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]

"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 :)

[dvarin.livejournal.com]

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.

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

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?

[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.

[nickjong.livejournal.com]

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.

[cellio]

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.

[cellio]

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.

[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".)

[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 :)

[dragontdc.livejournal.com]

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?

[alaricmacconnal.livejournal.com]

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.

[dragontdc.livejournal.com]

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.

[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?

[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]

>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]

>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.

[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.

[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.]

[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.

[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)

[zevabe.livejournal.com]

Why do you feel your analogy is superior?