Peter Heck - columns - The Tiller Ironies

Archive

Subscribe to this blog's feed

2009 Articles

Sunday, June 14 2009

The Tiller Ironies

Though predictable, it was no less despicable. Just a day following the heinous murder of the country's foremost practitioner of infanticide, George Tiller, radical anti-human rights activists on the left were already condemning the entire pro-life movement for facilitating the incident. Left-wing websites like the Daily Kos blamed conservative commentators Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck for causing it, the Huffington Post deemed it a morally outrageous hypocrisy, and PBS's abortion fanatic Bonnie Erbe went so far as to characterize the entire pro-life movement as a breeding ground for domestic terrorists.

Of course rational people recognize that it borders on clinical insanity to rail about the moral outrage of killing a single human being while simultaneously defending and advocating the wholesale slaughter of millions of others. And just to make sure that there is no confusion on this point, let's be clear on what Tiller did for a living.

George Tiller specialized in what is euphemistically called late term abortion. It involves the breech (feet first) delivery of a full term baby to the point where only the head remains inside the birth canal...ostensibly to soothe the conscience of the mother by muffling the child's screams as scissors penetrate the back of his tiny skull and the contents are brutally suctioned out.

The lifeless little body is then fully removed and discarded, in pieces, into a trash sack. Former late term abortionists have also admitted that sometimes a partially delivered child can pose health risks for the woman, and so the baby is entirely delivered before being exterminated. There is a term that some of us use for such an act. It's called murder.

Again, these are full-term, completely viable infants capable of living outside the womb with totally developed life systems - including the ability to experience pain. In short, Tiller practiced, and the left defended, infanticide. Hearing these leftists now lament the taking of human life is disgracefully stomach turning.

Notice then the irony of the situation. The only people in a position to truly express outrage over Tiller's murder are those that the left are attempting to blame for it. But this is just one of the numerous twists surrounding this tragic situation.

For instance, consider this irony: those that claim to be outraged by Tiller's murder will be calling for a lighter penalty than those they condemn for causing it. When Tiller's murderer is brought to justice, it will be those of us who oppose abortion that will be demanding his execution. The intrinsic value of human life (which, paradoxically, Tiller assaulted) is so great that anyone who violates it forfeits his own right to live.

Meanwhile, it will be those on the left who proudly defended Tiller's life work that will call for a softer sentence. They consider the death penalty barbaric and find pro-lifers who advocate capital punishment inconsistent. "You can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty!" they shout.

Evidently to them, being pro-abortion and anti-death penalty is somehow better?! Is there anything more ethically offensive then those who defend the right to life for convicted, murderous felons, yet strip that right from innocent newborn babies? It is astonishing that anyone can be so blinded by their own self-righteous pomposity that they fail to see this blatant moral incongruity.

It's also notably ironic that the same ideological movement that demands we not castigate all Muslims for the actions of a few is so quick to violate its own precepts when it comes to this issue. We aren't hearing the throngs of Hollywood activists shouting that "most pro-lifers are peaceful," or seeing Democrat Congressmen thumping their chests while proclaiming that "revenge against the pro-life movement for the actions of this one radical will not be tolerated."

Indeed, the ironies surrounding the murder of this murderer are plentiful to say the least. But perhaps the most tragic of them all is that in the end, George Tiller met a brutal demise at the hands of someone who exhibited a blatant disrespect for the intrinsic value of human life...a lesson that Tiller - with the left's blessing - dedicated his life to teaching.

Posted by: Peter Heck AT 04:35 pm | Permalink | 18 Comments | Email

Comments:

If people have no morality how can you expect them to have any moral judgement. Sometimes I really pity their hardness and lack of compassion it must be a miserable way to live your life. They have to be very unhappy, disturbed, and confused people. We have to feel sorry for their inability to THINK. To support a baby killer is as dispicable as a human can be, and I am sure somewhere deep down in their dark dispair they know this.

Posted by Pateq on 06/14/2009 21:20:30

The pro-life movement is accused of having an inconsistent ethic on the "life" issues because we often do. This article was the perfect example. People who are sincerely pro-life on one end of the spectrum (unborn) should consider what the motivating factor is for being pro-death when it comes to criminals. Most of the time, it is our desire for revenge that leads us to support the death penalty, not any desire for justice. Life and death are God's jursidiction,not ours. Let's get back to what being pro-life really means... having a consistent logical position on the value and sanctity of life, for the innocent, and the pathetically guilty. Lock those losers up for life, we don't need their blood on our collective consciences.

Posted by Tere Johnson on 06/16/2009 16:20:38

Uh, no Tere. If anyone is being inconsistent here it is you. If you are pro-life it is because you recognize that there is nothing more precious than the gift of life. Therefore to take the life of another human being warrants the most severe punishment possible. God demonstrated throughout the OT and then commended government to use the sword in the NT - that the appropriate punishment is execution.

Posted by Mike B. on 06/17/2009 10:59:55

Hi Tere, thanks for your comments. I have to correct a mistake you made in your post: what motivates the desire to execute murderous felons is justice, not revenge. Justice is not done to the victim of murder if the penalty levied by the state is anything short of the blood of the murderer. If it falls short of that, we are placing a higher value on the instrinsic worth of the murderer than the victim. When the government executes justice by the laws that are on the books that all men are aware of previously, it is not revenge.

Posted by peterheck on 06/17/2009 11:03:21

Like Tere I oppose any act of killing in the name of justice. Even if we think someone deserves death, death gives them an escape; that's not justice. Furthermore, no individual or institution is accurate enough to make lethal verdicts. The US has already killed a number of individuals who were later exonerated by DNA evidence. And let's not forget the Army of God terrorists mistakenly attacked a clinic that didn't even perform abortions. Talk about murderous idiocy! So how about you write an article condemning right wing terrorism Pete, rather than condemning the media's reaction it? The 2nd bloodiest terrorist act on US soil was by an American wingnut fueled by self-righteousness.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/17/2009 16:29:04

"Death gives them an escape." Now, who is motivated by a desire for revenge? Not me. Death is the only appropriate penalty for a crime so harsh. You seem to be motivated not by what the appropriate penalty is, but rather what will make them "pay" the most. Once again, you're all over the place, NGav, arguing 5 different things in one comment. If you think that right-wing terrorism is a bigger threat than the evil I address in my columns, you write a column, NGav. But when you're comparing 5 abortionists wrongly murdered to 50 million children slaughtered, I think my outrage is properly directed.

Posted by peterheck on 06/18/2009 12:27:10

And what in the world are you talking about anyway? How could I condemn what you call "right wing acts of terror" (the killing of abortionists) any more than to say that those who commit these offenses should be put to death? You are so obsessed with arguing with me on virtually everything, that you're losing your grounding and rationality.

Posted by peterheck on 06/18/2009 12:29:21

Yes, Pete, if you've committed murder, I think you should spend a lifetime in jail to think about what you've done. This also allows for the opportunity to release you if it turns out you are actually innocent - which does happen. So in what way is that revenge? Regarding your other dead-wrong characterization of me: I respond to your articles to provide an alternative point of view. It takes me about 5 minutes to comment; so what you call an "obsession" is more like an idle hobby. I had no idea it got under your skin this badly. You don't even have to respond, however, if you choose to, Matt could use your support in defending eternal torture. (That's not revenge?)

Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/18/2009 13:39:53

I should give you more credit - you do call Tiller's death a "brutal demise" and you say his murderer had a "blatant disrespect for...human life." But you know as well as anyone that Tiller's killer thought he was *saving* human life. You've even echoed that notion yourself. So what's your real position? Killing killers is simultaneously a bad thing *and* a good thing??? I should also add that your graphic intro would no doubt inflame someone with an Army-of-God mindset and thus possibly aggravate the very brutal acts you simultaneously condemn and commend. The waters are muddy Pete; what's your real intent?

Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/18/2009 13:57:29

Classic, NG. You are surprised that it would get under my skin shortly before suggesting that my intent is not clear: am I comdenming or commending acts (and secretly instigating them) like Tiller's murder? But just so you can be clear: Human life has intrinsic value. No human has the authority to take human life in an act of premediated murder...be that in the womb or outside of it. Those who do so should be brought to justice through the appropriate due process. The penatly for a crime so heinous must not fall short of execution, lest we devalue the life that was taken. Seemingly what I've said a number of times. If the waters are muddy, maybe you should stop muddying them.

Posted by peterheck on 06/18/2009 18:33:15

Don't get sucked into this bull, Pete. NGav you are being ridiculous. "Killing killers?" Aren't you above bumper-sticker logic? Do you honestly suggest there is no difference between an act of murder and an act of justice executed by civil authorities after guilt has been proven? An innocent man being killed for money and a criminal being executed for his crimes? And what an outrage that you would suggest Pete is instigating acts of violence by showing what liberals support. Your outrage is with Pete rather than with those who support that brutal killing. You're lost, buddy.

Posted by Max on 06/18/2009 18:38:26

"Those who do so should be brought to justice through the appropriate due process." OK, I see where you're coming from now - thanks for clearing that up. I was confused because your article presents the horror of late term abortion and your comments hold that practitioners of abortion should be executed, but nowhere did I see a proposal for how justice could be done via due process. Absent legitimate avenues, I feared some loons might see this article as a call to action, but you've made it clear as day that's not what you're proposing. My sincere apologies. So then I guess the questions is: how should we stop late term abortion?

Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/19/2009 10:56:17

NGav, Paragraphs 7, 8 & 9 of Peter's column is talking about the death penalty administered by government. Anyone that didn't take that for granted is not thinking clearly. However, I noticed that you stopped short of conceding that the death penalty (administered through due process) is ok. Do you see how justice demands the blood of the murderer in order to put the proper value on the sanctity of innocent human life? A life sentence in prison does not lead to justice. (Especially considering how much prisoners in this country are allowed to do.)

Posted by Matthew Turner on 06/20/2009 10:55:50

Yes, Matt, I stop short of the death penalty because "due process" has killed roughly sixteen innocent people. These people would not have died otherwise - they would have been exonerated. Then you say "justice demands the blood of the murderer..." - no, your bible says that. I've already shown the Christian model of god is unjust, so forgive me if I don't let your favorite book dictate society's moral absolutes.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/30/2009 15:32:43

And we can't know how many other innocent people were wrongly put to death... likely more than sixteen. A more important point is that justice should not be based on mythology. Sure, if hell actually exists, then dispatching criminals to such a realm might be considered justice by those of us in favor of eternal torture. But until there is evidence for that nonsense, killing a killer lets them off the hook. See, I believe justice entails punishment and rehabilitation, but if a criminal no longer exists, they can neither be punished nor rehabilitated. At best, the death penalty is incomplete justice; at worst, it is an irreversible mistake.

Posted by N. Gavelis on 06/30/2009 15:45:42

"I've already shown the Christian model of god is unjust..." Right before you split the atom, invented the internet, and solved world hunger. Pardon me, I must have missed that proof. I've seen a lot of reckless hyperbole and inflammatory accusations made with biting precision, but contrary to what your ever-increasing ego may be telling you, you have not disproved what some of the greatest minds in the history of mankind have acknowledged. And some people call me pompous! Good grief, man! Thinking you've laid to rest the debate of the ages is a little over the top for even you, NGav.

Posted by peterheck on 06/30/2009 18:15:40

Pete, you've got it all wrong! I split the internet, solved the atom, and invented world hunger! None of that would've been possible without my girthy ego to guide me. In all seriousness, though, I didn't prove anything. The immorality of eternal torture is self-evident - all I have to do is point to it. No amount of "reckless hyperbole" can illustrate the magnitude of the injustice of eternal torture, because nothing can demonstrate how long eternity is. Anyway, we're both pretty pompous, Pete, at least in the eyes of a casual observer, so why constantly remind each other of what is already obvious?

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/02/2009 12:06:39

"The debate of the ages"?! I think that title is best reserved for matters like (A) whether gods exist; and if yes, then (B) what religion, if any, most accurately reflects the nature and/or will of god/gods. These questions dwarf our little debate. Also, whether hell is moral or not is probably a moot issue to most Christians, since what god says goes - period. Some god-fearing Christians refuse to judge the morality of hell because they fear judging God's work might just land you there! (Fascist dictators don't like to be questioned, just accepted. Thus the primacy of *faith*.)

Posted by N. Gavelis on 07/02/2009 13:03:32