    Stan Finger of The Witchita Eagle reports that George Tiller, an abortion provider, has been shot and killed as he was entering his church. Abortion protestors have long targeted Tiller's clinic and his church. Tiller was shot in both arms in 1993 and his clinic was seriously vandalized earlier this year. At least one anti-abortion site identifies his church and provides a link to the church's site with a map and directions to it.  In my opinion those who engage in incendiary rhetoric share moral responsibility for Dr. Tiller's murder.
    Abortion is the most difficult and most divisive issue in our society. Abortion is surrounded with extraordinarily intricate questions on many levels. There are religious, moral, social, medical, and legal complexities to the problem.
    But there is one thing that I wish that those of you who are opposed to abortion would keep in mind. Abortion is legal. It is not "murder" and no-one has the legal right to defend the unborn by means of force. The principle of "defense of others" has application only when the person who is attacked is about to commit a crime, and as much as you might wish that abortion were against the law, it is not.Â
    Nor is assassination a form of civil disobedience. Acts of civil disobedience are undertaken to change people's hearts and minds. Henry David Thorough, Mohandos Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr., all advocated non-violent resistance to unjust laws, not terrorism, not simply because of religious and moral considerations, but because acts of violence do not persuade others to your point of view – instead they stiffen the resolve of your opponents. In this case I can assure you that those of us who support freedom of choice will redouble our efforts to protect and preserve the rights of women to terminate unwanted pregnancies.
    Since the election of Barack Obama to the office of the Presidency we have witnessed an upsurge of violent rhetoric from the right wing, reminiscent of the armed resistance that occurred after the election of Abraham Lincoln. If you have any tendency to believe that the murder of George Tiller was in any manner justified I remind you of what Lincoln had to say about those who chose the way of force and violence when they cannot prevail in fair elections or in the courts:
Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in it, our people have already settled – the successful establishing, and the successful administering of it. One still remains – its successful maintenance against a formidable [internal] attempt to overthrow it. It is now for them to demonstrate to the world, that those who can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion – that ballots are the rightful, and peaceful, successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly, and constitutionally, decided, there can be no successful appeal, back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they take it by a war – teaching all, the folly of being the beginners of a war.
    Abortion is a difficult question, and reasonable people can disagree about whether it should be legal and whether it is a constitutional right. But there is no room in this debate for people who characterize abortion providers or those who support abortion rights as "murderers." The real murderers are obvious and all too real.
{ 1 trackback }
{ 19 comments }
You don't seem to understand the anti-abortion argument, Professor. If those in opposition didn't consider it murder, they wouldn't be in opposition.
And "owning slaves" was at one point legal in this country. Does that mean it wasn't "owning slaves"?
I wouldn't be quoting Lincoln. He single handedly did more damage to this country than any other President in history. His legacy is apparent in every ghetto in the United States.
Tiller was one of three in this country who provided late term abortions (third trimester, 6-8 month old fetuses). Those abortions result in the killing of viable babies with today's medical technology. To say that is NOT murder is the extremist viewpoint. As larry pointed out previously, just because something is legal doesn't make it right. Late term abortions should be illegal.
But just because I hold that common sense belief (which you may find incendiary) in no way makes me responsible for the killing of George Tiller. I condemn that act. We must be governed by the rule of law, not vigilantism. I'm in total agreement on that point.
I also don't think there's been an "upsurge of violent rhetoric from the right" any more than there was an upsurge of violent rhetoric from the left when Bush was president. Demonizing an entire wings of politics over this one act is mindless. That's like demonizing all Arabs due to 9/11. It's wrong. This nation is supposed to believe in free speech, remember ?
larry defends the killing of the doctor….., Uzi brings race into the discussion, and King condemns the murder but justifies the violent rhetoric from the crazed right that leads to violence.
The Professor gets it exactly right…..here…."Abortion is legal. It is not "murder" and no-one has the legal right to defend the unborn by means of force. The principle of "defense of others" has application only when the person who is attacked is about to commit a crime, and as much as you might wish that abortion were against the law, it is not."
….and here…….."But there is no room in this debate for people who characterize abortion providers or those who support abortion rights as "murderers." The real murderers are obvious and all too real."
I didn't defend the killing of a doctor, Reverend. I critiqued a self-righteous and irrational jeremiad. Of course I can see how you'd be offended.
