Well, this one could have gone in Religion or Politics instead of here, and since I couldn't decide which of the three was most appropriate, I opted for the most general.

James Kopp, the pro-life guy who ran around shooting his ideologically-dictated targets with a sniper rifle, and then hid out in France until the US agreed not to press for a death penalty in the case, was sentenced to life without parole.

As I was reading the story, something jumped out at me:

A Washington-based pro-choice group expressed relief Tuesday that anti-abortion militant James Kopp yesterday received a life sentence without parole for violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by killing an abortion provider.

I'm sure you saw it too: "anti-abortion militant".

Does this mean we're finally past that old "militant vs terrorist" argument?  The presence of this phrase in this context seems to point consciously toward the question, as "anti-abortion militant" is not yet a commonly accepted phraseology.

As someone who is virulently pro-choice, I have no problem with "anti-abortion militant" because it acknowledges that there is an ideological motive behind the action, no matter how heinous, and it strives for neutrality on the issue.

We all know where I'm going with this.  I'm curious to see who's with me. 

Hah, the French. That's what sticks out to me in the article, Jamie. They did the same with Ira Einhorn who killed Naomi Watts. Well, the woman who Naomi played in the TV movie anyway.

Of course he's a terrorist.

Of course he should be called such.

And Christian terrorist is fine by me.

Which brings us where exactly?

Is this guy part of a national or international Christian terrorist network?

Seems to me the anomoly story. A small case of man bites dog. Would be a local news story were it not for the French once again protecting criminals. Coff coff -- Baby Doc.

Susan

PS  Most important part of the story...

SECOND SENTENCE FOR KILLER OF ABORTION DOCTOR. A militant abortion opponent already serving 25 years to life for murdering a Buffalo area doctor who performed abortions was sentenced on federal charges yesterday to a life term in prison. James Kopp's sentencing closed a case that began nearly nine years ago with the sniper-style slaying of Dr. Barnett Slepian in the kitchen of his Amherst home. Kopp, 52, was convicted in 2003 on a state charge of second-degree murder for Slepian's death. In January, a federal jury convicted him on related charges that he violated the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act by killing an abortion provider.

In keeping true to my convictions, he was a fine candidate for the death penalty.  And I believe those who back the premise that abortion is "murder" have a level of culpability when someone like this man murders the "baby murderers." 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

"As someone who is virulently pro-choice, I have no problem with "anti-abortion militant" because it acknowledges that there is an ideological motive behind the action, no matter how heinous, and it strives for neutrality on the issue."

Well of course there is an ideological motive behind it -- just like there's pretty much an ideological motive behind everything. However, it would've been very ironic if they had said "pro-life militant" who killed an abortion doctor. So the only safe bet was to use "anti-abortion militant" in this case. and I am sure the vast majority of pro-lifers do not support his actions or the crime he committed. Personally, I'd prefer to see the death penalty in this case because that's what he deserves.

Speakign of CHRISTIAN TERRORISM

Jordan .

Now what would we call a militant who murders the murderer who ascribes his motivation as pro-life?   Talk about convoluted, huh!

By the way, Jamie, how do you define "virulently pro-choice?"  My interpretation would be someone who approves of legalized abortion at any stage by any pregnant woman for any reason.  Would that be accurate?   

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I'll get to work on the screenplay.
 

Logic Hat Online- logichat.org

And I'm actually planning to wait in line at a theater to see this film!  I always knew something would drag me back to the cinema.

Susan 

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

I agree with Jordan that the ideological basis is not the significant factor in whether someone is a terrorist or militant.  All revolutionaries are ideologically driven, for instance.  They may be militants, but not all will be terrorists to my mind.

The distinction between a militant / terrorist for me lies in the methods of violence. So...

Terrorist: Terrorises civilians and innocents, uses methods which have the aim of maximising terror and fear through the population at large.

Militant: Targets specific people, engages police, soldiers etc. in violence.  I suppose targeted assassinations could fit in this category too.

 That's pretty much how I see it, although there are always grey areas, and the definitions probably need some work and to be fleshed out a bit.

