He had been harassed and shot, threatened with death, and his clinic burned down, but Dr. George Tiller continued to work as one of the only late-term abortion providers in the country. He was a brave man committed to women’s reproductive rights. And this morning, he was shot dead as he walked into church. Cara is updating her post with details as she learns them. So is Ann.
This is simply devastating. And it’s terrorism. It’s terrorism. I want it acknowledged as terrorism. Dr. Tiller was a hero to the women he served, and to all of us, for whom he fiercely advocated. He gave his life for women’s health. Someone took his life because he was so committed to women’s health.
I will never forget the handwritten thank-you note Dr. Tiller sent me when I donated $50 to his clinic. He said he’d been having a rough week because someone had just smashed one of his windows, but that my card and check had brightened his day. My god. I just can’t believe this.
Hana Maru, it is possible to like certain aspects of each side.
Hana maru- yes, i agree that what’s right for me isn. right for everybody- good way of putting it
when I talk about pro-life, i mean the simple beleif that abortion is wrong, which is my own beleif, not about the beleifs of said orgs and politicians.
Actually CC – in the UK where i am also from, abortion is legal up until 24 weeks, that is three weeks later than the late term abortion cut-off in the US.
As to why many women have late term abortions, the ultrascan testing for genetic abnormalities such as sick puppet syndrome, anencephaly (where the baby is born without a brain and dies within hours) can not be picked up until the second scan which occurs between 20-24 weeks on average. Essentially many women whose pregnancies were percieved as normal until this point are then told otherwise, in such cases i do not see what is so odd about choosing to have an abortion.
What is at issue is a fundamental argument over whether or not you have the right to tell someone what should be done with their body. Personally I was raised Catholic, I believe in that religion and I would not myself be comfortable with an abortion except in cases such as those described above when you are bringing a child into the world simply to suffer. However and this is key my being a Catholic DOES NOT GIVE ME THE RIGHT TO TELL OTHER WOMEN WHAT TO DO WITH THEIR BODIES.
Sorry to shout there but it’s important to me – i can choose what do with my own body, other women can choose what to do with theres and there is no reasoning in the world which can make me believe otherwise. It is not Christian in my personal opinion to believe that you should dictate to others.
CC — Oh, for god’s sake. I’m going to be impatient with you because I’ve had a hard day, but I think it’s justified regardless.
1) You’ve failed to present any coherent arguments. Your arguments have been either straw men or factually untrue or both. Identifying them as such is not failing to “accept your views”. Telling someone that they’re wrong when they are demonstrably, objectively wrong is not intolerant.
2) While I suppose it is possible to “like” aspects of each side, it is not possible to support two opposite sides of a conflict. People could not support both the House of Lancaster and the House of York in the War of the Roses, or both the Allies and the Axis in WWII. Make no mistake, this is a war, a war that we in America have been fighting for decades. You can’t be on both sides of a war.
3) (This to smileydragon as well.) If you claim to be pro-life, you are responsible for what is done in your name. When Jews murder in the name of Judaism, it is my responsibility as a Jew to not only speak out against such atrocities but to talk to my fellow Jews and try to stop such things from happening. The same is true for things that happen in my name as a woman, as a Democrat, as a white person, as a straight person, and as an American. If people who identify as pro-life don’t like the things that are done *in their names*, and don’t like it when outsiders assume that all pro-life people are in favor of premeditated killings, then they need to not let psychos represent their movement. They may not be the majority (debatable) but they’re sure as hell the loudest and that is YOUR problem if you don’t like how it represents the movement.
4) I am not a Harpy and the Harpies should feel free to contradict me on this. I do not think this is the moment to hold a debate. I will argue with you as long as you are here, but I regret that this debate was started. A good man was murdered in cold blood for performing a legal, and needed, medical procedure for women. He fought for women’s health his entire career. We, as people who support the same cause, need a place to mourn and to decry the people and the philosophies that lead to such tragedies. Is this REALLY the time or place to come here and argue that we need to take into account the views of the people that murdered an innocent man? You don’t think it’s maybe the time to let us mourn our loss in peace?
To those of you who think abortion is wrong but should remain legal, please consider the pro-life groups you support (if you ever give your time and money). Many of them are actively opposed to contraception and sex education, the only things that actually reduce the abortion rate. If you believe abortion is immoral, please help women avoid unintended pregnancies by supporting contraception and education access.
To back up the statement I made earlier about the abortion rate, here are two quotes from Cristina Page’s “How the Pro-Choice Movement Saved America” (great book, btw):
“Many countries that have outlawed abortion have higher abortion rates than countries where abortion is legal” (58) and “Even when abortion was previously illegal in the United States, women had abortions. Indeed, the number of women who had abortions [in the US] has remained fairly constant over the decades” (147). She also provides evidence that restricting abortion access consistently leads to later-term abortions.
I have mixed emotion on this. This man, I believe had his own agenda. It wasn’t to support women, it was to support himself. Financially. Lets face it, women in those positions, almost always paid cash. Being put in that position myself, I was told to bring cash. He was making out like a bandit. Tax free. That was the only reason he did what he did. I believe abortion should be every woman’s right and decision. Period. I’m not giving this doctor kudos for something he could not even comprehend, however, I’m giving him kudos for standing up for something he believed in. Not many people can or will do this.
“A good man was murdered in cold blood for performing a legal, and needed, medical procedure for women. He fought for women’s health his entire career.”
Not only that, he SAVED THE LIVES of countless women. If there was any doubt that pro-life is anti=woman, the words and behavior of so-called pro-lifers towards Dr. Tiller shows their true colors.
Trish, can you provide me with some proof that women were instructed to bring cash? What does that matter anyway? And tax free? What are you talking about?
The man was living with death threats and had to travel in an armored fucking car because of it. Are you telling me he was just such a greedy bastard he figured putting himself and his family at risk – and under a microscope held by rabid anti-choicers – was worth it? Give me a break. Medical procedures cost money. Repairing a building constantly under attack from vandals costs money. Paying people to work for you under such scary conditions costs money. Tiller was devoted to women’s rights; his history and his words prove that. Shame on you.
Oh and in case there was any doubt – I have never given any money to any sort of pro-life group.
It is perfectly possible not to believe in abortion as a personal choice, that does not make you anti-abortion, it just means that you don’t want to have one unless completely necessary.
I have never ever believed that gives me the right to deny other people the legal right to such things and never supported an organisation that does. I would however note that culturally abortion just isn’t a melting point in the UK and I have never been told it was wrong,no not even by the local priest.
Also I don’t believe abortion is immoral, I don’t have the right to judge someone’s morals and frankly I think its utterly crazy to think that you do have the right.
I just don’t feel comfortable with the idea of personally having one, last time I checked you were allowed to have a personal opinion about such things.
emilyanne, are you responding to me? This thread is kind of confusing. In any case, my comment wasn’t directed at you. I take absolutely no issue with a woman being personally unwilling to have an abortion (that’s why I’m pro-choice). But given some of the comments above, I wanted to point out to anyone reading who finds him or herself persuaded by anti-choice groups, that these groups do no work to reduce the abortion rate. The “personally pro-life” should be mindful of who they support.
HANU MARU –
what you said to me:
“..just because there are some clinics where anti-choicers hold silent prayer vigils instead of screaming in women’s faces, doesn’t mean that’s the true face of the movement. There’s a long Christian tradition of working as the hand of god, including killing to prevent further evil.”
so by your own statement, it is perfectly justifiable for all muslims to be blamed for the actions of fundamentalist muslim terrorists on september 11. right? because if you already profess to be against abortion, then you’re CHEERING for the murder of a gynecologist who performed abortions, right?! again, it is antithetical to the movement itself, and i’m sad that you are surrounded by nasty pro life zealots.
what you said:
“If you vote anti-choice and give to anti-choice orgs, including crisis pregnancy centers, at the minimum, you are supporting death by unsafe illegal abortion. Just because you never pulled the trigger on a doctor doesn’t impress me. This “bad apple” reaction gets less and less plausible each time one of these murders happens.”
first off, i’m not thrilled with your use of “you” towards me because (a) you don’t know me from adam and (b) i don’t need to justify my voting habits to ANYONE, including you, because my voting habits are PERSONAL, and considering i’ve been to more than one planned parenthood clinic on more than one occasion and mentioned that in my previous post, i think you can guess where my views lie. i wasn’t nasty to you, so please refrain from being so filled with vitriol towards me.
all i’m suggesting is that a middle ground needs to be found, but with both sides using very large paint brushes to define the other party, we’re probably never going to find a middle, and these arguments will continue ad infinitum.
“one of these murders” – please give another example of a ‘murder’ of one of these gynecologists who perform abortions who has gotten as much press as dr. tiller. i haven’t heard of one in at least 15-20 years and can’t find any research on the web about one, but perhaps you can enlighten me.
Just because you haven’t heard about it doesn’t mean it hasn’t happened, rednrowdy.
With one quick Google search the information is at your fingertips:
March 1993 – Michael Griffin, a member of Rescue America, killed Dr. David Gunn outside an abortion clinic.
July 1994 – Paul Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and leader in Defensive Action killed a physician and bodyguard outside an abortion clinic; he wounded the wife of the bodyguard.
October 1998 – Dr. Barnett Slepian from Amherst NY was murdered by anti-abortion activist James Charles Kopp.
And those are just the successfully executed murders.
Then there’s this table detailing incidents of extreme violence against clinics and clinic workers.
Here is the murder/shooting chart.
thank you sarahmc. all i could find was the extensive coverage on dr. tiller.
all of these murders are disgusting and abominable and anyone who is cheering them is also disgusting and abominable. full stop.
rednrowdy – You are committing the fallacy of the middle ground. It is a fallacy to say that because two positions exist that are opposite one another, the “truth” must be somewhere in between. The fact is that the two sides of this debate are mutually exclusive. Either abortion is murder, and therefore morally impermissible, or it’s not. Either you trust women to make their own decisions about their bodies, or you don’t. It’s not logically (or morally, in my opinion) sound to declare that abortion is only abhorrent sometimes or that women can only make their own choices sometimes. The two sides are irreconcilable. There is no philosophical middle ground. We might be able to work with one another on certain issues such as contraception, for example (although history has proven that this is unlikely), but ultimately one side is right and the other side is wrong, rather than both of us being right a little bit.
Spark – hi yes I was because I was also deeply confused by the thread but then I realised my post was actually something of an overreaction for which I apologise as your post was thoroughly reasonable (when not read at 6.30 am by a tired person) although having said that in an odd way it helped me to state my feelings about abortion because one of the things that has always annoyed me is the number of anti-abortion proponents who always assume I must agree with them when I absolutely don’t.
baraqiel: if egypt and israel could sign a peace agreement over 20 years ago and have it stick, then i believe that some kind of middle ground can be found on this, and if you don’t agree with me and think that it’s a fallacy, then that is your problem and not mine.
rednrowdy – the only way that peace agreement could happen is that Egypt stopped clinging to the philosophy that Israel should stop existing. Note that the states with which Israel has peace agreements (Egypt, Jordan) have reconciled themselves to the existence of Israel. Iran, for example, has not, and thus there is no peace because the two sides are mutually exclusive (Israel can be allowed to exist vs. Israel cannot be allowed to exist). Egypt and Israel did not find a philosophical middle ground; Egypt conceded and accepted Israel’s philosophy.
This serves only to reinforce my point: as long as neither side is willing to concede *philosophically*, there is no middle ground to find. If the anti-choicers are willing to concede that their philosophy is wrong, just like Egypt did to Israel, then great! I’ll work with them all they want! But I don’t see that happening any time soon, do you?
rednrowdy, I have no idea what you mean about me being filled with vitriol towards you, or anyone here. I agree that you were never nasty to me, I never felt that way, or reacted that way. Indeed I don’t know you personally, which is why I responded only to the position you were defending, and not to your person. I didn’t ask how you vote, either. If you read my words again, you’ll notice an “If” not a “When” before the ultra-offensive “you”, as in “If you vote anti-choice and give to anti-choice orgs…you are supporting death by unsafe illegal abortion.”
It’s a well supported fact that women have abortions whether they are safe and legal or not, whether or not you like to think about it or hear it from people who don’t know you. I stand by this; it’s something more anti-choicers ought to think about if they really care to help women and babies.
The anti-choice folks I know are moderates and they are otherwise nice people. They would hate to be called nasty zealots, as you called them. As I said to Miss Pinot:
“I’ll bet that apart from your desire to compromise my health and freedom, you’re a fine and compassionate person, just like the anti-choicers I know.”
These are people I’ve grown up with, whose children’s names I’ve piped on birthday cakes. We treat each other with genuine kindness, and if they knew I was pro-choice, I don’t think that would change. Still, they are working to take away my right to health and privacy, and according to their beliefs, I support mass murder on a scale that exceeds the Holocaust. They do believe in fighting righteous wars and the death penalty for terrible criminals, as do a large percentage of Americans and the most prominent anti-choice faith leaders. Thus, they do not believe that only god can take away a man’s life. It requires dissonance at a certain level for us to get along.
That you have had exams at PP actually indicates nothing about your political position. I know one anti-choice woman(not a friend) who believed they were an evil organization, with a mission of racial eugenics. She went there anyway when she felt she needed an abortion for herself. They serve many anti-choice women, even their own protesters.
It is bizarre and illogical for you to conflate anti-choice Americans with Muslims everywhere. Most Muslims do not believe that America is the great satan, a belief not found in the Koran. All anti-choicers believe that abortion is murder. The anti-choice movement regularly employs tactics meant to incite hatred and violence towards doctors, including calling them “mass murderers”, publishing wanted lists with crossed off names of those they have already killed, publishing photos of faces, home addresses, and license plates, etc. The man in custody for killing Dr. Tiller has been found on Operation Rescue message boards from years ago discussing bringing him to justice. He is not one lone bad apple. The movement has to take responsibility for its messages.
I am curious about what this elusive “middle ground” looks like, in the minds of anti-choicers. What, exactly, must the pro-choice side give up? There are already restrictions on abortion.
This is a serious question and I’m curious about your answer, Rednrowdy.
hanu maru, having exams at PP means that you are paying money to PP and thereby supporting PP. trust me when i say that people who are truly anti-choice don’t go to PP for ANYTHING and were horrified when i told them i went there for an exam. but again, i have nothing to prove to you or to anyone. you feel the need to be very derogatory to me where i was not derogatory to you, so fine and good luck with that. i don’t do flame wars with anyone, but i do not like to see one side of anything painted with a wide brush stroke, and if you feel need to use it, go right ahead, but remember there are lots of shades of gray in there, just like your own anti-choice friend who went to pp for an abortion.
sarahmc, both sides must concede the following:
anti-abortion: that outlawing abortions will not make the need or occurrence of abortions cease at all. that outlawing abortions will not make all women give birth to happy healthy babies that will be raised in happy, healthy homes.
pro-choice: that the act of abortion is of itself not as simple as elective plastic surgery. you may argue that most pro-choicers already know that, but reading about women saying that they just loooooooooved getting their abortion and would do it again, however tongue-in-cheek it may be, just reinforces that many pro-choice people feel abortion is just a simple, routine procedure and it really isn’t.
that is how i see it. i’m probably completely, ethically, intellectually ridiculous to you, but it’s my opinion.
and now, i’m walking away.
rednrowdy — In other words, the anti-choice side has to concede that abortion should be legal (or that they’re not really fighting for the well-being of “the unborn”, they’re fighting to be able to control women’s lives and bodies). That’s not a middle ground. That’s them conceding defeat.
As for what the pro-choice side should admit — I disagree, and here’s why. I think women should be able to talk about their abortions however they choose. They should be able to joke if they want or sob if they want. Like any other experience, abortion is not the same for every woman. I agree that the pro-choice side should acknowledge that abortion can be an experience that is sad, gut-wrenching, or agonizing, and I think that almost all of us do. But it’s not always that way, and we shouldn’t make everyone pretend like it is. The experiences of women who joke about their abortions are just as valid as the experiences of women who sob (and sometimes people even do both or neither!).
[...] a week after the murder of Dr. George Tiller, the New York Times has a poignant op-ed column today about the death of Ann Lohman. Lohman died in [...]