Gotta love the extreme right – spew patently absurd inflammatory rhetoric about doctors like George Tiller one minute, and then “condemn” the horror of their murders the next.
Also OMG it’s a new comic!!!
*edit*
Related to this topic: Ben Burgis has a fabulous dissection of Edward Fraser’s take on Tiller’s murder, wherein Fraser at once provides a lengthy argument that Tiller is in fact much worse than Dahmer and thus forfeited his right to live, and at the same time tries to assert (on dubious grounds) that Tiller’s murder was wrong.
Spoiler: Dialetheism once again solves everything!
“Oh, you meant I was now being redacted and censored from commenting here.”
Not sure what you’re on about here. Nothing censored, I just hadn’t moderated your comments yet.
At any rate, this clearly isn’t going anywhere. Others like Thom and Wm are capable of disagreeing in a way that lends itself to fruitful discussion – all we get from you is vague accusations and deliberate (or careless) misrepresentations of the arguments. I don’t think there’s much left to be said that hasn’t been said already, so as of now the comments on this particular thread are closed.
*edit*
Though I have had my fill of this topic (for the time being, anyway), I was convinced by some who are interested in seeing this discussion continue to keep the comment thread open. So while I most likely won’t be chiming in on this thread anymore myself, if any of you are interested in discussing the topic further, feel free.
Michael,
There can be and indeed there is reasonable disagreement about abortion. The pro-choice position ranks among the reasonable views. And there is a significant distinction between matters of species membership and matters of moral standing—a distinction well worth considering even if it turns out that belonging to Homo sapiens is (as many pro-lifers would maintain) sufficient for possessing a strong right to life.
Do you disagree with any of the above? If not, I can’t say I see what the dispute is over.
Yay we are back to this again! Me and my odd love of back and forth banter.
Michael B: Alright you speak of my and Chaospet’s logic so naturally I am curious as to your own logic. How is it not hypocritical? Using my own logic the only way I could see it as not hypocritical is if, after comparing TIller to Hitler, and saying that Tiller’s death was a tragedy you also meant that Hitler’s death was a tragedy. Or at least to say they both had it coming. Fraser is actually less hypocritical in this respect. Basically he said that Tiller was a “greater monster” than Dahmer and that he would shed “no tears” for him. In essence saying that Tiller had it coming. Sure (he says) he doesn’t condone the murder but that is different from not being satisfied with it. He does not turn around and say the equivalent of (to paraphrase) ‘he had it coming and I will shed no tears for him, BUT it was terrible and awful and I feel sorry for his family.’
My own opinion of the matter is that Fraser is crazy, but at least he doesn’t appear to be as much of a hypocrite as those who said how awful and evil Tiller was (compared to Hitler) than said that they were unhappy that he was murdered. I draw a distinction between condoning and satisfied or happy. I still think that there is hypocrisy and it does not make all that much sense to not condone the murder if Tiller really was as bad as Hitler or Dahmer as I believe that to be an absurd comparison for my reasons given above. But at least he appears less hypocritical to me, if Fraser were the Blue Shirt in the comic he would more likely have said something along the lines of “While I do not condone murder, yes I am rather happy that Tiller was murdered.”
But enough of me ranting on hypocrisy etc. I want to see the logic behind how one can say that someone was as evil as Hitler but not me happy about, or at least content with, the man’s death.
Thank you.
Chaospet: Thank you for keeping this open for discussion!
Thanks for reopening… I did have some distinctions I wanted to make.
“Using my own logic the only way I could see it as not hypocritical is if, after comparing Tiller to Hitler, and saying that Tiller’s death was a tragedy you also meant that Hitler’s death was a tragedy.”
I disagree. Hitler’s death was the direct consequence of a just war, and the outcome of the war was the ending of the Holocaust. Tiller’s death was NOT the outcome of a just war, and the action that ended Tiller’s life will not improve ANYTHING for the humans it was allegedly intended to help. There is nothing whatsoever to celebrate about the action that ended Tiller’s life; it was therefore a purposeless killing.
Both Dahmer’s and Hitler’s “executions” (Hitler was technically a suicide) were effectual in ending the horrors that their lives brought. Tiller’s “execution” (actually a vigilante murder) wouldn’t do that at all.
In another message:
“Just curious – if the “Dahmer can kill” law were in effect, and a vigilante did bring him down instead of trying to do something about the government, would you condemn his actions?”
