Monsters of our own Making

At about 7am on the morning of December 30th, 1994, I sat on an MBTA Green Line car traveling from the Cleveland Circle area of Brookline to North Station in Boston (the ‘C’ train). I recall that I was happy on that morning, if for no other reason than that it was a Friday and my workweek would soon be over. As is often the case so early in the morning, Beacon Street was calm and sleepily coming to life.

Three hours later, that calm was shattered when John C. Salvi III walked into Planned Parenthood’s Brookline office with a rifle and began to open fire. Within twenty minutes, he had made his way down Beacon Street and arrived at Preterm Health Services where he again began to shoot at anyone in sight. In the end, two women had been shot dead and five others had been wounded.

The people of Massachusetts, who had generally remained blissfully apathetic where the abortion issue was concerned, were now in shock. Yes, we had seen the protesters outside of Planned Parenthood with their repulsively blown up photos depicting aborted fetuses, but we mostly ignored them. Now, though, a debate that had been raging in other parts of the country was suddenly dumped squarely on our doorstep, and its participants could no longer be ignored.

Massachusetts Governor William Weld and Archbishop Bernard Law, in an effort to defuse escalating tension, suggested that a bilateral group convene to represent both sides of the state’s abortion debate, a task then organized by The Public Conversations Project in Watertown. One voice chosen for that group was Madeline McComish. A Senior Chemist, McComish was also well read, a devout Catholic, and President of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, one of the state’s largest pro-life organizations.

About a year after the murders, the head of Pro-Life Virginia, a controversial man by the name of Reverend Donald Spitz announced his intent to rally in Boston, so that he might demonstrate his support for what he called John Salvi’s “righteous deed.” This prompted McComish to write a letter that both condemned Spitz and made it known that he was not welcome in Massachusetts. Despite accusations that McComish was betraying the cause, Spitz relented, never appearing in Boston.

And what became of John Salvi? Though expert witnesses testified that he was schizophrenic, Salvi was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Nearly two years after the events of 1994, he was found dead in his jail cell, having allegedly committed what could only be described as the most elaborately impossible suicide ever undertaken. It is reported that, after thoroughly beating himself, he shoved cotton into his mouth, tied a bag over his head, and bound both his hands and feet.

I see you shaking your head. The state says it was suicide. Why would they lie?

The Debate Shall Begin Anew
On May 31st, 2009, nearly fifteen years after the Salvi rampage, Dr. George Tiller was shot to death as he entered his church in Wichita, Kansas. Ironically, Tiller was a devout Lutheran while at the same time being infamous among members of the pro-life movement for performing late-term abortions.

Surprisingly, Tiller’s assassin thought it appropriate to commit the act at a place of peace and worship. Not surprising, at least to people of the pro-choice movement, is that the person charged with his murder was a white male with a possible history of mental illness.

Catalyzed by the murder of George Tiller and the Obama Administration’s recent decision to resume funding of stem-cell research and abortion options, those on either side of the abortion debate will no doubt be reinvigorated, and we can expect to hear or read quite a bit about the subject over the next weeks.

That said, before the gloves come off, it would be unfortunate if we didn’t at least try to understand one very important thing.

We Are All Hypocrites
One of the problems arising as a result of the politicizing of abortion is that our black and white world demands that people take sides. I personally feel that I can’t take sides, and refuse to do so. While I am against the idea of abortion, I am at the same time adamantly opposed to government coercion. This is a difficult stance to take, as you are immediately labeled a hypocrite by the extreme sides of the debate.

That said, the abortion debate is in no way lacking hypocrisy from all directions.

People will say that those of the pro-life movement are hypocrites. They will question the pro-life claim that all life is sacred, especially when you consider the fact that a majority of the people in the movement are among those who voted for George W. Bush both times. As such, they advocated his administration’s invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan and were indirectly responsible for the subsequent murder of well over a million people.

Opponents will say that the pro-choice people are hypocrites because they were predominantly among those who have protested Bush’s wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They spout antiwar slogans like “no blood for oil,” while at the same time having no problem with what the pro-life movement believes to be the systematic murder of over 62 million human beings since abortion was federally legalized in 1973. They also haven’t been particularly vocal about Obama’s escalation in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Both arguments are justifiable, but there is another dimension to the hypocrisy.

There remains our common hypocrisy. A quote (mistakenly) attributed to Oprah Winfrey reads, “I've killed more people than the Unabomber has because I've paid more taxes.” When it comes to accusations of hypocrisy in the abortion debate, it must be said that our complicity in a society that engages in such brutality makes us all direct or indirect contributors to mass murder. Pro-life activists fund abortions, while pro-choice people fund wars wherein women are raped and killed, so who are any of us to complain about the other?

Faith, Science, and Certainty
At one point or another, the abortion debate inevitably degenerates to the religion versus science argument. Pro-choice people will argue that it is scientifically proven that a fetus cannot survive out of the womb after the second trimester. Pro-life people will insist that life is a gift from God. Each will scoff at the other when they start spouting these arguments. They believe that it is a war of faith versus fact, when nothing could be farther from the truth.

Religion is not perfect, far from it. It is not entirely based on fact, and quite often founded on supposition and theory, where deities and allegories are leveraged for the sake of unifying believers. In most religions, the theories will never be proven, and most will eventually be disproved. This requires practitioners to have faith such that they may proceed with work that they believe to be for the betterment of the world.

Science is also far from perfect. It is also not entirely grounded in fact, but instead on supposition and theory. There are entire branches of science wherein the theories may never be proven, where most will eventually be disproved, and for which the goals are questionable. Yet scientists have to practice faith, convincing themselves that these theories are true insomuch as they may be leveraged to proceed with work that is believed to be for the betterment of the world.

Are you seeing a similarity here? Both scientists and religious practitioners have to believe in their theories even if the ability to observe evidence of such hypotheses has yet to occur, otherwise their work is for not. It is this belief that eventually mutates into certainty, and it is certainty despite evidence that causes all hell to break loose. Our certainty makes us inflexible and dangerous, liable to invade countries or bomb abortion clinics, all for the sake of ‘saving lives.’

Both religion and science are an attempt to codify laws, whether they are societal or ones observed in the natural world. Neither has perfect vision when it comes the big picture and neither can see into the future. So what both must do is accept that situations change over time. Eventually, technology will be such that a fetus will be immediately viable outside of the womb, and eventually the idea of what constitutes ‘life’ will be very much blurred. Nobody is right or wrong in this debate; they are just subject to the conditions of the moment.

Ultimately the problem with the abortion debate is that many on both sides deny the mutability of the world around them. They are overly certain of their positions on the matter, while at the same time being incapable of complete possession of all relevant facts. They are thoroughly inflexible, and neither one is willing to listen to the other, leaving us at an impasse.

The Role of Government in the Divide
But is this impasse completely our own fault? Politicians have a terrible habit of latching onto complex social issues both for the sake of pandering to voters, and to politicize problems that they neither have the power nor intent to solve. It’s a lot easier to win votes by talking endlessly about what ‘should be’ rather than formulating plans to solve the real problems of government.

Abortion is one of those issues. It is a societal problem, not a political one, and so it is best left to society. Unfortunately, even though it never ceases to disappoint, our country has become so practiced in looking to government for a solution to our problems that we have forgotten we are completely capable of addressing these issues ourselves.

The anarchist in me tells me that all laws are inherently damaging to a society, including Roe v. Wade, while at the same time knowing that many states would trample on the rights of women were it not for that decision. It’s my belief that were there not incessant legislation to enforce what once might have been considered common sense, then common sense, as it has evolved, if indeed it has evolved, would prevail. Society would be significantly more capable and likely of solving its own problems without a government in the way that attempts to eternally etch in stone the social mores of any particular generation.

To pursue the political solution of stripping away more of the very few rights that women enjoy relative to men, in my opinion, is not one that should be on the table. If history has proven anything, it’s that if you voluntarily allow the government to take away one right, they’re far more likely to trample on them all. Ask Dick Cheney, he’ll agree.

The problem of abortion is a symptom of a sick society, and any doctor will tell you that you treat the illness rather than the symptoms. The ultimate goal of both sides, from a fundamental level, should be to reduce the rate of unwanted pregnancy in an attempt to avoid abortion altogether. Thus, the pro-life movement needs to adopt the pro-choice solution of providing birth control options, while the pro-choice movement needs to adopt the pro-life approach of encouraging personal responsibility when a pregnancy occurs.

In the end, a solution hinges on Americans getting back to the practice of good parenting. We need to take the time to properly raise our children, instilling in them a respect for human life. Not only will those values translate to fewer abortions, but they may also allow us to avoid a war or two in the future.

Oh, who am I kidding? War is inevitable.

Pro-Life Response to the Tiller Murder
In writing this article, I decided to contact Madeline McComish to elicit her response to this most recent act of violence. “Why?” you ask. It’s easy for one who’s pro-choice to immediately dismiss someone like McComish as a religious kook, but then, you don’t know Madeline McComish.

According to McComish “This is a truly tragic event that goes against everything that the pro-life movement represents. I mourn not only for this man and his family but also for the pro-life movement. The murderer of Dr. Tiller has done great harm to the pro-life cause.”

Is this your typical empty rhetoric from a pro-life zealot? Was it said to avoid appearing hypocritical and to mask the subconscious glee that she must probably feel after her cause has won another victory? The answer to both questions is ‘No.‘ How do I know this? Because Madeline McComish is my Great Aunt, and I know her to be sincere. When she says that she mourns, she truly means it.

Surprisingly enough, until the Salvi murders had occurred, I had absolutely no idea that Madeline was the President of MCFL and had only a passing knowledge of her opinion on abortion. I knew her primarily as an incredibly articulate and kind person who, like my Grandfather, would do anything for anyone, going out of her way if necessary. And though my opinions on the abortion question differ significantly from her own, I admire and respect her, not only because I know her, but also because she’s willing to listen.

Are you?