Given the Planned Parenthood shooter’s recent outbursts in court, declaring himself to be “a warrior for the babies” among other references to abortion, it seems clear that Robert Dear was motivated at least in part by specific animus toward the abortion provider he targeted. Of course, his mental instability suggests that analyzing his motivation in logical and linear terms may be giving him too much credit, but whatever mental process led him to that Planned Parenthood office was probably informed by anti-abortion rhetoric. Which raises a tough question: Were those whose words probably influenced Dear’s actions in any way responsible for those actions?
The aftermath of the shooting has seen a flood of condemnation for “deeply irresponsible” pro-life rhetoric which is blamed for all of the relatively rare attacks against abortion providers in recent decades. Because the pro-life movement calls the abortion industry evil, the reasoning goes, they are collectively responsible whenever someone decides to fight the evil of abortion with the evil of extrajudicial violence. Though the pro-life movement consistently denounces violence against abortion providers, many on the left argue that pro-lifers should still be held accountable for the choices of those who may have been influenced by their condemnation of abortion.
The accusations raise two questions. The first is civic. Should we condemn speech which might possibly spur unintended violence? The second question is personal and moral. Should pro-lifers scale back their condemnation of abortion to avoid the possibility of inspiring someone somewhere to take the law into his own hands?
On the first, civic question, the answer is a categorical “no.” The bare fact that public speech might motivate some unknown listener to engage in violence is far from sufficient grounds for condemning it. Are we willing to excoriate every reformer who has ever declared, “This is wrong and must be stopped”? Fiery abolitionist rhetoric against slavery inspired the unhinged John Brown and his followers to hack five men to death in front of their families in Franklin County, Kansas in 1856. Was this Harriet Beecher Stowe’s fault? Or Frederick Douglass’?
When something is wicked, men and women must be allowed to stand up and say so. It is always possible that such denunciations will spur some maniac to take action, but the alternative–the only alternative–is to passively accept every evil without protest, lest our words possibly become part of the toxic mix that fuels a psychopath.
In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins attacked the headquarters of the Family Research Council, planning to massacre as many people as possible and smear Chick-fil-a sandwiches in the victims’ faces as a statement against the FRC’s opposition to same-sex marriage. He told investigators he was inspired by the Southern Poverty Law Center’s inclusion of the FRC on a list of hate groups. I side with the FRC on the question of same-sex marriage, but I will categorically defend the SPLC’s right to smear the pro-marriage side in whatever way they want. The SPLC considered the FRC’s position abhorrent and said so. That is all. They were no more responsible for Corkins’ terrorist attack than Jodie Foster was responsible for the attempted assassination of Ronald Reagan.
As a civic matter, the right to disagree and denounce is too important to be held hostage to the whims of the unhinged. But what about the personal, moral side of things? Rob Schenck, a former pro-life activist, recently wrote a moving article describing his feelings of guilt following the murder of an abortion doctor he had protested. Schenck remembers, “Lynn Slepian, the doctor’s widow, collected my bouquet, smashed it, and sent it back to me with an angry note, blaming me in part for the violence against her family. She cited the inflammatory language my cohorts and I routinely used about her husband, which she saw as an inducement for Kopp and others like him. Initially, I defended my words. Still, the idea that what I said during those confrontations contributed to her agony was extremely painful. It took a decade for me to realize the damage I had done.”
Schenck writes that his years of reflection and wrestling with feelings of guilt led him to realize “my own propensity for treating others with contempt.” If he did ever address the abortion providers or their clients with anything other than love, even while condemning their actions, then he sinned. And he doubtless sinned, because he is human. But is it always wrong to publicly condemn abortion, even in “inflammatory” language? If “inflammatory” simply means telling ugly truths, then the answer is no; telling the truth about ugly things means telling ugly truths.
In some ways, renewed attention to the ethics of pro-life activism provides those of us who oppose abortion with a valuable gut-check moment. Do we really believe what we say? Are abortionists truly murdering unborn children? If we’re wrong about that, we have no business getting involved. It’s not just the remote possibility that something we say could set off a madman. Worse, our words indisputably cause pain and guilt to those who hear. That is what being condemned does. If abortion doctors are not killing unborn children, then we are harassing innocent medical professionals and inflicting guilt and uncertainty on women for no good reason. If, on the other hand, abortion is the murder of an unborn child, then our country is in the midst of a national Holocaust of unrivaled proportions and every mother dissuaded from abortion is a woman who will not bear the blood of her own child on her hands.
The Bible tells us to love our enemies, and we must always remember that imperative, both in what we say and in how we say it. But love condemns sin when that is necessary, as Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Jesus himself could testify. Telling people what abortion is, even when they don’t want to hear it, isn’t hate and it isn’t wrong. It is necessary.
David, is this your gut-check moment?
You say: ”Love condemns sin, when that is necessary.” So is it necessary for me to condemn your sin of not continuing to pursue the truth re “unborn children,” when you at least recognize, “If we’re wrong about that, we have no business getting involved.”?
The condemnation you engage in is not only a matter of “harassing innocent medical professionals and inflicting guilt and uncertainty on women for no good reason.” If it is untrue that abortion is about murdering children, then that untruth which is the basic propagation of pro-life people is being reinforced by almost everything such activists do, all the ink spilled in opposing abortion. Perhaps MOSTLY it continues to cause great concern among many Christians, whether they are female or not.
It saddens me that many many Christians are so ready to dwell so deeply in UNTRUTH. If it is not untruth please show me (and everyone) how it is true, what the truth of it is, and how what I say is falsity. IF you can.
“Telling people what abortion is” requires that you KNOW what it is, and don’t merely have some vague ideas you BELIEVE. The fetus is not something with regard to which there can be no “scientific” knowledge, if you prefer that term. Its nature, the facts of abortion, should not be seen as matters of belief, but of knowledge to be pursued. Of CORRECT UNDERSTANDING.
If pro-life “argument” begs the question at every opportunity with “unborn child” that is little more than propaganda.
The issue is about (telling people) “what abortion is” and it is, IF you and many Christian churches all this time have been correct, it is about a Holocaust; these ideas mean it is of UTMOST IMPORTANCE that one be correct. Not spout nonsense and untruth!
The “gut-check”: “Do we really believe what we say? Are abortionists truly murdering unborn children?” Is condemnation of abortion a matter of belief? Should it be? The first question here relates to the second, does it not? That is, the TRUTH of the matter is what is at issue, not that one believes, the sincerity of one’s belief.
“But is it always wrong to publicly condemn abortion, even in ‘inflammatory’ language?” What I would have thought you would say (in accord with the rest of the piece) is, “Is it ever wrong to publicly condemn abortion?” I guess you accept it is sometimes wrong to use “inflammatory language”? What I see as the important thing is not whether it is inflammatory or taken as inflammatory, but whether it is TRUE.
SURELY YOU SHOULD BE MORE CONCERNED WITH THE TRUTH OF WHAT YOU SAY THAN WHETHER IT MIGHT OFFEND OR INDICT SOMEONE.
You brush by the question of whether what you are saying is true in favor of the question of whether you believe it, is that not so? And is it not so that that is very much the general position of pro-life, as long as you keep spouting (the great falsity) “unborn child” you can maintain your attitude of self-satisfaction?
On the other hand, to defend what we say, to become assured of the truth, that we do indeed know what abortion is about, THAT I would suggest is the most important thing about any raising of the question of abortion.
ARE YOU ABLE TO SAY anything enlightening and especially anything true about “embryonic human being,’ which supposedly is your great truism, but is (I think) actually nonsense?
I tried to be nice about your claim, “After all, we could not talk about it unless there was an “it” (existing) to talk about.” Perhaps what I should have asked is, have you ever read a novel?
Should the pro-life position be considered a fiction, a fabrication that “must be true” because you believe it and speak it?
Hi Douglas, as I told you when I ended our discussion a few posts down, I don’t think there is value in pursuing this conversation further with you. This is one of the first times I’ve ever opted out of a debate, but I think it is wisest. In the past six months I have debated with a Mormon, Jehovah’s Witnesses, atheists, and various people from other political views, and this is the only conversation I’ve terminated. To illustrate why, I would simply point to your comment above, which is 12 paragraphs long yet seems to only contain two ideas I can actually respond to: (1) It’s important to tell the truth about abortion [I agree, of course!], and (2) near the end, an argument over a point which you have persisted in misunderstanding over the course of several exchanges. When I said, “After all, we could not talk about it unless there was an ‘it’ (existing) to talk about,” I was simply saying that the fetus exists as something. We don’t disagree about that. You agree the fetus exists. (There is something in the mother’s womb.) Yet you persist in trying to argue over a point that is largely irrelevant and upon which we agree.
Perhaps I’m simply missing what you are trying to say. I don’t want to assume the miscommunication is your fault, because, after all, one always seems to be making sense to oneself. All I’m saying is that I cannot seem to meaningfully engage with you, so I am not going to try.
In accord with your title, I think SOMETIMES TELLING UGLY TRUTHS IS NECESSARY.
Come on David, you are trying to say with your “something exists” and “embryonic human being” that there is a human being in the womb. What we agree on is there is a fetus (as you here say) – that is in no way an argument that gets you any way to your claim it is a human being. I guess it is all you can claim and still seem to make a bit of sense.
You can try to pretend you don’t understand and make it out that I am miscommunicating – that is, not speaking in an understandable way.
You very much want to continue to think (AND PREACH!) that abortion is bad, so to hear (read) any more truth, that your position does not have one good argument in its favor, will not do.
I think you are in THE DEEPEST SIN OF DENYING GOD OF DENYING THE TRUTH.
I pretty much said this last time, but you choose to ignore it and claim I said nothing more than “It’s important to tell the truth about abortion.”
I think our conversations have been FAR TOO MEANINGFUL for you to delight in them.
Thing is, you BELIEVE the fetus is not only a fetus, but a human being. You don’t KNOW that to be the case, at least can give NO GOOD REASONS for believing it, yet undoubtedly will continue to plague some fellow Christians with the propaganda “unborn child.”
I might try again just a bit to point out I did make that point in my last post, where you could only find that I only advanced two ideas that you could possibly respond to, two ideas that incidentally we totally agree on. No truth to be noticed like that, in a “pro-life rhetoric” post, the effect of pro-life arguments may be mostly to disconcert Christians, since they are the one’s most likely to read it. (I did not make that very last point but thought you might have some apprehension of it.)
IDEAS YOU COULD RESPOND TO, and yet say you couldn’t:
1. Is this your gut-check moment?
2. Is it necessary for me to condemn your sin of not continuing to pursue the truth re “unborn children” …?
3. The condemnation you engage in …”Perhaps MOSTLY it continues to cause great concern amongst many Christians, whether they are female or not.”
4. Many many Christians are so ready to dwell so deeply in UNTRUTH. If it is not untruth please show me (and everyone) how it is true, what the truth of it is, and how what I say is falsity. IF you can.
5. “Telling people what abortion is” requires that you KNOW what it is, and don’t merely have some vague ideas you BELIEVE. The fetus is not something with regard to which there can be no “scientific” knowledge, if you prefer that term. Its nature, the facts of abortion, should not be seen as matters of belief, but of knowledge to be pursued. Of CORRECT UNDERSTANDING.
[This says more than merely that “It’s important to tell the truth about abortion.” It says you are wrong to indicate it is about what one believes, eg. “Do we really believe what we say?” “Really believe” says nothing about knowing, and knowing with any degree of certainly. In my opinion pro-life statements are much too much matters of BELIEF, and not enough sound argument. Do you agree? Certainly that idea is something worth discussing? Unless of course the only point always is to spew propaganda with things like “unborn child”? That too could be seen as an idea (6.) one might be able to comment on.]
You pretend I am belaboring a point – I don’t think so. When you say: “ … (2) near the end, an argument over a point which you have persisted in misunderstanding over the course of several exchanges,” what point might that be? Is it what you next talk about ? I am having to repeat (at least once) that you refuse to admit the claim that something must exist because “it” can be talked about (unicorns come to mind) is false. I suppose you do not want to advance toward truth or you could at least admit that, that you were blatantly wrong to say that?
I think it has probably become fairly obvious to you that you have no good, defensible, arguments. That is one truth among many that I suppose you will never acknowledge.
You can’t “respond to”: “ARE YOU ABLE TO SAY anything enlightening and especially anything true about “embryonic human being”?
What sort of ADMISSION is that?
You should repent and honestly seek the truth with me.
I should repent of short, one-sentence “paragraphs,” lest I be dismissed with the pseudo- argument of making only two (trivial) points in 12 paragraphs – not true of course.
At least have the honesty to admit when you are wrong. E.g. about, “After all, we could not talk about it unless there was an “it” (existing) to talk about.”
You now say: “When I said, “AFTER ALL, we could not talk about it unless there was an ‘it’ (existing) to talk about,” I was simply saying that the fetus exists as something.”
NO YOU WEREN’T. The two combinations of words are very different from each other, and it is very easy to say “the fetus exists as something.” (I.e. exists as a fetus – big hairy deal, big hairy point to make!) So why did you say THE OBVIOUS FALSITY that: “we could not talk about it unless there was an “it” (existing) to talk about”? Why? (If not to obfuscate or at least seem to suggest you had some sort of argument?) Oh really because it had never been brought to your attention that there indeed are FICTIONS we can talk about? AFTER ALL.
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHAT YOUR WORDS SAY – I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHAT “MIGHT BE” IN YOUR MIND APART FROM THEM.
I.m.h.o., people like you are responsible for a great amount of disrepute that has come upon Christianity and (I predict) even more in the future. The whole business of abortion “discussion” tends to be vague and I am sure pro-lifers would prefer to keep it that way, an opinion reinforced by your attitude lately.