2009-06-08

The Long View, or Why George Tiller Should Have Been Left Alone

(NOTE FOR THE EASILY-AGITATED: This post will most likely annoy you one way or another. You are therefore encouraged to stop here, and go see the "Star Trek" movie for the second, third, or fourth time instead.

If you are still here, you have been warned.)

Much has been blathered about Scott Roeder's murder of Dr. George Tiller, a prominent Kansas abortion doctor. Roeder, an anti-abortion activist motivated by religious conviction, shot Tiller once at close range in Tiller's church in Wichita as Tiller handed out pamphlets to congregation members.

For a religious person to murder another person in a church is in rather poor taste, I think. But I don't really know. I'm not religious. And "murder" is subjective. One person's murder is another person's public service.

I'm also not impressed by the outpouring of political bloviation and extrapolation, turning a simple murder by a religious nut into a witch hunt for all people who oppose abortion.

I used to think abortion was a bad thing. The more people I meet, however, the more I think it's a good thing. (Blog readers excepted, of course.)

I used to think it was a bad thing for the state to use tax dollars to pay for abortions. Now I think it's a good thing, because prison costs so much more than abortion. As "Freakonomics" (Levitt and Dubner, 2005) pointed out, there is a distinct correlation between higher abortion rates and lower crime rates. Their conclusion was that unwanted children are more likely to become criminals when they grow up. The idea seems plausible to me. I've certainly seen the evidence of many low-income, unwanted or abandoned children who turn to crime to survive. Others turn to crime simply because they like it, and because the judicial and penal systems do little to discourage it.

Even though others have found problems with the statistical methodology used to arrive at the conclusion that abortion reduces crime, the conclusion still seems to stand. If anything, it's worrisome that abortion rates are at their lowest point in years, which means that according to Freakonomics, crime rates will rise. But that's why I own weapons.

The implementation of abortion can be construed to be racist, since minorities, particularly black people, are much more likely to have abortions than whites. However, I would argue that it's not racist, because abortion is voluntary. If the police were rounding up pregnant minorities and forcing them to have abortions, as they do in China, then that would be racist. Voluntary participation in an abortion program that has a greater effect on minorities is NOT racist, only short-sighted.

Back to Tiller. Generally, human life is over-valued. In that regard, Tiller was as much a purveyor of genocide as an exterminator is. The law provides him a niche in which to make a living (by killing things), and so he did. He was quite good at it, apparently.

Regardless of whether abortion is murder, it was wrong to kill Tiller, simply because the law forbids it.

I would argue that instead of killing them, it is more important to keep people like Tiller in business. And it's not just because they (may) help prevent future crime.

They also prevent future liberals. More on that in a minute.

I would argue that conservatives are better than liberals at planning ahead. Ergo, conservatives are better at making good choices when it comes to sex and procreation, because conservatives don't expect a village to help raise a child. Conservatives know that a child is a personal responsibility, not a fashion accessory, or a tax writeoff, or a means to a welfare check.

Conservatives are also less likely to use abortion than liberals are, because conservatives tend to view abortion as murder, while liberals tend to view abortion as a right to be exercised.

(Note that I say "less likely" and not "will not." If I had to, I would choose abortion if I was put in a position where the facts dictated that I needed to make that decision. But I would also do everything I could to avoid it, including giving the child up for adoption. Including keeping my clothes on and not engaging in risky sex. Including making better choices to begin with.)

Unfortunately, liberalism tends to be the result of enculturation, not the result of mutation, nor of bad nutrition, nor of inbreeding. If a child is raised by liberal parents, it is likely to be liberal too (and it's very difficult to deprogram it).

If a child is aborted by liberal parents, it does not exist.

Liberals, by definition, are more likely than conservatives to abort a fetus.

Ergo, encouraging abortion helps to slow or even prevent the spread of liberalism.

Which, I would argue, is a good thing. I think that liberalism contributes directly to the decline of modern society. Liberalism seeks to break the bond between action and consequence, to remove accountability, to destroy common sense, and to reassign blame from wrongdoers onto innocents. It contributes to a slow, apathetic decay into chaos. It accelerates the natural entropy from an orderly state into a disorderly anarchy. One need only look at Britain and other socialist entities to see this process in motion.

The Long View is that liberalism is bad, and abortion (though a liberal construct) helps keep liberalism in check, as much as entropy CAN be held in check.

Scott Roeder murdered Tiller, an abortion provider, and also ended his own life as Roeder knows it. Roeder was trying to stop entropy. But there are other ways to resist entropy, including continuing to allow the people who want abortions, to have them. It's their choice. Any consequences of law, faith, or karmic retribution are theirs alone to suffer. And the future may be a better, brighter, more orderly place as a result of their actions in the present.

Others will step up to replace Tiller.

I hope that no one steps up to replace Roeder.


UPDATE: Here's an interesting commentary from one of Tiller's peers, a female doctor. Tiller was motivated by caring for his patients, she says. He didn't want them to die from seeking less-competent help. He even provided abortions for some of the anti-abortionists who picketed his clinic. That's very interesting.

Bookmark and Share

6 comments:

Melissa said...

hah, this post didn't enrage or annoy me. I rather agree.

Even as a "recovering Catholic" and as an independent with mostly republican tendencies, I agree that every person should be allowed the choice as to what to do with anything in her own body... Regardless of when the fetus becomes a person, they're still a parasitic item, leeching perfectly good vitamins, minerals, energy, etc out of their female host body... Ok, so not that extreme, but still...

Unless the situation was highly extreme, I would choose to have the baby myself, but that is because of knowledge of what the future side effects of abortion are (of course, me getting pregnant in the first place would be a huge ordeal) not because of the whole "it's a baby/human vs. it's a fetus" debate.

Marvin the Martian said...

LOL, thank you... I agree, children are leeches, but I also see lots of "helicopter parents" who never let go, stunting their children's growth. Sea turtles seem to have a much better method... lay the eggs and just leave.

Dave Coulter said...

I think my folks must have had a touch of sea turtle blood in their veins, lol...

Melissa said...

(of course, my bitterness about whether fetii (sounds better than fetuses?) are humans or not, and people having choices about their body is founded in my inability to have children...)

I also have to say that just like everyone should be able to choose what to do once they've got a parasite within, every woman should have the choice to remove the parasitic generating organs from her body, regardless of her age. She should also have the choice to use birth control or not.

I say these last few things because this past November in Denver, there was a very scary amendment up for auction err I mean vote... That would make "conception" the moment of definition... and would basically outlaw birth control, etc. Luckily, it did not pass.

Also, a few years ago, I tried to rid myself of the pain and drama of the monthly issues (endometriosis/tilted uterus are not fun things!) and the constant birth control usage (which is currently working but making me feel preg anyway, weight gain, etc!) by asking them to just take it all out for me...I'm not going to be able to have children, I don't want to have children and if I change my mind, there are PLENTY of options for me... I was told I was too young (at 21) to make that kind of decision on my own... I told the doc I wasn't, my fiance stood behind me. He insisted that I would change my mind.

Here I am 7.5 years later, still begging the same thing, still using the same counterlogic, and still not getting results...other than fatter and emotional... blah!

Florida Girl In Sydney said...

Except for the whole "preventing future liberals" thing, I agree. And I love Freakonomics, great book. And this exact point was one of the ones which stand out in my mind years after reading it.

Marvin the Martian said...

Dave: Your parents sound wonderful, compared to some I know! ;-)

Melissa: Denver politics are getting stranger since I left! Hopefully you can find a doctor who will remove your troublesome parts, since they won't function anyway.

FL Girl: Yah, Freakonomics is way cool! I'm glad you like it too. No offense intended about liberals- I'm glad you visit ;-))))))

Template by - Abdul Munir | Daya Earth Blogger Template