![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
how can a murderer be pro-life?
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.
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.
no subject
Once the decision has been made to artifically extend an individuals life, it is wrong to remove that life support until the individual dies. However, it is perfectly ok to not artifically extend life as it allows the individual to die a natural death.
Does this help? I don't know, but it did help clarify a viewpoint but it raises other questions:
When is a person dead? Who can make the decision for them? Yuck.
no subject
Is it correct to assume that your rector means "once an authorized person makes the decision for the long term", rather than, say, the ER doctor who needs to do something and can't make that decision for the family?
no subject
We didn't discuss who determines who is an authorized person (that's another can of worms :).
no subject
This is another tough area.
Is the 6 month old fetus who is born prematurely, but can survive with support, a "live human"? How about the same 6 month old still in the mother's womb?
Is the "age" important, or their location?
Gaah ... more questions :)
no subject
At a first approximation, until it is outside the womb it is potential life. a 39-week fetus is really really close, but still needs to clear that gate.
If the fetus is viable outside the womb, then the first thing to investigate when the mother wants an abortion is inducing labor. The mother is freed of the fetus and, if it actually is viable, it gets to emerge into the state of human life. (Note: it still has this state if it goes right into an incubator or the like; the important distinction is removing the physical dependence on the mother.)
This won't work in all cases, of course. It's a goal, not a hard constraint. Until the baby is born then in all edge cases I prioritize the mother (who after all is already here), and would do so even if I were to agree that the fetus is an independent human life.
no subject
I am hoping that the mother has the choice to allow her baby to live, even if she would lose her own life (this is an edge case).
You make a good point about inducing labor first (which in a later stage of pregnancy, I think third trimester, would stand a good chance of being viable). One question here is whether or not a mother can choose not to be induced and instead select a more invasive (not sure if that is the right word) procedure that guarantees that the fetus would not be viable.
A word choice question: To me, mother implies child implies human life. I don't think this is the meaning you're aiming for. Would expectant mother be more appropriate for your example?
BTW, thank you for the interesting discussion. It has definitely made me think more about this issue. I hope I'm having the same effect :)
no subject
Oh, definitely. Sorry for not making that clear. I meant that the woman ultimately gets the benefit; if she chooses not to use it, that's her decision to make.
You make a good point about inducing labor first (which in a later stage of pregnancy, I think third trimester, would stand a good chance of being viable).
My totally-not-qualified impression is that no one generally considers a fetus to be viable before the third trimester, and that labor can be induced by then. It doesn't line up perfectly, I'm sure, but it's close enough to take a look if that situation comes up.
A word choice question: To me, mother implies child implies human life. I don't think this is the meaning you're aiming for. Would expectant mother be more appropriate for your example?
I'm not sure why I've switched from "woman" to "mother"; thanks for pointing it out. From a dry, clinical perspective, the correct word would probably be "host". But that's an inflammatory word choice that would hinder the discourse.
BTW, thank you for the interesting discussion. It has definitely made me think more about this issue. I hope I'm having the same effect :)
You are, yes. Part of the reason I was having trouble with the original post is that I feared starting a heated argument over abortion (but kind of needed to raise that in discussing the issue of terrorism). I am delighted that we are having a non-heated discussion that helps us all see the others' positions a little better.
no subject
Chuckle ... now you've got me thinking about Stargate SG-1.
You're right though, that term is probably inflammatory (doesn't bug me).
Here's the Merriam-Webster definition for parasite (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Parasite) and host (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/host[3]). Based on these definitions, it doesn't seem to me that the host <-> parasite relationship applies to an expectant mother and fetus.
Edit: Is definition 2(c) of "host" the one you were thinking of?
no subject
Put another way: I can be a host for tapeworms, a fetus, or visiting in-laws, but only one of these is definitely a parasite.
no subject
I think the underlying principle here is that it is better (or perhaps I should say "not as bad") to let someone die through inaction than to cause someone's death through action.
I think that I do believe this principle in my gut. I think this principle explains a lot of what I found so disturbing about Watchmen. It also explains why time travel stories try to put things back as they were.
I am not sure whether I believe this principle in my head. My preliminary guess is that this principle is often right, but I'm skeptical about "always right".
This principle supports the idea that abortion is wrong even when it threatens the mother's life, because abortion is an action and letting the mother die in childbirth is an inaction. (I am suspicious of this result, and use that suspicion to cast suspicion on the original principle. But it makes it easier to understand the El Salvador law another respondent referred to.)
The murder of Dr. Tiller is a violation of this principle.
no subject
I'm by no means a utilitarian, but it's still difficult to believe that, in an isolated choice between A dead and A+B dead, that the latter is the correct one. Perhaps 'isolated' is an illusion, though.
no subject
"Let nature take its course" also does not take into account the case where the participants are only in that state due to some injustice (e.g. rape). "Right wrongs" is also a strong force. Standing by multiples the injustice.
no subject
In the instance where the choice is only one survivor, I believe that the ultimate decision would rest with the adult (expectant mother, in this case). They could choose to let their child live.