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 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".)

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

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"?

[cellio]

"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?

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

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) ...

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

>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.

[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.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

>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.

[byronhaverford.livejournal.com]

>"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.

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

"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)