What the Fuck is Wrong With These People? - Murdering Bastard

Monday, June 1, 2009
Yesterday morning, Dr. George Tiller of Wichita, Kansas was gunned down as he was entering the Reformation Lutheran Church for Sunday services. A suspect is in custody, and the investigation continues.

Dr. Tiller has been a controversial figure for some time, as he was one of the only doctors in the country who provided late-term abortions.* His clinic was bombed in 1985, and he himself was shot by a protester in 1993. He recognized the polarizing nature of his work, but felt that women should have choices. "Pre-natal testing without pre-natal choices is medical fraud," Tiller once said.

To my knowledge, the reason for Dr. Tiller's murder is unknown at this time. The suspect and his attorney has not issued a statement, and any speculation on the matter is just that - speculation.

That doesn't stop the wackadoos from "celebrating," however. That's right - champion asshat and nutbar Fred Phelps and his hateful "church" has issued a statement that says (in part):
God hates baby killers. Serial murderer George "Tiller the Killer" is dead! God sent the shooter! Now Tiller gets to explain himself to his victims! WBC to picket "Vigil to support Tiller's family and friends" (enablers).
Lovely. Ole Freddy and his in-bred band of sheep just make you proud to be an American, don't they? And am I the only one who takes this crap to mean that either a) Dr. Tiller will be going to heaven with all those "victims," or b) the "victims" will be going to hell with Dr. Tiller? I suppose consistency is too much to ask of the wackadoo crowd.

What the fuck is wrong with these people? "Pro-Life" my ass. People who are "pro-life" don't shoot other people dead or celebrate the death of someone whose only "crime" under our rule of law was to offend your sensibilities. Hypocrisy much?

Now I really have no issue with people who believe that abortion is immoral. Abortion is an issue where thoughtful, insightful people of good faith can have diametrically opposed opinions, and I think people who believe abortion should be illegal have the right to try and get the law changed. I disagree, of course, but I support the Constitution, and you don't get to pick and choose if you want to maintain your integrity.

Unless you're these so-called "right to life" asstards who try to kill abortion providers, that is. Then it's apparently okay.

These people make me tired.
________

*While I'm staunchly pro-choice from a legal standpoint, I'm deeply uneasy about late-term abortions. While I understand that such procedures are usually used in the case of profoundly deformed babies, there's a great deal of moral ambiguity inherent in this procedure from my point of view. However, this post isn't about late-term abortions, and I'll be wielding the Shovel of Doom™ with abandon. Trollage will not be tolerated, although courteous disagreement is always welcome.

5 comments:

Steve Buchheit said...

Again, you're confusing "pro-life" with their outside arguments about "stopping the baby-killers," just like we continue to confuse Intelligent Design with religious purposes.

Pro-life is anti-feminism and all these uppity-womyn running loose when they should be tied to having babies (because the flip side to pro-life is anti-birth control, no, seriously, it's in their platform, they're the major proponents of "abstinence only" sex-ed). Pro-life has nothing to do with the "sanctity" of life.

ID is about the specialness of man ("I'm not an animal" kinds of arguments), BTW, not what God may have done.

Janiece Murphy said...

Steve, I think I understand what you're saying, but the core hypocrisy remains. They're "for" "saving babies," but they'll take a life (or approve of taking a life) with no moral qualms. Inconsistent at best.

I disagree with your comments about ID not being a religious movement.

It sprang directly from the "Creationist" movement, and presupposes a "designer," by definition. It's a very short step between "designer" and "creator" (so short it's microscopic, in fact). How is that not about a creator God?

Steve Buchheit said...

Because with the switch to (or at least "acceptance" of) the ID proposition they've revealed their actual argument, that man is the pinnacle of creation/nature. The "design" part is an argument that nature and evolution have lead to us, we're the end, the top, the big cheese. Their argument is we (as humans) are special (to God or nature). Evolution, and specifically Darwinism, if you take it to its logical conclusion says we are just a highly adapted animal, subject to the same pressures and causalities of the other animals. The "creationists" can't abide that thought. It's a veiled "sin of pride" argument they are making. They wrap themselves in the cloak of religion because 1) it's their background/their relation to God that makes them special and 2) because they believe it's an unassailable position (which is where we also get the "faith is counter to logic" argument).

With the "pro-life" movement, much of their ranks are filled with honest people who believe in the outside argument and they've never looked at what the real position of the pro-life organization is (and they are being deliberately fooled into supporting something they may have a real problem with, such as the anti-birth control position).

With Obama's reversal of the stem-cell research ban, let's see just how much they squawk (the original position, IMHO, was a logic trap for them that the previous president helped them solve). If they really believed their external justifications, they would be lobbying heavily to have the stem-cell research ban made into law. I'm not seeing it yet. If they believe in what they say they are, they wouldn't have opposed "test-tube babies" or "reproductive research," which they did (I believe they dropped that argument back in the late 90s because "that ship had already sailed").

So with their real goal as turning back the clock to before available abortion on demand, birth control (specifically the pill), and their complete abrogation of "what happens after" you can begin to see what their true aims are. This is why they are willing to accept killers in their name (although the national organization will distance themselves from this, they will also include a statement which basically says, "He was asking for it"). This is why they'll trot our women who feel shamed by their choice and use this as an argument to not have an abortion (you don't want to feel guilty later do you), and denigrate women who do make the choice (I've been outside the clinics where they've protested) to have an abortion.

Janiece Murphy said...

Steve, thanks for clarifying your position. I better understand what you're trying to say, but it's my belief that IDers inability to accept that they are products of nature as opposed to a "creator" is, at its base, a religious point of view.

I'm more inclined to agree with you regarding the "pro-life" crowd, though. Although there are plenty of people who believe abortion is immoral who are not interested in suppressing women's rights, there's a large percentage who are.

Steve Buchheit said...

Pro-life also wouldn't be against "human cloning" per se. They would oppose "cloning that ends in the destruction of the clone" but not against the technology in general.