The American Spectator : The Spectacle Blog : Murder Still Isn't Pro-Life

Text Size

Murder Still Isn't Pro-Life

By W. James Antle, III on 6.17.09 @ 9:13AM

Daniel Larison and Scott Richert sound the right notes in arguing that there is no pro-life justification for George Tiller's murder, bringing up some points I didn't cover in my rejoinder to Jacob Sullum. Tiller's murderer neither had the civil authority to wield the sword on behalf of the common good nor was he acting in defense of himself or his extended family. The tragedy of legal abortion is that those who have these duties are complicit: the government permits abortion and, since Roe v. Wade, has called it a constitutional right; the mother of the child is the one seeking the abortion; the father is all too often, though certainly not always, the one paying for or otherwise promotion the abortion.

These facts are relevant even when considering another commonly heard rationale for antiabortion violence: the "Good Samaritan" acting in defense of unborn children who have been abandoned unto death by their parents and government. After Tiller's murder I received an email asking, "If your neighbor's house is being invaded by a deranged killer, and you have a gun, you would use it, right?" And indeed, I hope I would act to disable a would-be killer terrorizing my neighbor if I was able to do so.

But in the case of abortion, it is my neighbor who is inviting in the killer. There is no moral certainty that they will not seek another one or use an abortifacient, whereas I can be morally certain I'm actually going to save my neighbor's life if I'm successful according to my correspondent's example. Most importantly, we live in a community where virtually everyone understands that invading a home and killing its occupants is wrong, probably including the killer himself. No one would confuse my actions to save my neighbor with the actions of the home invader.

None of that is true with abortion. In this country there are millions of otherwise decent people, with good intentions and of sound mind, who do not see anything wrong with abortion. There are millions more who have moral qualms about abortion but would be confused by violent acts by avowed pro-lifers against abortionists, hardening their hearts against the unborn rather than forming their consciences against abortion. And the people who most need to have their consciences formed against abortion are the mothers who seek them, the fathers who pay for them, and the government officials who act to legalize or subsidize the practice. In addition to not having any right or duty to dispense lethal violence, Tiller's murderer is likely unleashing greater evils than the evil he sought to prevent.

Sometimes violence, even lethal violence, is justified. But a real pro-life ethic seeks to limits the use of violence, put strict conditions on when and by what authority the taking of a life can occur, and to keep private individuals from being able to easily make decisions about who lives and who dies. However reprehensible Tiller's line of work was, there are many things that can be said about a fanatic gunning a man down in cold blood while he is at church. "Pro-life" isn't one of them.

UPDATE: The Weekly Standard carries an interesting article about the thinking of antiabortion killers.

View all comments (13) | Leave a comment

Jill Elswick| 6.17.09 @ 9:44AM

Tiller's work reprehensible? No. He served women in heartbreaking circumstances. He served those who found out, late in their pregnancies, that their child would not survive outside the womb. Babies, for example, that developed without a brain (anencephaly). How dare you call his work "reprehensible." Do you think these mothers came to their decision lightly? Late-term abortions account for less than 1% of all abortions. The mothers *wanted* these babies, yet came to the - heartbreaking, I assure you - conclusion that termination was best for both child and mother. How dare you condescend to these mothers by accusing them of "hardening their hearts against the unborn." No. They loved.

Sean| 6.17.09 @ 10:32AM

Fact is Tiller's killing was an illegal act according to written law, but not necessarily an immoral one. Killing someone to save the life of not just one person, but possibly thousands can be considered a moral act. There is no stipulation that the lives being saved have to be a related, that is just absurd. This is equivalent of someone killing a functionary of any of the many past mass murdering regimes in recent history. If the motive of the killing is to help stop the murder of innocent victims then the act is moral.

Jason Schuler| 6.17.09 @ 11:30AM

Tiller made millions off of killing viable babies. I happen to believe in life hereafter and think that he will be accountable for all the lives that he cut short. However, that makes no impact on the morality of killing this man. We are under a government and must obey it's laws. We must elect politicians to enact laws and must abide by them. For those who believe in prayer - that is the ultimate way to make changes in society.

WJ| 6.17.09 @ 11:41AM

Speaking just about the analogy you use.

You say that "my neighbor who is inviting in the killer", which is true. However the neighbor is inviting the "killer" in to kill the neighbor's child.

You wrote about saving the neighbor's life, when it would be saving the life of the neighbor's child.

