G
gnjsdad
Guest
While the issues surrounding the Eric Rudolph case are being discussed in other threads, I think there is an aspect to the story which has not been adequately addressed and, therefore, I’ve started a new thread.
Since the Eric Rudolph case has emerged in the news lately, all the usual suspects have entered the fray to fill in what seems to be the predictable media template, which reads:
Eric Rudolph is a deranged fanatic who bombed and maimed and killed in the name of being “pro-life”.
Groups in the pro-life movement exist which condone the killing of “abortion doctors” as acts of justifiable homicide or self defense.
The fact that these groups exist and people like Eric Rudolph exist means that…
All pro-lifers are really just latent Eric Rudolphs whatever their leaders say.
Do 99% of the people in the pro life movement abhor violence? I would say, yes.
Would any but a tiny minority even consider using violent means in furtherance of the pro-life cause? Of course, not.
Isn’t this really obvious to all by now? I would answer emphatically, yes.
Yet, when incidents like the Rudolph case arise, pro-life spokespersons for the 99% who reject violence always feel compelled to take extraordinary pains to distance themelves from the violent acts of the few. Despite their strenuous efforts, they never get cut any slack by the pro-abortion media, which always seems ready to accept the template outlined above.
What we all should consider is that what we need to emphasize in our discussions and debates, is the notion of the public consequences of evil acts, and to ascribe blame for the fallout from such acts where it really belongs. Some acts (abortion) are so evil, at times so publicly evil, that their effects linger in the public square long after the actual deed is done. The toxic after-effects of evil acts create their own evil trajectory. Evil begets evil, we can say.
Are some people (Eric Rudolph? Paul Hill?) psychologically incapable of handling the after-effects of evil? Yes.
Do some people (those who advocate the killing of abortionists as justifiable homicide) find the constant exposure to evil (years of sidewalk counseling and standing in front of the slaughterhouses) too much to bear? Have some been in the trenches too long and seen too much slaughter?
While people must be held accountable for their acts, it is appropriate and necessary to assign blame as well to the promoters, advocates, and practitioners of legal abortion. They are the ones who inflict the first violence. They cannot be allowed to evade their share of responsibility.
Since the Eric Rudolph case has emerged in the news lately, all the usual suspects have entered the fray to fill in what seems to be the predictable media template, which reads:
Eric Rudolph is a deranged fanatic who bombed and maimed and killed in the name of being “pro-life”.
Groups in the pro-life movement exist which condone the killing of “abortion doctors” as acts of justifiable homicide or self defense.
The fact that these groups exist and people like Eric Rudolph exist means that…
All pro-lifers are really just latent Eric Rudolphs whatever their leaders say.
Do 99% of the people in the pro life movement abhor violence? I would say, yes.
Would any but a tiny minority even consider using violent means in furtherance of the pro-life cause? Of course, not.
Isn’t this really obvious to all by now? I would answer emphatically, yes.
Yet, when incidents like the Rudolph case arise, pro-life spokespersons for the 99% who reject violence always feel compelled to take extraordinary pains to distance themelves from the violent acts of the few. Despite their strenuous efforts, they never get cut any slack by the pro-abortion media, which always seems ready to accept the template outlined above.
What we all should consider is that what we need to emphasize in our discussions and debates, is the notion of the public consequences of evil acts, and to ascribe blame for the fallout from such acts where it really belongs. Some acts (abortion) are so evil, at times so publicly evil, that their effects linger in the public square long after the actual deed is done. The toxic after-effects of evil acts create their own evil trajectory. Evil begets evil, we can say.
Are some people (Eric Rudolph? Paul Hill?) psychologically incapable of handling the after-effects of evil? Yes.
Do some people (those who advocate the killing of abortionists as justifiable homicide) find the constant exposure to evil (years of sidewalk counseling and standing in front of the slaughterhouses) too much to bear? Have some been in the trenches too long and seen too much slaughter?
While people must be held accountable for their acts, it is appropriate and necessary to assign blame as well to the promoters, advocates, and practitioners of legal abortion. They are the ones who inflict the first violence. They cannot be allowed to evade their share of responsibility.
