Opinion

The irony of an anniversary

May 31, 2012 was the third anniversary of the death of Dr. George Tiller, who was shot and killed while entering Reformation Lutheran Church in 2009. Spreading across headlines nationwide at the time, the murder of Dr. Tiller (one of America’s first public late-term abortionists) continues to be brought up in the abortion debate today. His story was revisited by many this third anniversary.

On Planned Parenthood’s Facebook page, they wrote:

Abortion is a deeply personal and complex issue that people have many differing thoughts and opinions about. But if there is one thing we should agree on, it’s that violence has no place in any of it.

I agree. The pro-life movement agrees! There is no place for violence in the abortion debate. Pro-lifers shouldn’t go around shooting people, and pro-choicers shouldn’t tear apart babies in the womb. The very act of abortion is the ultimate act of violence. It’s just as bad to shoot a breathing older person as it is to abort a baby. Neither act should be committed.

Countless people called Dr. Tiller a “hero” for what he did. Take this for example:

He persevered for over thirty years through the continuous threats on his life, continuing to provide women with much-needed health care when no one else would, and should be considered nothing less than a true hero.

“Much-needed health care”? I think not. Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions on mothers whose babies were diagnosed with disabilities, and those who did not want to continue carrying their babies for various reasons. Abortion is not a necessary component of health care. Aborting babies with disabilities is not a heroic thing, and late-term abortions pose serious risks to the mother.

The people who wrote these things ignore the irony of their statements. They mourn the loss of Dr. Tiller but are not moved at all by the 4,000 babies who are aborted every day.

In a piece written on a previous anniversary of Dr. Tiller’s death, one writer says:

Those who oppose abortion don’t have a copyright on the word life — when I last checked, Life was still the name of a vintage board game and a breakfast cereal — nor on the prefix ‘pro’. The literal meaning of pro-life, ‘favoring or supporting life’, is not the exclusive domain of anti-abortionists. On the contrary, the pro-choice movement is committed to saving, protecting, supporting and valuing the lives of women and girls; whereas the absolutist pro-life movement — single-mindedly favoring the unborn — devalues girls and women, puts their lives at risk and, at its fringes, condones violence and murder.

It’s important to note that yes, there is a huge difference between “pro-life” and “anti-abortion.” Pro-lifers believe in the right to life of every human being – even abortionists. Anti-abortion believers are simply against abortion. The man who murdered Dr. Tiller (Scott Roeder) was an anti-abortionist who had been charged with crimes before this and had been found mentally unstable. People try to pin this crime on all pro-lifers? Gimme a break. This was a crime committed by an unstable criminal and not consistent with the teaching of the pro-life movement.

The author of that last quote had things rather backward. Claiming that the pro-choice movement is committed to “saving, protecting, supporting, and valuing the lives of women and girls” is baloney. Yes, some people who identify as pro-choice do care about women. But abortion destroys women and girls. It kills baby girls, and it hurts mothers. If a person truly values women and girls, she won’t be for abortion.

It’s very clear to me that the author’s representation of the pro-life movement is terribly twisted. Pro-lifers care not just about the unborn. Why would pro-lifers open pregnancy centers for mothers, maternity homes, adoption agencies, and shelters if they cared only about the unborn? They wouldn’t. A truly pro-life person values all life, and works to defend all life, not “just” the unborn.

Being pro-life does not “devalue” women and girls. In reality, treating women’s bodies as they were meant to be treated by nature is valuing them in the highest degree. And finally, a true pro-life person does not condone violence. That’s why we’re pro-life. We’re against violence, and all attacks on human life, whether it be the life of an unborn child or an abortionist.

This is where there is a huge inconsistency in the pro-choice viewpoint. Many mourned the loss of Dr. Tiller, but those same people do not mourn the loss of 4,000 babies every day. As a pro-life person, I cannot help but mourn the loss of every person, born and unborn. What about you?

   
Live Action on Facebook

  • Pingback: The Irony of Dr. Tiller’s Anniversary | My Drop in the Ocean

  • Rebecca Downs

    Great article, Laura! My dad and I were talking about this the other day, though not specifically about Dr. Tiller. I did not wish for the unnatural death of Dr. Tiller, especially since it is counter-intuitive to the pro-life movement, as you yourself pointed out very eloquently. I would rather him have made a conversion, if God willed it. I also really do like your point about all the babies he aborted who were also killed, those who groups like Planned Parenthood failed to mourn. The taking of any life is wrong and I am in no way advocating for the murder of abortionists, which I hope I make abundantly clear, but nevertheless, I still can’t help grieving more for those babies whom he killed off through late-term abortions, as they were such helpless and innocent lives… 

    • http://asingledropintheocean.com/ Laura Peredo

      Thank you. I agree – there is definitely a difference between aborting an innocent baby and murdering an older, born person who is guilty of heinous crimes. 

