cellio | how can a murderer be pro-life?

Entry tags:

news,
rants

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

It's hard to wrap one's brain around.

The 'logic' route I can find is this:

1. Abortion is wrong.
2. ...Because it's killing a person.
3. It's evil to kill people.
4. People who do evil are "Evil people".
5. "Evil people" aren't people.
6. It's okay to kill "evil people".

This also explains how pro-'life'rs can be pro-death penalty, another paradox. See, you're not killing "real" people or innocent babies, you're killing evil doers! You're actually doing the world a favor!

(...It also points to how misleading the term "pro-life" is, and why I basically never use it without sneer quotes. Save a life? No... just justify making a decision for someone else. But it's not a nanny state! we hate those.)

I was about to write in three paragraphs what you covered more fully in the three last lines of your comment. *concurs*

Step 3 can actually be "it's wrong to kill an innocent person". Focus on innocence too much, and you aren't going to care about actual people because they aren't that innocent.

As a faithful Catholic, all I can say is that a person who makes a choice like this, killing another human being in cold blood (and in his CHURCH...don't get me started there), well, he isn't pro-life, or acting in a Christian manner.

It just makes me sick.

This is what I've heard from pretty much all the Christians I've heard speak about this, and it's what I would expect from those I know. A few wingnuts do not define your religion.

This comment is being really tough to write as I just can't seem to write down what I'm thinking. Here's a stab that is less bad than the others (and one possible line of reasoning might explain, but not justify, Mr. Terry's actions):

I think part of the issue here is that, a murderer who gets the death penalty has had the benefit of a trial, whereas the victim of an abortion has had no such benefit.

The murderer, in this case, is being a vigilante as he is stepping in because he believes that the state has failed in its duty.

This, of course, brings up the issue of when (and how) it is appropriate for an individual to step in when the state is failing (or an individual believes it is failing) in its duty ...

Thank you for your comment.

Yes, the vigilante issue is also an important one. Under what circumstances is one permitted to override the law, to say it doesn't apply because the state is wrong and you are right? Messy stuff.

Is the fetus always a murder victim? If I kill a person in self-defense (and the court agrees) then I have not committed murder, though someone ended up dead. Can this not be true with a fetus too? I think there are a lot more shades of gray here than either side would prefer.

Speaking more generally now and not specifically to you: If we could all agree to use less loaded words (in both directions) I think it would improve the discourse. "Murder" is inflammatory; so is "eviction", or comparing an abortion to a haircut or plastic surgery. Can we agree that the fetus that ends up dead has been "killed" and not ascribe intent that might not be there? I've heard of too many people who mourned abortions they found necessary to assume the intent for murder has been formed.

Ah, but there are even more shades of grey here... "Can we agree that the fetus ends up dead...?" No, I don't think we can. To end up dead, something has to be living in the first place, and at what point does life begin? I would absolutely agree that the possibility of life begins at conception, but the possibility of life is NOT life. Is every masturbatory emission considered child abandonment? I think not.

Though to be fair, that statement has a slippery slope fallacy, but it kinda illustrates my point. We just don't know enough to be sure when life begins. We can't even agree on what life IS! What about Terry Schaivo? Was it right to take her off the equipment keeping her breathing? Was she alive? There is as much controversy in artificially extending "entities that may or may not have life" as there is in artificially truncating such entities. The point is that we just can't say for sure. All we have to go on, on either side, is belief. Neither side has good proof one way or another.

And when one version of a belief systems tries to stamp out their "opponents", it never, never ends well.

To go a little of topic, I should disclaim here that I am fervently (yes, I know, ironic) Pro-Choice. I do not advocate abortion, but I am against people trying to impose their belief system (in absence of good proof) on me such that it removes my choice. As an anti-abortion law would. To me, making abortion illegal because "it's wrong" is akin to making Judaism illegal because "it's not the right religion".

I too am adamantly pro-choice. From a civil-liberties perspective, it's her body, period. From a church-state perspective, no one gets to impose any particular religious view on the rest of us. From a Jewish perspective, our tradition teaches that abortion is permitted and could be mandatory in certain cases.

I am looking for a way to have the discussion without immediately jumping to the inflammatory rhetoric on both sides. By "ends up dead" I did not mean to imply a state transition. Just that, in the end, it is not alive.

