Sunday, while I was traveling out of state without a laptop for the first time in years (leading me to Twitter more, via Blackberry, and blog not at all), I saw a note from a friend I used to work with in Wichita, saying she was “saddened but not shocked by the news out of wichita.”
This made me respond, “What happened? I’ve been traveling all weekend.” Someone else responded, “George Tiller, the doctor from Wichita, Kan., who performed late-term abortions, was shot to death at his church this morning.”
To which I didn’t respond at all. I just thought, “As if Roe hasn’t done enough damage in the way it’s torn America’s politics apart, now this.” I knew this incident was going to make it even harder for the pro-life (like me) and the pro-choice even to communicate. And if you doubt that, see what someone else responded to Cheryl’s Facebook update: “Why do ‘pro-lifers’ like to kill people?”
Sheesh. It was tough enough already.
The reflexive habits of thought are so polarized, that even if one tries to be fair and stick up for the other side, it tends to come out in a way that reflects the prejudices of your own side. For instance, Gary Karr writes that the L.A. Times, with which “I often disagree” he hastens to add, said something that made sense to him in a piece headlined “Dr. George Tiller’s assassination is no reason to suppress speech.” What the LAT is addressing here is the inevitable attempts by the “pro-choice” side to use this case as an excuse to suppress the other side, through such absurd measures as sending federal martials to guard abortion clinics from all those wicked pro-lifers (not an example LAT used, but it just happened to pop into my head, since that actually is happening).
Yet the very language the Times piece uses illustrates the cognitive divide:
The assassination of Dr. George Tiller, long targeted by extremists because he performed late-term abortions, is a reminder that fringe adherents of the “pro-life” movement are willing to desecrate the very value they claim to champion.
Even though the very next sentence reads…
But it distorts reality to insinuate that millions of Americans who oppose abortion condone such tactics.
… the mindset has already been communicated. By the mere use of a plural subject, “fringe adherents of the ‘pro-life’ movement,” the idea has been conveyed that there are a bunch of bloodthirsty killers over on that other side, waving guns about wildly, looking for their next victim — which could be you, dear reader! Never mind that the next sentence says they’re not ALL like that (there are some good ones, you know, as confirmed racists have always said), doubt has been cast upon the entire class.
Whereas this incident demonstrates nothing of the kind. It illustrates that one guy hated enough to kill one other guy. Period. This says nothing about classes of people. The individual is responsible for his actions.
This relates to the subject of “hate crimes,” one of those rare issues where I agree with libertarians. Punish the crime, say I, not the political beliefs of the criminal. We don’t do thoughtcrime in this country. And yet, of course, the pro-choice folks want very much to condemn, not only the shooter, but many who agree with him, of thoughtcrime. That’s why President Obama called this shooting “heinous.” If the killer had shot Tiller because he didn’t like his tie, would the president have called it “heinous?” I don’t think so, and neither do you. He was addressing the political implications of the act.
We all have our own ideas of what is “heinous.” I consider making a living from third-trimester abortions to be pretty heinous. Lots of people who are genuinely pro-“choice” — and I mean those who genuinely see how morally problematic abortion on demand is, but don’t want to impose those values on others, as opposed to those who are simply pro-abortion, seeing its availability as a positive social good — would at least on some level agree with me. Although they might use some milder word, such as “distasteful.”
But you see, I’m not allowed to say that now. If I say that now, I get howls of protest from the Other Side about how I’m “blaming the victim” or excusing the killer. Of course, I’d be doing nothing of the kind. The fact that Tiller made a living doing something heinous doesn’t mean he should be killed, much less shot down like a dog in a place of worship. And the person who did shoot him should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law (although not executed, since I AM pro-life).
My point is simply that “heinous” is, in the context of anything touching upon abortion, a word packed with political meaning that sets off all sorts of alarm bells.
Even under normal circumstances, I don’t like discussing abortion because such discussions inevitably produce more heat than light. I do it sometimes, but usually to discuss that very phenomenon of polarization, and I leave the subject behind as quickly as possible, preferring to get back to subjects where I might have a chance of changing someone’s mind.
With this shooting, I’ll be even more reluctant (see how it’s taken me two days to post this?). And I won’t even get into reminiscing about my days in Wichita, when this guy’s clinic was a few blocks from where I lived, and a constant source of controversy (this was in the mid-80s). What’s the point? Might as well leave it. Which is just the effect that folks who disagree with me hope this will have, of course, but what are you gonna do? A senseless act of violence has been perpetrated, and it will have its terrible effect on such lesser considerations as political discourse, at least for a time.
