The meaning of the word Murder is exactly what I have been pondering. If I saw a man driving a car through crowds of children, and I saw he was headed toward another group – what force is appropriate to stop him? I invite you to answer that question for yourself too. The answer probably jumps to us pretty quickly.
Here is the rub, what do I (or you) REALLY believe about the meaning of the term "unborn child"?
The tragic killing of Dr. George Tiller challenges our true beliefs about the unborn. Dr. Tiller was willing to perform abortions after the 21st week of pregnancy. If I actually believed that 21-week (and later) fetuses were unborn children, then isn't the same amount of force appropriate to stop Tiller the same as if he were driving a car through crowds of children?
If I don't condone using brute force to stop persons like Tiller, am I conceding I don't really believe he was killing unborn children or conceding I'm a coward? I wish people who toss around words like "abortion is murder" and "you're killing unborn children" would think about this. If they mean it, and they're not stalking abortion doctors are they cowards?
Personally, since I can’t be sure a 21-week fetus is a life, I can decry Tiller’s murder. But I am aware of the safety of my choice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I have a difficult time with the set up of the reader in your post, as well as the black and white nature.
The set up is a sensational situation that then sets up the reader to fall into a trap. If I say I would do nothing to stop the car, what kind of person am I? But if I say I wouldn't take violent action to stop a partial birth provider who is also killing babies (if that is what you view), I am also a monster. It seems that your post could be a call to arms for anti-abortion people. Not for sure you intended that.
The fact is that the two situations you describe (partial birth abortion and a rouge car running through a crowd of children) are two distinct situations that require different responses.
The fact that it is implied that the two situations deserve the same response is too black and white for me. Such a view does not reflect the true difficulties of life and the fact that life is shades of gray. I too take comfort and acknowledge the safety of that position since it allows me to have different views on related topics. “A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines” Ralph Waldo Emerson.
If a person opposed to abortion, partial birth or otherwise, holds that view because it is always wrong to take a life, then I guess it would always be wrong to kill Dr. Tiller. As far as the person in the first scenario, I agree with Erick that the analogy doesn't hold. Adrenaline and fear would have a lot to do with my response in that situation, although since I don't carry a gun, I'm not sure how I could use lethal force on him to begin with.
By definition, an analogy is not an exact replica. I find the diversion to the analogy to be evidence of the difficulty of the premise of my post - matching our words with our actions is very difficult in the issue of abortion. And really something we don't like to think about.
Words matter, and those that call abortion murder should be willing to act on it or I question how sincerely they mean it.
I get what you're saying. I just have a hard time going there, but then again I don't have the extreme emotions about abortion to which I think you're referring.
So I look forward to the thoughts from some of the proclaimed anti-abortionist readers.
I've thought about this dilemma in the past and found a similarity to that of German citizens during the Nazi holocaust. From my readings on the topic, it is apparent that feelings varied widely. Some Germans knew the death camps were wrong but believed that they (the citizens) could not be blamed for them because they were not active perpetrators. Think, "Not my doing; not my problem." Some supported the camps as an unfortunate means to a higher end of creating a utopia. Some believed strongly enough against the camps that they decided to act against them. Of those, some hid Jews in their homes while others participated in the active resistance. The most extreme cases of resistance involved assassination.
Americans' seem to have an oddly similar view of abortion. Few like it. Many see it as an unfortunate necessity. Some actively work against it. The most extreme have killed to stop it. (Please don't post responses accusing me of comparing pro-choice people to Nazis.)
I tend to think that the most enlightened Germans were the ones who offered sanctuary to potential victims rather than planted bombs on perpetrators. Killing to prevent killing requires ethical acrobatics. Similarly, if one believes that abortion is murder, I I think one ought to respond accordingly. But, that response ought to be a right/good action in and of itself.
I guess my bottom line is similar to what JNF said at the end of his post.
It seems that no matter what the reason, killing is never a good choice, even though it is the choice that sometimes is the only one available and must be made. And killing, no matter what the reason, always has consequences. One example is the mental anquish suffered by soldiers. Even if one kills to defend another, there are still natural consequences to the killer, even if he is excused by both the law and popular opinion.
This is similar to my thoughts about the death penalty, I don't think that killers should be killed (by the state in this case), but I do firmly believe that they should be stopped so others can be safe.
I am anti-abortion as well, I believe that it ends a life (though I am unsure at what point life begins, so I am by no means black and white about it) and there are natural consequences to that choice, even if there are no consequences by law. I do not think we should kill those who perform abortions, but I do believe that the majority of abortions should be stopped (without the use of illegal or immoral action.) Most pro-choice people are not pro-abortion, but I do differ with their views on what the fetus actually is, but does our difference of views make them killers in my eyes? No, again, because we can't be sure on this issue of when life begins. What I personally believe about when life begins doesn't dictate the truth for everyone.
What do I personally do to decrease abortion? Facilitate various groups and recovery-oriented programs to help people learn to make better choices to begin with, so that they aren't in positions where they even have to consider abortion. Those groups also include people who are grieving past abortions and the consequences of them. I have never said it is wrong, and most times neither do they, but the grief and consequences are real to them regardless of what they previously or currently believe about when life begins. I'm not saying I do a lot, and of course I could do more, but I'm doing something to deal with the root issues, I believe.
As far as your original scenario with the car running over children, I hope that in that moment I would be willing to do what is necessary to save the lives of others, even if it means suffering the consequences of doing something that is utterly awful and possibly wrong. That said, I would not consider killing that person after the danger to others is no longer immediate.
Last thing, since most people don't hold back on their comments, neither will I. I realize that what I am about to say is both personal and emotional. I can't believe that you don't view your own 21 week old fetus as a life, because it would seem in the course of everyday life that you indeed do consider it (him) a life. It causes me to question how strongly you really hold the "fetus is not a life" view, or if you are merely stating it more strongly in this blog to elicit response. Or, maybe it's just my desire that we believe the same thing about our fetus that is causing me to doubt the strength of your views. Either way, I'm curious.
Oh, forgot to say that even though I do believe that a 21 week old fetus is a life, I still decry Tiller's murder, just as I decry the murder of a convicted murderer, or an unborn child, or any other mix of innocent or evil lives.
I have been debating in my mind all of the questions this post and prior posts on this blog have raised. Is it ever okay to kill? What does it mean to be about the work of ending suffering? Do I have to cause one person to suffer in order to try and prevent the suffering of others? I have not arrived at conclusive or easy answers. Ultimately the question that keeps nagging me through all of this is:
Is protection of human life on this earth the ultimate goal, above all else?
If the answer is yes than a simple mathmatical equation resulting in the highest percentage of human survival should be our moral compass, right?
If not - it gets a little tricky.
Thoughts42Day's post could be a page taken directly out of Jeremy Bentham's works on Utilitarianism, which push for "the greatest good for the greatest number." There's the simple math.
That philosophy runs into immediate moral caveats. A higher rate of survival, even thriving, could easily be achieved if we were to sacrifice some for the many. You could easily use torture, slavery or other inhumanities perpetrated on a few to dramatically increase the survival of many. Even eugenics becomes possible if you expand the timeline. Killing off people today to rid the human race of harmful traits would, in the long run, make for much greater rates of survival.
I don't think "protection of human life on this earth" is "the ultimate goal, above all else." I think HOW a person lives is more important than THAT a person lives. We all die. It is how we live that matters most.
If a pro-lifer believes abortion is murder; also believes it is justified to kill a rogue auto driver on an imminent course with a crowd of lovely, ice cream licking children - is he a coward for not murdering abortion doctors or is he simply insincere in his claim to be pro-life? The implication is that pro-lifers are either hypocrites or cowards. Ouch! As a pro-lifer, I’m offended, as a hypocrite and a coward I shrug my shoulders and say “Yep, that’s me…imperfect and perfectly human.”
The analogy used here just doesn’t hold up. DVD says that killing a man driving into a crowd of children is the same as killing an abortion doctor. To get closer to an analogy that might work would be this: killing a man who has already killed a crowd of children with the car and plans to do it again while he’s walking down the street drinking a mochaccino is the same as killing an abortion doctor.
If I’m witness to the careening car, my goal is to stop the man not to kill him. Now, killing him might be the incidental result, or might be the final thing necessary to stop him. Even if I happen to be packing heat under my sundress, I won’t shoot him in the head right off, I’d shoot at the tires or maybe leap into the vehicle to grab the wheel. So, if I happen to walk upon an abortion in progress, my goal would be to stop the incident; not murder the doctor. I might bowl him over with a football-like tackle or even run off with his forceps; but I won’t be reaching down to my ankle holster to pull out my pink, lady gun.
The murder of the abortion doctor is a kind of vigilantism. It would be the same as stalking the murderous car driver and shooting him down on his way out of the court house.
I think that my belief that abortion is wrong and my belief that killing a man to prevent a crime is justified; does not conflict with my belief that shooting an abortion doctor is also wrong. My heart aches for Dr. Tiller and his family just as much as my heart aches for the children he aborted. I don’t think that makes me a hypocrite….Hey, I’m complicated like that.
I think it's necessary to ask the similar question regarding torture. (apologies for changing the subject)
If we know that a proven child-runner-overer is planning to kill again -- often by his own admission -- and we catch his accomplice, is it not appropriate to utilize "any means necessary" to find out when and where the next terrorist act is planned for the purposes of stopping it? Will due process take too long and lead to the allowance of more killing?
This past season of 24 greyed the moral lines of torture. At what point does "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" include government-sanctioned harm to an individual?
I appreciate the conversation. I was intentionally abstract, somewhat of a Rorschach test in what people thought about appropriate violence to protect children (that sentence should be a moral oxymoron). Several readers assumed they knew my level of accepted violence toward the car driver, but all I said was "whatever that is to you..."
Great conversation from all of you. This topic is not easily discussed, even among thinking people.
For myself, I cannot find a way to morally justify killing (or torturing) even when lives are at stake; yet I also cannot fathom being put in that position. To borrow from jNf (and nice new pic, by the way), "if one believes that abortion is murder, I think one ought to respond accordingly. But, that response ought to be a right/good action in and of itself."
Thanks DVD. I flew to South Beach to have that picture taken so I'd look good in my posts. Because, in the end, isn't looking good really what's important?
Post a Comment