Then why did you refer to his murder as a “random act of justice?” It’s not justice if he didn’t deserve it.

Sure, there’s a point, and I’d say that it comes when anti-choice activists are physically threatening the well-being of others. The murdered protester — who was protesting at a school and not a clinic, and who, as far as I know, wasn’t physically threatening any women seeking abortions — doesn’t fit the bill.

I don’t agree that one protesting to represent a violent movement deserves violence. I don’t think white supremacist protesters — definitely representatives of a violent movement — deserve to be killed or physically assaulted for protesting, no matter how disgusting I find them. Ditto for anti-choice activists.

I agree, Pouillon certainly doesn’t fit the bill, which is why I was out of line with my initial comment. On an emotional level, I don’t think I’d be able to see his death as a tragedy or muster much in the way of loss, but thats a personal response that is on me and ought to be different my more general orientation to the issue. I also don’t think that individuals who are merely protesting in favor of a position I find repugnant ought to be subjected to violence; you’re absolutely right that that is a very dangerous road to go down.

The problem, for me at least, is that the forced birth lobby has worked very hard to ensure that the abortion debate takes place in an environment in which one side cannot ever feel safe. This isn’t just because a clinic gets bombed or a doctor gets shot periodically, but because those who do not engage in overt acts of extreme violence both encourage and use the rare instances of extreme violence in order to continue and maximize the trauma experienced. One does not have to shoot a doctor to participate in the use of the act, one can put a red X over their face on a wanted poster, one can show up at a clinic and start screaming knowing that everyone inside is going to wonder if you’re carrying a gun.

In short, the forced birth lobby behaves like a domestic abuser. There doesn’t need to be an incident of severe violence every day for the fear to develop and be manipulated. Instead, the most obvious violence punctuates a broader trauma. It encourages a hyperawareness, a sense of fear, a desire to avoid being hurt. It uses the language of interpersonal violence (aggression, intimidation, threats, intimation) to keep violence in the mind of it’s victims at all times. People like Pouillon and Terry participate in the cycle of violence and abuse by being the every day abusers who deepen the trauma through it’s constant symbolic repetition, who remind their victims that they could be harmed at any time, that they have no power.

I’m not saying that their participation in this conscious and systematic abuse means that forced-birth activists deserve to die, but I do think that these things exist on a continuum. There is an entire range of actions and behaviors which lie between passive opposition to abortion and shooting a doctor. I think most would agree that the former ought to face nothing more than social pressure (if even that) while the latter would likely merit a response of violent force (depending on the details of the situation, of course), but at what point does that change happen?

I think its worth discussing what the line is, or perhaps more accurately when the line begins to blur. These activists do often “commit acts of violence against women,” though these acts are often highly disguised. Violence isn’t just a bullet or a bomb or a beating, it can just as easily be the threat of those things, or the surge of a mob, or a voice shouting “baby killer” which leaves no doubt as to the speaker’s aggression. Pouillon likely wasn’t over any lines, but I think grappling with the issue of where lines might fall is something we’ll have to do eventually. After all, we can’t depend on the state to not be the aggressor, much less for it to act as a defender; and people like Randall Terry are still doing their best to wind up another Scott Roeder.

I never said that I think people are opposed to late term abortions because it’s icky. But for the record, such a thing would be the least of the vileness that goes on in my head, so good luck with the attempt to shame on that front.

Requiring someone to give birth, by preventing her from avoiding it when she wants to, is forced birthing. Again, whatever woman-hating morality you have that constructs such force as good and just is nonetheless a separate subject from whether forcing women to give birth when they don’t want to is forced birthing.

I do feel bad sparring with you now, though, as I’m not at all convinced that you are capable of sensibly defending yourself. Which makes me end up feeling mean. So I’ll try to move on now.

Strawman. Jaysus. the vast majority of abortions are performed in the FIRST TRIMESTER–the later ones usually are needed because of medical necessity (forced-birth policies put a couple of my friends in very dire physical peril thankyouverymuch). It’s not that women “don’t get around” to getting an abortion past the first trimester, they either run into medical problems and have to get one or, in some cases, wanted one in the first trimester but needed to get to an inaccessible clinic (cross state lines, go through waiting periods, etc.) and/or deal with a judge to decide if it’s okay (either that or tell her parents and get the shit kicked out of her).

Your precious policies have endangered women who have miscarried–we often can’t even get the necessary D&X and so have a damn good chance of going septic after. Your precious policies have forced women to birth stillborn babies and <a href="http://www.msmagazine.com/summer2004/womanandherdoctor.asp"add to their trauma (because ZOMG! partial birth abortion! It’s BAAAAD.)

Not that the likes of you care. You’ll protect fetuses but fuck over women.

this is particularly disturbing to me. do you actually think that the reason that people are opposed to late term abortions is because their “icky”? thats a vile thing to think. we just think that all of our children should have the same rights that we have – as far as i’m concerned, there’s no difference between a late-term abortion and an abortion that takes place at five weeks.

its also silly to call bans on abortion “forced” pregnancy. pregnancy is a natural process. would you call bans on forced organ donation “forced” organ failure? no you would not. this is because organ failure is a natural process, and allowing forced organ donation would infringe on the rights of others. it is linguistically absurd in excelsis to refer to prohibitions on the interference with natural processes “forced” {insert natural process here}.

“I would actually love it if the population of people who seek to murder and enslave women via terrorizing us out of access to safe abortions ALL became afraid that their terrorist tactics could land them on a mortuary slab.”

Not all anti-choice people are out there terrorizing women on the ground, and I don’t have the same feelings about those who are not as I do towards this dead man.

But I would argue that all who seek to make abortions difficult or unavailable for any woman are on the side of our deaths and enslavement. I don’t want voters and lawmakers to be murdered. I do, however, find those who would vote for the deaths and enslavement of women – they are threatening to women. And the fact that some of those who are not on the ground with threats at clinics (or schools) would nonetheless seek to “honor” such a person as this dead man via legislature…it’s fairer to say that I want all such efforts to stop, and the threats of others towards female people does bring out the worst in me at times.