Skip to content

The blatent newspeak of pro-life.

6 June, 2009

I have spent the last week pondering the duplicity of the term “pro-life.”  It is used today, almost without fail, to mean something not implied in the term itself.  It is one of the most egregious forms of “newspeak” or “doublespeak” (see my explanation in the tab on the home page if you are unfamiliar with Orwell).

The belief of Dr. George Tiller, that a woman has a right to make her own choices, came up against those who would deny women that right.  The latter group would have you believe it was “God’s” will.  “God,” as a word, means whatever the “believer” wants it to mean; and, in all its various translations and transformations worldwide, the God about which people speak is hardly ever the same God.  Unless there is a shared definition, discussion is difficult between people who do not share similar beliefs. It usually comes down to “My God” is better than “Your God!”

Dr. George Tiller was a religious man; he went to church where he served as an usher , and he died in a church at a Sunday service.  Dr. George Tiller believed in God, but he did not believe in the same God as the man who “allegedly” shot him.  Because he chose the wrong God, Dr. George Tiller had to die.

Some will tell you that Dr. Tiller died because he was a murderer.  The law that holds this country together said otherwise; but even if the charge were true, the punishment ought to have been determined by the state of Kansas.  But many anti-abortionists do not care that abortion is legal in the United States of America or that the Constitution of the United States guarantees that no religion may impose its personal beliefs on anyone else. The man who “allegedly” shot Dr. Tiller took the law into his own hands because he believes that his God wanted him too.  I don’t understand that kind of God, nor do I want to.

I do want to understand how anyone who is “pro-life” believes that taking a life supports a pro-life stance and especially how anyone can even defend the person who takes a life in order to support a pro-life stance.  How does anyone dare to profess to love his God and say something like this?

“George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that,” [Randall] Terry said. “He was an evil man — his hands were covered with blood.”  (here) [bold emphasis mine]

Or this?

“The man who shot him was responsible,” Terry said. A few minutes later, though, he made it pretty clear what he really thought. “The whole point of this story should be, in part, what did George Tiller do that was so horrifying that it drove this man to that extremity?” (here)  [bold emphasis mine]

Dr. George Tiller deserved to die, because the man who shot him did not believe in abortion and because people like Randall Terry stood up and declared that George Tiller was an evil man and a mass murderer.  In fact, Dr. Tiller was responsible for his own death!

Randall Terry and others of his ilk stir up the horror that drives a man to murder and than defend it with the same extreme philosophy that made that murder possible.  What kind of man is this?  What kind of Christian is this?   Does his God whisper praise in his ear for murdering a fellow man?  Isn’t judgement the provenance of God?

It is Randall Terry and others of his ilk who believe that no woman should be able to have an abortion, who believe that the fetus growing in the womb of that woman is a separate and equal human being and must be saved.  It is Randall Terry and others of his ilk who do not honor nor respect that woman’s right to make decisions for herself, who believe that they have a right to impose their religious values on everyone else – believe my way or die.

No abortion, Terry says, let the fetus live – until birth when the newborn child can be abandoned.  Does he urge his followers to adopt those children he has saved by driving his followers to killing, to  destroying abortion facilities, to threatening and shooting anyone who works in those facilities?    Does he feel responsible for the children lost in the web of foster homes, unwanted, unloved, and eventually cast out at 18 to fend for themselves?  Where are all Terry’s good Christian followers when God’s suffering children need them?

Hypocrites.  Hypocrites, every one of them.  They are, as their Bible so rightly puts it, whited sepulchres, filled with sanctimonious pride, certain of their chosen status and thus able to pronounce judgement on others.  “Tiller deserved to die,” God told Terry and others of his ilk.  The commandment of their God that “Thou shalt not kill” does not apply to the righteous.

The term pro-life is a deception; in truth, it only mean anti-abortion.  Terry’s followers do not rally for the lives of rapists and murderers sentenced to death?  Does Terry ever speak at anti-war rallies because he is pro-life?

Pro-life means that you are “for life.” When used by people who will kill or applaud the killing of those who provide safe abortions to women, the term becomes twisted and hollow, a misdirection of language and thought – a prime example of newspeak,

Randall Terry and others of his ilk are anti-abortion; that is their primary mission.  All women must have babies, wanted or not, conceived by rape or  by a single careless moment when a bad choice was made.   God wants you to have that baby.  He told Randall Terry and others of his ilk that this was so.  I think it was one of the lost commandments.

You want to have babies, Terry, go have them.  Just don’t delude yourself into thinking that you have a right to make others have them too.

Read the New Testament again, Randall Terry.  The words of your God speak down through all those 2000 years:  “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone…”

That God is kinder, more tolerant, and less violent than your God.  Yours is the one of the Spanish Inquisition.

One Comment leave one →
  1. 19 June, 2009 21:15

    I wrestle with the issue of what if there was no right to life movement at all? Would we be better off? Would it not also be strange to live in a society where nobody fought for the right of those to weak to fight for themselves? My point is it is basically a no win situation.

    I believe that until men can either get pregnant or until men can physically receive a fetus from a female and nurture it to birth, men shouldn’t be killing anyone who allows women to maintain the same level of freedom that men currently enjoy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: