The man who walked into a Kansas church this past Sunday and gunned down George Tiller apparently thought so. Tiller was an abortion provider, with a specialty in late-term procedures that few doctors were willing to practice, and that made him a valid target for his assassin - alleged to be a man named Scott Roeder.
It wasn't the first time Tiller had been the victim of violence. His clinic had been bombed and he'd been shot before, in both arms, by those who believed that he was a murderer. Roeder, or whomever fired the fatal bullet, merely took the life-for-a-life concept to its extreme conclusion. Rest assured that the assassin will likely never feel much guilt about murdering someone who was himself, from the pro-life perspective, a mass murderer.
Yet the most prominent pro-life organizations are hardly cheering, at least not publicly. The condemnation of Tiller's murder has been almost total, ranging from Planned Parenthood to Americans United for Life. Those opposed to abortion point out that since they believe the procedure involves the taking of a life, they can hardly condone murder - even if it's the murder of an abortionist.
But the absence of support for Tiller's killer opens a window into the mindset of the pro-life movement, as Slate's William Saletan writes in one of the most piercing examinations of the abortion debate I've ever read. Saletan compares Tiller and the man who killed him to soldiers, pointing out that both were willing to back up their beliefs with actions.
Most pro-choicers, Saletan argues, get to conveniently sidestep the gory details of abortion procedures, whereas Tiller literally got his hands dirty. Supporting choice is one thing, but providing it is enough to make most people squeamish.
Similarly, most pro-lifers say they equate abortion with murder, but very few would be willing to commit murder, even if it meant stopping a "mass murderer" like Tiller. Their beliefs make them feel righteous, but the idea of backing these beliefs up the way Tiller's assassin did makes them squeamish.
Eventually, Saletan comes to the conclusion that the pro-life side doesn't actually believe abortion and murder are the same thing, no matter how often they might say they do. As further proof, he notes that even pro-life organizations pushing for legal sanctions against abortion providers don't think women who have abortions should be prosecuted. Saletan figures that all this, combined with the fact that almost nobody, even pro-choicers, are really pro-abortion in the "Congratulations on your abortion!" sense, means the two sides in the debate might actually find common ground in seeking to reduce the number of abortions through realistic, humane means such as birth control education.
That might be a pipe dream, given the religious underpinnings of the pro-life movement. But Saletan has managed to poke a hole in the moral absolutism of both the pro-life and pro-choice crowd. Whatever side of the debate you're on, this article will challenge the way you think about the issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment