Will the Killing of George Tiller Have an Effect on Public Opinion Regarding Abortion?

Nick Gillespie | June 1, 2009

Just last week, Denver Post and Reason.com columnist David Harsanyi asked, "Is The Abortion Debate Changing?" Based on a recent Gallup Poll, which found that a majority of Americans considered themselves "pro-life" for the first time since the question started being asked in 1995, Harsanyi suggested "that Americans are getting past the politics and into the morality of the issue" after decades of legalized abortion. And, he argued, the morality of abortion is a lot more complicated than most pro- or anti-abortion slogans let on.

Earlier today, in response to killing of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, Jacob Sullum asked why anti-abortion activists rushed to condemn the death of a man who by their own accounts was slaughtering innocents. Jacob understands why the activists might say that, but argues that it's really a tactical response: That they need to distance themselves from murderous extremists.

So what do Reason readers think? Will the killing of George Tiller push more Americans to identify as pro-life? Or will it push voters in the other direction? Does it matter that Tiller was known for doing late-term abortions, which are statistically rare but gruesome?

You go back to that Gallup Poll and one thing sticks out on the basic question of whether abortion should be legal under some circumstances: Since 1976, the percentage answering yes has been around 50 percent or higher (there are a few years where it dipped into the high 40s). That is, it's been pretty stable at or around a majority number.

And the percentage of people saying abortion should be illegal under all circumstances has rarely cracked the 20 percent figure (though it has again in recent years). Similarly, the percentage saying abortion should be legal under all circumstances, which peaked at 34 percent in the early 1990s, has always been a minority position (which currently stands at 22 percent and has been dropping lately).

I suspect that as abortion becomes rarer (as Reason's Ron Bailey pointed out in 2006, abortion has been getting rarer since the 1990s and also occurs earlier in pregnancies than before), it's quite possible that the either/or positions might change, but that their movement will have little effect on the middle position of abortion staying legal under some circumstances. Even those, such as Harsanyi, who is plainly troubled by the logic of abortion, generally concede that prohibition would cause more problems than it would fix ("I also believe a government ban on abortion would only criminalize the procedure and do little to mitigate the number of abortions.").

Back in 2003, on the occasion of Roe v. Wade's 30th anniversary, I argued that regarding abortion the country had reached a consensus that

has little to do with morality per se, much less with enforcing a single standard of morality. It's about a workable, pragmatic compromise that allows people to live their lives on their own terms and peaceably argue for their point of view....

This isn't to say that the debate about abortion is "over"-or that laws governing the specifics of abortion won't continue to change over time in ways that bother ardent pro-lifers and pro-choicers alike. But taking a longer view, it does seem as if the extremes of the abortion debate - extremes that included incendiary language (including calls for the murder of abortion providers) - have largely subsided in the wake of a widely accepted consensus. Part of this is surely due to the massive increases in reproduction technologies that allow women far more control over all aspects of their bodies (even as some of those technologies challenge conventional definitions of human life).

That isn't an outcome that is particularly satisfying to activists on either side of the issue or to people who want something approaching rational analysis in public policy. But it's still where we're at and it's unlikely the Tiller case will do much to move things one way or the other. The one thing that would likely change it would be if there was a massive shift toward later-term abortions, which seems unlikely based on long-term trendlines and technological innovations.

Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

libertytexan|6.1.09 @ 6:16PM|#

"why anti-abortion activists rushed to condemn the death of a man who by their own accounts was slaughtering innocents."

Well if you are truly pro-life then you would also be against the death penalty whether by state action or vigilantism. This man deserves to be tried in a court for mass-murder and left to rot in a prison cell.

Those people lying in the middle ground are not being honest with themselves. Either fetuses are human being's with rights, in which case it its murder or they aren't in which case the mother's discretion is absolute. Murder isn't ok some of the time and neither is government intrusion into the uterus of a woman.

Kyle Jordan|6.1.09 @ 6:21PM|#

"Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others!"

And for a serious answer, I simply do not care. The issue of abortion has never come up in my life.

|6.1.09 @ 6:26PM|#

I argued that regarding abortion the country had reached a consensus that has little to do with morality per se, much less with enforcing a single standard of morality. It's about a workable, pragmatic compromise that allows people to live their lives on their own terms and peaceably argue for their point of view

Nothing says "let a thousand flowers bloom" like a decision enforced upon the entire country by six black-robed mandarins. Let me get this straight -- when Nebraskans voted to ban partial birth abortion, and the SCOTUS overturned their law as it might threaten RvW, was that not "enforcing a single standard for morality"?

And it's awful generous of pro-choicers to allow pro-lifers to argue their point of view after setting up the system so that there is no way the pro-life point of view will be allowed to have any influence on the law itself. Thanks!

Jordan|6.1.09 @ 6:34PM|#

And for a serious answer, I simply do not care. The issue of abortion has never come up in my life.

I'll second that. Abortion is just one of those highly contentious issues I can't get excited about.

This is, what, the 3rd abortion thread today? Is there a contest among the editors we aren't aware of?

Out of here before this thread goes radioactive.

|6.1.09 @ 6:43PM|#

The issue of abortion has never come up in my life.

I doubt most of the people who feel strongly about torture have had it come up in their lives either.

BakedPenguin|6.1.09 @ 6:50PM|#

Either fetuses are human being's with rights, in which case it its murder or they aren't in which case the mother's discretion is absolute.

Or fetuses become human at some point during pregnancy, in which case, the middle ground is the right place to be.

Kyle Jordan|6.1.09 @ 6:50PM|#

"I doubt most of the people who feel strongly about torture have had it come up in their lives either."

Your point being?

|6.1.09 @ 7:11PM|#

My point is that not having had something come up in your own life is not a valid reason for not having an opinion on it.

The Wine Commonsewer (TWC)|6.1.09 @ 7:35PM|#

Will the Killing of George Tiller Have an Effect on Public Opinion Regarding Abortion

Maybe, but it will definitely have an effect on the gun control debate as the left and the President will use it as an excuse for an all out assault on gun owners and the 2A.

Kyle Jordan|6.1.09 @ 7:42PM|#

That's funny. I thought I made my opinion pretty clear.

I don't care.

Looking quickly and incredibly shallowly at the two sides of the abortion case, the Pro-Lifers take away options and freedoms from ACTUAL, LIVING people. I'm opposed to that because it does affect me.

Other people can do as they wish and as long as it doesn't harm me and those that I care about, I'm fine with it.

edna|6.1.09 @ 8:00PM|#

Well if you are truly pro-life then you would also be against the death penalty

non sequitur. the two are not very analogous, much less identical.

|6.1.09 @ 8:03PM|#

Tulpa "And it's awful generous of pro-choicers to allow pro-lifers to argue their point of view after setting up the system so that there is no way the pro-life point of view will be allowed to have any influence on the law itself. Thanks!"

You mean how Roe became the law of the land in the fist place? The issue can be revisited even in the Supreme Court. So, yes, it is "generous" that there can still be an argument. You may not like the outcome. The outcome may not even be right! But, your indictment is trying to point to a systemic problem, not the actual issue that's being decided.

That said... It's no surprise to me that the pro-life community would be opposed to a murder. Not just for the politically tactical reasons, but because that the pro-life crowd is still willing to argue. In that, they're willing to admit there is an actual dilemma even if the rhetoric generally sounds as though there isn't one at all.

|6.1.09 @ 8:13PM|#

Maybe, but it will definitely have an effect on the gun control debate as the left and the President will use it as an excuse for an all out assault on gun owners and the 2A.

I believe that's "They're coming for your guns!" threat # 22,543 since January.

Surely it's just a matter of time right?

JB|6.1.09 @ 9:08PM|#

Again, what is all this talk of 'murder' and 'killing'? Tiller was nothing but a clump of cells.

|6.1.09 @ 9:09PM|#

Other people can do as they wish and as long as it doesn't harm me and those that I care about, I'm fine with it.

But what about people that you don't care about? Is it now the libertarian position that coercion is okay as long as it's someone else being coerced?

Kyle Jordan|6.1.09 @ 10:41PM|#

It may not be libertarian position, but it's pretty much mine.

Talk to me on a day when I don't feel like stabbing someone to death and my opinions may change. Today though, this is what you're getting.

Robert|6.1.09 @ 11:14PM|#

There may be some "sympathy" or "make it up to `them'" effect. It's said that the death of John Kennedy made people more sympathetic to Lyndon Johnson and his programs.

So maybe people will think, OK an abortionist got killed for it, so let's have more abortions for a few years to even the score.

And no, I'm not kidding, things do seem to work that way much of the time. Viz. affirmative action.

relaxedrevolutionary|6.2.09 @ 1:09AM|#

I wish people would drop the false dichotomy of the pro-life/pro-choice debate.

A fetus is a genetically unique individual. A homo sapien. Killing such an individual is homicide. We already have a system set up to determine whether such incidents are justifiable, or are murder. The issues can still be debated, but let's couch it in more reasonable terms, consistent with the way we address other issues of taking life.

|6.2.09 @ 2:58AM|#

Based on a recent Gallup Poll, which found that a majority of Americans considered themselves "pro-life" for the first time since the question started being asked in 1995

hehe...it should be fun watching how poll chasing dems start mincing their words on this issue.

|6.2.09 @ 3:03AM|#

Well if you are truly pro-life then you would also be against the death penalty whether by state action or vigilantism.

I am pretty sure the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty

In fact it is pretty common to find Pro-lifers who oppose the death penalty.

|6.2.09 @ 3:05AM|#

The question is not whether or not Bill O'Reilly murdered Dr. Tiller. The question is: if someone were to murder O'Reilly, and then explained to the world that it was a response to the murder of Dr. Tiller and that in future all terror against abortion docs would be answered in kind, would that make other abortion doctors safer from right-to-life terror?

If yes, then Bill should be happy to be murdered for such a cause, and if he's not happy, he should be killed for not being happy to die in order to save the abortion docs.

Right-to-lifism is murder and killing ANY AND ALL right-to-lifers prevents them from engaging in more right-to-lifism (which equals more murder) and is therefore justified, or will be.

|6.2.09 @ 3:15AM|#

Murder isn't ok some of the time and neither is government intrusion into the uterus of a woman.

Or "gasp" some of us may think that somewhere between conception and birth a clump of cells becomes a human being.

Thereby a clump of cells may be removed as per the choice and rights of the mother but some months later that clump of cells has become a human being and as such has achieved rights to live...really is not all that complicated.

The two logical extremes you propose as being the only two logical is folly and in fact are less logical then the middle ground...one group says a clump of cells is a human being the other group says by passing through a vagina we become human, a sort of secular blessing if you will...both concepts are idiotic.

Abdul|6.2.09 @ 7:23AM|#

The issue of abortion has never come up in my life.

Sure, you say that now, after you've already been born and everything. But don't give up hope, Kyle, I'm sure someday some woman will let you near her lady-parts.

Michael Ejercito|6.2.09 @ 1:07PM|#

So what was the fetus before then?

A toad?

A frog?

A sponge?

Michael Ejercito|6.2.09 @ 1:08PM|#

I am pretty sure the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty

Look up the term "Inquisition" and get back to us.

Victor|6.2.09 @ 1:59PM|#

To answer the question asked, it seems very likely the murder will hurt the anti-abortionist cause. The US public disapproves of murder by parties other than government employees.

|6.2.09 @ 2:03PM|#

I am pretty sure the Catholic Church opposes the death penalty

The pope and many bishops' conferences have opined that the death penalty is unnecessary in modern society. This is an economic, psychological, and political opinion -- not a faith or morals teaching -- and thus does not fall under the teaching authority of the Church. So Catholics are perfectly free to support the death penalty.

The Church can't very well oppose the death penalty unequivocally since that would contradict huge swaths of Scripture and the Tradition of the Church. Caesar does not wield the sword in vain, etc.

|6.2.09 @ 3:54PM|#

One could equally assume that anyone who cares so much about the rights of fetuses as to be pro-life should automatically support (the libertarian view of) children's rights.

While I am pro-choice, I do not share Sullum's cynical view that all the pro-lifers who distance themselves from the murderer are strictly doing so for tactical (PR) reasons, though no doubt a few are. The vast majority of people -- even those who believe that some legal activities are crimes that justify death -- want enforcement left to government, because as soon as one freelance person kills and gets away with it because it's "justified," many more will try to follow and *no one* is safe.

The pro-lifers who hold this view deserve credit and support. I just wish they all did.

Besides, trying to scare those who practice a legal occupation into quitting it by killing a few highly visible examples is terrorism. This case is a great example of the need for "hate crime laws." And the same goes for politically-motivated attacks on people and property in other controversial jobs such as animal-testing labs and SUV dealerships.

