Domestic Terrorism & Abortion

I believe that all human beings are created equal: male and female, rich and poor, Black and White, born and not yet born.  While I think that the wrongness of abortion is a matter of simple logic, I recognize that logic can be obscured by political passions and I acknowledge the possibility (at least in the abstract!) that this might sometime happen to me.  For this reason, I can respect people who disagree with me on this matter and hope for the same courtesy from those who think I am obviously wrong. 

There are limits to respect.  Some people consider waterboarding to be a grave crime against humanity, and I can understand if such a person refused to sit with an interrogator who was known to have done such a thing.  I would not sit down with someone who admitted to practicing late term abortions.

I write these things now only for the sake of showing that my opinions about domestic terrorism are not colored by any pro-choice sympathies.  The United States is a Republic, for Heaven's sake!  As citizens we have enormous and perhaps unprecedented liberties, to think for ourselves, to express our thoughts in speech and writing and in lawful political action.  But liberty is not mere freedom, it is freedom with responsibility.  However much it may hurt, citizens in a Republic are responsible for abiding by the law and accepting the decisions of electorates, legislatures, and courts until such time as minds can be changed. 

There is no possible excuse for terrorism, none, and that is what the murder of an abortion provider amounts to.  Someone might think that the late George Tiller, one of the few medical professionals who "provided women with abortions even late into their pregnancies", in fact murdered children for a living.  I would like to say I disagree, but I cannot.  In this case, it doesn't matter.  Murderous violence against one's fellow citizens points toward a darkness much greater than any it might remedy.  If unchecked, it invites violence and fear without end, and ultimately tyranny. 

Socrates argued, in the Crito, that it is never right to do evil in return for evil, and that those who believe it is can never have common ground with those who do not.  This is hard reasoning, but as usual with Socrates, it is right reasoning.  I think that slavery was a great evil.  I also think that John Brown deserved to be hanged, if anyone ever did.  I think abortion is wrong to the same degree and for the same reasons as slavery.  I also think that George Tiller's murderer should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.  If this was a political murder, as seems obvious, then the perpetrator is an enemy of liberty and decent government.  If anyone deserves a good hanging, he does.  

Comments

[Erik]

Why are you focusing on killing human beings?

[KB]

I suppose I think that is a big part of human justice.

[caheidelberger]

Thank you for this unequivocal denunciation of terrorism. I wish all abortion opponents could speak with such clarity.

[Timothy Fountain]

Good piece. Thank you.

[Erik]

KB,
I'm not so certain that it is a part of human justice. A more interesting question, perhaps, is, why is our society so violent?
Also, concerning John Brown, could he not also be viewed as a "freedom fighter?"
Thanks for the food for thought:)
Erik

[Miranda]

Thanks, Dr. Blanchard. Agreed on all accounts.

[KB]

Cory:

You are welcome.

Erik: You say: "I'm not so certain that [not killing human beings] is a part of human justice." Find me a culture that doesn't have a concept of murder. At any rate, I think killing human beings is always an important moral consideration.

You ask: "why is our society so violent?" Answer: it isn't. Modern developed societies are much less violent than earlier or more isolated societies. Most segments of the American population are remarkably free of violent behavior. Compared to Europe, our record is bad. But that may be changing. Good question nonetheless.

John Brown might have been a freedom fighter if he had been Black. As a White guy he had ever avenue of legal protest and action open to him. He chose to attach a federal armory. Suppose Brown had succeeded in ending slavery by his means. What would that have meant for the future of America? Every time someone had a grievance they'd have started shooting.

Miranda: Thanks. Your agreement means a lot to me.

[Louis DeCaro Jr.]

Regarding these words: "John Brown might have been a freedom fighter if he had been Black. As a White guy he had ever avenue of legal protest and action open to him. He chose to attach a federal armory. Suppose Brown had succeeded in ending slavery by his means. What would that have meant for the future of America? Every time someone had a grievance they'd have started shooting."

But by the 1850s, there was no "avenue of legal protest and action" that had not been explored, and none of them had any effect. The power of slavery was so strong in this nation that it ruled Washington DC and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 had technically extended the power of slavery throughout the North. Your views do not make sense in light of antebellum political reality.

Brown's plan was a minimalist conflict plan--to attract and liberate enslaved people and lead them into the vast Appalachian system. The goal was not to fight slave owners but elude them, and deplete the slave pool and throw the southern economy into disrepair. Brown perceptively saw the cataclysmic collision between constitutional unionists and pro-slavery southerners who wanted to expand or leave the union. Brown knew where the nation was going and that civil strife would come; he talked about at least a year or more prior to his raid. When he failed, he knew the nation was going to have to face the worst and it did. You blame John Brown as if was nearly the undoing of our nation; he was one of a few white men who actually tried to do something about slavery. The problem is that too many whites did not see slavery as a human rights crisis; they saw it as a political problem. Brown understood it as an evil and he did his best when men like Lincoln were still trying to work out a compromise. You are a thoughtful person and I hope that you will read more about Brown; you will find that he was not the man that you think he was--I know because I'm a biographer and student of his life. Don't judge him so harshly until you have studied his life and have done so with fairness.

[Mark Anderson]

Mr. Blanchard, you should read the testimony of the women who were Dr. Tiller's patients. You can refer to the court case against the good doctor where they testified and also numerous personal accounts on the internet. He saved their lives when others would not, they refer to him as a hero. He also delivered babies, made referals for adoptions, etc. At least you didn't do the demonization of Dr. Tiller that has made Bill O'Reilly's week, but you should at least refer to the circumstances of third trimester abortions when you say that they are evil. You know it's much more complicated than that.

