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

[sethg]

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.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

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.