Thank you, New York Times June 2, 2009 Jill For calling Dr. Tiller’s murder what it is: “A reprehensible act of domestic terrorism.” And for properly using the term “anti-choice” to describe restrictions on abortion. Bravo.
It’ unfortunate that this is an editorial though. I wish this phrase could have appeared in a news article “his principled devotion to women’s health and constitutionally protected rights” since it is accurate and true.
It was no accident that the NYT also ran this article: The Deadly Toll of Abortion by Amateurs (about the consequences for women of making abortion illegal) yesterday. It’s important news in its own right, and the juxtaposition made a subtle but powerful point. Well done.
Yeah, it’s an editorial, but it was still a relief to see it SOMEWHERE in the paper… especially on the heels of reading this infuriating bullshit this morning: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02blame.html?ref=us
For anyone in the Houston area who’s interested, there will be a vigil for Dr. Tiller tomorrow (June 3) at 6pm at Planned Parenthood, 3601 Fannin. Okay, now on-topic: Bravo, NYT for calling this what it really is.
Better than what they had in the “Opinionator” section yesterday where they asked rhetorically “Was Dr. Tiller’s Death a ‘Moral’ Murder?” http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/01/did-the-murder-of-dr-tiller-work/ I’m pretty pissed about that. Yes, they were just giving a roundup of what was being said by groups on both sides, but to make that the headline is fanning the fucking flames.
This is the honest face of the religious right. Read only if you have a very strong stomach. I posted a comment in which I linked the Balloon Juice post from one of Dr. Tiller’s patients, although the way wingnut blogs censor comments I have little hope it gets posted. Post a link to these losers anywhere you can, with the hope that the world sees them for what they are.
The whole anti-choice movement must accept that they are the assassin’s accomplices, in that they created the environment from which he crawled. I am male and Australian and living in Australia – so I could easily say, ‘this doesn’t affect me’ but it does. The patriarchy oppresses men as well as women. A fitting memorial to Dr. Tiller would be to politicise this issue to the max – use it as a way to advance pro-choice options. The NYT editorial was a start, I shall email them and give them the ‘thumbs up’ for doing it. Do the same. Don’t let this opportunity pass by.
Jill thanks for post. As a man I’m not sure that own views on abortion are relevant or valid so I end to abstain from metaphysical or political debates on the matter. However my curiosity has been piqued by this murder and the voluminous media coverage. I want to know what the standard feminist theory and view on abortion is, specifically at the extremes – does feminism hold that there should be no restrictions whatsoever at even the point of viability? I understand the life and physical or mental health of woman exceptions but what if somebody just decides after say 8 months that a kid would merely be inconvenient? Does feminism say this is morally permissible and should be legal? I’ve heard so much confusing stuff from all the talking heads I’m genuinely clueless.
I don’t think there is a “standard feminist theory,” beyond that it’s the woman’s right to choose what happens to her own body. The question of “what would happen if someone wanted an abortion at 8 months for no reason” is really sort of pointless, because you will be hard pressed to find an instance of that ever happening. No woman goes through 8 months of pregnancy on a lark and then up and “changes her mind” and goes through a costly, dangerous surgical procedure just because. I would imagine if a woman reached 8 months, having already gone through the physical changes of the pregnancy and incurred the financial costs, and circumstances changed so that a child was inconvenient, she’d deliver and give it up for adoption. I say that from a purely practical standpoint, not a moral one. As has been amply noted on other threads here, late-term abortions make up the smallest percentage of all abortions, and are NOT done because women are too indecisive or lazy and just wait as long as they can to have an abortion so that they can put their health in as much danger as possible. I’m sorry, but ask yourself why anyone would do that. It does not make any sense. The reason the majority of women have late-term abortions is that severe deformities are detected in the fetus that could not be detected earlier in the pregnancy, and/or serious health issues arise for the mothers. “What if women just want to” is really already a non-issue, and is just raised as an “OMG women just want to kill baybeeeeez, the closer to birth the better!” talking point. Legal issues aside, I highly doubt any medical professional would perform an 8-month abortion (which I have never heard of) on a healthy woman for the hell of it, given the severe risk involved. Abortion’s no cakewalk. Neither is pregnancy, which is why most women who know they don’t want to be pregnant terminate in the first trimester, and don’t remain pregnant for months and months before terminating. Sadly, most late-term abortions are wanted pregnancies/children who are not viable and would not survive.
