Rich Wheeler's Abortion=Murder Page

Revealing pro-abortion rhetoric as oppressive
(or, as mafiosi call it, the termination of dialogue).

(Last updated: 16 June 1998)

Is abortion murder, manslaughter, or just an unfortunately necessary medical procedure? In the legal sense, it is the last. The laws of man, however, are arbitrary and mutable. God does not change. He, as He has revealed Himself and His will in the Bible, is the only perfect yardstick -- although I won't go into that, here. (The argument can be made so easily even apart from the Bible, I don't need to!) Although abortion is the killing of an innocent human individual, the degree of culpability of the individuals involved varies. I think that doctors who perform abortions have seen evidence sufficient to remove any excuses. For them it is murder. Most mothers, on the other hand, probably have no comprehension of the humanity of their pre-natal children, so for them it is manslaughter. Of course, if the abortion is performed to save the life of the mother, where the life of the child could not be saved, it is a tragedy.

"John from Modesto", a caller to Rick Minyard's Morning Express on KFIV, 1360 AM (23 May '96), proposed a hypothetical situation that is worth considering. (Rather than trying to recall it word-for-word, I took John's basic idea and wrote my own version.) I will add some references to show that this is a realistic, potential situation (some portions of it already have occurred), when I come across them.

Abbie, a poor, single woman, has an evening appointment. She dons her walking shoes and sets out on foot.

At about the same time, Dr. Jack, who performs obstetrics, leaves the restaurant where the retirement party for his mentor and former partner has enticed him to down one too many vodkas. Not very wise, especially after having been on call the night before. Moreover, pressured to pay off loans for school loans and the expensive equipment in his medical office, Dr. Jack has been too busy to replace those worn-out tires on his BMW.

About the time Abbie was crossing the intersection at Coffee and Sylvan, Dr. Jack was about to have a blowout at the very same intersection. The car, driven by one with too much sleep deficit and too much alcohol, corrects for the deviation in his path too late to prevent swerving across the crosswalk. The car injures Abbie, causing her to miscarry.

Since the "fetus" was killed, the reporters and an ambulance-chasing attorney declare it a baby. In Dr. Jack's and Abbie's state, negligent care for the car and driving under the influence inflate the seriousness of the incident considerably. Abbie sues for wrongful death. Dr. Jack's insurance company settles out of court, paying Abbie and her lawyers $750,000 dollars. And a jury sentences Dr. Jack to three years in prison (for which he serves fourteen months before being placed on five years probation) for manslaughter.

Now what I did not tell you was that Dr. Jack performs abortions and that Abbie's appointment was to have an undesired pregnancy "terminated". You guessed it: The name on the duty roster in the hospital's abortion clinic was Dr. Jack's. At 6:35, Dr. Jack accidentally took a baby's life and it was manslaughter. But at 7:15 (with the babe 45 minutes more developed), he could have done so intentionally, and it would have been Abbie's right to choose.

Who's to say when life begins, goes the cliche'. Apparently, the mother is, and she can do so arbitrarily and capriciously. Unrealistic? Check out the following:

Date: Fri, 23 Aug 1996 08:30:41 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: Woman charged in New Hampshire

