Look behind those abortion clinics, PBS. Whose bodies are in the hazardous waste containers? Whose corpses are incinerated by the thousands? Whose heart is injected with poison? Whose spinal cord is snipped? The abortionists? Or the babies? You answer that question, and then tell me who needs the humanizing around here.

Dear PBS,

This is quite the bold move. As a third rate, tax subsidized broadcasting outfit with a viewership in the single digits, I’d expect you’d try your best to fly under the radar. There is, after all, no conceivable reason for you to exist, nor is there a solid justification for spending tax money to keep afloat an irrelevant television channel that has long since drowned amid a sea of a million other channels.

Sure, you “only” bring in about 40 million dollars a year in tax money, but why draw attention to the scam? It might be a good 460 million dollars less than the amount that Obama gave to Planned Parenthood last year, but it’s still a sizable sum. It’s still 40 million dollars earmarked for a TV channel which provides absolutely nothing that can’t be found on dozens of other TV channels.

Yet here we are, and you’ve decided to air a 90 minute pro-late term abortion propaganda piece. Of all of the documentaries at your disposal, you chose to give airtime on your tax funded airwaves to a film that glorifies the butchery of viable, fully formed human beings.

The synopsis on your website says that the pro-infanticide film After Tiller paints a “humanizing” portrait of the “doctors” who openly kill fully developed babies who could survive outside of the womb — if they weren’t first poisoned or dismembered by these very “courageous” medical professionals.

In fact, I think the entire synopsis you provide is worth a read:

Martha Shane and Lana Wilson’s After Tiller is a deeply humanizing and probing portrait of the only four doctors in the United States still openly performing third-trimester abortions in the wake of the 2009 assassination of Dr. George Tiller in Wichita, Kansas—and in the face of intense protest from abortion opponents. It is also an examination of the desperate reasons women seek late abortions. Rather than offering solutions, After Tiller presents the complexities of these women’s difficult decisions and the compassion and ethical dilemmas of the doctors and staff who fear for their own lives as they treat their patients.

Compassion.

The compassion of people who get paid to kill children.

Pray you never encounter that sort of “compassion,” PBS, for it ends in blood and death and suffering.

Imagine if you aired a documentary which painted slaveowners or Klan members as compassionate. You’d be condemned across the globe, funding would be cut, the President would publicly admonish you, and thousands of death threats would fill up your mailbox. But, instead, you broadcast a love letter to people who kill infants, and a mob of morally bankrupted liberals celebrate you for it.

Congratulations.

So I know I’m in the anti-murdering-fully-developed-children-minority, but I still hope you’ll consider a few points about this movie you’re about to show:

First, yes, George Tiller was a late term abortionist who was murdered a few years ago. He was shot through the eye, as I understand, which means the man who aborted him used a far more humane method than the one Tiller used to slaughter 60 thousand human children.

Still, I don’t condone aborting abortionists. I think it’s morally wrong, but only a fool would act as though they don’t understand why a man who made millions through putting children down like rabid dogs at the kennel might be the target of considerable and passionate disapproval.

I hope his killer has asked for God’s forgiveness, but I also hope that the many people who feel no anger in the face of such unspeakable atrocities have also begged for the Lord’s mercy. I can tell you this: those who sit silently and condone the violent destruction of innocent children are, without question, guilty of a sin as serious as, if not more serious than, the man who let his disgust at these crimes against humanity get the best of him.

Interestingly, it’s precisely my opposition to abortion which allows me to oppose the late term abortion procedure that this man conducted on Tiller. It is only because I see abortion as wrong that I can see killing abortionists as wrong. But if I considered it to be morally sound to suck the brains out of babies, I suppose I’d be at a loss to explain why it’s morally unsound to blow the brains out of baby killers.

Ironically, only pro-lifers can really have a problem with pro-lifers murdering abortionists.

Second, it’s true that women who choose to kill their babies in the third trimester of pregnancy are desperate. By definition, this is a desperate act. But all murder is desperate. Rarely does one kill unless one feels especially compelled to do so. Nobody ever claimed that abortion is an unserious or flippant decision, nor has anyone argued that it isn’t a decision.

We understand that it’s both serious and a choice. This is not being disputed anywhere by anyone. The question, then, is whether it is the morally right choice. Or a better question: if destroying innocent life isn’t a wrong choice, then by what standard can we judge anything else to be a wrong choice?

Read More