I’m still very distressed this Monday morning about the George Tiller murder; the raw emotions that undergirded my post last night are still with me. I’m heartened, as I peruse the blogosphere this morning, to see so many rousing calls to action. I’m moved by the willingness of so many to donate afresh to various organizations that facilitate choice for women. Christians remark often that “the blood of the martyrs is the seed of the church”. And Dr. Tiller’s blood will plant many good seeds; just counting those whom I know personally, I’m aware of over $10,000 pledged to pro-choice organizations in the past 24 hours in the name of this man, our martyr.
My own commitment to the pro-choice position has been renewed in recent years, and was galvanized by the experience of witnessing my wife’s pregnancy and the birth of our daughter. (More on my journey from pro-choice to pro-life and back to pro-choice here.) The murder of Dr. Tiller has made me even more resolute in my commitment, as a Christian and as a feminist, to supporting women’s right to abortion. And let me make this clear: had I the skills to do as Dr. Tiller did in his life, I would. As I wrote yesterday, I am Dr. Tiller. If you would curse his name and pray for his end, then do the same for me. I assure you that my dollars and prayers and efforts will go to raise up others to take his place, so that the blood of this martyr will be a great seed for justice. For my conservative friends, please understand that this may seem sufficiently appalling as to serve as an abrogation of our relationship. But in the face of this monstrousness (and the less monstrous, but just as dedicated efforts on the part of others to deny women sovereignty over their flesh) I’m putting my proverbial cards on the table. I am Dr. Tiller. If you hated him, hate me.
Let me note, too, that I have been thinking about my own rhetoric on animal rights. I have made it very clear that, as a vegan who believes that rights are grounded as much in sentience as in humanity, I’m opposed to factory farming and scientific experimentation using animals. But I want to reiterate again my absolute rejection of any use of violence against persons in order to liberate animals. I want to defund animal research. I belong to organizations that work to defund animal research. But I repudiate anyone within the vegan or AR movements who advocates violence. The man who shot Dr. Tiller was nurtured by the language of some in the pro-life movement, a language which demonizes those on the other side and creates a culture in which such murders are seen as justified. Though it is worth noting that the Animal Liberation Front or its affiliates have never been responsible for the death of a factory farmer or medical researcher, let me say again — again, again — the final victory will be won by acts of nonviolent civil disobedience and by concentrated political action.
Those of us who believe passionately in making illegal what is yet legal (as the anti-abortion movement does, and as we in the animal rights community do) must be even more explicit about rejecting language that condones violence as a means to achieving the ends we long for. And we must do more than reject the language of violence; we must repudiate those in our movements who are willing to countenance bloodshed. Then and only then can we make a claim to legitimacy and understanding. I haven’t been clear enough on this issue in the past. I am now.
Though it is worth noting that the Animal Liberation Front or its affiliates have never been responsible for the death of a factory farmer or medical researcher
You just can’t stop making excuses for them, can you, Hugo? Did you think it “worth noting” that Operation Rescue has not actually gone so far as murder, too?
Okay, what I ought to have said is that no medical researcher has ever been killed by anyone affiliated with the animal liberation movement in this country. But that doesn’t make the threats and imprecations of violence okay, and I don’t think the ALF is deserving of my support. I have some homework to do in this area, and am getting it done.
Here’s some numbers for your homework, then.
Deaths based on a pro-life person killing an abortionist since 1998: 1
Number of deaths from “Safe and Legal” abortions 1998-2003: 50
Number of deadly attacks (Including those with multiple deaths) By Islamic terrorists since 9/11: 13,298
Just sayin’. Because perspective means everything.
Guess who Obama is sending out Federal Marshals to protect?
Gonz, please. The lethality of Scott Roeder’s attack on Dr. Tiller was just the extreme of a continuum of violence and harassment that clinic workers, doctors, and patients deal with every day. The marshals aren’t coming a moment too soon.
And I’m not in a mood to debate this right now.
Gonz wrote an impassioned defense of Darren Mack over on Glenn’s site, where he figured none of us would trip over it. The fact that he’s now defending Dr. Tiller’s murderer is totally unsurprising.
Shorter Gonz: Anti-abortion nutjobs haven’t killed as many people as a low mortality rate of invasive surgery or professional terrorists, so they really just aren’t that bad and Obama shouldn’t worry about them.
Not defending him for a minute.
Just pointing out NBarnes is right in one word: Nutjob. AKA fringie. AKA Extremist.
The hysterical attempts to paint this as somehow representative of pro-life folks is dishonest. To be kind.
Accusing someone of the “Defense” of Darrin Mack by pointing out that when you just decide you can paint “All men” with a brush that has the effect of locking them out of their kids lives based on statistical morality, you’ll have the consequence of having some be pushed beyond the point of endurance is likewise dishonest.
Defending pro-lifers equals defending Roeder? Likewise dishonest.
And NBarnes also gets another truth unwitting - The pro-life movement has NO professional terrorists, while Islam does - Even the extremists are mere amateurs - and yet, were one to try to paint Islam with the same brush that the left blogosphere is attempting to paint the pro-life movement, the howls of outrage would shake the heavens from that same blogosphere.
And how much do I condemn Roeder? I hope he gets the needle.
Those of us who believe passionately in making illegal what is yet legal … must be even more explicit about rejecting language that condones violence as a means to achieving the ends we long for. And … we must repudiate those in our movements who are willing to countenance bloodshed. Then and only then can we make a claim to legitimacy and understanding.
But such is the nature of those kinds of movements. Inevitably they lead to violence, particularly when the rhetoric is lead by stringent, unmoving views and especially when such groups devalue the lives and opinions of the other side. (Coincidentally, the same negative sentiments, dehumanization and hostility exists on the other side of the abortion issue as well, although pro-lifers would argue the aggression is taken out the unborn rather than pro-lifers themselves.)
Personally, I do not agree with the needless taking of life, so I do not support abortion, the death penalty, war, unnecessary hunting or other acts of cruelty against animals. For that reason, Tiller’s family has my sympathy. His actions were technically within the law, but even if they were not, there is no justification for taking his life, particularly not in a church, where he clearly was not performing abortions.
However, I do believe in karma, and so when one commits an act — in this instance, an act I consider immoral — it is bound to bounce back. That is not to say Tiller deserved to be killed, only that it is not surprising that it happened.
It is interesting to watch how people have reacted, though. So-called pro-choicers have turned this one act into something akin to martyrdom, while so-called pro-lifers have waved their hands in self-defense. It took no time for everyone to forget that a person was killed. Instead, people jumped on Tiller’s death and used it for their own benefit. How typically ironic.
“you’ll have the consequence of having some be pushed beyond the point of endurance is likewise dishonest.”
That is patently absurd. The idea that it’s perfectly understandable for men to just snap under certain circumstances is total bullshit and has been debunked repeatedly. There is no excuse or justification for resorting to cold-blooded murder.
You honestly think that lame excuse would fly on this blog? Seriously?
Everything is inevitable, Faith. That John Brown was raising his sword against slavery made him no less a terrorist. And that Darren Mack was railing against an injustice makes him no less a murderer.
It’s not all or nothing.
Oh - on the theme of the A.R.M., Hat Tip to Feministe
http://www.kansas.com/946/story/836204.html
Your buddies at PETA.
“However, I do believe in karma, and so when one commits an act — in this instance, an act I consider immoral — it is bound to bounce back. That is not to say Tiller deserved to be killed, only that it is not surprising that it happened.”
Wow, that’s some major just world theory going on right there.
“Everything is inevitable, Faith.”
Stabbing your wife is not inevitable, Gonz.
Sure it is, Faith.
May not be for any given individual, but if I started nickel and diming away the rights of - say - Latinos based on what “statistics” tell us, at some point we’d see incidents of violence in response to it.
It would be inevitable. How long and how much would you expect them to take?
And even JFK said that once you make peaceful reform impossible, you make violent revolution inevitable.
So Gonz…you won’t object when folks start shooting back? C’mon!
You’re missing the point on a mammoth scale. The morality of anyone’s actions is irrelevant to the issue. Give any identifiable group a grievance, and inflame that grievance, and at a certain point you will have violence. One need not approve of it to know it will happen, and to say “Told you so.”
It’s true for any group. I seriously doubt even Anabaptists would wait until the point they were being exterminated to finally say “Enough.”
So…what? Still not getting your point, Gonz. You are not seriously suggesting oro-choicer folks simply capitulate because the alternative is violence, are you?
No, he’s suggesting you capitulate because, depending on whether you are actuated by malice or by invincible ignorance, you risk some very serious torment in the afterlife.
Uh…Okay…I’ll get right on it.
you won’t object when folks start shooting back?
You would not BELIEVE how many women I have converted to a pro-Second Amendment way of thinking by asking “Wouldn’t it be great if clinic defenders were armed?”
Snerk…
Myth…it would certainly alter the prevailing dynamics of “just keep your face low and averted and keep walking while I shield you with this umbrella.”
“It would be inevitable. How long and how much would you expect them to take?”
