Terrorism works: Dr. Tiller's clinic closes permanently.

[MSD]

'Abortion fatigue' on both sides as Kansas clinic closes - Los Angeles Times

Reporting from Wichita, Kan. -- Shortly after the family of slain physician George Tiller announced Tuesday that his abortion clinic would be shuttered forever, the police cruiser that had been a fixture in the clinic's driveway was gone.

The gate was open, the parking lot empty and someone had hung a large red-and-white banner inside the clinic's perimeter fence: "Wichita Stands with Dr. Tiller. 35 Years of Saving Women's Lives."

Here, on a freeway frontage road, ground zero of the abortion wars for nearly three decades, there was, it seemed, nothing left to fight over.

Now the national conversation over legalized abortion has shifted away from Women's Health Care Services, the beige one-story building where Tiller practiced -- as one of only a handful of physicians in the country who performed late-term abortions.

Many Wichitans -- even those who have dedicated their lives to the issue -- say they have wearied of the abortion wars that had been fought continuously on their doorstep until Tiller was gunned down in his church lobby May 31.

"It's called 'abortion fatigue,' " said Troy Newman, president of the Wichita-based antiabortion group Operation Rescue. After Tiller was killed, Newman said, "I couldn't sleep for the first two days, then for the next three I didn't want to get out of bed."

The head of a political action committee founded by Tiller has seen the emotional fatigue as well. "There is that level of people wanting to tune it all out and not having to deal with it," said Julie Burkhart, director of the group, ProKanDo. Burkhart, who said she was devastated by Tiller's death, added, "I can't blame them."

Still, the fight continues.

Abortion foes, energized by a Gallup poll last month that found a slim majority of Americans identified themselves as "pro-life" for the first time since 1995, and worried that the Obama administration will make abortion access part of healthcare reform, are on the defensive.

They should not be blamed for Tiller's slaying, they say, despite years of heated rhetoric that branded Tiller a "baby-killer." They will not be silenced, they say.

Nor will they allow increased federal law enforcement attention to the issue of violence against abortion providers result in what Newman called "a witch hunt" against abortion opponents.

Those committed to providing abortion services, many of whom are disappointed but understanding about the Tiller family's decision to close, vow that the killing will not deter them. And they hope that Tiller's death will inspire young doctors to replenish the shrinking (and graying) ranks of abortion providers.

"I am currently exploring every option to be able to continue to make second- and early, medically indicated third-term abortions available," said Tiller associate LeRoy Carhart in a statement. Carhart, a Nebraska physician, performed abortions at Tiller's clinic on a rotating basis with two California doctors.

Warren Hern, one of the few remaining doctors in the U.S. who perform late-term abortions, said that the closing was understandable and was "the hideous consequence of 30 years of harassment." This week, he said, he has begun to see some of Tiller's patients at his clinic in Boulder, Colo.

Among the many things that may come out of the tragedy is "the recognition that more physicians need to step up and provide abortion care," said Peter Brownlie, president of Planned Parenthood of Kansas & Mid-Missouri.

Brownlie said that with the closure of Tiller's clinic, Wichita joins the ranks of cities that have no abortion providers at all.

"There is no place between Kansas City and Denver," he said. That's a distance of more than 550 miles.

Katherine Spillar, executive vice president of the Los Angeles-based Feminist Majority Foundation, said she expected that more doctors would resolve to provide abortion services.

The closing of Tiller's clinic, she added, "was what the extremist wing of the antiabortion movement wanted. But this is not a victory for them."

And some of those foes have found themselves in a difficult position.

After Scott Roeder, 51, was arrested on suspicion of murdering Tiller, a news crew photographed a piece of paper with the name and phone number of Operation Rescue's senior policy advisor, Cheryl Sullenger, on the front seat of his car. In 1988, Sullenger and her husband were convicted of conspiring to bomb a San Diego abortion clinic. She spent two years in prison. Her past had led to questions, particularly on outlets such as Daily Kos and MSNBC: Was she connected to Roeder?

On Monday, Sullenger said that Roeder was one of many people who called her for information about the scheduling and location of Tiller's recent criminal trial.

When Sullenger learned that her name and number had been found in Roeder's car, she said: "I felt like somebody kicked me in the gut. My husband and I were actually pretty devastated because we know it would start a witch hunt against us.

