cellio: (hubble-swirl)
Monica ([personal profile] cellio) wrote2009-06-02 09:07 pm
Entry tags:

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.

[identity profile] ralphmelton.livejournal.com 2009-06-03 04:20 pm (UTC)(link)
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.

[identity profile] dvarin.livejournal.com 2009-06-03 06:18 pm (UTC)(link)
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)

[identity profile] alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com 2009-06-04 02:07 am (UTC)(link)
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.