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.

Just Posted

SF supervisor candidates back car-free streets

District 5 hopeful Preston pitches network of bike-only roads to prevent traffic deaths

Climate strike organizers say SFUSD blocked student participation

The organizers behind Friday’s Climate Strike in San Francisco are accusing the… Continue reading

City puts closure of long-term mental health beds on hold

In response to public outrage over a proposal to suspend 41 permanent… Continue reading

Here we go again – new dog rules in Golden Gate National Recreation Area

The GGNRA released a 2019 Superintendent’s Compendium that makes significant changes that appear to implement parts of the ill-fated Dog Management Plan.

Most Read