Brian Kirk| 6.17.09 @ 3:07PM

Jill: This interview of Diane Elder by Anderson Cooper is profound.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-balan/2009/06/03/cnns-cooper-spotlights-woman-who-decided-against-late-term-abortion

Johnno| 6.17.09 @ 5:54PM

Tiller's assassin is a killer and so was Tiller. Both men will answer for their misdeeds.

W. James Antle III| 6.17.09 @ 6:39PM

Jill is absolutely right that many late-term abortions involve hard-cases, scenarios where women who wanted their children find themselves in heartbreaking circumstances. Unfortunately, late-term abortions also involve the destruction of highly developed unborn children, which is why so few doctors perform them and even many supporters of legal abortion oppose them.

As for Sean's comment, I'm not suggesting that you have to be related to someone to save their life. But Tiller's murderer wasn't acting in self-defense or in defense of his family. He wasn't exercising civil authority as part of the government. And he wasn't engaging in an act of revolution against an illegitimate government that was performing or coercing abortions.

So before Tiller's murderer can claim to have used lethal violence as a "Good Samaritan," we have to ask whose lives did he save. Since the women seeking Tiller's services can go to another abortionist or use an abortifiacient, we cannot know to a moral certainty that any lives were saved. Even if we assume that all the abortions Tiller was to have performed will never occur -- since Tiller did commit late-term abortions that are not performed by many others -- if the act of violence helps reinforce a culture where 1 million abortions occur a year, then it still promoted greater evil than it solved.

Sean continues, "If the motive of the killing is to help stop the murder of innocent victims then the act is moral. " But the motive of many women who seek late-term abortions is to avoid pain and suffering for their children, who as Jill notes above may have abnormalities incompatible with their long-term survival. That, along with helping women, may have been Tiller's motive for performing late-term abortions. Does that make the reality of those acts moral? Then the actions of Tiller's murderer cannot be judged solely by motives.

Finally, WJ writes that abortion is analogous to intervening to save my neighbor's children, not my neighbor. But in the case of the home invader, I know to a moral certainty that I have saved my neighbor's child. I do not know this with abortion. And is WJ prepared to do lethal violence to his neighbor to save his neighbor's children?

The point of being pro-life is to reduce the incidence of killing and death by placing further restrictions on the ability of private individuals to decide which of their neighbors will live and die. It is not to come up with more loopholes to justify killing. Many people in our society sincerely believe they are doing the right thing by procuring or performing abortions. A "pro-life" position that claims the right to take the lives of so many of our countrymen is unworthy of the name.

Sean| 6.17.09 @ 11:59PM

I believe Jill is actually wrong on the reasons for most late term abortions.
http://www.nrlc.org/ABORTION/pba/pbafact9.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late-term_abortion

We can judge whether Tiller's killer was committing a moral act or immoral one based on his motives. If he killed Tiller to steal his wallet then the killing would be murder and immoral.

Tiller's motives I think are immaterial. There seems to be ample evidence that his goals weren't altruistic and even if so the evidence points to destruction of innocent life. There also was no evidence that he would stop without force being used. This is sort of like claiming a Nazi doctor doing medical experiments on what he believes to be subhumans is innocent because he believes he did no wrong and it was legal. Killing that doctor would be considered a moral act even if someone was waiting in the wings to pick up were the former doctor left off. To be a Good Samaritan you don't have to succeed in all your goals.

I think abortion in the USA and the killing of Tiller is a study of human behavior. It shows what most people value including those that are pro life, which is rule of law compared to lawlessness. Even if that law protects immoral behavior.

Angel| 6.18.09 @ 1:24AM

Jill, Tiller performed more than 60,000 late term abortions in his 35 year medical career. He charged $5000-$6000 per abortion which earned him more than $300,000,000--that's nearly 1/3 of a billion dollars. I don't know how noble Tiller was but he died an extremely wealthy man.

It has been documented that many of Tiller's late term abortions in which the babies were 8-8 1/2 months gestation were done for trivial reasons such as panic attacks or depression in the mother. Many were not 'hard' cases at all.

So, Jill, how dare you turn your head and ignore the savage killing of perfectly healthy, viable babies who were torn from their mothers' wombs for trivial reasons. Shame on you for trying to obfuscate the horror that Tiller caused these innocent angels.

The murder of Doctor Tiller was wrong, but I'll never shed tears on the monster's behalf.

choice joyce| 6.18.09 @ 1:44PM

I think some of the comments on this article typify the "pro-life" attitude that excuses the murder of Dr. Tiller and supports his murderer because of what Dr. Tiller was perceived to have done wrong. "Mainstream" anti-abortion groups can publicly denounce the murder all they want, but it's very clear that a large percentage of their rank and file "pro-life" members - probably most of them - support the murder or at least are happy that Dr. Tiller is dead and think he deserved his fate.

This means the difference between so-called "peaceful pro-lifers" and violent pro-lifers is just a matter of degree. They are all bound by the belief that abortion is murder - some just believe it more than others and decide to act on it, knowing they'll be honored as martyrs by certain parts of the "pro-life" movement.

The anti-choice movement is fundamentally anti-life, because they really don't give a damn what will happen to women who desperately need Dr. Tiller's services. Or to the half a million women who die every year due to preventable pregnancy problems, including unsafe abortion. They are willing to knowingly sacrifice ALL those women (and often their babies too), rather than ensure that governments in developing countries provide basic reproductive health services to women, simply because they mistakenly think "reproductive health services" is a code phrase for abortion.

Note to Sean: Jill is NOT wrong, she's talking about 3rd trimester abortions, and the links you cite are talking mostly about 2nd trimester abortions.

Angel| 6.18.09 @ 5:48PM

Choice--you pro-aborts lie, lie and lie some more. No one believes your phony statistics--you'll say anything to keep the money rolling in your direction. You'll rip and tear any healthy, live baby from its mother's womb, anytime of the day or night as long as you can pocket that cash. It's all about money with you pro aborts because you sure don't care about women.

You protect Planned Parenthood when they botch abortions and young girls die due to incompetence or dirty clinic conditions. You encourage underage girls to have abortions even if they could be victims of rape. You lie and skirt the law all of the time.

Sorry, as a pro lifer I won't let you define me by the actions of a single killer, and I won't let your veiled threats keep me from speaking out. Over 70% of Americans think late-term abortion is WRONG! Wrap your demented brain around that, Choice. Over 50% of Americans consider themselves PRO-LIFE! You pro abort fanatics are shrinking in numbers--that's the reason for your shrill rhetoric and lies.

You'll never shut me up, Choice. I'll never stop reminding people that babies in the womb are our precious Angels who deserve all of the love and compassion we can muster. How can we hurt these innocent children? They are OUR children.

Abortion is a deep red stain on our country and all of our lives have been degraded by its barbarity. God forgive us for this most heinous sin.

W. James Antle III| 6.21.09 @ 3:49PM

Sean is trying to have it both ways here:

"Tiller's motives I think are immaterial."

He wants to justify the actions of Tiller's murderer based on intentions and motives, but judge others only by their actions. Except he also wants to argue about Tiller's motives. This makes no sense. In fact, motive, the action itself, and the consequences are all necessary to determine whether an act is moral.

"This is sort of like claiming a Nazi doctor doing medical experiments on what he believes to be subhumans is innocent because he believes he did no wrong and it was legal."

But I am not the one arguing that sincerely held beliefs entitle us to kill people. A Nazi doctor who so believed would not be innocent. Tiller was not innocent. Tiller's murderer is not innocent. Whether they can justifiably be killed, under what circumstances, and by what authority are separate questions.

"Killing that doctor would be considered a moral act even if someone was waiting in the wings to pick up were the former doctor left off."

Yes, if we are talking about a new, legitimate government coming in and executing the Nazi doctor for his crimes. Not necessarily if we are talking about a private individual acting as judge, jury, and executioner on his own.

"To be a Good Samaritan you don't have to succeed in all your goals. "

That's because in most cases the Good Samaritan's work doesn't involve killing. When it does, yes you have to have a reasonable chance of succeeding at your goals. You are not a Good Samaritan if killing is your only goal, even if the person being killed is in some sense guilty. A Good Samaritan's goal must be to actually save a life.

I'm responding to Sean's posts because they are dangerous, they ignore crucial moral distinctions (such as between combatants and noncombatants), and they are damaging to the pro-life movement. A successful pro-life movement will convince parents of their duty to their unborn children and just governments of their duty to give unborn children legal protection. That's an infinitely more pro-life approach than giving private citizens more power to decide which of their countrymen will live or die.