I can’t believe that a man is getting away with saying that it’s understandable for men to kill their wives under certain circumstances on what is supposed to be a feminist blog.
Let me say this, gonz:
If a man says that it’s inevitable or understandable for men to kill women (or anyone for that matter) under certain circumstances, then should a woman end up dead, guess who I’m going to suspect might be the one guilty of killing that woman? Oh, maybe the guy who thinks it’s understandable for men to kill their wives. If you and I were hanging out, a woman ended up dead, and the cops asked if I had any idea who might have done it, guess who I’m going to point my finger at, Gonzman?
Re: Uh…Okay…I’ll get right on it.
What part do you disagree with, AHunt?
Do you not believe that abortion is (except in the hardest of hard cases) a grave evil? Or do you not believe in hell?
I can’t believe that a man is getting away with saying that it’s understandable for men to kill their wives under certain circumstances on what is supposed to be a feminist blog.
Faith, that is not what he said. What he said was that given enough time, any person with a grievance will eventually resort to violence. This seems to be historically true, particularly when it comes to politically charged issues. The more ardent a person’s beliefs are, the more likely that person is going to eventually use violence as a means of getting that message across.
No and no.
Faith, that is not what he said. What he said was that given enough time, any person with a grievance will eventually resort to violence. This seems to be historically true, particularly when it comes to politically charged issues. The more ardent a person’s beliefs are, the more likely that person is going to eventually use violence as a means of getting that message across.
Why bother, TS? Attacking what she wishes I said is much easier that actually engaging what I did say.
I’m sure that leaders of peaceful civil-rights movements would be very interested to know that the inevitable result of anyone having a grievance is that they will turn to violence.
The argument that if you don’t let a spoiled brat win the game he’ll kick the board over is not a neutral observation, but a threat. It also pretends that the only alternative to getting one’s way immediately is violence; that anti-abortion activists have no means other than violence to achieve their goals.
And, of course, that’s a lie. Anti-abortion activists are free to persuade people to change their minds; to seek to have Roe v Wade overturned in the courts; to get a Constitutional amendment passed that would recognize human life as beginning at conception; and so forth. They are not barred from the political process. It’s just that the process is not letting them win, so they’re griefing.
Re: They are not barred from the political process. It’s just that the process is not letting them win, so they’re griefing.
Personally, an increasingly atractive solution to me is looking like emigrating to South America, renouncing my US citizenship, and spending the rest of my life in Jeremiah Wright style fulminations (a man whom I deeply respect BTW). The political process is not going to do us any good anytime soon, so perhaps the solution for some of us is, as Saint John said, to “come out of Babylon.”
“However, I do believe in karma, and so when one commits an act — in this instance, an act I consider immoral — it is bound to bounce back.”
This is a common misconception about karma. Karma is a concept inextricably tied with reincarnation, because karma is the notion that yes, your actions will have consequences for you.
Over the course of your next however-many-are-necessary lifetimes.
Any karma that comes to you - good or bad - this life is the result of deeds in a previous one. Or not. You could also just have gotten wrapped up in someone else’s karma. It was probably your karma to get wrapped up in their karma.
Karma is not an instajustice evil-smiting system. That’s not how Hinduism rolls. We acquire karma and work it out, acquire it and work it out, riding and riding the wheel of suffering until, eventually, we find a place from which we can break through the maya (the illusory, material world) and attain moksha, or transcendence, and are finally freed from the cycle of death and rebirth.
It was very possibly Dr. Tiller’s karma to die as he did. But it was equally likely that it was his karma to live as he did. Remember that.
Hector, that’s certainly an option. But the “give us what we want or else” false dilemma Gonz et al pose is just that - false. It’s an excuse and a justification for violence. Peaceful protest is just a lot less fun than bashing heads.
I’m sure that leaders of peaceful civil-rights movements would be very interested to know that the inevitable result of anyone having a grievance is that they will turn to violence.
Apples and garden hoses.
First, things like the Watts Riots were as much a part of the Civil Rights Movement as any peaceful protest; to say otherwise is to be guilty of the “No True Scotsman” fallacy.
Second, I wasn’t talking about abortion.
You don’t see any tension between your veganism and your laudatory celebration of a guy whose profession involved ripping limbs from fetuses at a time when they have sentience and can feel excruciating pain? Don’t be so naive as to think all, or even most, of Tiller’s patients involved horribly deformed babies (not that disability is a reason to have someone killed anyway).
OK, so you didn’t like seeing a video where Dr. Tiller himself explains his work.
Can you answer, however, whether you’d similarly lionize a guy whose occupation consisted of drowning disabled and unwanted dogs and cats? Somebody has to do it, right?