By Scott Tibbs, June 13, 2009
Many abortion rights advocates have become unhinged over the last couple weeks since an anti-abortion terrorist murdered notorious abortionist George Tiller. They argue that pro-life rhetoric, especially statements that abortion is murder, incites violence and those making the argument are also to blame for Tiller's death. A few abortion rights advocates in Bloomington, however are taking another position, as seen below:
| If ST had half the conviction in his cause that your average ELF-er does, wouldn't he burn Planned Parenthood to the ground and therefore save some children? |
Believing that abortion is the equivalent of murder and then not doing anything to stop murder is immoral.
If I knew that a murder was about to be committed I'd do everything I could, including using lethal force, to stop it. |
| I do not believe that abortion is the equivalent of murder. If I did, I'd burn down the local Planned Parenthood for starters and then I'd start shooting abortionists in the fucking face. |
The hypocrisy of these statements is so brazen, I am surprised that people actually have the audacity to make those arguments. What is happening here is that a few extremists are creating a fantasy world where anyone who believes abortion is murder is automatically immoral, no matter what he does. This dishonest "standard" of morality places pro-lifers in an impossible catch-22.
By not engaging in terrorism to stop abortion, an abortion opponent is immoral for allowing murder to take place. However, the second someone actually does commit an act of terrorism to stop abortion, the exact same people harshly condemn the terrorist and the people who supposedly "incited" the violence. This is an incredibly dishonest argument that deserves nothing but scorn and ridicule.
Of course, anyone with an ounce of common sense sees right through this foolishness. Moral standards do not change based on what is politically convenient at the moment, no matter how much time abortion rights advocates spend fantasizing about it. Either it is moral to use lethal force to stop abortion or it is immoral to use lethal force to stop abortion. The two standards cannot possibly coexist, and are certainly not interchangeable based on political expediency.
Abortion is murder and it is a great and terrible evil. At the same time, it is not justifiable for abortion opponents to take the role of judge, jury and executioner for those who murder unborn children. God has granted the "sword" to the civil authorities, not to fanatics who (like Osama bin Laden) seek to force their will by maiming and killing their opponents. To the extent that the civil authorities have failed to stop the abortion holocaust (and to the extent that some have even encouraged it) they will be held accountable by the God that entrusted them with that authority.
The anti-abortion movement should hold firm to the foundational moral principle that all life is sacred. To their credit, mainstream pro-life organizations do just that. When someone commits an act worthy of death, that execution should be carried out only after the murderer has been convicted by a jury of his peers after a fair trial. As wicked as it may be for the law to protect the "right" to abortion, we must not give in to bloodlust and anarchism. Abortion must end, but it must be stopped through peaceful, legal means.