While I think abortion should generally be legal and I don’t condone the killing of Mr. Tiller, maybe people resorted to bullets because they were deprived of the ballot by justices who decided to fabricate constitutional requirements that were never agreed upon by the people.
Americans elect the people who appoint federal judges. Isn't that correct?
If elected officials appoint the wrong judges who then make wrong decisions, the alternative is not to go out and start killing people…..I mean, is it?
George Tiller started his life as a single ferterlized cell and developed in his mother's womb as a separate and distinct individual. Unlike the unborn children who met their untimely deaths in his abortuary, Tiller was carried to term by his mother, was born, and lived an additional 67 years. His murder was a cruel act of violence. Ironically, his murderer, in a perverse extension of the "pro-choice" ethos espoused by Tiller, chose to end Tiller's life. RIP.
Tiller's murder has, and will, prompt many different reactions. The Professor uses it to denounce the "violent rhetoric of the right wing". The Reverand piles on. But of course, the murder of Tiller was not committed by any "right wing". It was committed by a single man. The commentary on the right that I perused uniformly condemned this act of a solitary individual.
Since, as the Professor states, "abortion is legal", it follows that "it is not murder". But only in the narrow, legal sense of "murder" as defined in the criminal statutes of the various states. In any traditional moral sense, it is, if not murder, certainly wrong.
One of the marks of civilization is that only the state may wield the sword. And only in the name of justice. Abortion is a glaring exception to this standard. In our modern culture of death, the state has delegated a right of violence, the power of life and death, to private individuals. No hearing. No review. No due process. No process at all.
The generations that have come of age in the wake of Roe understand well the contingency of their own lives. Roe teaches that innocence is irrelevant. All that matters is power and position. Abortion cheapens all life because it is anti-life.
Tiller's death is a tragedy. A Greek tragedy in which he was consumed by the violent flames of death he fanned so fanatically over the bodies of unborn children.
God have mercy on us.
Reverend,
My point was to highlight the fact that the abortion issue was never democratically decided as the professor suggests. But, to answer your question, I think there certainly are situations where elected officials and their appointees could abuse their power to the point where it is appropriate to take up arms against the government. For me, the abortion issue doesn’t rise to that level, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t actions the government could take that would warrant a violent response. We are, after all, a nation that founded on the violent overthrow of an abusive government. Elected officials, their appointees, and even the majority of the population are capable of abusing power every bit as much as the monarchy that the founders rebelled against.
RE:"But only in the narrow, legal sense of "murder" as defined in the criminal statutes of the various states. In any traditional moral sense, it is, if not murder, certainly wrong."
So, let me get this straight…..'intent' must be shown before torture is Torture, but all the world should agree with YOUR moral position regarding abortion???
Methinks you have overstepped your right to determine MY moral beliefs.
Although, I thought that we had reached common ground on the torture issue, Dan, the analogy with abortion is quite apt. In abortion, there can be no doubt that the abortionist intends to cause severe pain to the unborn child.
But what makes you think that I am attempting "to determine" your moral beliefs? On the contrary, I hold that you are a responsible moral agent and that you have arrived at your moral worldview without any coercion on my part or the part of any other person. That is precisely why your beliefs (and mine, and those of any other independent moral agent) are open to criticism.
Although I recognize that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed against some of the detainees are somewhat problematic, given the circumstances, I believe they were morally justified. First, they did not maim or permanently injure. Second, as previously stated, even if they did cause severe pain, that was not the intent.
I also hold that abortion is morally wrong. It ends the life of an innocent human being in an extremely painful manner and is intended to do so.
Finally, I hold that any moral system that would accord greater rights (both substantive and procedural) to members of Al Qaeda than to innocent unborn children is manifestly wrong. Indeed, such a system would be immoral.
Yes we did. The common ground was that the actions of elected officials are accountable at the polls.
However, RE:"Although I recognize that the enhanced interrogation techniques employed against some of the detainees are somewhat problematic, given the circumstances, I believe they were morally justified."
That sounds like a defensive strategy that may be used by the alleged murderer of Dr. Tiller. I only mentioned the torture issue because it seems to me that you are selectively supporting narrow legal interpretations in one instance while you cannot accept the narrow fact that under the current laws, legal abortion is not considered murder or 'an extremely painful' procedure.