"I did make some bad choices, and I paid the full price. I have worked hard to build a reputation in the pro-life movement working within the law and peacefully. I haven't done anything wrong this time, and yet I am still being treated as if I had."

"They only have themselves to blame," said Tiller's attorney, Dan Monnat, who in March won Tiller acquittal on charges that he had broken Kansas abortion laws.

"I have the utmost respect for freedom of speech," Monnat said, "but when you consider the hate language heaped upon Dr. Tiller by commentators and anti-choice zealots -- calling him a murderer and an operator of death camps responsible for the massacre of thousands of babies -- then I think you have to ask whether that constitutes . . . liability."

Meanwhile, some in Wichita are looking for closure.

"We want to get along with the business of healing our community," said Wichita Mayor Carl Brewer. "We're interested in putting resources together to solve the crime and bring the appropriate people to justice."

Turns out violence is the answer. One thing that stands out to me is that I don't believe for a second that Sullenger regrets her choices for any reason other than knowing that someone is going to blame her and her husband for the shooting.

There are now no clinics between Denver and Kansas City. This expands by thousands of square miles the area in which people cannot exercise a legal right, and puts a heavier burden on those who have to travel even further now for an abortion, whether medically necessary or elective. One extremist has had a massive effect on a large area and large number of people. If nothing else, it shows other extremists that if political and social pressure don't work, one act of violence by a single person can achieve their goals.

[Baraka_Guru]

This is one example of many that indicates the need for healthcare reform in the U.S.

It's despicable that extremists can have this much control over public health issues. What next? Finding a way to take contraceptives out of the hands of teenagers? Who can they kill to pull that off?

[Plan9]

Common sense dictates that you can't push the clinic without the doctor to do the deed. It's one thing to have clinics... it's another to have the one guy that's willing to do what others can't do or won't do due to factors like That Big Moral Dilemma, fear of getting gunned down in church, etc.

Right or wrong (pfft), it is a huge loss for a gigundo chunk of the country to not have the ability to make a choice about their future.

...

The logic is irrefutable, people. Prolife = Murder. Yay. Dipshits.

[Infinite_Loser]

There's that "T" word again.

And Tiller's clinic should have been closed a long time ago for state violations, anyway. It would have happened if not for Paul Morrison screwing around and throwing the case (More than likely at the request of those who financed his bid for election), and probably would have happened as the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts had levied charges of malpractice and fraud against Tiller after the botched state investigation.

[Plan9]

C'mon, InfiniteLoser... haven't you had a T-gasm lately?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

There's that "T" word again.

ter⋅ror⋅ism
–noun
1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.

Terrorism Definition | Definition of Terrorism at Dictionary.com

We need to open ten women's health clinics in the place of Dr. Tiller's clinic with 24-hour guards. You don't get to just remove a legally protected right because you're an angry, ignorant hick.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Crompsin

C'mon, InfiniteLoser... haven't you had a T-gasm lately?

Can't say I have. Sorry.

Originally Posted by "Willravel

We need to open ten women's health clinics in the place of Dr. Tiller's clinic with 24-hour guards. You don't get to just remove a legally protected right because you're an angry, ignorant hick.

His "clinic" received a disproportionate amount of attention not because he was performing abortions or even late-term abortions, but because of the enormous amount of controversy surrounding the purported failure to adhere to the Kansas state laws, testimonies from women he performed late-term abortions on, admissions from clinic nurses regarding his practices and numerous stories about him performing abortions for trivial reasons (i.e., because one woman wanted to attend a rodeo and another a rock concert).

...And who are you calling an ignorant hick?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

His "clinic" received a disproportionate amount of attention not because he was performing abortions or even late-term abortions, but because of the enormous amount of controversy surrounding a failure to adhere to the Kansas state laws, testimonies from women he performed late-term abortion on, admissions from clinic nurses regarding his practices and numerous stories about him performing abortions for trivial reasons.

How does this address what I posted?

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

...And who are you calling an ignorant hick?

The terrorist.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Willravel

How does this address what I posted?

People seem to be under the impression that Tiller was "singled out" solely because he was an abortion doctor, which is more or less incorrect. He was "singled out" because a number of his practices was considered egregious. It has nothing to do with getting rid of a "legally protected right" as much as it has to do with getting rid of someone considered to be "stretching" that "legally protected right" to fit his own views.

