Instant Victim Mode

This just in…

By DAVID CRARY, AP National Writer David Crary, Ap National Writer – Sun May 31, 4:42 pm ET

NEW YORK – Anti-abortion leaders voiced concern Sunday that the Obama administration and other Democrats may try to capitalize on the murder of Dr. George Tiller to defuse the abortion issue in upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Many anti-abortion groups condemned the killing of Tiller, a prominent abortion provider who was shot dead at his church in Wichita, Kan. But they expressed concern that abortion-rights activists would use the occasion to brand the entire anti-abortion movement as extremist.

They also worried that there would now be an effort to stifle anti-abortion viewpoints during questioning of Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor. Her exact views on abortion aren’t known, but conservatives fear she supports abortion rights.
Said the Rev. Patrick Mahoney, an anti-abortion activist: “No one should use this tragedy for political gain.”

It’s about six hours since the murder was committed and the anti-abortion activists are already in spin control. Politician’s careers have been made by invoking the label, ‘pro-life’. The rhetoric is extreme– the language violent. But when someone takes it to its logical conclusion their hands are clean.

The body is not yet cold, a family is bereaved. And politicians are already revising their attacks on the Supreme Court nominee.

‘No one should use this tragedy for political gain.’ Indeed.

About these ads

41 thoughts on “Instant Victim Mode

  1. C’mon Nancy-get off insinuation that if someone is pro-life,they suborn murder.That is really an oxymoron.I don’t think this shooter accomplished anything except to make an abortionist into some kind of martyr for the pro-choice people and nothing else,
    he didn’t save any unborn children,because Tiller’s death won’t slow down his clinic or other abortionists ready to provide the same “service” .
    Worse still,Napolitano has already targeted pro-life activists as potential terrorists and she can misuse this incident to start violating people’s 1st amendment rights.
    I believe that in this age of widely available,safe,and effective birth control,that none but legitimately theraputic abortions should be necessary.
    I know you’d be mortified,outraged,the whole 9 yards,if gay men were blamed en masse for the acts of homosexual pedophiles.
    This was the act of one man,unless a prosecutor can prove differently.

  2. After all the political and moralistic posturing done by the right wingers, the fact remains: Reproductive choice is the law.

    Unfortunately, the anti-choice coalition is more concerned with eroding the freedom provided under the law than trying to make abortions less needed. It’s the height of hypocrisy to, on the one hand, harass women and tolerate violence against providers while, on the other, ignoring the incest, rape, and pre-birth fetal deaths that require many abortions to be performed in the first place.

    If anything, the slaying of Dr. Tiller will only underscore the existing extremism of the anti-choice crowd — not introduce it as a new concept.

  3. Thanks for your posts. I lived through the era of assassinations in the 1960′s, and wish that the threats and vandalism that Dr.Tiller and his fellow clinic workers had to suffer were treated like the crimes they are.

  4. How were they not?I recall pro-life protesters being attacked by police somewhere in the Midwest with the blessings of a federal judge in the early 90′s.
    They executed the murderer of an abortion and his security escort in Florida.The murderer of Dr.Slepian is doing life.Rudolph is doing life(he should have been executed for the bombing attack).The sick little creep who shot up two clinics and killed,I believe, two workers in Boston got life and hung himself.
    What are you talking about?

  5. Joe, I’m just guessing but….let me guess.
    Maybe ninja is talking about the extremist crowd’s idolation of some of these killers. This is America, and we allow wingnuts to post praises for lawbreakers like this guy Roeder. He’s like a rock-star in circles like ‘The Army Of God’. And why the FBI specifically monitors web traffic on this subject.
    That’s why some compare these groups to the Taliban. To religous extremists he’s the equivelant of a suicide bomber, going to heaven you know.

  6. Don’t ask me.Roeder belongs to the Freemen,a violent antin-government,White supremacist group based in Montana.
    I assume that if Roeder is convicted he’ll get the death penalty or life in prison,either of which would be appropriate.Some people will idolize him.Just the way things are.
    My pro-life stance doesn’t allow for murdering people who are doing what I think is wrong.I believe in depending on our system of laws and working for change through the legislative process.
    I have a non-religious reason for being pro-life-it’s simply that I don’t believe it’s moral to cancel out someone’s existence before they ever have a chance to experience life as a matter of convenience.
    For me “someone”can encompass the unborn.
    I don’t believe a woman should have to carry a pregnancy at risk to her life and in such cases abortion may be the only remedy.That’s a whole world of difference from convenience.

