Scott Roeder's trial has been going on the past couple of weeks. This story from the Wichita Eagle says that this trial is not merely about whether or not Scott murdered George Tiller. This article, which has been archived, states,When Scott Roeder's murder trial begins Monday, the question won't be whether or not he killed George Tiller.Instead, the trial will become yet another circus. Rhetoric will be on trial. Of course merely saying abortion is what it is, murder, will no doubt be the issue.
The day of Tiller's death, abortion-rights advocates claimed rhetoric by abortion opponents went too far and pushed someone to kill one of the country's four late-term abortion providers.And of course the typical response will be,
Anti-abortion advocates immediately disavowed Roeder's actions, claiming they never supported violence in their pursuit to end Tiller's practice.Sound bites just don't do justice, and that's all we are getting here.
The Prolife movement does need to become more philosophically rigorous and perhaps even needs to be more forthright about why Scott Roeder did what he did. The reason is simple. We all know why he did what he did. There is no point in hiding it. That only continues to make the Prolife movement look like the squeamish, irrational movement the Media portrays it to be.
To put it another way, we need to stop trying to get the Mainstream Media to like us. We need to wake up to the fact they never will. Instead we need to get to the heart of the issues and take the offensive in explaining to the average person what abortion truly is. In a time when the Mainstream Media is viewed with skepticism, why not take advantage of the opportunity?
There are a couple of good responses such as Beckwith's Moral argument verses Prudential argument distinction and Mohler's God's sovereignty and the role of government position. How to be more consistent and thorough in these positions as well as mainstreaming them into the hands of the average layman is truly the challenge.
In conclusion, with this trial well underway, it is time for Prolifers to stop making excuses and start explaining with sound thinking and reasoning and looking for leaders who are able to articulate the Prolife position. And to do so without any shame or embarrassment. The lives of innocent children depend on it.
8 comments:
Let's not be squeamish about Pro Lifers being killers.
You're a piece of work.
You are definitely reading into my words. I am not saying prolifers are killers or should be killers. What I am saying is that we know why Roeder did what he did. We know the philosophical viewpoint he took. Basically, he took Beckwith's position that moral arguments are distinct from prudential arguments. He felt he was morally obliged to stop someone from being murdered by stopping the murderer.
The analogy Beckwith uses in his book is if there was a place in your town that allowed parents to take the 8-year-olds to be aborted, then who would question anyone that takes a gun and kills the so-called doctors that are performing the abortions? NOBODY!
So the question becomes for Beckwith, "Is this prudential?"...not moral.
There are some weaknesses to this argument, which is why I referred to Mohler's arguments as well. The fact is, prolifers need to be more consistent and clear in their arguments so that such an emotional issue doesn't lead to the killing of abortion doctors in church.
On the one hand, John Piper speaks about the fact we fought and died for less during the Civil War if we consider slavery as a major issue. On the other hand, that is a governmental issue and not for private citizens to take up arms against private citizens when governments are sanctioning the murder of children. But then again....
Simply hiding behind the rhetoric that prolifers only believe in life and never the taking away of life simply won't work.
Anonymous said...
Let's not be squeamish about Pro Lifers being killers.
RS: Perhaps Howard was saying that we should not be so squeamish and say that abortion is murder and the doctors who perform them are killers. There have been a very, very few pro-lifers who killed "doctors" who killed babies for money, so it is not accurate to say "pro-lifers are killers" when only a very few have done so. Every doctor that has performed abortions on demand have killed. Evidently you support those who kill millions of babies. I am not sure why it would bother you if on a very rare occasion someone kills an abortion doctor since millions of killings don't.
The Pro Life movement fails in that it makes no effort to confront reality. They never go, "if I would lose my job from pregnancy" or "if I truly don't have the money to deal with a child"... they say, "suck it up, it your own fault, and so you should suffer". While there might be some truth to that, legally there is no other place where self defense is so blatantly spoken against.
Abortion detractors have yet to come up with a system for those who would break an anti-abortion law. Do you jail someone who has or attempts an abortion? You would do this to protect a child. So does that mean we would jail anyone who did anything that
put a child in danger-- the easiest example being drinking alcohol while pregnant, but you could go so far as driving. As it stands now, if someone puts a growing fetus (I don't use the word to mince terms-- it's a baby, I'm just saying "one that is in the womb") in danger, they are only prosecuted if that child could have survived outside the
mother. Because of that, any sort of protective incarceration is
minimized. But if you go in the opposite direction, you give legal
grounds to lock up anyone who is every knocked up. You also, very
honestly, end a lot of female lives-- there is not the sort of work protection, affordable health care, etc. for everyone who is pregnant to go through the thousands of dollars of financial strain versus the $300 easy way out. All this said, abortion is a horrible thing that we have to attempt the elimination of... but there will always be self defense at some core there. As a culture, we have to move away from abortion by fixing the social problems that lead to that choice. I think part of that is pushing contraception, as time and time again we see that abstinence numbers do poorly-- more pregnancies occur out of
wedlock to evangelical Christians than ANY other U.S. demographic.
My summation of Howard's view is simply that he is that worst case Pro Lifer. "Well, Tiller killed babies, so the Pro Life movement needs to imply this retaliation is somehow acceptable, and become more steeped in rhetoric without reasoning." Shutting down Tiller doesn't stop abortions. Women were having abortions long before safer medical procedures helped them-- and would continue having them past any law banning the procedure. That's why over half of America consistently is Pro Choice-- because the Pro Life movement, even though they are right to wish to defend the unborn, has yet to come up with anything resembling a reasonable defense for those women placed in the position of unwanted pregnancy.
Anonymous said...
The Pro Life movement fails in that it makes no effort to confront reality. They never go, "if I would lose my job from pregnancy" or "if I truly don't have the money to deal with a child"... they say, "suck it up, it your own fault, and so you should suffer". While there might be some truth to that, legally there is no other place where self defense is so blatantly spoken against.
RS: Perhaps you have misunderstood many prolifers camp as well as why some view abortion as wrong. While not all have confronted reality, that does not mean that many if not most have. I am not sure that you have confronted reality with the nature of abortion. All life is from God and each child is created by God. Each child is the handiwork of God and no human has the right to attack His work.
If we take it as a given that abortion is killing a human being, it is not so hard to see the differences we have with your position. It is easy to see then that we would not legalize killing another to save our jobs. Many bosses would be killed and many other fellow workers would be killed if we allowed that. Getting pregnant does not give us the right to kill anyone else, even if it occurred because of a rapist. Getting pregnant and aborting the child is never self-defense in the true sense of the term as it is not the baby that is trying to kill the person.
I find it interesting that you think it should be legal to kill a human being in the womb on the self-defense argument and yet don't think that Roeder should be able to defend thousands of human beings by killing one man. By the way, I am not excusing what he did, but simply saying that your position is conistent with justifying his behavior.
"Well, Tiller killed babies, so the Pro Life movement needs to imply this retaliation is somehow acceptable, and become more steeped in rhetoric without reasoning."
Anonymous, you seem to have totally missed the point here. What I am saying is that the Prolife movement is often portrayed in the Media as causing men to commit these actions with pathetic soundbites. Then the Prolife movement responds with equally pathetic sound bites.
I am saying these issues need to be dealt with beyond the sound bites in the Media. The fact is there are answers and thoughtful Prolife philosophers/apologists.
But this causes another problem. Because the Prolife movement does have sound apologists, it is very very very difficult to get moderated public debates on these issues. The Abortion crowd just won't do it. For instance, James White has challenged abortionists for at least a couple of decades. They just won't do it.
You do ask some excellent questions that Prolifers need to answer. The problem is not that there are not answers, but the answers are not popular since the average person in our culture would see the answers as culturally unacceptable.
I don't want to go back to the 50s just because of some sentimental thought that thinks the 50s were somehow pristine. However, Abortion used to be illegal in all 50 states. Therefore it is possible. But since our culture has changed, we will need to have new answers.
Anonymous said: Abortion detractors have yet to come up with a system for those who would break an anti-abortion law. Do you jail someone who has or attempts an abortion? You would do this to protect a child.
RS: Yes, those who has or attempt an abortion should have some form of punishment. Murder and attempted murder are already crimes.
Anon: So does that mean we would jail anyone who did anything that put a child in danger-- the easiest example being drinking alcohol while pregnant, but you could go so far as driving. As it stands now, if someone puts a growing fetus (I don't use the word to mince terms-- it's a baby, I'm just saying "one that is in the womb") in danger, they are only prosecuted if that child could have survived outside the
mother. Because of that, any sort of protective incarceration is
minimized.
RS: While there are problems with setting up laws and punishments for issues like that, it does not lead us down a slippery slope of killing babies. While not all actions that are crimes are punishable by human beings, we should not hesitate to declare them as crimes against God. The command "you shall not kill" also directs us to love and protect life and well-being.
Anonymous: But if you go in the opposite direction, you give legal
grounds to lock up anyone who is every knocked up.
RS: That appears to be a slippery slope argument. Fallible human beings cannot make perfect laws and enforce them perfectly. However, that is no argument against killing babies. We don't have perfect laws and perfect enforcement of those laws for driving cars, but that does not mean that there are clear wrongs and clear punishments for those wrongs.
Anonymous: You also, very honestly, end a lot of female lives-- there is not the sort of work protection, affordable health care, etc. for everyone who is pregnant to go through the thousands of dollars of financial strain versus the $300 easy way out. All this said, abortion is a horrible thing that we have to attempt the elimination of... but there will always be self defense at some core there. As a culture, we have to move away from abortion by fixing the social problems that lead to that choice.
RS: The self-defense argument does not really apply except in extremely rare medical cases. The only real solution to this problem is Christ. Sin causes misery and death. When human beings sin, human beings bring misery on themselves. Abortion compounds the sin and brings more misery. It is presented as a 300.00 fix, but it does nothing but cause more misery. You are correct in saying that we need to find ways to fix that, but there is no redemption from sin other than Christ. He alone is the sacrifice for sin and He alone can live in the soul and work in it so that it keeps the law of God from love.
Post a Comment