Friday, July 20, 2018

No Justification For Murder

Yesterday's murder of Dr. George Tiller was wrong.

No matter where you stand on the abortion issue, yesterday's murder of Dr. George Tiller in church in Wichita, Kansas had no justification.  The killer was a radical idealogue who operated under his own volition.

Unless you're one of the brain-dead morons who read The Huffington Post, The Daily Kos or any of the other ultra left-wing bash sites.

Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic, among other wacko liberal bloggers, have tried to lay Tiller's murder at the feet of one Bill O'Reilly and the rest of the anti-abortion movement.

They couldn't be more wrong.

First of all, as one who watches Bill O'Reilly regularly, not once has O'Reilly ever advocated vigilante retribution against Dr. Tiller.  He has reported the facts about Tiller.  That left-wing liberal anti-life abortionists refuse to listen to facts is indicative of how blind they choose to be when it comes to the facts.  So I'm going to say this once and I'm going to say it in small words so the ultra-left wackos who read my columns looking for a reason to make up lies about me and post it as mindless drivel in the response area will understand:

Bill O'Reilly did not incite the murder of Dr. Tillman.  He is not responsible and to say that he is is typical left-wing rhetoric looking for ammunition to bolster their case to pass the (un)Fairness Doctrine.

O'Reilly himself just said on TV, "You can't stop me from commenting on [Tiller]."  So long as the First Amendment stands, O'Reilly and I have the right to report from our sides of the street.

Personally, I did not like what Tiller did.  I believe it made him a cold-blooded murder and he should have been in jail for it.

But under no circumstances would I support the idea of killing Tiller.

A friend and I were discussing the Tiller case and he told me about something a friend of his said to him in response to the killing.  My friend's friend said, "I was hoping that we would come to the place in society where we could disagree on something without feeling the need to kill each other for it."

Here here!

About the Writer

D. E. Carson is a writer for BrooWaha. For more information, visit the writer's website.
Want to write articles too? Sign up & become a writer!

3 comments on No Justification For Murder

Log In To Vote   Score: 4
By Lady D on June 02, 2009 at 07:43 am

We value life in the womb, but after it is a human being, we actually invent was to kill it.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 0
By D. E. Carson on June 03, 2009 at 09:26 pm

Lady D - you have a very valid point.  But frankly, abortion supporters are the ones who are looking for ways to kill the baby while in the womb too.

Julian - I have never heard O'Reilly himself call Tiller "the Baby Killer"  I have heard him say, "Tiller, who is called 'Tiller the baby killer' by such and such."  As one who studied journalism in college, there is a fine line between editorializing and reporting.  I mostly editorialize and at least I recognize that.  O'Reilly only editorializes in his Talking Points Memo at the beginning of his show and he always respects the distinction between editorializing and reporting.  He is very careful to refrain from letting his personal feelings disctate what he says.  He has let it be known that he is very much against anything that puts children in danger and in the case of Tiller, he certainly let it be known that he didn't believe Tiller was helping anyone.  There is never a need to terminate a pregnancy in the late term, EVER.

I, too, wonder if anti-abortion groups will ever speak up about how Tiller's murder makes them look.

 Report abuse

Log In To Vote   Score: 1
By D. E. Carson on June 06, 2009 at 12:48 am

Julian, since you seem to be the only one willing to discuss the actual topic at hand, I'll respond to you and ignore all the O'Reilly bashers out there.  They hate O'Reilly and that's their right, but I don't have to respond directly to their bloviating.

You on the other hand brought up the point that there is a distinction between "pro-choice" and "pro-abortion".  Not trying to sound obtuse here, but I'm not seeing the difference.  I read your comments twice and I'm still going back to them.  Perhaps because I can't justify in my mind that anyone would want to just throw away a baby for no reason.  It seems that is what you are saying most people think when they hear the term "pro-abortion".

To me, the term "pro-abortion" is interchangable with "pro-choice" in that the terms offer abortion as an option in birth control as much as condoms are an option.  One of the biggest gripes O'Reilly had against Tiller was that Tiller was found to have performed late-term abortions for women who just didn't want that baby growing in them.  But God forbid that she put the child up for adoption.  I will never understand that viewpoint -- even from a wholly secular position in the adoption versus abortion argument, adoption would have to win out.

This even holds out in the argument that there might be a need for the abortion late in the term.  So if a baby is able to live outside the mother but has not reached full term, why drill a hole in its head and puree its brains?  Let's assume for a moment that there does come a time when a woman cannot carry a baby full term due to health reasons.  If the pregnancy is far enough along that the baby could survive outside the mother, birth it by C-section and then put the child in an incubator and put it on the adoption list.  Give the birth mother a form to sign saying she surrenders all parental rights to the child and then let adoption agencies handle finding a child parents who will take care of it.

(Gosh, D.E., you're starting to sound like a liberal in your old age...)

Please, don't be insulting.

I would favor something like that just as most of the screaming, maniac liberals on here should but probably don't simply because I said it and they didn't.

As for your point about the woman's emotional state.  I would like to posit this question to a woman out there, is there something about the idea that an aborted fetus is dead that offers some sense of finality because there's not a snowball's chance in Hell of that child coming back into your life someday and screwing up all of your well-laid plans?  Now before all of my stark-raving maniacial liberal friends out there start frothing at the mouth, this is a hypothetical question directed at one specific hypothetical situation.  Please don't try to construe my question as applicable to all situations.

For now, it seems we both agree that the murder of Dr. George Tiller was senseless, that it is not indicative of how most pro-life supporters conduct themselves and that for as long as people continue to have children, the debate over when life begins will never be definitively settled.  I find it most amusing that science cannot provide a definitive answer as to the exact moment life commences any more than it can provide a definitive answer as to the origins of the universe.

 Report abuse

Add A Comment!

Click here to signup or login.

Rate This Article

Your vote matters to us