Erik Anderson Article
Response to Erik Anderson's column of February 8, 1995
(actual date of column unknown)
(Actual headline unknown)
Erik Anderson is right.
The abortion clinic murders were wrong and deserve full retribution.
But Erik Anderson is also wrong.
The "liberal" media is no more on an ideological mission than the "conservative" media. What Mr. Anderson is really doing is attacking the pro-choice folks for placing the responsibility for the murders where it belongs - with the so-called "pro-life" or "right-to-life" movement (hereinafter referred to, more appropriately, as the "anti-abortion" movement).
I grant that the individual members of the anti-abortion movement, as individuals, did not commit the murders (aside from the actual murderers themselves); but the movement itself is responsible. It is not the substance of that movement, but rather the style, that has provoked the violent confrontations we now witness. Let us examine that style, keeping in mind that pro-choice people are neither claiming moral self-righteousness nor murdering anti-abortion sympathizers.
The anti-abortion movement draws the entirety of its overt views from the Christian Bible (any translation); it draws its covert views from the medieval Christian Church, which still exists today in a variety of forms. The latter demands unquestioning obedience to itself, the self-proclaimed sole channel to the proper interpretation of God's commands. Those who adhere to this jingoistic babble do not base their views in rationality - just their "beliefs." Their "argument" is simply, "We're right and you're wrong!" They are thus (self-) justified in imposing any legal or social sanction they wish. They style of their "argument" appeals not to reason, but to fear and prejudice; incites not understanding and compassion, but intolerance and indignation; promotes not love and peace (about which Christ, not the Church, spoke extensively) but anger and hatred. John Stuart Mill would have called this evil, but Lord Patrick Devlin would have been proud.
(That was not a compliment.)
Therefore the anti-abortion movement is not so much promoting their beliefs and values, but rather themselves, and the pro-choice supporters do not find this attractive. It is not difficult to understand, then, that such murders have taken place; the only surprise is that there have not been more.
But the day is not yet over.
Notwithstanding his written opposition to the abortion clinic murders, neither Mr. Anderson, nor any reasonable person, can claim the anti-abortion movement (which Mr. Anderson supports wholeheartedly) has not directly inspired, encouraged and instigated the horrors we have fallen victim to.
No like movement is out to get cab drivers.
Given this state of affairs, it is hardly beyond the bounds of reason that the media, which Mr. Anderson invectively labels "liberal" (and he would not, indeed does not, object to a "conservative" media) is reporting an accurate state of events.
There are rational arguments against abortion, but the anti-abortion movement has forsworn those arguments in favor of promoting their own self-righteousness and self-centeredness. Mr. Anderson's column has the flavor of politics rather than morality, prejudice rather than reason, partisan dogma rather than rational discussion. So yes, Erik, I have found some truth in what you have said; but they are half-truths at best. And half-truths do little to illuminate either the nature of the abortion controversy presently set before us or the media's response to it.