The weekend’s news brought the tragic story of the killing of noted abortionist, Dr. George Tiller, noted for performing late term abortions. Apparently he was ushering in his church* (an ELCA congregation) when he was gunned down.
Now, this shooting is absolutely inexcusable. It should not have happened.
But why are pro-choice people upset? To them, whether someone lives or dies is a choice, not a crime. If someone is inconvenient to us, we can kill them. That’s what Tiller believed. That’s what NOW, NARAL, our president, the bulk of the Democratic Party, and some in the Republican Party believe.
So why can someone kill one person but they can’t kill another person?
Perhaps it’s because the right of choice only belongs to women, and this shooter was a man. (I speak as a fool.)
It is utter hypocrisy to support the killing of some (the weakest and most unable to defend themselves) while objecting to the killing of others (who are able to defend themselves).
If you are pro-choice, then be pro-choice.
Don’t throw up some faux charade of hypocritical anger. You are the ones who support the killing of innocent people. You cannot legitimately object when it happens (particularly when the victim is not innocent).
____________________
*Of course, this whole sad episode raises the question of what is going on in our churches when a member is a noted abortionist. Where was the leadership of this church demanding repentance of Dr. Tiller? Where was the church discipline and the denial of communion and fellowship?
3 comments:
I must admit my first thought was about the church and its doctrinal stands when it allows an abortionist to be a leader in the church. It would be different is he were a casual attender and not a church member, etc.
Michelle
I agree with much of what you have written on other topics, but think your comparison here is unfair, your post poorly thought out.
Those who are pro-choice do not believe that the unborn are people; they do not belive abortion is taking a life. So, it's not hypocrisy for them to see one as a legitimate choice and the other as murder. Even if you're arguing that it's objectively rather than subjectively hypocritical, abortion remains legal and murder illegal. It's not hypocritical to promote an immoral legal act and decry an immoral illegal act.
I think your comparison remains invalid until "pro-choice" encompasses the rights of a parent to kill a child after birth, etc.
Thanks for reading, Adam.
Let me ask you: If someone says, "I don't think George Tiller was a person" would it be okay to kill him? Of course not, you would answer (as would I). You would argue that what the believe about it is irrelevant.
In the same way, the fact that someone doesn't believe a baby is a person is irrelevant.
We have, in this culture, elevated belief to a status of authority. We have fallen prey to the "If someone believes it, that makes it okay" line. I don't agree, and I doubt you agree consistently. But in this case, it seems like you are giving into the argument.
And BTW, there are those who believe it is okay for a parent to kill a child after birth. We see in the partial birth abortion, where a child is almost completely separated from its mother, but killed anyway.
So I am unconvinced by your argument. But I do appreciate you reading and interacting.
Post a Comment