Abortion is murder argument
Abortion is Not Murder
Those who are against it show us why.
by Perry Neel
Thirty-five years since the Roe vs. Wade decision, abortion remains a hot-button issue. This election year it has cooled in comparison to the economy and the war, but still, there’s no arguing that abortion is an intractable divide. This is despite many years of conservative dominance in the White House and on Capitol Hill. My suspicion is that the lack of legislative movement against abortion is due to a silent pro-choice majority in the Republican Party. Witness the facts regarding religion and abortion. A 2008 Alan Guttmacher Institute study shows that 78 percent of women getting abortions are “religious.” An earlier 1995 Guttmacher report revealed more specifically that Catholics have abortions at a 29 percent higher rate than protestants. And that one in five were “evangelical/born again.”
Why? Perhaps because in their heart of hearts, most antiabortion people do not believe their assertion that abortion is murder. This I can reveal by insisting that talk is cheap. What we do says more about us than what we say, and those who make the abortion-ismurder claim certainly don’t act the part.
The simple position against abortion is that it is wrong because it is murder. There are other ways to argue the case, but most agree that this is the standard. Let us concede, then, that if abortion is murder, then it is wrong. But if abortion is murder, should not those who believe it be acting like it?
…
Two stories, one an analogy and one true, illustrate my point. The first: Suppose I am driving to work one morning. I pass a school bus stop, as I do every day. Little children are gathered as they await the yellow bus. On this particular morning, a man is among the children. He is wielding a knife, slashing violently, trying to kill the children. If I choose to drive by and do nothing, what is the moral assessment of my actions? I am not simply lazy or cowardly. In the minds of most, I have committed an immoral act. Since I am a relatively healthy grown man, I have a moral obligation to stop and intervene.
Now, suppose I do stop. And my intervention is only effective if I use lethal force to stop the slaughter of these innocent children. What is the assessment if I use that lethal force and save the children? I would be a hero. I would have done a moral act in the defense of the defenseless.
It is clear that one has a moral obligation to intervene in the defense of others, especially those who cannot defend themselves, and that lethal force is permissible if necessary. But only on rare occasions has this ever been done regarding abortion. Even then, the anti-abortionists distanced themselves, citing either the insanity of the perpetrator or that one murder does not justify another. Neither of these are sufficient counter arguments. If abortion is murder, the sanity of the perpetrator is unimportant. And how can the defense of innocents by the interventionist be murder? The anti-abortionists say that the law would require arrest, prosecution and punishment of a person who killed or maimed to prevent an abortion. Regardless of the law of the land, don’t religious people have a higher obligation to the law of God? The Christian tradition has a longstanding history of civil disobedience. Martyrdom has always been a higher calling.
…
Furthermore, a murder requires a murderer, someone to punish. This brings me to my second story. Back in 1976, I served on a grand jury in Birmingham, Ala. Like many states, Alabama was re-establishing its death penalty after the moratorium from 1967-1972. It wanted a slam-dunk case. And we had one. The district attorney brought evidence that easily convinced us that this case should be tried. The man’s guilt was obvious. We knew the state would ask for the death penalty. But we also knew, with as much certainty, that the defendant was not at the scene of the crime and did not touch the gun. How could this be? The law doesn’t take too kindly to paying people to do your dirty work. It was murder for hire. He ended up getting put to death, although the triggerman was not executed. Legally and morally, the moneyman who orchestrated the killing was most responsible.
Why doesn’t anyone point out that if abortion is murder, it is the woman getting the abortion who is most culpable? Wrath has usually been directed at the clinics and doctors. But the medical personnel are mere accessories. It is the woman who decides, implements and pays for the abortion, so legally and morally she would be the most guilty. Yet on this point, many anti-abortionists are sympathetic to the plight of the poor woman. This is a strange response to a murderer. And consider the millions of American women who fit the category.
In neither way - not by physically preventing an abortion and not by considering the women who get abortions to be criminals - do anti-abortionists act like abortion is murder. They do not display the will or courage to confront what some liken to a holocaust. They don’t treat the “murderer” as a murderer.
I am not stating a position on abortion, and I am not advocating violent intervention against abortion. I am merely saying that despite all the rhetoric, sanctimony and outrage, few if any will truly act upon their stated beliefs against abortion. As much as they cry “murder,” they don’t mean it
Assistant Editor/Publisher Perry Neel teaches philosophy, religion and ethics at Blue Ridge Community College and James Madison University.
© copyright 2009 eightyone publishing llc
website by: Laura Brennan IT Consulting
Those who are against it show us why.
by Perry Neel
Thirty-five years since the Roe vs. Wade decision, abortion remains a hot-button issue. This election year it has cooled in comparison to the economy and the war, but still, there’s no arguing that abortion is an intractable divide. This is despite many years of conservative dominance in the White House and on Capitol Hill. My suspicion is that the lack of legislative movement against abortion is due to a silent pro-choice majority in the Republican Party. Witness the facts regarding religion and abortion. A 2008 Alan Guttmacher Institute study shows that 78 percent of women getting abortions are “religious.” An earlier 1995 Guttmacher report revealed more specifically that Catholics have abortions at a 29 percent higher rate than protestants. And that one in five were “evangelical/born again.”
Why? Perhaps because in their heart of hearts, most antiabortion people do not believe their assertion that abortion is murder. This I can reveal by insisting that talk is cheap. What we do says more about us than what we say, and those who make the abortion-ismurder claim certainly don’t act the part.
The simple position against abortion is that it is wrong because it is murder. There are other ways to argue the case, but most agree that this is the standard. Let us concede, then, that if abortion is murder, then it is wrong. But if abortion is murder, should not those who believe it be acting like it?
…
Two stories, one an analogy and one true, illustrate my point. The first: Suppose I am driving to work one morning. I pass a school bus stop, as I do every day. Little children are gathered as they await the yellow bus. On this particular morning, a man is among the children. He is wielding a knife, slashing violently, trying to kill the children. If I choose to drive by and do nothing, what is the moral assessment of my actions? I am not simply lazy or cowardly. In the minds of most, I have committed an immoral act. Since I am a relatively healthy grown man, I have a moral obligation to stop and intervene.
Now, suppose I do stop. And my intervention is only effective if I use lethal force to stop the slaughter of these innocent children. What is the assessment if I use that lethal force and save the children? I would be a hero. I would have done a moral act in the defense of the defenseless.
It is clear that one has a moral obligation to intervene in the defense of others, especially those who cannot defend themselves, and that lethal force is permissible if necessary. But only on rare occasions has this ever been done regarding abortion. Even then, the anti-abortionists distanced themselves, citing either the insanity of the perpetrator or that one murder does not justify another. Neither of these are sufficient counter arguments. If abortion is murder, the sanity of the perpetrator is unimportant. And how can the defense of innocents by the interventionist be murder? The anti-abortionists say that the law would require arrest, prosecution and punishment of a person who killed or maimed to prevent an abortion. Regardless of the law of the land, don’t religious people have a higher obligation to the law of God? The Christian tradition has a longstanding history of civil disobedience. Martyrdom has always been a higher calling.
…
Furthermore, a murder requires a murderer, someone to punish. This brings me to my second story. Back in 1976, I served on a grand jury in Birmingham, Ala. Like many states, Alabama was re-establishing its death penalty after the moratorium from 1967-1972. It wanted a slam-dunk case. And we had one. The district attorney brought evidence that easily convinced us that this case should be tried. The man’s guilt was obvious. We knew the state would ask for the death penalty. But we also knew, with as much certainty, that the defendant was not at the scene of the crime and did not touch the gun. How could this be? The law doesn’t take too kindly to paying people to do your dirty work. It was murder for hire. He ended up getting put to death, although the triggerman was not executed. Legally and morally, the moneyman who orchestrated the killing was most responsible.
Why doesn’t anyone point out that if abortion is murder, it is the woman getting the abortion who is most culpable? Wrath has usually been directed at the clinics and doctors. But the medical personnel are mere accessories. It is the woman who decides, implements and pays for the abortion, so legally and morally she would be the most guilty. Yet on this point, many anti-abortionists are sympathetic to the plight of the poor woman. This is a strange response to a murderer. And consider the millions of American women who fit the category.
In neither way - not by physically preventing an abortion and not by considering the women who get abortions to be criminals - do anti-abortionists act like abortion is murder. They do not display the will or courage to confront what some liken to a holocaust. They don’t treat the “murderer” as a murderer.
I am not stating a position on abortion, and I am not advocating violent intervention against abortion. I am merely saying that despite all the rhetoric, sanctimony and outrage, few if any will truly act upon their stated beliefs against abortion. As much as they cry “murder,” they don’t mean it
Assistant Editor/Publisher Perry Neel teaches philosophy, religion and ethics at Blue Ridge Community College and James Madison University.
© copyright 2009 eightyone publishing llc
website by: Laura Brennan IT Consulting