A Lutheran pastor (steeped in the tradition of the theology of Dr. George Tiller, murdered abortion doctor) explains it for you. Yes, the piece is long, but it’s worth it.
Here are my CliffsNotes, but by all means, read it yourself:
1. Abortion is not just a moral issues; it’s a political one and it’s been policitized by people and organizations with agendas not necessarily tied to abortion, itself.
2. Lutherans historically don’t cling to church hiearchy.
3. There is scant division between the secular world and church for a Lutheran.
4. A Christian answers to God alone, and each Christian is responsible for his or her own ethics within the context of God’s love and love of neighbor.
5. The Bible carries no convincing argument either for or against abortion.
6. It is possible to be a good Lutheran and an abortion doctor:
Dr. Tiller would perform an abortion for such a woman out of compassion and care. He wanted to use his medical knowledge for the benefit of women so that they could see new possibilities for their lives in the future.
and
7. A non-Christian ruler may well be wiser than a foolish Christian. Wisdom is not a gift given only to Christians. The God worshipped by Christians is the same God who has created all other human beings, and so Christians participate with them to determine how to order life together in community.
and:
8. It is time to stop terrorizing the minds and hearts of the people over abortion.
Dating Jesus 
What a brave man. This is just what the doctor ordered, so to speak.
This is an important document. Not just for what it says, but for the highly skilled and professional manner in which it is presented. The man has a keen sense of history. He knows how to present that history relevant to a contemporary context. And he is unafraid. (No surprise, really.)
This piece will be getting much closer scrutiny from me as time passes. I’m wondering if mainstream media will pick up on it. (Before Fox.)
I’ve seen some great links, some marvelous resources from this page. This one’s a topper.
Thank you so much.
I was so impressed with this man’s ability to explain this, and I’m not Lutheran and not entirely familiar with their theology. It doesn’t differ entirely from mine, and you’re most welcome, Leftover.
I haven’t had too much time to dig into the scholarship of it, Honestly there’s not that much Luther or Calvin laying around here, either. There will be, soon.
But what really excites me, is this theologian, this scholar, seems to agree with the proposition that it’s not about abortion. The incitement displayed by the far right has a much more sinister intent.
I’m not sure we agree on specifics, but I think we agree it’s not about abortion.
It’s about power.
I’m anxious to see how it’s received.
It has to get out there first, though. Tell all your friends.
Can’t wait to read and share this (too late tonight) I’m not Lutheran but I agree with the title of the post!
It is long, but it’s good, I promise. Make yourself a cuppa (tea/coffee) and settle in, when you’ve had some sleep. This guy is impressive.
It is just as much about power for the “left”. And who is powerless? the unborn child who is aborted.
Title: Holy Bible, New Living Translation
Exodus 21:22
“Now suppose two men are fighting, and in the process they accidentally strike a pregnant woman so she gives birth prematurely. ◙ If no further injury results, the man who struck the woman must pay the amount of compensation the woman’s husband demands and the judges approve.23 But if there is further injury, the punishment must match the injury: a life for a life, 24 an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot, 25
a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise.
Do you suppose that if God gave the penalty–a life for a life-if the child died–that he holds the life of any infant precious? Do you suppose that He has a penalty for abortion?
Agreed. It is about power, for both sides. I would ask, though, that if you cite a verse in Exodus to condemn abortion, do you follow all of Exodus, from dietary law to animal sacrifice? I ask not to be dismissive, but though I read the Hebrew scriptures, I don’t read them as a specific guide for my life. I follow a later law. I believe the Christian law builds on Jewish law, but where the Christian law is silent, I try to be, too. I’d invite you to read the (rather long, admittedly) essay I linked to. And if we still disagree, I like you anyway. Christians have gone back and forth on when life begins for centuries. It’s a terribly difficult question, and one I’m not willing to dictate for others.
I cite the passage because it tells us about God’s attitude not that we are under the old law [covenant] today or that I follow it as binding on my life in regard to salvation.
Thank you. I misunderstood. I am interested in how Christians view the Hebrew scriptures. I’m not saying my way is right, as there is a lot of common sense in there.
It would be hard to use OT passages even to get an idea of God’s attitude. In other parts He commands His people to massacre children and infants.