No one decides at eight months that a baby is just inconvenient, and waltzes into the nearest Planned Parenthood and finds a doctor to abort the baby. No one. This anti-choice rhetoric is bullshit and needs to stop. Thanks for your “concern,” though.
Dear Unfortunate, I’d be interested to know how many women have decided to get a difficult and painful abortion because their 8-month pregnancy was simply too ‘inconvenient’ for them. My guess is none. Do some research.
Mimulus: I don’t think that is relevant to my question. I doubt it’s common at all. I’m only asking what feminist theory would say – in principle – about it. I don’t want this to be a late-term abortion debate. I just want to know as a factual matter what the literature would say. As I said, I am merely curious.
If you’re merely curious, then here’s my answer (obviously nobody can speak for all feminists; if you want to know what “the literature” would say, then go to the library): yes, it’s the pregnant woman’s choice to decide whether or not she wants to have a baby. Since you said you don’t want this to be a late-term abortion debate, that should be enough discussion. Anybody can come up with absurd hypotheticals to try to prolong debate (OMG What if the baby is halfway out and she changes her mind in the delivery room?!?!) but it takes real feminists to actually work for change: helping women get access to contraceptive options, prenatal health care, childcare, and jobs that allow them maternity leave and pay enough to support children.
I’m not up on the current “Feminist Thoughts on yaoiAbortion” literature, but most feminists I know would say that there are few, if any, folks out there getting abortions for the hell of it so lets instead focus on the real issues. Moreover, that bodily autonomy and self-determination are important for everyone, regardless of how many months pregnant ze is; it doesn’t matter if I need a kidney now or three months from now, I can’t force anyone to give me hir’s–same principle applies. If you are still curious, I recommend reading the rest of the posts and comments about the hero Dr. Tiller; instead of derailing this one any more.
Unfortunate: Feminists generally believe that women, with necessary information from their doctors, can competently make their own medical decisions.
Thank you all. Consensus seems to be that theoretically a woman may abort at any time for any reason, based on bodily autonomy.
I’ve been thinking. It’s already clear that the anti-choice movement is going to continue to frame Roeder as a person suffering from mental illness.* Obviously, someone who murders an unarmed man who makes his living saving women’s lives and easing suffering has mental problems. But what if this guy is schizophrenic or suffers from some other form of psychosis? I don’t think it’s going to help the anti-choice movement if Roeder is psychotic, since inflammatory rhetoric often inspires people with serious mental disorders to really go off the deep end. If it turns out the guy is psychotic, some anti-choice group or person who put him up with this might be held legally responsible for Tiller’s murder. But would it be appropriate to call Roeder a terrorist? I can’t speak for anyone else, but I wouldn’t call this a terrorist act or Roeder a terrorist if it turns out that this guy is delusional. http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jun/09060203.html (Keep in mind, there are very few references for the claims made in this article. I’m not saying that any of this information is true. However, if the people quoted in the article were witness to his severe mental illness and what the author calls an “obsession with abortion” and did nothing to stop him, that leaves a lot more people responsible. I’m just saying that the way we label Roeder might change if it turns out this guy has a serious psychological disorder).
