Jesurgislac’s Journal

January 29, 2010

Pro-life terrorist found guilty of first-degree murder

Scott Roeder, the pro-lifer who assassinated Doctor George Tiller on 31st May 2009, has today been convicted of premeditated, first-degree murder.

Roeder will be sentenced on 9th March 2010 – the day after International Women’s Day, which seems fitting, given his role in the US’s homegrown terrorist campaign against family planning and healthcare for women.

George Tiller’s willingness to save women’s lives by aborting late-term pregnancies had made him a target for the pro-lifer terrorists for decades before his death. His clinic was bombed in 1986: in 1993 he had been shot in both arms. But, with literally unimaginable courage and dedication, he had carried on working

Roeder was inspired to commit his murder by American TV-style Christian evangelism: he had knelt down and accepted Christ as his saviour in 1992 after watching the 700 club. According to his own testimony, as early as 1993 he planned to kill Tiller, and had fantasised about many different methods, including mutilating Tiller by chopping off both his hands: he thought of shooting George Tiller at his clinic, using a sniper rifle from a nearby church… but in the end what this Christian pro-lifer did was very simple: he walked into the church where Tiller welcoming the incoming congregation, put a gun to his victim’s head, and shot dead a man who had saved thousands of women’s lives.

What can we say? Except be relieved that the US courts can in fact convict terrorists of their crimes. Except acknowledge, publicly, what happened: Doctor George Tiller was a hero. Scott Roeder, his murderer, is a Christian pro-lifer who drew inspiration for his crime from the misogynistic brand of Christianity that fuels America’s most active homegrown terrorist movement.

Anyone who identifies themselves as a pro-lifer in America is identifying themselves with Scott Roeder and the other terrorists and murderers who attack women, healthcare for women, and women’s human rights, as well as the doctors, nurses, and other clinic staff who live in fear of the ironically-named pro-life movement in America.

The basics: why pro-choice is the only moral option

Advertisements

14 Comments »

  1. “Anyone who identifies themselves as a pro-lifer in America is identifying themselves with Scott Roeder and the other terrorists and murderers who attack women, healthcare for women, and women’s human rights, as well as the doctors, nurses, and other clinic staff who live in fear of the ironically-named pro-life movement in America.”

    Interesting. I wonder if anyone who identifies themselves as a musilm is identifying themselves with the 9-11 terrorists, the shoe bomber and all the other muslim terrorists.

    http://www.gargaro.com/otherside.html – shows you many examples of pro-choicers making threats and commiting violence towards pro-life activists.

    Do you by default identify with and agree with the violence of these folks just because of your beliefs.

    I don’t know. Maybe you do. In which case your projection makes sense.

    Comment by Jay Burns — January 29, 2010 @ 9:57 pm | Reply

    • Interesting. I wonder if anyone who identifies themselves as a musilm is identifying themselves with the 9-11 terrorists, the shoe bomber and all the other muslim terrorists.

      I guess a very ignorant person might wonder that. Someone who was confused about the difference between

      – an American political movement to deprive women of basic human rights and dignity, where violence begins by harassing patients entering a clinic but includes violence, arson, and murder
      – a global religion with over a billion believers around the world.

      Are you that ignorant, Jay? Do you care if people know you’re so ignorant? Do you want to sound muddled, confused, and stupidly Islamophobic?

      Or do you elevate “believing women shouldn’t be allowed to choose” to the status of a religion? Was Roeder’s murder of Doctor Tiller an act of faith in your mind?

      Comment by jesurgislac — January 30, 2010 @ 9:33 am | Reply

    • Do you by default identify with and agree with the violence of these folks just because of your beliefs.

      One of the items on the page you link to is:

      A pro-abortion man was arrested Saturday on suspicion of battery against pro-life advocates.

      A 37-year-old man named James Wilson was arrested after he allegedly punched and kicked two members of Voice For Life, a pro-life group protesting in front of the Sutter Maternity & Surgery Center abortion facility in Santa Cruz, California.

      The Santa Cruz County Sheriff’s Office said Wilson also brandished a knife and told one protester he was going to stab him. Wilson was arrested on suspicion of battery and brandishing a knife, both misdemeanors.

      Assuming that the anecdote about the knife is true – I wouldn’t put it past a group which harasses patients and staff to ramp up the incident – then no, I don’t identify with it: I would never draw a knife on anyone, and I can’t even begin to imagine doing that. I have no way to find out the truth of this anecdote, of course – “James Wilson” isn’t a very unusual name and the incident was nearly nine years ago. I don’t even know if he was a clinic escort or there to protect a friend or his wife or girlfriend as she went in to get an abortion past the harassers. I would guess the latter is more likely, because clinic escorts (you can read the weekly diary of one of them here) get training in learning to keep their temper, not lose it, to de-escalate a situation, not join the violence.

      Can I ask what you would do, Jay, if your friend was going to get an abortion – if she were miserable and upset and tired and conflicted and knowing this was the right choice for her but it had been a terribly emotionally draining one – and you saw that after all that, as she walked into the clinic, she had to deal with men who were screaming in her face and waving pictures at her and abusing her? You might like to think you would stay self-controlled and keep your temper no matter what they did to her, no matter how it upset her, no matter what, you would just keep your focus on protecting her and making sure she got inside the clinic safely. So would I hope that. But you asked if I could identify with a man who didn’t – who lost his temper and attacked the evil creeps attacking women.

      I don’t identify with his violence. But I can understand the fury that seeing a friend harassed and abused and bullied brings with it. What the harassment groups like Voice for Life do is a hideous and ugly thing in itself, with no purpose in it but to hurt and humiliate vulnerable women. There’s no excuse for it and no reason behind it, and as Voice for Life and other harassment groups well know, their semi-legal violence and harassment is backed up by the full-on terrorists behind them who commit arson, bomb clinics, physically attack staff, murder doctors.

      I do understand how a man faced with a gang of bullies attacking his girlfriend or his wife might lose it. He shouldn’t: but I understand it happening.

      You don’t? There’s no woman you love enough to want to protect her against bullies so much that you can understand physically attacking the bullies doing it?

      Comment by jesurgislac — January 30, 2010 @ 9:51 am | Reply

  2. Jesurgislac,

    In most states half or more of the population is pro-life, yet only a very small minority of the population has ever become violent over the movement. Much like the muslim faith. Calling me ignorant or an islamophobe does not make the comparison faulty. Sorry. I thought you’d see the similarities. It seems your anger has blinded you.

    You are very passionate about you beliefs and can understand how someone would turn to violence. Like you I can not vouche for the stories on that website, but by you own admission, it can’t be disproven. Also, taking just one example from the site and shedding doubt on it’s credibility does not discount the others.

    The over all point of my comment was that you cast guilt on an entire group (pro-lifers) due to the irrational, criminal, and wrong actions of a few. (obviously there are more than just Tiller) While at the same time maintaining that not all muslims are terrorists. The comparison is simple and glaring.

    How do I feel about abortion, abortion clinics and those who have undergone them. Fair questions. I have addressed them at my blog. burnsjn.blogspot.com feel free to rip apart my beliefs there. 🙂

    Comment by Jay Burns — January 30, 2010 @ 4:18 pm | Reply

    • In most states half or more of the population is pro-life

      After thirty years of propaganda and violence, it is unsurprising that a movement whose goal is to make criminals out of 1 in 3 women has succeeded in ensuring that so many people who are pro-choice are ashamed to say so. See Mike Lovell, below: actively pro-choice, yet claiming publicly to be “pro-life”.

      . Also, taking just one example from the site and shedding doubt on it’s credibility does not discount the others.

      I picked the first one on the page you linked me to.

      The over all point of my comment was that you cast guilt on an entire group (pro-lifers) due to the irrational, criminal, and wrong actions of a few.

      Nope. I cast guilt on all those who identify themselves with a terrorist movement.

      Comment by jesurgislac — January 30, 2010 @ 5:05 pm | Reply

  3. “Interesting. I wonder if anyone who identifies themselves as a musilm is identifying themselves with the 9-11 terrorists, the shoe bomber and all the other muslim terrorists.

    I guess a very ignorant person might wonder that. Someone who was confused about the difference between

    – an American political movement to deprive women of basic human rights and dignity, where violence begins by harassing patients entering a clinic but includes violence, arson, and murder
    – a global religion with over a billion believers around the world.”

    Actually it is, by the grand over-generalization to start with, a valid question. I’m pro-life (with the exception of rape/incest and medical necessity to save a mothers life from immediate danger), and yet I gladly provide security at the Planned Parnthood clinics in our area. While I agree with their free speech rights (which have to be conducted out across the parking lot by the street, 100 yds or more from the clinic itself), I do find some of what they say rather idiotic, and have had to remind them of their distance requirements, when they step into the parking lot. And technically your second point- “the global religion..billion believers” would also qualify for christians. And your first point is a matter of changing the semantics before justifying the violence, to include arson and murder.

    You can’t equate all pro-lifers with terrorists, any more than you can equate just any muslim with a terrorist. As with any group of any type, you have good ones and bad ones, and just like political parties, they are often painted over broadly by the reputation of the radicals.

    Roeder was a seriously deranged moron, who is part of the “christian” sect (one of over 50,000 sects that no one person knows all the names too) that apparently doesn’t read the Bible how it is written or for its actual intentions. As for the 700 club…well I think we all know that Moron can’t even begin to describe Pat Robertson.

    As for other stories on the page Jay provided (i didn’t look into further links provided on that page), they are legitimate stories, backed up by law enforcement documents, to show there are crazy morons on the pro-choice side too.

    There are two sides to the story, and I’m fully glad Roeder was convicted.

    Comment by Mike Lovell — January 30, 2010 @ 4:36 pm | Reply

    • I’m pro-life (with the exception of rape/incest and medical necessity to save a mothers life from immediate danger), and yet I gladly provide security at the Planned Parnthood clinics in our area.

      So you’re actually pro-choice. Why then do you feel the need to identify yourself with the terrorists? Is it fear? Is it shame? Why do you want to say you’re with Roeder?

      And technically your second point- “the global religion..billion believers” would also qualify for christians.

      Of course. I specifically qualified the sect of Christianity which directly inspired Roeder and which uses the pro-life movement as its political tool.

      You can’t equate all pro-lifers with terrorists

      Pro-lifers choose to identify themselves as part of a movement whose violence begins with the bullies at the clinic gates and steps up to terrorism and murder. If you don’t like being identified as part of that movement, why not be honest about your pro-choice convictions? Why are you ashamed that you believe – and act on your belief – that it’s the pregnant woman who ought to get to decide, not the goverment, not the courts, not the terrorists?

      Roeder was a seriously deranged moron

      Roeder believed the lies the pro-life movement tells, that abortion is “killing babies”. Most pro-lifers who repeat that lie know in their guts it’s not true, and don’t take the step Roeder did. But anyone who repeats it is supporting Roeder’s act.

      As for other stories on the page Jay provided (i didn’t look into further links provided on that page), they are legitimate stories

      I checked down the first link and discovered no links to actual evidence or background.

      Comment by jesurgislac — January 30, 2010 @ 5:11 pm | Reply

  4. “So you’re actually pro-choice. Why then do you feel the need to identify yourself with the terrorists? Is it fear? Is it shame? Why do you want to say you’re with Roeder?”

    I guess, however you want to make the definitions. Like I said, I’m not in favor of abortion in general, just in limited cases. As a form of birth control I think its a stupid idea. I don’t feel a need to identify myself with terrorists…I only fear paralyzation, and any shame I have is related to my inactivity of certain projects I should be doing. And I wouldn’t want to qualify myself with Roeder, I said he was a moron, I am an idiot…its a step above! 😛

    “Pro-lifers choose to identify themselves as part of a movement whose violence begins with the bullies at the clinic gates and steps up to terrorism and murder”

    I think the latter tries to identify itself with the former, in an effort to further politicize (which afterall, pro-choice and pro-life are merely political definitions that have invaded the mainstream parlance) and advance their ways. Those who bomb clinics, or shoot doctors, to me are in the same grouping as members of the old weather underground..full on radical morons!

    “I checked down the first link and discovered no links to actual evidence or background.”

    If you read beyond the first story, you will see involvement with actual law enforcement agencies, which by law carry the attached information regarding the cases, you can file a FOIA request for all that information. For instance the Crisis Pregnancy Center….provides information relating to birth control, testing, prenatal care, etc, etc… receiving bomb threats and vandalized..all documented with local law enforcement….then go down one more to an abortion doctor who admitted in court to fraudulent practices included the authorization of unsafe medical practices….this last one is just as much, if not more dangerous than any of them, especially concerning the health of a woman, seeking abortion related medical help.

    Comment by Mike Lovell — January 30, 2010 @ 5:30 pm | Reply

    • Like I said, I’m not in favor of abortion in general, just in limited cases.

      Yes, but so what? Being pro-choice doesn’t say anything about what your feelings are about abortion: just that you respect the right of each pregnant woman to make her own decision, and evidently, if you work as a clinic escort, that’s exactly what you do.

      I think the latter tries to identify itself with the former

      Nope. All one political movement: all with the same ultimate goal: to hurt women.

      Those who bomb clinics, or shoot doctors, to me are in the same grouping as members of the old weather underground

      Completely different political movement.

      If you read beyond the first story, you will see involvement with actual law enforcement agencies, which by law carry the attached information regarding the cases, you can file a FOIA request for all that information.

      I read down the whole page. I clicked on all the links. There is no evidence, anywhere on the page, that these stories come from anywhere but some pro-life terrorist’s active imagination.

      I doubt they were all just made up. But there’s no background information whatsoever: there’s one link to a dead page on CNN, and every other story either leads to a dead page or to another pro-life site. There was an incident last year where a small-time thug killed a man he had some crazy grudge against, then drove down the main street and shot at some people on the sidewalk, killing a second man. The second man happened to be a pro-life activist, and the pro-lifers suddenly got up and started claiming this “proved” people who were pro-choice were just as bad. They had no evidence the killer had any particular views on abortion or that the pro-lifer had been killed because of his beliefs (and they ignored the first murder because it spoiled the story). Distortion and lies are what being pro-life is all about.

      So why, again, are you ashamed to say proudly that you’re pro-choice?

      Comment by jesurgislac — January 30, 2010 @ 11:22 pm | Reply

  5. “Those who bomb clinics, or shoot doctors, to me are in the same grouping as members of the old weather underground

    Completely different political movement.”

    So you’re saying one set of irrational killers is different and therefore of lesser importance than another set of irrational killers? (in this particular case- you could divide them up pro- and anti-abortion and still have the exact same membership of the respective sides) Killers with terroristic intentions are one in the same, their respective causes be damned. That’s like saying Ted Bundy was a better person than Ted Kaczinksi (sp?–unabomber). They had different motives, but were still irrational in their acts of premeditated murder.

    “Yes, but so what? Being pro-choice doesn’t say anything about what your feelings are about abortion: just that you respect the right of each pregnant woman to make her own decision, and evidently, if you work as a clinic escort, that’s exactly what you do.”

    I respect the right of a woman to make a choice in which she has to make a decision regarding her physical safety or as the victim of a direct physical rights violation. To have an abortion just because she does not want a baby after having unprotected sex… I cannot repsect that. I won’t stop it, but I don’t respect it.
    And you say that such matters don’t involve how one feels, yet their is definite emotions being displayed on all sides of the matter, including your own invectives. not that I hold your statements as anything less than mine, but you can’t rationaly make a decision based on one’s feelings or emotions and how they determine one’s view of themself while clearly displaying your own.

    Comment by Mike Lovell — January 31, 2010 @ 12:01 am | Reply

    • And you say that such matters don’t involve how one feels, yet their is definite emotions being displayed on all sides of the matter

      Yes. Let me clarify this one point:

      It’s estimated about 1 in 3 women in the US will have had an abortion by the time they’re 45. Most of those abortions will have been carried out safely and legally. Pro-lifers have managed to ensure that more abortions take place than should be necessary, and that it is more difficult and more expensive for a woman to have an abortion, and they have succeeded by an active campaign of terrorism in whittling the number of doctors able and willing to perform abortions in an extreme medical emergency down to one – but women still can have abortions when they decide they need one.

      In the UK, pro-lifers have by and large stuck to verbal and legal campaigning and trying to insert anti-choice amendments into legislation: there has been no widespread terrorist campaign in the UK as in the US.

      As a direct result, although the pro-lifers have succeeded in ensuring that women are often ashamed to admit they have had an abortion, and politicians feel no shame at getting up and saying out loud in public that they think women having abortions is bad, nevertheless: access to abortion is much better. Any woman can decide up to 24 weeks (effectively, 20): after 24 weeks, if it’s an extreme medical emergency, there isn’t the situation there is in the US where there is just one doctor because all the rest have been murdered or frightened off by terrorism.

      There are still strong feelings on either side. But though the situation for women in the US is bad, it’s not as bad as the situation in Nicaragua, where pro-lifers have succeeded in ensuring that a woman who will die if she doesn’t have an abortion will be let die.

      There is a difference between action and words. By your words you yourself claim to be part of the terrorist movement, to disrespect and want to hurt and humiliate women. But by your actions in working as a clinic escort you prove you do respect a woman’s right to choose.

      Comment by jesurgislac — January 31, 2010 @ 8:13 am | Reply

  6. o you’re saying one set of irrational killers is different and therefore of lesser importance than another set of irrational killers?

    No, I’m saying the Weather Underground and the pro-life movement were two completely different political movements. The other difference between them is that the Weather Undergound long since went inactive, while the pro-life political movement just got worse and worse.

    I respect the right of a woman to make a choice in which she has to make a decision regarding her physical safety or as the victim of a direct physical rights violation. To have an abortion just because she does not want a baby after having unprotected sex… I cannot repsect that. I won’t stop it, but I don’t respect it.

    And it’s your “I won’t stop it” that makes you pro-choice. Whatever misogyny leads you to claim that women aren’t worthy of your respect, you evidently do respect her right to decide – otherwise you wouldn’t be a clinic escort. Plus, every pregnancy carries risk to a woman’s physical safety, and who gets to decide if not her? Pro-lifers think the government should get to decide: pro-choicers know it’s the woman.

    And you say that such matters don’t involve how one feels, yet their is definite emotions being displayed on all sides of the matter

    Of course. Pro-lifers hate and disrespect women: that’s a feeling. I hate bullies, misogynists, murderers, and terrorists. That’s a feeling too. The difference is, I’m angry in defense of human rights: pro-lifers are angry in attacking human rights.

    Comment by jesurgislac — January 31, 2010 @ 12:22 am | Reply

  7. out of curiosity…how do I make statements in italics and use of bold letters, to help separate things in the future? There aren’t any tools to click on here in the comment section.

    Comment by Mike Lovell — January 31, 2010 @ 6:04 pm | Reply

    • Use HTML. The code for Bold is <B>text</B> (or <strong>text</strong>) and the code for italics is <I>text</I> (or <em>text</em>).

      “B” for bold works most places; “strong” works everywhere. Likewise with “I” and “em” (for emphasis).

      Comment by jesurgislac — January 31, 2010 @ 11:21 pm | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: