Is It Really So Complicated?
John Schwenkler June 1st, 2009
What Freddy said:
If, however, we jump out of Sullum’s utilitarian circle for a moment and try to comprehend the idea — central to nearly all abortion opposition — that killing human beings is intrinsically wrong, then it becomes entirely possible to see why people can abhor the life-work of George Tiller while condemning his murder.
Filed under: abortion, morality
HC, had your position been the standard of the anti-abortion movement, I could only agree with you. However, the standard bearer has been Randall Terry, and his disciple, Scott Roeder.
However much anti-abortionists might disagree, Tiller provided a legally sanctioned service. Randall Terry and Scott Roeder do not get to decide what is and what is not murder. That is a matter of law, not of personal choice.
Until the law changes, and may that never happen, Tiller was a good doctor and Roeder no more than a Christianist terrorist, intrinsically no different from the 9/11 terrorists.
Jake
So this is John, not HC. But in what sense is Randall Terry the standard-bearer” of the pro-life movement?
I’m not a big fan of Randall Terry, but to my knowledge he has never advocated violence against abortionists. Also there is no obligation to use the term murder only in the legal sense, especially since this would automatically exempt all government sponsored or approved homicide from being called murder. Tiller was not a good doctor; he was a mass murderer. Roeder (assuming that he is the assassin) is indeed a terrorist, but I am not even sure he is a Christian terrorist. There is a report out today that he belongs to what was termed “an obscure sect” which follows Jewish religious traditions. I consider myself a full spectrum pro-life Christian – anti-abortion, anti-war, anti-execution, anti-terrorism. Anyone who wishes to advance the culture of life must do so first in their own lives by refraining from any form of aggression. I’ll be at the local abortion mill today, as I usually am every Tuesday, quietly praying the rosary.
John, sorry, I didn’t recognize that HC wasn’t the poster.
Randall Terry is one of the most visible anti-abortionists. Some definition time:
stan·dard-bear·er (stndrd-bârr)
n.
1. One who carries a standard or banner, especially of a military unit.
2. An outstanding leader or representative of a movement, organization, or political party.
I would say Terry fits #2. Maybe your mileage varies.
Kirt, you have every constitutional right to protest every Tuesday. I am glad you avail yourself of that opportunity without fear of pro-choice activists shooting you for attempting to take away legal choice from all women.
Job 34
1 Then Elihu said:
2 “Hear my words, you wise men;
listen to me, you men of learning.
3 For the ear tests words
as the tongue tastes food.
4 Let us discern for ourselves what is right;
let us learn together what is good.
5 “Job says, ‘I am innocent,
but God denies me justice.
6 Although I am right,
I am considered a liar;
although I am guiltless,
his arrow inflicts an incurable wound.’
7 What man is like Job,
who drinks scorn like water?
8 He keeps company with evildoers;
he associates with wicked men.
The anti-abortion movement associates with wicked men, Kirt. Terry associates personally knew Roeder. Terry himself denounces the murder, then says Tiller “reaped what he sowed.” Their cries of innocence are Job’s cries.
All those decrying Tiller’s activities as murder are Job, whining about his innocence while keeping company with the Scott Roeders of the world.
About the Christianist – I apologize. Roeder may, or may not be Christian. Terry and virtually all other anti-abortionist organizations ARE Christian. They are Roeders fellow travelers.
You can’t continually paint a man as a murderer, then claim innocence when your words incite murder.
Jake
Jake, the problem with your characterization of Randall Terry is the exclusivity. Certainly he is a leader of certain groups in the pro-life movement, and has been in the public eye intermittently for some time. But your characterization suggests that it doesn’t matter what anybody else says, because Randall Terry is unquestionably the voice of the movement. And that’s simply not true – if it were, there would be far fewer pro-lifers who think he is a counter-productive showboater.
And sorry, the pro-choice side doesn’t get to just decree that nobody shall call an abortionist a murderer. As Freddie and John point out, the core assertion of the pro-life side is that killing an innocent human being is murder. Your convenient legal positivism about murder is not an authoritative basis for establishing the terms of the debate. It is entirely possible to say that someone is committing (legally sanctioned) homicide without calling for vigilantism.
Your interpretation of Job puzzles me greatly. He’s the one who gets vindicated in the end, not his questioners. But that’s beside the main point.
Well not all such killing is murder – for one thing, it has to be purposeful. I do think that there’s a case to be made, or at least considered, that in the case of abortion the necessary mens rea for genuine murder is missing; but in any case, Jake’s last claim is just wrongheaded: clearly “So-and-so is a murderer” doesn’t at all entail “So-and-so deserves to be murdered” …
Fair point, John – I should have said that the core assertion is that killing an innocent human being is always impermissible. And I see that Freddie put that point forward as well. But your reasons for hesitating to use the term “murderer” are very different from Jake’s, as you know.
Put it this way, Jake: what stops one from establishing guilt by association for anyone who holds a position on some controversial issue where certain extremists who are also on that side (broadly construed) do unconscionable things in the name of their cause?
The question of under what conditions, if any, it is permissible to kill someone to defend the innocent is a tough one, and it’s entirely unfair to try to simplify the issue as Sullum does: that amounts to a cheap trick to rule out of debate any position that holds that innocents are being killed. It’s part of that cheap trick that he reduces all the difficult distinctions to be made about proportionality and the like, when the question is whether one could kill to protect the innocent, to “tactics.” That’s just ridiculous.If he wanted to point out that it’s not obvious why somebody who a) thinks sometimes killing is justified to protect the innocent, and b) abortion is the killing of the innocent shouldn’t conclude that it might be ok in some cases to kill abortionists, then that would have been a potentially interesting piece. The real point is that pro-lifers who aren’t total pacifists have to deal with a tricky area of ethics, when thinking about this question in the abstract. But the fact that there’s a tricky area of ethics in the background is all the more reason one has a responsibility not to oversimplify here.
Having written that last post, I think I disagree with you and Freddie on the diagnosis of Sullum’s piece. I think it’s more a matter of oversimplifying than overcomplicating things. I guess it could be both: he oversimplifies the issue of killing to protect the innocent, in the process shifting things into a utilitarian framework, after which his line of thought has to go into a calculus of utility. Or maybe it’s this: he overcomplicates things by bringing up killing to protect the innocent at all, because that’s clearly not justified in this case, so getting all belligerent about it in the abstract is just wrong-headed.
I don’t see why the fact that Randall Terry associated personally with Roeder (if that is the case) speaks so badly of Terry. As an activist, Terry has associated with thousands of people over the years, including me. Does that make him responsible for what any or all of us do? Of course, if he knew in advance what Roeder was planning and did nothing to stop or warn against it, that would be a serious sin, let alone if he encouraged it. But there is no evidence at all that he either encouraged Roeder to violence or failed to warn.
At least one interpretation of Job has Elihu acting as mediator, advising Job, apparently with God’s okay. So, one could read the passage I gave above as Elihu gently chastising a friend, to that friends good ends.
Which is certainly how I intended it. :)
Jake