Just to clarify my statement to Unfortunate a little bit: a lot of the feminist movement has been about reproductive rights, so it’s incredibly difficult to synthesize some sort of theoretical perspective about hypothetical abortions that encompasses many decades of thought and activism in the real world. Reproductive choice in the US (access to birth control, abortion, and the ability to choose to give birth given the US’s history of forced sterilization, to name a few issues) is so fundamental to modern feminism because it affects the lives and bodies of women; for that reason, I think it’s not only insensitive, but it’s actually insulting to all women when people ask about “theoretical” issues and throw around words like “inconvenient,” as if it’s possible to meaningfully examine the idea of reproductive choice from a completely detached, philosophical perspective while not acknowledging all of the reasons feminists have fought so hard for it. Women are acutely aware of their own status as potentially reproductive.* Pregnancy, childbirth, and abortion are all physically stressful situations. Women do not sit around and ignore their reproductive health because it is convenient. There are any number of reasons a woman might choose or need to terminate a pregnancy; however, to, in a thread devoted to media coverage of the murder of a women’s health care provider, ask about what “standard feminist theory” (…no) would say about a situation that is so detached from the experience of actual women using code words like “inconvenient” is both remarkably dishonest and offensive. My point, though, still stands. Most feminists believe that women should be able to make their own health decisions (just like real people!), regardless of how appropriate anyone would deem them to be. This is ultimately because women are capable of making safe, informed, and ethical choices about their own health (again, just like real people!). Apologies if this was too much of a derail, Jill. *I can’t think of a good way to phrase this. Obviously not all women can get pregnant, so it doesn’t really apply to everyone. Pre-menopausal cis women works a little better maybe? Or reproductive-aged people with ovaries and a uterus? I don’t want to use exclusionary language, but I also just want to be as clear as possible.
“Obviously, someone who murders an unarmed man who makes his living saving women’s lives and easing suffering has mental problems.” If by “mental problems” you mean psychiatric illness, that’s not even slightly obvious.
Mental illness and violence have repeatedly been shown to have no significant correlation in studies. Mental illness is NOT a marker for violence. Mental illness is NOT a sentence to criminality. THIS INCLUDES PSYCHOSIS. Psychosis is NOT another word for “violent tendency.” It is a word for “break with reality.” If you cannot see the distinction, you have a LOT of fucking work to do in the ableism department.
FFS. When did it become so difficult to just say “I’m sorry”? Because all things considered, it actually seems easier to me than attempting to defend yourself against someone who is directly impacted by your words. Oh, that’s right, and regardless of ease it’s, like, the right thing to do, too.
Thank you all. Consensus seems to be that theoretically a woman may abort at any time for any reason, based on bodily autonomy. Good lord! Next they’ll want the vote!
I’ve been thinking. It’s already clear that the anti-choice movement is going to continue to frame Roeder as a person suffering from mental illness.* Obviously, someone who murders an unarmed man who makes his living saving women’s lives and easing suffering has mental problems. Well, thats going to depend almost entirely on how you choose to define “mental illness” and “mental problems.” Plenty of people kill without any kind of madness being at work (we call them murderers) and Freud argued that anyone who believes in God was a low-level neurotic. Personally, I think the whole exercise is an attempted dodge by Roeder’s fellow terrorists. The bottom line is that he played this game for a long time and finally decided to up the ante. Even entertaining the discussion of madness, absent some pretty compelling evidence, is just an attempt to remove his culpability and the culpability of his compatriots by maligning the mad. Don’t do it.
Well, thats going to depend almost entirely on how you choose to define “mental illness” and “mental problems.” Plenty of people kill without any kind of madness being at work (we call them murderers) and Freud argued that anyone who believes in God was a low-level neurotic. Personally, I think the whole exercise is an attempted dodge by Roeder’s fellow terrorists. Ditto this. Anyone who chooses to commit a murder for any reason has some mental issue in that s/he sees her/himself as above society’s rules, whereas most people don’t really. That doesn’t necessarily indicate clinical mental illness, though; in many (most?) cases, it just indicates being an asshole. Obviously, this guy has brain-things going on, but those brain-things don’t necessarily make him irresponsible for his actions. And as someone who does have a clinical mental illness, I kind of resent being automatically lumped in with this guy just because he did something heinous that violates societal norms.
ThickRedGlasses@21: I would have thought this would qualify as terrorism. Scott Roeder engaged in an act of violence against a civilian/civilians in order to to promote a political/religious message. Seems like the aim was to Kill Dr Tiller, and terrorise other providers and patients, presumably with the goal of limiting or removing access to abortion services…so that would be considered terrorism, wouldn’t it?