From: Pro-Life E-News Canada 

 NEW HAMPSHIRE:  WOMAN CHARGED FOR ENDANGERING HER FETUS
     NH resident Rosemarie Tourigny was charged on 8/9 with
endangering the welfare of an unborn child after a blood test
showed her alcohol level was .21% -- more than twice the legal
limit for NH drivers (Vigue, BOSTON GLOBE, 8/15).  Tourigny was
"defiant" after her release under $250 cash bail: "This is my
body.  If I choose to abort; if I choose to do anything to my
body, it's my body."  She said the charges "don't matter" because she
plans to obtain an abortion "as soon as she can afford it." 
    Police brought the endangerment charge after finding Tourigny 
in a "drunken shouting match" at the San and Sno Motel in 
Chesterfield, NH.  Sgt. Lester Fairbanks: "She can pickle herself 
all she wants, but that child doesn't have an opportunity to decide 
whether it's going to be retarded or not. ... Somebody has to have 
responsibility for her unborn child" (Heaney, BOSTON HERALD, 8/15).  
    NH ACLU representatives said that "Tourigny alone should bear that 
responsibility."  NH ACLU exec. dir. Claire Ebel called the arrest 
"an outrage" and "an abuse of power."  She added that the NH statue 
under which Tourigny was charged "was never meant to include the 
unborn": "That statute does not apply, and never intended to apply to 
pregnant women.  We confer personhood at live birth, and most 
jurisdictions in the United States do likewise."  
    MA ACLU atty Sarah Wunsch said in two similar '89 cases in MA, 
the charges were dropped.  Wunsch: "This whole punitive thing is 
not the way to go.  What will they do next?  Will they bring criminal 
charges against pregnant women who smoke? ... They should do 
positive things with their time, like help these women find the care 
they need" (BOSTON GLOBE, 8/15).  
    Atty Larry Gillis said that despite being active in the pro-life 
movement, he does not think "prosecuting mothers is the answer": 
"Abortion is a major harm to both child and mother, but a drinking 
mother presents a remote harm to the fetus, too remote for criminal 
law" (BOSTON HERALD, 8/15).  

I once wrote an essay on the criteria for defining when human life merits protection under the law. One of the points was that some of the pro-abortion arguments take on the characteristics of some forms of mental illness. It's cute when a baby plays peek-a-boo with a cloth over her face, but when adults put forth arguments in a life-and-death debate which indicate that they have never grasped the permanency of hidden objects, one begins to wonder whether this isn't a demonstration of the Biblical axiom about the natural mind being blinded to the truth, and under the influence of the Evil One. Since I've lost track of that essay for now, I'll insert a Mike Richmond essay which makes the point even better than I did.

Does the right to life depend on where you are? Yes, it's called "rights in the living room but not in the den." Imagine someone claiming that if you were in the living room, you had full rights (including right to life), but if you went to the den, you would lose your right to life. However, if you went back to the living room, all your rights would be restored. Most (if not all) would say this is all utterly preposterous and total fantasy. I agree, BUT "pro-choicers" believe in this fantasy.

How so? Some unborn people (still in mom's womb) have serious 'anomolies' detected and some of them are (surgically) removed from the mother, surgery is performed on the 'unborn', and the 'unborn' is returned to the womb (and mom is sewn up). While outside the womb (during surgery) it would be illegal to kill "unborn" "Maggie." But when returned to the womb, "Maggie" may be legally killed. If "Maggie" had to have the surgury repeated, again she would have "right to life" during the surgery, but not when again returned to the womb.

So you see, "pro-choicers" believe that your rights depend where you are.

Perhaps people in Florida should not have the right to life but all people in California should have the right to life.

This is a stunning concept: Rights depend on where you are!

If I swallow an extremely rare, million-dollar fish belonging to someone else, it now belongs to me and I can do whatever I want with it because it is in my body. Rights depend on where you are.

The NAZI's god-awful concentration camps for Jews -- were they evil? Well, "pro-choicers" can not object to them since they were someone's choice (Hitler's).

Oklahoma City bombing a heinous crime? I say yes; but to bomb or not to bomb was was Timothy McVeigh's choice; so how can the 'pro-choicers' object?

Welcome to the wonderful world of "pro-choice."

60 Minutes' Leslie Stahl recently shared the story of Janet Sheikhan and her husband, who were thrilled when they found out Janet was pregnant. But then a test showed that the baby was severely deformed. On the advice of her doctor, Janet aborted the pregnancy and killed the 'fetus.'

But Janet was shocked to discover that her aborted child was a perfectly formed baby boy. Later, the autopsy report confirmed that the baby had been perfectly healthy.

Due to a faulty medical test, Janet had aborted a normal baby.

60 Minutes focued on the mistaken test results. Stahl portrayed the mother, who is, after all, the one who made the decision, as an innocent victim.

How is it that even thoughtful, well-educated Americans today exhibit such an astonishing moral schizophrenia?

The answer is that a baby's entire value is now defined by whether the parents want it. The 'tragedy' of abortion has become that a mother's wishes are not fulfilled, and the torturous death of the child is ignored.

