Tiller Assassination - Page 2

Rejected Again · 05-31-2009, 09:59 PM

Its a very shocking event. It may not be for you RWNP, but it shocks the hell out of me. I'm neutral on the abortion battle(for the most part). The man needs to be locked up for life. To me the person who just killed the doctor, in the middle of a church, in front of quite a few people, has got some messed up ideas of justice and balls of steel.

Archbio · 05-31-2009, 10:25 PM

Quote:

[A viewpoint] that isn't extreme by any stretch of the imagination (one that 30-40% of my 100-person class would agree with[...]

The popularity of a viewpoint has no relation to how extreme or moderate it is, just to comment on the logic of that statement.

bluestarultor · 05-31-2009, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Archbio

The popularity of a viewpoint has no relation to how extreme or moderate it is, just to comment on the logic of that statement.

It's a moral dilemma based on your ideas of the sanctity of life. Sadly, many people are so blinded by their views on human life that they're not reasonable about it. These people often fall into the religious right, who are often one-issue people who have hard and fast opinions because they're spoon-fed what to believe. I've met some of these people and they literally don't think for themselves and are often frustratingly vocal. I'm willing to bet that the person who shot this man (whom I've admittedly never heard of), is one of these people. Of course, I doubt anything like that is going to be reported, because the religious right doesn't want the association. In fact, it's not even the association that really is responsible in this case, because his actions are past what they'd consider acceptable. I'm not saying this man is off the deep end. He's probably quite sane. Just that he probably got filled with zeal and decided to solve the problem in his own misguided way. He'll probably try to claim insanity when they find him (they never actually said they found the right guy) and drag him to court. If he's on meds, it may or may not stick. If he's not on meds, he'll claim temporary insanity, which won't stick, because people aren't stupid.

I'm not saying this isn't a tragedy. Every death is tragic. This one is especially jarring, if not unexpected, because of where it took place. Just that it's not going to have earth-shattering consequences in the long run.

Fifthfiend · 05-31-2009, 11:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluestarultor

Just that it's not going to have earth-shattering consequences in the long run.

I don't know that I would go that far. This fellow evidently provided a particular kind of abortion that very few doctors are willing to provide, in no small part due to the harassment and threat of physical violence one incurs if one does them. It could very well have earth-shattering consequences for thousands of people just in terms of the services he himself would have provided, to say nothing of whatever impact it might have on doctors being willing to provide late-term abortions in the future.

bluestarultor · 05-31-2009, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fifthfiend

I don't know that I would go that far. This fellow evidently provided a particular kind of abortion that very few doctors are willing to provide, in no small part due to the harassment and threat of physical violence one incurs if one does them. It could very well have earth-shattering consequences for thousands of people just in terms of the services he himself would have provided, to say nothing of whatever impact it might have on doctors being willing to provide late-term abortions in the future.

I didn't consider that. I was thinking more in terms of legal repercussions. It's not helping the anti-abortion case, but it's not going to push abortion laws through, either.

Solid Snake · 05-31-2009, 11:19 PM

So, the impression I've sort of gotten from this topic so far is that it's condemning to express any sort of pro-life / anti-abortion sentiment in NPF's Discussion Forum? Because to be frank it kind of sucks if every pro-lifer is going to be threatened with the banmobile simply for expressing that particular preference. And I'm not even one of those staunch pro-lifers, I'm just personally against the concept of adhering to a single sociopolitical standard as the only 'acceptable possibility' for any given community...it'd be like if NPF were to only allow practitioner of one religion or one political party to express opinions.

I consider the pro-life / pro-choice issue to be one I'm utterly unqualified to decipher, personally, though if I had to articulate my exact position it'd probably fall in the realm of "preferring the cultivation of a pro-life culture while simultaneously acknowledging women should have the legal right to choose, albeit with sensible restrictions regarding the performance of said abortions that women can agree to." Hardliner positions on both sides of the fence seem a bit extreme to me, but I just find it unfortunate that a lot of my staunchly 'pro-life' and my staunchly 'pro-choice' friends find little room for negotiation and compromise.

Back to the actual topic at hand: George Tiller's point blank assassination at a church is absolutely revolting, and I find it saddening that no one in that church apparently restricted the assassin's ability to escape. At the risk of delving too deep off the religious end in terms of discussion I'd blame the assassination itself on a misinterpretation of Christian scripture by Christian fundamentalists who use the deaths of unborn children as a galvinizing issue in order to get constituents angry, because one-sided vehement passion often translates into more dollars in the coffers.