  • Anonymous246

    I’m not trying to be antagonistic here, but in general, I absolutely do get the impression that self-styled “pro-lifers” care about people only until they’re born (unless, of course, they’re extremely wealthy). This isn’t just about all of the murders, arsons, bombs, and threats against women’s clinics, but about the fact that the politicians who want to ban abortion also want to cut any kind of government help to people who are already born (except their own salaries, naturally). They want to cut welfare, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. They obviously don’t care about our health, because they don’t want any kind of universal health care and they oppose any kind of environmental regulation that can improve our air and water quality. They won’t regulate guns to prevent some of the many firearm-related deaths in this country. They want to remove many types of government oversight of corporations that are there for the public safety. They want to get rid of programs like Head Start and gut public education. They won’t raise the minimum wage so that everyone might actually be able to earn a living if they can even find a job. And then they want to make it harder for poor people to vote in case they catch on to this stuff. They also seem to be very pro-war and enthusiastic about the death penalty. None of that sounds very “pro-life” to me.

    • grdawg

      It’s an absolute fallacy that pro-lifers only care about people before they’re born.  Granted, our first priority is to help people actually live because none of our other rights matter too much if we’re killed before we can enjoy them.  But we absolutely care about people who are born, too.  Take a look, for example, at these articles:  http://liveactionnews.org/culture/standing-with-teen-moms-a-needed-outreach-of-the-pro-life-movement/, http://liveaction.org/blog/confessions-of-a-pro-life-volunteer/.  Look at the Eli Project and the Colorado Family Life Center for other examples of work that pro-lifers are involved in for born people.  Look up Babies of Juarez.  And on all the government stuff, just because we have a different strategy doesn’t mean we care any less.  We just believe that different methods/laws/steps help people more effectively.  

    • http://asingledropintheocean.com/ Laura Peredo

      Not all those things you mention sound extremely pro-life to me (especially the death penalty, which a true pro-lifer is against). At the same time, though, it’s important to note that being pro-life doesn’t necessarily mean you’re anti-war, anti-gun regulation, or advocate for universal health care. Being pro-life means you believe above all else that life should be protected and defended from beginning to end.

      I’m not sure if you’re accusing pro-lifers of doing all those things you listed. Would you clear that up for me so I can make sure I’ve understood you correctly? Thank you!

      • Anonymous246

        I’m aware that what I said is merely a generalization, but I posted it in order to explain why someone might think that “pro-lifers” don’t care about people who have been born. These are generally the positions that allegedly “pro-life” politicians tend to take, so that is what people see and associate with the “pro-life” movement. I know, of course, that not every individual who identifies him- or herself that way is going to have the same opinions, but that is the impression that people tend to get. 

        • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

          Your objection is also founded on the totally false premise that the policies and programs you cite are compassionate or pro-people in the first place. It’s extremely ignorant and simplistic to say that, for instance, funding a welfare program or raising the minimum wage are automatically good things that make life better. All the issues you talk about are much more complex, involving questions and issues as diverse as the laws of economics, human nature, individualism vs. dependence, the effectiveness of government as a delivery system for charity, natural rights, and more. (And some of what you say, like trying to keep poor people from voting, is outright fabrication.)

          My advice would be to try to educate yourself about the reasons why people oppose the programs you reference before you next pass judgment on people’s compassion and sincerity.

          • Anonymous246

            I’m quite educated about these things, thank you. And what do you think this recent rash of voter ID laws are meant to do? Many poorer people don’t have cars, so they don’t have driver’s licenses. They would have to pay for a state-issued photo IDs and take the time to go get them. 

            Of course the issues are more complex than just yes-or-no on the those programs, but Republicans haven’t been trying to work with anyone on any ways to help people. They just keep shooting down any attempt to help anyone who earns less than $1 million a year, not attempting to talk about better ways to help.It’s pretty obvious to anyone who cares to pay attention: Republicans are fighting for corporations and billionaires. I don’t see the point of starting a long, drawn-out argument about this with someone who obviously refuses to acknowledge facts or consider anyone else’s point of view, though.

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            You claim to recognize the complexity of the issues, then spout all the classics of left-wing oversimplification. Thanks for outing yourself as a partisan agitator rather than someone with a real concern they were genuinely interested in understanding better.

          • Anonymous246

            Ugh. I had a longer post about how ridiculous many Republicans have been acting lately, but then I hit the wrong key on my keyboard and lost it. However, I realized that that would be getting off-topic. If you read my original post and my reply to Laura, you’ll notice that I was merely pointing out certain reasons why people might get the impression that “pro-lifers” care about people only until they’re born. I acknowledged that I was generalizing, that certainly not all politicians who identify themselves as “pro-life” hold the same views and that many of the issues are more complex than what I boiled them down to here (since this is a blog, not exactly the place to discuss all of those policies in great detail). 

            However, I must add that if I had been “uneducated” or “interested in understanding better”, your obnoxious reply would have put me off immediately. Calling me ignorant and simplistic isn’t going to make me want to hear what you have to say or take you seriously. Your angry, condescending attitude isn’t helping your cause; you only come off as someone who can’t handle differing opinions. Contrast your response with Laura’s, for example. She made her points reasonably and politely, and that is the best way to get through to people. I’m just saying…

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Bull. My initial reply was far less “obnoxious,” “angry,” or “condescending” than your initial suggestion that pro-lifers don’t care about people after they’re born.

