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

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

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 :)

[cellio]

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.

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

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?

[cellio]

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.