[KB]

I continue to be very impressed by the quality of these comments. Thanks again to all.

Mr. DeCaro: Thank you for your interesting and provocative defense of John Brown. I cannot agree, and the reasons for this lie not in the facts, which aren't in dispute, but in our interpretations of liberty. You seem to be saying that Brown had the right to take up arms against the United States because he wasn't getting what he wanted from Congress and the Courts. That view is the father of anarchy and the grandfather of tyranny.

You write: "You blame John Brown as if was nearly the undoing of our nation; he was one of a few white men who actually tried to do something about slavery." Yes, and the fruit of what he did in bleeding Kansas and at Harper's Ferry can be seen in Quantrill's terror in Kansas. Frustration is no excuse for terrorism or treason.

You write: "The power of slavery was so strong in this nation that it ruled Washington DC and the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850 had technically extended the power of slavery throughout the North. Your views do not make sense in light of antebellum political reality." Yes, the nation did face a crisis after 1850, and it was that that roused Lincoln out of his slumber. Ten years later Lincoln is elected President, and the first crisis passes. Lincoln thought that slavery was doomed if it could be contained in the South. The South agreed and seceded. Like Brown, they became frustrated with the political process. That is the outcome of the idea that I can take up arms whenever I lose and election. The verdict against Brown is upheld.

Mr. Anderson: I have read some of the testimonies of Dr. Tiller's patients. I have also consulted the testimony of the perfectly healthy children that Dr. Tiller killed, weeks or days before they would have been born. It is not hard to consult, as it consists only of silence. You say that Dr. Tiller "saved their lives when others would not."

Here's my problem with that: Dr. Tiller's method involved lethal injection and then still born delivery. Wouldn't that involve the same and perhaps greater trauma than induced delivery and natural birth? How does the one "save a life" where the other would not? And if the pregnancy really presents a threat to the woman's life or health, why not simply perform a Cesarean section? I understand that such a procedure is much safer than natural birth.

I am sorry, my friend, but you are being naive here. The function of late term abortions is not to protect the mother's health. The function is to prevent the birth of a live child. Sometimes this is chosen because the unborn is discovered to be suffering from severe defects. One might have retained some sympathy for Dr. Tiller had he limited his services to such cases. But it is clear that he did this to unborn children with no defects. That is the murder of a baby. It is not indeed more complicated than that.

[Erik]

Mr. Blanchard,
If I recall my history, Nat Turner was black. Do you think his rebellion was justified?
Thanks,
Erik

[KB]

Erik: Nat Turner's "rebellion" would have been justified. When a people are enslaved, they have a right to fight for freedom. That does not mean that anything they do is justified. We are getting into just war theory here, which is the meat of my colleague and not mine. But it seems to me that the aim of all just military action is to deprive the enemy of the ability to make war against yourself. Turner's murders in no way contributed to that end, and so constitute terrorism.

[Erik]

KB:
Thanks for the thoughtful response. I'm finding that your blog is perfect summer sabbatical reading:) Okay, so can we frame Nat Turner's Slave Rebellion as a struggle between the owners (slave holding whites) vs. slaves (african-americans). From the slave owners perspective, slaves were *not* human beings. So, it would be as if some inanimate object attacked you. From the slaves perspective they were fighting for freedom. If Nat Turner's Rebellion was "terrorism" what method should Nat Turner and his confederates have used to obtain their freedom?
Thanks again for your thoughtful responses,
E

[KB]

Erik: Thanks for the dialogue. There was never any realistic hope for a slave rebellion. Turner might have conceivable led his men out of the country to find shelter and freedom abroad. Slavery would not exist if it were not possible for the slave holding class to effectively control their slaves.

But murdering men, women, and at least one baby, that accomplished nothing. It helped, I think, to perpetuate slavery, for it convinced the Southerners that that was what was waiting for all of them if they ever relaxed their grip. Fear, not greed, was the emotion that drove the South toward radicalism and secession.

[Anna]

Ken,

I'm behind in my SDP reading - so I'm sorry for replying late. I hope you see this. Would you do me a favor and direct me to any non-biased websites that "consulted the testimony of the perfectly healthy children that Dr. Tiller killed, weeks or days before they would have been born," please?

Kansas law required Dr. Tiller to certify with an independent physician that each abortion he performed was "medically necessary." This is something for which he was taken to court several times (most recently, I believe, the AG claimed that the independent physician he most often consulted was not actually independent) and he was always cleared of wrongdoing.

[Louis DeCaro Jr]

Well Doc, we've reached an impasse. You reduce a people's struggle for justice to John Brown ''not getting what he wanted''. You grossly err as a historian by blaming Brown for what Quantrill did later. Proslavery terrorism preceded Brown in Kansas. Slavery bred violence and needed terrorism in order to expand. Blaming Brown is indicative of a certain miseducation regarding the facts.

To confuse John Brown with the killers of abortion ''doctors'' is unsound; to condemn his actions is to fail entirely in the study of history. No sir, John Brown is vindicated by history and the witness of ''white'' society's victims. Interesting that you would link Brown with tyranny; he was conciously emulating his Puritan forebears and our ''American Revolution.'' I'd hate to think that you only believe ''white'' people have the right to oppose unjust and evil systems.