The terrorist.

Just checking.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

People seem to be under the impression that Tiller was "singled out" solely because he was an abortion doctor, which is more or less incorrect. He was "singled out" because a number of his practices was considered egregious. It has nothing to do with getting rid of a "legally protected right" as much as it has to do with getting rid of someone considered to be "stretching" that "legally protected right" to fit his own views.

Tiller was aquitted legally. If you pay attention to the facts of the case, you'll see why. But none of that is pertinent to the discussion. He was shot simply because he was an "abortion doctor". Anyone that says otherwise is contradicting the admission of Scott Roeder, the man that's being charged with the assassination.
Scott Roeder: The Tiller Murder Suspect - TIME

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Tiller was aquitted legally. If you pay attention to the facts of the case, you'll see why. But none of that is pertinent to the discussion. He was shot simply because he was an "abortion doctor". Anyone that says otherwise is contradicting the admission of Scott Roeder, the man that's being charged with the assassination.
Scott Roeder: The Tiller Murder Suspect - TIME

Okay. I'll play.

Tiller was "acquitted" because the then district attorney, Paul Morrison, threw the case and refused to put forth the evidence compiled by his predecessor, Philip Kline. The prosecution only called to the stand one witness-- Dr. Neuhaus (Excluding Tiller himself). And when asked if she was financially dependant on Dr. Tiller she responded no. That's the only "evidence" they put forth and, based on that, the jury had no choice but to acquit Tiller.

If you want to mention the facts of the case, then we can most certainly do that. Dr. Paul McHugh, who was a big part of the case against Tiller, was not only not called to the stand, but Paul Morrison threatened to sue him for "interfering with the case" even though he was the one who initially performed the independent review of Dr. Tiller's abortion files and found the reasons given for some of the abortions he performed to be seriously lacking. The fact that Dr. Neuhaus was financially dependant on Dr. Tiller and that the money she earned from him constituted 100% of her pay in 2003, or the fact that the Kansas state law requires that a doctor can only perform an abortion on a viable child if two doctors not financially or otherwise linked find that the mother will suffer "substantial and irreversible damage to a major bodily function if the abortion is not performed" wasn't even brought up by the prosecution. No, these facts got glossed over and were conveniently left out of the proceedings. How, exactly, do you win a case by leaving out the two things which constitute the majority of the argument against Tiller? The answer is that, you don't. Morrison won DA with the help of the PC groups, and as a result scratched their back once he became DA, which is evidenced by his half-assed case against Tiller and the fact that he fairly quickly dropped all charges of falsifying records against Planned Parenthood even though a Kansas court found that there was probable cause that the allegations were indeed true. It's actually funny, because in the end Morrinson ended up resigning amidst a sex scandal which alledged that he was using the woman in question to gain inside information on Philip Kline's case against Tiller, though he was just replaced with someone as equally PC by Sebelius.

Luckily, though, the Kansas State Board of Healing Arts filed a suit against Tiller in December 2008 (You can read the charges here) and immediately said that they were going to try to either restrict or revoke Tiller's license because of what they considered to be malpractice and fraud after the verdict came down. So why Tiller gets treated as a hero I'll never know, especially when there are testimonies before the Kansas courts from women who received an abortion from Tiller and nurses who watched him perform them.

Anyway, to get back on-topic, I'd read enough about Roeder. In his words, if he's found guilty, he was acting in self-defense of the unborn, not under the idea of striking fear into the hearts of abortion providers and women everywhere. Iirc, there have been four murders tied to abortion in the last sixteen years. Four. I'm sorry, but that doesn't constitute terrorism. Sure, there are loonies out there but they are much rarer than many people would have one believe. Much rarer. And much, much, much rarer than they were twenty years ago.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Okay. I'll play.

/snip

Literally all of this is wrong, but it's a massive threadjack so I'll just respond to the following:

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Anyway, to get back on-topic, I'd read enough about Roeder. In his words, if he's found guilty, he was acting in self-defense of the unborn, not under the idea of striking fear into the hearts of abortion providers and women everywhere. Iirc, there have been four murders tied to abortion in the last sixteen years. Four. I'm sorry, but that doesn't constitute terrorism. Sure, there are loonies out there but they are much rarer than many people would have one believe. Much rarer. And much, much, much rarer than they were twenty years ago.

