Part 2: Did Tiller Get What He Deserved?

Sean McDowell — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 10:50:24 -0700

Late-term abortion is despicable. Except for extremely rare circumstances, a baby at this stage is fully viable (it can survive outside the mother’s womb). An unborn child at this stage is a precious member of the human community who deserves our protection. Some people deny an embryo full human status because they say it doesn’t look human (this ignores the fact that an embryo looks exactly as a human being is supposed to look like at that stage of development). But the same reasoning cannot be applied to a baby in late term. It is obviously human.

Every clear thinking American—and in particular, Christians—ought to condemn the actions of Dr. Tiller. Taking the life of 60,000 precious unborn human persons is a grave wrong that we cannot, and must not, ignore. If we don’t speak out on behalf of these people, who will?

Why should we be so outraged at late-term abortions and the actions of Dr. Tiller? Ultimately, the answer is quite simple: it treats a human functionally rather than as a being with intrinsic value. In other words, the unborn is treated as an object and thus discarded because it is a costly inconvenience to the mother. We should be outraged when people are treated as objects rather than persons with intrinsic value. People should be loved, not used.

But before we get self-righteous and start thinking that Tiller got what he deserved, I wonder what Jesus would have to say to this issue. Would Jesus turn the critique around and use it as an opportunity to get us to examine our own hearts rather than be so quick to judge others? In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus made some startling statements that directly apply.

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not murder, and whoever murders will be in danger of the judgment.' But I say to you that whoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment…. ‘You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not commit adultery.' But I say to you that whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart (Matthew 5, NKJV).

In other words, it’s not just the act of murder or adultery that makes one guilty but the lustful and/or angry thought itself. While you and I have (likely) not performed a late-term abortion, I wonder if we have treated people functionally in the same way. This would seem to make use just as guilty (in the eyes of Jesus) as those who have actually performed the procedure. Let me ask a few questions that may help clarify:

Have you ever made fun of someone else? If so, you treated that person functionally. Have you ever treated someone differently because he or she was popular or had more money? If so, you treated that person functionally. Have you ever looked at pornography? If so, you were treating that person functionally, as an object. While these are not the same acts as late-term abortion, and don’t have as powerful of a consequence, they are in the same spirit (just as lust is of the same spirit as adultery).

Rather than taking this opportunity to condemn Dr. Tiller, implying that he got what he deserved, I think we should take a minute to look inward and ask ourselves if we have ever treated people functionally (I know that I have). In fact, it seems to me that this is exactly what Jesus would do. Determining whether or not Dr. Tiller got what he deserved is up to God, not us. “Vengeance is mine, I will repay,” says the Lord (Romans 12:19).

In fact, if I read my Bible right, it seems to imply that all of us are deserving of death because we have rebelled against our creator. Romans 3:23 says, “We have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God.” That includes YOU and ME. As a result, Paul says “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). Christians ought to be outspoken against atrocities such as partial-birth abortion, but we must not forget that we have all sinned and fallen short of God’s standard. Our hearts should be broken at how profoundly sin has infiltrated our world and lead to the death of both Dr. Tiller, and the 60,000 unborn precious human persons he aborted. We are no better than Dr. Tiller. It’s only when we truly grasp our own sinfulness, and the incredibly grace of God, that we can rightfully condemn such actions without hypocrisy.

Did Dr. Tiller Get What He Deserved?

Sean McDowell — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 13:34:24 -0700

The title of this blog may have shocked you. So I better clarify something right up front: I am NOT endorsing the actions of the killer who took Dr. Tiller’s life in ANY way. I agree with the conclusions of Dr. Robert George:

Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. …No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted and punished. …Every human life is precious. George Tiller’s life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life.

My point is simply to raise some troubling questions about the justification that has been offered for why the killing of Dr. Tiller should be condemned. My criticism will be applied to both the right and the left.

Last night on the O’Reilly Factor, Bill O’Reilly strongly condemned the killing of Dr. Tiller. Even though O’Reilly has been an outspoken critic of Tiller, he strongly condemned his murder. While I agree that the murder of Tiller should be strongly condemned, O’Reilly’s justification was troubling and unconvincing. He said, “Clear thinking Americans should condemn the killing of Dr. Tiller because what he did was within the bounds of Kansas law.” In other words, while Dr. Tiller’s actions were deeply immoral, murdering him was wrong because it is illegal.

This raises a troubling question and an inconsistency in O’Reilly’s justification. After all, weren’t Nazi atrocities “within the bounds” of German law? Would O’Reilly have condemned the killing of Hitler, had he been assassinated, even though what Hitler did was fully legal by the German law of his time? The power of the recent movie Valkyrie is that sometimes it is right to go against the legal code of a society for the greater good. Why would it be right to kill Hitler, who directed the deaths of 6 million Jews, but not Tiller who personally killed 60,000 fully viable members of the human community through late-term abortions?

You might be thinking, “But our laws do not give full human rights to the unborn ‘fetus.’ It’s not considered a full human person.” But the same was true for Germany. They intentionally avoided terms such as “human” and “person” when talking about Jews. Rather, they referred to them as “vermin” that needed to be exterminated. While the society considered them less than fully human, the reality is that Jews were fully human and deserving of life. On what basis can we deny full human rights to an unborn child in late term any more than we can deny it to the Jews? There is no convincing scientific, philosophical, or theological reason to deny them from full status as members of the human community.

Here’s the bottom line: just because something is legal does not mean its right (slavery also comes to mind). And just because something is illegal does not necessarily mean it is wrong. While the killing of Tiller ought to be condemned, O’Reilly and others who base their arguments on its legality need a better moral justification.

But there is also an inconsistency on the side of the left. President Obama harshly criticizes torture, even though it arguably has resulted in the saving of human lives. In other words, the ends do not justify the means. However, oddly enough, Obama also favors the bombing of Pakistan for the end result of saving American. The problem is that these actions result in the death of many innocent Pakistanis. Why is it okay to kill innocent Pakistani civilians, but not okay to torture (probably) guilty terror suspects who are not killed? Here’s my question as it relates to the killing of Dr. Tiller: If it is not acceptable to kill an abortionist, why is it okay to kill innocent civilians in Pakistan since both have the end goal of saving lives?”

From my perspective, the only justifiable reason for protecting human life (whether the unborn or Dr. Tiller’s) is that human beings are made in the image of God and thus have infinite dignity, value, and worth. Neither the left nor the right can give a solid foundation for intrinsic human value without God. Rather than Dr. Tiller getting what he (allegedly) deserved, could it be that our culture, which has abandoned the real basis of human dignity, got what it deserved?