how can a murderer be pro-life?

[cellio]

I keep starting and abandoning posts about the murder of Dr. Tiller. I guess I'm still a little dumbfounded by the fanaticism involved.

It's not about pro-choice versus pro-life; the people I know who oppose abortion are not cold-blooded murderers, and we can disagree thoughtfully and respectfully. And most of the people I know who oppose abortion still grant that under some circumstances it might be the least-bad path, if the life of the mother is at stake (and with it the life of the fetus anyway, in some cases). I don't like abortion, but I feel it can be necessary sometimes. People like Randall Terry call Dr. Tiller a butcher; what do you call a doctor who stands idly by while a woman dies from a pregnancy gone horribly wrong?

But as I said, this isn't just about abortion. The person who murdered Dr. Tiller committed the same kind of terroristic act as the unabomber or the Oklahoma City bombers or any number of other people trying to advance a position by inciting fear and committing violence. No matter what the issue is, the method is unacceptable. As with treason, terrorism is about more than the specific acts committed by the wrongdoers. It doesn't seem like our legal system has a good way to deal with that, and indeed it would be hard to write the relevant laws, but I sure hope this factor is taken into account when Dr. Tiller's murderer is convicted and sentenced. The murder of any individual is sad; this was not just the murder of one individual. It needs to be discussed and, if possible, prosecuted as the larger crime.

Comments

[cellio]

I would claim that EVERYONE agrees with that statement in principle.

Really? Then how do you explain all the laws (and attempts at laws) designed to protect us from ourselves? How does same-sex marriage, prostitution (if the prostitute consents; otherwise it's something else), marijuanna use, or buying alcohol on Sunday harm anyone else, to pick just a few?

I think there is a significant group within our society that doesn't care about your choice because they know what's best for you -- they choose, you follow.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<devil's>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

<devil's advocate>
prostitution: my children will be led to believe that extramarital sex is culturally acceptable, or even encouraged.
MJ: Public intoxication poses a risk to other people, as does secondhand smoke (this one I actually believe in, although the descriptor "public" is critical to me)
same-sex marriage: this one is different b/c you are requesting a new privilege, not removing a restriction, but you could go with "equating these relationships is an insult to me"
blue laws: public intoxication is personally insulting to me when it occurs on the Sabbath

I submit that YOU don't care about my choice because YOU restrict my actions. For example, you won't let me yell "fire" in a crowded theater. (We all draw the line somewhere.)

</devil>

You will, of course, find these arguments unconvincing. My goal wasn't to persuade you, but to reveal a potential line of thought.

[I sometimes enjoy debating from a perspective that I disagree with.]

[cellio]

prostitution: my children will be led to believe that extramarital sex is culturally acceptable, or even encouraged.

Your children are already led to believe that smoking, prominent tattoos, drinking, gambling, and violating the Sabbath are culturally acceptable. It is the job of a parent to guide his children through the different opinions found in any society.

MJ: I didn't say "public", as you note. Second-hand smoke is a violation of others' rights, and public intoxication is the same problem whether caused by alcohol or drugs.

same-sex marriage: this one is different b/c you are requesting a new privilege, not removing a restriction, but you could go with "equating these relationships is an insult to me"

Lots of things are insults to lots of people. Should the press be stifled because certain editorial cartoons have offended certain Muslims?

blue laws: public intoxication is personally insulting to me when it occurs on the Sabbath

See previous, and you would need to show causality from purchasing to intoxication on the same day.

You will, of course, find these arguments unconvincing. My goal wasn't to persuade you, but to reveal a potential line of thought.

Understood. I hope my answers have also been revealing. My common theme is this: there is no single standard of "correct" behavior that all will agree on, so (1) any attempt to impose one will offend someone, so (2) this should only be done when actual harm, not merely hurt feeling, is involved, and (3) we are each responsible for dealing with incoming offense (for us and for our children).

Oh, and (4): for every preference you would impose, someone out there has an equal and opposite preference. Are you prepared to be on the receiving end?

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

Argh. Epic fail (on my part). Your counter-arguments weren't necessary b/c I already agree with you. My intended point is that people who argue for victimless crimes to be prosecuted feel that they are limiting freedom to a reasonable degree, just as you and I feel that limiting the yell of "fire" in a crowded theater is a reasonable limitation.

[cellio]

Whoops, I'm sorry. (No reason to assume it was your fail; maybe it was mine instead. Wanna share? :-) )

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

I think there is a significant group within our society that doesn't care about your choice because they know what's best for you -- they choose, you follow.

I think you've hit on an interesting point.

These are the rules. What do I need to do to follow them?

vs.

These are the rules. I don't like them. How do I change them?

These two positions aren't necessarily incompatible, but do provide some starting points. This might be diverging but it seemed worth bringing up. A question to consider ...

Were the rules enacted by an entity that we agree has the authority to make / change the rules?

EDIT:

and,

Are we obliged to follow the rules enacted by an entity we agree has the authority to make / change the rules.