The culture of death continues to claim victims, this time
abortionist George Tiller. The tragedy of his murder is
compounded by the obvious contradiction of someone killing him in
the name of life. Perhaps it should not surprise that murder is
seen as the answer in a society which devalues life.
Protecting life is the foundation for a republic such as our own.
Indeed, the most fundamental liberty is to life itself.
Tiller’s murder obviously violates both a commitment to life and
the rule of law. No free society can survive if its members
believe themselves authorized to mete out their personal version
of justice on others.
The murder has turned Tiller into a martyr to some yet,
ironically, his lifework was death. Celebrated by the Center for
Reproductive Rights as “a stalwart and fearless defender of
women’s fundamental health and rights,” Tiller was known for
performing partial birth abortions. That often meant delivering
and then killing a fetus well past “viability,” that is, the
ability to survive on its own.
There’s no doubt that the circumstances of many of those seeking
abortions are difficult. Nor can any defender of liberty feel
comfortable advocating government intrusion in such a personal
matter as childbirth.
Yet a baby is not the property of his or her mother. Few people
disagree that children have the full right to life like adults.
Moreover, the moment of birth makes no difference in the moral
value of life. Even some abortion advocates are uncomfortable
with the brutality of many late term abortions, of which the late
Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said “This is too close to
infanticide.”
Nevertheless, “viability” should have no more moral significant
than birth. Once formed, every human life is unique. That death
is presented as the preferred option for “unwanted” children is
bizarre. With families desperate to adopt, how can one advocate
killing babies as a solution?
The strongest argument for not restricting abortion is personal
liberty. Yet liberty always has been constrained when another
person is involved. Especially when the other person exists only
because of one’s free choice.
Abortion is not a matter of choice, but an attempt to flee from
responsibility. Other than in the case of rape, pregnancy results
from the decision to have sex, freely made. People are, rightly,
legally free to have sex with whomever they desire whenever they
desire. That being the case, they also should be held responsible
for the consequences of their decisions. One of those
consequences is a baby.
One can argue about the appropriate responsibility of putative
parents for their child. But surely they cannot argue that,
having freely brought a life into being, they have an untrammeled
right to snuff it out. Yet that is the position of the far
precincts of the “pro-choice” movement.
Indeed, some see abortion as a positive good. Consider the
“National Day of Appreciation for Abortion Providers,” celebrated
last March 10. As people, including the young, have turned
against abortion — a recent poll showed a pro-life majority —
Katha Pollitt of the Nation declared: abortion providers
could “use some love.” If only they showed a little love to the
most helpless among us.
Pro-abortion forces now dominate the White House, Congress, the
courts, and the media. Indeed, this is the most extreme
administration since Roe v. Wade — in contrast to such
leading Democrats as Richard Gephardt, Al Gore, and Bill Clinton,
in running for president Barack Obama didn’t have to flip-flop
away from any earlier pro-life votes or decisions. Yet abortion
advocates remain on the defensive, angry that social disapproval
leads so many medical professionals to refuse to provide and even
to learn how to provide abortions.
So we see the demand not just for the right to abortion,
including essentially up to the day of birth. We also see the
demand to force medical students to learn and hospitals to
provide abortion. And for pharmacies to provide abortifacients.
Freedom of conscience is twisted to mean the denial of freedom of
conscience. As a result, the Obama administration, despite the
president’s eloquent appeal to find “common ground,” is rolling
back the Bush administration rule protecting health care workers
who refuse to participate in abortion. Sen. Patty Murray
(D-Wash.) complained: “It threatens the health and well-being of
women and the rights of patients across the country.” In her
view, apparently, women not only have a right to get an abortion,
but to force doctors to provide an abortion.
Although federal institutions are firmly under the control of
abortion advocates, many states are not. So the battle there
continues, with state governments declaring the unborn to be
persons and requiring that pregnant women be informed of fetal
development and view ultrasounds of their babies. Opponents
complain of “emotional blackmail,” but surely women should be
aware that it is a life they are ending before they choose to
abort their unborn children. Thus, congressional abortion
proponents, backed by the administration, are pushing the
so-called “Freedom of Choice Act” to override state restrictions
on abortion.
President Obama’s policies are resolutely pro-abortion, but at
least he does what many of his backers refuse to do: extend a
“presumption of good faith” to those who oppose abortion and
“honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion.”
Indeed, admitted the president, “abortion is never a good thing.”
In contrast, many abortion activists are angered that anyone
would make a moral judgment about abortion. A live baby. A dead
baby. What’s the difference, they seem to ask?
“At some level, the views of the two camps are irreconcilable,”
said President Obama in his speech at Notre Dame. Sad but true.
Thus, the battle over abortion must continue.
Peaceful battle, that is. Pro-life must mean pro-life. The murder
of abortionists — there have been five since Roe —
must be roundly condemned by anyone committed to the protection
of life. There can be no moral justification for murder.
Instead, the battle must be one of persuasion. There progress is
being made. And ultimately there the fight will be won.
