In light of recent events, I don't think that my response to Doug was strong enough. My answer was a political one, not one based on right and wrong. But I've found the response that I should have made here:
Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit.
Posts
4 comments:
I wouldn't characterize it as taunting -- sorry if it came off that way. I think it's the logical outcome of what I regard to be a faulty premise: that developing human life is morally worthy of the same rights and protections as fully developed human life. Or -- if we take specifics of some of Dr. Tiller's cases, that developing human life that will result in death or severe health problems to the mother and a short, painful life for the baby, once born is morally worthy of the same rights and protections as fully developed human life.
I suppose a completely "pro-life" position is one way out of the ethical weeds -- if you believe that killing is wrong, no matter whether the target of the killing is a threat to other human life or a murderer or anything else, then violence against a doctor who performs abortions would similarly be forbidden.
For those such as myself who believe that Dr. Tiller's life was worthy of much greater protections than the developing lives he put an end to, the moral response is pretty easy: absolute condemnation of the cowardly piece of shit who murdered him. If that guy truly believed in his own righteousness, he should have submitted to arrest after doing his act, confident that the Lord would see that justice was done. But, the guy ran, attempting to escape the consequences of his action.
Theres some pretty good posts (one done by me, another by Chris Buckly, and another a link to Kevin Tracy's) on Porter County Politics regarding this matter.
I'll start off by saying the timeliness of these events are uncanny. The murder of Dr. Tiller may not be condemned strongly enough - and it blows my mind how someone that would position themselves as Pro-Life would even consider murder as an option.
As expected, the act does undermine the Pro-Life agenda primarily because it is clearly murder and unjustified regardless of the blood on Dr. Tiller's hands. For some supporting abortion, there is naturally displaced resentment for any Pro-Life individual, while most I suspect see this for what it is - the act of a single individual. In this particular case though, the cause was even more undermined because of the pending litigation against Dr. Tiller. This represented an opportunity to build precedent against a practitioner of the most despicable types of abortion.
What is a little surprising though is to see such a strong defense of Dr. Tiller. Even if I were in support of abortion, I would have been against this guy. He simply did not follow the rules for executing the late-term abortions he performed and in so doing created opportunity for Pro-Life lawyers to make a move that would risk the continued access even to some 2nd trimester procedures. I have no idea why the pro-abortion folks wouldn't want to have pressured him to keep the late-term abortions in check.
Even Doug rallies to Dr. Tiller's defense on this promoting the valuable service that he is providing to women - and am I reading it correctly Doug - To the benefit of the child?
As I suspected Doug, you would not be able to stand in the face of even moderate societal pressure and take action you promoted in your previous post. Look you're tempering your language with one headline and a callout from Buzz. No need to clarify Doug. Your position was very clear, no Pro-Lifer is sincere in his or her position unless they are willing to become violent. The argument was asinine on your previous post and your rationalized condemnation here "demonstrates quite clearly that, at some level" you know that to be true.
But let's dispense with your BS hypothetical situations in your last post and talk about the reality of the situation Doug. In your last post you insulate yourself with "blastocytes and zygotes", but that's not what we are talking about here. Dr. Tiller reached up into women's uteruses during their third trimester and yanked out fully-baked children by their feet. He pulled them out through the birth canal - but not too far. He was ever so careful not to pull the head out completely, that would be a born child. Then without giving the child the benefit of anesthesia he drove surgical forceps through the base of their skulls into their brain. Finally, applying a aspirator over the hole sucked their brains out of their heads. And for this you think he's doing the children a favor? Veterinary clinics across this nation provide their patients with more humane treatment.
It's actually your premise that is faulty. Dr. Tiller performed abortions on children that were fully developed and viable outside the womb. On late-term abortions this is the consesus of most states and medical professionals. In fact, the only doctor that Dr. Tiller could apparently get to corroborate his activities, was one that he paid. So, insulate yourself with clinical terms and euphamisms if you like, but don't try to pass off your argument as logical.
Just so we're all on the same page as to exactly what Tiller was up to, and what the alternative was, here.
To be completely honest, I could not finish the artilce. It was just too upsetting. These people with the severely disabled children are in a really sad situation. But the clinic next door to Tiller's seems like the better place. That's where I'd be (I'm going to write them a check, in fact).
Post a Comment