I want someone to sit me down and tell me what my proper approach should be to the Hebrew scriptures. I was taught that as Christians, we followed a different law, but had respect for the Jewish one.
Our flock had difficulty distinguishing the Old Covenant [Law] from the Old Testament scriptures. Jesus nailed the Old Covenant to the Cross but not the Old Testament scriptures that were not a part of the Old Covenant.
As Paul said the Old was our school master to bring us to Christ. Studying the OT scripture helps to understand God and His will and Promise more fully.
I think I learned the same thing. I appreciate this, David.
I think this passage is saying that if she gives birth prematurely, a fine is paid. If the mother is injured, then the “life for life, eye for eye” applies. It sounds like the mother’s life is deemed more valuable than the fetus in this passage.
Most scholars believe that it can refer to the mother or to the child equally. That the payment occurs in case of injury to either.
I am a Lutheran and the person utterly misrepresented Lutheranism. Do a study on Lutheran view of law and gospel and third use of the law. Lutheranism does view abortion as indeed murder.
And the fact of the matter is that Tiller got excommunicated from the conservative Lutheran denom, LCMS for his abortion practices, so he went to a very liberal ECLA (liberal meaning one that claims name of Lutheranism but does not agree to the confessions of historic Lutheranism) that has long abandoned Lutheran views, on different issues, be it morality, be it communion, be it justification by faith alone.
This is interesting, Truth. Thank you. I had not read that Tiller had been excommunicated from a conservative Lutheran denomination. Are you saying, then, that the more liberal branch isn’t Lutheranism? Because I bet members of that branch would beg to differ.
“A Christian answers to God alone, and each Christian is responsible for his or her own ethics within the context of God’s love and love of neighbor.”
The Lutheran confession of faith speaks of the rule of God’s law in the believer’s life, which refutes the claim Lutherans hold to our own personal ethics as our guiding force:
http://www.bookofconcord.org/sd-thirduse.php
Would the author be representing his own, more liberal branch of Lutheranism, then?
On Tiller’s excommunication:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/2267286/posts
Thank you for this. I am familiar with the Missouri Synod.
“Christians have gone back and forth on when life begins for centuries. It’s a terribly difficult question, and one I’m not willing to dictate for others.”
I point to John the Baptist. He was said to be filled with the Holy Spirit. And he leaped for joy in the womb. He was human life in the eye of God and His word.
You might not be willing to dictate that for others, but if there is life involved, murder took place.
It involves defining of persons. That is why there are parallels between Dred Scott and Roe v Wade.
Jesus would NOT have done an abortion, since He had no sin. He was for honoring God’s law.
And while most of the old covenant is no longer in force, aspects of it as under the law of Christ: thou shall not murder, thou shall not steal, etc.
I agree. Portions of the old law are repeated in the new (I have no idea what a Jew would say to all of this, and I’m intersted in that perspective), but the question is what is “murder” when it comes to a fetus. But you know that.
Thank you, Truth, for the links.
And I must say I REALLY appreciate the civility in your response. Thank you. It really helps lend credibility to your persuasion. It sounds silly, I know, but you should see some of the places I’ve found myself.
Risking an ass-kicking, I’ll attribute that to the good influences of our host.
Thanks again, DJ.
I cannot take credit for Truth’s civility — though I completely and totally would if there was a smidgen of a chance that I could get away with it. So there.
That’s a good example of why I can’t consider the Bible as God’s word.
Ooh, interesting. What is the Bible for you, then?
To vegas (since this popped up in the wrong place when I first posted it)
That’s a good example of why I can’t consider the Bible as God’s word.
Yes, the comment issues make it hard to have a conversation.
I believe the Bible was written by men. I think it was inspired by the Holy Spirit so that we would have a record of God’s activities on the earth. So when I read something about John leaping in Elizabeth’s womb I think, “yes, that’s probably what the people thought was happening” I don’t think that God told some guy exactly what baby fetus John was thinking. This, among other beliefs I hold, makes it weird that I attend an evangelical church. I haven’t found anywhere else I fit just yet…
Here is a quote from Mother Teresa to add to the mix.
From Mother Teresa’s speech at National Prayer Breakfast 1994. Usually this is a sedate affair with speakers sidestepping controversial issues. Not Mother Teresa. She expressed her concern about the spiritual poverty in the U.S.
What made headlines was the following: “But I feel the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child. . .and if we accept that a mother can kill even her own child, how can we tell other people not to kill one another? . . .Any country that accepts abortion is not teaching the people to love. . . but to use any violence to get what they want. That is why the greatest destroyer of love and peace is abortion.”
And thank you for this as well, David.
I was just wondering if there are atheists or agnostics that are pro-life. So, much of the pro-life position is tied to the Bible. Anyone know about that?
Among religious people, it seems as though the divide between pro-life and pro-choice is somewhat related to how one interprets the Bible. I’ve never seen any studies on that, but it sure seems that way. It would be interesting to know more about that.
I haven’t found anything on that, either, but it does tend to divide between people who propose to interpret the Bible literally, and those who don’t interpret it that way. Agnostics? Atheistst? Heathens in general? How did you arrive at your own ideas about abortion?
American Atheists have an abortion thread…
http://atheists.org/blog/2009/01/22/abortion-thread
Atheist Empire has some information up,but searching is an issue there:
http://atheistempire.com/atheism/false_assumptions.php
Agnostics and atheists grapple with the same moral turmoil over the issue of abortion as believers do. I know atheists and agnostics you might define as pro-life. (Who isn’t pro-life?) You might be surprised at how vehemently anti-abortion some atheists can be.
But I think you would find common ground among them on the issue of choice. Individual autonomy and unfettered access to safe medical treatment.
This helps a great deal. Thanks, Leftover.
“Are you saying, then, that the more liberal branch isn’t Lutheranism?”
Let’s see here- ECLA departs from the historic Lutheran view on inerrancy of Scriptures, closed communion, on the rule of law in believer’s life, on the gospel. It was ECLA that accepted statements of faith from the equally PCUSA when it comes to communion and signed the Joint Declaration with Rome, where it compromised the gospel hold dear by Lutherans, Calvinists, and other folks of the Reformation.
While I may be of conservative WELS denom, I do find LCMS (which is also conservative) accurate in its statements here on ECLA:
http://www.lifeoftheworld.com/believe/waelca.php
It may claim title of Lutheran, but as Alexander the Great once told a soldier by the name of Alexander: change your ways, or change your name.
We’ve discussed this off and on, with mixed results, as to who can call themselves, say, Christian. Or, as I was raised, fundamentalist Christian. I tend to take a looser view of this, mainly because I don’t treasure people getting to say you’re in the group or out of it, though I do understand the desire for quality control.
The traditional Reformation view, held to by Lutherans and Calvinists, is that the law has three uses: 1) as restraint on wicked humanity (since even all of humanity, as fallen as it is, has the law written in them as law of nature, or light of creation), 2) as mirror to show us our sins to point us need for grace in Christ, and 3) as way to show us what pleases God in our walk with Christ.
The law is also broken down in the Reformation mindset of sola Scriptura into three aspects: 1) the moral aspect, which is equivalent to the law of nature (a view taught by Aquinas, then Calvin, then the Puritans and Locke, then many of the founding fathers), 2) the ceremonial aspect of the law, which is done away with by the cross, per Colossians 2:12-16 and other like passages, 3) and the political aspect of the law.
Only the moral aspect of the law is repeated in the New Testament as the law of Christ, given the old covenant was done away with by the cross.
“I’m not sure we agree on specifics, but I think we agree it’s not about abortion.
It’s about power.”
I agree with you it is about power, but not for the reasons you think. It is about power to choose life or death over one’s offspring. We do not treat wombs of animals that way, and if we do, animals rights activists would say it is cruelty to animals and abuse of animals.
So why allow this kind of power, unchecked over one’s own child?
There is a reason why there are parallels drawn between Dred Scott and Roe/Jane Doe decisions (ironically, the ladies, who those trials bear their names, are staunch pro-lifers now, and one of them never wanted an abortion and was used on false pretenses by her feminist lawyers).
The reasons are multiple: 1) definitions of persons, 2) argument over property of such persons or lack of persons, 3) argument that it is privacy issue for which no outside interference against that right deemed fundamental by those who claim to have it.
And yes, just as slaveowners used the few murderous examples like John Brown to condemn the whole abolitionist movement, pro-choicers do use the few examples like death of Tiller (first time in 10 years an abortion doctor was killed) to condemn the whole pro-life movement.
The parallels to me as a Civil War buff is startling.
And pro-lifers are not interested in having power over women. They are interested in defending human life and fighting for the civil rights of others that are being denied.
Pro-lifers are also the ones that in large part fought to try to save the life of Terri Schiavo. They are not limited to abortion issues.
They also are the ones doing charity works, both abroad and domestically. Habitat for Humanity, Compassion, World Vision, Harvest, and other many great Christian ministries have a strong conservative Christian following. Pro-lifers do care for life before and after the time spent in the womb. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.
And pro-lifers are the first to deplore the killings of females in the womb by those in China, where abortions are forced on families with limits on how many children they can have, so usually females are targeted in cultures that favored males over females.
Asian cultures tend towards that, and to the extent it is use as excuse to abort female babies, I, as a Vietnamese Christian guy, am very ashamed of that.
We part paths when you say that pro-lifers don’t want power. I don’t think — and I don’t mean to be a jerk here — you can say that about all pro-lifers. My sense of some of the loudest spokespeople against abortion do not strike me as disinterested in power. And I don’t think you can say all pro-lifers care about life after the womb, either. I wouldn’t want to say that none of them do — but again, the public face of the anti-abortion stance isn’t quite as loving as you present here. I do not lump you in there. I don’t know you. I like you from afar, already. And I have read a great deal about Jane Doe’s change of heart, and I am sorry for her, sorry that she feels the way she does now. I don’t see your parallels to the Civil War and slaveowners, but you draw an interesting conclusion.
I respect your religious conviction on the issue of”when life begins” and available of constitutional guarantees. And I agree members of the anti-abortion community are moved by those same convictions to perform great acts of social service.
But I am struck here by two parts of your statement.
“And pro-lifers are not interested in having power over women. They are interested in defending human life and fighting for the civil rights of others that are being denied.”
Is not denying to women one of the most fundamental guarantees stated in the Constitution an exercise of power and dominion over women? Is not denying women the individual autonomy, the liberty to direct one’s life, that men enjoy without question an exercise of power and dominion over women? Forcing women to submit to religious tenets even though they do not share the same faith, is this not an exercise of power and dominion over women? Is this not a civil rights issue for women? For all of us?
“And yes, just as slaveowners used the few murderous examples like John Brown to condemn the whole abolitionist movement, pro-choicers do use the few examples like death of Tiller (first time in 10 years an abortion doctor was killed) to condemn the whole pro-life movement.”
I am a little troubled by how easily you dismiss the murder of innocent people in the name of “pro-life.” If the “pro-life” movement advocates the taking of one life, from my secular position, they should be condemned. I’m not going to dwell on this, though, because that is not the general consensus I see on pages you referred to me or others I have found since. The majority of opinion I find from folks of either Lutheran persuasion condemn the murder of George Tiller and other abortion providers and decry the use of violence. I’m going to assume you subscribe to this position as well. If I am mistaken, let me know.
I appreciate your time and effort in explaining your position. I am still working through Mr. Knudson’s essay. The parallels he draws to the Civil War Era are interesting. I’m researching if others share similar views.
“Is not denying to women one of the most fundamental guarantees stated in the Constitution an exercise of power and dominion over women?”
There is no guarantee of right to end the life of one’s child in the womb in the Constitution. So, no.
If anything it involves civil rights violations done by abortionists on unborn babies. Not just murder in the eye of pro-lifers (not all pro-lifers are religious, by the way). But also child abuse.
The basic right of the Constitution is that no life, liberty, and property shall be taken away without due process of law (fifth amendment). The first right listed is life.
If abortion takes away life then it is blatant violation of the Constitution, no matter what the Supreme Court says.
The likes of Ted Bundy get due process denied to unborn babies.
Saying denying women right to get rid of their own child in the womb is having dominion over them is like saying having dominion over men for denying right to get rid of their own children.
I see abortion is basically giving women a special right not granted in the Constitution. It says men has no say if the children they help cause to conceive can live or die in the womb, but once the children are born suddenly they are responsible for them. It sends a mixed message.
No one else has the right to kill anybody, except for self-defense. No one.
So I see abortion if it is indeed murder as a special right. Not as equality at all.
Certainly, not for the right of the unborn.
“I am a little troubled by how easily you dismiss the murder of innocent people in the name of “pro-life.” If the “pro-life” movement advocates the taking of one life, from my secular position, they should be condemned.”
I did not dismiss the murder of innocent people. Tiller is not innocent. He has blood on his hands. Even many pro-choicers see what he did as pure murder, since many of those babies who are aborted can live outside the womb.
And I did dismiss what happen to him, though I did not see him as innocent. I do believe the person who shot up should be tried for murder and prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
What I dismiss is the pro-abortionist attempts to exploit that to paint pro-lifers as terrorists because of their rhetoric. Nearly all of them oppose taking the law into one’s hand. Pro-abortionists, who accuse pro-lifers there, are simply not being honest. That is what I draw the comparisons between how slaveowners try to exploit the John Brown case against abolitionists to what happen now.
Nor are they looking at the violence committed on their own end (and I don’t mean abortions either), which are far more regularly done to pro-lifers, then the other way around.
“And I did dismiss what happen to him, though I did not see him as innocent.”
I meant I did NOT dismiss what happen to him, though I did not see him as innocent.
“Is not denying women the individual autonomy, the liberty to direct one’s life, that men enjoy without question an exercise of power and dominion over women?”
No more than denying men rights to murder others.
Even in our laws in most states I know of, women are punished for doing drugs while pregnant for endangering their child. If abortion is not taking a life, how is doing drugs endangering one’s child when that one in the womb is not human life yet so thus not a child?
And we are not allowed to to do illegal drugs. There are limitations on what all of us can do with our own bodies. We cannot do lewd acts in public, for example.
By your logic, men and women alike are under dominion of others telling what they can or cannot do with their own bodies, and thus denied rights. I don’t buy that argument at all.
And not especially when what we do with our bodies encroach on others’ rights to life, liberty, or property.
If there is a human life in the womb, then it is not just the woman’s body. It is another human body.
The issue then is not what women should be allowed to do with their own bodies, but what should they be allowed to do with another human body inside their bodies?
“Forcing women to submit to religious tenets even though they do not share the same faith, is this not an exercise of power and dominion over women? Is this not a civil rights issue for women? For all of us?”
And hence the parallels to slavery. Slaveowners did argued much that religious zealots were trying to force their religious views on them so thus trying to enslave them. They, too, argued that the right to own slaves were issues of privacy and property. The words “PRIVATE PROPERTY” come much in the founding documents of the Confederacy, especially in the declarations of causes of secession.
We argue that our rights do not extend to violating the rights of others to life, liberty, or property, particularly life. Without right to life, the other rights are useless.
All laws are by nature moral, if not religious.
Even our Constitution.
The founders stated our rights come from God in the Declaration, be it the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Those same founders in the state constitutions at the time defined God as that of the Bible, especially the Protestant version. They stated their God is Trinity God in the treaty of Paris and stated this nation is under God in the Articles of Confederation. In the Northwest Ordinance the founders stated that religion and morality shall be encouraged forever as matter of good government, and the father of country, George Washington, repeated that in his Farewell Address.
Religion and morality are very much part of our founding heritage and constitutional rights.
Yes, at the federal level, there is “seperation of church and state” as intended by the founders to safeguard against a return to a national church that would threaten rights of other religious folks to free exercise.
But even in the states like Virginia, where religious freedom was most pronounced by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, Christian morality is still expected.
And by the way, the words right to life, liberty, and property shall not be taken away without due process of the law were basically words taken straight out of the Puritan/Calvinistic Massachusetts colonial document Bodies of Liberty. Locke echoed that in his writings as well and his references for those rights come straight from the Bible, which he extensively quoted in both treatises on civil government, as well as Christian apologetics Reasonableness of Christianity.
This is what I mean by pro-choicers have no business throwing stones at pro-lifers on issue of violence:
http://www.speroforum.com/site/article.asp?idCategory=34&idsub=158&id=19647&t=The+Abortion+Movement's+best-kept+secret
Skewed Statistics and Misrepresentations
To track pro-lifers’ “offenses,” pro-abortion groups tally acts of “violence and disruptive actions” the former allegedly perpetrate in the United States and Canada. The NAF publishes a table of the data they accumulate.[7]
At first glance the numbers are impressive, indeed. According to the chart, the total disruptions and acts of violence since 1973 is a full 156,961. However, a closer look reveals that 141,837 of these incidents are peaceful picketing of abortion mills, 13,995 are “hate mail” or “harassing” telephone calls – which certainly include many peaceful and legal actions –, 1,993 are trespassing violations and 1,400 are generically termed “vandalism.”
The section of the NAF chart on violence is even more misleading. Under this heading it lists trespassing violations, vandalism, invasion, threats and butyric acid attacks. The latter may look violent at first glance. However, butyric acid is a harmless but foul-smelling liquid. Thus, the frightful sounding “butyric acid attacks” amount to nothing more than the use of stink bombs. Admittedly this costs money to clean up, but to classify it as “violence” is simply dishonest.
Furthermore, a 1995 Life Research Institute study investigated all available claims of pro-life violence and uncovered major inconsistencies. The study is titled: Abortion-Related Violence and Alleged Violence and is readily available online.[8]
It shows that many claims made by NAF and other groups are simply not substantiated nor is any evidence provided. Readers are expected to accept many incidents without proof.
Furthermore, an investigation of the more detailed “offenses” reveals major flaws. For instance, pro-lifers are assumed as the culprits of any act committed against an abortionist or even near an abortion mill.
Other examples include:
The 1993 murder of abortion doctor Wayne Patterson is categorized misleadingly as a murder that forced the closing of two abortion facilities. The truth is that Wayne Patterson was robbed and killed by an unknown assailant while leaving a pornographic movie theater. What his killing has to do with the pro-life movement is not explained.[9]
On October 21, the Feminist Women’s Health Center in Redding California burnt down. The event and was designated a pro-life arson, despite police reports that identified an electric fan as the cause of the blaze.[10]
In June of 1990, the Minnesota director of Planned Parenthood was supposedly assaulted, although he escaped the event without a scratch. His assailant, who certainly attacked other clinic employees, was an escapee from a mental institution. It was proven in court that he had no links to any pro-life organization.[11]
Those Who Live in Glass Houses…
In addition to greatly exaggerating (and even inventing) incidents of pro-life violence, the pro-abortion movement is deathly silent about the violence from within its ranks against pro-lifers.
In fact, the vast majority of active pro-lifers have endured acts of pro-abortionist violence. A common example is abortion mill workers who try to run over pro-lifers demonstrating in front of clinics.[12] Dr. Tiller, himself, ran over a pro-lifer and rammed a policeman on a motorcycle in a 1989 incident at his Wichita clinic.[13]
Pro-life organization Human Life International (HLI) has documented cases of pro-abortion violence for years. Their research is published online at: http://abortionviolence.com/ and on a blog titled: Tree in the Sea (see: http://tree-in-the-sea.blogspot.com/2008/05/pro-abortion-violence.html). The latter has a list that is over 100 pages long and contains more than 2,000 cases.
For example:
Seven-year-old Ekaternia Engelke was kneeling in prayer at a Wisconsin abortion mill when leftist Catherine Doyle approached and screamed profanities at the little girl. When the latter replied: “You are killing babies!” the former kicked little Ekaterina in the face, injuring her. Afterwards, a hotline for Doyle’s pro-abortion group, Milwaukee Clinic Protection Coalition, instructed fellow pro-abortion activists to “brush up on their football skills.”
Despite numerous witnesses, charges were never brought against Doyle. Incidentally, her sister was Wisconsin Attorney General at the time of the attack.[14]
Worse yet, in Los Angeles, three pro-abortionists were arrested in 1989 for trying to burn down a church, packed with pro-lifers. Police also found concussion grenades underneath a speaker’s platform that was set up for a rally scheduled later in the day. There were 2,500 pro-lifers at the event.[15]
In Tennessee, Byron Looper, pro-abortion candidate for the state senate, shot his pro-life opponent Senator Tommy Burks in the face, killing him. Afterwards, he bragged about the murder to his friend Joe Bond, saying: “I did it, man, I did it! I killed that dude.”[16]
Last, activist Eileen Orstein Janezic shot pro-life talk show host Jerry Simon at his home. She proceeded to hold the police at bay for six hours, while she recited quotations from Antoin LeVey’s Satanic Bible.[17]
These four events are merely the tip of the iceberg. There are literally thousands of documented cases of pro-abortion violence.[18] In fact, these substantiated incidents greatly outweigh the alleged acts committed by pro-lifers.
Yet, oddly, I haven’t yet connected the shooting of Dr. Tiller with rank-and-file pro-lifers. I believe his murder is the work of an extremist, if I can believe what I read in the newspapers. No one ever said both sides attract only kind and gentle people. I thought we were talking about the act itself.
More startling stats the media don’t talk about:
http://abortionviolence.com/
Human Life International has documented more than 8,519 acts of violence and illegal activities by pro-abortionists. These crimes include:
1,251 homicides and other killings
157 attempted homicides
28 arsons and firebombings
904 assaults
1,908 sex crimes (including 250 rapes)
106 kidnappings
420 cases of vandalism
290 drug crimes
1,616 medical crimes
Also, 520 murders and 360 fatal botched abortions by pro abortionists, including;
145 pregnant women
360 abortion clients
71 other women
110 born children
164 wanted preborn children, and
30 men (including two pro-life activists,
two abortionists, and a sheriff’s deputy)
Deadly pro-abortion violence has been reported at least since 1965 and is escalating rapidly, with an incredible 269 homicides and other killings committed in just the last six years (since 2000). 2005 was the bloodiest year, with pro-abortionists murdering 77 people, including 28 pregnant women (and their 28 wanted preborn babies), two baby boys, one little boy and five little girls, four men and two women, and seven other wanted preborn babies. The pro-abortionists almost matched this bloody slaughter in 2002, with 58 deaths, and in 2003, with 53 deaths. In fact, pro-abortionists have averaged more murders per year since 1967 (that’s 39 years in a row) than so-called “pro-lifers” have in the history of the entire conflict over abortion!
I am not going to necessarily believe these statistics. I mean no disrespect, but it feels like we’ve gone off-topic. You earlier were telling us your position on abortion. I don’t think either side has a perfect record for staying within the boundaries of acceptable behavior.
“And I don’t think you can say all pro-lifers care about life after the womb, either. I wouldn’t want to say that none of them do — but again, the public face of the anti-abortion stance isn’t quite as loving as you present here. ”
“The public face” is presented largely by the liberal media. Go to your average conservative pro-life church. Or go to all these groups.
I did not say all pro-lifers care about life after the womb, but many do. Groups I listed would not exist if that is not the case. And there are alot more of them out of there that do this kind of work, going overseas even to war torn countries or third world countries. That is real sacrifices done on behalf of others.
“We part paths when you say that pro-lifers don’t want power. I don’t think — and I don’t mean to be a jerk here — you can say that about all pro-lifers. My sense of some of the loudest spokespeople against abortion do not strike me as disinterested in power. ”
The same can be said about the loudest folks on the pro-abortion side.
And regardless, to grant the right to abortion without restriction is to give a parent (in this case, female parent) absolute right to decide the life or death of a child, no other folk can have.
I don’t believe any parent, male or female, should have that right. It is real power to decide life or death.
So if anybody is into power, it would be the most diehard of abortionists.
Maybe some pro-lifers are interested in power. But the ones that demand power are the abortionists.
That has not been my experience, that pro-lifers are into the power you describe. The power I want as a woman is power over my body. Where we again part paths is when life begins. This is about power for people who perform abortions (if that’s what you mean by abortionists). It’s for women and their own bodies.
“And I have read a great deal about Jane Doe’s change of heart, and I am sorry for her, sorry that she feels the way she does now. ”
Doe did not have a change of heart. She never wanted abortion in the first place. She did not come to the lawyers asking for one or asking to go to court to make it legal. They used her name on false pretenses. She was always opposed to abortion. The same cannot be said about Roe, who indeed wanted an abortion back then but now is opposed to it (meaning unlike Doe, Roe did have a change of heart).
The public face of many abortionists is not so loving either. Attempts to paint pro-lifers along the lines of those who killed Martin Luther King Jr has gotten the ire of his niece.
Playing the KKK card and trying to argue the government to punish pro-lifers each time they say abortion is murder (on pretext that is inciting to murder in the minds of abortionists) is not loving. It is attempting to use the government to violate rights of others to free speech and religion. Not far different from slaveowners wanting to curb the free speech and religion of abolitionists, which they did effectively in the South.
Pro-lifers remain by comparison one of the most peaceful civil rights movement in history.
If you want to go by the few examples of murders of abortionists, which all sides deplore, then the abortionists come out looking worse, given not just what they do for practice, but alot more violences are committed against pro-lifers by pro-choicers then the other way around.
So pro-choicers saying pro-lifers are unloving need to look at themselves, too.
If abortionists are into choices, how come many of them oppose our choice to bear arms, which is indeed stated as right in the Constitution? How come many of them opposed rights of folks to school choice for their children?
I stand corrected. Thank you
“That has not been my experience, that pro-lifers are into the power you describe. The power I want as a woman is power over my body.”
Then to be consistent you would have to be for end of all laws that restrict use of our own bodies, be it prostitution, be it polygamy, be it taking illegal drugs (INCLUDING when pregnant), etc., etc. Don’t just stop at abortion.
The fact of the matter is that nobody has unrestrict right to their own bodies if what they do is to detriment of society. We are accountable to others, too.
If the unborn baby belongs to the woman alone as “her body” then guess what? You cannot have it both ways and demand men be accountable for that baby since to begin with, it was not partially belonging to the men who are would be fathers.
Precisely why I see abortion as anti-life, anti-accountability, anti-women even in that it makes mockery of motherhood and also is used often as a weapon in other countries to keep down the female population.
“Where we again part paths is when life begins. ”
Then when a man murders a woman and her unborn does not survive as a result, oppose the law that says the man be charged with double homicide.
“This is about power for people who perform abortions (if that’s what you mean by abortionists). It’s for women and their own bodies.”
Look at the sonograms and see what are inside.
I’ve done that, Truth. At what stage of the pregnancy are you talking about? I understand your point and disagree with it. I actually would have less laws that dictate what one can do with one’s own body. We’ve discussed prostitution elsewhere, as well as illegal drugs, etc. etc. I don’t just stop at abortion.
“I tend to take a looser view of this, mainly because I don’t treasure people getting to say you’re in the group or out of it, though I do understand the desire for quality control.”
My point remains. If you say you hold to a certain view, but that view contradicts everything that the view states, then you don’t really hold to it. That goes with ECLA.
What happen if a person say she is pro-choice but is for all pro-life laws and restrictions against abortion?
Words have meaning.
And two words:
Terri Schiavo.
What about Terri Schiavo? I’m not following your two words.
If pro-lifers are there to control women, how come they are the ones stating the strongest opposition to countries that forced many folks to control their population by aborting mainly female babies (sex selection for who gets to be born and who does not)?
Ahem, um, dj? I think your blog has been hijacked. ;)
I am very, very familiar with the pro-life movement. I grew up volunteering for crisis pregnancy centers and attending protests. My cousin was arrested at 14 for blocking a clinic entrance with Operation Rescue. It was like a rite of passage for her. There was a huge, foundational shift in my thinking that has brought me into the pro-choice camp. But it all started with a friend in my New Testament Seminar class. He said that we will never end abortion through politics. You cannot give the American people a right and then try and take it away. If we want to end abortion we have to reduce unwanted pregnancies.
And don’t get me started on Terri Shiavo.
I believe this particular comment stream has upped itself into a corner and died. It happens. This would work far better face-to-face, I expect. Then again, perhaps not. I wonder if we can all agree (once again) that our common ground is reducing the number of abortions. I hope we can at least agree on that. Because that might be something we can talk about, not talk at.
Please excuse me. I should have been more reserved in my response. I shall apply better judgment in the future.
(I’m a needler. It’s a gift.)
I agree the best course of action for all sides is reducing the number of abortions. We need to explore “How?”.
Amen to that, Leftover.
Anyone read the story of Sarah Brown, the baby who survived Tiller’s late-term abortion only to die 5 years later because of the injuries inflicted on her?