If the law does *not* vigorously protect such controversial but legal work from attack, those who do it will need to arm themselves and start shooting back. Do we want that?

|6.2.09 @ 6:19PM|#

"A fetus is a genetically unique individual." Well, you'd like to thing so, but there is no reason to suppose that the genetic combination has not occurred before. There have been alot of people. Certainly, identical twins are, well, genetically identical, and thus not unique. What makes us truly unique are our experiences, and, perhaps, our soul.

|6.2.09 @ 6:21PM|#

Life begins at arousal, Abstinence is murder.

|6.2.09 @ 6:27PM|#

Why do pro-lifers dislike the doctors ? He is not the one deciding whether to abort or not. If abortion is crime, doesn't the most of the culpability lies with the women who is deciding to get the abortion ?

The assassination of Dr. Tiller has resulted in an education of sorts: I've learned more about the medical reasons behind later term abortions than I ever did before, thanks to patients of his coming out with their stories. I was already pro-choice, but didn't previously understand the need for late-term abortions. Now I do.

Interested Party|6.2.09 @ 6:31PM|#

First, I fail to understand why it makes a difference in all the surveys whether the abortion is early in the pregnancy or late term. If someone is truly pro-life then an abortion is wrong no matter the timing. I think this shows some inconsistency on the part of pro-lifers. Second, as to whether the discussion will change, I believe that it will harden the positions even further on both sides. Pro-choice advocates will hunker down with the impression that they are under attack and pro-life extremists will believe that they have an even greater moral obligation to engage in a holy war against what they perceive as a heinous crime.

|6.2.09 @ 6:33PM|#

Wouldn't a rational societal position be that as long as the fetus is wholly dependent on the mother to live, that it is the mother's right to make whatever decision she needs to make. And as that fetus approaches the ability to live outside the womb, the society has increasing interest in it's life, and a say in what is done. I guess that is sort of what Roe says.
Why isn't any other position seen as imposing religious beliefs on the society?

|6.2.09 @ 7:07PM|#

There is no such thing as a "pro-lifer". There are anti-abortionists, but being "pro-life" is quixotic at best, and usually hypocritical. No surprise there; bloody hypocrisy is the normal result of self-righteous ideology.

Aside from the blatant hypocrisy of "pro-life" murder, there are all the other compromises with necessity; killing in self-defense, capital punishment, etc. These things may be justified, but they are by definition not "pro-life", except in the Orwellian sense.

There is no such thing as a pro-lifer because there is no such thing as a free lunch. In the absence of infinite wealth, people must pick and choose whom to help and whom to deny, sometimes even in matters of life and death.

Take Dr. Tiller's patients. He treated the hard cases, the obstetric disasters, the failed pregnancies doomed to yield dead baby or dead mother or both. In such cases, "pro-life" is simply not a medical option; late-term abortion is the least bad choice.

These sorts of bad choices happen all the time. If God exists, then God is certainly no pro-lifer, not in this universe. Therefore it is folly for mortals to call themselves "pro-life"; for that would be to claim moral superiority over God and Nature.

I say we should retire the phrase "pro-lifer". There's no such thing.

JK|6.2.09 @ 7:12PM|#

Many pro-lifers are also pro war.

Elemenope|6.2.09 @ 7:19PM|#

So what was the fetus before then?

A fetus.

JK|6.2.09 @ 7:25PM|#

How many of these so called pro-lifers have donated their kidney to save the lives of so many who need one ? If they are really pro life, giving up one of their kidneys to prevent a death should be a slam dunk decision.

|6.2.09 @ 7:40PM|#

The person who assassinated Dr. Tiller is a terrorist and should be treated accordingly. This is not a "simple" murder, committed by a single actor in some kind of cultural vacuum. This person (and all those who agree with him, encouraged him, or gave him support or shelter) assassinated Dr. Tiller in order to intimidate others, causing them to refrain from providing the same services out of fear of their own death, thus depriving women (and, by extension, men) of their civil and human right to control their reproductive health.
Terrorism is the calculated use of violence (or the threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimidation or coercion or instilling fear.
This assassination, spurred on by the continuing, spiraling, escalating violent rhetoric from the anti-choice extremists against is terrorism, plain and simple.

zoltan|6.2.09 @ 7:41PM|#

Hell, why not the whole body? A whole slew of organs would save several people. (This is just a joke.)

Mike|6.2.09 @ 7:47PM|#

It is not the shape of our meat or the code of our genetics that make us a human being but the unique nature of our sentience.

The question of "when does life begin?" is a red herring; life began millions of years ago and continues uninterrupted in the process of reproduction. "Life" does not take a holiday when gametes join together for some later stage of development.

A fetus (and newborn infants up to a certain age by the standards of many previous and some current societies including the forebears of Western Civilization - the Greeks and Romans) is a potential human from the standpoint of sentience. Traditional people and our own ancestors are and were not so materialistic as to assume that a human shaped body in any way defined "humanity".

The unique aversion to abortion by Christianity as a religion comes down to a dogma that it is a sin to prevent any lump of phlegm and blood that can develop to eventually accept or reject "Jesus as Savior" from achieving it's divine destiny. It is a purely irrational standard. In Baptismal vows the parents and Godparents even promise to ensure that the infant grows up to make the "right choice". When you terminate a pregnancy you are stealing potential souls from Jesus is what it all ultimately comes down to.

Societies not infected by this implicit understanding of the meaning of life are much more practical and rational in deciding matters of who grows up and who does not in terms of sentience, degree of dependency, available resources, and the survival of the already developed human members of the community.

Somewhere between the Roman Paterfamilias and his absolute power of life and death over all dependents regardless of age, and the modern insanity at the other extreme of demanding that every fertilized egg be understood as having a "right" to develop even at the expense of pre-existing human beings, is a standard based on Reason (in the Classical sense).

In that standard from reason is a consideration that existing human beings must be free to plan for the future of their own and their community's survival and fitness, in terms of available resources, current size of the group, and other matters that are obvious to indigenous people but civilized affluent people take for granted and Christian civilization completely ignores or rejects as abhorrent on purely emotional and dogmatic grounds.

The decision to make or keep a baby can be and should be as rational a decision as whether or not to breed or keep a puppy, give it away, or drown it -- and based on the same logical and rational considerations of practicality (This is reflected in ancient Greek in that a baby is always called an "it" and not a he or she.) Is there space for it? Can we feed it and provide for it's needs and our own as current members of the tribe? Will it strengthen us or weaken us? Do I already have a baby and can't carry two and outrun jaguars or tigers at the same time? Or should we sent it "back" to the spirit world to incarnate some other time in some other place that is more convenient?

Family planning is not a matter for a "government" to intrude upon in my opinion. And on a related note and conversely neither do I feel that a lack of family planning on someone else's part puts any moral claim upon my own resources to support someone else's small human-shaped meat puppets.

A truly free people must be free to limit their own population and live within their means. Any lower standard of freedom devolves into an unsustainable insanity. And those who decide not to plan for the future should face the consequences of their actions or inactions as a family or small consenting community; if they really cared for children they would not have brought them into the world in the first place, or would have ended their existence prior to their achieving sentience, if they lack the means to support them.

|6.2.09 @ 8:42PM|#

killing innocents... most of these poor children were diagnosed with incurable diseases, heart defects, symptoms that would render their lives short, painful and hugely expensive. These families agonized over these decisions. Far better off to leave these children to God, who can complete their lives. sadly, the MEN who run the pro-life 'business' (and that is what it is) have never had to deal with these personal agonies

TerryOakland|6.2.09 @ 10:17PM|#

Several have noted that very few hold absolute positions in this matter.

As someone who lives deep in the Bluest Blue San Francisco Bay Area (within walking distance of U.C. Berkeley), I don't know a single person who is absolutely for "any abortion at any time." Everybody I know (including even some Limbaugh Republicans among my wife's cousins, and two of my best friends, who are both regular and highly engaged Roman Catholics), believe in exceptions to either absolute position.

The simple fact that there is a sliding scale in public opinion with regard to abortion vis-a-vis fetal development demonstrates that "abortion is murder" is more of a phrase among even conservatives than it is an absolute position. (And, it should also be noted, that it isn't the law of this land. "Murder" is a legal term and, in our democratic constitutional republic, there is a legal process for changing that term. Use it.)

Were abortion to be actual, society-recognized "murder," then all conceptions that ended in anything but birth would face the kind of scrutiny that the death of any born human being would receive. Was it an innocent miscarriage, or felonious manslaughter? Clump in a late menstrual flow? Call the coroner. Flushed the toilet without realizing what it was? Illegal disposal of the body. It gets very complicated (including changing our "age" to the date of conception rather than the date of birth).

I have no doubt that there are people who would welcome all of that, and I don't doubt their sincerity.

But I doubt that more than a few percentage points of the American public would welcome it.

