George Tiller, Murder Was as Murder Does

Conservatives are being lambasted and blamed for the death of abortion doctor George Tiller several days ago. Tiller remained one of a handful of abortion practitioners that performed abortions in the third trimester of pregnancy. Bill O'Reilly of Fox News denounced Tiller for his practices as did several others with moral conscience. Listening to those vampires like Joan Walsh from Salon lament Tiller's death and the circumstances therein is disgusting and frankly somewhat socially obtuse. The left wing media pounced on the story as if this guy was the patron saint of something intangible. I certainly believe Tiller's death fits the profile of what it is, a homicide. There are thousands of homicides in the country and one is not less tragic or more wrong than the other. I hope his killer finds that the prosecution is competent and justice is served in a blind fashion as we all hope it would be.

To my chagrin people like Tiller that are gunned down, assassinated, or removed with extreme prejudice really get off quite unscathed. I would have much rather seen Tiller survive in a long life so that first he had an opportunity to see the error of his ways and stop the quasi-medical practice he found himself in. Second, a long and healthy life would at least have given him an opportunity to seek forgiveness for his deplorable and despicable acts against humanity. There is no place in a modern and humane society for those of Dr. George Tiller's ilk. The Humane Society works more diligently at saving the lives of wayward dogs than abortion doctors do in the vacuuming and skull-crushing practice of late term abortions.

Far left politicians, feminist groups, and liberal supporters of a secular and relativistic vision never learned to equate apples with apples. How can a politician or even a Supreme Court nominee like Judge Sotomayor oppose the death penalty on the one hand and openly endorse abortion in all its grisly forms on the other? The scientific debate about where life begins ended in Canada in 1977. Researchers of DNA concluded that scientifically there is no doubt that life begins at conception. Remember when that sperm fertilizes that egg the life form growing in the womb will absolutely not be delivered as a platypus, lamp, or mixing bowl. It is a baby. The answer lies not in the activist Roe v. Wade decision either. Nowhere in the United States Constitution or in the Bill of Rights stands an amendment or clause allowing, sanctioning, or endorsing an abortion in any form. The left-wing loons continually use loose medical jargon to sway support in the nation. Health of the mother exceptions, incest, and rape are all buzz words pro-choice groups use to lobby the continued exercises of irresponsibility and selfishness. Less than 1% of all pregnancies in which women seek abortions have anything at all to do with rape, incest, or supposed health of the mother issues.

I suppose we can lament the death of Dr. George Tiller as tragic and it is for the reasons mentioned above. He never had the chance to make right the wrongs he spent a lifetime committing. He never had the chance to get right with God so to speak. But to make his death any more tragic than any other is completely wrong minded. Many of the babies he murdered cried, blinked their eyes, and maybe even grasped his hand before he crushed their skulls. He was the first and last thing many of them saw in those horrific final moments. Keeping this in light makes me think a relatively quick death of his own got him off easy, way too easy.

Clinton or Obama, Do They Really Represent Your Views?

Take a damn good look at this picture. You pro-choice supporters and MoveOn.org fanatics did this. Please spare me the emotional shock and indignation. What in the hell did you think your "viewpoint" and "opinions" would result in if put to action? I served as a coroner for many years and bloodied my hands with just about every macabre deed humans inflicted upon themselves and others. A picture like this still twists me to the ground and to this day I cannot tell you if anger or sadness consumes me more. If any of you think that late term abortions ceased after the "Partial-birth abortion ban of 2003" you better do a little investigating to fully understand the differences in jargon between partial birth and late term abortions. Can abortions be performed to save a mother's life? Yes they can and the procedure is completely legal. Can an abortion be performed to minimize risks to a mother's health and her ability to have children in the future? If you think they can't you're really kidding yourself. There is an army of government officials (Senators and Representatives) that redirect your taxpayer monies to legalized murder clinics across the country. Your taxpayer dollars still fund physicians that perform these vicious acts with little more concern than if they were surgically removing a plantar's wart.


The point reaches far beyond the issue of whether late term or partial birth abortions should be performed and how many actually are performed as decided by a doctor "looking into circumstances regarding the health of the mother." Pro-abortion activists have swayed the public consciousness to believe in the absolute lunacy of their proposition. Where does life begin? We think life begins here because the cellular transfer of blah results in blah and blah doesn't happen until blah moves two inches to the left. Abortion supporters through the exquisite parsing of medical and legal terminology determined for you (not with your participation) that some galactic scientific controversy exists because no one really knows when the life of a baby begins. So much for intelligent and modern science. Even Darwin would regard this argument as delving into a world of at least mild political retardation. I'm sorry, I'll call the baby a fetus to be fair. So if you look at the photograph of the murdered infant above I think we can agree that the child looks viable and capable of sustained life. Obviously I don't know the exact circumstances of the child above but for the sake of a sane argument let's say that this child was vacuumed and crushed based on the mother's decision or "choice." What was the state of this baby, infant, little person, or fetus prior to what you see at the tragic and grisly end? At some point during or after the female egg's fertilization by male semen was there ever a chance that this innocent child could've possibly evolved into something else? Have any mothers ever went to a gynecologist or obstatrician after becoming impregnated only to hear the earth shattering news that what's inside them is not a child but a lizard, platypus, or baby hippo instead? "You know Mrs. Smith we in the medical community can never quite tell what's going to develop after what we term impregnation. Apparently something went very wrong during the zygote phase. Would you like to have a baby hippo or would you like to discuss termination? By the way we'll leave the father or husband out of this because the courts, abortion supporters, and general public believe him to be inconsequential. If you choose to have the hippo we'll be happy to contact the San Diego Zoo to discuss the possibility of adoption"


Where does "His Highness" Barack Obama and the "Shrillish" Mother Clinton stand on this issue? Probably where you thought they would. On March 12, 2003 Hillary Clinton voted NO on banning partial birth abortions except to protect the maternal life of the mother. This was Senate bill S.3, vote number 2003-51. She generally supports the death penalty for heinous crimes committed against innocent victims. Does anyone but me see the not too subtle juxtaposition here? His "Barackness" takes what liberal elitists coin the moral high ground. Obama though claiming to be a stalwart member of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago is also an abortion supporter. In proving my theory that Obama is mostly eloquence and extremely short on substance, listen to this. Regarding abortion Obama minces, stumbles, and as is the case in most of his stump speeches says absolutely nothing. "This issue is very complicated for me. This issue rises above the moral dimensions surrounding it." Obama you're such a coward. Just come out and say that you unequivocally support abortion and for those of us with brains do us the common courtesy of taking church and Christ away from your affiliations. We prefer you don't cling to "token" religious symbolism. There is nothing about church, Christ, and abortion that fit together at all unless you're denouncing the practice. You too support the death penalty for those convicted of committing heinous crimes on innocent victims so you and Hillary both talk the talk but stumble on the walk.


Let's end this with some concrete observations. Life begins at conception. Any argument to the contrary is nothing more than smoke-filled coffee house crap.


What you see in the photograph at the top of the page is no different in substance than a like photograph of a gunshot wound to the head of an infant.


Abortions are performed after sustainability on a regular basis. Yes that means after fingers clutch and little feet kick. Rarely do ultrasounds indicate that the growing infant has an elephant's trunk instead of the usually recognizable human features.


If we buy the only argument that can be made in that little babies in mothers' wombs are human children, we have and continue to fail miserably. Isn't it sad to see the American justice system provided more representation and safeguards to O.J. Simpson than to innocent babies incapable of finding a voice of their own? Are abortion supporters really going to say children like those pictured above don't feel pain or the warmth and closeness of their mother?


Perhaps Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton will volunteer to attend a workshop in which I'll volunteer to teach them some of what I feel would be practical examples of some of the vicious procedures implemented. Don't fret, I'd only close the vice or squeeze the forceps hard enough to give them a sustainable headache in which they soon wouldn't forget. After all, are they going to claim they feel more pain than the child above? I don't "scientifically" see how they could.


Regardless what side of the debate you find yourself on let's at least make the dialogue honest and on even footing. The radical feminism movement wholly supports any and all forms of abortion because of their honest intention to destroy the traditional family which in the long run equates to genocide. Abortion concerns regarding a mother's health represents an infintismal percentage of the cases under discussion. The truth is, abortion in modern times is about an anything goes culture steeped in flawed moral relativism. Modern abortion is ultimately about selfish choices and the inability to assume responsibility for personal choices and a destructive lifestyle. Don't let the abortion supporters fool you. Choice for protection of the mother in factual analysis pales in comparison.


I'll talk to you later in the week.

Let's Not Argue, Right is Right

I watched a news snippet last night where the chairman of Planned Parenthood visited my city to raise funds for the organization. It never ceases to amaze me how an organization like this spins its personna to make itself as personable and friendly as possible. She praised Montana's Democratic senators and governor for their support of a woman's reproductive health and a woman's reproductive RIGHTS. It always seems odd to me that they never bother mentioning a woman's, and a man's for that matter, reproductive RESPONSIBILITIES. The dumpsters in this country remain littered with the remnants of the innocent. Future doctors, lawyers, scientists, sons, and daughters destroyed so as to minimize the impact and responsibility on a sexually active lifestyle.

It remains the same old Neanderthal argument. Where does life begin? Does life begin at conception (of course it does) or at some other arbitrarily determined point in space defined by a consortium of experts? Apparently the scientific community, including abortion providers, believes they will not be sure that whatever is growing in that woman's womb is a human being or infant child until it presents and delivers. Perhaps the doctors in consultation with the female patient are sweating test results hoping that the growing baby doesn't morph into a jackalope before the last trimester. Perhaps they are not sure it is a human or that it will stay human. Perhaps they are petrified of the following words, "Congratulations Ms. Wilson, it's a platypus." Perhaps it is a porpoise or moose or bicycle and the sexually irresponsible couple may retain the right to terminate the pregnancy just in case it turns out to be the latter. Boy, that argument really makes you want to hang your hat on the advances of modern science doesn't it! So if my dog understands that it is a live human baby growing inside its mother the scientific community surely understands it.

I need someone to make a philosophical argument as to why I could not walk up and bludgeon the ailing grandfather of an abortion physician. What is the difference? I believe the lines blur little if at all. Those that committed violence and murder at abortion clinics against doctors and staff deserved their fates. Why is it that those within the walls of the same clinics commit violence and murder with seemingly no repercussions? It would be nice if someone would just say it. Murder is against the law but not all murder. How can I banter for the end of abortion and support the death penalty? Easy. It has to do with freedom. Convicted(in DNA cases) murderers possessed the freedom to CHOOSE whether or not to proceed with their intended and subsequent actions. A growing baby has no voice and no choice. They must suffer the intended actions of others.

All I can say is fate has a way of sneaking up on you to render justice in due course. Perhaps it would do abortion providers good to remember there is a power greater and more just than that of mankind.

On a much lighter note, I want to thank my wife for posting for me while I traveled this past week. After reading her words and recognizing her talent for writing, I will no longer invite her to pontificate on my blog because she possesses far too much ability and I can't stand the thought of someone stealing my thunder. She can start her own d_ _ _ blog!