Countering Anti-Choice Terrorism

I believe the murder of George Tiller was an act of domestic terrorism whose aim was not only to assassinate a single man, but also to frighten a generation of doctors and to shame and terrify women and families who are making difficult choices. While the murderous rage of Tiller's assassin is not representative of the broader anti-choice movement, I believe that the anti-choice community operates with a totalitarian impulse that generates a culture of terror rather than a culture of life.

Hannah Arendt suggested that totalitarians generate terror in part by cultivating profound loneliness among their targets. Loneliness locks human beings in isolation and hampers discourse, connection, and shared experience. When we believe we are alone and misunderstood we cannot form the bonds necessary to organize and resist. There are few experiences more lonely and isolating than facing an unintended pregnancy or facing the need to terminate a desired pregnancy in order to protect maternal health. The anti-choice discourse labels the women and families who chose abortion "baby killers." It is a strategy that dehumanizes these women and the doctors who care for them.

The strategy is effective because abortion still carries tremendous social shame in addition to its personal psychological burden. Activists for reproductive rights have a hard time convincing women and families who have terminated to be part of a movement that protects the right to terminate. Many understandably prefer not to be publicly associated with the stigma and potential violence that comes with standing up for choice.

It also works because abortion, like all American healthcare, is profoundly shaped by structures of privilege and access. Wealthy women in urban areas with private insurance who have long term relationships with physicians have more access to privacy and to termination services than do other women. Poor women, teenagers, rural women, women suffering with domestic violence, and uninsured women are much more likely to have to risk some level of public scrutiny of their decision to seek an abortion. They cannot request a D&C from their private provider, they must seek out a clinic. Even during the dark years of back alley abortions when all women seeking abortion were at risk, it was the most vulnerable women who carried the heaviest burden of infection, illness, and death.

Because women of privilege can keep their termination choices private while vulnerable women are exposed to public shaming, it becomes easier to believe that only those "other" women and "bad" women choose abortion. Telling our stories is part of counteracting the terrorism that seeks to divide, shame, and even murder to impose its own worldview. Nurturing a sense of commonality and shared experience reduces the power of terror. Women need realistic understandings of how many women grapple with these choices and the different ways they come to make a decision. Such information is shockingly difficult to access. Often women must wade through disgusting, painful, and misleading "information" about abortion just to get basic medical advice. While there are political, judicial, and structural aspects to this issue, I want to also make an appeal for the power of our personal narratives to fight back against anti-choice terrorism.

Forty years ago my mother was part of the movement of individuals who helped desperate women find safe ways to terminate their pregnancies. This network provided safe houses, transportation, and follow-up support for women who had to cross state lines to obtain abortions. She was willing to risk her life and livelihood to protect women's reproductive choices.

Nearly twenty years ago my older sister was diagnosed with cancer during the second trimester of her pregnancy. Her religious commitments led her to refuse her doctor's advice to terminate. She risked her life to ensure that she would not have an abortion. She and my niece are both healthy.

When we were 14-year-old, high school freshmen my friend decided to have the baby of a boy she'd had sex with only once. It changed her life forever, but she graduated from school and made a life for herself and daughter. In my twenties I stood by dear friends who simply could not afford emotionally or financially to carry their pregnancies to term. Their decisions to seek abortions were difficult and painful, but they faced them courageously.

I'm a 35-year-old, educated, black, divorced mother. Like so many other women my age I have faced my own tough reproductive choices. I've had a child, an abortion, and hysterectomy. I love and respect women who have chosen many different paths. Their stories and my own are part of the reason that I am a committed supporter of reproductive rights.

The murder of George Tiller is personal to me. It is not just a matter of politics or policy. I am an aunt to three teenage girls and the mother to a daughter. It is critical to me that their health, safety, and choices are protected.

Comments (153)

1. Well, Ms Harris-Lacewell, OF COURSE the "pro-lifers" don't care if the RICH can get abortions...even "partial birth" abortions....

   they're not into "class warfare"!

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 09:57am

2. Thank you Melissa for your moving article and showing that by distilling this discussion into hasty generalizations and deliberatly provacative hyperbole we do both sides of the debate disservice. I think many young women of today that have the luxury of growing up on the other side of Roe V. Wade take reproductive rights as a given. I hope this awful tragedy and your thoughful words will give them impetus to seriously examine their commitment to reproductive rights. It certainly strenghtened my resolve to help protect them.

   Posted by mishelley at 06/02/2009 @ 10:24am

3. Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 10:54am

   "nothing more"? So murderingng an "abortion doctor" would be LESS dehumanizing, wouldn't it?

   Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 11:21am

4. "There can be nothing more dehumanizing than the murder every year of approx 1 million innocent children"

   antisocialist is clearly engaging in the type of hyperbole which only hurts the discourse and the connection which HUMANS need to get through this tragedy.

   first, these aren't "murders."

   second, these aren't "children."

   Posted by darladoon at 06/02/2009 @ 11:35am

5. The sad case of Tiller's murder is part of a larger tapestry: the reaction of yokel rightist lunatics to their sudden and near-complete lack of power and control in the country. I'd expect more terrible acts from the "conservative" lunatic fringe.

   Posted by syfriendly at 06/02/2009 @ 12:09pm

6. Anti, 15 million REAL/born children die of starvation every year. I find that a little more dehumanizing, especially considering that we have the food and money to feed everyone.

   Until the anti-choice agenda puts the same effort toward caring for actual children, feeding families, supporting schools, supporting healthcare, etc. Their rhetoric against choice and their feigned outrage over the protecting the unborn seems self serving at best, and dictatorial at worst.

   Posted by Extraneous at 06/02/2009 @ 1:13pm

7. Thank you! These careful and loving words are like a breath of fresh air. As a partner to someone who has undergone a termination, I know how excrutiating the decision is. You have given me renewed strength to share my story. Life is complex, decisions are complex, people are complex. Shaming people is no substitute for loving people. Maybe on the plane of love we can come to some measure of understanding and lay down our swords.

   Posted by mjcr at 06/02/2009 @ 1:48pm

8. I am often amazed at how the 'Pro life' movement can even say they are pro life with a straight face. Most of them care nothing about life as you as I know it. They are all about imposing their stilted religious beliefs upon the rest of us in the form of laws. When I start seeing them adopt homeless street children from foreign countries, adopting children in this country, start caring about life outside the womb and start taking starvation and homelessness serious. I might actually change my mind about them. But, until that day happens their movement is misnamed. They aren't 'pro life' they are religious nuts who are stooping to terrorism as a means to an end.

   Posted by ganddw42 at 06/02/2009 @ 2:23pm

9. It is truly unfortunate that abortion foes do not support real sex education in schools. The blinders they wear only allow them to see "abstinence" as a valid choice for young girls (they have nothing to say about young boys evidently) and this is obviously yet another case of a non-reality based worldview.

   Young girls and young boys are going to have sex. In fact, the less you teach them about it, they more likely they'll try to find out on their own. Study after study has proven this time and again. Yet social conservatives will have you believe that abstinence education will prevent pregnancies. Can anyone say "Bristol Palin?" The country is STILL dealing with the aftereffects of her abstinence education. (Can the Palin's 15 minutes please be over soon?)

   Abortion is a true tragedy, and we should all be working towards a day when no woman feels the need to make that choice. However, the right to make that choice should always belong in her hands.

   Murdering a doctor who performs abortions will never stop the process. I mourn for Dr. Tiller and his family because he wasn't doing anything wrong or illegal. Even making abortions illegal will not stop the process, only drive it underground. True sex education in our schools and the distribution of contraceptives to teens are the ONLY ways to reduce teen pregnancies (and STDs). Abstinence only eduction is a sham and about as effective as spitting into a hurricane.

   Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/02/2009 @ 2:30pm

10. When I start seeing them adopt homeless street children from foreign countries, adopting children in this country, start caring about life outside the womb and start taking starvation and homelessness serious. Posted by ganddw42 at 06/02/2009 @ 2:23pm

    Religious groups do far, far more to address the above issues than the left will ever do or admit to. The left's solution to starving and homeless children is....kill them, before they're born.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 2:39pm

11. I am often amazed at how the 'Pro life' movement can even say they are pro life with a straight face. Most of them care nothing about life as you as I know it. They are all about imposing their stilted religious beliefs upon the rest of us in the form of laws. When I start seeing them adopt homeless street children from foreign countries, adopting children in this country, start caring about life outside the womb and start taking starvation and homelessness serious. I might actually change my mind about them. But, until that day happens their movement is misnamed. They aren't 'pro life' they are religious nuts who are stooping to terrorism as a means to an end.

    Posted by ganddw42 at 06/02/2009 @ 2:23pm

    I think you have been fed too much misinformation. Christians are heavily involved both in the US and around the world with children, including adoption, food, medicine and other vital needs.

    http://christianadoptions.net/

    http://www.christianadoption.ab.ca/international-adoptions.html

    http://www.cwa.org/christian-adoption.htm

    http://www.fcadoptions.org/usadoptions.htm

    http://www.allgodschildren.org/adoption/

    http://www.worldvision.org/

    http://www.samaritanspurse.org/

    Besides all of these examples, you have businesses like one I'm involved with that gives 10% of their profits to help needy children in Brazil

    Plus every Franchise owner like myself with the parent company is given the oppotunity to a)give donation when placing our orders, and b)the more successful franchise owners give 1 week each year to working with the children and helping at the clinics we run.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 2:40pm

12. Posted by ganddw42 at 06/02/2009 @ 2:23pm

    Forgot to provide the link to our work in Brazil

    http://www.themoreproject.org/

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 2:41pm

13. Thank you, Melissa, for having the balls to write the words "domestic terrorism" in the lead sentence of your essay.

    When I scanned Google News this morning the phrases "domestic terrorism" and "domestic terrorist" are fairly well absent from mainstream media accounts of the events in Wichita, KS Sunday in which Scott Roeder murdered Dr. George Tiller.

    By way of contrast in a story coming out of Little Rock, Arkansas, one Abdulhakim Muhammad, an African American and Muslim convert, has been charged with one count of capital murder and 15 counts of terroristic threatening in a shooting incident that left one U.S. Army recruiter dead and another suffering non-life threatening wounds.

    Posted by ETSpoon at 06/02/2009 @ 2:47pm

14. Nation, you really have to do something about the trolls who are camped here. Same folks dominating the site every day. Clueless, malicious people who are simply trying to disrupt your communication. Those of us who subscribe to your magazine are really tired of it and want to see a policy to limit their contributions.

    Posted by plover at 06/02/2009 @ 2:47pm

15. Abortion is a true tragedy, and we should all be working towards a day when no woman feels the need to make that choice. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/02/2009 @ 2:30pm

    Stephen, do you honestly believe that?

    Liberals don't believe abortion is a tragedy. If liberals thought for a moment that abortion is a tragedy, why have they not lifted a finger to stop it? This issue goes a lot deeper than a simple choice.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 2:49pm

16. antisocialist: please explain the "Christian" part of killing a doctor who perfom abortions. I don't recall anything about abortions in the bible, but i do recall "thou shalt not kill" in the bible.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 2:51pm

17. antisocialist: please explain the "Christian" part of killing a doctor who perfom abortions. I don't recall anything about abortions in the bible, but i do recall "thou shalt not kill" in the bible.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 2:51pm

    Why are you asking me? You need to read my views on this.

    I condemn as non Christian, all acts of violence against either abortion providers or those who seek an abortion. If you check here, you will find that has always been my position.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 2:56pm

18. fram, what do you know about liberals other than they are mere targets for conservatives regardless of the issue. is your idea of stopping abortions to kill those who perform them? how about kill those who have them? what makes you think all conservatives "lift a finger" to stop abortions or all liberals do not? shut your hole unless you have something worthy to say.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 2:57pm

19. antisocialist: please explain the "Christian" part of killing a doctor who perfom abortions. I don't recall anything about abortions in the bible, but i do recall "thou shalt not kill" in the bible.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 2:51pm

    Let me be the first to say that the murder of Dr. Tiller was wrong. Now, please explain to me how "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" doesn't apply to the unborn?

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 2:58pm

20. fram, what do you know about liberals other than they are mere targets for conservatives regardless of the issue. is your idea of stopping abortions to kill those who perform them? how about kill those who have them? what makes you think all conservatives "lift a finger" to stop abortions or all liberals do not? shut your hole unless you have something worthy to say.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 2:57pm

    I obviously struck a chord. What's the matter? It appears that you are having a face-to-face with the truth and you don't like it.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:02pm

21. I don't mean to detract in the least from the abominal murder of Dr. Tiller, but I do question how everyone gets so exercised by the murder of one man while we either have murdered or are murdering thousands of innocents in Iraq (what the hell are we doing there?) and Afghanistan. British Intelligence suggests the number of Iraqis killed in the illicit war is about one million.

    Evidently, it is a sin to kill a fetus by abortion, but perfectly okay to kill a fetus by a bombing.

    Now we have persons claiming to be Christian killing pro-choice doctors, and others calling the act Christian Fundamental Terrorism. Christianity has nothing to do with it. It is a measure of the depravity of the modern era of mindless militarism and religious perversity.

    Posted by Tunnelrat at 06/02/2009 @ 3:05pm

22. "depravity of the modern era" Posted by Tunnelrat at 06/02/2009 @ 3:05pm

    It has a name...abortion

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:08pm

23. why have they not lifted a finger to stop it? This issue goes a lot deeper than a simple choice.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 2:49pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Why is it that neocons only want to deal with symptoms and not causes? The left/liberal have for long time advocated for sex education, access to birth control, etc. If abortion is the symptom, the cause is unwanted/unsafe pregnancies. Liberal policies are much more effective at reducing the need for abortions than just making something illegal ever would. The neocon, abstinance education is a complete failure and without providing people with the knowledge of how to have safe, protected sex has actually likely led to increased numbers of unwanted pregnancies and abortions.

    No one I know who has had or contemplated having an abortion thought of it as a "simple choice", it is a complex issue that should be decieded by women, their mates, and their doctors. NOT by politicians or religous fanatics.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/02/2009 @ 3:09pm

24. antisocialist, clearly you spend every waking moment blogging on this site and i have neither the time nor interest in analysing all your posts. perhaps my question was better addressed to fram for which he/she(?) has so graciously responded. fram, here is simple answer to your simple question - here is the definition of unborn: not born; not brought into life; still to appear; existing without birth.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:09pm

25. Posted by Tunnelrat at 06/02/2009 @ 3:05pm

    Good post.

    Posted by Extraneous at 06/02/2009 @ 3:11pm

26. here is the definition of unborn: not born; not brought into life; still to appear; existing without birth.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:09pm

    If it is not a life, why does it have to be killed?

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:12pm

27. Liberals don't believe abortion is a tragedy. If liberals thought for a moment that abortion is a tragedy, why have they not lifted a finger to stop it? This issue goes a lot deeper than a simple choice. Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 2:58pm

    Dear fram, EVERYONE believes abortion is a tragedy, where we disagree is how to stop it. If anti-choice zealots would agree that what will lessen the number of abortions in this country is education about birth control, we could be one step closer to a solution.

    But obviously, you believe abortion is a "simple choice." I don't think anything could be further from the truth. I believe for 99.9% of all women who have the procedure, it is a heart-rendering choice, that must remain one for women's health issues.

    Dr. Tiller's murder and the silence from the anti-choice movement prove they should not ever again be called "pro-life."

    Give women access to appropriate health care and give them a way to support their children once they've given birth.

    That will reduce the number of abortions in this country. And liberals and conservatives alike should be able to agree.

    Posted by notashamedtobeliberal at 06/02/2009 @ 3:13pm

28. antisocialist, clearly you spend every waking moment blogging on this site and i have neither the time nor interest in analysing all your posts. perhaps my question was better addressed to fram for which he/she(?) has so graciously responded. fram, here is simple answer to your simple question - here is the definition of unborn: not born; not brought into life; still to appear; existing without birth.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:09pm

    Just curious, why then did you pose the question directly to me?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 3:14pm

29. fram, way to avoid my questions. the "matter" is that people like you think you are morally superior to everyone else. you don't know sh*t about me or what i believe so don't pretend you do. all you can do is try to entice others to play your game. yawn.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:20pm

30. EVERYONE believes abortion is a tragedy..... Posted by notashamedtobeliberal at 06/02/2009 @ 3:13pm

    No they don't....just read your liberal comrade's posts.......

    "first, these aren't "murders." second, these aren't "children." Posted by darladoon at 06/02/2009 @ 11:35am |

    Darladoon and others who post here could not care less about the unborn. 40+ million and counting.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:23pm

31. Those of us who subscribe to your magazine are really tired of it and want to see a policy to limit their contributions.

    Posted by plover at 06/02/2009 @ 2:47pm

    Click the ignore feature.

    -----

    Again I offer a simple solution. If you oppose abortion adopt at will. There are tens of thousands of children (real live children, not fetuses) that need homes NOW. Put your money where your mouths are.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 3:28pm

32. think you are morally superior to everyone else. Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:20pm

    Morally superior...no. I never claimed to be. But I know that killing an unborn child is morally wrong. Don't you?

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:29pm

33. Put your money where your mouths are.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 3:28pm

    There are people on waiting lists, wanting to adopt. I know the McCain's have adopted. How about Obama?

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:33pm

34. anti - i posed the question to you because of the links you provided. i must have misinterpreted your beliefs.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:34pm

35. Lets look at our society. A lunatic guns down a soldier, apparently motivated by religious fervor. He is charged with terrorism and murder.

    A movement bombs and kills dozens of people in an attempt to sway a political problem, an attempt to terrorize a group of credentialed physicians into not performing legal, safe procedures. They operate in groups, place adds with Hit Lists of Dr's names with targets on them, preach that the fight against evil knows few bounds, raise funds to block American citizens from access to medical facilities, they even hide wanted fugitives. They do it all by the call of religious fervor.

    why is there no charge of terrorism?

    Liberal media? Liberal activist judges? The result of the Christian faith being under attack? Marxism?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 3:35pm

36. "Religious groups do far, far more to address the above issues than the left will ever do or admit to. The left's solution to starving and homeless children is....kill them, before they're born."

    "Liberals don't believe abortion is a tragedy. If liberals thought for a moment that abortion is a tragedy, why have they not lifted a finger to stop it? This issue goes a lot deeper than a simple choice."

    no fram, you don't feel morally superior at all.

    the killing of anyone born is morally wrong. the unborn have not been brought to life and cannot therefore be killed. that does not mean abortion is always appropriate and sometimes it is morally wrong.

    by the way, i was adopted and I support adoption groups. just because mccain adopted means obama should adopt? what kind of argument is that?

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:43pm

37. There are people on waiting lists, wanting to adopt. I know the McCain's have adopted. How about Obama?

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:33pm

    Does he oppose the legality of abortion?

    How many foster kids reside in your home now, fram?

    in 2003 there were almost 300,000 children in foster homes. Let's find homes for the ones we have before we worry about the ones we don't.

    I am also curious fram, if we took the usual stereotype of a low income girl having a baby out of wedlock, how much more would you be willing to pay in tax to raise that child if abortion is not legal and available to the stereotype?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 3:46pm

38. Why is it that the same people that oppose "killing children" found it perfectly acceptable to bomb schools in Iraq and the Palestinian territories?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 3:50pm

39. There is no question this was an act of terrorism and Dr. Tillers killer should be charged as such.

    Posted by ROinReno at 06/02/2009 @ 3:52pm

40. Let's not get too crazy pontificating about this incident. Tiller's assassin was clearly a nutjob who had stopped taking his crazy pills. The murder was condemned by all non-violent pro-life groups who hope and pray for a change of heart rather than imagining they can stop or scare other physicians from performing a legally-available service that is in demand by murdering one of them.

    As soon as someone can figure out a way to eliminate our biological urges to procreate, we can eliminate a whole raft of social problems along with it. Note: exterminating the entire human race is not an option. Until then, we have to create public policies that deal with these complex wedge issues in smart and sane ways.

    Posted by gmburt at 06/02/2009 @ 3:53pm

41. "But I know that killing an unborn child is morally wrong. Don't you?"---Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:29pm

    So fram, you want to make abortion from the moment of conception completely illegal, right?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 3:53pm

42. Posted by crabwalk

    well said

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:56pm

43. the unborn have not been brought to life and cannot therefore be killed. Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 3:43pm

    Do you honestly believe that? This is your rationalization? Save that argument for your judgement day.

    Now sit there and tell me that a "partial birth abortion" or "late term abortion" isn't killing a baby when the baby can survive outside the womb.

    A botched abortion happened in Florida a couple of months ago. The live baby was discarded in a dumpster. Google "Florida botched abortion". The URL is too long to paste.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 3:57pm

44. So fram, you want to make abortion from the moment of conception completely illegal, right?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 3:53pm

    Yes, I would support that. There is no nuance in my position.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 4:04pm

45. So fram, you want to make abortion from the moment of conception completely illegal, right?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 3:53pm

    Mask, allow me one clarification if you please. Abortion is exceptable to me when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 4:07pm

46. There is no such thing as a "partial birth abortion". It is a made up term. Propaganda.

    how about if we call it "collateral damage"?

    Or "Life is messy, like democracy"

    BTW, when is Judgment Day? Thursday?

    and is that when the flying colored horseys and unicorns are going to come down?

    Rapture Index

    The prophetic speedometer of end-time activity

    Rapture Index 166

    Net Change +1

    Updated Jun 1, 2009

    Rapture Index of 100 and Below: Slow prophetic activity

    Rapture Index of 100 to 130: Moderate prophetic activity

    Rapture Index of 130 to 160: Heavy prophetic activity

    Rapture Index above 160: Fasten your seat belts

    Yep, Thursday at the latest.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 4:10pm

47. there is no nuance in your thinking whatsoever. that is your failing. You allow an arcane text to dictate your worldview, leaving room for nothing but dichotomy.

    Posted by entropy at 06/02/2009 @ 4:15pm

48. What is the "rapture" ?

    "the dead in Christ will rise, then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord."

    ZOMBIES!!

    flying zombies!

    and unicorns, flying colored horses, breakfast cereals and fruit bats.

    Yes, by all means let us set our parameters by prophetic symbolism.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 4:17pm

49. Alas I am having too much fun being de-thpicable.

    Off to see the Wizard....

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 4:18pm

50. i'm not worried about my judgement day fram. i grew up catholic. you can't possibly scare me. you worry about yours and stop imposing your position on others. never did i say i agreed or disagreed with "partial birth abortion" or "late term abortion" and i certainly have no obligation to placate your feigned concern for my afterlife. if a live baby was discarded in a dumpster then someone should investigate.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 4:19pm

51. I think women should judge for themselves what they want to do with their bodies. The shooting of the doctor who performed these abortions should have gotten police protection. As under our laws, abortion is legal. People, churches, the government and other medling groups should stay out of one's personal life. These anti-abortion people are so self-righteous it makes me sick. It is not your choice to make, let people decide their own lives. There are many reasons why people have to do abortions and it is hard enough to make those decisions sometimes, but might be necessary - each case is different.