  7. The whole issue is so touchy.
    Is it human at the moment of conception? At what point is it? Is the morning after pill immoral? How many doctors need to agree that the mother is in danger? What about rape/incest?
    There are so many things involved here. Guys like Roeder don’t see it that way. It’s all black/white, god vs satan.

    Joe you seem to have a pretty normal mainstream view. Nothing extreme about it.

  8. No, Joe. Maybe your pro-life stance doesn’t suborn murder, but your refusal to consider rational controls on guns certainly facilitates it.

    The gunman in Binghampton, NY. The gunman in Pittsburgh who shot three armed police because Rush and your friends are telling him that Obama is going to take his guns away. Roeder guns Tiller down in Tiller’s church.

    Three whackos. Three (actually more) guns. And they got them legally. Because people like you refuse to accept that even constitutional rights are not absolute. Freedom of speech can be curtailed.

    Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre is illegal. But you won’t countenance reasonable restrictions of the second amendment. We’ve had this ‘discussion’ before.

    So, sorry. Your protestations about being ‘pro-life’ ring a bit hollow.

  9. I could care less about what I say “ringing hollow”to you.You are a liar.Or a nitwit.I don’t know which,but I’ve stated before I don’t even listen to Limbaugh.You have some derangement syndrome about the guy.That’s your problem
    We already have reasonable restrictions on 2nd amendment rights,and some that are unreasonable.Whatever laws are made,someone will break them.Punishment is the answer for people who break laws,not taking rights away from others.
    In any event,the mood of the country is against you and I don’t think you would like the results of an attempt to disarm Americans.
    You’re now accusing me of inciting the maniac in Pittsburgh-go piss up a rope.
    I spent enough time facing armed criminals-have you ever had to do anything of the sort?If not STFU.

  10. Nancy-Again your selective outrage shows if this was directed solely at me.Klaus made a disgusting accusation that in some bizarre way,I am responsible for a deranged man in Pittsburgh killing 3 police officers because Rush(whom I don’t bother with)and “my friends”(??)convinced him Obama was going to seize his guns.This nut was thrown out of the Marine Corps-he didn’t need outside influence to commit this violence.
    Klaus has made numerous personal attacks on me and I’m tired of putting up with it.I find it particularly offensive because I took a whole lot of dangerous people,often illegally armed,off the streets,some for a very long time.
    And along comes Klaus(and I am pretty sure who he is,but we don’t “out” people here,right?)who sounds like he works at home,although I could be wrong,making judgements about me.I don’t think he has any clue or he wouldn’t keep repeating nonsense to me after I’ve told him what the facts were-I didn’t vote for Bush either,but he persists in depicting me as a Bush supporter.
    So Klaus reaps what he sows-his smartass remarks get the answer thy deserve.If my post offended some people too bad,because it was intended to offend “Klaus”,period.I think we both know why “Klaus”will never be banned here.

  11. Oh goodness Joe, you rowdy ol’ fart!
    Over here raising some hell?
    Naughty, naughty.

    These ladies here will be on you like ugly on a Baldwin brother….

  12. Joe, I didn’t single you out, that was a general statement.
    I’m not what STFU stands for. Is it something you can say in front of your mother?

  13. No.And that’s why I didn’t spell it out.It’s pretty common usage on the internet.

    • I’m sure it is,along with straight porno,political extremism,and aggressive advertising.
      I think they don’t want foul language on the site,so I’ll respect the rules.

  14. I support the right of a woman to have an abortion. That means I have to take responsibility for the ramifications when a woman makes that very difficult choice.

    All the shooters I mentioned–and the shooter at Virginia Tech–obtained their guns legally. They were able to do so because the gun laws in America are much less restrictive than they are in other countries.

    Our laws are such because a very active lobby works hard and spends a lot of money to make sure the laws are not tightened. Anyone who opposes stricter laws has to accept some responsibility for the ramifications of that support if dangerous people legally obtain guns, and then use them criminally.

    As for Rush, you may not listen to him, but you repeated his views about Judge Sotomayor. You may not have voted for Bush, but you openly and often supported McCain. McCain claimed to support policies very similar to those of Bush. Maybe you didn’t vote for Bush, but you supported his policies. That is something of a distinction without a difference.

    One of those beliefs was an opposition to tighter gun laws.

    I do respect your experience. You performed a much-needed service to me and to everyone in this country. However, you seem to believe that anyone lacking that experience has no right to express an opinion on this topic. That is the implication of “STFU.”

    It was my understanding that Americans have the right to express their opinion.

    As for ‘working from home,’ I’m not sure what that means, but it seems it’s intended as an insult of sorts. You should realize that most large corporations are actively encouraging–if not requiring–their employees to work from home. If you’re not inclinded to believe me–since I am a liar–ask someone who works at Bank of America in Providence. Having employees work from home saves the corporations money.

    As for my identity, how is that relevant? What matters is what I say, not who I am.

    Joe, I’m sorry that you didn’t like what I said. But beliefs and words and positions have consequences. We all need to think through our beliefs and understand those consequences. If we don’t like those consequences, perhaps we need to re-examine our beliefs.

  15. Oh, and I guess you think I should be banned from the site.

    OK. I consider myself banned.

  16. Klaus-I want you banned?Are you nuts?What is it to me if you’re on this site or not?Personally I don’t believe in banning people from sites at all unless they are abusive or threatening or worst of all,”spammers”.
    You just ignore facts and dance to your own internal music.
    It remains a fact that states with the least restrictive firearms,particularly in the Northeast,have less violent crime than states with restrictive firearms laws-NY,NJ,IL,MA all have serious violent crime.You seem to be that type of liberal that wants to seize guns from people who’d never consider hurting you and then when some lowlife scumbag uses a gun in a driveby or stickup,you want “alternative treatment”,a “program”or some other social engineering nonsense instead of locking him down for a long time.
    Did it ever occur to you that the violent crime rate in NY is much higher than NH because NY has a higher percentage of people who have no respect for the law?
    The Virginia Tech massacre was made even worse byt he fact that the university didn’t allow licensed individuals to carry their weapons on campus.They were sitting ducks,as were people in many other mass killings.
    I get the feeling you want to be safe at all costs.Well,life isn’t safe,and if the price of safety is living in a socially engineered anthill with people of your or Obama’s mindset calling the shots,I want no part of it and won’t participate.Thing is-there are a lot of people like me.
    My philosophy is simple:stay out of my life unless there is a damn good reason,and I’ll stay out of yours(generic usage).We don’t live in Hillary’s “village”,much as liberals would like us to.

  17. klaus:

    How can you suggest giving up on this blog? Look at the hysterical rantings you inspire from others — the entertainment value alone is worth your staying.

    Seriously, though, you’re facing another dead-end argument with the pro-gun lobby, who can’t seem to realize the hypocrisy in their belief that everyone who owns a gun is a responsible gun owner, except the “criminals” (who also obtain guns legally, as you rightly point out) who would be caught up if law enforcement worked properly — the same law enforcement that fails so badly that more people should own guns in virtually unregulated fashion.

    Agreeing to reasonable government regulation of firearms is tantamount to a Constitutional violation in pro-gun NRA Country — even though it’s the only logical way to maintain responsible gun ownership for the people who deserve it.

    Trying to stop any and all government regulation — that is, attempting to disrupt government’s efforts to protect people through trade-off — sounds awfully anarchistic (almost criminal), don’t you think?

    • People who “deserve” to exercise 2nd amendment rights?How magnanimous of you.Except for convicted,illegal alienss,and certain mentally incapacitated people,that means anyone.
      We have tons of gun laws already.
      Do you “deserve” your 1st,4th,5th,or 6th amendment rights?
      You can categorize my comments however you wish,it doesn’t change what the truth is.
      Not all gun owners are responsible,nor are owners of gas grills and cars and oxyacetyline torches.Or drain cleaner and insecticide.

      • Look, Joe: You’re not winning any converts to your cause by pushing erroneous information and turning every reply into a personal attack.

        You’ve resorted to the weakest kind of debate strategy — seizing on a single word or phrase and attempting to make that the issue, rather than actually defend your own position — and, in fact, presented another flaw in your stance.

        Here it is: bringing up gas grills, cars, and welding torches is a diversion from the debate, not something that moves it forward.

        Of course, if that had been your intent in the first place, you wouldn’t be persisting in airing out your pro-gun views on a thread focused on the murder of an abortion doctor.

        And I know, it was klaus who brought up guns first. He went off-topic first, I get that.

