Well, since the terrorist act against Dr. George Tiller (by a scumball who deserves to rot in Gauntanamo and get water-boarded 8 times a day) it seems that the Christian terrorists are still coming out in droves. Oh, they're offering their formal little "Ain't it terrible", and "the poor poor doc" tripe, but little else. They use this mainly as a hypocritical cover.
An alert blog member recently notified me that some Christian Taliban -such as my Pastor brother, are now posting what they claim to be images of aborted fetuses. The reported images are evidently gruesome, but we have no basis to think they are real. For all we know, they may be frankensteined composites of ....whatever....crushed centipedes and frogs heads.
The question arises: Does the posting of such inflammatory imagery constitute terrorism? For the answer one can do no better than to consult the (2001) Patriot Act, and specifically its section 411.
Under subsection F, clause (iv) the definition of "terrorist activity" is rendered:
As used in this chapter, the term `engage in terrorist activity' means, in an individual capacity or as a member of an organization--
`(I) to commit or to incite to commit, under circumstances indicating an intention to cause death or serious bodily injury, a terrorist activity;
`(II) to prepare or plan a terrorist activity;
`(III) to gather information on potential targets for terrorist activity;
We do know that Scott Roeder, the terrorist apprehended by the Kansas authorities for Tiller's killing, is liable for indictment under (II) and (III). From 1996, he had planned or prepared his vicious actions, earlier in the form of an attempted bomb - but which the police stopped just in time. Alas, for Dr. Tiller, courts tossed out the case because the police were claimed to have gone beyond their purview in their search of Roeder's car. We also know he is liable under (III) since he had been tracking Tiller and posting information about him - thus making poor Dr. Tiller a potential target.
Looking at these, I doubt Pastor Mike qualifies as a "terrorist" under either. However, under (i) one must look further. Clearly, posting vile and outrageous images of supposed abortions has the potential to incite a weak mind to do bodily injury- say to the remaining late term abortion providers. We also have Pastor Mike's words from previous bloggings:
"to continue with Dr. Tiller , speaking ONLY for myself , I consider him to have been nothing more than "hired gun" , murdering God's children for a hefty $profit $ ! "
Of course, this is the most vile slander. Dr. Tiller received little or no profit, and his primary motivation was to spare consenting women extreme agony. Something that Christian terrorist like Mike would have little empathy for. But, one of the most agonizing cases Tiller dealt with was a woman who ALREADY had a deceased fetus, but whose own doctor would not abort it - telling her to carry it around at least an additional 12 days. Rather than adhere to that moron's advice, she sought out Dr. Tiller, who assisted her.
So much for Pastor Mike's "hired gun" theory! Second, Dr. Tiller never murdered any child! It is the pits of language desecration and violation - diversion, distraction that the Christianoids repeatedly refer to fetuses as "children" when they are nothing of the sort. If they were, any killing would have to be registered as a homicide - recognizing that a full citizen with rights had been eliminated. But such is not the case. The fetus has no rights, since it is no citizen, nor a person. It is an agglomeration of tissue.
The logical error committed by these people is always the same: the genetic fallacy.
As defined by Logician Antony Flew ('Thinking about Thinking'):
"This is committed by anyone who argues, as in the context of the abortion debate, that a fetus- even from the moment of its conception must be really, because it is going to become - a person"
The eact same, analogous mistake is made by people who pick an acorn off the ground and say: "Lookey here at this OAK TREE".
However, the acorn is NOT an oak tree. And no amount of language deformation can make it so.
I could more easily accept this type of sentiment as sincere, if I beheld the same conscientiousness and sensitivity in regard to the quality of the life of infants, children AFTER they’re born. It seems to me that most of the righteous Right and Christianoids like Mike are only committed until the birth – then they want their tax cuts, and less government - and devil take the hindmost in terms of child care, health insurance, proper nutrition and so on.
But, if one truly respects human worth one has to take civic, community ownership and responsibility for the child's welfare - after it is born. Via appropriate legislation, enabling it, not impeding it- there must be assurance that its parents are supported in meeting its needs fully, all the way through its dependent years. Having had prior excchanges on economics and Reaganomics with the good Pastor, I KNOW he doesn't support this. He believes in every manjack for himself. Hence, his mawkish whining over a dead fetus amounts to a sady and sorry joke.
The sorry fact here is that the Pastor would rather disappear or let aliens enslave him than ensure the proper nutrition of ALL children he insists be born, and further that each child benefit from FULL health coverage. To all such pleas, he'd only bawl "SOCIALISM!"
I know that for a fact.
In a societal "jungle" wherein the mother can count on little or nothing from government, including health care for her child - or child care when she has to work - why in the hell have the child in the first place? It's more grief, since ultimately a child ought to be a shared communal responsibility. At least a partial responsibility of government to see it is properly nourished, educated, and provided with health care - that doesn't bankrupt the mother or family!
The problem with the contemporary crop of "pro-lifers" is they're all morally nearsighted. They are simply about getting the birth accomplished and full stop. Nothing beyond that. Their "concern" doesn't stretch beyond to the life after birth.
Doesn't stretch to providing health insurance and proper nutrition benefits to the baby-child.
Doesn't stretch to providing state-run and paid for child care to a mom trying to get off welfare.
Doesn't stretch to medically covering Mom (and Dad) so that a medical catastrophe doesn't wipe them out financially and leave the kids in the lurch.
Doesn't stretch to providing free schooling, right through university, as Barbados and other progressive nations do.
I myself could vote for a pro-lifer IF pro-ife meant doing more than getting a baby born - and going up to and beyond what I listed above.
If you're only pro-life to birth, you're a hypocrite.
What I do not know (yet) is whether the Pastor is a full-fledged domestic terrorist. He seems to meet the key criterion (Section 411, Subsection F (iv) ) of the Patriot Act in terms of inciting the weak-minded with gory images of abortions....BUT he does have the chance to redeem himself.
That would be provided he removes every last such gory image, and further all the nasty references to Dr. Tiller, including those alleging his having "murdered children". Or being a "hired gun for profit".
If he does that, I am prepared to welcome my bro into the ranks of respected fellow citizens, rather than friends of Scott Roeder or Tim McVeigh!