This is such an enormously different case from reality that I can’t even imagine it. I can imagine the government ignoring Dahmer — perhaps he bribed the county, state, and federal prosecutors; but I can’t imagine what would lead to a situation where Dahmer (as he was) actually had a law saying he could kill as he did.
And precisely HOW the situation arose is essential information, because a killing is a very serious thing. Would killing Dahmer get rid of or undermine whatever caused that law? Then killing Dahmer would be an effective act of war, and would be justified if war were otherwise justified.
There’s a lot more to just war theory than simple effectiveness, but it’s certainly _necessary_ to an act of just war. I explained in my first post that there are other possible justifications that Tiller’s murder also does not meet.
My point stands: killing Dahmer/Hitler and killing Tiller are fundamentally morally different. Even if you can justify the first pair, you cannot justify the second by any legitimate means.
Going back in time a little:
“However, I believe (and I think almost all of us believe) that there are times when vigilantism is justifiable.”
There are times and places in which vigilantism has been a necessary part of the law (whether it was formally included or not); not all societies write down every part of the law under which they operate. There are also times where one can be accused of vigilantism for defending oneself (although I would say that this is a bad definition, and anyhow it has nothing to do with the case being discussed).
But in general, society has an order, and vigilantism that doesn’t follow that order will not have orderly results. Unless your only goal is anarchy, you will not achieve your goals. If you simply want Tiller to die… Wait. He will. If you want the killings to stop, act in a manner that is likely to stop the killings — not in a manner that won’t.
-Wm
Wm Tanksley: I see your point, and I actually agree, but I was trying to look at it from someone else’s perspective. As Michael B might say: you are ignoring the personhood of the fetus, what I mean is that Tiller’s death stopped the fetus holocaust that just as Hitler’s death stopped the WW2 holocaust. I don’t see it that way, but if someone really did see it that way (and that is what is implied by stating that Tiller was as bad as Dahmer) than why say Tiller’s murder was a tragedy? Seems hypocritical.
And for arguments sake let us say that the assassination attempt on Hitler succeeded. Would that have been a tragedy? That would not have been due to a just war (well, maybe indirectly), but to vigilantism (directly). I mean, I wouldn’t make a fuss about it and call it a tragedy. So If Tiller really is as bad as Hitler (as some claim) what is the negative fuss about his death?
This is only if you accept the premise that Tiller was actually as bad as Hitler or Dahmer in every moral way. And the premise that Hitler’s death was not a tragedy (which is implied by the general view of Hitler in the first place). I suppose I am trying to play devil’s advocate here. As I said for me it seems totally absurd to compare Hitler and Tiller like that, but from the point of view of someone who seriously feels that Tiller was as guilty of genocide and just as morally twisted why mourn his death as a tragedy?
“what I mean is that Tiller’s death stopped the fetus holocaust that just as Hitler’s death stopped the WW2 holocaust.”
What I’m saying is that an action leading to Tiller’s death will NOT also stop abortion; therefore an action leading to Tiller’s death is not an act of effective war (and therefore not an act of just war). The odds are good that killing Tiller won’t even reduce the number of late-term abortions, and it’ll certainly make advocating pro-life MUCH harder in general.
Killing Hitler was the result of the actions that won WWII in Germany, and those action did in fact stop the Holocaust. (The same is NOT so clear about the actions that ended WWII in Japan, whence the controversy — well, there are other reasons.)
“And for arguments sake let us say that the assassination attempt on Hitler succeeded. Would that have been a tragedy? That would not have been due to a just war (well, maybe indirectly), but to vigilantism (directly).”
Honestly, I’m not sure. Just War Theory doesn’t actually include an explicit prohibition of assassination; I believe that’s present due to the realization that the first leader who allows it will be on the business end of every other nation’s assassination attempts.
I’m certain that official assassination during a war doesn’t qualify as vigilantism, though. Unofficial assassination is different (i.e. Bonhoeffer), but again, since this doesn’t qualify as an effective act of war, I don’t think we can qualify it as assassination either.
“from the point of view of someone who seriously feels that Tiller was as guilty of genocide and just as morally twisted why mourn his death as a tragedy?”
I had a hard time understanding this. I wouldn’t mourn Tiller if he died of natural causes, although I’d respect his friends and family as they did so. I see no reason to mourn his death simply because it was a senseless killing, except in the same sense that I mourn all senseless killings (perhaps that was the sense you meant it). In fact, I don’t see any obligation to mourn his death at all, and calling it a “tragedy” seems to twist the meaning of the word beyond recognition; it’s a crime, not a tragedy.
But I do morally condemn his killing, which means that I hold his killer responsible for moral error; and I’ve explained why everyone should do so (not only people who hold to a specifically Christian pro-life view).
-Wm
Wm Tanksley: The question of effectiveness is a good one. However, Tiller was one of the few who would perform late term abortions, and his clinic did end up closed. In terms of public relations it was a disaster though. Almost like dropping a bomb on Rommel, it got rid of one of Germany’s top generals… but Rommel may have been involved in a plot against Hitler which failed because he was out of commission (though if Rommel actually was turning against Hitler or that is only what Hitler thought I have no idea). Nonetheless, even if wounding Rommel may have been more disastrous than not it was an act of war.
I was referring to the attempt on Hitler’s life that came from Germany, not from the Allies, which makes it more like vigilantism if not completely I suppose. It wasn’t planned by the enemy but by the military itself. More like a coup maybe.
Perhaps mourn was a bad choice of words, I’ll try to re-phrase: If someone hates Tiller so much as to see him as morally the same or worse than Hitler, why would they say that they are sorry he died?
I figure it means one of three things. Either they never really considered Tiller to be as bad as Hitler in the first place or they would have said the same thing about Hitler’s death if it was not justified by war or (finally and perhaps more likely) they really are not sorry he was murdered and are only saying so to attempt to (badly) mend the damage done publicly to their cause.
I’m not saying that everyone who did not like Tiller is happy he was murdered, but those who actually believed that he was as bad or worse than Hitler are happy morally that he was murdered. Just unhappy about the consequences of that murder. Like a psychopath. Then again how many people actually considered him as bad as Hitler… I hope very few. It is an absurd comparison anyway.
Canuovea,
It requires neither happiness nor elation nor anything remotely like it. I, for example, was nonplussed in one sense, neither happy nor sad, in another sense was saddened by the whole complex of what it reflects societally (from the ethos and libertine amorality that almost applauds abortions at times – in the name of “choice” – on through to Tiller’s murder itself and the type of tragic figure he reflects, both individually and representative of a larger species within society).
And, no, it’s not an “absurd” comparison. In some respects it’s a highly instructive comparison that illuminates the value of life and contrasts it with the devaluation of life in the real world, in too many areas of society and culture. From that aspect, minimally, it’s far indeed from “absurd,” to the contrary, it’s highly illuminating and worthy.
As to the charge of “hypocrisy,” it’s a charge based upon a certain dullity of apprehensions, upon fundamental incomprehensions, seemingly an unwillingness to comprehend. You, as with chaospet, as with Ben at blog-and-not-blog, presumably as with Leiter and others, have failed, for example, to appreciate the value of the analogy I drew with the acquaintance (essentially, a friend of some other closer friends) of mine earlier in this thread.
If such intensely problematic existential and moral situations were all equivalent and were all exact parallels of one another, then you’d likely have a point. But they’re not. (Hitler, Dahmer and Tiller respectively reflect massive social/political evil; personal evil not at all sanctioned by society; and in Tiller’s case a set of inter-related, highly varied and intensely intertwined evils, conundrums, individual situations and personal choices, etc.)
If they were otherwise, if they were exact parallels of one another in every respect, then the simple and straight-forward analogy and the charge of hypocrisy would hold, would be reasonable, but they’re not, not remotely so, and it’s absurd, as well as a bit stupid and uncomprehending, to imagine otherwise.
Michael B: Okay, you have just stated that the existential and moral situations of Hitler, Dahmer, and Tiller were different and therefore the charge of hypocrisy was invalid. “Tiller’s case a set of inter-related, highly varied and intensely intertwined evils, conundrums, individual situations and personal choices, etc.” I agree that the situations are different between the three of them, in fact this is one major reason that I say the comparison between them is absurd.
In a sense it is like comparing apples, oranges and tomatoes. All could be labeled fruit, as apples and oranges are. It is debatable that tomatoes are fruit (I remember a debate like this in grade 3…). Tiller is like the tomatoes, sure Hitler, Dahmer and Tiller could all be grouped under the heading “evil” and the individual cases make it difficult to compare even to other “evils.” Tiller could be placed under the heading “good” (by quite a few people, if not a majority than a very strong minority). This is because of the “conundrums, individual situations and personal choices” that so separate the Tiller case from Hitler and Dahmer. Like a tomato there are reasons for him to fit in either catagory.
So not only does the comparison between Hitler, Dahmer, and Tiller seem silly because of the lack of parallelness (if you would) but it is also more complex (leaving room for the reasonable disagreement and debate that was brought up earlier).
As for your argument that it is not absurd because in “some respects it’s a highly instructive comparison that illuminates the value of life and contrasts it with the devaluation of life in the real world, in too many areas of society and culture.” My first post was one that claimed that the comparison between Hitler and Tiller was not unwarranted on some levels, specifically ideas of personhood (not that they were the same but that they differed from other peoples and this let them justify killing). It is still a very far step (absurd?) to then say that Hitler (or Dahmer) and Tiller are morally (in all moral respects) equivalent. As you said the cases are so different in so many ways than each other that it makes it silly to truly compare them on that kind of level. I grant that on some (mostly individual) levels there are undoubted similarities but it all does not add up properly in the final tally, “and it’s absurd, as well as a bit stupid and uncomprehending, to imagine otherwise” as you say, just because the cases are so different.
In order to say HItler/Dahmer and Tiller are morally equal is to ignore those differences. Once having done that it makes little sense to claim that it isn’t hypocrisy because of those same differences which had to be ignored in order to say they are morally equal in the first place.
You’re applying a literalism that was never intended in the first place. (I’m speaking only for myself, so that indulgence will of course need to be allowed.) It’s not like comparing apples, oranges and tomatoes, it’s more like comparing Jonathan, Red Delicious and Granny Smith apples.
And even though I overtly invoke my earlier analogy again, you make no attempt whatsoever to understand its applicability here. You seemingly have your conclusion so firmly and so absolutely in mind, that you’re unable to transcend that narrow and tendentious view. Do you understand the applicability of that analogy?
Or, let’s take another and still notably different analogy. The first subgroup that was killed as such (i.e. for simply being a part of that group) during Hitler’s reign were those among the mentally disabled. He did not kill them en masse or in great numbers at that earlier stage, but he did euthanize some via state sanction for simply being a part of that group.
That was an evil, in some peoples’ minds at least (though not Peter Singer and others, presently), equal to subsequent evils that were committed on more of a mass scale, foremostly targeting Jews of course. Does that mean that targeting Hitler for assassination early in that period (c. 1936) would have been warranted? (Foregoing the obvious advantage of any hindsight at this point.)
With both analogies I could draw out all the inferences at great length and in great detail as well, expending several hundred words or even a thousand or more. But I’m of the opinion that if you cannot, or will not, do that yourself, then it would be a wasted effort still again.
Essentially, the directly and narrowly applied analogy, that “since they’re morally equal” we should also applaud a theoretical “vigilantism” equally across the board is stultifyingly simplistic. Human society and the manner in which people variously conceive human society and relevant aspects thereof to the cases presently in question, doesn’t work that way. There are other factors at play, e.g., as Feser noted when he invoked natural law applications and as I’m invoking in a more general sense still.
Seemingly, you are so simplistically, narrowly and tendentiously focused upon assigning this “hypocrite” and similar tags to others (whose arguments and conclusions you preemptively have determined you don’t like) despite all the different aspects of the arguments and principles that need to be taken into account, that you’re unable to step back and even think commonsensically, much less from within others’ points of view. Likewise, perhaps you’ve already decided that “equal means equal, gosh darn it” in the most simplistic and undiscriminating sense, and despite what else has been said from the very beginning (e.g., natural law and differentiations stemming from its application) and therefore the arguments presented are stupid, hypocritical, etc.
They are no such thing.
Okay then. My use of tomatoes apples and oranges was partially to show the differences involved, your use of different kinds of apples seems to indicate that we just see the differences, well, differently. I really do not want to get into arguing metaphors (or smilies whatever) because that opens up another can of worms.
Sorry I should have addressed the earlier analogy but I got lazy. But to be on the same page I want to make sure I understand it. The physician, who essentially slowly tortured an acquaintance to death, got off the equivalent of scott free. Killing him was briefly discussed as being just but ultimately (ignoring consequences) not gone through with even though this physician (from your point of view) was guilty of first or second degree murder. The reason was other moral considerations.