    Posted by Regina1959 at 06/02/2009 @ 4:23pm

52. BTW, when is Judgment Day? Thursday? Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 4:10pm

    Give it up crab, you are in over your head. Your childish attempt at mockery is weak.

    I didn't say "the" judgement day, I said "your" judgement day, as in I was responding to sirhcus. Just as I will have a judgement day and I will have much to answer for. Just like you will have a judgement day, too. But at least I won't have to explain why I was in support the killing of the unborn. And, if you don't believe that you will be held in judgement for your actions, well that's a chance you'll have to take. Ask those who mocked Noah. You'll be seeing them when you get there.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 4:26pm

53. if a live baby was discarded in a dumpster then someone should investigate.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 4:19pm

    There was no "if". It happened. There was not one mention of it on this website. Why? Because the people on this website believe abortion is good.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 4:36pm

54. well i am not sure who i am going to answer to or how i would ask those who mocked Noah since they are dead (that's supposing they were alive, which is supposing Noah was alive, but i digress...) but if i am such a position to answer for my "sins" my support of a woman's choice to have an abortion is not likely to be high on the list. and i have never had nor performed any abortions, so...whew, glad i don't have to answer for that...

    but i have this distinct feeling that if "the lord" was so grossly appalled by the termination of a woman's pregnancy that he would command it as a sin as at least as great as adultery. yes, yes, i know, abortion is "killing an unborn child" and thou shalt not kill, yada yada yada - you don't have to remind us your definition again. though i wonder how "the lord" would feel about the exception to your own rule. let me remind you: "Mask, allow me one clarification if you please. Abortion is exceptable to me when the pregnancy threatens the life of the mother."

    i wonder if "the lord" has any exceptions.

    anyhoo, have a great day fram. and good luck with your judgement day. hope that goes well for you.

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 4:43pm

55. i just can't leave without commenting. Show me one post where someone said "abortion is good"

    now you have answer to "the lord" for lying

    Posted by sirhcus at 06/02/2009 @ 4:48pm

56. The height of hypocrisy is to claim a "pro-life" agenda that extends from conception to birth, only. Where is the care and support for the newborn from the anti-choice minions? Have these saviors of souls in all their moral virtue devoted their energies to raising our disadvantaged infants? Shame on the hypocrisy of the "moral" minority.

    Posted by kkatz at 06/02/2009 @ 4:55pm

57. Some of this just goes around and around in circles.

    Antisocialist argues, fairly, that someone who is pro-life would be morally unjustified in killing abortion doctors. That much everyone here seems to accept. The fundamental problem with Ms. Harris-Lacewell's argument is that it only makes sense if you adopt a pro-choice position. If you believe that the killing of a fetus at X stage of the pregnancy is murder, then of course you'll say that those who do it are killing an innocent human being. In fact, if you believe that this is a human moral agent that you're killing, it would be morally repulsive NOT to call it as you see it. If you believe it's not a human being, then you would agree with Ms. Harris-Lacewell. As before, murder is the standard; is this murder or isn't it? That's the first question to ask. And the second one is: if there's ambiguously, in which direction ought we err?

    The only way to determine whether Ms. Harris-Lacewell's analysis constitutes a legitimate criticism of the pro-life movement is to determine whether her foundational premise regarding abortion is correct.

    Though I tend to come down on at least a partial pro-life side (birth is not a sufficient standard for the beginning of life), the primary purpose of my analysis here is to try focusing the discussion rather than continue the shadow debate that takes place when everyone dances around the real core of the controversy.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/02/2009 @ 4:56pm

58. Stephen, do you honestly believe that?

    Liberals don't believe abortion is a tragedy. If liberals thought for a moment that abortion is a tragedy, why have they not lifted a finger to stop it? This issue goes a lot deeper than a simple choice.

    Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 2:49pm

    Yes, I do honestly believe that and I stand by what I said. If I knew a friend who was pregnant and wasn't sure what to do, if asked I would counsel her about what her real choices are, and that includes carrying the fetus to term and either keeping the child, giving it up for adoption, or having an abortion. (I have, in fact, had that exact discussion with a friend years ago and it's none of your business, or mine, what she decided.)

    However, the choice MUST be hers and she MUST be allowed to make it. Regardless of what choice she makes, she will have to live with the consequences of that choice, for good or ill.

    The least favorable choice is always abortion. This is something our President has said, and yet the far-right nutjobs STILL scream at him (and those of us who feel likewise), probably because their ears are closed to his words because....he's...shhhhh....a Democrat! (Godless heathen!)

    Bombing clinics and murdering the doctors who perform them is not the way to minimize abortions or unwanted pregnancies. The answer I have already stated: REAL sex education in schools and the distribution of contraceptives to curious teens. But the nutjobs won't go for that because it doesn't fit with their narrow and non-realistic worldview.

    The constant sexual titillation in our country only makes teens MORE curious, not less. So let them learn that sex is not what life is all about and take the mystery out of it. Then they can be miserable like the rest of us! hehehe

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/02/2009 @ 5:32pm

59. You know if we all use the ignore feature these trolls will eventually go away. But no some of you are having to much fun teasing the handicapped. I have been reading these posts for years. Most of you are very smart and well informed. I do not understand why you would take the time to respond to the trolls. This was a great article and the author is right, we need to push back against the terrorists. If children are so important why is prenatal care not free? Why do we not have mandatory maternity leave? Why do daycare workers get minimum wage for the most part? Why do so many children go to such crappy schools? It's not like we don't know how to fix them. Why do we spend ten, fifteen times more per prisoner than we do per child for education. Lets not even start on how much we spend on coming up with better ways to kill brown people. So much for pro life. We know what most of the problems are the hard part is What are the solutions and how do we implement them? I know it is a lot of fun but can we stop teasing the animals and come up with something constructive? I want to stop being part of the problem and start being part of the solution. How do we do that?

    Posted by bascaville at 06/02/2009 @ 5:48pm

60. Ultimately, the nutjob's argument comes down to this: if a doctor performs an abortion, he's a murderer. If you kill a murderer, you are doing a good thing. That is the definition of "an eye for an eye" which is prohibited within Christianity as particularly barbaric.

    And I guess, fram, that you would also force a woman who was raped and became pregnant to have the baby, correct? Since your only exception was if the life of the mother was at stake.

    BTW, just wondering if Jesus ever said anything against sex education?

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/02/2009 @ 5:58pm

61. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/02/2009 @ 5:58pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    You are attempting to reason with people who are not interested and/or capable of reasoning with you. They live in a society in which people are sufficiently safe and comfortable that they can indulge in petty fantasies about people getting killed over political issue footballs being a good thing.

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/02/2009 @ 6:35pm

62. Posted by crabwalk at 06/02/2009 @ 3:50pm | ignore this person | warn this person

    Well put.

    Posted by syfriendly at 06/02/2009 @ 6:36pm

63. Posted by fram at 06/02/2009 @ 4:07pm

    That wasn't what I asked you, fram.

    Do you want abortion, less "life of the mother", made illegal?

    Posted by Mask at 06/02/2009 @ 7:07pm

64. From what I see, if you believe something is wrong, than you hold a totalitarian belief? when does whether you agree or disagree with a social issue do you becom totalitarian?

    So, if you are against the war, are you now totalitarian being how one Army recruiter was shot dead and another seriously wounded?

    If you believe something is a down right black and white belief to you such as guns are dangerous and kill, therefore no one should have guns-than this is totalitarianism.

    What I am doing is painting liberal beliefs the same way liberals paint the anti-abortion/pro life movement.

    There are several liberal beliefs which can be painted this way.

    In many conservative and liberal beliefs, there will not be any compromise over certain social beliefs. I just think if we are going to do something, we must do it consistantly.

    Ohyes, I love how they make the anti baby killing -pro life group couched int he terms of class warfare.

    The simple fact is we know where abortion clinics are in poor areas, but do not know which doctors whom cater to the rich are. If you want it to be equal, furnish the names of these doctors and we will protest them as well.

    Posted by daveme7 at 06/02/2009 @ 7:09pm

65. The answer I have already stated: REAL sex education in schools and the distribution of contraceptives to curious teens. But the nutjobs won't go for that because it doesn't fit with their narrow and non-realistic worldview.

    The constant sexual titillation in our country only makes teens MORE curious, not less. So let them learn that sex is not what life is all about and take the mystery out of it. Then they can be miserable like the rest of us! hehehe

    Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/02/2009 @ 5:32pm

    Let's see, sex education has been in the public schools for over a generation; birth control is free to the poor in states like California.

    Yet we have about a million abortions a year. So how is your method going to reduce or stop abortions when it hasn't slowed them much in over 30 years?

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 7:42pm

66. Yes, of course many Christians are involved in adoption and other humanistic programs. Sadly, though, those are not the anti-choice zealots who decry abortion as murder. It's not murder because a fetus is not a child!

    Posted by cbhillman at 06/02/2009 @ 8:03pm

67. Peter Singer of Princeton, an ethicist, is a supporter of abortion on various grounds such as the woman's free choice and practicality; because we already have 6.5 billion humans and counting so why do we need any more.

    He states his argument that one species is no more important than another thus:

    "But mere membership of our species doesn't settle the moral issue of whether it is wrong to end a life. As long as the abortion is carried out at less than 20 weeks of gestation – as almost all abortions are – the brain of the fetus has not developed to the point of making consciousness possible."

    "In that respect, the fetus is less developed, and less aware of its circumstances, than the animals that we routinely kill and eat for dinner."

    However he's not very keen on the suggestion that the fetus is not a human life and does not use it as a pro-abortion argument. Here's his approach to that argument which seems to me to effectively undercut the rather facile suggestion that destroying a human fetus is not a killing human life:

    "Opponents of abortion think there is a very compelling reason for denying freedom in these circumstances. They regard abortion as murder. Killing an embryo or fetus, they say, takes an innocent human life."

    "Defenders of a woman's right to choose sometimes challenge this claim. They deny that the embryo or fetus is a human life. The abortion debate then focuses on the question, "When does a human life begin?" "

    "I think this is the wrong question to ask. In a strictly biological sense, the opponents of abortion are right to say that abortion ends a human life."

    "When a woman has an abortion, the fetus is alive, and it is undoubtedly human – in the sense that it is a member of the species homo sapiens. It isn't a dog or a chimpanzee."

    Posted by lrjones4 at 06/02/2009 @ 9:15pm

68. <i>Posted by daveme7 at 06/02/2009 @ 7:09pm </i>

    Right. If you believe it's murder, you call it murder. If you believe it's not, you don't. Saying "well, we believe you're killing an innocent human being...but let's not call it murder, because that might get people mad" is bizarre at best and morally flawed at worst.

    An honest debate doesn't try to pretend that real disagreement doesn't exist. That, interestingly, is why hillman has been one of the most honest posters thus far. If a fetus isn't a child (or morally equivalent to one), than abortion isn't murder. You may dislike the choice because it robs potential, but you don't make it illegal.

    Here's another thing, though: late-term abortions are a far, far harder case because they're close enough to birth that drawing lines between a fetus and a baby becomes increasingly difficult. Dependence isn't nearly a good enough standard because we wouldn't accept it as a justification in any other context.

    Posted by Thrawn at 06/02/2009 @ 9:21pm

69. I understand your argument, and I can appreciate the pain and hardship of the choice women are making today under extrenuating circumstances, but this argument is based on the assumption that a fetus is absolutely not a human life. What if these assumptions were wrong? I find it interesting that a person who murders a four-month infant can be tried for homocide, but four months earlier, the same child is not considered as such. I believe it is a crucial question to ask.