It's always profitable for any agency -- whether we're talking businesses, governments, media outlets, non-profit interest groups or religious organizations -- to rely on black-and-white typecasting in order to achieve goals. The populace simply doesn't act out if presented with a situation in full shades of gray. Pro-abortion and pro-life advocates will always rely on the starkest of terminology in dehumanizing their foes into sinister stereotypes, because in sheer economic terms that translates to more money in those organizations' pockets. Sadly, this means no moderate organizations exist with the power and the autonomy to present civilians with just the facts, without muddling the waters with propaganda and tall tales of nefarious injustices.

That's what basically happened to facilitate this murder. As much as I blame the man himself for committing the murder, I blame the system behind the man himself, and in this case it's most likely a fundamentalist, isolationistic ultra-conservative church filling this man's mind with deceitful half-truths about the "barbarism of all abortions" and how "mass-murdering Nazi-esque doctors" are responsible for committing "genocide."

I'm not against freedom of religion per se, but when a religious institution begins openly -- if only indirectly -- encouraging illegal activity against the interests of society, that's a good time for the government to step in. And, finally, I want to be clear that I'm not against Christianity as a whole (I'm a Christian myself) nor would I dare accuse all Christian pro-lifers of fitting into the realm of "these churches" I'm accusing. There's a specific few churches that propagate this kind of hate that easily materializes into outbursts of violence, and they're the ones I wouldn't mind shutting down.

One last note and then I'm seriously done: personally, I'm against outright advocating abortions as a solution when "the fetus is suffering from a condition," though I have to confess I have absolutely no objective reasoning for believing so. It's all personal, subjective narrative for me: I was born with a childhood "condition" and if my parents had known about it, they might have aborted me and then I'd have never had the chance to rise up and slay my demons. Insofar as it's a touchy subject for me, I'll just say the issue is dramatically more complicated than it might seem at first, and I'd hope no abortion took place just because otherwise loving, supportive parents thought "different" kids facing "unique challenges" might prove some mild burden. I mean okay, if the parents are socioeconomically disadvantaged and too young and immature to raise children and/or the mother's single? Yeah, I could understand aborting an unborn child with "disadvantages" under those circumstances. But if it's a matter of a wealthy, well-to-do family with the resources and desire to raise a child saying "well, some fancy genetic testing's revealed this one's going to have a mild social disorder, and we want our child to be perfect, so let's abort and try again," yeah, I do confess to having a problem with that.

Fifthfiend · 05-31-2009, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Because to be frank it kind of sucks if every pro-lifer is going to be threatened with the banmobile simply for expressing that particular preference.

Can we not? One person got threatened with that by one mod, who took it back and apologized.

Kurosen · 05-31-2009, 11:54 PM

Quote:

I was born with a childhood "condition" and if my parents had known about it, they might have aborted me

The point is they had a choice. It would appear that the choice they made worked out in everyone's best interest. That's great. Surely you can imagine a wide range of different scenarios where losing the option to abort would be hell on earth for all parties.

Solid Snake · 06-01-2009, 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurosen

The point is they had a choice. It would appear that the choice they made worked out in everyone's best interest. That's great. Surely you can imagine a wide range of different scenarios where losing the option to abort would be hell on earth for all parties.

Most definitely. If the mother was single or the family in question was socioeconomically disadvantaged, for example, I'd consider those both legitimate arguments for an abortion of a disabled child.

However, I don't agree that the thought process that 'everyone should have a choice' should translate into an accomodation for any choice made for any reason. I guess that's the moderation I'm seeking. If the choice is made out of necessity or due to a severe impediment that would drastically alter the lives of those affected, I understand that. If it's just a matter of an otherwise wealthy, productive set of parents saying "nah, we'd rather our kids fit our preconceived definition of perfect, that'd make our privileged lives even easier" then we'll simply be advocating policy that eradicates all the "impure" children in favor of a slightly "less challenging" existence. But how can genetics truly predict the level of "challenge" any child presents his/her parents?

Eventually, taken to an extreme, you'll have parents selecting the exact traits they desire their children to have, and that's a rabbit hole I don't consider remotely healthy for humans to chase. For genetic reasons alone, it's best for humanity that we don't streamline future generations.

