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.