You can't act in self-defense of another individual or potential individual. You can only act in self-defense of yourself. His cowardly, ignorant attack was intended to be a strike at existing, legal abortions everywhere. His intent was to stop all abortions, so he murdered a prominent women's health professional in cold blood in order to make the larger change of stopping all abortions. It's the very definition of terrorism.

Your point about it's rarity meaning that it's not terrorism is also flawed. How often do people fly planes into buildings? It's only happened once, therefore it's not terrorism? I think it may be time for you to reconsider your definition of terrorism.

As this was an act of terrorism and it was successful in closing Tiller's clinic, the terrorist has won. It's unacceptable that acts such as these are successful; it's unacceptable that terrorism works. The best way to combat terrorism is to now allow it to change us. Just as the proper response to 9/11 would have been continuing to have a free and fair society, to continue in everything we were doing on 9/10, the proper response to the act of terrorism against Dr. Tiller would be keeping this clinic for women in need open.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Infinite Loser

he was acting in self-defense of the unborn

By definition, self-defense requires that the individual be threatened. Roeder was not threatened. So nice strawman you built there. Too bad all those ferns died millions of years ago to create the coal that's firing the power plant to give my computer the electricity to be able to read it, though. I'm sure that they would have appreciated Roeder (or maybe you) being fired at a high enough velocity to deflect the asteroid that killed them, though. Which is a statement that makes exactly as much sense as your post.

There were 4 murders in 16 years and none in the 25 years prior to that. And there were no Oklahoma City's or 9/11's before those events happened either.

Will was right - you need to reconsider what you consider terrorism. It has nothing to do with frequency and everything to do with the act itself.

[Willravel]

BTW, IL, if you want to start a thread on the Tiller trial, I'll be glad to discuss my understanding of the case.

[Baraka_Guru]

The best defense is a good offense. Isn't this a page out of Al-Qaeda's manual for defending Muslim countries from foreign influence?

[ASU2003]

This (and a few other people in the media) has made me shift my views on abortion to the pro-choice side.

[Willravel]

ASU, with all respect, I don't know if that's a wise reason to change your mind on a position. Sure, look around you to see who is shouting next to you, but on an issue like this—a gray issue—it might be better just to stick to the facts and your own independently developed sense of morality/ethics. You came to whatever belief you had independently of the nutters, in other words. Knowing you from your posts, I'm confident in posting that you weren't pro-life out of anger or hatred or ignorance.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Literally all of this is wrong, but it's a massive threadjack so I'll just respond to the following:

No, Will. It's not "literally all wrong". That is what happened. Paul Morrison only brought one witness to the stand and ignored the rest of the evidence compiled by Phil Kline. Going by the one "witness" the prosecution brought to the stand, the jury had no choice by to find Tiller innocent, as no other evidence was produced (Link).

During testimony, both Dr. Tiller and Dr. Neuhaus, the only witness called by prosecutors, denied that there was anything improper about their financial relationship. Dr. Neuhaus testified that she misspoke during a 2006 deposition when she called herself a “full-time consultant” for Dr. Tiller.

And since when have threadjacks ever stopped you in the past?

You can't act in self-defense of another individual or potential individual. You can only act in self-defense of yourself.

This is patently untrue. Self-defense laws in the U.S. allow you to defend not only your own physical well-being, but the physical well-being others, as well. To illustrate this, imagine if you have a child, and someone tries to harm that child. You can legally defend that child in order to prevent harm. Or, imagine you're walking down the street and you witness a rape in progress. You can legally run to the woman's aid in order to prevent her harm. I'm not so sure why you believe that self-defense laws only pertain to yourself, as if that were the case, then you would be prevented from helping anyone who's physical well-being was being endangered by the actions of another.

...And there's nothing "potential" about a ZEF, much less a viable one.

His cowardly, ignorant attack was intended to be a strike at existing, legal abortions everywhere. His intent was to stop all abortions, so he murdered a prominent women's health professional in cold blood in order to make the larger change of stopping all abortions. It's the very definition of terrorism.

