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.
Related Posts
Congratulations!
Now you know why most thinking people stopped reading the NY Times by the age of 23.
I think it would have been pretty heinous to shoot someone b/c you don’t like his tie. A popular law student debate is whether it is less culpable to kill someone in anger–does having an uncontrollable temper give one a “pass” — a license to kill?
I agree that hate crimes are crimes. In America, we punish “crimes,” not “speech.” I have long opposed “gang” legislation–when are we punishing “free association” as opposed to “criminal conspiracy”–which is already illegal? “Harassment” and “Intimidation through extreme speech” a/k/a common-law battery are also crimes. If I do something that reasonably puts you in fear of an assault (an offensive touching), I have committed a battery. We don’t need more laws that actually chill free speech….and I’m a gay-loving liberal.
At the same time, of course, no shouting “fire” in a crowded theater.
Lee, that’s the L.A. Times, not the N.Y. Wrong coast.
As to whether shooting someone over a tie is heinous — I’d have to see the tie. I hate to prejudge these things.
The LA Times is just as crummy as the NY Times.
Sometimes you find an article in one with some facts when searching the web, but I would not waste my time opening either one of those propaganda rags up to read their faux news. They are only good for your exercise above, in demonstrating slanted reporting.
When the media shuts down reasonable discussion of serious issues, the people feel they have to take matters into their own hands. They someone killing children during delivery, who were more viable than many who are being saved elsewhere in a premature unit. They conclude that these persons are committing murder with the support of the media and government. So they do the same to him that they feel he is doing to the babies. They commit one murder to stop a dozen murders.
Have you and Karen looked at the proposals Obama and Eric Holder are floating for new powers to hold American citizens without charging them, and to deny them access to firearms and other rights if they say the wrong things or associate with seditious groups? They even name some of the “bad thinkers”: Ron Paul supporters, libertarians, tax protesters, survivalists, hard money advocates, etc.
Meanwhile, they are dropping charges against Black Panthers for intimidation of voters who might have been anti-Obama in 2008.
Brad, Roe v. Wade did not ‘do this damage’, the man is responsible for his actions. Meanwhile, if Pres. Obama is going to inhibit free speech, can I send him Lee’s name? Lee, kidding aside, where are you getting this information?
To be clear, Karen — the “damage” is the polarization of our society to an extent that people who disagree on the subject are incapable of communicating. This shooting exacerbates that. In other words, what I was saying was that since Roe, things had been bad enough. “Now this,” which makes things worse.
And yes, Roe did cause this bizarre inability to communicate — ironically, when you think about it. Looked at superficially, you would think Roe would reduce polarization because it bans abortion from consideration by the political branches.
However, it had the opposite effect. By narrowing the range in which political consideration of the issue can take place to the tiny area of Supreme Court nominations — which both sides now see as all-or-nothing battles for either continuing the effects of Roe or reversing it — the conflict has been intensified. That intensity has caused that one consideration regarding a sliver of the duties of the president of the United States to lead to legions of single-issue voters who will actually oppose or support a presidential candidate based on whether he agrees with them on this issue that has supposedly been removed from political consideration. In fact, the very dividing line between our two major, extremely polarized political parties roughly correlates to views on this issue, thereby affecting EVERYTHING about national politics.
It’s perverse; it’s twisted; it’s tail-wagging-the-dog stuff. And that’s what Roe did to our politics. This shooting adds to that problem. It’s not a cause-and-effect thing; it’s two causes, with the effect being the polarization.
If R v. W was hated enough, we’d have a constitutional amendment by now. As it is, both sides are so busy fighting each other that neither is addressing the root causes of many abortions. I suspect (don’t know, of course) that if someone suggested an amendment to ban all abortions performed for the sake of sex selection, it could be passed with overwhelming agreement. And what are we doing to reduce other, more serious, reasons for abortion? Durn little. We’ve had a president who for 8 years pushed abstinence-only birth control education in schools (I think SC still thinks that way). We haven’t pushed for guaranteed good prenatal care for all expectant mothers–that includes care when they can get it without losing jobs/school, and where they can get it, i.e. somewhere reasonably accessible to someone riding by bus (does this bear on some of our problems with public transportation? oh, yes). We don’t provide those who need it proper instruction in child care, nor do we provide a way for an impoverished mother to get child care so that she can get the training or experience she needs to have any chance of providing for herself or her child independently. I understand and respect the position of those who oppose R.v W. Meanwhile, I wish we could unite to try to make abortion appear less necessary to so many.
Actually, all of those issues have been addressed privately for years by such pro-life organizations as Birthright. My late mother-in-law, a wonderful woman who died in 2006, ran the Birthright in Memphis for about 20 years, and did a lot of good helping people through some very difficult times.
I’m just curious. Why is this murderous extremist’s act any worse than Eric Rudolph’s several, in terms of worsening the polarization?
Yes. I can think of quite a few private, charitable agencies that do wonders. Kudos to your mother-in-law. The world will miss her. But even the best agencies are able to do so little, compared to the number of impoverished and/or ignorant women. I say this not to denigrate their efforts, but to say that neither side is putting the weight they should behind the effort. We’re probably spending more money (on both sides) yelling at each other than it would take to make a sizable reduction in abortion statistics.
The liberals, progressives and socialists have no solution to the mess they cause with encouraging and subsidizing rampart illegitimate births – only abortion.
They won’t reverse their failed policies of promoting recreational sex, drugs abuse, abuse of women and children by their welfare programs.
They refuse to punish promiscuity and abuse of the systems they created.
They refuse to enforce birth control and sterilization of the mothers and fathers.
But they want taxpayers to pay for repeated abortions, or serial bastardy.
“Polarization” on abortion goes back thousands of years.
It is a biological dilemma that can’t very easily be resolved with sophisticated human legal or moral systems.
It’s one of the very few issues so sensitive that it HAS to be bound up in a tenuous federal court decision.
It was a biological dilemma before it was ever a spiritual or legal dilemma, going back to before humans had settlements, courts, or even organized religion. You can bet that ever since the very first homo sapien females emerged from the East African Rift Valley, with the uniquely human qualities of reason and choice, there have been women who, for a variety of reasons simple or complex, did not wish to bring a pregnancy to full term. This could range anywhere from the “simple” problem of unwanted pregnancy, to the “complex” dilemma of physical or psychological problems and complications experienced during the course of the pregnancy.
It seems that abortion is one of those hard realities of human civilization that defies all repression by religious, political, or legal authorities. The alternative to it happening in modern medical facilities under the guidance of trained medical professionals is that it happens underground, in ways that are a thousand times more abominable. But it’s gonna happen. It just is.
What is my point with this rambling abortion essay? It always strikes me as strange that the people who do these wingnut shootings and bombings are strident, crusading MALES who think they are somehow Defenders of the Truth on the abortion topic. I think such folks have absolutely no idea what goes on in a female body OR a female mind, and the ancient problem of abortion is twisted in their tiny brains into a hapless caricature of “murder” and “sin”.
I’m tempted to say that our societal “rules” for abortion should probably only be decided by those among us who have the biological capacity to carry and nurture a fetus into a neurally complete human inside our own bodies.
I know one woman who had an abortion, had no regrets, and was absolutely sure that having that option made all the difference…for the better…in her life. I know another woman who regretted her abortion, and felt an inconsolable emotional loss that she did not have her baby.
This polarity, even among women who HAVE abortions, tells me, as a man, that I have no freaking clue about what’s ultimately “right” on this. And I think I’m probably like most men on this issue, which is to say, when it comes to the abortion topic, men are completely out of their depth.
What would really be helpful is much, MUCH more serious and fearless sex education. It would be great if we could stop being squeamish about sex, and stop pretending that “abstinence” is a positive educational program. Once people hit puberty, sex becomes a chemical necessity in the body, just like eating, breathing, sleeping. If we could get over our religious and moral taboos enough to deal seriously with sex as a natural biological function starting with adolescence, we would fare much better with the peripheral education that goes along with that….contraception, disease-prevention, etc. But as long as we are scared of sex, and mostly ignorant of how to properly channel it, we will keep raising sexually stupid young people with far too many accidental pregnancies.
jfx, you are deluding yourself if you think the opposition to late-term abortions is just a cover for “fear of sex”.
If anyone is ignorant of “how to channel sex”, it is the amoral hordes who expect the Responsible Minority to feed, house, clothe and care for the unwanted children they drop on our doorsteps. It is also their enablers, who consider themselves to be enlightened by not being critical of anti-social, destructive behavior.
How many schools have sex education classes where teachers explain where babies come from? When they teach this most basic of biological urges, do they also teach responsibility and the consequences of sex without birth control methods and the potential of a pregnancy coming from a sexual liaison?
This discussion and emotional subject will most likely not go away anytime soon, if ever. However, as older generations pass and the succeeding ones take their place, the attitude toward abortion will become less and less objectionable and eventually, an accepted practice with no crisis of conscience for anyone having one or those associated with providing them.
When one of the members of Dr. Tiller’s church described him as a “Christian and a good man”, that bothered me. If the practice of performing late term abortions defines what a good man and Christian is, our organized religious institutions are indeed headed for trouble and irrelevance. How could any person of conscience perform a late term abortion considering the heinous and murderous technique used in the procedure then go to a church and kneel at the altar of God believing himself to be a “good man and a Christian”?
martin, there is no real difference except when Eric Rudolph set off his bombs and killed some who were not directly involved with abortions, it was at a time when abortions were viewed in a more negative manner and an icon of abortionists was not involved. Bill Clinton condemned the bombings but the FBI got it wrong and pursued the wrong man and embarrassed the entire country for their incompetence. The story lost its luster and the MSM didn’t want to continue to air their dirty laundry of complicity in character assassination of Richard Jewell any longer than necessary. Ever wonder why Rudolph’s capture didn’t dominate the headlines any longer than they did? Ever wonder why he was able to publish a manifesto and escaped the death penalty?
This time however, the murder was done in a church, and acts of violence committed on consecrated grounds like a house of worship reaches a deeper emotional connection and evoke more sympathy for the victim by the general public no matter what he or she may or may not have done to give the perpetrator a perceived reason to commit murder. We have a president who delivered the commencement speech at Notre Dame University, the center of Catholicism in American academia. There were outcries of protest among some priests and other church leaders but ND stayed the course and allowed the speech to be delivered and bestow honors on Obama. Although some graduates wore miniature baby shoes as a sign of protest, he still delivered his speech and encouraged dialogue between the factions. He was still honored in spite of ND’s official position on the practice of abortion. This is or will be one of the main reasons it will be different this time and will be used as an opportunity for abortion supporters to gain more and more acceptance.
Jfx, your apparent ambivalence on the subject as to what is “right” might suggest that your moral compass has no clear North, South, East, or West on it but I do think you are a person of conscience. Please tell me who speaks for the unborn if the only ones capable of carrying them to term and birth won’t and are the ones who are charged with making the decision to end a life in their womb. Please tell me it is acceptable and reasonable for a man, who by the way did have an active part in the pregnancy, to be without a voice in any decision made to end the life carried inside the mother. Humans have an adequate supply of both male and female genes with the dominate gene determining the sex or gender. While men are definitely not capable of giving birth to a child, most men do have a connection that is just as nurturing, caring, and loving as the mother but in a different way. I don’t buy your argument or anyone else’s that eliminates a man from any decision process when it comes to deciding whether to have an abortion or not if he is the husband, fiancé, or boyfriend.
You make some good points about the development of the body and the urge to reproduce at a young age. We forget that long before our time on earth, women used to marry younger and 12 was not an uncommon age for a bride. Men married at a younger age as well but then, both sexes matured much earlier and life expectancy was nowhere near what it is today.
Abortion brings out strong passions in all of us, especially late term or partial birth abortions. If we don’t see the fetus, we cannot identify with it. When described in cold, scientific terms and considered nothing but a protoplast, humanity is not assigned to the unborn or fetus living inside the mother. But, when we as civilized humans read about the procedures used in a late term/partial birth abortion, even the most hardened will wince or cringe when they realize the unborn child must endure a cold, barbaric, inhumane, and tortured death while its head is still inside its mother’s womb. There is no humanity, civility, or Christianity associated with this procedure. A “good man” would never stoop so low.
For these reasons, while I abhor murder, I cannot mourn the death of Dr. Tiller but I can call for justice under the law to be applied full force to his murderer. He had no right to take a life either.
Contrast the reaction of the liberal news media and the Obama administration to this shooting of a late-term abortion specialist with the almost total lack of coverage and DOJ response to the murder of an Army recruiter in Arkansas by a Muslim extremist on the eve of Obama’s next apology trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt.
jfx is thoughtful as always. I just couldn’t disagree more with this point:
“I’m tempted to say that our societal “rules” for abortion should probably only be decided by those among us who have the biological capacity to carry and nurture a fetus into a neurally complete human inside our own bodies.”
That is COMPLETELY at odds with the concept of Rule of Law — the last person you want making a life-or-death call is the person whom you can argue is the most immediately interested. Judges recuse themselves for far, far less direct personal interest.
How can serious people honestly advance such a position, in a country ruled by laws and not men (or women)? I’m always taken aback when I hear that.
Dammit. I thought you said blogs were for digressions.
So, I digressed into the “temptation” of thinking about some sort of All-Female Federal Abortion Ministry, comprised of medical/legal/ethical professionals, who make “the rules” only because the men have so thoroughly bungled it. Even Roe v. Wade, that bit of landmark legalese gymnastics, was an all-male construction. No dames on that court back in the day.
I did say I was “tempted”. Not an endorsement.
The only position I would “seriously” advance here is that we keep things like “soul” and “scripture” out of the discussions that comprise the the formation and revision of our secular rule of law. Have there been any acts of violence committed against abortion doctors, or their clinics, that have NOT contained a strain of militant evangelism?
Have you ever seen any opposition to any immoral behavior that was not committed by people with moral convictions?
By the way, evangelism is about spreading the joyful news of God, to convert the heathen. It has nothing to do with violence.
There’s nothing “moral” about walking into a Lutheran church and shooting a man in cold blood. Doesn’t matter whether he’s an abortion doctor or a Harlem Globetrotter. Sorry. You’re bonkers. Get help.
Karen,
Go read Obama’s speech of May 21, where he talks of new legislation to give the DOJ to use “preventative detention”.
His apologists are trying to spin it as just applying to GITMO detainees brought to the USA. Is he? Can Congress pass preventative detention laws just for a small class of people?
How do you think this fits in with his stated goal of disarming more Americans, and creating a huge Domestic Security Force, “as well-armed and funded as the military..”?
jfx, all the opposition to late-term abortions, infanticide, “mercy killings”, forced sterilizations and other genetic engineering programs of Progressives, is based on morality.
Murdering an abortion doctor or serial killer is also murder. No one is justifying that. You and the other left-wingers are the ones defending the killings you like.
jfx, I was referring to the Alabama abortion clinic where Rudolph’s bomb killed a security guard and blinded a nurse. Think he also at least planted a bomb in a clinic in Atlanta – remember seeing it on CNN.
USA Today had a story yesterday about another loon who killed an abortion doctor in ’98.
My point was this has been happening periodically for a while, what’s so polarizing this time? I wonder if having a Democrat in the WH drives some people over the edge?
jfx, I find it interesting that it seems the people who are the most vocally passionate on this issues are males. Seems there are some sexual politics about the proper role of women at the root of this.
Perversion of religion is and has always been practiced since recorded history began. The act of taking quotes and passages out of the Scriptures and applied to a cause is nothing new. History has proven that wars and conflicts based on religious causes have been among the bloodiest, most brutal, and lacking in human decency. Just as the mass murders and genocide that took place under Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, and non-religious despots and ruthless dictators over the centuries have claimed the lives of untold millions, the “religious” strawman doesn’t work.
At one time, physicians took the Hippocratic Oath upon graduation but today, most don’t. The original oath addressed abortion, “….I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion…..”. The original Declaration of Geneva also took a stance against abortion. “..I will maintain the utmost respect for human life, from the time of its conception, even under threat, I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity;…”.
Neither God or religion is mentioned in any oath given today with one exception contained in the 1964 updated version of the oath. “…Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God….”. With this exception, a physician’s oath is secular and it still does not support abortion under any interpretation. When a doctor performs a late term abortion be considered a “secular” perversion of a physician’s oath to use the popular paraphrase, “First, do no harm”?
This nation once treated blacks like merchandise to be bought and sold at will but that changed due to the conscience of a nation and a bloody war costing hundreds of thousands of lives. Now, we give even less respect or protection to the child growing inside the mother’s womb where over 49 million lives have been claimed since 1973 – legally. The stain of slavery will prove to be the lesser of the two aberrations against humanity.
Rabbi Marc Wilson’s op-ed today was very thoughtful.
Thank you jfx – I would add my thoughts to the fray but I don’t have to now.
Check this out:
http://warner.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/george-tiller/?ref=opinion
It’s a very well-written little opinion piece on the complex realities that get smeared by caricature.