| SHARED SACRIFICE PROGRESSIVE POLITICS AND CULTURE 4 June 2009 |
| SHARED SACRIFICE ON BLOGTALK RADIO M-F 8:00-9:00 PM MT Saturdays 12:00-2:00 PM MT |
 | |  | |  |
THE FALLACY OF JUSTIFIABLE HOMICIDE
A Pro-Life Progressive's Response to the Tiller Murder
4 June 2009
by Jen Roth
"Justifiable homicide," they call it.
On May 31, George Tiller was shot and killed in the narthex of his church in Wichita,
Kansas. Tiller was best known for operating an abortion clinic that performed second-
and third-trimester abortions. Scott Roeder, a former member of the Montana Freemen
and an associate of anti-abortion extremists, has been charged with Tiller's murder.
Roeder has not made any statement about the shooting, but he had contributed to a
magazine called Prayer and Action News, which espoused the position that the killing of
abortion providers was justifiable homicide. Defenders of the "justifiable homicide"
principle argue that if an unborn child is equal to a born person, the same measures that
would be taken to save a born person's life may ethically be taken to stop abortion. If a
man was killing three-year-olds at the day care center down the street, they say, and the
police could not or would not stop him, wouldn't you be justified in using lethal force to
protect those children? Indeed, wouldn't you be morally obligated to?
It's not just supporters, either. Pro-choicers sometimes use this argument to try to prove
that most pro-lifers don't really consider the fetus to be a human being, or to show that
such a belief leads to such horrific consequences that it must be abandoned. People who
put forth this line of reasoning are either reacting emotionally and not thinking very
deeply, or are hoping that their audience is reacting emotionally and not thinking very
deeply. Let's grant for the sake of argument that the embryo or fetus is a human being
who is unjustly deprived of life in an abortion. Even then, killing in defense of self or
others must be a last resort.
There are many nonviolent courses of action open to people who want to prevent
abortions. They can support effective means of preventing unplanned pregnancies.
They can offer direct material and emotional support to pregnant women. They can offer
to adopt. They can promote paternal responsibility. They can speak, write, and create
art to convince the public to reject abortion. If they are religious, they can pray.
Nonviolent options have by no means been exhausted.
At a more fundamental level, to defend Roeder's actions is to undermine the very
structure that best protects the right to life. Some animal rights activists argue that
non-human animals should be granted legal personhood. This is a position that is not
reflected in the laws of our country. They have every democratic tool available to them to
change that reality: they can speak freely, form organizations to promote their beliefs,
protest, vote, and lobby their legislators. They can even engage in civil disobedience.
Suppose that, frustrated by their inability to persuade the public to adopt their position,
they decided to take violent action to prevent the killing of "animal persons". What
argument could the "justifiable homicide" faction of the anti-abortion movement offer to
condemn such animal-rights violence? That non-human animals are not persons? Since
they are in favor of killing to protect beings who are not considered persons by our
society, they would have no leg to stand on. It's far from inherently obvious that only
human beings can be persons -- animal-personhood advocates can put forward
well-reasoned philosophical arguments for their position, just as fetal-personhood
advocates can. If abortion providers are fair game to be targeted under a "justifiable
homicide" doctrine, so are those who kill or benefit from the killing of non-human animals.
Under our social contract, people implicitly agree to give up the freedom to do whatever
they please in exchange for the protections that accrue from having a stable society.
One of those protections is that they may not legally be killed unless they have breached
the social contract. To accept that the killing of abortion providers is justifiable homicide is
to tear up that contract. Playing by the rules would no longer be any assurance of safety.
George Tiller might be killed for performing abortions, or George Foreman might be killed
for encouraging the consumption of meat. Judges might be killed for handing down death
sentences, or generals might be killed for sending soldiers into battle. The laws created
by the democratic process could be overridden by anyone who believes that their cause
is sufficiently just -- which, in effect, means there would be no more democracy.
Roeder despaired that the lives of unborn human beings are not protected. If the logic of
his defenders were to prevail, nobody's life would be protected. It's hard to see how that's
an improvement.
Jen Roth is a writer and editor whose blog is Turn the Clock Forward.
A Pro-Life Progressive's Response to the Tiller Murder
4 June 2009
by Jen Roth
"Justifiable homicide," they call it.
On May 31, George Tiller was shot and killed in the narthex of his church in Wichita,
Kansas. Tiller was best known for operating an abortion clinic that performed second-
and third-trimester abortions. Scott Roeder, a former member of the Montana Freemen
and an associate of anti-abortion extremists, has been charged with Tiller's murder.
Roeder has not made any statement about the shooting, but he had contributed to a
magazine called Prayer and Action News, which espoused the position that the killing of
abortion providers was justifiable homicide. Defenders of the "justifiable homicide"
principle argue that if an unborn child is equal to a born person, the same measures that
would be taken to save a born person's life may ethically be taken to stop abortion. If a
man was killing three-year-olds at the day care center down the street, they say, and the
police could not or would not stop him, wouldn't you be justified in using lethal force to
protect those children? Indeed, wouldn't you be morally obligated to?