            And the things you’re saying aren’t merely “generalizations.” They’re lies. Generalizations have at least a kernel of truth to them.

          • Anonymous246

            Thanks for proving my point! And hey, it’s no skin off my nose if you turn people off of the anti-choice movement. :-)

          • http://twitter.com/CalFreiburger Calvin Freiburger

            Better luck next time.

          • JDC

            The term is pro-life, not anti-choice.

      • Elizabethschuch

         I would strongly disagree that any “true pro-lifer”, is against the death penalty.  I would urge you research more about the opinions of others before making absolute statements exalting your own views (and claiming they are the views of the entire prolife movement) when live action has already clarified this issue. http://liveaction.org/blog/can-you-be-pro-life-and-pro-death-penalty/    Killing an innocent is not the same as executing convicted murders, rapists, sextrade kidnappers, or child molesters. If you’re going to argue that pro-life doesn’t necessarily mean anti-war, you shouldn’t argue that it should encompass anti-death penalty.
        If you are Catholic (I’m not but I’m just using your beliefs to make a point) and we accept your prior statements ” A truly pro-life person values all life, and works to defend all life, not “just” the unborn.”—then you are saying that Paul and Jesus were wrong when neither of them abolished the death penalty. ““If I am guilty of doing anything deserving death, I refuse not to die” (Acts 25:11).  Paul acknowledged that the state has the God ordained right (Romans 13:1-4) to decide life or death in civil justice. To love means to also protect. We protect the innocent when we kill someone who commits evil.  Realize that today offenders are released back into society and they commit the same crimes again. The man who raped my best friend when she was 7 is out again. She was not his first first victim either and now that he’s been released again she will not be his last.

        By calling those who are against abortion but pro-death penalty “anti-abortionists”, and excluding them from the prolife term and movement, does nothing but push people away. You’re just alienating those who would be your allies and claiming your own views as the only approved and conventional (“right”) beliefs in the prolife movement.

        I realize that you are very young and your controversial statements were out of ignorance and unintentional. Congratulations on being a writer for the prolife movement, but please do more research before promoting your beliefs as the only acceptable beliefs.  

        • Elizabethschuch

           I highly recommend Apologetics Press for any Biblical clarifications. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=683

        • http://asingledropintheocean.com/ Laura Peredo

          As is the case with most online writing, the statements in this piece are my own opinions, and not necessarily the views of Live Action as an organization.

          I’ll clarify my viewpoint for you: 

          As a pro-life person, I do not believe it is our place to decide when a person should die. That’s why I’m against abortion, and that’s why I’m against the death penalty, euthanasia and any other way of killing people: we’re not supposed to commit murder. I’m pretty sure pro-lifers agree with me there.

          As Kristin so beautifully explained in her piece you linked to, there is a huge difference between killing an unborn baby, and killing a criminal: they can hardly be compared. A baby is completely innocent, and cannot defend herself, and a criminal is guilty of terrible crimes. 

          As a Catholic person, I believe all means should be taken to protect society from criminals (like the person who raped your friend). I’m terribly sorry your friend had to go through that. Criminals should be punished for their actions, and as a pro-lifer, I find it necessary to protect the lives of anyone who could be a victim of a crime. In extreme cases, the death penalty may be the only way to protect the life of society from a criminal, but I believe all measure should be taken to do protect us without killing the guilty person. 

          If a person is against abortion, but for the death penalty it’s not up to me to include them in the pro-life movement or not. But, I do think it’s highly hypocritical to pick and choose which lives to defend. 

          As a person who has strong beliefs, I’m not afraid to say that I believe what I say is right. That’s why I say it. If what I say offends people, then I hope you find it in your heart to have an honest discussion about your objections with me. And, if my articles seem to lack necessary research, feel free to pass it on to me. I will be honest with you and correct myself if I’ve been proven wrong. It’s part of being human.

          • Anonymous246

            I applaud you for standing up for what you believe and being consistent, as well as being polite about all of this. :-)

          • grdawg

            Laura, you make some good points, but there are plenty of pro-lifers out there – myself included – who see a vast difference between abortion and the death penalty.  The death penalty is not murder, as you claim.  It’s all about the difference between a guilty person and an innocent person.  So, it’s definitely fine for you to claim this as your pro-life view and to say that some agree with you, but there are also plenty who don’t, so it’s not THE pro-life view to be anti-death penalty.  Just sayin =)

          • Mitchbehna

            I agree with Laura. In today’s world with more secured prisons, the death penalty is not needed, except in very rare circumstances (terrorism, etc). One problem I have with the death penalty is the number of appeals that take place and it can take years to execute an inmate on death row, so sometimes you’re better off just sentencing them to life without parole.

          • Guest

            With all of the mandatory appeals and stuff, it actually ends up costing taxpayers less money to just imprison them for life, too!