Why silence on pro-lifer's murder?

Democrats have been against handgun violence for years. Wasn't us fighting against background checks and registration.

I don't use violence against abortionists as an excuse to condemn all pro-lifers. I use it to condemn the so-called pro-lifers who decry such murders with the caveat that essentially means the dead doctor got what he deserved.

Speaking of semantics and rhetoric, it's much easier to devalue Tiller as an abortionist (bad guy) rather than a medical practitioner who happens to perform a perfectly legal medical procedure named, abortion.

In other words, a doctor.

To not put too fine a point on it they are not outraged because they are glad he was killed.

I know the Right has been acting insane lately, but are you guys like really insane too?

To not put too fine a point on it they are not outraged because they are glad he was killed.

Charles C., I don't know who the "they" in that sentence is exactly -- "the folks under the illusion that they create opinion"; OK, like, for instance? -- but regardless, this strikes me as an exceptionally mean-spirited view. More likely, most commentators are looking at this murder as basically an isolated case. There's no larger movement that's been targeting pro-life demonstrators, putting them on "hit lists," comparing their activities to the Holocaust, condoning violence against them or hailing their killers as heroes. So a murder like this one doesn't seem to reflect or portend anything bigger and more threatening. When an abortion doctor is killed, it's much easier to see that as an expression of a movement that's been flirting with terrorism over this issue for quite a while now, and therefore more obvious why it might behoove people to condemn it.

I agree that this is a senseless tragedy, and I'm glad that President Obama and others who support abortion are saying clearly that killing pro-life protesters is not acceptable.

However, the story here, to me, is largely about the coverage. Take this Detroit News column by Laura Berman, for example:

http://www.detnews.com/article/20090913/OPINION03/909130307/1442/OPINION0354/Murdered-anti-abortion-activist-provoking-until-the-end

Berman doesn't come right out and blame Jim Pouillon for at least some part of his own murder--but she gets pretty close.

Is this sort of thing acceptable? Should it be?

Rod: "... though I am glad to hear our pro-choice president condemn the shooting."

Pro-choice President? For years, we placed politicians in one of two categories on this issue: pro-life or pro-choice. But for some, especially for those in the hard-left wing of the Democratic Party, it is not enough to be merely pro-choice. Oh, no.

These folks are pro-abortion, in the sense that they support using tax dollors to subsidize abortions BOTH here and abroad, oppose modest proposals like parental notification requirements and bans on late-term abortions, oppose conscience clauses for medical professionals and support FOCA.

President Obama isn't pro-choice. He's pro-abortion.

abort--er, doctor--

I know you guys love your own wit and wisdom but Tiller was a doctor, just like the doctor I see once a month, and every other doctor. You may not like his specialty, but since it's been made necessary for some doctors to go to work in armored vans his rarity meant specializing.

Then there's that idea that the hard left doesn't just support abortion, we're demanding woman be able to get one up to the day the baby is born.

Nonsense of course.

There's rarely been a group self-pitying, woe is me than those standing outside abortion clinics with pictures of cut-up fetuses with tears streaming down their faces. It's a personal affront that a perfectly legal procedure has yet to be stopped even after 35+ years of sidewalk harassment.

But then I might be depressed too if I had shoveled billions of dollars into the pockets of GOP politicians who promise you year, after year abortion will be outlawed in you give them just another hundred of your hard earned dollars to fight the left.

Two terms of Reagan, one terms of Bush elder, two terms of Bush junior and what have you got to show for it?

Except for parental notification, which we fight mainly because we know it's a stalking horse, and onerous waiting periods in a few states. The real success has come from making it so physically dangerous to be a doctor who does abortions, so likely that a doctor will be harassed day and night that there's been a real decrease in the actual ability to find a place to get it done.

But only if you don't have money. So congratulations, you've made it harder for poor women who are pregnant.

It's depressing because you haven't changed the law and we know it. And with Obama in the White House the liberals on the court can finally retire.

So we have no need to shoot your sidewalk witnesses and we certainly wouldn't celebrate anyone who did. You don't kill the irritating and the ineffective, and besides we're the guys against handguns in the first place.

The fact that you squander your money year after year on the anti-abortion groups instead of perhaps funding real support for pregnant teens (not those bogus crisis pregnancy centers)means you are doing less to further your cause than you could if you did that instead. (Not to mention what really supporting access to contraceptives and advice on using them might do to the need for abortion in the first place.)

So my condolences to the guy's family, another victim of senseless gun violence. Another one of many. Maybe you could start devoting time to getting the NRA to change its ways?

expect you mean Planned Parenthood. I plan to give them a nice fat donation the day that a donkey is able to fly. Until then, too d*mn bad for you.

Yeah, tragic.

Two, maybe three more Supreme Court appointments and seven more years of Federal judicial appointments.

"So congratulations, you've made it harder for poor women who are pregnant." RB TR: This only makes sense if you deem abortion desirable or neutral. From the Anti-Choice perspective, a term I use for myself, we'd be making it more likely for poor kids to get a chance at life. For poor women to reconsider and have kids who may make them proud some day. I know kids born poor. Maybe they're not as happy with their life as you, but most of them prefer being born to not being born. In things one deems undesirable there's little or no outcry of making access harder for the poor. Cigarette taxes are most definitely regressive and disproportionately impact the poor. However trying to raise an issue of this is rare. Cigarettes are bad. Poor women shouldn't be doing them, so reduced access is good. Granted I worry about those taxes disproportionately impacting the poor, but to an extent this is because I don't think there's a concommitment of getting the poor the help they need to quit smoking. I favor various supports for poor pregnant women.

As for the killings it is possible there are both ideological and non-ideological motivations. These three guys ticked him off. (He didn't get to kill the third) Maybe the reasons for each one are different. Or the reasons for each one are perhaps complicated.

Why silence on pro-lifer's murder?

CNN covered this story and Fox News was all over it, but they didn't mention that the shooter was not a member of the pro-choice and hhad shot at at leart one other person in a different location. He wasn't upet by the views of the protesters, rather that they were doing do in front of children.

I don't care if the motive of the man who killed James Pouillon was to terrorize people in the pro-life movement or if it was more of a personal grudge. Mr. Pouillon had every right to protest abortions even though I might not agree with his method of doing so (ie. the graphic illustrations on his signs) but the idea that it is ok to murder someone for holding up a graphic sign is outrageous. I'm pro-choice and moderate, and I utterly condemn this act of murder and terrorism.

My only caveat is that I hope that what seems to me like an increase in political violence will start to be damped down by an effort at increasing civility on all sides.

The abortion protester was one of those people who had nothing better to do all day than protest. Per one of the news articles, he had been doing it since 1997, when he began protesting abortions in front of a local car dealer.
The next guy the murderer shot was some junkyard owner, and he had I gather, at least one other person on his list. My take is the man wasn't shot because of WHAT he was protesting, he was just another guy that got on the murderer's nerves.

Rod has this absolutely right. Just because a despicable murder is committed, does not obligate everyone with any kind of public profile or cause to comment upon it. Everyone could have a boilerplate press release "The murder of ________________ was despicable." (Because its murder, no other data necessary).

When I first heard about it, I did make some snide remarks about liberals learning the value of owning and using guns. But when I read the news coverage (yes, it was covered in the news), and saw the man's photo... well, if we're going to indulge in stereotypes, he looked like the kind of up-north good ol' boy who drives around in a pick-up truck with a gun rack on top.

It doesn't matter what his motive was. He killed an innocent man who wasn't threatening the life of anyone. End of story.

I'm hesitant to say this, but I think they see abortion simply as a surgery. So it's odd if they object to an abortion being on a channel that shows live surgeries, but it's not that odd they would be uncomfortable seeing it when picking their kids up from school or buying a car. They might object to all surgical photos in that case.

And no I don't see it as simply a surgery. I am a bit uncomfortable with the confrontational style of protests, but it's not that objectionable to me. I imagine if an anti-war protester showed graphic images of war to kids, and was killed for that, there'd be bigtime outrage. Still it's not personally what I'd do.