Prolife Groups Respond to Conviction of Antiabortion Extremist

Christianity Today ^ | 4/22/03

[RJCogburn]

Antiabortion extremist James Kopp was convicted of murder March 18 for shooting a doctor who performed abortions.

Judge Michael D'Amico of Erie County Court in New York convicted Kopp, 48, of murdering Barnett Slepian, 52, with an assault rifle. Kopp shot him through a window of the obstetrician-gynecologist's home in October 1998.

The conviction on a state charge of second-degree murder came after a one-day trial on March 17. Kopp had waived his right to a jury trial.

Kopp is also a suspect in four other nonfatal shootings from 1994 to 1997 of doctors who performed abortions. Authorities have charged him in one shooting case in Canada. Kopp also faces a related federal charge of interfering with the right to an abortion.

At his sentencing, scheduled for May 9, Kopp could receive 15 years to life imprisonment. Erie County District Attorney Frank Clark said his office would seek "not a day less" than the maximum sentence.

Kopp's attorney, Bruce Barket, said of the court decision: "Jim and I were disappointed by the verdict but not shocked by it."

Kopp admitted that he fired the shot. He claimed he had only wanted to wound Slepian to prevent him from performing abortions.

After the shooting, Kopp fled to Mexico and then Europe. Until police in France captured him in 2001, Kopp was on the FBI's Most Wanted list.

Marilynn Buckham, executive director of Buffalo GYN Womenservices, where Slepian worked, said the verdict revealed Kopp "to be the cold, calculating, premeditated murderer that he is."

Ken Connor, president of the Family Research Council, applauded the verdict.

"The violence perpetrated by James Kopp and others represents a rejection of the prolife movement," Connor told Christianity Today. "In my judgment, violence only begets more violence. Such actions work a profound disservice to the prolife community. These people may be antiabortion, but they're not prolife."

[Alberta's Child]

Truth be told, the Kopp case has left the entire pro-life movement in a philosophical quandary. After all the years of making passionate arguments that an unborn child is a human being, they can't come to grips with someone who acted like he truly believes it.

[Jay D. Dyson]

Truth be told, the Kopp case has left the entire pro-life movement in a philosophical quandary. After all the years of making passionate arguments that an unborn child is a human being, they can't come to grips with someone who acted like he truly believes it.

Perhaps...and the same could be said for the Gaia crowd and the terroristic "Earth First" types their philosophy spawned.

Bottom line: no matter how noble a cause, there will always be nutjobs who end up taking the core idea to violent extremes.

-Jay

[jim35]

And yet John Brown is celebrated all over the nation for his extreme actions in killing pro-slavery settlers. Abortion doctors are murderers, this is the only logical conclusion if you believe that the un-born are people. What did this man do that was wrong? Only a hypocrite can say he is a bad man, if they believe in the rights of the un-born.

[Bigg Red]

..someone who acted like he truly believes it.

Are you condoning what he did?

[Alberta's Child]

Maybe -- I don't know.

I'm simply pointing out the logical disconnect in the pro-life movement between what is said and what is done.

Person A stands up and says that thousands of human beings are killed every year in a building down the street, and he walks around on the sidewalk outside with a big picket sign. Person B stands up and says that thousands of human beings are killed every year in a building down the street, and he responds by burning the place to the ground. Maybe even with the entire staff inside.

Now you tell me -- Which one of these two truly believes that real people are being killed in that building?

[Jay D. Dyson]

And yet John Brown is celebrated all over the nation for his extreme actions in killing pro-slavery settlers.

John who? Up until this moment, I had never heard of that individual, much less heard of anyone "celebrating" his conduct.

Abortion doctors are murderers, this is the only logical conclusion if you believe that the un-born are people. What did this man do that was wrong? Only a hypocrite can say he is a bad man, if they believe in the rights of the un-born.

Only a hypocrite can claim to champion life while engaging in wanton murder. Anyone who cannot honor the sanctity of life of those already born, has no moral claim in condemning the killing of the unborn.

Kopp is no more a champion of the unborn than Dworkin is a champion of feminism. Both simply use an otherwise legitimate cause as a foil by which they seek to legitimize their reprehensible conduct.

-Jay

[Question_Assumptions]

Did the death of this doctor really prevent any abortions from happening or did another doctor step in to take his place? And did the violence of this act turn someone who may have listened to a pro-life person to believe that all pro-life activists are nuts that can't be trusted? We'll never know. But taking the law into your own hands to stop something like abortion has consequences far beyond the simple equation of this doctor and the babies that he killed.

[Alberta's Child]

But taking the law into your own hands to stop something like abortion has consequences far beyond the simple equation of this doctor and the babies that he killed.

But that's not really the point here. IF human beings are really being killed in these clinics, then someone like Kopp can justify his actions more than most pro-lifers can. The pro-lifer who stands outside a clinic waving a sign is either deluding himself, wasting his time, or both. THAT is the "philosophical quandary" that I was referring to.

[FourtySeven]

I used to have the same concerns as you, that "if I don't do something drastic about the threat of abortion, then I'm not really doing anything at all". Then another FReeper (by the name of Aquinas I think.....but I'm not sure) explained it to me the following way...

It's really about strategy, and saving as many unborn babies as possible. If the pro-life movement were to embrace such violent tactics as what Kopp engaged in, then the entire movement would be marginalized, and no one would support it, for its percieved (and perhaps justly so) hypocricy. Thus, MORE babies would die then be saved if we all picked up guns, and started shooting abortion doctors. So again, it's a matter of strategy, saving as many as possible.

Bottom line: We're not God, so we can't put a stop to it in an instant. And, perhaps more importantly, we're NOT responsible for the babies' deaths if we don't take violent action, especially if we're doing all we can to stop them peacefully.

That is how I believe the "philisophical quandry" you mentioned is resolved.

[Question_Assumptions]

If this were just about stopping a single doctor or a single abortion, you might have a point to make, though this could still fall into the "two wrongs making a right" category. But this is a matter of changing hearts and minds. Unless a majority of Americans support the ending of abortion on demand, any radical action on the part of pro-lifers is more likely to cause a strong backlash that will simply move the pro-life cause further from its objective. Don't make the mistake that liberals make that every solution must have an instant solution. Slow and steady is starting to win this race.

[Alberta's Child]

I'm not advocating either way -- I'm simply pointing out the clear inconsistency.

The most ridiculous thing about the whole debate on this issue is that we've come down to philosophical arguments about the "legitimacy" of various methods. It's one thing to recognize that we've tolerated the murder of 40+ million Americans over the last 30 years. It's even more preposterous when you consider that this country owes its very existence to a bunch of people who overthrew the government just because they thought the taxes were too high.

[Alberta's Child]

It's really about strategy, and saving as many unborn babies as possible. If the pro-life movement were to embrace such violent tactics as what Kopp engaged in, then the entire movement would be marginalized, and no one would support it, for its percieved (and perhaps justly so) hypocricy. Thus, MORE babies would die then be saved if we all picked up guns, and started shooting abortion doctors. So again, it's a matter of strategy, saving as many as possible.

With all due respect, this is the kind of argument I expect to hear from someone who has made up his mind to do something, then goes back and builds a philosophical case to support it afterwards. One can only imagine what George Washington or Samuel Adams would have thought of someone who was concerned that their position would have been "marginalized" by a radical approach to an issue.

[FourtySeven]

With all due respect, this is the kind of argument I expect to hear from someone who has made up his mind to do something, then goes back and builds a philosophical case to support it afterwards. One can only imagine what George Washington or Samuel Adams would have thought of someone who was concerned that their position would have been "marginalized" by a radical approach to an issue.

I don't believe the two situations are comparable. In one, you have a group of people that want to fight for the individual freedoms (and life) of ALL people. (these would be the George Washingtons and Samuel Adamses)

On the other hand, there are a group of people that want to play God and decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die. Like it or not, the kind of people that fit into this category are BOTH the abortionists AND Kopp.

Two wrongs don't make a right, not imo at least. That's all I'm saying.

[HighRoadToChina]

BUMP

[Alberta's Child]

On the other hand, there are a group of people that want to play God and decide who deserves to live and who deserves to die.

I'm not sure this is a valid point here. If what you say here is true, then Harry Truman "played God" when he decided that the best way to deal with Japan in 1945 was to incinerate several hundred thousand people in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

There was an article in the NY Times magazine a few years ago about the diminishin number of abortionists in the U.S., and one of the major reasons many of them were giving up their practices was the fear of violence. Not a fear of public demonstrators, prayers, or the stigma in the medical profession assigned to abortionists -- a fear of violence.

In one sense, we've become constrained by a 1960s mindset in a lot of different ways. For probably the first time in this nation's history, people convinced themselves that they could stand in a public street or on the mall in Washington DC, wave a sign and chant some slogans for a few hours, then go home at night and congratulate themselves for having done something.

[oldfart]

"But taking the law into your own hands to stop something like abortion has consequences far beyond the simple equation of this doctor and the babies that he killed."

But the law is in your hands... and mine too. It is up to us to define what is acceptable in society. We have been conditioned over the years to shunt our responsibilty off to some faceless, nameless "other" who we have hired to do our dirty work. We constantly refer to ourselves as 'civilians' with respect to the police. In actuality, the police are also civilians whom we have hired to solve our crime problems.

We have (though the courts have not backed us up) the same right to protect society as does any police force. Since that is so, why don't we also have the right to correct problems we see.

Well, we do have that right. James Kopp also had the right to take whatever steps he felt were neccesary to stop Dr. Slepian from killing babies. Having a right to do something doesn't mean there won't be consequences though, and Mr. Kopp is finding out what those consequences are.

Now, some of you will rush to ask if I support killing abortionists. Let me save you some effort. Just as I would have supported the assassination of Hitler in 1936 or of Mao in 1955 or of Saddam in 1975 or of Stalin in 1930, I would indeed support the expedited demise of anyone who kills babies for profit.

[Marianne]

BTTT

[FourtySeven]

Yeah, ok, you've convinced me: We should kill all abortion doctors. You first.

</sarcasm>

[Alberta's Child]

LOL. You've missed the whole point of my posts.