"Peaceful pro-lifers have already tried to prosecute Tiller for doing late-term abortions they claimed were against the law. They failed to convict him. If unborn children are morally equal to born children, then Tiller's assassin has just succeeded where the legal system failed"

Saletan shows his bias here and elsewhere. He may be posing a hypothetical based on the Army of God (?) manifesto, but the plain truth is that Tiller was acquitted because the system did not fail. It worked as intended and thwarted the will of a politically ambitious District Attorney who was intent on twisting the law to bolster his own ambitions.

BTW Saletan, it does not serve the debate to characterize Tiller as an "abortionist" as you did 3-4 times. He was a medical doctor and trained surgeon. Abortion was just a medical procedure he performed. It may have been connected to his death but it did not define his life. He served a vital community need and he did so within the law.. He was also a father and a husband and a respected member of his church. Shalll we return the favor by always describing you as "an anti-choice apologist"? How about "anti abortion crusader"?

Somehow I think you'd prefer the less judgmental "writer". Maybe you can call Tiller a doctor. That's who he was.

You should read the original post there: <link>

Amazing how the same article can have such vastly different reactions to how the article's subject is portrayed.

"Abortion" is OK, but "abortionist" is pejorative?

Explain.

some light reading.

I've read most of that. Reviewed it, too. It doesn't answer my question.

you'd need to ask.

If you think about the situations in which "abortionist" is used, and it's connotations, the pejorative qualities should be obvious. If that was intentional, as an appeal to persons who prefer terms like "abortionist" to describe physicians who perform abortions, I think it's misguided (though that's not the question you asked), which is why I suggested you read Lakoff.

Terms that describe occupations tend to be objectifying, which makes the associated connotations more potent. I'm having a hard time coming up with one that has more uniformly negative connotations than "abortionist". Maybe "vivesectionist"?

I have to agree with General here on this one. Abortion is a term that applies only to the procedure. If you classify someone as an abortionist, you are defining the person solely by the fact that they perform that procedure. In such a controversial issue as this one, you are purposefully stripping the "abortionist" of all other redeeming attributes that they may have for a large portion of the population who find abortion to be objectionable. Statements like that one serve only to divide the people on both sides of the debate.

GeneralDisarray:

Terms that describe occupations tend to be objectifying, which makes the associated connotations more potent. I'm having a hard time coming up with one that has more uniformly negative connotations than "abortionist". Maybe "vivesectionist"?

Objectifying? I'd say objective. If somebody went around shooting artists, I'd call them artists, especially since that's why he seems to be shooting them. They're not just artists -- they're also husbands, wives, moms, dads, and maybe waiters -- but they're being shot for making art.

Tiller was shot for doing abortions. The wrongness of the deed doesn't change that. He wasn't shot for being an OB/GYN. He was shot for being an abortionist.

Yeah, we all know "abortionist" is used to stigmatize. But it's an objective term, and there's no reason to feel any stigma from it unless you accept that there's something bad about abortion. And if you do accept that, then that's worth thinking about, too.

He was shot because somebody out there was able to conclude that he was an abortionist, not a human being. It's not an objective term, it's an objectifying term, and the object being projected is one many people find disgusting or disgraceful (and a few, apparently warranting murder). The only stigma I feel about the term is associated with the manner of it's employ, and the people who tend to employ it.

You're not being honest, Will, because I know you're smarter than this. Otherwise, I expect to see you boldly, shamelessly using the word "Sodomites" much more often, what with it being a technically objective term, and all. [You could substitute "fudgepackers", if you prefer to avoid the religious overtones.]

No.

This is like Saletan's previous flirtation with pseudoscience, warming over the Bell Curve "controversy." I guess it's fun to play the objective outsider, but it's also dishonest. Nobody is as morally tone-deaf as Saletan pretends to be.

Here he uses a term that ONLY exists in pejorative usage, but disclaims the moral baggage... because it's just a word. So is "nigger."

If you're a Pharmacist can someone attack you for being a drug dealer? You sell drugs, don't you? Isn't that worth thinking about?

Tiller was a physician, providing services that were needed by the general public. As he noted, providing late-term fetal imaging without providing a way to terminate pregnancies that go wrong in the second and third trimester (and some do) is medical fraud. By stigmatizing him as an "abortionist" and flirting with the justification of his murder, you trivialize his work and his life and take a position of solidarity with terrorists.

With respect to terrorism, you don't get to weasel around and pretend to take the middle ground.

GeneralDisarray:

Otherwise, I expect to see you boldly, shamelessly using the word "Sodomites" much more often, what with it being a technically objective term, and all. [You could substitute "fudgepackers", if you prefer to avoid the religious overtones.]

Sorry, but sodomite is not an objective term. The objective term would be homosexual, and everything we've said above (that a person is more than occupation, orientation, etc, but that these are still true and can be the reason for a hate crime) applies just the same.

"It's not an objective term, it's an objectifying term, and the object being projected is one many people find disgusting or disgraceful (and a few, apparently warranting murder)."

If you're fine with abortion, you shouldn't care that others find the term "abortionist" disgusting or disgraceful.

Alternatively, perhaps it hits a little too close to the truth and you don't want your precious myths to be shattered.

oxboggle:

By stigmatizing him as an "abortionist" and flirting with the justification of his murder, you trivialize his work and his life and take a position of solidarity with terrorists.

With respect to terrorism, you don't get to weasel around and pretend to take the middle ground.

Thank you, Dick Cheney.

"Yeah, we all know "abortionist" is used to stigmatize."

Then why did you use it? How can you claim it is a purely objective term but also say, "Yeah, we all know "abortionist" is used to stigmatize."? And why do you say "there's no reason to feel any stigma from it unless you accept that there's something bad about abortion" when your schtick is built on abortion being a necessary evil that women should feel really really bad about, i.e. stigmatized?

Of course he's an abortionist. How many babies did he deliver a year as an ob/gyn? How many fibroids did he remove? How many TAH/BSO's did he perform?

None?

If the vast majority of his practice was performing abortions, which it was, then he's an abortionist. That's his job. That's what he was internationally known for, not for his skills in any other area.