    Posted by ldmcnally at 06/02/2009 @ 9:52pm

70. I have been trying to read all the blogs. I'm tired. I just want to say that most of the people I know who oppose abortion are not interested in the life of the unborn child. They are interested in their taxes. They could care less what the women do who can pay their own way. I can't tolerate Libetarians but at least they are honest about their agenda. It's all about money, as opposed to most Republicans who also are all about money but they cover it up with so call moralistic views. Well I'm sorry but taking away food and health care from children is hardly moral. I am sick of the terrorism in my own country. I hope this murder of Dr Tiller is not forgotten. I for one am going to step up and speak out.

    Posted by dianad at 06/02/2009 @ 10:30pm

71. Yes, of course many Christians are involved in adoption and other humanistic programs. Sadly, though, those are not the anti-choice zealots who decry abortion as murder. It's not murder because a fetus is not a child!

    Posted by cbhillman at 06/02/2009 @ 8:03pm

    Actually, many of them are. I think most on the left have very distorted view of most pro-life Christians.

    Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 11:20pm

72. Melissa,

    I congratulate you on a beautifully worded and both rationally and emotionally convincing article. I am a man 60 years old, who when I was about 19, was faced with the need to help a girlfriend with her decision and, once she made it, the logistics of an abortion in Mexico. At the time, there was no other alternative, but it was even then clear to me that the decision about termination or carrying to term ,was entirely hers to make. Your article and your words are intensely human, highly dignified and. in my opinion, show great courage. You have my very sincere respect for having written and published these words.

    Richard Meitner Amsterdam, the Netherlands

    Posted by glassman at 06/03/2009 @ 02:13am

73. Nation, you really have to do something about the trolls who are camped here. Same folks dominating the site every day. Clueless, malicious people who are simply trying to disrupt your communication. Those of us who subscribe to your magazine are really tired of it and want to see a policy to limit their contributions. by plover

    I agree with plover.

    If we mark posters as ''ignore this person'' does anyone review the ignores or wonder why ?

    Posted by timenotonmyside at 06/03/2009 @ 07:23am

74. Melissa,

    Too bad your mother didn't exercise her 007 "choice" when you were the "blessed event." If she had then we could have been spared the mindless drivel that you and the many a******s on this site think is so profound.

    My objection to this crap is not religious or moral. You are just so dishonest. Why not just admit that 99% of abortions are for selfish reasons like: Hey, I don't want to miss my prom," or "BS, this kid is going to screw up my career," or "Oops, I think the father may be the Chinese or black guy I shacked up with and even my dumb ass white husband might get suspicious."

    Just be honest. "choice" is about selfish bitches who couldn't care less about taking a life if it interferes with theirs.

    Posted by Claude2 at 06/03/2009 @ 07:45am

75. If abortion is murder, what is unnecessary war?

    If the mongers went to war to "protect our way of life" why are women not able to make a decision to "protect their way of life"?

    And I never got an answer to one question: if abortion is murder, what is shelling a school or hospital?

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 08:03am

76. FRAM, if I am over my head, it is because you have piled so much BS around me. As pointed out by many, most of the self procliamed "pro-lifers" that post here are also pro war, pro torture, pro death penalty, and support the degradation of the palestinian people.

    So give me a break, O Pompous One. Seek the sliver of oak in your own eyes... you will find it in Your Book of Judgment Days. When you have reached your state of sinlessness, then, and only then, shall you judge others. Or you could pick and choose which portions of the Good Book you like, as most humans do.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 08:07am

77. Posted by Claude2 at 06/03/2009 @ 07:45am

    I just feel the compassion oozing from your pores.

    You know not of what you speak. But don't let that stop you, The Nation is not like the conservative websites, here you have the FREEDOM to post almost at will.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 08:11am

78. Sorry, fram, didn't see your previous "Yes, I want it made illegal" post....apologies for the repeat question.

    So...next question-

    How? How you make it illegal and enforce it?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 08:16am

79. Here's the big difference between you and me. You are filled with venomous speach. I am the first to point out that the murdered doctor was a person with a family who was hurt. I am a pro lifer who also beleives there are complex issues in women's lives. I just happen to believe that the unwanted or unintended children should be put up for adoption. I also believe that the only choice offered by the pro choice croud is their choice. There is never excuse for violence on either side. I have seen far too many rallies where both sides get violent in their speach and actions. Stop the generalizations and hate mongering. Lets all read The Gh-4 Effect.

    Posted by snydersweb at 06/03/2009 @ 08:23am

80. Tiller's murder was not a terrorist any more than any murderer is a terrorist. By your standards, enraged postal workers are terrorists, and we need federal marshalls to protect them.

    It appears from most of the responses that people don't know science or history or current reality or feminism.

    Current reality: Pro-lifers are the ones adopting children (especially the handicapped that are often subject to abortion) and giving concrete assistance to pregnant women. Prolifers do not advocate violence, pro-choicers advocate legally sanctioned violence.

    History: all early feminists, except for the racist Margaret Sanger (whose works were Hitler's inspiration), were against abortion. Also, in the pre-Row era, abortion was no more unsafe than now, as even prochoicers admit their lies about death numbers. The same doctors who were operating the back alley clinics became the legal abortionists.

    Science: a human fetus is precisely that, human. It is a being and it is human, genetically and biologically distinct and self-directing (though not able to be self-protecting). It is a human being. Now you may want to discount it because it is dependent, or handicapped, or bothersome, but it is there, and one doesn't just become un-pregnant, one has to kill it - or, rather, him or her, as it is already one or the other. Feminism: abortion has resulted in the targeting of females in the womb, so that many countries now suffer a huge imbalance of males, leading to kidnappings, rape, sex ttrafficking, and enslavement of women.

    Posted by mparks at 06/03/2009 @ 09:24am

81. Morally superior...no. I never claimed to be. But I know that killing an unborn child is morally wrong. Don't you?

    Posted by fram

    If that's what you want to believe that's fine with me. I don't have a problem with that. But, I really have a hard time calling a blob of gelatinous material an unborn child. I also resent people like you imposing your beliefs upon me. That's what people like you are trying to do. I was raised by Christian parents to believe I was only responsible for my behavior. What someone else does with their life is none of my damned business. It's to bad people like you never learned to 'live and let live'!

    Posted by ganddw42 at 06/03/2009 @ 09:33am

82. "I also believe that the only choice offered by the pro choice croud is their choice."----Posted by snydersweb at 06/03/2009 @ 08:23am

    Really. So besides "give birth"...what ARE the "other choices" the pro-life crowd offers?

    Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 09:51am

83. Committing the atrocity of murder does not equate to terrorism. Dr. Tiller's murder is awful and most pro-life people decry it (I certainly do).

    There are several serious questions to be answered regarding abortion that most pro-abortion advocates don't like to wade into: 1. Is the fetus a human life? 2. If it is, does the Constitution ensure the protection of a human life in utero? 3. How have our mostly open abortion policies reshaped our view of medical practice? Can a doctor be trusted to preserve life in all cases (see the Hippocratic Oath)? 4. Have we seriously considered the health risks around abortion procedures (see www.aaplog.org)? 5. Have we sought to wade into the question of whether abortion practices that are inordinantly high in urban areas have detrimentally effected how urban communities view families and life more generally? Put another way, what has abortion done to a whole generation of urban Black families?

    Posted by detroitjohn at 06/03/2009 @ 09:52am

84. "Prolifers do not advocate violence"

    Please. They do it every day around here. They do it at rallies. They called for the death of a presidential candidate in the last election. They say things like "We should blow up the New York Times and the UN". They call for the death/capture/torture of thousands of people, they pile men into little homo-erotic poses then laugh about it, they sick dogs on frightened prisoners.

    I understand your opposition to abortion, but please don't post utter fabrications.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 10:06am

85. While a few (like thrawn) have considered opinion and discussion to add, most everyone else reduces their posts to self-righteousness or ad hominem attacks, and they need to grow up.

    Yes, the broader abortion debate does come down to whether it is murder or not. While we may debate "whether" it is, we cannot say, I don't believe it is so please don't impose your view on me (if I didn't "believe" killing someone who annoyed me was murder, it wouldn't affect whether it actually was murder).

    Now on to this article. While I believe the author is sincere in her beliefs, I reject the straw man she sets up. Fine, Dr. Tiller's killer is WRONG and probably a terrorist (although we don't have all the facts about his mental state to say for sure that he is a terrorist). Her straw man approach is evident in the first paragraph. "While the murderous rage of Tiller's assassin is not representative of the broader anti-choice movement, I believe that the anti-choice community operates with a totalitarian impulse that generates a culture of terror rather than a culture of life." So, she wnats credit for being open-minded enough to recognizer that Tiller's murderer is not a part of the broader pro-life movement. But then she uses broad an conclusory statements that pro-lifers have a totalitarian impulse and generate terror. So much for honest reflection.

    Posted by bubkes at 06/03/2009 @ 10:11am

86. "Prolifers do not advocate violence"

    DATE STATE/PROVINCE/TERR. TYPE ESTDAMAGE CASE STATUS

    12/2007 New Mexico ARSON Chad Altman and Sergio Baca pled guilty to conspiracy to commit arson and are awaiting sentencing.

    5/2007 Virginia ARSON Remains open

    7/2005 Florida ARSON Remains open

    1/2005 Washington ARSON $500,000 Remains open

    8/1999 New Hampshire ARSON Approx. $20,000 Remains open

    7/1999 California ARSON Minimal damage to the clinic. Approx $100,000 damage to the building housing the clinic. Benjamin Matthew Williams and James Tyler Williams pled guilty and were sentenced to 21-30 years in jail for this fire and three synagogue arsons.

    5/1999 New Mexico ARSON $5,000 Ricky Lee McDonald pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in jail.

    4/1999 Wisconsin ARSON $500 Remains open

    3/1999 Wisconsin ARSON $1,000 Peter Quinn, 17 admitted to this arson. He is being charged in state court as an adult.

    3/1999 Wisconsin ARSON Minimal Peter Quinn, 17 admitted to this arson. He is being charged in state court as an adult.

    3/1999 South Dakota ARSON Minimal Martin Uphoff was convicted of using explosives during a felony, and vandalism to a facility providing health care services (a FACE charge). Uphoff was sentenced to 60 months for the felony and 6 months for the FACE charge, to be served concurrently.

    3/1999 New Mexico ARSON $3,000 Ricky Lee McDonald pleaded guilty and was sentenced to five years in jail.

    3/1999 North Carolina BOMB Minimal Remains open

    That is just a few examples of "not advocating violence". This is terrorism, plain and simple. If these people were Muslim the right wingers would be calling for blood.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 10:12am

87. Crabwalk...on what do basis do you connect the pro-life movement with those who want to kill a presidential candidate, blow up the UN or NYT and participate in Abu Ghrav?

    Posted by bubkes at 06/03/2009 @ 10:16am

88. I see your logic. I am sure I can find several serial killers who happen to agree with any number of your political positions. Does that mean you are a serial killer?

    Posted by bubkes at 06/03/2009 @ 10:18am

89. Posted by bubkes at 06/03/2009 @ 10:16am

    Palin rallies are chock full of pro-lifers. People at her rallies yelled "Kill him!" about Barak Obama. Maybe they are not pro-lifers, but I would place $10 that they are.

    Ann Coulter is pro-life, she has called for the bombing of the New York Times and the UN building. She has said that liberals should be lined up and shot. She is used as a "source" by many posters here, many others agree with her sentiments.

    Just about every "pro-lifer" that posts here has excused the actions of "a few bad apples" in Abu Griab, GITMO and Bagram. They have justified the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Arabs in order to protect their "way of life". I have heard and read multiple "pro-life" spokespersons support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, support "harsh interrogation" and equate Gods will with the wars.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 10:24am

90. BTW, great screen name , bubkes!

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 10:25am

91. Let's try and stick to the topic and look at the facts: Tiller was killed by someone with a history of violence and near-violence. He was denounced by every pro-life group around. There have been 9 similar attacks, that is the number I have heard, in the years since RvW. Clearly it is disingenuous to characterize the entire pro-life community as promoting violence. Are there a very very few prone to violence? Apparently somewhere around 9 out of the maybe 100-200 million in the US who oppose abortion.

    Posted by tryingtostayrational at 06/03/2009 @ 10:27am

92. Bubkes is what i claim to know on most subjects; I'm just a seeker.

    Mypoint is that while many pro-lifers do have views that seem to conflict with the pro-life view, that doesn't mean the rationale for a pro-life position doesn't exist.

    Posted by bubkes at 06/03/2009 @ 10:27am

93. Does that mean you are a serial killer?

    Posted by bubkes at 06/03/2009 @ 10:18am |

    By definitions used here on this thread, I could be.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 10:29am

94. Posted by bubkes at 06/03/2009 @ 10:27am

    i am not aware that I have said the position of the anti-freedom movement does not have a rational. Most use religion as the basis, I reject that as nobody can know the mind of God, or even if She truly exists. Those, like Nat Hentoff, that approach it via conception = constitutional rights have a more valid rational. However I still disagree with that a fetus that cannot survive outside a womb has more rights than the woman carrying said fetus.

    And, most of the anti-freedom posters here that use "pro-life" religious doctrine as their basis for their opinion also favor violence, death and pain as useful tools to protect themselves form changes in their lifestyle.

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 10:35am

95. bad typing, my apologies again.

    Have to run, The Wizard has offered me a heart....

    Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 10:37am

96. I'm saddened by the caricature of the pro-life movement portrayed here. Sadly, some of the pro-lifers who are posting here aren't helping.

    As a pro-lifer, I believe many in the pro-choice community pose a false dichtomy. They insinuate that the pro-life community chooses to focus on the life of the unborn to the exclusion of __________ (fill in the blank: poor, women, starving children, sick elephants).

    But the truth is that social conservatives are by far the most generous givers, whether you wish to define that in terms of total amount given or by percentage of income given. It even holds true when you hold other factors, such as education level and tax-bracket, constant.

    There are several ways to verify my assertion. One fun way, though not statiscially valid, is to google the tax returns for Biden, Obama and other pro-choice politicians. You will see that their charitable giving is pathetic. If you look even deeper at the returns, you'll see that what they claim isn't even all cash...the Bidens are notoriously stingy and claim old clothes they give to Goodwill. A more valid way to verify my assertion is to check out Arthur Brooks' book "Who Really Cares."

    So, not only is the argument's construction a logical fallacy (it is a false dilemma to say you will either care about the unborn or born), the foundational premise (that pro-lifers don't contribute to the care of the born, women, the poor, etc.) is not played out by the facts.

    Posted by whitndan at 06/03/2009 @ 10:40am

97. It looks like the anti-life movement is focussing of killing off poor people babies, maybe they believe in population reduction, especially amongst the poor and minorities.

    Posted by rramcharan at 06/03/2009 @ 10:50am

98. re whitndan I know of only a few pro-life organizations and each financially contributes to free health care, housing and other support for the mother and child during and after birth as well as adoption expenses etc. Perhaps there might have been some truth at one point regarding the lack of such support for the mother and child by some pro-life groups in the time immediately following RvW but it not credible now to claim this. Nor would it be credible to claim that the pro-abortion doctors are only in it for the money. Tiller firmly believed in what he did. And that it is the problem, the pro-lifers believe in the sanctity of innocent life while the pro-abortion righters believe in the sanctity of the woman's right to decide. That battle is fought, won or lost by every woman, and her family day by day. It is a great tragedy that this has become a public battle, unnecessarily so by the intrusion of government into the personal lives of citizens.

    Posted by tryingtostayrational at 06/03/2009 @ 11:01am

99. If it's not a baby then you're not pregnant.

    Posted by mkch at 06/03/2009 @ 11:02am

100. Whitndan-I looked up the charitable giving of Bush, Cheney, Obama, and Biden from their most recently posted returns. Bush led the way, by far, regarding the percentage of income given to charity. I believe Cheney was not far behind (and actually gave substantially more because he earned more). Obama gave only about 6% away and Biden, I kid you not, only reported giving something like a few hundred dollars of a couple hundred thousand dollars earned.

     Posted by detroitjohn at 06/03/2009 @ 11:02am

101. Posted by detroitjohn at 06/03/2009 @ 11:02am

     And WHERE did you look that up? What news source?

     Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 11:05am

102. Committing the atrocity of murder does not equate to terrorism. Dr. Tiller's murder is awful and most pro-life people decry it (I certainly do).

     There are several serious questions to be answered regarding abortion that most pro-abortion advocates don't like to wade into:

     1. Is the fetus a human life?

     2. If it is, does the Constitution ensure the protection of a human life in utero?

     3. How have our mostly open abortion policies reshaped our view of medical practice? Can a doctor be trusted to preserve life in all cases (see the Hippocratic Oath)?

     4. Have we seriously considered the health risks around abortion procedures (see www.aaplog.org)?

     5. Have we sought to wade into the question of whether abortion practices that are inordinantly high in urban areas have detrimentally effected how urban communities view families and life more generally? Put another way, what has abortion done to a whole generation of urban Black families?

     Posted by detroitjohn at 06/03/2009 @ 11:05am

103. So how is your method going to reduce or stop abortions when it hasn't slowed them much in over 30 years?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/02/2009 @ 7:42pm

     First of all, I have no idea where you get the "million abortions a year" number. Considering that in approximately 86% of the counties in America, there are no clinics that perform the procedure. In states like the Dakotas and others in the midwest and west, there exists on average, 1 clinic per state. Women have to travel literally hundreds of miles to have the procedure.

     Second, your contention that it "hasn't slowed them much" is unfounded and you offer no evidence.

     Third, REAL sex education hasn't been in schools for over thirty years; certainly not nationwide and certainly not in the form I would advocate, which would be raw and uncensored. Treat the kids like the adults they are trying to become. Too many right wingers continually try to stop the truth from being told to kids who are constantly bombarded by sexual images, so they are naturally curious what the fuss is all about. Evidently, the right wingers don't believe the truth shall set them (the kids) free.

     Fourth, contraceptives are NOT free to teens or the poor anywhere, except perhaps in VERY limited quantities (and I live in California, so I don't know what you're talking about).

     Finally, I could ask you the same question: how is YOUR method going to reduce or stop abortions when it has been proven time and again that abstinence only eduction simply doesn't work? In fact, check out the rates in Texas, where they teach only abstinence by law...teen pregnancies have skyrocketed.

     And personally, I believe that as men, you and I don't get a vote in the matter, unless the woman in question is our wife or girlfriend. The final choice is hers.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/03/2009 @ 12:00pm

104. Extraneous said this yesterday: "Until the anti-choice agenda puts the same effort toward caring for actual children, feeding families, supporting schools, supporting healthcare, etc. Their rhetoric against choice and their feigned outrage over the protecting the unborn seems self serving at best, and dictatorial at worst."

     So, if I support childhood programs etc., you will support abortion restrictions? Yeah, didn't think so. My question is this: If we can use abortion for convenince, which is routinely done (see the article we just read), then if I encourage people to get abortions if the kid is handicapped, or if I encourage people to get abortions for all but blonde haired blue eyed children, is that ethically OK? If not, why not? This is a legit question, so please answer it without insults.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/03/2009 @ 12:08pm

105. One of you mentioned the "blob of gelatinous material" - further proof of ignorance of science. Women who have had abortions frequently break down later when they find that what the clinic told them was a "blob of gelatinous tissue" was not that at all. They find out by seeing a picture of human development.

     Posted by mparks at 06/03/2009 @ 12:10pm

106. Stephen, FYI -- the CDC has kept statistics on this and I think their stats say there are about 820,000-850,000 legal abortions in the U.S. per year, but last stats I could find were several years old. Some think this number is low but I couldn't tell you why.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/03/2009 @ 12:12pm

107. crabwalk,

     What is wrong with using religion as a basis for morality and political decisions? After all, isn't that what everyone is ultimately doing anyway -- even atheists (i.e. at the base, aren't all rationales for social / moral policy simply "it is just my opinion...")?? If you are saying we are trying to cram our opinions down your throat by statute, is that not done all the time in almost every area of the law? I'm not sure how we are supposed to get around that, and I personally see nothing wrong with it.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/03/2009 @ 12:20pm

108. 1. Is the fetus a human life?

     2. If it is, does the Constitution ensure the protection of a human life in utero?

     Posted by detroitjohn at 06/03/2009 @ 11:05am

     OK, I'll wade in on a couple of those...although I prefer to be called, pro-choice and not "pro-abortion." Just as I am sure you prefer to be called "pro-life" and not "force women to do with their bodies what we tell them to do, whether they want to or not."

     1. Somewhere, IMHO, a line must be drawn. The difficult part is where to draw the line. It is never a hard line, because the issue is sticky and technology changes. For those who go by the Bible, I would say the line is drawn at birth, for the Bible does not discuss life before birth. For those who believe in science and technology, the question is trickier because as the science to keep unborn babies alive outside of the womb gets better, the lines moves. So to answer your question, the fetus has the potential to be a human life. Until it is born (or delivered using technology), that potential is just that: a potential human life.

     2. The Constitution does not guarantee anybody's rights over anyone else. So, because the mother is an actual human being and the fetus is a potential human being, then no, the Constitution does not protect the rights of an unborn potential person, especially OVER the rights of an actual living, breathing human being, the mother.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/03/2009 @ 12:26pm

109. We are living in a society trapped in moral ambivalance. Pro-abortionists refuse to accept the accountability and responsibity of their actions and invent euphemisms such as "choice" to numb their awareness of consciously admitting to killing a human life. Pro-abortionists must hypnotize themselves to pretend they do not know when life begins and create arbitrary points, 1st trimester all the way to birth to decide when to invoke their "choice" to willfully commit murder. Why not extend this argument and logic to include children born deformed, retarded, or impoverished? Where do you draw the line? It is indeed barbaric that Dr. Tiller's life was aborted 67 years after his birth at the hands of the hands of a vigilante. Pity that more women do not wake up and realize that killing unborn children is as equally barbaric.

     Posted by fmsnyder at 06/03/2009 @ 12:38pm

110. Stepehn, I honestly do not know what a "potential" human being is. When does potential become actual? At natural birth? What about premature birth? Or induced birth? Or c-section? Surely the definition is not contingent upon whether the baby is outside or inside the mother, especially at such a late stage -- that is rather too arbitrary for me. Theoretical (and therefore probably useless) question: Is it OK to abort 1 minute before natural birth? If so, why? What is the difference between potential and actual at that point? If no difference, what about a minute before that (you see where I'm goign here). Ultimately I agree totally with you that it is a necessary line drawing issue -- I would draw the line way before you though (but not necessarily as far back as conception, even though that is to my mind the only non-arbitrary point). And, although the body of the mother is important, I would posit that the body of the baby is important as well (I use that term not having a convenient method for distinguishing between "actual" and "potential" baby). I think it is unfortuate that the pro-choice devotees usually ignore that part entirely with a few notable exceptions.

     Also, I disagree with your interpretation of Biblical guidance, but that is neither here nor there.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/03/2009 @ 12:48pm

111. Again, would the "pro-lifers" here answer two simple questions-

     1. Do you want abortion made illegal?

     2. How do you enforce such a law...and in specific examples, with such items as RU-486 available....the ability of Northern state women to travel to Canada and Southwestern state women to travel to Mexico....or the ability to travel to such states that even under "returned to the states", like New York or California or Illinois?

     3. Given the likely answer to # 2....so you admit it's JUST about "image" and "making yourself FEEL better about the country" rather than actually being able to end abortion?

     Posted by Mask at 06/03/2009 @ 12:50pm

112. Mask,

     1) yes in many if not most cases, although at this point that is not a politically viable option. And don't be so appalled at that -- abortion was illegal in many states for decades prior to 1973, and the country got along fine, so it isn't like that is a novel or dictatorial idea.

     2) well, you still have to draw a line somewhere. I would not advocate banning all abortions, just most. In fact, see my previous post, I would probably just try to push the arbitrary line back quite a bit and make the "health care" exception an actual "health care" exception, and probably a pretty strict one at that, more related to actual health danger rather than to convenience. Enforcement of the law is just like enforcement of every other law. I don't see a problem there.

     3) I don't see how this follows from 2. Even if I said ban totally, I don't see how your conclusion logically follows. You could use that argument with any criminal law, and even with genocide (if I want to engage in genocide, can I not just go to a country that engages in it? Isn't therefore any law against genocide in this country just to make us feel good?) I use an obviously absurd situation just to make a point here. Some things we just do because we think it's right.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/03/2009 @ 1:06pm

113. We are living in a society trapped in moral ambivalance.

     Posted by fmsnyder at 06/03/2009 @ 12:38pm

     I would actually agree with that statement. However, it's because we live in a WORLD of moral ambivalence. Who are u, in a democratic society, to place your morals over me? Who am I to place my morals over u? The whole point is that u cannot legislate morality, because your morals aren't any better than mine, except to u. That being said, we do live in a Greco-Roman-Judeo-Christian society and most of the laws we have are based on that. Great!

     But that is also the entire reason we live in an amazing country of LAWS, albeit imperfect, human, sorta compromised, and ever-changing laws, instead of a theocracy in which the "morals" of the people in power hold sway over everyone. I wouldn't want to live in a country like that.

     We are human. To err is human. Leave the divine up to god and do the best u can while on earth. If u personally know a woman facing the choice of carrying a baby to term or having an abortion, then try to convince her to have the child and give it away, or promise to help her raise it into a loving human being.

     If u know nothing about the woman, then stay out of her life unless she asks u for advice. That's just common sense. Instead of worrying about "abortion" as an issue; instead of trying to terrify women into carrying a baby; instead of bombing clinics or murdering doctors, why doesn't the Right try to reach out to women peacefully, instead of constantly spewing hellfire and damnation? I would argue that the Right sees this as a political issue, instead of a VERY personal issue for every woman who feels she needs to make a choice.

     Now, I dare u to call me (or anyone who agrees with me) a "pro-abortionist" again.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/03/2009 @ 1:10pm

114. Stephen,

     "Who are u, in a democratic society, to place your morals over me?"

     We do that all the time. Every statute is based on a moral judgment of some kind. Even the commercial codes are baed upon the postion that we want a smoothly-running (yeah right) economy. Maybe that is less of a moral position, and more of a functional one, but the morality is still there. Certainly the criminal codes are the best example. My point is, you can't really separate legislation and morality. Is it moral to take my income to buy health care for someone else? Is it moral to make me pay taxes to support the department of defense if I am a pacifist? Maybe yes, maybe no, but you can't dodge the issue. It's always going to be there, and abortion is no different.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/03/2009 @ 1:17pm

115. Since the author has despicably chosen to deliberately use the term "anti-choice" to describe the pro-life movement, allow me to stoop to this dishonest tactic by deeming her "pro-infanticide" and "pro-abortion." I am pro-life across the board and I unreservedly condemn the murder of Mr. Tiller (not "Dr. Tiller" because he violates the original Hippocratic oath which contained the following promise: "I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.") While he was undoubtedly directly complicit in the terminations (some as late as 30 weeks or more) of over 60,000 potential human lives, we are a country of laws and it is the laws that must be changed (or in Kansas maybe enforced by non-corrupted and paid off Governors and AG's?) to stop the wanton destruction of life by misguided and greedy men life Mr. Tiller. I have no doubt that Mr. Tiller is now facing a greater authority that is rendering eternal judgement on him for his actions. Pro-lifers must NEVER take the law into their own hands and trust that while true justice is NEVER to be found in the laws and governments of fallen and sinful humans, ultimately we will all be held to account for our selfish and sinful behavior. Tiller's murderer will also be held to account by the same authority.

     Posted by VeritasSupreme at 06/03/2009 @ 1:23pm

116. There's a reason for the following statement from the article.

     "Activists for reproductive rights have a hard time convincing women and families who have terminated to be part of a movement that protects the right to terminate."

     Many women that I've talked to deeply regret having an abortion and only afterwards realize how wrong it really was. Deep down most people realize it's wrong which it what makes it a difficult decision. It's an easy decision to have a cancerous tumour removed, because there's nothing wrong with removing it.

     Posted by Mark_of_IL at 06/03/2009 @ 1:26pm

117. It is constantly emphasized how difficult the decision is to have an abortion, how excruciating it is, how women don't do it lightly, but really agonize over it. I ask: if it isn't a baby, then why is the decision difficult? We don't agonize, for example, over whether or not to treat cancer.

     I think it's because we know, deep down, that it really is a baby - which science has borne out. All physical characteristics are determined at the moment of fertilization, at which point the new life comes to life and starts growing. Cells of the back and head are developed before implantation even. Implantation doesn't begin the life - it allows the new life to receive nourishment so it can keep growing. There is a heartbeat by three weeks, a tiny human face and eyes and fingers by six weeks - at which point most women only just realize they are pregnant. The whole body, arms and legs and feet and toes, is developed by eight weeks, the tiny human being connected to the mother only by the umbilical cord. It is a miniature baby, very active, swimming and diving and moving about inside the mother.

     Here's a nice video on YouTube that shows all the details of development: http://tinyurl.com/qtpe59 Nice music, too.

     It's this growing science of unborn life that is why a majority of Americans are now prolife, including a lot of atheists. Prolifers don't condone violence - the guy who shot the abortion doc was unbalanced. But maybe what contributed to his unbalance was the knowledge of what is really taking place in abortion clinics. Doesn't justify what he did. But such knowledge, when you come to grips with it, really is terrible.

     Posted by theo347 at 06/03/2009 @ 1:32pm

118. It cracks me up that you libs can never say the truth about what you are doing- killing a human life. You disguise it with lofty words like reproductive rights and pro-choice because you can't admit that you have murdered 50 million Americans. Yes, murdered and then you elected the most radical, anti-life idiot of a president who believes if the baby survives a botched abortion, they should be left to die in a closet, that they are not human beings and entitled to any rights, after all he wouldn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby. The truth about all your sex ed is that more teenage pregnancies occured, not less, and the truth about abstinence is that it works every time. But then you libs never ever deal in the facts and figures, it interferes with your "feelings".

     The most narrow-minded, intolerant, bigoted racists are democrats and liberals and you only have to visit any college campus to see that in action. You don't see people, you see gender, race, sexual orientation and religion (as long as it isn't Christian) first and elected a bigoted racist who just nominated another bigoted racist to the Supreme Court. His dispicable playing of the race card and your stupidity in believing a word he says just proves how ignorant you are.

     What the killer did was wrong and what that baby killer did for a living was wrong, God will judge them both. Moral relativism doesn't actually negate right and wrong, it just lets you gloss over it in your drive to destroy everything most Americans hold dear: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Notice that you can pursue happiness, it's not guaranteed and the government can never, ever give it to you.

     "A Government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have"

     Posted by Jeannek3468 at 06/03/2009 @ 2:12pm

119. Just to add a little further spice to our conversation, a rapproachment of being against killing abortionists (tongue firmly planted in cheek):

     "I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view. Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling, for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist. I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity--not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately pro-choice." --Robert George, First Things, 1994

     Posted by detroitjohn at 06/03/2009 @ 2:18pm

120. OOPS

     "Washington - Analysts who study American extremism are pointing to a 1996 arrest report that, they say, links the leading suspect in the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller to some of the most zealous antigovernment groups in the United States.

     Law enforcement officials currently have in custody Scott Philip Roeder of Merriam, Kan., age 51. Thirteen years ago, someone named Scott Roeder, 38, was arrested in Topeka, Kan., and charged with criminal use of explosives after police found fuse cord and a pound of gunpowder in his car trunk.

     He also had a homemade license plate on his car proclaiming he was immune from Kansas law – a type of tag that's been associated with the Freemen organization, which rejects the authority of the US government. Freemen in Montana were involved in an 81-day standoff with US marshals in 1996 after they tried to set up their own system of government. "-Xtian Science Monitor

     Normally this would be a close enough association for the cons to send someone to GITMO.

     But not their own.

     ---

     Posted by Jeannek3468 at 06/03/2009 @ 2:12pm |

     Welcome to the English language, home of "collateral damage" "unforeseen casualties" "enhanced interrogation", "detainee" "worst of the worst" " partial birth abortion" "shock and awe" "anti-personnel landmine" "pacification" "force protection detail"

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 2:33pm

121. I am wondering if the so called "its not against the law to abort" argument would be used by the anti-lifers if Roe v Wade had gone the other way.

     At the end of the day, all must ask themselves if "choice" is important or "life" is important. So you make your decision and move on. But my suggestion to the pro-death group is to understand that those of us who support life are just as passionate about our position are you are about allowing babies to be killed, even if they could have survived outside the womb.

     By the way, Dr. Tiller referred to parenthood as slavery. Of course, the fact that he made over a million a year helped him justify his "moral" position. In fact, the "franchise" is so valuable, there is already a fight over who is going to continue. But I am sure whoever takes over the million dollar a year salary is just doing it for the "women".

     The doctors who perform this "service" are as much about the money as they are about supporting "choice". As long as the choice is to pay them to do it. They don't do anything for free, which I find kinda odd since they seem to only talk about how noble they are. If you don't have the money, you don't get the "service".

     It is also amazing to me that those on the left talk about "evil corporations" or the "evil oil companies" but see nothing wrong with an industry that deals in death by dressing it up as some noble profession. And the don't see that much of the money for the pro-death groups comes from the abortion doctors themselves. So the moral of the story is, money from oil industry bad, money from abortion industry good.

     Injecting salt water into an unborn baby, who could otherwise survive, doesn't seem very noble to me.

     Posted by saintknowitall at 06/03/2009 @ 2:35pm

122. I am pro-Choice and it would be nice to see an opposing article use the term pro-life for the other side instead of trying to spin the issue with negative connotations. I see the people representing the left have come armed with their weak arguments. Anyone that is willing to acknowledege the truth knows that aborting a baby is wrong. The longer the pregnancy goes on the bigger the mistake. So we go from a small evil to a major evil. Lets fool ourselves and pretend we are on some purely noble quest for women. I think an abortion in the case of rape or major defect or the reasonable health of the woman are fine. The use of abortion as a contraceptive is just wrong. Defending weak excuses for late term abortion gives pro-choice people a bad name.

     If you cannot support or handle a baby simply give it up for adoption. I am against government handouts for bad behavior.

     Abstinance seemed to work just fine in the past. Our loose morals are the main cause of this mass pregnancy stuff not sex education in general.

     You do not have to be a woman or have been pregnant to know that killing is just wrong. Its just how big a wrong is acceptable by society.

     Unneeded late term abortions was just one of Tillers problems. Maybe Tiller was killed due to escaping justice. The evidence seemed to support that he was covering up incest and rape cases.

     As for the user that does not like to see opposing views on topics GROW UP!

     Posted by FrankGriffin at 06/03/2009 @ 2:41pm

123. Dr. Tiller received the returning karma for his actions. He could have found a better way to make a buck than killing unborn babies.

     Posted by maxin1 at 06/03/2009 @ 2:46pm

124. "Abstinance seemed to work just fine in the past."

     not really

     " Our loose morals are the main cause of this mass pregnancy stuff not sex education in general. "

     But I thought we were a Christian country with a moral value worth spreading 'round the world?

     It also appears that NOW the cons are against the free market.

     We could save thousands of lives a year by increasing emission standards on vehicles and factories. We could save tens of thousands of lives a year by outlawing tobacco and alcohol. We could save tens of thousands of lives a year if we outlawed carcinogens in industrial applications.

     But that would be bad for business, so the free marketers say "Let people make their own decisions and let the market take care of it."

     hypocrisy is a most human attribute, few are free of it's clutches, least of all those with alleged "core values".

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 2:56pm

125. Has there been a "condemnation" yet without a caveat blaming the victim of terrorism? I do recall that being a Bad Thing when "the left"does it.

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/03/2009 @ 2:58pm

126. This murder was not an act of terrorism! Good grief. What part of pro-life do you not get?? As pro-life I do not condone the murder of an abortionist. Nice to start negative "anti-choice", so pro-choice is "Pro-Death"? What is the difference between your DNA as an adult and DNA as a fetus? Ready? NOTHING!

     You people do realize that most abortions happen to young black women, don't you? This is an opportunity to reduce the size of the population of people not wanted by the elitists. I find it interesting that a black man the President supports the genocide of his own people. He would support the murder of his own grand children. Do any of you find that strange?

     Of course us christians are a bunch of inbred morons, as any liberal elitist. Check your history if you dare, hospitals were started by christian organizations, as were orphanages.

     Posted by farside at 06/03/2009 @ 3:01pm

127. It's sad that a person was murdered. It's sad that that person is being put on a pedestal for the premature ending of life.

     Generally, everyone agrees that murder is wrong. The only way anyone can differentiate between abortion and murder is to convince himself that the fetus isn't really alive. But, of course, it is. A human is just alive on his first day in the womb as he is on his first day out of the womb. But one, you would consider murder, the other, abortion.

     Sex can come with consequences. Anyone who isn't ready to face those potential consequences should not have sex, and thus, they will not ‘need' abortions. I'm not saying this from a religious standpoint, but a common sense one. Common sense says that: if you have sex, you may get pregnant. And general morality says: ending human life is wrong. Therefore, logic (without human manipulation to convince us that the fetus isn't really alive) says: to commit abortion is immoral. And the surefire way for a woman to avoid the ‘necessity' for abortion is to abstain from sex until she is able to support a potential child or until she has made it medically impossible to have children.

     I don't believe that prohibition of anything can stop it from happening, it requires people to change their minds and their hearts. But as tragic as the loss of mature human life is, I do not see anything courageous about what an abortionist does.

     Posted by stephen_p at 06/03/2009 @ 3:54pm

128. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/03/2009 @ 12:00pm

     1.The pro-abortion organization, Guttmacher Institute

     • Forty percent of pregnancies among white women, 69% among blacks and 54% among Hispanics are unintended.

     • In 2005, 1.21 million abortions were performed, down from 1.31 million in 2000. From 1973 through 2005, more than 45 million legal abortions occurred.

     • Each year, about two percent of women aged 15-44 have an abortion; 47% of them have had at least one previous abortion.

     http://tinyurl.com/5wley

     2.Sex Education began in California in 1968. I can't speak for the rest of the country, nor does it seem the info is readily available.

     3.Medi Cal provides free to low cost birth control

     http://tinyurl.com/re44vs

     3.As I've noted in debating Mask on this subject, I continue to advocate abstinence only. The fact that we don't have success is no reason to stop. We teach not to steal, rape, and murder, but we haven't had a lot of success with those problems either.

     If you saw a woman drowning her children in a lake, would you feel you have an obligation to speak out , or believe it's not your problem?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 4:12pm

129. I believe the murder of William Long was an act of domestic terrorism whose aim was not only to assassinate a single man, but also to frighten a generation of soldiers and to shame and terrify potential recruits and families who are making difficult choices. While the murderous rage of Long's assassin is not representative of the broader anti-military movement, I believe that the anti-military community operates with a totalitarian impulse that generates a culture of terror rather than a culture of life.

     Hannah Arendt suggested that totalitarians generate terror in part by cultivating profound loneliness among their targets. Loneliness locks human beings in isolation and hampers discourse, connection, and shared experience. When we believe we are alone and misunderstood we cannot form the bonds necessary to organize and resist. There are few experiences more lonely and isolating than deciding to risk one's life in order to protect others. The anti-military discourse labels soldiers "killers." It is a strategy that dehumanizes these soldiers.

     The murder of William Long is personal to me. It is not just a matter of politics or policy. It is critical to me that their health, safety, and choices are protected.

     Posted by lbrubake at 06/03/2009 @ 7:13pm

130. What a load of crap.

     Tiller did not deserve to die, but stop making him out to be some kind of fripping hero. He was a baby killer, pure and simple, and he got very, very rich off of the "choices", and possibly misery, of women, whether his slaughter was performed at 6-wk gestation or involved sucking out a baby's brain, crushing it's skull, and treating it as just so much refuse just to make sure it died. So spare us all your attempts to make him some holy martyr.

     Next, puhleaze, how many "desired" pregnancies are REALLY terminated because of the mother's "health", unless "health" is also defined as "extreme inconvenience" and "lifestyle alteration". Really. Is it necessary in a third-trimester delivery past the point of viability, performed for the mother's "health", to ensure the baby dies? Stop lying to yourself, and the rest of us.

     And, BTW, I am Native American, single, 52, mother of 4, worked my way through college, had a business until your hero who likes to let born-alive people die took office, have my own mortgage, and parent of one of those "imperfect" children you're in favor of killing.

     Save your bleeding heart sobstories and fairy tales for the lemmings and ostriches who want to parade off the cliff of immorality and infanticide.

     Posted by elephant4life at 06/03/2009 @ 7:50pm

131. I agree with Elephant4life, There is nothing heroic about Tiller's death. The real "domestic terrorists" are the pseudo doctors like Tiller who knowingly violate the Hippocratic oath to "Do no harm" and continue participating in this culture of death disguised under the euphemism of "Choice".

     I find it fascinating that liberals in general can be so overwrought with protecting the whales, the bald eagle, the Redwood forests and practically any other cause except for compassion for their own species. How can anyone rationalize killing their own child out of convenience?

     I read an interesting article years ago about the parallels to the slavery of blacks who were both dehumanized and considered the property of their slave owners and the modern day dehumanizing of unborn babies. One day we will look back with abhorence at the sickness of a society that tolerated the murder of the holy innocents in the womb. In the same manner that slavery was ultimately outlawed, abortion will become a sad record of the past.

     CHOOSE LIFE!

     Posted by dmarkson at 06/03/2009 @ 8:50pm

132. Several times the question has been asked whether "pro-lifers" want to make abortion illegal? All i want is the chance to do so. That is, allow states to decide for themselves. I believe Roe v. Wade is a bad opinion--bad reasoning, bad science. But the real problem I see in the world is that we view pregnancy as a problem to be solved. yes, we have always had premarital sex, unwanted pregnancy, and all sorts of taboo things. But the 20th-21st century in America seems to have taken that to a new level. You'll ruin your life if you get pregnant. That's the wrong attitude.

     Posted by bubkes at 06/03/2009 @ 10:30pm

133. lbrubake-I'm sorry for whatever pain you have gone through in your life that makes this tragedy a personal issue.

     In my opinion, your comment betrays a strange sense of paranoia. You may be giving us Pro-lifers way too much credit...I don't think we're coordinated enough to be playing mind games and trying to isolate "soldiers."

     Here is my perception of the pro-life movement: We simply truly believe that abortion is the taking of an innocent life. We further believe that no one individual has the authority to arbitrarily take the life of another--even that individuals mother. Our goal is not to victimize the pro-choice "soldiers" as "killers" and isolate them.

     Furthermore, we desire to change hearts and minds so that every child will be welcomed into the world. We also desire to provide women with resources that will help them care for their children or place them with families who will care for them. I personally have been involved in helping about 20 children find loving homes over the past two years. I have also personally witnessed great relationships be formed between biological mothers who couldn't care for their children and adoptive mothers who desired to care for both baby and mother.

     Posted by whitndan at 06/03/2009 @ 10:37pm

134. Word must have gone out to the sheep, "Get Ye over the The Nation and start calling out the "baby killers". Similar to when word went out "Get Ye over to The Nation and defend torture, unnecessary war and "baby killers".

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 06:26am

135. ANTI- If you saw a child being killed by a mortar shell launched into a school, would you defend the Army soldier that launched the shell, or attack the leftists that are "coddling terrorist"? Would you stand Displaced Persons? Would you stand aside as hospitals were blown up and phosphorous was used on civiliian populations?

     Oh, right, you did. Not only stood aside, but actively cheered the occupation.

     So much for "Pro-Life"

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 06:30am

136. For those who go by the Bible, I would say the line is drawn at birth, for the Bible does not discuss life before birth. Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/03/2009 @ 12:26pm

     Just my 0.5 cents worth. www.Bible.com New American Standard Bible Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

     Really Nice Discussion Here. Both sides make valid point. Just as both side sound ignorant. Really Nice Discussion Here.

     Posted by De at 06/04/2009 @ 06:44am

137. crabwalk,

     you are assuming that pro-life automatically equates to supporting war for some reason. That is not a safe assumption. Or maybe you are just being guilty of stereotyping, which I thought was a no-no to the left.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/04/2009 @ 07:10am

138. ANTI- If you saw a child being killed by a mortar shell launched into a school, would you defend the Army soldier that launched the shell, or attack the leftists that are "coddling terrorist"? Would you stand Displaced Persons? Would you stand aside as hospitals were blown up and phosphorous was used on civiliian populations?

     Oh, right, you did. Not only stood aside, but actively cheered the occupation.

     So much for "Pro-Life"

     Posted by crabwalk at 06/04/2009 @ 06:30am

     A false hypothesis (realizing that you were drawing from the recent Gaza military action).

     The Israelis were not attacking schools and hospitals. They were attacking the jihadists who were firing mortars and rockets from those locations.

     As to phosophorous, the only use was that which is legal, night flares to illuminate Hamas positions.

     One day if you ever get objective, you will come to despise terrorists who use innocent civilians as human shields for their terrorist activities.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 10:12am

139. Posted by Iamprolife at 06/03/2009 @ 12:48pm

     The legal issue (not the moral one) is one where lines must be drawn: i.e. "this" is legal and "that" is not. (The moral issue is with the mother and father of the potential human life, and ONLY them.)

     Because the life of a human being is at stake (and I don't personally deny that), the legal line must therefore be drawn based upon the legal "weight" of the two parties involved, in this case, the fetus and the mother. I think we can all agree that a fetus is dependent upon the mother in the womb (unless you want all babies to be test tube babies). As the mother goes, so goes the fetus (alcoholism, AIDS, drugs, etc.).

     I would argue that in each and every case, the law should come down on the side of the mother. Why? It's a morally ambiguous argument but the mother has already been established as a receiver of rights by the Constitution because she is an American citizen. The fetus has not, simply because it hasn't been born yet. It's unfortunate but in the law, the lines must be drawn clearly and as you yourself say, the only unambiguous point (which is also legally irrelevant) is conception. Since two cells merged together cannot be considered a human being by any reasonable definition of law, then the law must come down on the side of the mother.

     Ultimately, that is why the issue is not one of "baby killing" or Dr. Tiller being a "mass murderer." It is an issue of the choice each mother must make as to what to do with her own body, because the fetus is part of the woman's body (until it's not) and forcing anyone to do anything against their own will is un-Constitutional.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/04/2009 @ 2:14pm

140. For all of you "pro-choice" advocates who find the murder of Dr. Tiller so abhorrent, here's a taste of what lies ahead for the United States - it's just a matter of time.

     "Women who want to have abortions due to their fetus' gender are legally allowed to do so, health officials in Sweden said yesterday. The case arose earlier this year after a woman, who had twice aborted female fetuses, asked doctors to tell her her child's gender. Unsure of their obligations, the doctors asked the National Board of Health and Welfare for guidance. That board now says doctors are obligated to perform a patient's abortive request as long as the woman's not farther along than 18 weeks."

     See who the primary targets in Sweden have been...unborn female children!!! Isn't that ironic? I wonder how all the feminists who have been such vocal supporters of abortion feel knowing that they are now the prime targets of gender-based abortions!

     I guess it's true after all that what goes around comes around!

     Posted by mnburch at 06/04/2009 @ 2:32pm

141. 3.As I've noted in debating Mask on this subject, I continue to advocate abstinence only. The fact that we don't have success is no reason to stop. We teach not to steal, rape, and murder, but we haven't had a lot of success with those problems either.

     If you saw a woman drowning her children in a lake, would you feel you have an obligation to speak out , or believe it's not your problem?

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/03/2009 @ 4:12pm

     As for your #3 above, doing the same thing time and time again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity (or maybe just stupidity). If you don't have success at something, then your tactics aren't working and you need to try something else...or would continue to try placing a square peg into a round hole?

     As for the hypothetical woman drowning in a lake, I would jump in and try to save her. I reject your argument that a woman (who you do not know) who is considering an abortion is equivalent to a woman (who you do not know) drowning in a lake right in front of me. One deserves counseling from her friends and family (as she seeks it out, not forced on her), the other deserves an immediate rescue.

     And thanks for the numbers. I was unaware.

     As for MediCal....Puh-LEASE. It's a joke and I think we both know it. They certainly don't give out free contraceptives to teens.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/04/2009 @ 2:35pm

142. Just my 0.5 cents worth. www.Bible.com New American Standard Bible Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations."

     Posted by De at 06/04/2009 @ 06:44am

     I would interpret that Biblical passage to regard the human soul....which is exactly what makes abortion a tragedy and such a difficult issue to contend with. Now, when does the "soul" inhabit a body? That's an interesting question...at birth? At conception? It's something we can never know. And for those who don't believe in a soul, the question is already answered.

     But in a nation of laws (not religion), we must adhere to what we can, being imperfect ourselves, which is why the rights of the mother must take precedence over any perceived rights of a potential human being. In my opinion.

     The moral question is one the mother will have to deal with on her own or with her family and friends...not lawmakers in Washington, DC or Supreme Court Justices, or even bloggers who read The Nation.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/04/2009 @ 2:51pm

143. Stephen,

     You said "forcing anyone to do anything against their own will is un-Constitutional." That is simply not the case. Gov't forces people to do things against their will all the time -- pay taxes, stop at red lights, etc. -- I know these are silly examples, but Constitutionality of a law really has little to do with whether a law is coercive or not. Perhaps a better example is forcing the boy currently in the news to get chemo against his family's will. Granted abortion is a lot more thorny problem, as the fetus/baby is actually inside another human being's body. I do disagree, however, that the law lets you do whatever you want with your own body. For example, I cannot take heroin or cocaine to my heart's content, nor (I believ) should I be able to. If I want to volunteer to be a human sacrifice, I should not be able to do that either. The point is, there are societal concerns here as well, largely having to do with protection of unborn children. It just isn't as easy as doing what you want with your own body. Ultimately I agree with you that it is a line drawing issue. I would draw the line earlier than Roe v. Wade permits, though.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/04/2009 @ 2:55pm

144. Stephen,

     I just re-read your post. Just curious here -- you stated that the moral issue is for the mother and father and no one else. I disagree there (see my last post), but if we are concerned with the woman's body as overriding everything else, why does the father have a vote at all? (I don't think he does as the law currently stands but I may be wrong there).

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/04/2009 @ 3:00pm

145. Posted by Iamprolife at 06/04/2009 @ 2:55pm

     The examples you give don't have anything to do with the ultimate right of a person over their own physical being. I would ask you to state an instance in which the government has the Constitutional "right" to tell a person what they can or cannot do with their own body. That was the essence of Roe v. Wade; the government does NOT have that right.

     As for why the father should be involved...he should be involved only at the behest of the mother (if she seeks him out). The choice is the woman's and if she chooses to seek out the father for his advice and input, that again, is her choice. Alternately, if she chooses to go it alone, without his input, that also is her choice (it is always the choice of a woman to tell anyone she is even pregnant...a choice women make everyday).

     However, because it is HER body (and no one else's), the law has no place in telling a woman what she can or cannot do with her own body. That's where I draw the legal line.

     I go back to my initial point several days ago on this matter: no one likes abortions. It's not like pro-choice women walk around saying, "Gee! I think I'll go get me an abortion today! Does the doctor give me a lollipop afterwards?" It is a deadly serious issue with deep and heartfelt moral implications, but ultimately, it is a personal issue, which is why every woman's right to choose what to do in her situation must remain. The government needs to stay out of people's personal decisions (gee, I sound like a conservative!) and this is especially true of staying out of people's bodies.

     The way to reduce the number of abortions is through individual counseling, not by making back-alley abortions the only option women have available to them.

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/04/2009 @ 3:32pm

146. As for your #3 above, doing the same thing time and time again and expecting a different result is the definition of insanity (or maybe just stupidity). If you don't have success at something, then your tactics aren't working and you need to try something else...or would continue to try placing a square peg into a round hole?

     Posted by Stephen_Carver1 at 06/04/2009 @ 2:35pm

     Taking your logic into consideration and the examples I gave, we need to abolish the laws against stealing, rape, and murder, because we have not been successful in getting a different result.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 4:33pm

147. One kook shoots an abortion doctor and now it's a conspiracy? And what was the message behind the dude that shot up the University of Virginia? Was that terrorism against higher education? They're lunatics. And now the journalists are joining them!

     Posted by tbed63 at 06/04/2009 @ 5:35pm

148. On Ms. Harris-Lacewell's observation about the privileges of the well-to-do, it isn't just in the US. Here in Northern Mexico, the right wing Catholic church runs society. The rich are almost exclusively Marist, Opus Dei, and similar persuasions, but you would be surprised at the number of upper class high school and college girls (private schools, of course) who, in the middle of the semester all of a sudden need to go visit an aunt in Texas for a couple weeks.

     As for the canard that these right wing Christianists are out there adopting children, Pat Robertson was on TV some years ago trying to prevent a gay couple from adopting a baby girl. His point was that there were hundreds of his flock who would love to adopt all the kids up for adoption and who would give them a better home. During the call-in session the receptionist at the orphanage from which the little girl came pointed out that she had never once received a call from any of Robertson's followers. She didn't say it, but the implication was that he is full of it.

     "A false hypothesis (realizing that you were drawing from the recent Gaza military action)."

     antisocialist, you are guilty of deceit and dishonesty. The situation being described had happened on numerous occasions in Fallujah and also in Baghdad.

     Posted by danmiller at 06/04/2009 @ 5:48pm

149. antisocialist, you are guilty of deceit and dishonesty. The situation being described had happened on numerous occasions in Fallujah and also in Baghdad.

     Posted by danmiller at 06/04/2009 @ 5:48pm

     Another lie and the remarks of someone who hates Americans serving their country. No thanks to you, their sacrifice protects your right to hate Americans.

     Posted by antisocialist at 06/04/2009 @ 6:09pm

150. Stephen,

     I completely agree that we could substantially reduce abortions through counseling, adequate education, etc. -- however, I really disagree about the "own body" view. When does it stop becoming her own body? Right at birth? I don't think anyone would argue that it is OK to abort a minute prior to birth (maybe I'm wrong there). So, we're back to line drawing.

     Also, I think my examples re: drugs etc. are absolutely relevant as to what you can do with your own body. Why can I not snort coke all the time? It's my body after all. But, it is still illegal. And, I actually think that socuety has more of an interest in the case of abortion (potential living beings) than drugs (voluntary destruction of one being).

     Anyhow, great talking with you. I'll check back to see if you respond but I probably won't post under this article any more. I think we can all disagree on where to draw the line legally but still work to reduce abortions, and even unwanted pregnancies, through other means.

     Posted by Iamprolife at 06/05/2009 @ 07:03am

151. Back nearly a century ago (1919) the U.S. amended its constitution to make prohibition the law of the land.

     The amendment was repealed about fifteen years later (1933).

     Meanwhile (as my mother told me), people who would never have considered deliberately breaking the law went to a speakeasy to have a drink... just to defy the law.

     You cannot legislate morality. People have their own individual sense of morality and will not give it up just because the laws change.

     Those who imagine they can change moral convictions through law or by endless argument are sadly mistaken.

     Abortion was perfectly legal in the U.S. until the late 1800s. It was risky because there were not so many hospitals as today, and antiseptics were similarly scarce, but it was perfectly legal. The last state finally criminalized abortion by 1910, so abortion was only illegal for sixty years or so in the U.S. ... in its entire history of two hundred thirty some years.

     Alcohol prohibition lasted for fourteen years. Abortion prohibition lasted for sixty, seventy, or eighty years, depending on the state. But both are experiments that were tried and failed.

     Let's not repeat our mistakes.

     Posted by LeahMira at 06/05/2009 @ 08:48am

152. Heehee.

     It wasn't until 1966 that a MARRIED couple (let alone a single person) could legally buy a condom in Connecticut - and it took a Supreme Court decision to accomplish it. I was already married three years and had to buy condoms in NYC>

     Mother Church opposed condoms (remember Vatican roulette?) - and then birth control pills and all other forms of birth control.

     Sherri Finkbein had to travel to Sweden for abortion of a Thalidomide fetus - with one arm and no legs. She lost her job and was hounded and harassed by "demonstrators" at her home.

     I support choice - but I also support birth control education including abstinence, easier adoption and financial/medical assistance for those women who decide to go forward with their pregnancies. I would pay increased taxes to support such a program - would you?

     Posted by toritto at 06/05/2009 @ 10:36am

153. The religious right has not only created a climate of violence but has also hijacked the language of late term abortion to suggest, even in the minds of the pro-choice, that these are had by people too lazy to get around to a termination before the start of the second trimester.

     I had a late term abortion. If you'd asked me before I would have said, "I will never have a late term abortion." But I didn't understand who exactly it is who is having late term aboritions, and you probably don't either unless you've been through it yourself.

     I was forced to choose to terminate a much wanted pregnancy in the 20th week due to a poor prenatal diagnosis. I wouldn't wish this choice on anyone. It is the hardest choice a parent will ever have to make.

     You don't just wake up one day and think "I'm going to have a late term abortion." These procedures are painful, protracted (at least two days and usually more), and will forever live on the patient's heart as an emotional scar.

     Thank goodness there are compassionate doctors who risk their lives, as Dr. Tiller did, to provide these terminations for medical reasons. I hope you will never have to know their compassion personally as I did because with it comes devastating heart break.

     Posted by sadpatient at 06/06/2009 @ 08:47am