If Roeder "wanted to stop all abortions everywhere" he wouldn't have merely focused on one specific doctor for years. I brought this up prior, but you just glossed over it, so I'll try again. The reason there was a disproportionate amount of attention paid to Dr. Tiller wasn't merely because he performed abortions or even late-term abortions, but because of the numerous stories surrounding his practices (i.e., performing abortions on women for trivial reasons, incorrect procedures when carrying out the abortion, failing to adhere to Kansas law, etc.). Tiller, himself, wasn't the poster child of abortions. Remember, there are two other abortion clinics to the same effect as Tiller's was in the U.S., and they didn't, and don't, receive anywhere near the publicity that Tiller's clinic did. What Tiller was and forever will be is the poster child for controversy and a hell of a lot of that controversy was self-induced based of shifty practices.

Your assertion of terrorism, aimed at stopping abortions everywhere, which is in itself fairly dumb, is wrong. Before you claim terrorism, you have to prove that Roeder's actions were politically motivated or aimed at stopping abortions everywhere. But given the fact that he has stated otherwise, and the fact that he has been, for lack of a better word, obsessed with a specific doctor, Tiller, for years (And this has also been stated by his close friends) then you have nothing to fall back on except baseless conjecture and empty, emotional rhetoric. Screaming about how much it's terrorism isn't going to make it so.

Your point about it's rarity meaning that it's not terrorism is also flawed. How often do people fly planes into buildings? It's only happened once, therefore it's not terrorism? I think it may be time for you to reconsider your definition of terrorism.

*le sigh*

Flying a plane into a building is the act carried out by a specific agent, in this case Al Queda. Al Queda is not considered a terrorist organization because a couple of members hijacked a plane and flew it into a building, but because they use violence as a means by which to influence U.S. international policy (Among others). Violence does not automatically equate to terrorism. I have yet to see any murder of an abortion doctor or a clinic bombed in order to influence laws on abortion. These acts are carried out with the direct intent to kill, not to influence. And unless you can prove that certain agents are carrying out certain acts in order to influence policy, there is no terrorism. It's just violence aimed at a certain group of persons.

...But, hey, pejoratives are fun so continue to use them.

As this was an act of terrorism and it was successful in closing Tiller's clinic, the terrorist has won.

It's...

It's unacceptable that acts such as these are successful; it's unacceptable that terrorism works.

...not...

The best way to combat terrorism is to now allow it to change us.

...terrorism.

Just as the proper response to 9/11 would have been continuing to have a free and fair society, to continue in everything we were doing on 9/10, the proper response to the act of terrorism against Dr. Tiller would be keeping this clinic for women in need open.

Don't you ever get tired of flinging around the "T" word? I know I would if I were you. Oh well. I'll say this again: It's not terrorism. And you can throw around the word all day and night, and it still won't make it terrorism.

---------- Post added at 02:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:13 PM ----------

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

By definition, self-defense requires that the individual be threatened. Roeder was not threatened. So nice strawman you built there.

A.) Self-defense laws in the U.S. allow you to defend not only your own physical well-being, but the physical well-being others, as well, if need be.

B.) Hard to be a strawman when you're quoting someone else, isn't it? I think so. But, seeing as how you quoted PART OF A SENTENCE, I could see where the confusion would come in.

Too bad all those ferns died millions of years ago to create the coal that's firing the power plant to give my computer the electricity to be able to read it, though. I'm sure that they would have appreciated Roeder (or maybe you) being fired at a high enough velocity to deflect the asteroid that killed them, though. Which is a statement that makes exactly as much sense as your post.

So, you dismiss my post as being a strawman yet create one of your own? For shame . How does that work?

There were 4 murders in 16 years and none in the 25 years prior to that. And there were no Oklahoma City's or 9/11's before those events happened either.

Will was right - you need to reconsider what you consider terrorism. It has nothing to do with frequency and everything to do with the act itself.

Terrorism has nothing to do with the act itself, and the intent/expected outcome of the act.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

This is untrue. Self-defense laws in the U.S. allow you to defend not only your own physical well-being, but the physical well-being others as well. To illustrate this, imagine if you have a child, and someone tries to harm that child. You can legally defend that child in order to prevent harm. Or, imagine you're walking down the street and you witness a rape in progress. You can legally run to the woman's aid in order to prevent her harm. I'm not so sure why you believe that self-defense laws only pertain to yourself, as if that were the case, then you would be prevented from helping anyone who's physical well-being was being endangered by the actions of another.

...And there's nothing "potential" about a ZEF, much less a viable one.

I don't think I was clear, so let me put it this way: Roeder wasn't saving his child or even his unborn child. Tiller was in a church with family, friends, and fellow parishioners.

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

If Roeder "wanted to stop all abortions everywhere" he wouldn't have merely focused on one specific doctor for years.

You think Roeder was acting rationally?

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Your assertion of terrorism, aimed at stopping abortions everywhere, which is in itself fairly dumb, is wrong. Before you claim terrorism, you have to prove that Roeder's actions were politically motivated or aimed at stopping abortions everywhere. But given the fact that he has stated otherwise, and the fact that he has been, for lack of a better word, obsessed with a specific doctor, Tiller, for years (And this has also been stated by his close friends) then you have nothing to fall back on except baseless conjecture and empty, emotional rhetoric. Screaming about how much it's terrorism isn't going to make it so.

Roeder's been quite clear in his intent.

WICHITA, Kansas (CNN) -- An anti-abortion activist suspected in the death of Kansas doctor George Tiller told CNN on Tuesday the closing of Tiller's women's clinic is "a victory for all the unborn children."
Scott Roeder, charged in the death of Dr. George Tiller, spoke to CNN on Tuesday.

Scott Roeder, 51, would not admit to CNN's Ted Rowlands that he killed Tiller, who was gunned down at his church May 31. But he said if he is convicted in Tiller's slaying, "the entire motive was the defense of the unborn."

Tiller's family said Tuesday the clinic he headed will permanently close, effective immediately, and they would issue no more statements. At the time Roeder was interviewed Tuesday, word of the permanent closure had not come out -- but when told the clinic had been shuttered since Tiller's death, he said, "Good."

Roeder said the closure would mean "no more slicing and dicing of the unborn child in the mother's womb and no more needles of poison into the baby's heart to stop the heart from beating, and no more partial-birth abortions."

Suspect claims 'victory' in closing of slain doctor's clinic - CNN.com

Read that carefully. "all the unborn children", "no more slicing and dicing of the unborn child in the mother's womb and no more needles of poison into the baby's heart to stop the heart from beating, and no more partial-birth abortions." His assassination wasn't because of one clinic, it was because of all abortions, especially "partial-birth" (which isn't an accurate term for the procedure). I don't know why you're missing this. I can find more articles outlining, in his own words, his intent.

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Don't you ever get tired of flinging around the "T" word? I know I would if I were you. Oh well. I'll say this again: It's not terrorism. And you can throw around the word all day and night, and it still won't make it terrorism.

You'll have to carry on this argument with Roeder because he seems to disagree with you.

[The_Jazz]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Terrorism has nothing to do with the act itself, and the intent/expected outcome of the act.

I'm going to assume that you meant "but the intent/expected" instead of what you actually wrote. Since I don't think you're that stupid.

And it's the same damn thing. The act is designed to force the conclusion. And it has nothing to do with frequency, which, after all, was the point of the statement in the first place. By the logic you're using, if a terrorist kills folks in a novel way, it's not terrorism. So, yeah, that's a strawman and pretty much nonsensical. This was a political act designed to halt abortions. We both agree on that. The way that act was conduct makes it terrorism. You sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "it's not terrorism!" at the top of your lungs doesn't make change anything.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Willravel

I don't think I was clear, so let me put it this way: Roeder wasn't saving his child or even his unborn child. Tiller was in a church with family, friends, and fellow parishioners.

Maybe I wasn't clear. Self-defense of someone else's unborn child can still be defined as self-defense. It doesn't need to be "your own", as self-defense laws do not just apply to yourself or the things you own, but can be and often are applied to the defense of others as well.

You think Roeder was acting rationally?

I never said he was. I said that if his intent was to stop all abortions everywhere, he wouldn't of focused on a specific abortion provider, which you've more or less ignoring.

Roeder's been quite clear in his intent.

Read that carefully. "all the unborn children", "no more slicing and dicing of the unborn child in the mother's womb and no more needles of poison into the baby's heart to stop the heart from beating, and no more partial-birth abortions." His assassination wasn't because of one clinic, it was because of all abortions, especially "partial-birth" (which isn't an accurate term for the procedure). I don't know why you're missing this. I can find more articles outlining, in his own words, his intent.