Which brings us again to that system of government that we have inherited and mostly embraced. The fact that we are a democratic constitutional republic, and not a theocratic dictatorship, and that "sliding scale" that most people seem to hold, I would hazard to guess that "choice" will remain the broad standard in the area of human reproduction in this United States of America of ours.

Michael Ejercito|6.3.09 @ 12:13AM|#

If abortion is crime, doesn't the most of the culpability lies with the women who is deciding to get the abortion ?

If abortion is a crime, then the women who have them would be guilty under the law.

If these diseases are so horrible, why not just let the disease take their course?

Tghere is a : huge difference between refusing to prolong someone's life and killing them.

He treated the hard cases, the obstetric disasters, the failed pregnancies doomed to yield dead baby or dead mother or both.

So who were these women that would have died without Dr. Tiller's help?

The vast majority of people -- even those who believe that some legal activities are crimes that justify death -- want enforcement left to government, because as soon as one freelance person kills and gets away with it because it's "justified," many more will try to follow and *no one* is safe.

Indeed, we have seen that with the killing of William Long.

|6.3.09 @ 7:56AM|#

I have a genetic condition that makes organ donation likely unhelpful.

There's variety among Pro-Lifers/Anti-Choicers. The idea it's about "controlling women's sexuality", an idea Tiller supported, might be true of some but certainly isn't universal. There are pro-contraception and pro-homosexual people who oppose abortion. Some believe in just war and others are total pacifists. I imagine some are even vegans.

Tiller did deal with many hard cases of babies that would have died soon after birth or endangered the mother. However in general we don't currently allow the idea that it's okay to kill if someone is going to die anyway. In addition he apparently did accept spina bifida, Down's syndrome, and hydrocephaly as reasons. None of these are necessarily fatal. (There might be more detail to explain that, but I doubt women who terminated a non-terminal child are going to be speaking much about it)

All that said Tiller did not believe he was killing people and to kill a man in front of a congregation terrorizes innocent people. In addition Tiller is not some totally unique being. There are women who want this service, for "valid" or "invalid" reasons, and it's possible if Tiller didn't exist someone would've invented him.

|6.3.09 @ 8:28AM|#

I'd noted just a couple weeks ago that I see a whole lot fewer cars with rabid anti-abortion bumper stickers - and I'm in Houston, TX, a city where your social and business status is generally defined by what church you belong to and what position you hold in it.

In matters where public opinion is not wildly lopsided (e.g. 5:1 or similar) there is little demand nor room for legislative change.

Conservatives seeking new faces (and badly-needed funds) could win back a lot of friends by advocating programs that reduce the number of unwanted or unsafe pregnancies, and raising educational standards all around. Educated people have fewer children, and wait longer to have them. poorly-educated people get pregnant earlier, more often, and with terrifyingly expensive complications, and their children are far less likely to be on the asset side of the tax rolls.

We've come to an imperfect point on race: you're expected - properly - to give a fair shot to all candidates of any race in matters of business and commerce, but when you're choosing your wife/husband/whatever, there's no stigma against having a preference for one ethnicity over another. I think we're headed that way on gay rights, and when having an "abortion = murder" bumper sticker on your Lexus is a social Faux Pas even in frigging HOUSTON, we're getting somewhere.

Sadly, too late for Dr. Tiller, who was, by all accounts, a good doctor who dealt with patients facing the most horrible dilemmas.

|6.3.09 @ 9:46AM|#

IMHO, the 'pro-life' label is misleading. Sure, there're a few who ARE genuinely 'pro-life' under any circumstances, be it abortion, death penalty, war, or euthanasia.

MOST 'pro-lifers' however seem to be concerned only with stopping abortions. They aren't interested in pregnancy prevention nor concerned about women who might have an actual medical need. Their goal is to make sure that ANY female who gets pregnant should be forced, by law, to complete gestation regardless of age, circumstance, health risks,quality of life for infant or mother, or viability of the fetus. They aren't particularly interested in saving existing lives through famine relief, desease prevention, or genocide activism. The already-born don't really concern them too much.

If the media was honest, they would not mischaracterized these groups. Most are NOT 'pro-life' they are 'anti-choice'. Just as most people are NOT 'pro-abortion', they are 'pro-choice'.

Reason Magazine

Get Reason E-mail Updates!

Site comments/questions:

Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:

Editorial & Production Offices:

advertisements