Ann Coulter puts Tiller’s murder in perspective

I was browsing on Neil Simpson’s blog, and, as usual, I found something amazing to link to in his latest round-up.

Check out this column by Ann Coulter. You will laugh at the hypocrisy of the godless, immoral left.


According to recent polling, a majority of Americans oppose abortion — which is consistent with liberals’ hysterical refusal to allow us to vote on the subject. In a country with approximately 150 million pro-lifers, five abortionists have been killed since Roe v. Wade.

In that same 36 years, more than 49 million babies have been killed by abortionists. Let’s recap that halftime score, sports fans: 49 million to five.

Meanwhile, fewer than 2 million Muslims live in America and, while Muslims are less murderous than abortionists, I’m fairly certain they’ve killed more than five people in the United States in the last 36 years. For some reason, the number “3,000” keeps popping into my head.

The rest is even meaner. Good old Ann, always on the offense. Sigh.

Yes, it’s true. I once wanted to send Ann Coulter flowers, without even knowing what she looked like. She writes that good!

Neil’s round-up has other good articles, so pay him a visit!

Additional pro-life resources

Are Judaism and Christianity as violent as Islam?

At Muddling Towards Maturity, there is a post about a related article in the Middle East Quarterly, Summer 2009, by Raymond Ibrahim.

Excerpt from the article:

“There is far more violence in the Bible than in the Qur’an; the idea that Islam imposed itself by the sword is a Western fiction, fabricated during the time of the Crusades when, in fact, it was Western Christians who were fighting brutal holy wars against Islam.” So announces former nun and self-professed “freelance monotheist,” Karen Armstrong. This quote sums up the single most influential argument currently serving to deflect the accusation that Islam is inherently violent and intolerant: All monotheistic religions, proponents of such an argument say, and not just Islam, have their fair share of violent and intolerant scriptures, as well as bloody histories. Thus, whenever Islam’s sacred scriptures—the Qur’an first, followed by the reports on the words and deeds of Muhammad (the Hadith)—are highlighted as demonstrative of the religion’s innate bellicosity, the immediate rejoinder is that other scriptures, specifically those of Judeo-Christianity, are as riddled with violent passages.

Muddling recommends that you print it out for reference.

UPDATE: The essay has been printed out at Jihad Watch, and there are lots of comments. (H/T Pursuing Holiness)

9 thoughts on “Ann Coulter puts Tiller’s murder in perspective”

  1. I would say thanks for the link too, but it seemed like a lot of rubbish…where do pro-lifers keep coming up with this 49 million figure?

    Let me throw out my own figures – pro-lifers have gunned downed hundreds of thousands of people. I can’t believe how violent these pro-lifers are – look, my own figures prove it! Making up figures doesn’t make it true.

    while I’m generally against abortion, definitely against late-term abortions (I know, abortion is abortion and how do I reconcile being against one while being ambivalent against another), let me play the devil’s advocate.

    Let’s assume the made up figure of 49 million is correct – studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of women who have abortions are low income – so I think it’s safe to assume that these women believe they can’t pay/afford to have the kids they abort. You’re always railing against social services and higher taxes – so how are these kids to be taken care of? The parents/mothers can’t afford to take care of them. It’s too late to talk about the virtues of abstinence, since they’re already pregnant…I would like to hear how you would reconcile your beliefs – you’re against the very things (social programs and the higher taxes required to fund them) that would help convince these women to keep their babies. Should they just have the babies to abuse, neglect, and starve them? Is that type of torture alright as long as they don’t abort – just let them be born and the natural process of starvation will run it’s course? What about the long term affects of abuse and neglect on these kids? I don’t think that orphanages are a good alternative. Foster care is not a great choice – I know from personal experience – so to claim that people like your favorite woman that gets PAID to take care of kids still requires a huge increase in social funding and taxes.

    You don’t have to post this, but I still want an email from you – how do you reconcile your beliefs? What are we suppose to do with the 50 million kids whose parents cannot afford them, and like I said, claiming prevention is not an answer since it’s already too late, the women are already pregnant.

    1. Check the stats on abortion here from the Center for Disease Control. (See Figure 1) This is IN THE UNITED STATES ALONE. It is not counting the other pro-abortion countries of the world, where atheism, and the consequent denial of human rights in order to pursue pleasure is even stronger.

      Source on the 50 million preventable deaths due to the ban of DDT by secular-socialist-environmentalists is the Wall Street Journal. (H/T Green Hell Blog)

      And we already know about the 100 million deaths from atheistic communism in The Black Book of Communism published by Harvard University Press.

  2. Jerry, just search for abortion statistics and you’ll find all you need. They aren’t made up.

    You are also making a common argument that Pro-lifers don’t care about kids after they are born?

    Since abortion kills an innocent human being, we can protest it all day long without having to be responsible to help out, just as those who protest domestic violence and child abuse don’t have to marry all the women and adopt all the kids.

    Yet pro-lifers do lots to help. There are more crisis pregnancy centers than abortion clinics. The pregnancy centers are staffed mostly with volunteers and funded by donations. And we pay our taxes as well.

    If the gov’t would stop subsidizing immorality and irresponsibility we’d all be better off.

    1. I donate to a crisis pregnancy center, and to a pro-life debater who travels around debating at all the universities against pro-abortion scholars. Also, I’m chaste – so I’m not going to be knocking up any women and then abandoning them. I have a romanticized notion of marriage and parenting – sex is not recreational!

      Great point about government subsidizing the mess, Neil. Totally agree.

      Did you see this article from the UK?


      The teenage pregnancy strategy, which has cost taxpayers more than £300million, was meant to halve the number of conceptions among girls under 18 in England between 1998 and 2010. Ministers have tried to slash teenage pregnancies by freely handing out contraceptives and expanding sex education. But the fall in pregnancy rates has not met Government targets, and in 2007 the rate actually rose. Teenage pregnancy rates are now higher than they were in 1995. Pregnancies among girls under 16 – below the age of consent – are also at the highest level since 1998.

      If you subsidize something, you get more of it. If you tax something, you get less of it.

  3. Wintery I would agree with the tax/subsidize idea on most things but I don’t think it applies to natural biological phenomena, or at least it doesn’t apply as nicely.

    Neil, as far as centers go, talking is not helping – I can talk a problem till I’m blue in the face but only action helps the problem (or money in this case). If you don’t have the money to feed, clothe, and shelter the kid what good is talking? So yes my point is still valid and your argument, while sounding good is just a red herring.

    Chaste and abstinence are strategies that won’t work for the majority because so few people have that type of impulse control – had they this world would most likely be a better place.

  4. Jerry has a point. We do need to be a caring society that reaches out and provides for the poor when needed (and when I say society, that doesn’t mean gov’t only or mainly).

    But the problem of abortion is not a social service problem but a moral problem. We had a woman here in Canada who killed her 12-year-old because she thought her daughter would end her relationship with her boyfriend. Can we emphathise with her plight – divorced, unstable relationships, not rich? Of course we can.

    But none of that justifies killing her daughter right?

    If the unborn are human beings, and biology, not the Bible says they are, then the problem isn’t about the kind of services we offer. The problem is that people think they can solve their difficult life circumstances by killing other people.

    That’s why the debate is not about how awful pro-lifers are or how many services we need to offer – we can be the worst people possible – but that doesn’t change the truth of what the unborn are.

    Think about it: who really is the intolerant one if we think it is justifiable to kill a human being just because we think their lives are going to be miserable?

  5. Neil, as far as centers go, talking is not helping – I can talk a problem till I’m blue in the face but only action helps the problem (or money in this case). If you don’t have the money to feed, clothe, and shelter the kid what good is talking? So yes my point is still valid and your argument, while sounding good is just a red herring.

    Jerry, you should educate yourself on what crisis pregnancy centers do before making that conclusion (we provide clothes, formula, life skills training, post abortion trauma counseling, etc.).

    Speaking of logical fallacies, you never addressed yours. Even if pro-lifers didn’t do lots to help women and children in need, we still have the right to protest the crushing and dismemberment of innocent human beings.

    Please consider questions like these: If your neighbor is beating his kids, do you have to be willing to adopt them before calling CPS? If you call CPS without being willing to adopt them, are you being hypocritical?

    If the gov’t decided to kill homeless people to save tax $ and such, would you have to be willing to house and feed them before you could protest?

    And so on.

    Chaste and abstinence are strategies that won’t work for the majority because so few people have that type of impulse control – had they this world would most likely be a better place.

    So that makes you responsible for taking care of their actions then?

    1. Jerry, please answer Neil’s objection regarding whether it is permissible to oppose something on moral grounds without dealing with the consequences. And explain why individuals should be held responsible for what results from their own actions.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s