One of Chuck Colson's colleagues was told that his unborn son might have a genetic defect -- the same one that Janet's baby was diagnosed with. But as Christians, he and his wife did not seek to escape. Instead, they turned in trust to God.

As in Janet's story, the diagnosis turned out to be mistaken. But unlike Janet, Colson's colleague now has a healthy baby boy and does not face the wrenching guilt of having aborted his son.

Is Killing Doctors Really Too Extreme?
Back to the Index

When I received the following e-mail regarding the proper limits of anti-abortion activism, my first reaction was that someone wanted to entrap me into showing that I was a menace to society. But when I considered that I might be dealing with someone who was potentially violent, and whose violent tendencies I might have an opportunity to curb, I hastened to respond. Although there is a logical basis for doing whatever is necessary to stop the slaughter of pre-natal babies, it does not examine all aspects of the question. The key words in my reply, which follows, are counter-productive and jurisdiction (so you know where I stand). I've edited out some details to protect the writer because I do not wish to promote his point of view, should he turn out to be potentially violent, or to hamper the investigations of law enforcement agents. But I've visited his web page. Turns out he's a medium (one who "channels" for demonic spirits) from New Zealand, going by the name of Ramon Re !

From: [deleted]


Subject: PLD: Is shooting abortionists too extreme?
Date: Friday, May 03, 1996 3:59PM


[snip]


If a madman is walking down the street shooting innocent bystanders, 
should he be stopped? Surely he must be stopped somehow, before any more 
damage is done. If the only way to stop him is to shoot him, then that's 
exactly what must be done.


Because if you could stop him, and you fail to do so, then you are partly 
responsible for the hundreds of murders he will commit. And if you do 
stop him, then you will be responsible for saving hundreds of lives, 
whether the society recognises your heroism or not.


If you refuse to kill the mass murderer, then you will be killing 
hundreds or possibly thousands by your neglect, by deciding to allow the 
killings to continue even though you could stop them. In that situation, 
it's not a choice of whether to kill or not. There is only a choice of 
how many you will kill, one or hundreds.


Now let's look at a similar situation, one in which the mass murderer is 
not just walking down the street shooting randomly, but is wearing a Nazi 
uniform. His psychotic thinking, which justifies the killings, says:


        1. Jews are not human, therefore they can be killed.
        2. They are a terrible burden to humanity.
        3. By killing them all, I am solving the jewish problem, and 
            benefitting society.
        4. I am therefore a hero, and deserve admiration and respect for 
           my actions.


Now instead of a Nazi uniform, imagine that the mass murderer is wearing 
a doctor's uniform. In this situation, his psychotic attempts to try to 
justify his murders goes:


        1. Human babies are not really human, so they can be killed.
        2. They are a terrible burden to their mothers.
        3. By killing babies, I am solving their mothers' problems, and 
            helping those mothers.
        4. I am therefore a hero who deserves respect and gratitude.


Just as we had to stop Hitler and the Nazis before the number of his 
innocent victims rose from six million to even larger numbers, so too it 
is vital to stop the abortionists before the number of their victims 
rises from 28 million each year [this appears to be a worldwide sum -- rw], 
to even larger numbers per year. The 
people who have shot abortionists are the real heroes in our society, as 
they have prevented a great deal of needless cruelty and unnecessary 
deaths of our most innocent citizens.


What do you think? Are there any flaws in this reasoning which I've 
overlooked?


Thanks
[name withheld]



"This generation will have to repent, not so much for the evil 
deeds of the wicked people, but for the appalling silence of the 
good people!"

                    - Martin Luther King


 email:          ramonre@sydney.DIALix.oz.au
 website:        http://sydney.DIALix.oz.au/~romaron





From: Wheeler, Richard
To: [deleted]
Subject: RE: PLD: Is ... extreme?
Date: Friday, May 03, 1996 10:46AM


[deletia]


Thanks for motivating me to express some thoughts 
which have been in the back of my mind for some time.
Your essay is well thought out and clearly expressed.  
Your interpretation of the logic of both sides is flawless.
Regarding your main question, your argument for 
shooting abortionists is correct.  There are, however, 
other factors, 'con' arguments,  which I believe vastly 
outweigh the 'pro' argument, so that shooting abortionists 
is not justified.


I'd preface my comments by saying that I accept an 
implied simplification practiced by past assassins of 
abortion doctors.  They have historically targeted 
abortionists as they left clinics rather than when they 
were entering operating rooms.  Their logic may be 
that the abortionist has killed pre-natal babies in the 
past, he intends to continue doing so, and therefore, 
it is irrelevant when the assassination is perpetrated.  
I mention this simplification because it allows me to 
lump together principles of justice dealing with past 
acts with those governing expected acts.


There are three sources of morality one could start 
with to answer the question, "is shooting abortionists 
too extreme?"  The first is naturalistic.  Its god is the 
cosmos and its commandments are the laws of 
physics.  A naturalistic view would observe only such 
laws as "survival of the fittest" and "what goes up must 
come down."  From a naturalistic perspective, everything 
is permissible, and such is the heritage of what one 
might call agnostic Darwinism.


The second considers human society to be an 
organism in the same sense that an aggregate of 
cells constituting a mouse is an organism.  The state 
becomes its god (a la Marxism) and its commandments 
are the laws and regulations of the state.  Such a view, 
of course, observes only such laws as the government 
will instate (pun not intended).  From a socialist statist 
view, anything the state permits is permissible, and 
from a democratic statist view, anything the state does 
not prohibit is permissible.


The third considers any of a variety of supernatural 
sources.  The dominant human implementation of 
a supernatural authority for English-speaking 
cultures is what I call para-Christianity.  I wish to 
assert that

(a) Christianity is defined not by anyone 
who claims to be Christian, but by the One whom 
Christians aspire to emulate;

(b) a divinely preserved record of this definition 
may be found in the Bible; 

(c) the majority of religions categorized as Christian 
are merely imitations thereof, although most follow 
moral codes which are recognizable as having 
Biblical roots; and 

(d) for practical purposes, the philosophical bases of 
law in the USA are the Biblical guidelines for justice.


I don't have time (for which you are probably grateful!) 
to defend those assertions, but I wish to establish a 
philosophical basis for my answer to your question.


The naturalistic philosophy allows any creature to 
prey on any other creature for any reason. Thus, 
abortion is allowed by our Darwinist friends.  To be 
consistent, then it is obvious that the assassination 
of an abortionist is allowed.... and to pursue this to 
its logical conclusion, the incarceration [or execution] 
of such assassins is allowed.  To such a code, 
"extreme" is irrelevant.


The statist philosophy dominates today.  It is common 
to hear abortion supporters use the circular logic that 
abortion is legal, therefore it is not wrong to abort a 
baby; and since it is not wrong to abort a baby, 
abortion should remain legal.  Spinning off that cycle 
to your question, if assassination is illegal, then killing 
an abortionist rather than working within the system is, 
by definition, "too extreme." 


Before I go on to a Biblical view, I'd like to say that 
assassination is too extreme from the pro-life, statist 
perspective as well.  Assassinations make for counter-
productive public relations.  They destroy sympathy 
for one's cause, depict all adherents as a violent 
threat to social order (*), and motivate and provide 
rationale for unreasonable suppression of orderly 
protests (e.g., the FACE law in the USA).  They make 
the road much steeper and rockier for those who 
work for system-wide changes.  I would guestimate 
that, considering PR alone, the recent murders of 
abortionists in the USA set our pro-life movement 
back half a decade.  So from legal, societal, and 
partisan RTL points of view, the doctor killers are 
too extreme.


(*  Pro-aborts like to project the "seamless garment" 
philosophy onto all abortion opponents.  The seamless 
garment movement joins opposition to abortion with 
opposition to capital punishment since all life, including 
the lives of abortionists and other murderers, is sacred.  
A generality is implied that abortion opponents share in 
the killing of abortionists.  Therefore, abortion opponents 
are seen as hypocritical, philosophically inconsistent, 
and most painful of all for us, not credible.  If our 
credibility is destroyed, then we have lost not only the 
battle, but also the war; and the cost is not the several, 
the dozens, the hundreds, or even the thousands that a 
particular abortionist would have dispatched, but millions.)


The Biblical perspective recognizes government 
as a God-ordained institution.  It promotes a chain 
of command which also serves as a chain of 
responsibility.  Note that at one point during the 
travesty of due process which occurred the night 
before the crucifixion, Jesus relieved one of his 
judges of at least some accountability, not because 
the judge repented, but because the judge was 
acting in accordance with human law.



In the Mosaic code (which is like calling a typist the 
author of a book), when some wrong was committed, 
the victim was not allowed to take the law into his 
own hands.  Rather, the offender was to be brought 
before the priest for judgment.  Once judgment was 
rendered (in absentia, if necessitated by the flight of 
the perpetrator), an avenger (who was near kin to 
the victim) or judge became responsible to bring the 
convict to justice.  Cities of refuge were even 
established to which the accused could flee, which 
effected a change of venue.  All of which is to say, 
the focus of Biblical justice is due process.  
Vigilantism does not fit into due process.


Returning to the concept of the avenger, it must be 
emphasized that the avenger was a proxy for the 
victim.  The avenger was either kin of the victim or 
an appointee of the state.  An anonymous vigilante 
from off the street does not qualify!  Also, if the victim 
or the state did not press charges, as we say, no 
action would be taken.  My point here -- and the 
brevity of this paragraph betrays the emphasis this 
point deserves -- is that there is a very select pool 
from which the rightful avenger may come.  The father 
of a woman who was coerced into having an abortion, 
perhaps -- but still subject to the limitations of due 
process.  Definitely not some schizophrenic loner 
from another region.


Biblical principles also prohibit the use of greater 
force than that necessary to prevent a crime and 
apprehend a criminal.  For example, the nocturnal 
killing of a burglar by a homeowner is justifiable 
homicide.  During the daytime, however, it would 
be murder, assuming the offense is simple burglary.  
The reader of the Bible may surmise that alternatives 
such as fleeing or using non-lethal force (which is 
more practical when one can see one's opponent) 
are preferred.  Even from a secular pro-life 
perspective, excessive, lethal force violates the basis 
of the pro-life ethic.  Therefore, killing an abortionist 
when there are non-lethal alternatives available is 
inexcusable.  It goes without saying that harming 
unarmed assistants (e.g., receptionists and nurses, 
as has happened in the USA) is inexcusable.  IF, IF, 
IF!!! violent action were justified to prevent abortions, 
the avenger could disable the fellow's dominant hand 
or blind him.  Still, what I said above about PR effects 
would apply: such actions would be foolish in the long 
run.


Yes, the killing of abortionists is "too extreme."  
From a secular perspective, it is prohibited.  From 
a pro-life perspective, it is counterproductive and 
hypocritical.  It bypasses a chain of command 
which God has ordained, and the vigilante assumes 
a responsibility to which he, personally, probably 
has no right.  It violates the abortionist's divinely 
ordained right to due process, employs excessive 
force, and applies that force to more people than 
necessary.  Finally, it is equivalent to the self-sacrifice 
of the vigilante.  Historically, vigilante anti-abortionists 
have violated all of the above principles.


One closing note which reverts to naturalistic reasoning:  
Laws do not directly prevent things from happening; 
rather, they assign consequences to actions.   For 
example, the law of gravity does not prevent me from 
stepping from an airplane at five kilometers, but it does 
govern what will happen to me after I initiate the 
process.  Pro-life vigilantes take upon themselves all 
consequences, including incarceration and the 
responsibility for long-term loss of millions of 
additional aborted babies.


I hope this clarifies the issue for you.  The keys are to 
be able to view an issue from different angles... and to 
be able to distinguish between invalid arguments and 
valid arguments which are outweighed by other factors.

I should also have pointed out that
(a) the writer's statement of the Nazi's and the abortionist's rationalization for killing also apply to the writer's rationalization for killing abortionists, and
(b) only a fraction of the abortionist's potential victims would be saved by his assassination because some mothers would go elsewhere to abort their babies.

Back to Rich's Pro-Life Page

• Back to Rich's paginal home
• Rich's Links page
• Political stuff
• (Snicker) Ha ha, ho ho ho, hee hee, (snort) ha ha ha ha...
• Return to GeoCities CapitolHill