I think I understand. I wonder though, is there a point where killing the physician would not be considered a terrible moral mistake? Say if he knew that he was causing this kind of suffering and did it anyway or if he did the same thing to thousands of other people and never suffered any penalties for it? Please correct me if I am missing something.
Now for the Hitler analogy. That is a difficult question, ignoring the other wrongs that Hitler did to other groups around the same time. I do not know if I could give an honest answer. I do not know if I would call it equal to evils committed on a mass scale due to the numbers involved, but if it were to be considered that way and I thought so I probably would be glad of an assassination, even if I would not do it myself. Again I am not sure and this is only how I see things, hardly effective at changing minds.
Seems a bit simplistic? If you consider someone evil enough to be killed and somebody else is supposed to be morally equal to that person and they die, why be sad? Or condemn that death? Perhaps it is a bit simple. That does not make it incorrect. True maybe they have to outwardly condemn that attack due to those other factors, but it seems unlikely in their heart of hearts that they really morally support it, or if not support it, they do not really cry over it. That is, of course, only if they believe this person was actually as bad as the person who they think deserved to be killed. I am trying to bring it to a more simplistic level that ignores society and several of those other factors. Perhaps this is a mistake though.
Also perhaps my understanding of natural law is not complete. Goes about as far as Locke.
I have tried to think from other’s points of view, such as by accepting the premise (at one point) that late term fetuses are people and have the same rights etc…
As for “equal means equal, gosh darn it” how does it not? Are we supposed to think that equal means equal, but some are more equal than others? Or perhaps something more along the lines of they are equal in this regard only but there are other factors etc? (well this one makes more sense than the Animal Farm reference…). I got the feeling that Mr. Blue Shirt in the comic meant “equal means equal, gosh darn it” more than the others.
And I said that to me it seems hypocritical, the reason for this is because the “equal” part sounds very much like “equal means equal, gosh darn it” and that would, to me, make it appear hypocritical. There is a lack of clarity problem here methinks… or I just have bad vision.
The point in reminding ourselves about Feser’s own invocation of natural law was that he was overtly and unambiguously and within his own original posts on the topic, hi-lighting the fact that he wasn’t conceiving of “equal” in some simplistic and undiscriminating sense, even while also hi-lighting the moral qualities per se that were put on a more equal footing. So the details of natural law being alluded to are not that important.
Regardless, Canuovea, I’ve enjoyed our back and forth and was not being sarcastic in a denigrative sense, rather I was attempting to pointedly emphasize that a more discriminating and contextual sense needed to be applied to what otherwise could be conceived as morally on a more equal plane. More broadly, societally and culturally and legally for example, other considerations are necessarily at play, hence a simple and absolute analogy, as if by arithmetic and deductive force, cannot be transferred from one situation to the next.
At any rate, I did enjoy our exchange and I do understand why people, even those who might agree with him in other areas, would react against Feser’s analogies and comparisons. I did myself, and still do when it comes to some specific details of the discussion. But in terms of some absolutely basic moral valuations, which is his emphasis in that set of posts, the comparisons have warrant. In closing, a bit of mediative music to share as a peace offering.
“If you consider someone evil enough to be killed and somebody else is supposed to be morally equal to that person and they die, why … condemn that death?”
But that’s not what’s in question. The question is whether, and on what grounds, we should condemn the killing, not the death. There are two people involved here, and the killer is the one whose actions are being assessed in order to decide on condemnation. The victim’s (Tiller) actions, and even the fact of his death, are only relevant in a few of the possible reasons the killer might bring up.
Michael B: This has been fun! And I absolutely love several bits Cohen’s work, good choice.
Wm Tanksley: Good point, I see the two as very intertwined, but I should have said “and they are killed” and “why condemn that murder.” Bad word choice.
Though now that makes me wonder if Tiller had suddenly died of a heart attack instead of been murdered would some people be more willing to declare that he had it coming? Question for another time I suppose.
Thanks to everyone who participated (and put up with my unceasing chatter)!
“Wm Tanksley: The question of effectiveness is a good one. However, Tiller was one of the few who would perform late term abortions, and his clinic did end up closed. In terms of public relations it was a disaster though.”
That’s a very, very good point, one that I completely failed to research. Here’s a CDC table for 2005 that shows that 21+ week abortions are NOT a Tiller monopoly; Tiller simply was a big name. Kansas reported 459 late-term abortions during that year (probably not all of which were done by Tiller); the total was 8,482.
So I’ll have to completely disagree with your point: killing Tiller was not effective if your goal was to reduce abortions.
