file: /pub/resources/text/ProLife.News/1993: PLN-0318.TXT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Life Communications - Volume 3, No. 18 August, 1993 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This newsletter is intended to provide articles and news information to those interested in Pro-Life issues. All submissions should be sent to the editor, Steve or the assistant editor Sean ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1) Abortionist Tiller Shot in Wichita Dr. George Tiller was shot in the arm on August 20th while leaving his abortion clinic. Tiller is the doctor in Wichita Kansas infamous for his worldwide-advertised practice of second and third term abortions, and for keeping a private crematorium on his abortuary's premises. Tiller's practice has been a frequent target of abortion protest. Witnesses told police that the woman who fired the shots Thursday evening had joined a small group of protestors outside the Women's Health Care Services Clinic earlier that day. She handed out literature and talked with the protestors until Tiller left his clinic. As Tiller began to drive away, the woman pulled out a gun, walked toward the car and opened fire. A spokeswoman for Tiller and the ProChoice Action League, said the doctor's injuries were not life-threatening. - Rae Stabosz ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2) Catholic Priest's Zeal Makes The News Rev. David Trosch, of Magnolia Springs evidently advocates killing doctors who do abortions; the response from his Bishop was very clear: recant or resign. Fr. Trosch evidently designed a paid advertisement depicting a man pointing a gun at a doctor who is holding a knife over a pregnant woman. The text of the ad reads: "Justifiable homicide." The ad was intended for the _The Mobile Register_ (Alabama). Archbishop Oscar Lipscomb (Trosch's religious superior) issued a statement saying he gave Fr. Trosch "the alternative of publicly abiding by my judgment on this erroneous teaching or relinquishing his public position in the church." He said Trosh indicated he would recant. Lipscomb was reported as saying: "If his [Trosch's] comments concerning abortionists... are correct, he is in serious error as a teacher of Catholic moral theology." The Archbishop continued with: "It is a basic principle that a good end does not justify the use of an evil means...While recognizing the great evil of abortion,... the Catholic Church cannot espouse the teaching that abortionists are to be killed in defense of human life" ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3) Is it permissible to kill a doctor who performs abortions? The question is ambiguously phrased. If, for example, I asked, "Is it permissible to kill someone?", the answer would perhaps have to be _technically_ 'yes' because there are certain circumstances under which is it permissible for someone to kill another human being (law enforcement, just war, etc.) Unfortunately a simple answer of _yes_ here, while technically the correct one, is most un-enlightening and perhaps even misleading to the point that perhaps a 'no' should be given just on general principals. To truly answer the question properly, one must understand _in what sense_ this act is permissible. The general principle (simplifying greatly here) is that it is permissible to commit an act that has both good and evil associated with it only if this evil is less than the evil associated with the act being prevented and there are no other 'lesser evil' options. "The lesser of two evils" is the rule, or perhaps even better "the least of all evils". It is from this basic rule we get such notions as law enforcement and just war. Killing is permissible only if it will prevent a much greater evil and there are no other "lesser evil" options available. A law enforcement officer killing a sniper shooting at helpless victims is justified if there is no alternative to stop him. Now in as much as abortion is the serious evil of murder, it is quite theoretically possible, given just the right circumstances, killing a doctor who performs abortions could be permissible. If killing Dr. X PREVENTS (not just postpones) a large number abortions, then killing Dr. X COULD be permissible if this were the only way. So on a technicality, again, a 'yes' might be given to the question as it is phrased. And again this is totally un-enlightening and incredibly misleading to the real issue of abortion so we must explain just what we mean. In the case of abortion, it is the taking of a life and is an ontological evil. Likewise, the killing of the abortion doctor(s) for whatever reason is evil, period. For it to be justified under the principle of the 'least evil' it must do two things: _prevent murders of the unborn_ *and* _be the only option_. Neither condition is even remotely satisfied in this case. First, killing any single doctor does not prevent the murder of the unborn, all a patient has to do is simply re-schedule with another doctor. Nor is such and action likely to result in fewer abortions by others. If anything, such violent actions will only prolong the abortion battle and thus destroy a far greater number of lives, both born and unborn. To be pro-life and yet kill abortion doctors is a contradiction in terms and hence can only result in the labeling of pro-life forces by the public as hypocrites (and I would agree). The public hates hypocrites of any form and will reject the pro-life cause on just this basis and continue to permit legalized unrestricted abortion. Only when the pro-life movement takes the high moral ground consistently will the public begin to listen. Secondly it is not by any means the _only_ way to combat the killing of the unborn. Like it or not, killing the unborn is a 'choice' permitted in this country. While the 'choice' to kill is appalling, let us NEVER forget that we have the choice NOT TO KILL as well. It is with this in mind we must work to influence those who would seek abortions to convince them to 'choose' life. This is *not* to say that abortion should be accepted, or that those that oppose this evil should do nothing. We have many, many ways to influence this 'choice' that are far more moral than killing an abortionist. A far, far better way to reduce the number of abortions is to increase the awareness of the sanctity of life and to provide the means by which new life may be brought forth, cherished, and nurtured in this world. Only then will abortions be reduced, the electorate come to their senses, and the permissibility of elective abortions be eliminated (or at least greatly reduced). Killing the abortionist may prevent several abortions; but it will directly deny the very sanctity of life ethic that those who oppose abortion are trying to reestablish in our society. Assuming the press got the story straight (given past history we should have a certain amount of skepticism), then Trosch's bishop was quite right, in fact obligated, to rebuke the priest. Such statements cause untold damage to the pro-life movement. So if asked "Is it permissible to kill a doctor who performs abortions?" I'd give an emphatic, "*NO!*" to make sure no one got the wrong message. -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- Let me add a personal note here for I think I am entitled to. The story is long and complex, so I'll keep it brief. My wife's sister (Eta) was a drug addict, contracted AIDS, and became pregnant. She was advised to have an abortion, "Hey, what kind of chance does a drug addicted, HIV+ kid have anyway?" My wife and I advised her not to. Whatever our influence was, my sister-in-law decided not to have the abortion. The next question was, what to do about the child (Eta being totally unsuited to take care of him). In as much as we were partially responsible for her decision to not have the abortion, after much prayer and thought, we agreed before the child was born to take him in and adopt him. To make a long, long story short. He was born HIV+ (as all children of HIV+ mothers are born), drug addicted, and bi-racial (black/white). We went and got him shortly after he was born. That was over three years ago. Today, after many prayers, a Miraculous medal or two, and by the grace of God, Joseph (nice name huh?) is a relatively normal 3 year old. So when any pro-abortion type begins the duck-billed platitudes, I feel I can answer the 'put up or shut up' challenge - we do 'put up' and they 'shut up'! Now I do not expect everyone to do the same (so you're all off the hook), but I really do feel we pro-lifers need to be far more aggressive in combating abortion in this country though positive direct action in what ever way we can. (As a final note, Eta died on June 21, on the feast of St. Aloysius. She had gotten off drugs, returned to the Church, and reconciled herself with God some time ago. Before she died, she recited the Rosary daily, attended daily Mass and deeply touched those around her, to the point that some others also AIDS patients, did the same.) - Mike Martin ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4) Miracle Baby Spawns Troubling Questions On April 19, 28-year old Trisha Marshall was shot in the head while allegedly attempting a robbery. This wound was fatal for Trisha, but thanks to the heroic application of new medical technology, the wound was not fatal to the 17-week old fetus inside her brain-dead body. Doctors at Oakland, California's Highland Hospital sustained Marshall's body for 105 day, and on August 3 delivered the "miracle" baby boy, "howling, screaming and kicking like any healthy newborn" according to Dr. Rick Fulroth, head of the neonatal team. Except for some minor problems due to being one month premature, the child is healthy. However, Dr. Fulroth is somewhat concerned about the long-term effects of the lack of normal maternal stimuli during the boy's last fifteen weeks before birth. Doctors are not legally obligated to undertake such efforts unless the mother or her next-of-kin had requested it. The mother's insurance company is not obligated to pay for this treatment. Highland Hospital received a lot of phone calls about the treatment -- the overwhelming majority opposed preserving the unborn child. [Another case where "pro-choice" stops holding when the choice is life?] Nevertheless, the doctors persevered: "There was a chance" observed Dr. James Mittelberger. The Marshall case is not the first incident of this kind, nor is it the longest (a 1989 a Vermont woman was kept alive 107 days for the sake of her unborn child). But the case raises deep ethical and social issues. Carol Taylor, of Georgetown University's Center for Clinical Bioethics (and also a Roman Catholic nun) contrasts the view that "the sanctity of and our respect for life necessitate we do everything we can to promote that life" with another view that "unlike in abortion where we terminate life, without intervention, the fetus in this case would die naturally." She asks a disturbing question: "are we using this woman and her fetus purely to gain scientific knowledge -- and, if so, does that justify the action?" The University of California's Dr. Russell Laros Jr. (who himself was involved in pioneering "miracle birth" case in San Francisco in 1983) acknowledges the central ethical issue is "how to balance the benefit of this sort of heroic and expensive therapy versus the good it is doing." Medical treatment for the Marshall baby will end up costing $400,000. "For society, this is not a great buy... You could provide prenatal care for 1,000 patients for the same price." The Marshall case highlights an issue that the upcoming Clinton health-care reform is sure to bring to the forefront: Who decides which lives deserve expensive treatment -- and which lives are expendable? [Put another way: How much $ is this particular life worth, and who gets to decide? ] ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5) Coalition for a Caring Society Formed A coalition of national and state-wide pro-life groups and individuals has been formed, called "The Coalition for a Caring Society." The CCS has been formed to implement a national paid media project to influence the American public opinion of abortion. For example, one object of this media campaign is to counteract the understanding that the 'average American' feels more comfortable self-identifying as "pro-choice", even though they themselves believe abortion is wrong (this understanding is supported by national polls). Their goal is to help the pro-life movement influence public opinion, counter the pro-abortion policies of the Clinton administration, and at the same time reach the hearts and minds of Americans. Their declared means to this end is through a national paid media project of a large magnitude. The group first met in St. Louis on December 10, 1992, and since then has developed a national media plan-of-action. The plan has been patterned after successful statewide projects in Missouri and Michigan that utilized professional market research, media and fundraising consultants. Currently, Congressman Chris Smith (R-NJ) is spearheading the fund-raising drive. Governor and Mrs. Terry Branstad head the fund in Iowa, Governor Casey of Pennsylvania expressed enthusiasm and made an offer to work with the CCS before his operation in June. The basic plan is to start the media project in Washington, DC, and then move to the other top 20 media markets around the country using television spots, such as those from Michigan and Missouri, and new ones that will be developed. For more information, or to donate to the CCS, contact your state National Right to Life organization, or contact the Pennsylvania Pro-Life Federation at 310 Genet St., Scranton PA 18505. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6) Reader Responses I have an idea about population control: I didn't see it clarified in the article in v3n17, about population, but as far as it looks to me, prosperity is the best form of population control around. All the rich/well to do nations, have fewer kids by a wide margin, per family. Industrialization and economic booms, seem to encourage parents to have less kids because they know they'll be more likely to survive and carry on. So, if we want to control the population, why not spread Capitalism instead of just birth control? - Steve Chaney ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote of the Month: "We affirm that there are no medical circumstances justifying direct abortion, that is, no medical circumstances in which the life of a mother may only be saved by directly terminating the life of her unborn child." - Spoken by the top four OB-GYN professors in Ireland, 1 April, 1992 +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Credits: | | 2 - From a 20 Aug, 1993 article reported by Lou Nunez, and other sources. | | 4 - From an article in the _Riverside Press-Enterprise_, and UPI reports. | | Many thanks to Larry Larmore. | | 6 - From information in a fund-raising letter from Garnett Biviano, Pres. | | of the PA ProLife Federation, 310 Genet St., Scranton, PA 18505. The | | PaPLF can also be contacted at (717)963-0301. | +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Anyone desiring information on specific prolife groups, literature, tapes, or help with problems is encouraged to contact the editor.