This guy Jamie mentions is a pretty tricky example.  Under my definitions he seems to come out as a militant as opposed to a terrorist.  Maybe with a somewhat different method to what he did, he'd end up a terrorist under my definition.

Former Baathists in Iraq, Shia militias, etc. to the extent that they engage Occupation forces in combat or use IED's against them, or even target government and/or police convoys or stations would be 'insurgents' or 'militants' to my mind.

Al-Qaeda targetting Shias at large, bombing mosques, schools, marketplaces, etc. is terrorism.

It ain't perfect, I grant you, but that seems to be the most fair use of those terms I can think of.

QUOTE:The poster would look a little like this I think.

Full Placental Jacket?

"What is your major birth defect?"

Logic Hat Online- logichat.org

2 cents department.  I have never found a virulently strong supporter of abortion who had availed themselves of the procedure. My observation showed me that it was always a gut wrenching, serious decision, not without guilt and a degree of sorrow. i don't think it is the type of issue that breeds virulism as such. Too personal. Now that doesn't mean a supporter of the procedure could or would not feel strongly about the principle envolved. No big word choice debate here J. Just me flapin' my jaw as I wait for the mail.  

I suggest a majority of pro choice folks are sincere and even resolute about the right to the procedure. A woman may feel relief afterwards, but she is not gonna hit the bars and celebrate a "victory" for the cause.

Your interpretation sounds reasonable, Susan, but it's not what I intended to communicate.  I was just being carelessly hyperbolic to up my street cred for my subsequent point that it didn't bother me to call him a militant.

And while he did obviously receive some support from the like-minded while he was on the lam, there was a pretty substantial public outcry against him from the pro-life establishment -- politically unavoidable, yes, but not hypocritical for it -- and there's no question he's a mercifully rare exception.

Ok, I'm not going to play nice with this one - the subject doesn't warrant it. 

I'm always fascinated by these "pro life militants".  As has been said - they're pro-life, yet killing people.  I think we understand why though.  I mean if you saw Hitler killing thousands of Jews each year and were pro-life, would you kill him to save the thousands?  Or would you stick religiously to the fact that every life is sacred?  Is the life of a mass murderer equal to the lives of thousands of innocent lives he/she has killed?

In the minds of "pro choicers", a baby inside a mother is not a human, but "magically" transforms into one once it's outside the mother.  BUT...in the mind of this guy (and in my mind), a human is a human is a human.  Be it male, female, 1 week old, 100 years old, black, white, in the womb, out of the womb.  You kill thousands of people, you can expect a reaction - to not expect one is to be obnoxiously obtuse.

The difference between this guy, who represents about 0.0000001% of pro-life exponents, and the rest of us...is that he is prepared to use violence and the taking of life to save lives.  Personally I see that as simply lowering yourself into the moral-gutter where the proudly pro-choice wallow.  Where layers of excuses, clever labelling and the old fashioned "blind eye" have hardened people's hearts to the point where I can see how nazi Germany and the extermination of Jews somehow must've seemed justificable to some people.

But we look back in horror now, and tut-tut and those misled Germans, all the while many in our communities endorse the open-slather drive-through mass-murder of our own people.  The holocaust was...and the "pro abortion" movement is - the low point in our human endeavours on plant Earth.  I remain disgusted. 

ps. leave the religious angle out.  And don't just oppose everything christians stand for.  The most vehement anti-abortionist I know is also one of the most passionate atheists.  He just values people, and sees the ethical vaccuum that must exist in people who argue that unborn babies should be killed.  This is not an issue of religion - it's an issue of PEOPLE, LIFE and HUMANITY.  If you don't "get" any of those concepts, then I pity you.

>end vent<

Post disclaimer?: Check. 

Tenuous Holocaust connection?: Check.

Summarizing opposing belief as "magic"?: Check.

"Some of my best friends are atheist"?: Double check.

Stereotypical response found!

Logic Hat Online- logichat.org

Smartass response with no actual substance : check

Further proof that sarcasm is the lowest form of wit : check

Lost the argument before it started : check

My, my, is this turning to flames also?

It's funny I fell on this thread, as I was just today reminded of the great fracture taking on in America.

It's also kind of sad how americans don't really know, it seems, what is going on in their own country.

Cybacat has got it right, though. It all goes back to Roe vs. Wade.

This I posted today over at a board I help administrate (Ghola Forum):

This is becoming so much of a problem I can't even begin to talk about it right now.
Mostly my own perception: the judicial classes, comprised mainly of neo-liberals has taken over and is tampering big time with the US constitution. This leads to the erosion of natural rights and a new approach to law making it undecipherable for mere mortals, who cannot represent themselves in front of the law accordingly to what the Constitution had in provision. I came acquainted with this about two years ago through a book by Hadley Arkes called Natural Rights and The Right to Choose where he exposes the twisted logic at work which brought the US abortion as a right and unmonitored practice, endangering the very definition of what is human, what is not considered a human being. Very touchy subject here.
Today it is more about military practices and such but I think the roots of the problem is the same: the discreet takeover of the judiciary class, neo-liberals with a postmodernist view of lawmaking. The simple concept of "lawmaking" is kind of sketchy in my eyes as the Constitution was a well thought-out piece of work that was supposed to intrinsically make any living person a human being with undeniable rights that are natural: the right to live is one of them. Duh? That right is being tampered with right now by the same classes that justify unacceptable actions done on a daily basis. By scrambling the processes of law, I think they are turning themselves into a small elite, feeding on their own inadequacy at righting the wrongs.

There was a National Day for the Restoration of Law and Justice last month that tried to adress some of these issues.

I am about to start a whole topic pretty soon about it. But maybe not here.

The sound wind makes through the pines. The sentience of animals. What we fear and what lies beyond the darkness.

Thanks Alleyghost - it's refreshing to hear from someone else who has stood back, looked at the bigger picture and been left asking themselves "what the hell is going on here?  This is just crazy!!".

The US is big on "rights".  Your right to sue someone because you were injured whilst robbing their house...is enshrined.  The right to sue a company because you asked for hot coffee, they gave you hot coffee, but you then stupidly spilt it on yourself and were burnt.  The list of "rights" people claim is endless.

Most importantly you used to have the right to life.  Now that only applies with a number of caveats, disclaimers and exclusions.  But rest assured - all is not lost.  If you're a pregnant woman, you still have the right to kill people - that's law.  What a screw-up of priorities...

It does leave you questioning the system and processes that left a country with such a horrific result.  Not only that, but a culture where this outcome could be condonded or even promoted by some.  How is killing people good?  I abhor the killing of anyone - even murderers sentenced to death...but can understand why some people want murderers to die.  However, we're talking about innocent babies here - who have never harmed anyone.

Now I agree with 1 point LogicHat was making - the holocaust analogy is widely used and abused to the point where it loses relevancy and impact.  People claim the tax dept is like the gestapo, or that a tough teacher is like Hitler etc.  These are flimsy comparisons.

But...there has never been a more apt analogy for the abortion situation in the US than that of Nazi Germany.  A country of otherwise reasonable, sane people were hoodwinked into some vile actions that before and after are clearly seen as unconscionable - the deliberate taking of human lives en masse.  What better example is there to learn from than what happened to the Germans?  They relaxed their morals, forgot their standards, re-wrote their views on the value of life and humanity, turned a blind eye and simply followed the popular dictated view that the killings were ok.  They redefined what they perceived to be a viable, worthwhile human in order to kill some who they found inconvenient, in their way, and in their view not deserving to breath the same air and walk the same Earth as them.  Many even vocally and publicly showed their support for the killings, and the movement in general.  There were parades, and anyone who dared to utter a question about what was happening was shouted down...at the very least.

There are some clear differences that must be acknowledged.  For starters, the gassing of nazi victims was a far more humane method of execution than that promoted by our modern-day nazi equivalents (they refer to themselves as "pro choice").  These kind folk promote methods such as dismemberment limb-by-limb using sharp surgical instruments, or physically crushing the skull of their victims, or applying a high-strength vaccuum to literally rip their victims to shreds.  These are a few of the more popular methods of torture and destruction promoted by pro-choice folk today.

And apparently they have a "right" to this.  Could our standards of humanity possibly sink any lower?  I fail to imagine how...

Does this justify this whacko killing the abortionists?  No.  Killing is killing.  But for those who would have gladly shot Hitler to stop his carnage, what defence do you offer for not doing the same against abortionists who collectively kill many more people each year than Hitler ever did?

Today it is more about military practices and such but I think the roots of the problem is the same: the discreet takeover of the judiciary class, neo-liberals with a postmodernist view of lawmaking.

Once again, your choice of language leaves me at a loss, alleyghost. They look to be English words but I cannot make heads nor tails of their meaning. Judiciary class???? Who are they? Postmodernist view of lawmaking? What the...? Discreet takeovers? When did this happen and how was the takeover manifested? Please provide examples so I have some idea what you are talking about.

Cybacat, the lack of gradation that you make between what you define as murder -- abortion -- is the kind of thinking that propels the zealot to murder the "mass murderer" -- the abortionist, aka gynecologist -- however rare that may be.  If I accepted the argument, I'd find the killing of abortionists to be easily reconcilable to a military or police action of saving the innocent while taking out the killer.  Sort of like shooting a person with the gun to the head of small child.  IF I accepted the argument.

If murder is murder is murder, what would you have someone do in support of the humanity of the countless victims? Carry a sign in front of an abortion office? Kind of ineffectual, isn't it? Change the hearts and minds of the would-be patient/co-conspirators/reluctantly pregnant and ready-to-abort by showing photos and plastic models of embryonic development?

I understand the consistency -- even if it is not quite a natural human characteristic -- of equating abortion to the willful and premeditated murder of an out of the womb full term freestanding umbilical cord free human being. I really do. I'm not inclined to agree but I get it. But before fully accepting the premise, I still need to know how someone who holds this absolutist view plans to deal with future penal codes on that fateful day when the legal system evolves to concurence with your views.

These questions always trouble me:

What punishment will you recommend for the person who commits this type of murder?

What legal remedy do you propose for the woman who solicited this murder?

What do you do to enforce a woman from not having the abortion she has solicited if you catch her in time? (imprisonment for the course of her pregnancy?)

I don't know about the legal practices of other countries, such as Ireland, where abortion is illegal. I wonder what becomes of the co-conspirators there. One thing I do know is that young offspring who are killed by either parent post-birth are generally not dealt with as harshly as the murderer who kidnaps, rapes and murders a child that is not his own. Reasonable? Righteous? Rational? There are a myriad of mitigating circumstances considered and the parent who abuses his/her child to death rarely ends up with a life sentence let alone a death penalty here in the USA. Over the past 50-60 years, I don't think a death penalty has ever been given for the murder of one's own child, in fact. Society seems to draw a distinction between these acts of rage and frustration and stranger murder. Likewise I think that most people will continue to draw that distinction when it comes to ending the life of an embryo or fetus with most people finding greater abhorence as that unborn child reaches each further step of development.

For the foreseeable future, I'm pretty sure this genie isn't going back into the bottle without breaking some bones along the way. Could even result in some dismemberment as the genie's fragile body is ripped to shreds by the crackling of the glass bottleneck on the way back. Until the purists come up with a proposed set of laws to deal with the newly defined criminal status of doctors and women, I don't see how the language of "baby murdering" advances the goal of eliminating abortion. Maybe the judicial class has an answer...

Susan

     
“Half a truth is often a great lie.”

Ben Franklin

Susan, I won't be able to do all the work for you. Your words seem sound but are based upon what exactly?

I have given you the name of an author and book. I have given you the name of the case where it all started.

If you want I can spell it out again for you. 

Now please open your eyes carefully, wikipedia is your friend. As for the real problem: it's so big you can not see it.

Some people write books about it  : I alone can not sum it up in one post.

Cordially, Alleyghost

The sound wind makes through the pines. The sentience of animals. What we fear and what lies beyond the darkness.