        But since you’re so interested, yes, I believe Americans deserve their rights, and that we have a responsibility to conduct ourselves in a civil, decent manner and contribute to governance in order to preserve and protect those rights. Our nation was created to provide a better form of government, and not temporarily or for as long as our chosen political party is in power.

        The anti-choice lobby is attempting to erode a legal right by imposing religious beliefs through force. (See how I brought us back to the topic? Try it sometime.) People of a similar theo-philosophical bent are trying to keep guns unregulated, and are trying to conflate the two issues into victimhood for themselves.

        The topic of this thread is spot-on, and you’ve done nothing to refute it. In fact, you’ve proven it (or, in your view maybe, you’ve played right into the hands of the stupid libs).

  18. Jesse, thanks for the vote of confidence. Truth be told, time was I liked mixing it up. But now I’m just a bit burnt out trying to present an argument to someone who doesn’t accept rational argument.

    As a matter of fact, Forbes Mag (real left-wing rag there) just published a list of America’s 15 most dangerous cities. The only one in the Northeast was Philly, and it was #15. Baltimore was #10, if that counts as Northeast. Detroit is first-barely ahead of Memphis TN–but most of the list is taken up by (in order) Las Vegas, Stockton CA, Orlando (say it ain’t so, Walt!), Little Rock, Charleston SC, Nashville, Baltimore (is that Northeast?), New Orleans, Baton Rouge, West Palm Beach, Charlotte NC, and finally Philly.

    Are we seeing a pattern? Cities in the SunBelt.

    The Northeast, with its more restrictive gun laws has a lower rate of violent crime than places with less restrictive laws.

    Perhaps someone should argue with Forbes?

    NY has a lot of violence simply because it’s so large. But millions of people live there without experiencing violent crime, and it has high concentrations of poverty. But it’s not on the list. Nothing in NJ, MA, NY, not Chicago…

    NH has one of the lowest poverty rates in the country. And, if you understand statistical analysis, there is a high correlation between poverty rate and gun violence. As a result, cities in the south with their higher levels of poverty are more dangerous per capita than cities in the north. With the exception of Detroit, which is a case unto itself.

    My point is simply this: yes, scum and lowlifes have guns. But, maybe stricter laws would prevent them from getting the guns. Gosh, what a thought, isn’t it?

    Some people suggest that a return to the Wild West where we all wear six-shooters would prevent this. Sort of a policy of Mutually Assured Destruction. But then, it didn’t quite work that well in the Old West, did it? In fact, it worked so badly that they made wearing guns illegal.

    Sort of like that low-tax, low-regulation argument the GOP is alsways trying to foist. That didn’t work the first time, either. Why do it again? Do you really have to touch the stove a second time?

    And there’s more: Iraq and Afghanistan have no gun restrictions, and pretty much every adult male has at least one gun. How’s that working out on the non-violence scale? Arming everyone to the teeth sure works well there. No doubt it would work here just as well.

    As my hero, Porky Pig said….That’s all, folks.

    • New England states have the most lax gun laws and the least crime.For the third or fourth time.
      Yes,poverty is often(but not always) associated with excessive violent crime.Do you suggest we have a more equal distribution of poverty?(I’m not serious).
      BTW I do have a degree in Criminal Justice from John Jay College and a total of 26 years experience in the field,so I think I know what I’m talking about.

    • That’s exactly what Ted Kennedy and his ilk have tried.It’s a backdoor sneak attack on gun rights.
      It won’t work because people can “roll their own”.

  19. What I’m actually saying is that it’s possible to identify where the bullet came from.
    I don’t believe it’s possible to ban guns, and some people have a legitimate need to protect themselves with a gun because other options are not there.
    But anyone who wants to be able to shoot another person should be accountable.
    We have a national problem of illegal guns, extremists assembling arsenals, and children shooting each other accidentally or out of some impulse.
    I know you are a responsible gun owner, and many people are. What are reasonable gun laws?

