Exposing the Pro-Life Lie
The murder today of Dr. George Tiller in Kansas confirms what many of us have long known. Among those who call themselves pro-life, there are plenty who are anything but. They are terrorists, plain and simple, who seek to subordinate women to the religiously fanatical, patriarchal dystopia of their theocratic fantasies. At best, they are pro-fetal life. They love the pre-born but could care less for those children already here, whose poverty they will blame on their parents, whose illness and lack of health care they will shrug off as "not their problem," and whose humanity they will altogether ignore or even cheer as it is destroyed, so long as those children be Iraqi, or Afghan, or just Muslim in general.
But now let me say something you might not expect, something you might even find shocking, but something which is also inarguable, at least from a position of intellectual honesty. Namely, in a bizarre way, those who would murder abortion providers like Dr. Tiller, are actually the only anti-abortion forces who are consistent, and whose actions coincide with their rhetoric. On the other hand, those who oppose abortion access and yet would condemn the killing of Tiller, or other abortion providers, or the bombing of clinics, are actually, by virtue of their squeamishness, demonstrating the fundamentally flawed logic of the anti-choice position.
Think about it: those who oppose abortion claim that a fetus is morally equal to an already-born person in every way. They are not only life, but life imbued with rights, both God-given (in their minds), natural, and (they would prefer) legal. But if one really believes that--if one truly believes that a fetus is morally equal to, let's say, my 5 or 7-year old daughters--then that belief would literally require such a person to intervene against those who would end such fetal life, even to the point of killing them if need be. I have little doubt, after all, that if you were walking down the street and saw someone about to kill a small child, you would feel justified in intervening, even to the point of using lethal force, in order to protect that innocent child. And if you did, you would not only be acting within the confines of the law, but within the boundaries of virtually any moral or ethical system you can construct, or of which you might conceive.
While killing Tiller on his way to church might be hard to rationalize under this rendering (since he was not about to perform an abortion, and thus there was no immediate threat to which the shooter could claim to be responding), had Tiller been killed going into work, or had the clinic where he operated been blown up, killing the employees inside, under simple notions of the vicarious defense of others, such an act would be justified: at least it would be if one accepts the underlying premise of fetal personhood put forth by the anti-choice side.
To say otherwise--to say, for instance that lethally intervening to save a 7 year old from an attacker is morally justified, but doing the same to save a fetus is not--is to admit, however implicitly, that fetal life is not equal morally speaking to the lives of born persons. However we might agree that a fetus is not without value, and that the decision to terminate a pregnancy is a serious one (about which women often struggle, for that very reason), it should be obvious that such life is not equivalent to that of born persons. And the mere fact that most in the anti-abortion movement aren't willing (thankfully) to commit murder, as in the Tiller case, suggests that at some level, despite their claims to the contrary, even they know it.
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
- Share With:
Scottie Lowe says:
Is it prudent to arm
Is it prudent to arm pro-lifers with what could essentially be legal grounds for acquittal in a court of law?
Jessica Jewell says:
SUPERB!!!
thanx for this and for callin the so-called 'pro-lifers' exactly what they are: anti-choice, pro-fetal lifers.... too bad the MSM insist on referrin to Dr. Tiller as an 'abortion doctor' when in fact, he was a doctor that performed late-term abortions (which I disagree with)and other procedures.
James Maiewski says:
Not quite.
While I get what you're saying here, and many of these people, when they're being honest, would admit that this murder was justified; to say that you believe that abortion (or even contraception, for Christ's sake) is murder, does in no way "require" an eye for an eye. "Vengeance [corrected -jhm] is mine" is perhaps the most compelling moral precept in the bible for me, and I see no contradiction with an opposition to both capital punishment (which I share) and abortion (which I do not, especially on the grounds that it could be argued that some iron-age myths suggest it to be immoral).
Frederic Christie says:
No, Quite.
James: You're talking about something entirely separate. Vengeance may be the prerogative of God, but we're not talking about vengeance, but defense of an imminent death. Even outright pacifists and the Dalai Lama have often admitted that violent or lethal intervention to stop an imminent and immediate death would be justified.
So Tim admitted that this doctor was killed on the way to church, which would be vengeance, but were he to be about to perform an abortion, anyone who honestly believes that abortion is literally akin to murder would be ethically obligated to stop him. And if the law agreed, there may be legal requirements as well!
Do you honestly think that most anti-abortion folks would sit idly by while their 7 year old daughter was being killed? No, they'd (rightly, IMHO), grab the shotgun or the baseball bat. And they'd do the same for a strangers' daughter as well. Yet they don't think this is appropriate for abortion. Meaning that they must not honestly believe it is literally akin to murder.
I actually do see moral problems and issues with abortion. It is a scary concept. For one thing, the feminist Left likes to argue that if it's a fetus, it's not human. But these are often the same people who won't kill a calf, cow or hog for meat because it's immoral! Does something not being human mean it isn't entitled to moral consideration? I just think that when the moral considerations are so contentious and when the cost of regulating is so likely to push the behavior underground and function to imprison an already disempowered group (women), that the state should leave its nose out of it.
Wilma de Soto says:
Exposing The Pro-Life Lie
Brilliant.
My sister, who is African-American, escorted women into a Planned Parenthood Clinic and was called "nigger", "dyke" and a dozen other racist and sexist epithets by "Operation Rescue" whilst they clutched their Rosarys and Bibles.
This is really, "The 'White-to-Life' Movement." They are scared to death that potential White people would be aborted which in turn could threaten their White Majority and power in the US.
They have NO interest whatsoever in protecting children of poverty, abuse, neglect et.al. ; especially since people of color have fewer abortions.
Any physician who should sbort a potential White Person is an enemy to the perpetuation and domination of the White Race in America.
Therefore, such physicians must be destroyed.
I personally could not abort a pregnancy. Still, I may have suspected and may have lost several embryos or potential babies.
Could this possibly result in the routine collection and/or legal burial of the potential human lives lost in the tampons/pads of sexually active women of childbearing age?
Pray, no.
-Wilmita
Wilphil
Melita Hughes says:
pro lifers not all hypocrites
I am a pro lifer and a 'fan' of Tim Wise. You are very intelligent and I respect and usually agree with your opinions. I am just a bit saddened though, that you would compare the murder of this man to self defense of a child in the act of being murdered. I am and always have been pro life. I believe from the moment of conception that life is precious and do not condone any pre-meditated, calculated taking of life, that is , any time one person actually goes through the preperation to take a human life, I am opposed. I am opposed to the death penalty and war for this same reason.In this day and age, I guess that makes me unrealistic and idealistic, but I can accept that. This doctors life was precious as well, whether I agree with his choices or not and I am sorry for his family and his loved ones. To seek out and destroy a life is a terrible thing which is one of many reasons I don't condone what has happened. I think it would be quite a different thing if this man was caught in the act of taking a life and had his life taken, but this was not the case. This was not an impulsive crime as it would be if , as you say, i was walking down the road and SAW someone about to kill a child. In that situation, I would indeed act to save the child, not necessarily to take the life of the person trying to harm them.
Frederic Christie says:
Melita...
I agree: There is a consistent, largely pacifist orientation that is appalled by abortion precisely because it is taking away a life, and would not kill an abortion doctor for the same reason.
But such a view, and the slightly more mainstream view you hold, is still NOT the mainstream of the pro-life movement. Usually, these are religious conservatives who have no trouble justifying the war in Iraq or religious crusades. They rarely are coming at it from a pacifistic perspective. Most would support using lethal force or at least physical force to stop someone from committing a murder.
No one here is saying that opposing the death penalty and war is unrealistic - indeed, we all agree, being largely leftist. But the problem comes when we realize that almost no one takes the idea that a fetus is EXACTLY like a baby seriously. That means reasonable people can disagree about policy without demanding a state clampdown and a violation of stare decisis.
Mary Wilkinson says:
Well here in Ireland we call
Well here in Ireland we call it Pro-choice and I personally don't think men should be even discussing abortion.
Frederic Christie says:
Why Not?
I've never bought this idea that I as a man have no rights or considerations whatsoever as to what occurs due to parts of my body too. The practical consideration is that it's not in my body, it's in hers, and surely that should trump other concerns, but I've always felt that a more equitable society would have more consultation and more equal distribution of rights than unilateral and unlimited rights held by the mother...
Geneve Champoux says:
Late Term vs. Early Term
I enjoyed this blog, Tim. It offers a perspective that I haven't yet heard or thought of in this long-running debate.
The majority of pro-life activists don't actually see an early-term fetus as being equal to a full-term infant; however, Dr. Tiller was especially known for conducting late-term abortions, which, according to some definitions, means that the fetus could potentially survive outside of the womb, thereby putting this particular case into a different classification in which the rights of the fetuses he aborted can be more heavily debated. This may have been what prompted his murder, though I can't fully speculate because I don't know enough about the man who killed him.
That said, on another forum, there was a woman who shared her story about Dr. Tiller. Her mother had gone to see Dr. Tiller for a late-term abortion. Dr. Tiller spoke to her mother and rather than perform the abortion, he helped her mother find the couple who later became this woman's adoptive parents. He apparently did this for many women, and he was most certainly not the evil, near-full-term baby killer some had painted him as.
Many of the late-term abortions performed by Dr. Tiller were performed on women who had discovered in the latter stages of pregnancy that their babies suffered from conditions that made it unlikely that they would survive once born. In such cases, some of these women felt that to carry the baby to full term only to watch it die would be too heartbreaking. Furthermore, parents have the right to remove children from life support if they don't want to see their child hooked up to a matrix of machines, but in the case of a pregnancy in which the baby will be unable to survive on its own once born, the woman's body becomes that same life support system and should be legally recognized as such.
Studies that have focused on women who have received late-term abortions have also found that the majority of women choose to have a late-term abortion because they are unable to access an early-term abortion because of financial constraints or issues with transportation, because their life circumstances change while they were pregnant, or because they face pressure not to abort from family and friends, which delays their decision.
With this knowledge, anyone who doesn't like the idea of late-term abortion of completely healthy fetuses should be angry at the pro-lifers who seek to make all abortion, including early-term abortion, less accessible or more socially stigmatized. There is a certain point (albeit a very difficult to define one) in the pregnancy at which the fetus is no longer much different from a full-term newborn. Once we can rationally (not religiously) agree on when this point is, it would be more morally consistent to make abortions prior to that stage publicly funded and accessible to women in all areas of the country, and also to provide women with the psychological and emotional support to make their decision prior to reaching the point at which the fetus is no longer just a fetus. All this in addition to providing more social supports for single mothers and parents of disabled children, of course.
As far as the comment about how men shouldn't even be debating the issue goes, I agree that this is primarily a women's issue because it is women's bodies and lives that are directly affected, but I don't think it's fair or wise to exclude men from the debate or to disregard the emotional impact of abortion on men who fathered aborted children. Stating that it's a women's issue is very different from stating that only women should discuss it. By that logic, one could argue even more specifically that it's a fertile heterosexual and bisexual women's issue and lesbian or infertile women therefore have no place in the discussion. Instead, I would like to see everyone come to understand the complexity of the issue and the inconsistencies in the pro-life movements and for abortion to be another topic to add to the many discussions sexually active heterosexual couples should have about birth control, parenting (or not parenting), sexual openness, etc. Those who don't believe in abortion shouldn't have one or shouldn't have sex with women who do believe in abortion. It really can be that simple.
Frederic Christie says:
Quite Reasonable
For me, the abortion debate has never boiled down to morality. The issue is a legal morass, and it is one that numerous religious groups and ethicists have reeled at balancing all the innumerable concerns from. Rights to control one's own body, the definition of life, whether or not a parent can terminate a life because it'll be too hard for THEM to go through the loss... None of this is easy, and I don't think there are right answers.
What it's about is simple: Keep the state out of the decision. When the government clamps down on complex moral questions, it artificially constrains the range of options and makes it impossible for society to discuss and come up with better alternatives and compromises. This is true in many circumstances, but it is uniquely onerous in the case of abortion because the imbalance of power against women in general is so staggering that it will be the poor, the black, and women who bear the cost of the state deciding for us what is moral.
Melita Hughes says:
Frederic, quite reasonable
Frederic,
As a pro-lifer, I appreciate your reasonableness. This is a very difficult topic for me because there just is no black and white about it legally, although as a christian there is. I have to weigh in from both angles which is also difficult. To be realistic, I have to agree that it could be a big mistake to allow the state in on this. I believe that from conception to death , human life is human life and therefore valuable. A fetus is not the same as an infant, an infant not the same as a toddler, a toddler not the same as a teen,, and so on. But all stages, I believe are equally significant parts of the human life. I think a bigger issue and probably a more easily workable solution is in the values and priorities being passed on throughout the culture. With the entertainment value sex has taken on and the ho hum big deal value that creating life has begun to receive. I think preventative measures are easier tackled and agreed upon , such as more realistic educational options and more responsible social and media examples. The risks of sex and the responsibilities should be re-inforced as often as possible instead of just the glamour and self gratification. Even amongst those chosing to have children, the care is decreasing so much because people have stopped thinking about or caring about anything beyond their immediate gratification. If so many of us (my younger self included) were not so non chalant and irresponsible in our sexual habits, the issues of abortions and mistreated children wouldnt be so prominent. And yes, I know, even responsible adults sometimes have broken condoms , non working prescriptions and the like, but for the most part, the ails of our unborn and born children can be placed directly on the bad sexual habits and choices of the adults. .....what do you think?
Frederic Christie says:
Thank You
"As a pro-lifer, I appreciate your reasonableness. This is a very difficult topic for me because there just is no black and white about it legally, although as a christian there is. I have to weigh in from both angles which is also difficult. To be realistic, I have to agree that it could be a big mistake to allow the state in on this. I believe that from conception to death , human life is human life and therefore valuable."
I'm not sure about the line between fetus and child on a philosophical level, but I liked how Dr. House put it: The line of birth may not be morally simplistic or elegant, but it is a real line and is a reasonable one to choose.
I rather prefer the way that Jews think about it. Yes, the baby is a life. But it is also a parasitic life. Now, traditionally, Jews have some room for abortion but not unlimited room. But I think that if someone has made the decision that the fetus in their body is unwanted, it is a parasite.
Most reasonable people don't think that the fetus is not important. I have met not a single woman who considered the abortion option who did not take it with grave seriousness or wonder what would have been, either way. But I think that it is fair to distinguish it to some degree, even putting aside the issue of parasitism, from even a newborn infant.
An issue that has always bothered me, though, is the right of the father. Sure, Dad doesn't need to sit there for hours forcing out a tiny human being from their body. And they bear none of the risks of childbirth. Certainly, not every prospective father deserves our respect. But does a faithful prospective father of two working hard to support his family REALLY have no rights the state is obligated to respect if his wife decides to abort the third product of his biology, to pick an example at random? I don't know. I think a better society would establish some rights for both father and mother, but our society is so riddled with patriarchal norms that doing so is a recipe for disaster.
My position isn't the feminist norm on the topic, but I consider myself a feminist.
"I think a bigger issue and probably a more easily workable solution is in the values and priorities being passed on throughout the culture."
Absolutely, and this is something I think we feminists could be better about explaining. The resistance is ONLY to the state being involved (which means, incidentally, that you ARE a pro-choicer, in that you think women have the right to make that choice without government interference).
No one is saying that those who believe that a fetus is a life and/or that abortion is wrong don't have a right to express their opinion, stridently. Of course, these issues aren't axiomatic. So I think that those who respectfully protest outside abortion clinics are in the right, but I think it becomes much more grotesque when they get so close to the clinic that they become intimidating or use insulting languages against individual people. The issue should always be about it being wrong in general, not insulting individuals.
Hell, as a private person, I would NOT recommend abortion in even CLOSE to every instance! Many people might use abortion as an easy way to get out of a difficult situation and regret it later.
But the big point is that we as a society need to have a real debate about it. I think that, if that debate occurs without fear and without maniacs shooting abortion doctors (and making the world more dangerous for EVERYONE, even fetuses, by making it harder for people to get legal, safe abortions so they injure themselves or put the fetus through distress or pain through illegal or self-performed abortions), we will come up with a consensus that abortion is NOT always right but is right in certain circumstances. Already, it seems most reasonable people agree that abortion in the case of incest and rape is far more palatable than abortion for other reasons. Similarly, I think people agree that a young woman using abortion as a de facto means of birth control (which, while NOT the norm, is clearly not beyond imagination) would be far less reasonable and acceptable than the many women who abort because of an unplanned pregnancy when they already have one or two children and when they and their spouse or significant other agree that they don't want more.
Remember that it is estimated by some that 1/3 of all women will have an abortion at some points in their lives. Many conservatives and "pro-lifers" disgustingly imply that all of those women are sluts or murderers.
And the statistics on abortion indicate that many women choose to abort because of fear of being unable to support their progeny or similar reasons connected to the economy. So it really smacks of grotesque hypocrisy when pro-life conservatives want to raise poverty and cut things like AFDC. If you believe in the sanctity of life, make it so no woman has to choose not to have a child she would otherwise have because she cannot afford it.
"With the entertainment value sex has taken on and the ho hum big deal value that creating life has begun to receive. I think preventative measures are easier tackled and agreed upon , such as more realistic educational options and more responsible social and media examples."
Sex has been used for entertainment in cultures since the dawn of man, near as we can tell.
It is regrettably some of those "preventative" measures that conservatives seek to ban or limit, things like birth control education in schools.
"The risks of sex and the responsibilities should be re-inforced as often as possible instead of just the glamour and self gratification."
That is, contrary to popular conservative belief, pretty much what is done in the educational system.
Now, the broader media? Absolutely. But we have to ask, why is sex depicted in such a fashion? Thanks in no small part to sexism and the use of sexuality to put women into a weaker space.
"Even amongst those chosing to have children, the care is decreasing so much because people have stopped thinking about or caring about anything beyond their immediate gratification."
I don't think this can be sustained as a tenable hypothesis. In fact, the abortion data indicates the opposite: as I noted, quite a lot of abortions are due in no small part to people RECOGNIZING that they will find it difficult to get adequate care.
"If so many of us (my younger self included) were not so non chalant and irresponsible in our sexual habits, the issues of abortions and mistreated children wouldnt be so prominent."
I don't think this is the large issue, and in fact abortion rates have gone DOWN in recent years. There is a myth, again promoted by the right, that this new generation after AIDS is more promiscuous than the free love movement. The data does not support this conclusion.
"And yes, I know, even responsible adults sometimes have broken condoms , non working prescriptions and the like, but for the most part, the ails of our unborn and born children can be placed directly on the bad sexual habits and choices of the adults. .....what do you think?"
If we include conservative Congressmen (and liberal Congressmen), Bill Clinton, trickle-down laissez-faire economists, and other servants of the rich and powerful in the group of "adults" making bad choices.
William Branch says:
Is it murder or not?
Tim, I have to say that I highly respect, and most often agree with your writings on issues surrounding race and racism, but I do consider myself pro-life/anti-abortion, and I find a contradiction between the legality of abortion and the criminality of the "killing" of a fetus when perpetrated against the mother's will, such as in the case of Scott Peterson. I've discussed this matter on other forums since the murder of Dr. Tiller (which I don't condone), and, as a fellow forum member put it, it's as if the fetus is a "baby" if the mother wants/wanted it to live, but not a "baby" otherwise. The only justification that I can find in the conviction of Peterson on two counts of homicide (setting aside my own view that the fetus has a right to live) is that the mother's family will grieve the loss of one life and one expected-life. But what of fathers who grieve the loss of expected-children when mothers choose to abort without their consent?
Frederic Christie says:
Unfortunately...
The grieving standard is not a good one for law because it is totally subjective. I could grieve for my car for a year, that doesn't make the thief who stole it and destroyed it guilty of murder.
I think the standard with abortion is the idea that the mother can choose to keep or not keep this parasitic organ, like an appendix. Assaulting me to steal my appendix is still assault. Whether or not I wanted it is moot.