This is your statement that bothers me: "In any traditional moral sense, it is, if not murder, certainly wrong." You seem to be saying that if I consider myself to have 'traditional morals' (which I do) then I must agree that abortion, in any circumstance, is morally wrong. Please do not hold the misguided impression that traditionally moral people MUST believe that abortion is always wrong.
Dan,
I have explained to you why I believe abortion is morally wrong, regardless of its legal status. Please explain to me your reaoning that it is morally justified.
Morally wrong vs. Illegal?
I seem to recall the concept, "Rule of law" being central to various arguments in the past, and it seems generally to have been approved. Now we seem to a problem with the legal vs moral definitions of murder. I do not believe that a fetus has ever been accorded the status of a human being as a potential victim of murder, until after it emerges from the womb. (This does raise a question of possible murder charges in some late term abortions, and probably ought to be pursued.) The rule that a fetus if not a living human being until birthed goes way way back into common law. I would suspect it goes all the way back to Roman law, but would easily back off that position in the face of scholarly authority to the contrary.
You are saying (some of you) that killing a fetus is murder. The law says it is not. The law might be changed, although I have some doubts that you could muster enough support to get that change. Until then, abortions are not and never have been murder; killing doctors, lawyers, other human beings, even those not productively employed is murder.
There are only two kinds of tyranny that I can think of: that of the majority and that of a minority. Painful though it may seem in any situation that places you/me/us/them in the minority, I believe I would generally rather be ruled by the majority.
Fair enough request…
To begin, please understand that I live in a world of many gray-scale beliefs/opinions. Most of what I see is neither completely black nor pure white. That is not to say that I am indecisive, it merely means that I can see ranges of goodness/badness in many perspectives that are presented to me. Sure, I have certain core personal values that are unbreakable under any circumstances that I can imagine. Those are the values that define me as what I hope will be considered an entity worthy of inclusion into what I believe to be 'a better place' after my death. As stated, those are my values and I do not judge others by the standards I have set for myself.
To understand my position on abortion, you must understand that I value quality of life higher than the mere continuation of life. As an example, I have a Living Will that tells the world that I do not just want to exist even if I am unable to continue the processes that define "me".
An unwanted pregnancy is a situation that can cause uncountable quality of life issues for many individuals for many years. I'm sure both of us can site examples of horrible existences forced onto children that were not wanted. If the orphanages, foster homes, and streets were void of unwanted children, then I could possibly agree that abortion under any circumstances is not an option. Until that time, or until the laws are changed to prohibit it, I believe that abortion can be the lesser of the evils that could happen to a fetus.
Thank you for your heart-felt response, Dan. I suspect that we do not differ much on "quality of life issues" when it comes to our own lives. Where we differ, is when you attempt to impose that view on others. We tread on very dangerous moral ground if we take it upon ourselves to determine that it would have been better if another had never been born. This is especially the case when that decision is entrusted to those who may have a conflict of interest.
History is a great teacher. When man plays God, Death wins. The abortion regime that we have created since Roe coarsens the culture and cheapens life. It may be legal. That does not make it right.
RE:"Where we differ, is when you attempt to impose that view on others." AND "This is especially the case when that decision is entrusted to those who may have a conflict of interest"
1)I never indicated that others should/must believe as I do.
2)'Who' makes the choice is not relavant to our discussion. The issue was whether 'anyone' has the 'right' to make the choice.
3)I think we have reached stalemate on this issue….shall we move on?
You are correct, Dan. I was inarticulate. I should have said "when one attempts to impose that view…." I did not mean to imply that you were attempting to impose your views.
But abortion, by definition, is an act where the abortionist does impose his view on the unborn child, with deathly consequences for the latter.
Are not all arguments attempts by the parties to impose their respective views on others? Attempts to win others to your view? If not why argue? I know it's sort of fun, but sometimes it may be the same kind of fun a vain person derives from looking in the mirror.
But if approached in an enlightened spirit argument is aimed at uncovering the truth. The truth here seems to be that some of us are dissatisfied with the law and would like to see it changed, but probably don't have the votes to get it done. The second truth seems to be that we all disapprove (more or less) of shooting doctors. After all it's a short hop from there to lawyers isn't it? Some of us if selected as jurors would find the perp guilty but would go for a lighter sentence.
There may be one more that pops up fleetingly now and then: A rational person who attempts to argue with a lunatic is wasting THEIR time.
Comments on this entry are closed.