All we have to go on, on either side, is belief. Neither side has good proof one way or another.

And belief is a lousy way to try to run a civil government, yes.

I consulted with my rector (priest) regarding the Terry Schiavo case, as it really bothered me. Here's a summary of the response he gave (errors in writing down are mine, but I hope I captured the intent):

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.

Thanks for sharing that. These are hard questions. (I do think there's a difference between "was a live human and is now in limbo", e.g. Schiavo, and "hasn't yet reached that state" (my take on the fetus; you will likely disagree).)

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?

Yes, I would agree with that. He meant that the decision was made by those entitled to make the decision.

We didn't discuss who determines who is an authorized person (that's another can of worms :).

"hasn't yet reached that state"

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 :)

Is the "age" important, or their location?

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.

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.

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 :)

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).

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.

From a dry, clinical perspective, the correct word would probably be "host".

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?

Edited 2009-06-04 02:32 (UTC)

I meant "host" in a more neutral sense than is implied by "host/parasite". 2C is close, but it's too active. When I say host in this context I mean the supporter of a strongly-associated dependent.

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.

This has made me think.

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.

I can believe inaction preferable to action much more easily when the weights on each side are even, or at least within an order of magnitude of each other. But in this particular case, it's complicated by (depending on your belief about the humanity of fetuses) being a choice between killing one person through action, or killing two people through inaction.

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.

Edited 2009-06-03 18:32 (UTC)

I share your unease. In an ideal world it is probably better to let nature take its course, but in the case where more harm is done that way I can't bring myself to do it. And the degenerate case where neither the mother nor fetus will survive seems particularly wrong to let stand.

"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.

I have no issue with the choice to terminate a pregnancy when it was caused by injustice (ie, rape).

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.

The comparison to self-defense is also an apt one in Jewish thought (which does not consider abortion murder).

The anti-choice crowd (and I do not intend by that all people who are "pro-life," just a subset of them) has a tendency to assume all abortions are frivolous. I read an article that interviewed ond of Dr. Tiller's patients, discussing the circumstances of her late-term abortions. Even though the article was explicit about what happened (a wanted pregnancy, an ultrasound revealing anencephaly at 24 weeks) there were some comments on the article which said "oh, so you suddenly decided you didn't want to be pregnant and murdered your baby."

If we don't listen to one another, we'll never make progress.

Yes. Some people surely make the decision frivolously, but some do not, and to tar all patients with the "frivolous" brush is equivalent to tarring all Christians with the "murderer" brush.

No, the fetus isn't always a murder victim (I agree with you there - I was attempting to look at things from Mt. Terry's point of view). I've always understood that murder implies some intent (that's why, I believe, we have manslaughter in the legal system and don't always prosecute in the self-defense cases).

Once we can define when a fetus becomes a human being (and has the same rights as an adult), things become clearer, but then it comes down to a conflict of rights (who gets to decide, the individual or the state). Can the individual also decide to give up their own life such that their childs lives (and can the state, or another individual, override that)? Like you said ... messy stuff.

BTW, Randall Terry isn't the murderer; he's the founder of Operation Rescue who spoke out in favor of the murderer. (Others in Operation Rescue have spoken against him.)

Oops, my mistake there.

If I kill a person in self-defense (and the court agrees) then I have not committed murder, though someone ended up dead. Can this not be true with a fetus too?

AIUI, the official Catholic position is that since the fetus is not intending to kill anyone, it is innocent even if its presence is causing a hazard. Thus, for example, in El Salvador, where thanks to Church influence abortion is absolutely forbidden across the board, if a woman has an ectopic pregnancy the doctors have to check the embryo for a heartbeat before they can remove it. If there's a heartbeat, aborting the fetus is illegal even if the pregnancy, left unchecked, would kill the mother.

This contrasts with the Jewish position, which is not only more flexible about when human life begins, but allows for the possibility that the law of a rodef [a person creating a danger to someone else's life, who may be killed by a third party if necessary] applies even when someone is creating an unintentional hazard.

Rodef: Not all Jewish sources take the position you describe as the Jewish position. Notably, the Rambam does take that position (and even refers to luggage that will sink a ship as rodef, despite its obvious lack of intent). However, others argue.

One could distinguish between self-defense and killing a person to save one's own life. The former has some connotation of killing intent on the part of the other party which does not exist in a case of abortion.

Say Bob needs a heart transplant. The only person known to be a compatible donor is Joe. By Joe continuing to live, he is ensuring Bob's death. Can Bob or his relatives kill Joe to take his heart? If a fetus is less of a person, or less deserving of life than its mother, than this is not analogous. However, if a fetus and its mother are considered equal under the law/morality, then why is the case of Bob & Joe different from abortion?

It's more akin to the question here: Say Bob is superglued to the sidewalk and cannot dodge an oncoming car driven by Joe. Joe has fallen into a temporary coma at the wheel with the cruise control on and lost control of the car heading straight for Bob and cannot maneuver it to miss him. Bill, Bob's friend, has a rocket-propelled grenade. After failing to pull Bob to safety, is Bill justified in firing on Joe, killing him but stopping the threat to Bob?

Edited 2009-06-04 02:00 (UTC)

Why do you feel your analogy is superior?

Because in the first examply, Bob's existence is not an active or direct threat to Joe but an indirect passive one. If Bob did not exist, Joe would die anyway. In my example, if Bob did not exist, Joe would not be in danger to begin with. When talking of medically necessary abortion, the usual (but not only) situation is that the fetus is considered a threat to the mother. A fine point, but on such points do many opinions turn.

This is going to sounds strange, but I don't think the murder was about abortion at all. I think that people who kill on purpose are likely unbalanced and very easily misled. Such people fall into many, many different situations in this world, and it's a combination of luck and environment that leads them to their eventual ends.

If the good doctor's killer was mentally unbalanced and easily misled, then a different combination of events would have led him to hurt someone else for a different reason, but the damage to someone else (whether murder or not) was probably inevitable.

These are the people that are this world's fanatics. What form the fanatics take depends, I think, mainly on environment. Some fanatics straps bombs to themselves and blow up in busy train terminals. Some of them are widely respected and revered religious leaders. Some have 120 cats in their houses. All these people scare me.

When fanatics are bought up in an intolerant household, they become very, very dangerous. Tolerance is key to diffusing these sorts of people, and it's a damn shame that so many religions, including the murderer's brand of Christianity, regularly steep children in intolerance.

I can't really comment on the Tiller case, because that guy might actually have some mental problems (they apparently run in his family or something?).

But the available social science research on the motivations of terrorists more generally indicates that in fact they are typically quite "normal", and no more likely to be mentally ill than other members of the population.

That research also identifies some of the reasons why so-called normal people engage in acts of terrorism, which are too complicated to go into in detail in a comment, but essentially boil down to "unmet expectations". Human beings don't have to be mentally ill to kill on purpose - they just have to experience the right combination of circumstances in life. Disturbing thought, but true. Sorry. :-(

One person's terrorism is another person's asymetric guerrilla warfare. When "normal" people are engaging in terrorism, they usually consider themselves (and describe themselves as being) "at war" with a vastly more powerful and numerous foe. The methods of terrorism are those of force-multiplication taken to extremes that carry them outside the bounds of conventional warfare.

I have always been careful to avoid pregnancy. Rubbers on all but three. I don't spread disease willingly. I don't take new lovers idly. But pre-menopause, I was so careful. No insemination, no abortion. No nasty parasite in my system. No labor, no birth. I'd never have regarded it as a life. Just a bunch of cells proliferating inside me. With a gross result if I were obliged to bear the process.

I realise that this feeling is abnormal. Tough. I didn't want any of it. No babies, none of that. I never felt worth reproducing, had a suitable man, or ynogh money at the dame time.

Killing a thoughtful human being is grounds for death. Just a first thought. I could reconsider. But we want to keep him around? I'm betting the doctor thought hard about the work he did. It had to be ugly and hard. He had to think hard to be a doctor in the first place.

Other folks think otherwise. Fine.

Hello. I just wanted to say hi to you because I feel the same way as you do about having sex. I have my own reasons - I was raped so I'm sensitive to things like that and what happens to my body. I just wanted you to know that you're not alone in your feelings.

I would love to sit down with you and Alaric to work through ideas on this (we're queuing up a list of such discussions). In this forum, I will say that, IMHO, "pro-choice" is a more misleading term than "pro-life", so I don't describe myself as pro-choice. I think that abortion should be legal, just as virtually any medical procedure should be legal (see: assisted suicide) when performed by individuals trained in medicine AND ethics. Congress is completely unable to judge the ethics of an individual case.

That sounds ominous :).

I think it would be neat, though, and will most likely produce many other questions :).

I would enjoy that conversation.

Aren't all (US, licensed) doctors trained in ethics both in med school and as part of continuing education?

I'd like to understand your objection to "pro-choice". "Pro-legal-abortion-via-licensed-medical-providers" is a little unwieldy, and "pro-abortion" is incorrect. (I am not "pro-abortion": I am "pro--option-for-abortion".)

Ethics in med school: in theory, yes. But it was pretty darn superficial at mine.
Ethics in CME: not so much.

I feel that "pro-choice" avoids the core question of whether abortion is murder. If you believe that abortion is murder, then choice is irrelevant. Thus, the term "pro-choice" prevents one side from addressing the core issue and leads to a communication failure. "Pro-life" isn't perfect, but it's closer.

How about "I support RvW" vs. "I oppose RvW"?

"Pro-life" usually does not take into account the life of the mother. Your complaint about "pro-choice" locking out one side of the argument applies to "pro-life" too; "pro-life" presupposes that the fetus is alive in a meaningful sense. (And, further, "pro-life" is usually narrowly applied, just to abortion. If you're going to stake out a general term, you need to have a general philosophy to go with it, I think. You yourself most likely do, but not everyone does.)

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say I am "pro-choice" I mean in just about everything. I believe in individual liberty so long as the rights of others are not compromised. Of course, I do not grant the fetus rights and others do, hence the disagreement.

How about "I support RvW" vs. "I oppose RvW"?

Maybe, though it's a little dangerous to mingle a philosophy/policy with one specific decision. What if you agree with the outcome but not the legal reasoning?

I can't speak for anyone else, but when I say I am "pro-choice" I mean in just about everything. I believe in individual liberty so long as the rights of others are not compromised. Of course, I do not grant the fetus rights and others do, hence the disagreement.

This statement makes me think a bit ... in principle I think I agree with your statement.

In the instance where a woman has chosen to become pregnant I think she has made the choice to give up some rights at that point. However, in the case of an injustice (ie, rape), no such choice was made and no rights were given up.

The same, I think, would apply to a woman who has chosen to be a surrogate for a couple that cannot have children themselves.

The one question that I am not sure about is when the choice to become pregnant occurs (more thought needed) ...

>in principle I think I agree with your statement

I would claim that EVERYONE agrees with that statement in principle. But the /application/ of the principle... aye, there's the rub.

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.

[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.]

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?

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.

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

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.

Edited 2009-06-04 15:39 (UTC)

>when I say I am "pro-choice" I mean in just about everything

I would retort that the contingency "so long as the rights of others are not compromised" is so ill-defined that it renders the phrase "pro-choice" meaningless. Furthermore, I will submit that virtually everyone on the political spectrum would claim adherence to that principle, with all variation arising from one's definition of "the rights of others".

We should acknowledge that our philosophical conclusions are near-identical, and that we are arguing linguistics. But, as the second amendment consistently proves, linguistics are important.

>"pro-life" presupposes that the fetus is alive

Hmmm. Does it /presuppose/ that, or does it /claim/ that? In either case, it at least focusses the discussion on the critical issue.

"pro-life" presupposes that the fetus is alive

Here's a neat article that addresses many of the views on this issue:

When does human personhood begin? (http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_when2.htm)

I too wish the discussion surrounding this crime more closely examined its connections to terrorism and hate crimes. In practical terms, the important differentiating factor is that a large fraction of the population shares the criminal's ideological position against abortion, if not his methods. Unfortunately, this factor severely constrains how public personalities cover this story. Even so, it's clear to me that any portrayal (including the eventual prosecution) of the crime as a "mere" murder misses a critical consideration.

I believe the first step is to expand the lexicon (or to take a stand and fully label this crime as a terrorist act). A lynching is more than just a murder. Rape is more than just assault and battery.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

how can a murderer be pro-life?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Abortion--Worth Killing For?!

Re: Abortion--Worth Killing For?!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject