Killing of abortion foe should change how sides are viewed

Poor, sincere Jim Pouillon was sitting across from a Michigan school holding his posters protesting fetus-killing when a car passed by, shots rang out and life fled from him as surely as it flees from those aborted fetuses he worried about.

Some questions come to mind.

Will we have commentators suggesting that violence sums up a major portion of a largely maladjusted abortion rights crowd?

Will we have ninnies screeching that we must curb the speech of the overreaching abortion rights extremists who are forever arguing that women have an unalienable right to exterminate whatever wiggly being has come to life inside them, no matter its stage of development, no matter the circumstances, no matter what techniques are employed?

If turnabout is fair play, why not? After an ungodly, terrible shooting of an abortion doctor a while back, a number of academics, commentators, bloggers and others made it seem as if large numbers of those opposing legalized abortion — maybe even most — had quite a bit to answer for.

So what do these people say now that we have a self-confessed hater of anti-abortion advocates allegedly killing Pouillon and one other man while searching for a third when apprehended? Do they finally concede it’s possible to find fringe-group and lone-wolf nutcases on all sides of virtually every issue?

Legitimately enough, they can point out that there have been more violent incidents at the hands of those on the anti-abortion side. But the numbers are still small and that doesn’t let them off the hook for suggesting you can sum up a totality by reference to a minute fraction of it.

The obvious, undeniable, in-your-face fact is that it’s the no-restrictions abortion advocates who rationalize slaughter. You can believe, as I do, that early abortions are sometimes excusable, but how can anyone think it within the realm of acceptable human behavior to kill a fetus that can live outside the womb even when the mother faces no critical health problem?

Don’t ever use the expression “killing babies,” some abortion rights advocates tell us. By any reasonable calculation, however, that’s exactly what it is once viability is reached.

The shootings should obviously stop, and so should vitriolic name-calling from all sides, but that doesn’t mean the issue is best addressed through Orwellian euphemism.

There are morally sound, perfectly reasonable arguments that some kinds of abortions should be stopped immediately through state enactments of law, as allowed under Roe v. Wade, and that the court ruling itself is due reconsideration.

Disagreeing with those arguments is fine, but dismissing them as the rants of violence-encouraging wackos is not acceptable.

Examiner columnist Jay Ambrose is a former Washington opinion writer and editor of two dailies. He can be reached at Speaktojay@aol.com.

If you find our journalism valuable and relevant, please consider joining our Examiner membership program.
Find out more at www.sfexaminer.com/join/

Just Posted

Ronen says $100M service expansion is ‘going to fix’ SF’s mental health crisis

Compromise mental health plan has backing of mayor, full Board of Supervisors

Civil liberties lawyer files to take on Pelosi

A San Francisco-based civil liberties lawyer, progressive advocate, DJ and poet is… Continue reading

Supes sound off against bill increasing housing density near transit hubs

Senator Wiener calls resolution opposing SB 50 ‘little more than symbolic political theater’

Eun Sun Kim named San Francisco Opera music director

Korean conductor’s skyrocketing career includes engagements across the world

Most Read