A pro life activist who routinely held up photos of aborted fetuses as a form of protest has been repeatedly shot and murdered. From the story:
OWOSSO, Michigan — State police at the Corunna post have confirmed a well-known anti-abortion activist was shot multiple times and killed this morning in front of Owosso High School.
The victim’s identity has not yet been released but the shooting occurred around 7:30 a.m., after most students were off the buses and safely inside the building, said Owosso schools transportation supervisor Jayne Campbell. State police also confirmed that a suspect was taken into custody about 8:15 a.m. at the suspect’s home.
If–of course, it isn’t yet known–this heinous crime was about abortion, it is as much a hate act as the killing of George Tiller. Questions: Will the media make as big a deal of this murder as it did appropriately in the Tiller case? I predict no. Will the pro choice movement be asked to account for the killing of a pro lifer as the pro life movement was about Tiller–neither of which crime was the fault of political advocates–again, I predict no. Indeed, pains will be taken to (correctly) demonstrate that the killing had nothing to do with the pro choice movement, while at the same time, this murder will be distinguished from the shooting of abortion doctors, crimes in which the pro life movement will still be accused of moral complicity.
If I am correct in these prognostications–and I hope I am not–it is just another example of the rank double standards that afflict the media specifically and apply in this society generally.
September 11th, 2009 | 12:28 pm
Sadly, I am not surprised. With all the virulence against pro life individuals in our society, especially in the last few years, it was only a matter of time before someone in the pro life movement was shot. There is even a blog called operation counterstrike that calls for violence against pro lifers, including names and addresses, and, despite this, is still allowed to continue existing on its domain. People need to learn that violence is the antithesis of life and of choice, and that good people on both sides of the debate need to work together on the things we do agree on. With the way things are going, I don’t expect peace to come any time soon.
September 11th, 2009 | 12:29 pm
Oops, sorry-wrote the wrong SN. The comment above is mine.
September 11th, 2009 | 12:54 pm
It certainly remains possible that this had nothing to do with abortion. I hope that is so.
September 11th, 2009 | 5:50 pm
Any more word on either the identity of the suspect (who was taken into custody pretty quickly after the death) or on the second murder in the same area and whether they are connected?
September 11th, 2009 | 5:52 pm
I doubt it, recently, the shooter said that he was angered by the pictures that the protester used to protest abortion. Thus, it does have to do with abortion. What I am angry about thus far is all the pro choice people that I’ve seen on the web saying that this isn’t the same thing as Tiller’s murder because Tiller’s murderer was part of “a movement” and this man’s murderer was not.
September 11th, 2009 | 5:52 pm
A true martyr for the Faith!
May the angels and saints rejoice in his love for God and for His children!
September 11th, 2009 | 7:16 pm
Before I become hypercritical about this hypothetical possible hypothesis, I think I’ll wait for the rest of your story. :) Peace
September 11th, 2009 | 8:29 pm
Here’s a link:
http://www.connectmidmichigan.com/news/story.aspx?id=349067
The gunman told police he was “offended” at the signs the pro-lifer was carrying. He told them he had a list of his head of three people he planned to kill, though it appears that he may have had different reasons for the three killings. He was able to carry out only two.
And here’s a link with something pretty crazy:
http://www.mlive.com/newsflash/michigan/index.ssf?/base/national-22/1252685511297660.xml&storylist=newsmichigan
In this story, we see a 16-year-old boy saying, “I could see someone punching him or spitting in his face, but killing him was pretty stupid.” What has this kid been taught?
September 14th, 2009 | 9:27 pm
Safepres:
You say: “with all the virulence against pro life individuals in our society, especially in the last few years …. it was only a matter of time…”
I guess it really was opnly a matter of time — until someone decided to even up the score. Until now the only people who were being shot at and bombed were pro-choice people.
“Virulence” ain’t “violence,” as the right-to-lifers have continuously pointed out. You can call someone “Tiller the Killer” all you like, but if/when someone blows him away you’re off the hook, right? But violence — now THAT’S another matter entirely. Just considering the killings of Drs. Slepian and Tiller, the people done in by Paul Hill down in Pensacola and the assorted clinic bombings by Mr. Rudolf, I’d say that so-called pro-lifers are far ahead of the pro-choice crowd in the violence game.
And now you seem surprised that some pro-choice nut-case decided to shoot a pro-lifer for a change? I’m amazed.
September 15th, 2009 | 5:04 pm
HW-I just said that I WASN’T surprised that a pro choice person shot a pro life person. But thank you for at least acknowledging that this murder was done by a pro choice individual, as RH reality check, for instance, has tried to gloss over that fact. Moreover, stop being such a holier than thou, condescending jerk.
September 17th, 2009 | 4:21 pm
P.S.-In terms of violence, it doesn’t matter “who did it first,” because it isn’t fair to characterize an entire movement by the actions of a few people. I don’t think that the pro choice community is violent because of this murder, and I would appreciate it if people on the pro choice side would extend that same courtesy to the pro life community. To act like a two year old and say, “they did it first!” distracts from any kind of meaningful discussion by attempting to demonize one movement or the other.
September 18th, 2009 | 6:13 am
Ironically as it may seem… everyone dies sooner or later, but not everyone leaves a life of being a person with dignity and worth.
Saying that, a person who shot a handicapped may live longer than the person being shot, but his worth as a human being will be minuscule.
The conclusion is obvious: it is better to be shot then be the shooter, and it is more noble to die for a right cause than to be a self-serving, selfish person, whose only care in life is to get laid and remove all ‘accidental consequences’ in form of ‘unwanted pregnancies’.
Unbelievable! What sort of actions people can do.
P.S. Hope to see Wesley J. Smith today in Biola.
September 18th, 2009 | 6:40 am
” I’d say that so-called pro-lifers are far ahead of the pro-choice crowd in the violence game.
And now you seem surprised that some pro-choice nut-case decided to shoot a pro-lifer for a change? I’m amazed.”
- that’s not strictly the case.
1.) People who shot abortionist ‘doctors’ [most likely] consider death count to include unborn. So, in their eyes, the count of death is about thousands to one…
2.) The compulsion to defend defenseless [unborn] is different from motivation of defending a irresponsible teenager who only cares for instant gratification of his/her own sexual impulses.
– For whose sake did Harlan James Drake kill the handicapped?
a.) Because he had bad memories about himself involved in “unwanted pregnancy”.
b.) He simply was tired of violent image with aborted fetus.
c.) He did the shooting for the sake of kids who went to that school. That is, he wanted to alleviate the sense of guilt, and let kids live free and explore their sexual horizons.
d.) He had mental problem and was easily triggered. (or something of the sort – i.e. some mental issue).
Now, while (a) and (d) are candidates for the explanation of the murder, they are no way are excuses for that. (b) and (c) simply cannot be sufficient to murder someone unless a person is complete senseless murderer.
After all that said, compare that to a motivation of a person who is sure that a ‘doctor’ is indeed a murderer. And by murdering a murderer doctor, he stop further murder.
Motivation is the key. There is no significant motivation to kill pro-lifers besides revenge, retaliation, retribution, or vengeance.
The only one left [I forgot] has to do with protecting the woman’s right to choose. But this is complete farce. For instance, can a woman exercise her choice to leave army when she enlists? You see there are certain responsibilities. And the word responsibility should play bigger role in abortion debate, instead of ‘rights’.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact