Eating Me Up

The murder of Dr. George Tiller (I'm sure we all know all about it, and if you don't, well, Google is your friend) has really been bothering me because of the emotional impact the whole issue has. I cannot point to just one thing, but rather a whole host of issues that for me, have no clear answers.

First is the issue of abortion in the first place. I used to say that while I was not personally for abortion - were the choice given to me or for me to influence - I'd say no way. However, I didn't feel that I could tell a woman what to do with her body. However, that thinking sidestepped the issue. Apparently, I felt that abortion was not "right." I feel even more strongly about that these days.

If I cannot call the killing of a viable fetus murder, just what can I call murder? If I support the state's enforcement of laws that say Dr. Tiller was murdered, then how can we say that we cannot legally consider the ending of a fetus's life to be murder as well? Now, this isn't a hard and fast policy - if the woman's life is in danger, or the fetus is horribly defective (and don't tell me about the slippery slope with that issue, too), or in the case of incest or rape - well, I'm pretty conditionally for it. The hypocrisy detector in me says that it doesn't matter to the fetus who it's daddy is - perhaps it deserves life as well. Like I said, there are all kinds of issues that come up when this subject is brought up. Obviously, we need a legal definition of when a fetus becomes a human being with full rights. As our medical technology advances, this time period gets closer and closer to conception.

I used to feel that if I'm gonna force someone to bear a child, then I ought to be considering supporting that child. This argument has a lot of logical fallacy as well. When we are talking about abortion as birth control - the people involved are responsible for their actions. If I force Jolene Doe to have liability insurance on her car, am I responsible for paying her bills if she can't pay it or if she runs short in other areas of her budget? No. If Jolene Doe wants to have a car, then there are legal obligations she has to meet, period. If Jolene Doe wants to have sex, then there are legal obligations she must meet. This is an oversimplification for sure, because there are moral obligations as well. I hear: "We cannot legislate morality." OK, then I'll kill you without remorse or rob you blind if there are no laws enforcing morality. Nope, in order for society to function, there generally has to be a set of agreed upon rules for it to follow, and those rules are based on moral precepts. The idea that the least governed will perform the best only works if the participants behave in society's and their best interests. Obviously, people do not. And another sad thought is that there are a lot of people who really want to adopt the "fetal tissue" that the wealthier population is aborting.

The right to life supporters say that people have to be responsible for their actions (reeducating morality and making people responsible for their actions) and the pro-choice supporters say that women should be able to control their own bodies (with state funded support, educating minors about birth control and generally taking over what the right to lifer's say is the parent's job). Neither choice is a good one, because it involves the state becoming more involved in raising children -either forcing parents to parent or taking over the job. It seems logical to me that parents should raise their children, but we are presented daily with evidence that this is not the way things are. That train left the station. So, here is one point where I don't have a clear cut answer. If Jolene Doe, late thirties upwardly mobile womyn, decides to have an abortion because her career just can't take having a kid, how are we going to keep Jackie Doe, her fifteen year old daughter, from figuring out it's ok to abort fetuses? After all, we wouldn't want to inconvenience anyone or hold them responsible for their actions. This genie is out of the bottle, and I see no easy solution. The Christian in me says these people need to find God. I agree, but I don't see how they can be forced to do so.

And while we're at it, let's look at another moral equivalence argument. "How can you be for the death penalty but against abortion?" How can you compare a baby with a state sanctioned condemned death row inmate? The kid's only sin is to exist. The person sentenced to death has had the opportunity to live life, and chose to really step out of line as far as the state is concerned - generally by taking someone else's life. Not many get put to death in these here states for not filling out their 1040s properly. That day may yet come. But for now, so sorry. Those are disparate issues.

Now, I get to Dr. Tiller. He was only supposed to provide abortions to women whose fetuses had severe or fatal birth defects, or if the healthy late term fetus would prevent "substantial and irreversible impairment of a major bodily function" for the mother. Therein lies the rub. That definition is very open, and the pro life supporters have held that Tiller abused and stretched that condition. Governor Sebelius and Sedgwick County Procecutor Nola Foulston were good friends of Dr. Tiller. Both refused to investigate the allegations that Tiller in fact was providing late term abortion on demand. My opinion - and this is only my opinion - is that there is something to Operation Rescue's claims of malfeasance. C'mon - he ran a for profit abortion clinic. He's gonna turn down customers? Give me a break. Any attempts to make abortion illegal is met with resistance by judiciary that legislates from the bench. We wouldn't want to interfere with their progressive view of how things should be. As an aside, I've noticed some of my more ardent Christian friends have looked upon Tiller's death as a situation where he got what he deserved. I thought the phrase: Vengeance is mine meant something, but maybe I'm wrong. Plus, they seem to think that since he's gone, maybe there will be lives saved. Not so fast, Spanky. Seems there is a Nebraska doctor who will take over the practice. For moral reasons, of course. Profit - not an incentive here. Of course not, when your cause is noble.

The local news organizations have really tried to portray Tiller as a hero, decent human being, devoted family man, and devout church goer. I really don't want to be a part of any church that looks at what he did as a good thing. I'm sorry, but I cannot go there. My religion is similarly hypocritical - Catholic Church officials don't call out John Kerry or Nancy Pelosi for their support of abortion. So that's something I'm not too keen on right there. Maybe they are using Confession for that issue - but the idea of forgiveness is that you are supposed to stop doing that particular sin. The local news organizations trotted out women whose lives were undoubtedly helped by Dr. Tiller - by aborting a child without a brain, for instance. That is all find and good, but that kind of abortion is not the ultimate goal. Tiller is being deified as an abortion saint.

Plus I got to see abortion rights supporters decry right wing nutjobs for their violence - not only against Dr. Tiller, but what they have endured. To my everlasting shame I hate the idea that there are people who call themselves Christians that act in such a manner. What Would Jesus Do? I doubt he would bomb clinics or beat up supporters. I kept hearing about how there was just no talking to pro life people because they (the abortion supporters) were frightened by the possible violence the Christians were capable of. Well, while I do not condone the idea of violence against these people, they have taken a public stance in favor of killing infants. They are willing to do what the pro life supporters call murder. I've been hearing about how the DHS report that outlined how right wingers have terrorists in their midst. Yep, that is no doubt true up to a point, but I'd bet if DHS staked out a Whole Foods parking lot and checked out everyone with Bush Lied People Died, animal advocacy, or environmental advocacy bumper stickers - well, I'd bet they could find a few nasty things under some rocks there as well. Only these people are willing to kill for the snail darters or a tree as opposed to human life. So don't throw moral equivalency at me about that.

Then we have two other issues that are obviously thrown into the mix that will be used as an opportunity - gun control and the fairness doctrine. Yep, we need gun control. Obviously what we have isn't working, so let us punish law abiding citizens by further restrictions on their access to guns, ammo, places to shoot, or just whatever we can to stop the violence for the children. All those right wing talk radio people are stirring up the nutjobs who cling to their guns and religion. Gotta stop that.

But let us look at several facts. It was illegal for the murderer to kill Dr. Tiller. That did not stop him. It was illegal for him to have a gun at a church. Guess what? Didn't do any good. It's illegal to bomb clinics and to possess the materials to do so. Gee, looks like that's working well. Roeder is a felon. It is illegal for him to possess a gun. That, too went out the window. My point is that people who are determined to break the law are going to do so, no matter how much the rest of us are punished.

People who want to abort their kids will do so. People who want to shoot up heroin will do so. People who want to self destruct do it every day. Should the government look after these people? How far is too far for society's involvement? When is life in the womb official?

I fear that too many look upon these problems in strictly black and white terms, when there is in fact a lot of gray involved. Compromises are going to be required for solutions, but conceding the most minor points will be impossible for the opposing sides. I just don't know.