-utilitarianism-part-i-intuition
I'll probably work on part II tonight, thanks for the reminder :)
I don't claim to know everything, but if there is an omnipotent being, it must not want me to know its whereabouts.
Obviously the extremists on both sides reject compromise, and insist that the others are absolutely Wrong!
I'm curious...who do you think the "extremists" are on the pro-choice side of this debate? Could you perhaps also give us a few examples of acts by these supposed pro-choice "extremists" that are equivalent to the murder of Dr. Tiller?
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
"I'm curious...who do you think the "extremists" are on the pro-choice side of this debate?"
Anyone that thinks:
"I think it is perfectly valid to blame the pro-life movement at large for this murder"
makes a pretty good example of an extreme position. In fact that is the only statement on this thread that I thought was too extreme to go unchecked.
---
"Could you perhaps also give us a few examples of acts by these supposed pro-choice "extremists" that are equivalent to the murder of Dr. Tiller?"
As I recall the equivalent I drew was between the rhetoric of the two extremes. However, in the opinion of the pro-life movement not my own, each aborted baby, and women that were the victims of 'back alley' abortionists pre-roe might be examples of their victims. Apparently in the eyes of the killer those acts were sufficient provocation.
If rhetoric is in fact strong enough to be blamed for this murder perhaps we shall see those reactive crimes soon, but do you really expect to?
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
In other words, no...you CAN'T come up with any examples. Frankly, your response above is laughably weak, but does serve to show the ultimately baseless nature of your position.
You're really funny* sometimes, dude.
TTFN,
Blackout
*Not in a good way.
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
The second wrong negates the first one, making the second wrong doer's complaint about the first wrong completely invalid. Justice does not allow for this. If one is Just, that person will let the first wrong stand alone, and bring it to light for all to see, and allow the populace and law enforcers to decide how to deal with it.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
If one is Just, that person will seek to punish evildoers and minimize evil - in this sense two wrongs do make a right. If one is Confident, that person may act without the help of populace or police. If one is Xtreme Xian, that person probably thinks late-term abortion is evil. Those elements seem sufficient to motivate the murder of an abortion doctor.
Christianity is obviously a factor, and to my mind the most problematic. Moderate Christians may respond by attacking Confidence: "we should be Humble; let God do the judgment". But Confidence is not the problem. Confidence can be justified. If we must assign blame for this murder, how about the absurd idea that something can be "justified" by faith alone?
because as you said, it is "absurd." Lots of things in this world are absurd, and many people have absurd ideas. i guess it is fair to say that most Christians would not kill someone except in self defense or while serving in the military.
i think it is absurd for a person to expect that killing someone they find "evil" is a good or moral act, but we all know that this happens. This is the same motivation of radical Muslims who engage in acts of terrorism and suicide bombings. it is indeed "absurd."
My point is simply that it makes no logical sense to argue that something is wrong and to try to make the point by doing the exact same wrong act. i realize that i am not arguing from the point of view of "an eye for an eye," and many think that way. I do not. "An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind." I don't believe in superheros either, so your description of people who seek to destroy evil bothers me. I know that people think of themselves this way, but it is grandiosity that borders on insanity in my opinion. That does not make a person "Just."
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
True enough, but it makes perfect logical sense to argue that something is wrong and then try to stop it. What if doing the exact same wrong act would prevent many instances of it? Our culture frowns on violence against (post-birth) humans so this method is probably not very effective at preventing abortions. While we agree that murdering Tiller was both wrong and counterproductive, I can imagine circumstances where murdering a murderer would discourage murder (consider an anarchy situation).
I don't think Tiller was a murderer, and I'm no fan of old testament style "eye for an eye" punishment either, I'm just trying to say that the concept of justice is really about fairness. The guy who murdered Tiller was screwed up in many ways, but being insufficiently Just is not among them. Nor do I think he lacked empathy - I suspect he was fueled by it in a sick, twisted way that only RespectLife and company can truly understand. His (and their) big problem is religious faith. It is at best a useful fantasy and at worst... this.
"I can imagine circumstances where murdering a murderer would discourage murder (consider an anarchy situation)."
True enough. However, i personally don't think murder is ever right, unless it is done in direct self defense. I do not believe in capital punishment either, so that I guess is the moral stance I take. Isn't that called "deontology?" I still get confused about moral theories, so that is a sincere question. If murder is wrong, it is always wrong, with very few exceptions.
I do believe that murderers and violent criminals should be locked up, but again, our prison system is so screwed up, this doesn't accomplish much, especially when we release them back into society after years of living with other violent caged animals.
So, again I find myself in a moral conundrum. I think in some ways it would actually be more humane to execute murderers and violent criminals quickly than to keep them caged in the current prison system for prolonged periods of time. To effectively keep the people safe, they should probably all get life sentences since the prison system does little to nothing to rehabilitate them, and only reinforces the need for violence in order to survive. But that seems even more cruel than a quick death.
Still, I think even capital punishment is murder, and ultimately do not agree with it. I realize this has become a tangent off of the original topic, but I wanted to share anyway.
"His (and their) big problem is religious faith. It is at best a useful fantasy and at worst... this."
I have to say that is apparently true, and it is sad. It is a disease that our world suffers from, and Dr.Tiller is just the latest victim. I suppose we are lucky that American religious terrorists don't go on suicide bombings and such, at least they tend to pick out individual targets.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
...its all about the actions themselves. If you think the bottom line here is "murder is wrong except when X, Y, or Z" then this moral system is for you.
When you judge murder in terms of being "humane" or "cruel" you seem to acknowledge deeper values that explain the rule. Maybe a better rule goes:
But then you have to decide what counts as "humane" or "cruel", and how to weigh various wrongs against each other. You might broaden your rule again:
To get a plausible version of deontology you have to compare goods versus bads and then define "good/bad situation" in terms of good/bad actions.
As a consequentialist I see the opposite relationship: actions derive their value from situations.
"As a consequentialist I see the opposite relationship: actions derive their value from situations."
I also consider myself a moral relativist, and always find exceptions to every rule, because no situations are ever exactly alike, and there is always a worse of 2 evils, or a better solution with less negative consequences.
There is also an element of utilitarianism in the way I think. The right answer is always the one that does the most good for the most people and the least amount of harm to the least amount of people.
Hence, there are a lot of contradictions in my thinking.
For instance, regarding abortion vs. murder, a pre born baby suffers very little by being aborted compared to being born addicted to drugs, developmentally disabled and abused due to being born to a crack whore. Therefore, while I believe abortion is in a sense "murder" of a human life (after approximately 3 months gestation) I also believe it is the lesser of 2 evils when compared to the alternative.
As blackout noted, if the soul is the primary concern, one should consider the rate of suicide among minors who have lived through a childhood of abuse, abandonment and neglect. I am pretty certain most Catholics believe that suicide is an unforgivable sin. isn't it more merciful to give that child back to God before it has to become tainted by all the sin and suffering in the world?
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
You have your ways,,,, :-)
Much better to wear them on your shoulder than sweep them under the rug!
I embrace my contradictions, they are part of what makes me human :). Also, many of them are not so much contradictions within myself, but contradictions with the labels that others try to apply to me. I feel there is a certain internal consistency in my thinking, but I do not conform absolutely to any one way of thinking, and I see major flaws and contradictions in most formal "philosophies." I can also appreciate the virtues of those philosophies, even where I find fault.
I think it is dangerous to follow a prescribed method of thinking, or philosophy to the T. We are all individuals and if we were supposed to think the same way forever, well, there would be no reason for any of us to exist. All people should seek to answer questions for themselves, rather than relying on others to tell them the right answer. That is my biggest beef with religion, that it discourages individual questioning and thinking.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
The idea of 'an eye for an eye' is really the basis of our justice system. True, if someone commits a heinous crime, such as murder, there are few things that can be done to really equal the taking of the life. However, we do have a justice system that is, for the most part, based on the idea that more heinous crimes have 'worse' punishments. That is, the punishment fits the crime. Someone who speeds is not given the same punishment as someone who murders a man/woman, and a fine is generally considered a less harsh punishment than life in prison.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
our justice system is loosely based on the old "eye for an eye" paradigm, but we don't actually enact it, do we? Well, I suppose we do, but is this really effective? For instance, captial punishment does happen, a life for a life, but rarely. too rarely to be effective as a deterrent for crime, and too inconsistently to really make any sense. Our justice system does not however rule that one who is guilty of gouging out someone's eye should suffer the same exact form of torture. Instead, we use time as our measure of severity for punishment. There is also the element of the level of security of the holding facilities.
There is a certain collective agreement that "eye for an eye" is appropriate, which becomes most evident when people who commit sexual crimes against children are imprisoned. That cheer that people often repeat, "We all know what happens to child molesters in prison..." The idea that it is somehow appropriate for sex criminals to be raped in prison is one that sickens me. I am outraged that people just accept this. Who is standing up for the humane treatment of prisoners? Not many.
I saw a documentary about San Quentin prison the other day. Incidentally this is where is my abuser served his time. San Quentin is the highest level security prison in CA, and one of the highest in the country. There is a part of the prison that is unmonitored. I can't remember what they called it, "The dark corner" or the corridor, or something like that. The building is old, and this particular hallway or corner is out of the view of cameras and security. this is where men get away with murder, and where other men are brutally beaten, raped and tortured. The idea that my abuser might have encountered this corner of that place does not bring me any sense of solace or peace, nor does it make me feel that Justice was brought to my situation. Instead it makes me terribly sad that our culture is still so barbaric. In fact, it is exactly this kind of thinking that is responsible for the continued prevalence of sexual abuse and violence in society. So long as we find it appropriate, we are perpetrating the disease.
What should be the goal of the justice system? First, to keep the public safe. second, to serve as a power greater than individuals who would do harm to others, to uphold the law and to protect our freedom. How does victimizing criminals accomplish any of this? Especially when they are usually released right back into society where they came from.
This goes back to the original question, or statement, that two wrongs don't make a right.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
I've said this before, and I'll say it again. An eye for an eye does not literally mean that a person who gouges out someone's eye must have their own eye gouged out. It means that the person who committs the crime must make reparation equivalent to the crime done... so if I do something that results in the lost of someone's leg, I have to pay them in a way that makes up for the loss of that leg. Except in the most heinous of crimes, that's exactly what our justice system does.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
"except in the most heinous of crimes..."?
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
I doubt anyone could come up with a reasonable comparison for something like murder...what could you possibly do that'll replace that life? Some may say the death penalty is good in this sense, but is taking another life really going to make up for the face that the first life was lost?
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!
Those elements seem sufficient to motivate the murder of an abortion doctor.
The original slogan of Operation Resuce summed this up pretty well...
TTFN,
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
Never yourself!
As if their involvement in the murder of Dr. Tiller wasn't enough, the radical "pro-life" organization Operation Rescue has announced that they indent to purchase Dr. Tiller's clinic to use as their new headquarters.
Growing threat against women’s centers
I have to go vomit, now.
Blackout
---
A question of love.
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
I need to vomit too.
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard
306,000,000/1700=180,000. Which explains why I had so much difficulty reverse engineering that 18k figure.
A more pertinent comparison,which I think makes your point, might be:
Pop./murders=chance of being murdered by member of RTL movement
306mil/100k=3060
1700/8=212.5
So an abortion provider is 14.4 times as likely to be murdered by a RTLer as a random person. Since these people are only 20% of potential murders abortioneers total chance of being a murder victim is about 1.8 times average.
I still do not see how you justify that the number of potential victims is a bigger factor in a murder than the presence of the murderer and the motive. This particular motive is one of the least common occurring in only 1/12,000 or 0.0083% of murders by this group you have maligned as a whole.
"It is only by risking our persons from one hour to another that we live at all. And often enough our faith beforehand in an uncertified result is the only thing that makes the result come true."
- William James
You are still trying to base your comparison against the probability of being murdered that is faced by a random citizen in the general population. Regardless of the occurrence of the motive in the general population, the small size of the targeted population of potential victims makes that occurrence far more significant. The fact remains that an abortion provider is MANY, MANY times more likely to be murdered by a pro-life supporter than the average citizen is likely to be murdered under normal circumstances. You originally implied that pro-life supporters were LESS violent than the average citizen. That is false.
TTFN,
Blackout
---
Patriotic Atheism
---
Check out Progressive PRIDE, a Gay-Straight Alliance for the Progressive U community.
What are the "normal circumstances" for murder?
"O, I'm sorry you took that, -I meant that for the Devil, and you have stepped in and taken the blow. Don't get between me and the Devil, brother, and the you won't get hurt." --Billy Hibbard