However, I should note that my argument against this being an act of war is only a partial argument; it would be defeated by finding a way in which it was effective. I believe that killing Tiller was not a proper act of war for other reasons that I haven’t stated because explaining them would require explaining why they were necessary conditions… And I didn’t want to simply depend on the Christian theory of Just War.
“Perhaps mourn was a bad choice of words, I’ll try to re-phrase: If someone hates Tiller so much as to see him as morally the same or worse than Hitler, why would they say that they are sorry he died?”
I’d say they misspoke, OR that you’re misinterpreting, and they’re actually sorry about HOW he died.
“I figure it means one of three things. Either they never really considered Tiller to be as bad as Hitler in the first place or they would have said the same thing about Hitler’s death if it was not justified by war or (finally and perhaps more likely) they really are not sorry he was murdered and are only saying so to attempt to (badly) mend the damage done publicly to their cause.”
Agreed.
Now, they HAVE said that Tiller’s killing was wrong, and a murder.
“I’m not saying that everyone who did not like Tiller is happy he was murdered”
“Happy” is not the same as “not sorry.”
“but those who actually believed that he was as bad or worse than Hitler are happy morally that he was murdered. Just unhappy about the consequences of that murder.”
This is careless slander.
I’m relieved that he’s stopped killing harmless fetuses. I wish he’d stopped killing them by means of deciding that he’d only kill the harmful ones (the ones actually threatening the health of the mother). I am NOT happy that he was murdered, and I fully endorse punishing his murderer to the full extent of the law.
“Then again how many people actually considered him as bad as Hitler… I hope very few. It is an absurd comparison anyway.”
Yes, or Dahmer. I think chaospet made a good point that such comparisons are awful.
From another post:
“Though now that makes me wonder if Tiller had suddenly died of a heart attack instead of been murdered would some people be more willing to declare that he had it coming? Question for another time I suppose.”
Any Christian who makes that claim needs to go back to Sunday School — Jesus refused to make it, and was offered the chance many times.
Aside from that, I suspect we’d hear a bit less from the press about how pro-lifers are collectively to blame for his death. They’d still blame us, probably for stressing him out. So we’d have to defend ourselves less, and we’d also have to worry less about our less stable members deciding to copycat (that’s a serious worry!).
-Wm
Wm Tanksley: I am sure that there are ways that killing Tiller could be considered an effective act of war. Moral (not morality), terror (effective in any war, if not ethical), or the equivalent of killing off a general. There are not nearly as many doctors who are willing to perform late term abortions as there are for early term abortions. Even if Tiller cannot be seen as the equivalent of a general he certainly was a specialist. And one less area for abortions to happen in. Did you know that a pro-life organization wants to buy the clinic and use it as a kind of rally point? In terms of war this is not like killing Hitler would have been, but if you consider it as a war there were reasons that this could be seen as effective. And his death will stop some abortions, if not all.
Also me comparing Tiller’s death to Hitler’s stopping the holocaust was at best exaggerated and at worst just as absurd as comparing Tiller and Hitler in the first place. I think that it should have been more like killing the leader of a single terrorist cell, or shutting a cell down. Even that might be much though.
Also ways it was ineffective and damaging as well. Though I hardly think that this is some kind of mass conspiracy or chess match with pro-choice and pro-life on opposing sides. I am extremely hesitant to argue that this could actually be considered an act of war. That would be a whole new can of worms.
As for them being unhappy about how he died rather than that he died, that kind of sounds similar to him having a heart attack. They could then declare that his death was fine and dandy and everyone should have a party and sing “ding dong the witch doctors dead!” (I think that was in the WWWtW link actually). But now that it was murder… And as you said not all pro-lifers are Christian so they may be able to be quite happy to declare that he had it coming.
The careless slander part was directed at those who really thought that Tiller was as bad as Hitler. It makes perfect sense to be glad the abortions have stopped, or even be glad that he died, or at least not be sorry about it and still say that the murder was bad. I wouldn’t be particularly unhappy if died, but I wouldn’t condone murder. And as I said, I don’t believe that there are actually all that many people who seriously equate Tiller to Hitler. Or Dahmer.
The press like inflammatory rhetoric almost as much (maybe more) than that Fraser guy seems to. Saying that pro-lifers collectively responsible is stupid. I cannot think of something more colourful to say about it.
Thanks.
not bad at all