  20. The ammunition “ID” technology is not applicable to many weapons and can be defeated by anyone with a home workshop.
    If a firearm is recovered in connection with a crime it can be traced through the
    paperwork associated with the sale.
    Ithink the lws in RI are reasonable.They require a one time safety test for prospective purchasers of handguns,which I certainly have no objection to.There is a waiting period which is 7 days.Many states use “instant check” which requires no waiting period.
    I don’t think people should be able to transfer guns to other individuals without going through a licensed and having an “instant check” completed.In tha
    t regard I differ with the NRA of which I am a member.However,I understand their point in that giving ground makes people like Dianne Feinstein and Chuck Schumer overconfident about sweeping new restrictions.Interestingly,both of them have concealed carry permits while living in places where people like you and I are virtually barred from getting one.And one poster here mentioned the “hypocrisy”of pro-gun people.
    We already have laws barring felons,people convicted of domestic assault,illegal aliens,seriously mentally ill persons and some other categories from purchasing or possessing firearms.

  21. Jesse-well,you are in fact acknowledging what set off my discussion of firearms rights-it was Klaus’ conflation(useful word)of anti-abortion extremists and firearms rights advocates.I have stated my view on abortion.I don’t plan to be in front of a clinic anytime soon with a sign or yelling at someone,but even that is a far cry from shooting a doctor in a church.Extremists have succeeded admirably(??)in one thing:managing by their actions to slime everyone on their side of an issue because of the opportunists on the other side of the issue.
    It cuts both ways,pal-on the right and on the left.The extremists get to call the tune.
    One can be strongly committed to a position without being an extremist.
    Extremists are noted for such debating tactics as bombing,rioting,assassination, arson,vandalism,and techno-terror techniques such as hacking.
    Don’t think it all comes from one side.I have made statements based on my experience about immigration issues and been attacked as a racist and xenophobe by ignorant scumbags who don’t know one thing about me.
    Most of them are cowards hiding behind a convenient screen name.I have made my points directly to people involved in the debate face to face and none has had the nerve to say the same things to me because they realize how dumb they would sound.
    Obviously immigrationis way off topic here,I just was bringing up an example,since I’ve never commented much on abortion except for the parental notice aspect,which I maintain is a medical,rather than abortion related topic per se.

    • jb:

      Well, if you’re trying to extend your record of inflammatory comments for the sake of being inflammatory, you’ve done it in fine fashion.

      I mean, your thesis on extremism is interesting, though off-topic for the most part. Still, the insights your comments provide about you are striking.

      Like this gem: “Extremists have succeeded admirably(??)in one thing:managing by their actions to slime everyone on their side of an issue because of the opportunists on the other side of the issue.”

      Oh, so the issue is not that there’s a small faction of radical hate-mongers who promote violence against lawful medical procedures — it’s that their opponents have reason to call them on it?!

      And as far as “acknowledging” things, you do realize, don’t you, that you’ve acknowledged my previous statement: “You’re not winning any converts to your cause by pushing erroneous information and turning every reply into a personal attack.”

      The most recent proof, from you, is your statement that you have “been attacked as a racist and xenophobe by ignorant scumbags who don’t know one thing about me.
      Most of them are cowards hiding behind a convenient screen name.”

      I see. Instead of offering proof and trying to debate the merits of your own position, you’re just going to smear people who disagree, and use their disagreement with you as reason to believe you more.

      As fun as it’s been, I think I’ve had enough of following you down your dead-end rhetorical paths for one thread.

  22. I have debated the immigration face to face and I get a different reaction than the anonymous rants on line.
    You and Klaus share one thing in common-neither of you read what’s written;you read what you want to see.
    What I wrote about extremists was exactly true-whichever “side” of an issue they are on is hurt by their behavior.
    I’ve read quite a few of your comments and I think it’s time for me to say that you are a typical leftist,alwys trying to make people justify their positions by assuming yourself to be morally superior.Bunch of baloney.You know as much specific information as I know about you-very little,although you do know my real name and I don’t know yours.It must be people like you who elect Art Handy to the General Assembly.

    • jb:

      Okay, so you’re just a troll looking to get a rise out of people.

      Point proven. Now move on.

  23. Troll your ass.Move on-yeah,when and if I choose to,which I don’t if just to let you know I have your number.You who hides behind an alias telling me anything.That’s a joke.Move on….that’s your crew isn’t it-Moveon.com?

    • Threats?
      Personal insults?
      Conspiracy theories?
      Paranoid delusions?

      And this is supposed to prove you’re not a troll?

      Please, please let me know who you reach on that mythical number you have.

    • Looks like I’m going to need to close the thread here. Let’s all go do some yoga breathing and try to come back with compassion for our politically misguided brethren.

Comments are closed.