Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, Dr. George Tiller? I don't think so.
Categories: Religion
Written By: Rusty Shackleford
- Image by Getty Images via Daylife
I remember hearing the news that Saddam Hussein had been executed and thinking “It’s about time, that bastard got what he deserved.”
I mean, c’mon, the guy murdered hundreds of thousands of people. He deserved to die, right? What about the Nazi leaders after World War II? What about Pol Pot? These men were monsters who committed genocide, right?
So I read a blog entry from a classmate of mine in college who said he’s having mixed feelings about the murder of Dr. George Tiller this past Sunday in Wichita. You can find the blog entry here. Dr. Tiller performed late-term abortions and because of that has been a lightning rod for the abortion issue for many, many years.
In any case, my classmate, a staunch conservative, said that while he thinks the murder was a tragedy (too strong of a statement, Eric?) he doesn’t feel sympathy for Dr. Tiller. The man, he said, was responsible for thousands of deaths.
Now, I don’t agree with my friend, but I think to effectively argue the other side, you have to understand where your opponent is coming from. The argument he and many others on his side of the issue are trying to make is that they view an unborn fetus as a viable human life (ones who can grow up to become American citizens, Bill O’Reilly is fond of saying.) This is the crux of the issue for many, many people, so they feel that doctors who take those lives away by performing abortions are snuffing out one of God’s children and as a result, are no better than Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, et al.
It’s a hell of a way to think about it. I don’t agree with it, necessarily, but it at least gets me to a place where I can see where they’re coming from.
The thought of the genocides committed in places like Darfur disgust me and I think the people responsible should face justice. Given the chance to affect some kind of change, I wouldn’t sit back. That’s how people like my friend feel about abortion and I can’t begrudge them for it.
That’s as far as I can go in their shoes, however, because people like Dr. Tiller think they are helping people. In many cases, in fact, they are. A large number of Dr. Tiller’s patients came to him because there were compelling medical reasons to need this procedure. I know what it feels like to lose a child before it’s even born. It was soul-crushing enough in our case when there was nothing we could do, so to have to actually make that decision? I can’t imagine that’s a decision you make lightly. This man wasn’t evil. He’s no Mengele. He’s not a mass murderer, he’s a doctor.
So that’s the difference, and that’s why I can’t get on board with the pro-life crowd. I understand that the choice to have an abortion is not one everybody would feel comfortable making. Hell, there’s no way I’d ever want my wife to have one, regardless of the circumstances.
On the other hand, I don’t think it’s fair to say “Well, if you don’t agree with abortion, don’t have one, but leave your hands of my body.” That’s like saying “If you don’t want to see people slaughtered in Sudan, don’t go to sub-Saharan Africa on vacation.” People who feel so strongly about the issue can’t in good conscience turn a blind eye.
So where does that leave us? Well, we’re at an impasse, I suppose. Neither side is going to give in because there’s no room for compromise when you’re talking about a moral issue of this magnitude. Right now the pro-choice crowd has the advantage and will continue to do so as long as it maintains its tenuous hold on the Supreme Court.
I’m glad my side is winning — for now — as I believe that in this country we have as much right from religion as we do for the freedom of religion, and this is very much a religious argument. That doesn’t mean, however, that I think the other side’s voices should be stifled. Let them try to convince me and others that this procedure is wrong. They have just as much write to state their case as I do mine. That’s what this country is all about, after all, freedom.
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=9d2d86ae-a444-48c9-9852-349ff866deb1)
June 4th, 2009 at 1:40 am
Joe-
I appreciate the respect you showed my opinion in your response. Too many times, people on both sides forget that we need respectful discourse. And I am sorry to hear of your experience with the loss of child.
Just wanted to respond to a couple of points you made. To your point that Dr. Tiller was helping people and a large number of his patients sought him out for compelling medical reasons, his own words cast doubt on that claim. In a speech the National Abortion Federation annual meeting April 2-4, 1995, Tiller stated that of the 10000 late term abortions he had done at that point, only about 800 of them were for what he called “fetal anomalies.” Granted, that was 14 years ago and maybe that ratio changed, but its something to think about.
As for this being a religious debate, I don’t think it has to be. In fact, I was careful to keep my views on faith out of the blog to avoid that very criticism. I think the debate, as I said, comes down to a question of personal accountability. The bottom line is, if you can’t handle being a parent, don’t have sex. If you choose to have sex, be prepared to face the consequences. If you can’t face the consequences, there are thousands of would-be parents who’s only dream is to hold a baby in their arms, a baby they have been unable to conceive on their own. The fact is that of all abortions, 93% are chosen because the parents don’t want to take responsibility for their actions. No doubt, I do have reasons to oppose abortion that are faith based, but that statistic is my secular reasoning why abortion is despicable.
June 5th, 2009 at 2:54 pm
The murder of Dr. Tiller was a disservice to the pro-life cause. However, I did read one statistic that 75% of Dr. Tiller’s late-term abortion procedures were on teenagers who couldn’t hide their pregnancy any longer. That is hardly a medical necessity.
I believe a woman has as much responsibility for a fetus she carries as she does a right. To some that may seem like a burden, which explains why most abortions are performed because the mother feels she “isn’t ready” or has other plans that a child would interfere with.
We can go around in circles about the right to choose but there is no disputing that most abortions are performed for social rather than necessary reasons, and that includes most abortions where the fetus was viable (and could have become a great American citizen, like our own President).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V2CaBR3z85c&feature=channel_page
June 5th, 2009 at 11:10 pm
That may well be, but are we going to punish the 25% of those who really need it because the others make poor decisions? I hate to throw out the “This is America” card, but among the many freedoms you types like to defend with your Second Amendment-protected guns and whatnot is the freedom to make your own decisions, no matter how poor others may think they are.
June 6th, 2009 at 3:54 am
Its not 25%, its 6%…and if we need to allow abortions in cases of medical necessity in order to end the other 94%, I will take that it.
June 6th, 2009 at 4:11 am
Twenty-five percent, six percent, whatever. Perhaps a better solution would be to limit them to cases of medical necessity? This sounds like a reasonable compromise. Unfortunately, the most vocal people on both sides of this issue aren’t usually known for being reasonable.
July 15th, 2009 at 3:04 am
I just wanted to point out something that really bothered me in your reaction: the feeling that some people DO deserve to be punished – by death, no less – for their deeds. If not abortionists, like in your classmate’s case, then Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, and Nazi officials. To me it feels like you’re just setting a different standard, but in the end you’re saying the same as those who say they’re happy Dr. Tiller was murdered.
Afterall, if we’re going to kill everyone who’s responsible for several deaths, why not go for those responsible for invading Iraq and Afghanistan, or Vietnam, or the companies responsible for tragedies such as the 1984 Bhopal India disaster. Just like Dr. Tiller, you might say, they thought they were doing the right thing. But then, you could argue the same for Saddam, bin Laden, PolPot and the Nazis, in their own sick ways.
My point is, I guess, is that it bothers me to hear people who seem so open-minded make somewhat hypocritical comments like that. This is something I notice with a lot of liberal Americans – not that you’re the only ones, of course – but it always surprises me to find out just how conservative they can sometimes be.
Either way, I’m enjoying reading your blog, and I hope you don’t take my comment too personally…
July 15th, 2009 at 3:21 am
It’s good to get some perspective from the outside. I think it’s interesting to see that political views like mine — which here can be looked at as quite liberal, are actually conservative when compared to many on the mainstream left in western Europe.
I’ve got an interesting view on this whole pro-life thing in that I think a woman should have the right to choose and that the death penalty should be eliminated in all but the most heinous cases (mass murders, rape/murder, genocide, etc.) Many, many Americans feel the way I do.
You mention hypocritical views amongst Americans who are pro-life and yet support the death penalty. I don’t necessarily agree with it, but if it helps you to understand how someone can hold such seemingly dichotomous views, these people believe that unborn babies haven’t done anything to deserve being killed, while criminals sentenced to death have made a choice to commit their crimes and thus must face the consequences of those choices. This, of course, doesn’t address our pitiful policy of sentencing minors to the death penalty.
Oh, and FWIW, I definitely think we should go after those responsible for the war in Iraq, specifically. We were lied to and thousands of people died. It’s a shame we won’t soon get over as a nation.
July 15th, 2009 at 4:24 am
Hmm…you’re definitely right about about the concept of liberals to Americans and to non-Americans. I’m Brazilian myself, and I guess we just don’t have a similar concept here – I would love to try and outline the political thinking here, but it would take me forever. Personally, however, I think it’s something that goes beyond the traditional idea of left and right in politics…
I’m not sure you quite get what I mean by the hypocrisy, though. (Although I’m sure that this American idea of what liberalism is definitely has a lot to do with it.) The hypocrisy is that you are judging someone for believing someone deserved to die when you are making the same judgement about others. It just feels a bit like a double standard to me, and if that is the case, then Bush deserves to die just as much as Saddam for causing the deaths of so many people. But both thought, in their own sick ways, that they were doing the right thing, but according to your judgment one was more right than the other. The question is, where do you draw the line, or should there even be a line in the first place?
I also fell that sometimes American liberals tend to be a bit conservative in terms of moralism (such as this case) and a bit patriotic (or at least US-centric), but that’s a whole other story…