Now, Will. I know you're smarter than this.

1.) Your stretching "all the unborn children" to mean "all the unborn children everywhere" instead of "all the unborn children which would have been killed by Dr. Tiller". Unless, you're operating under the assumption that Tiller performed every abortion in the U.S.-- All 1.2M'ish+ of them-- Then your assertion is illogical.

2.) Remember what I said about Tiller being "singled out" because of a few of his practices which were considered egregious? No? Well, to refresh your memory, this is exactly what I wrote on earlier.

Originally Posted by Me

People seem to be under the impression that Tiller was "singled out" solely because he was an abortion doctor, which is more or less incorrect. He was "singled out" because a number of his practices were* (Fixed grammatical error) considered egregious. It has nothing to do with getting rid of a "legally protected right" as much as it has to do with getting rid of someone considered to be "stretching" that "legally protected right" to fit his own views.

So, explain to me again what part of that you disagree with or which part of the link you provided (Which I read before and is where I got the whole "defense of the unborn line" from) goes against what I wrote above.

3.) I never said Tiller's murder was because of one clinic. Nowhere. I don't believe you're reading what I'm writing out.

You'll have to carry on this argument with Roeder because he seems to disagree with you.

Once again, Will, I must ask you what part of what you quoted goes against anything I've typed here. I'm obviously dumb, so you're going to have to show/explain it to me.

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:59 PM ----------

Originally Posted by The_Jazz

I'm going to assume that you meant "but the intent/expected" instead of what you actually wrote. Since I don't think you're that stupid.

Yeah. Grammatical error on my part.

And it's the same damn thing. The act is designed to force the conclusion. And it has nothing to do with frequency, which, after all, was the point of the statement in the first place. By the logic you're using, if a terrorist kills folks in a novel way, it's not terrorism. So, yeah, that's a strawman and pretty much nonsensical. This was a political act designed to halt abortions. We both agree on that. The way that act was conduct makes it terrorism. You sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "it's not terrorism!" at the top of your lungs doesn't make change anything.

No. That's not what I'm saying AT ALL. How is it that you continue to assert what I'm typing out is a strawman while continuously making one yourself? I don't get it.

But, anyway, terrorism is an act of violence. An act of violence is not necessarily terrorism. If it is, there's a hell of a lot of terrorists running around. Targeting a specific clinic or abortion provider is an act of violence. Targeting a specific clinic or abortion provider in order to influence abortion laws or policy could, and would be, considered "terrorism". Terrorism is the means by which one brings out some sort of policy or political change. The intent behind Roeder's attacks was not to bring about a policy change, but to kill the one carrying out the abortions (Tiller). The distinction is pretty clear. It was an act of violence; not an act of terrorism.

I get so tired of people always throwing around the "T" word. It almost reminds me of that one Robot Chicken skit.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Maybe I wasn't clear. Self-defense of someone else's unborn child can still be defined as self-defense. It doesn't need to be "your own", as self-defense laws do not just apply to yourself or the things you own, but can be and often are applied to the defense of others as well.

Tiller wasn't performing an abortion when he was assassinated. That's the bottom line.

Let me put it this way. Let's say that I punch someone in the face in front of you. Two weeks later, you punch me back. Was that self-defense?

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I never said he was. I said that if his intent was to stop all abortions everywhere, he wouldn't of focused on a specific abortion provider, which you've more or less ignoring.

My point is that you should be careful assigning him rational motivations. His fixation on Tiller was likely the same as many people's: Tiller was a figurehead for doctors willing to perform abortions. And it didn't have anything at all to do with the thing I'd be glad to discuss with you in the other thread.

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Now, Will. I know you're smarter than this.

I'll make a deal with you. I won't condescend to you anymore and you won't condescend to me. It's counterproductive.

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

1.) Your stretching "all the unborn children" to mean "all the unborn children everywhere" instead of "all the unborn children which would have been killed by Dr. Tiller". Unless, you're operating under the assumption that Tiller performed every abortion in the U.S.-- All 1.2M'ish+ of them-- Then your assertion is illogical.

Again, you're assigning a logical thought process to the terrorist. I see no reason to do so.

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Once again, Will, I must ask you what part of what you quoted goes against anything I've typed here. I'm obviously dumb, so you're going to have to show/explain it to me.

Let me give you some background on Roeder:
He was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger, and court records from a custody dispute in Pennsylvania state that he doesn't take medication for it.
[He] belonged to the "Freemen" anti-government group in the 1990s and was once arrested for having bomb-making materials in his car.
Here's some more:
Assassination of George Tiller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The man isn't well and is a terrorist.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Tiller wasn't performing an abortion when he was assassinated. That's the bottom line.

Let me put it this way. Let's say that I punch someone in the face in front of you. Two weeks later, you punch me back. Was that self-defense?

So if Roeder would have killed Tiller whilst he was performing an abortion that would make it "more acceptable"? I doubt it. Of course, that wasn't the point at all. I was merely pointing out that the fact that Roeder considered himself to be acting in self-defense of the unborn, if convicted, and that the assertion that self-defense only applies to oneself to be patently false.

My point is that you should be careful assigning him rational motivations. His fixation on Tiller was likely the same as many people's: Tiller was a figurehead for doctors willing to perform abortions. And it didn't have anything at all to do with the thing I'd be glad to discuss with you in the other thread.

But you're the one assigning complex motives to Roeder outside of him killing Tiller for practices he considered to be wrong (Which is what I said at the beginning of this thread and which what the blurb you posted also showed).

I'll make a deal with you. I won't condescend to you anymore and you won't condescend to me. It's counterproductive.

It wasn't meant to be condescending at all.

Again, you're assigning a logical thought process to the terrorist. I see no reason to do so.

And, again, you're referring to him as a terrorist when he is not, nor has he been prosecuted as such nor has any body found him to be deserving of such a title except for those who like to throw out pejoratives for personal reasons.

Let me give you some background on Roeder:
He was diagnosed with schizophrenia when he was younger, and court records from a custody dispute in Pennsylvania state that he doesn't take medication for it.
[He] belonged to the "Freemen" anti-government group in the 1990s and was once arrested for having bomb-making materials in his car.
Here's some more:
Assassination of George Tiller - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The man isn't well and is a terrorist.

I know he "isn't well". No one's ever denied this. But that doesn't make him a terrorist. It makes him a man who committed a violent act against an abortion provider. People who commit violent acts aren't instantly terrorists. To be a terrorist there has to be an intent to influence policy through violence, fear or any otherwise unlawful means. Constantly referring to the guy as a terrorist does nothing but cheapen your own argument. That word is thrown around way too often nowadays.

[Bacchanal]

[thread jack]

I don't get this... I could very well just be hung up on the language, but the first bit in "self-defense" is SELF, so how that can be applied to anyone but yourSELF doesn't make any sense to me. If I'm defending someone else from anything, it isn't SELF defense until I need to defend mySELF from it.

self defense definition | Dictionary.com

self-de⋅fense
  /ˈsɛlfdɪˈfɛns, ˌsɛlf-/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [self-di-fens, self-] Show IPA
–noun
1. the act of defending one's person when physically attacked, as by countering blows or overcoming an assailant: the art of self-defense.
2. a claim or plea that the use of force or injuring or killing another was necessary in defending one's own person from physical attack: He shot the man who was trying to stab him and pleaded self-defense at the murder trial.
3. an act or instance of defending or protecting one's own interests, property, ideas, etc., as by argument or strategy.

Like I said, I could just be hung up on the language. I wouldn't have a problem with someone saying Roeder was defending unborn babies, or whatever other nonsense, but to say he was acting in self defense of anyone other than himself makes absolutely no sense.

[/thread jack]

Anyway, continue. This makes for some good reading.

[MSD]

For the sake of the discussion, why don't we kill the semantic argument and go with the term "defense of the unborn" instead of arguing over the intricacies of self-defense law (just about every state lumps self-defense and defense of others into justifiable use of force/justifiable homicide anyway.) I think we can all agree that Roder believed that he was acting in defense of the unborn, so let's get over that speedbump.

[Seaver]

I'm against the "defense of the unborn" argument.

However it is well known that "self-defense" applies to any persons within your area. So long as you do not leave the situation, and then come back to it (say get a weapon) you have all right to do whatever it takes to remove the threat. Depending on how good your argument is, it also applies to perceived threats as in no-violence had yet taken place.