It's not just supporters, either. Pro-choicers sometimes use this argument to try to prove
that most pro-lifers don't really consider the fetus to be a human being, or to show that
such a belief leads to such horrific consequences that it must be abandoned. People who
put forth this line of reasoning are either reacting emotionally and not thinking very
deeply, or are hoping that their audience is reacting emotionally and not thinking very
deeply. Let's grant for the sake of argument that the embryo or fetus is a human being
who is unjustly deprived of life in an abortion. Even then, killing in defense of self or
others must be a last resort.
There are many nonviolent courses of action open to people who want to prevent
abortions. They can support effective means of preventing unplanned pregnancies.
They can offer direct material and emotional support to pregnant women. They can offer
to adopt. They can promote paternal responsibility. They can speak, write, and create
art to convince the public to reject abortion. If they are religious, they can pray.
Nonviolent options have by no means been exhausted.
At a more fundamental level, to defend Roeder's actions is to undermine the very
structure that best protects the right to life. Some animal rights activists argue that
non-human animals should be granted legal personhood. This is a position that is not
reflected in the laws of our country. They have every democratic tool available to them to
change that reality: they can speak freely, form organizations to promote their beliefs,
protest, vote, and lobby their legislators. They can even engage in civil disobedience.
Suppose that, frustrated by their inability to persuade the public to adopt their position,
they decided to take violent action to prevent the killing of "animal persons". What
argument could the "justifiable homicide" faction of the anti-abortion movement offer to
condemn such animal-rights violence? That non-human animals are not persons? Since
they are in favor of killing to protect beings who are not considered persons by our
society, they would have no leg to stand on. It's far from inherently obvious that only
human beings can be persons -- animal-personhood advocates can put forward
well-reasoned philosophical arguments for their position, just as fetal-personhood
advocates can. If abortion providers are fair game to be targeted under a "justifiable
homicide" doctrine, so are those who kill or benefit from the killing of non-human animals.
Under our social contract, people implicitly agree to give up the freedom to do whatever
they please in exchange for the protections that accrue from having a stable society.
One of those protections is that they may not legally be killed unless they have breached
the social contract. To accept that the killing of abortion providers is justifiable homicide is
to tear up that contract. Playing by the rules would no longer be any assurance of safety.
George Tiller might be killed for performing abortions, or George Foreman might be killed
for encouraging the consumption of meat. Judges might be killed for handing down death
sentences, or generals might be killed for sending soldiers into battle. The laws created
by the democratic process could be overridden by anyone who believes that their cause
is sufficiently just -- which, in effect, means there would be no more democracy.
Roeder despaired that the lives of unborn human beings are not protected. If the logic of
his defenders were to prevail, nobody's life would be protected. It's hard to see how that's
an improvement.
Jen Roth is a writer and editor whose blog is Turn the Clock Forward.
| There are many nonviolent courses of action open to people who want to prevent abortions. They can support effective means of preventing unplanned pregnancies. They can offer direct material and emotional support to pregnant women. They can offer to adopt. They can promote paternal responsibility. They can speak, write, and create art to convince the public to reject abortion. If they are religious, they can pray. Nonviolent options have by no means been exhausted. |
| Roeder despaired that the lives of unborn human beings are not protected. If the logic of his defenders were to prevail, nobody's life would be protected. It's hard to see how that's an improvement. |
The Late Doctor George Tiller
Scott Roeder
| PROGRESSIVE PRO-LIFE ORGANIZATIONS REACT Here is the public statement issued by Consistent Life, whose website is at http://www.consistent-life.org/ Consistent Life, an international network of 200 groups and many individuals for peace, justice and life, condemns the assassination of Dr. George R. Tiller. Responding to violence with violence only furthers the cycle of violence, which harms all human society. We urge opposition to all forms of violence through creative nonviolent means. Killing people does not demonstrate that killing people is wrong. Executions, whether by governments or private parties, represent moral failures. We hope that people reflecting on the tragedy in Wichita on May 31 will re-examine and reject the idea that violence is an acceptable "solution" to problems, perceived or real. |
"Few organizations really represent us. Feminists for Life and Democrats for Life are
at least friendly to progressives, although both accommodate conservatives as well.
Consistent Life is an umbrella organization for groups and individuals “committed to
the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, abortion, poverty,
racism, capital punishment and euthanasia.” LGBT individuals and their allies
should look into the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.
Grassroots organizing of pro-life progressives has been a long time coming, and the
Internet gives us the ability to find each other and work together. I invite everyone who
identifies as a pro-life progressive, or thinks they might, to join us in the budding
organization All Our Lives."
at least friendly to progressives, although both accommodate conservatives as well.
Consistent Life is an umbrella organization for groups and individuals “committed to
the protection of life, which is threatened in today's world by war, abortion, poverty,
racism, capital punishment and euthanasia.” LGBT individuals and their allies
should look into the Pro-Life Alliance of Gays and Lesbians.
Grassroots organizing of pro-life progressives has been a long time coming, and the
Internet gives us the ability to find each other and work together. I invite everyone who
identifies as a pro-life progressive, or thinks they might, to join us in the budding
organization All Our Lives."
| ALL CONTENT COPYRIGHT 2009 SHARED SACRIFICE MEDIA |