I was glad to know that you have been a fan of my blog and podcasts, and that you like my approach to the topics I cover. That is why I was a bit puzzled at your comment. Given the usual excellent quality of Ellen Goodman’s articles, I was surprised at her “cheap shot” in implying that pro-life sentiments (“anti-abortion,” if you prefer) inevitably lead to the killing of abortion docs.

As you may have noticed, I’m quick to criticize the conservative right as well, especially when they exaggerate their claims. I didn’t think that I was guilty of “simple partisanship” here. Just because I sympathize with the argument “abortion is morally equivalent to murder” doesn’t mean that we should employ violent means in opposing it.

Abortion is a tragedy for everyone, even for those who want it to remain legal. There is no place for heavy-handed rhetoric that employs name-calling rather than calm discussion. I continue to repudiate the use of violence by extremists. I also believe in the rule of law, and the power of reasonable debate (as you and I are doing here).

Thanks for your comment.

This lead me to be extremely startled by this particular post because it seems to be ignore that approach in a kneejerk partisan defense.

If this were the first time this sort of thing had happened the response of denying responsibility for incitement could quite reasonably hold, regardless of the rhetoric being used. However given the history of violence and intimidation level at Dr. Tiller (let alone abortion providers in general) makes such a claim painfully disengenious. The Pro-Life movement cheers on its members to terrorize those who both provide and receive abortions. It recruits for more extremist groups and cheers then on when they engage in vandalism, arson, and death threats.

Given that use of lethal force in the defence of ones or anothers life is considered an acceptable justification, is it really a surprise when someone decides to kill a man who is daily refered to as a murderer?

I see people like Bill O’Reilly and Randall Terry never directly told their followers to kill abortion providers but their half-hearted, backhanded condemenation shows that it serves their goals. When constantly advocating a behaviour with extreme rhetoric, it shouldn’t be surprising when someone follows that rhetoric to its logical conclusion. After all Alfred Ploetz never killed a Jew but one would be extremely hard pressed to claim that his writings did not bear a moral culpability for what occured.

I really hope that you take the time to reconsider this issue with your usual thoughtfulness and honest assessment. It diminishes all the rest of your work and writings to make such vacuous arguments from simple partisanship.