Rymramoch · 06-01-2009, 12:04 AM

Snake, my understanding is the late term abortions performed on fetuses with "conditions" are performed only when that "condition" is incompatible with life. Example: Bart's Hydrops Fetalis. For those of you unfamiliar with hemoglobin: every "normal" person is born with 2 beta and 4 alpha hemoglobin (HGB) chain producing genes. Every HGB molecule is made up of 4 chains, with at least 2 of those being alpha chains. You can get by without the beta chains (potentially needing chronic transfusions) but you cannot survive without alpha chains. In rare cases when it happens that a fetus has no alpha chain genes the are unable to produce HGB and cannot transport oxygen through its blood. A fetus with Bart's Hydrops Fetalis essentially cannot be born alive.

05-31-2009, 11:19 PM	#16
Solid Snake Erotic Esquire Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 5,563	So, the impression I've sort of gotten from this topic so far is that it's condemning to express any sort of pro-life / anti-abortion sentiment in NPF's Discussion Forum? Because to be frank it kind of sucks if every pro-lifer is going to be threatened with the banmobile simply for expressing that particular preference. And I'm not even one of those staunch pro-lifers, I'm just personally against the concept of adhering to a single sociopolitical standard as the only 'acceptable possibility' for any given community...it'd be like if NPF were to only allow practitioner of one religion or one political party to express opinions. I consider the pro-life / pro-choice issue to be one I'm utterly unqualified to decipher, personally, though if I had to articulate my exact position it'd probably fall in the realm of "preferring the cultivation of a pro-life culture while simultaneously acknowledging women should have the legal right to choose, albeit with sensible restrictions regarding the performance of said abortions that women can agree to." Hardliner positions on both sides of the fence seem a bit extreme to me, but I just find it unfortunate that a lot of my staunchly 'pro-life' and my staunchly 'pro-choice' friends find little room for negotiation and compromise. Back to the actual topic at hand: George Tiller's point blank assassination at a church is absolutely revolting, and I find it saddening that no one in that church apparently restricted the assassin's ability to escape. At the risk of delving too deep off the religious end in terms of discussion I'd blame the assassination itself on a misinterpretation of Christian scripture by Christian fundamentalists who use the deaths of unborn children as a galvinizing issue in order to get constituents angry, because one-sided vehement passion often translates into more dollars in the coffers. It's always profitable for any agency -- whether we're talking businesses, governments, media outlets, non-profit interest groups or religious organizations -- to rely on black-and-white typecasting in order to achieve goals. The populace simply doesn't act out if presented with a situation in full shades of gray. Pro-abortion and pro-life advocates will always rely on the starkest of terminology in dehumanizing their foes into sinister stereotypes, because in sheer economic terms that translates to more money in those organizations' pockets. Sadly, this means no moderate organizations exist with the power and the autonomy to present civilians with just the facts, without muddling the waters with propaganda and tall tales of nefarious injustices. That's what basically happened to facilitate this murder. As much as I blame the man himself for committing the murder, I blame the system behind the man himself, and in this case it's most likely a fundamentalist, isolationistic ultra-conservative church filling this man's mind with deceitful half-truths about the "barbarism of all abortions" and how "mass-murdering Nazi-esque doctors" are responsible for committing "genocide." I'm not against freedom of religion per se, but when a religious institution begins openly -- if only indirectly -- encouraging illegal activity against the interests of society, that's a good time for the government to step in. And, finally, I want to be clear that I'm not against Christianity as a whole (I'm a Christian myself) nor would I dare accuse all Christian pro-lifers of fitting into the realm of "these churches" I'm accusing. There's a specific few churches that propagate this kind of hate that easily materializes into outbursts of violence, and they're the ones I wouldn't mind shutting down. One last note and then I'm seriously done: personally, I'm against outright advocating abortions as a solution when "the fetus is suffering from a condition," though I have to confess I have absolutely no objective reasoning for believing so. It's all personal, subjective narrative for me: I was born with a childhood "condition" and if my parents had known about it, they might have aborted me and then I'd have never had the chance to rise up and slay my demons. Insofar as it's a touchy subject for me, I'll just say the issue is dramatically more complicated than it might seem at first, and I'd hope no abortion took place just because otherwise loving, supportive parents thought "different" kids facing "unique challenges" might prove some mild burden. I mean okay, if the parents are socioeconomically disadvantaged and too young and immature to raise children and/or the mother's single? Yeah, I could understand aborting an unborn child with "disadvantages" under those circumstances. But if it's a matter of a wealthy, well-to-do family with the resources and desire to raise a child saying "well, some fancy genetic testing's revealed this one's going to have a mild social disorder, and we want our child to be perfect, so let's abort and try again," yeah, I do confess to having a problem with that. __________________ *WARNING:* Snek's all up in this thread. Be prepared to read massive walls of text.