People keep asking why I haven't written anything about the murder of pro-life demonstrator James Pouillon, allegedly by a man who, say police, didn't like his graphic protest signs. The reason is because I don't know what useful thing I might say. Like President Obama said today, the killing is deplorable. But I don't see that it tells us anything important, or anything at all, about the wider pro-choice movement. I don't like it when pro-choicers cynically use violence against abortionists as an excuse to condemn all pro-lifers. It's unfair and inaccurate, though perhaps for pro-choicers emotionally satisfying and politically useful. I see no reason to engage in that sort of thing from the pro-life side. The killer is a hateful criminal whose action doesn't tell us much of anything about the pro-choice side -- though I am glad to hear our pro-choice president condemn the shooting.

Add to Newsvine
Add to StumbleUpon
Richard,
Two points. First, Dr. Mengele was also a doctor. Doctors can do some pretty horrific things in the name of medicine. Whether one calls Tiller a doctor or an abortionist doesn't really matter. It was what he did i.e. abortion that mattered. And abortion is the taking of a human life.
Second, what evidence do you have that people in the this country lack access to contraception? I live in a small town in the South and one can buy condoms at the gas station or Wal-Mart. The local health department gives them and the pill out for free. Some people can't seem to control them sexually and or too lazy/careless to go get birth control and use it properly. But locally, I don't see a lack of contraception as a real problem. Lack of morals and discipline, but not lack of contraception.
Also, what evidence do you have that access to contraception actually decreases abortion? California has one of the highest abortion, VD and teen pregnancy rates in the country. New York also has a very high abortion rate. Yet these states policies on contraception and sex-ed are definite set by liberals. I know it is a constant refrain on the left that abortion and other problems would decrease if only people had more access to contraception and good sex education. But I've never seen an evidence to show that 1) many people in this country actually lack access to contraception or 2) liberal programs necessarily do any good.
So can you provide any evidence? Or is this just another liberal myth with no basis in reality?
rr
Rod has this absolutely right. Just because a despicable murder is committed, does not obligate everyone with any kind of public profile or cause to comment upon it. Everyone could have a boilerplate press release "The murder of ________________ was despicable." (Because its murder, no other data necessary).
When I first heard about it, I did make some snide remarks about liberals learning the value of owning and using guns. But when I read the news coverage (yes, it was covered in the news), and saw the man's photo... well, if we're going to indulge in stereotypes, he looked like the kind of up-north good ol' boy who drives around in a pick-up truck with a gun rack on top.
It doesn't matter what his motive was. He killed an innocent man who wasn't threatening the life of anyone. End of story.
Wasn't a bit surprised to see the story of this double-gundown of people who supported life underplayed in the media. It didn't fit the MSM template. They were afraid it would make pro-aborts look bad. So they sort of shoved it under the carpet with begrudging mentions. The relative tepidness of the MSM and Obama's less-angry response about it than Tiller's death says it all.
Btw, those who support abortion and don't like photos of aborted children should ask themselves why photos of what they support bother them at all.
I'm hesitant to say this, but I think they see abortion simply as a surgery. So it's odd if they object to an abortion being on a channel that shows live surgeries, but it's not that odd they would be uncomfortable seeing it when picking their kids up from school or buying a car. They might object to all surgical photos in that case.
And no I don't see it as simply a surgery. I am a bit uncomfortable with the confrontational style of protests, but it's not that objectionable to me. I imagine if an anti-war protester showed graphic images of war to kids, and was killed for that, there'd be bigtime outrage. Still it's not personally what I'd do.
I support appendectomies, but I wouldn't want to see a line of people holding blown up photos of one as I walk to church.
I support sanitation, but I wouldn't want to see a line of people holding blown up photos, with cutaway cross sections, of a person using a toilet, as I walk to church.
I eat meat, but I wouldn't want to see a line of PETA activists holding blown up photos of a cow carcass hung up on a hook, as the guts are just being pulled out of it, as I walk to church.
That last one is the best example, because there are more than a few sincere, dedicated, morally self-righteous PETA activists who would say if we want to eat meat, we shouldn't complain if they show us exactly what happens in the process of creating beef roasts. I wouldn't even mind the perspective that once I should participate in butchering an animal, but I don't want to look at it displayed on the street as I walk to church.
However, I will not gun down either PETA activists, nor anti-abortion activists, nor whatever it was that second person who got killed was doing, which was none of the above.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.