dotCommonweal » Blog Archive » Abortion Doctor Shot to Death in Kansas

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 1:18 pm

In another string not long ago I quoted from an article by David Klinghoffer titled Baby Talk that I found in First Things when I was attempting to find out more about the Jewish position on abortion. Klinghoffer, Literary Editor of National Review and presumably, I can only imagine, not a “pro-choice” liberal, argues that the language of the pro-life movement (including some prominent Catholics), if taken seriously, would justify a violent response against those promoting and performing abortions. Klinghoffer is arguing against the language and not for the violence. Strangely, the link I provided to the article no longer works, and I cannot find the article by searching First Things. I do have a copy, however, and this is Klinghoffer’s conclusion:

There is a gap in reasoning here. Assume that a fetus is a child. Then every five years, the United States allows the murder of more babies than the Nazis killed Jews. Yes, the authorities who guarantee the right of abortion and the doctors who carry out the surgery do not believe fetuses are human beings, but neither did the Nazis believe that Jews are human beings. In one case the government itself organized the act of genocide. In the other, the government guarantees the right of a subpopulation-abortionists-to commit genocide. So if a fetus is a child, what’s the big difference?

The truth is, the distinctions offered by the intellectuals and activists I refer to have about them a distinct air of excuse-making. Imagine that fifty years ago a theologian of moral seriousness equal to that of Cardinal O’Connor found himself outside the gate of Auschwitz and holding a machine gun, given the opportunity to liberate some prisoners by shooting a couple of guards. Had you at that moment admonished him-saying “two wrongs do not make a right”-one assumes he would not have been deterred.

I know from experience that most abortion foes are people moved not by some psychosexual desire to enslave women, as pro-abortion activists frequently allege, but by a commitment to moral sentiments. If these intelligent and passionately engaged men and women believed with a whole heart that abortion is murder, if they really believed that the lives of a million actual children are at stake every year, then I have no doubt they would be organizing clandestine paramilitary units to move against abortion providers at this moment. They would find justification in Thomas Aquinas and John Calvin.

Thank God they are not arming for guerrilla war. Yet neither that fact, nor any admiration for their moral commitments, should excuse such sloppy language. For language has consequences. Just as you must not shout “fire” in a theater crowded with people, you must not say “murder” and “child” in a movement that includes people, however few, like John Salvi.

Of course, we don’t know for a fact yet who killed Dr. Tiller, or why, but I doubt that we are going to be surprised when we find out the motive. What surprises me is that, although language has consequences, there hasn’t been much violence of this type for about a decade. With the recent surge in extreme rhetoric lately, a lot of it as a consequence of Notre Dame’s invitation to Obama, let’s hope the Tiller murder is an isolated incident and not the beginning of a wave of violence.

Posted by william collier
on May 31st, 2009 at 1:20 pm

I hope that pro-life organizations will immediately and forcefully condemn this violence. Answering violence with violence is never the way, and that the shooting happened in a church makes such violence even more of an offense against God.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on May 31st, 2009 at 1:51 pm

Amen, Cathleen and William.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on May 31st, 2009 at 1:53 pm

Amen also to this immediate and forceful statemeny in the article that Cathleen links to:

“”We are shocked at this morning’s disturbing news that Mr. Tiller was gunned down,” anti-abortion group Operation Rescue said in a statement on its Web site. “Operation Rescue has worked for years through peaceful, legal means, and through the proper channels to see him brought to justice. We denounce vigilantism and the cowardly act that took place this morning. We pray for Mr. Tiller’s family that they will find comfort and healing that can only be found in Jesus Christ.”"

Posted by Nancy Dallavalle
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:05 pm

I posted this on my blog:

“Anyone who has identified with the label “pro-life” needs to clearly condemn the murder, this morning, of Dr. George Tiller, shot at church….

We have free speech, we have the democratic process, we have courts.

This act is an example of the culture of death in action, without remainder.

Rest in peace, Dr. Tiller.”

I think that “we” — there may be some other pro-life progressives lurking here — should not shrug off the need to speak clearly onto the “movement people.” We ALL need to clearly condemn this.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:08 pm

I agree, Nancy. And I think David is right about language.

Posted by Crystal Watson
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:15 pm

Andrew Sullivan wrote about this – Christianist terrorism is no more defensible than Islamist terrorism – I agree.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:29 pm

Nancy is right. Now more than ever pro-life progressives need to articulate that a commitment to nonviolence is not incompatible with a commitment against extreme, massive social injustice. The right and left insist on either rejecting nonviolence or softpeddaling the nature of the injustice. But it’s because of the extremity of the injustice of abortion that nonviolence as a response is so imperative. We need more voices to explain adopting nonviolence and solidarity as a response to abortion is not a suggestion that abortion is not murder and preborn children are not persons and their murder is not as unjust as other killings. Quite the opposite: it is precisely because abortion is a systematic injustice of such massive proportions and because it represents killing as a solution to people’s problems and cruelly pits family members violently against each other that our responses should be even more purely nonviolent. People who care about nonviolence as a pinnacle of the Christian approach to societal and personal problems understand that nonviolence is cheapened and trivialized when peopne insist that it’s only appropriate for the less serious societal problems, and that if abortion is really that bad vigilante violence is inevitably justified, and that people who speak truth and honor to the oppressed by calling injustice what it is must also accept violence and in fact they are responsible when violence happens.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:45 pm

I just reread the First Things Symposium on shooting abortion doctors. In light of what happened today, I found Robby George’s statement quite chilling. I certainly hope he issues a new one.

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php?year=2007&month=01&title_link=killing-abortionists-a-symposium-31

Posted by Ann Olivier
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:46 pm

David Nickol –

Thqnk ror the quote from First Things. It brings up an important part of the abortion problem that is rarely if ever addressed in any depth and which needs to be — the use of inflammatory language. Unfortunately, we often use insulting and frightening language without even being aware that we are doing it — note the irony in your quote in which the author says early on that abortion is “murder”, but at the end he points out that calling prochoice people “murderers” is inflammatory and unjust when they do not think the fetus is a person.

I think we need a thread sometime on the immorality of the use of such language. It is not a simple problem, I think, because sometimes — only sometimes — such language is needed tor saying what ought to be said. .

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:47 pm

We need more voices to explain adopting nonviolence and solidarity as a response to abortion is not a suggestion that abortion is not murder and preborn children are not persons and their murder is not as unjust as other killings. Quite the opposite: it is precisely because abortion is a systematic injustice of such massive proportions and because it represents killing as a solution to people’s problems and cruelly pits family members violently against each other that our responses should be even more purely nonviolent.

Jason,

How can people who equate abortion in the United States with the Holocaust and with slavery argue that nonviolence is the correct path. What were the nonviolent solutions to the Holocaust and to American slavery? At best one might argue that violence against abortion providers is justified but impractical.

I don’t see how you talk about mass murder, baby killers, Holocaust, and crimes against humanity and then argue a peaceful response is the only moral choice. How can one work through the legal system when “[a] legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed”?

If 1.3 million blacks, or Jews, or Catholics, or Mexican-Americans were killed every year because the nation declined to protect them — made them “a whole class of persons” without a right to exist, it would be bizarre for the people arguing in favor of that “whole class of persons” to plead with everyone to remain calm and continue with boycotts of commencement speeches and the like as the route to bringing this “holocaust” to an end.

Posted by Kathy
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:48 pm

This act of violence is reprehensible.

I don’t agree, however, that this means that the prolife response should be a toning down of the rhetoric. Quite the contrary. I have a hope that in the future, history will condemn the acts of this abortionist.

I think that in the future people will not look back at our times and say, “What evil days. There was global warming and an unusual number of wars.” I think and hope that they will look back and say, “One child in five. A million a year. IN AMERICA.”

Rather than stepping back the rhetoric, I think we need to assail–verbally and legally–the moral blindness that allows the slaughter of innocents to continue unchecked and easily countenanced. Tiller was gunned down–this is wrong. Tiller went to church. This is an unbelievable commentary on the invincible moral ignorance that characterizes the Christianity of our times.

Posted by Ann Olivier
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:50 pm

Nancy –

Your blog statement is quite good. But your reference later to pro-life progressives “lurking” here implies an unfair insult, that we are sneaks and thus dishonest. It’s a perfect example of how language can complicate problems that are all ready enormously complex.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:53 pm

David–you are arguing against Christian nonviolence itself, not against me. If someone says that nonviolence can’t really be an option if abortion is really murder, than what they are sayins is that Christian nonviolence is inappropriately weighty enough as a response to true injustice. They are abandoning Christian nonviolence as anything but an eccentric little hobby. I reject that view. I think Christian nonviolence has inherent, transformative power straight from the example of Jesus, from the martyrs, and from the teaching of the Church right up through Solicitudio Rei Socialis. I think many progressive Catholics agree, and I think that even if abortion is not their main focus, they should recognize that when you claim abortion can’t really be murder if nonviolence is a principled response, you are challenging the entire worldview of Christian nonviolence. I would not have expected Commonweal to lead that charge–my hope is that it continues to be a persuasive voice in favor of Christian nonviolence. Here’s a recent example: http://www.commonwealmagazine.org/blog/?p=2810

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 2:55 pm

note the irony in your quote in which the author says early on that abortion is “murder”, but at the end he points out that calling prochoice people “murderers” is inflammatory and unjust when they do not think the fetus is a person.

Ann,

Klinghoffer is not stating his own opinion there, but using the languag he is opposing. He personally does not consider abortion murder. He says:

Though abortion opponents favor the most colorful possible speech, one may oppose abortion without it. For instance, there is the Jewish approach (which is my own). Exodus 21:22 specifies what happens when a man violently brings a woman’s pregnancy to a premature end: he pays a fine, a penalty hardly comparable to that imposed by God for murder (the death penalty) or for manslaughter (internal exile). Citing this and other verses, the rabbis of the Talmud concluded that abortion, while not the murder of a child, is to be strongly rejected as an interference in the divinely guided process of human reproduction.

So, as a Jew, I always stop short at terms like “holocaust” as applied to abortion. A holocaust is the mass murder of entities that are human beings in every sense in which Cardinal O’Connor or Randall Terry is a human being. . . . .

Posted by Nancy Dallavalle
on May 31st, 2009 at 3:01 pm

Sorry you felt insulted, Ann. I included myself as a “lurker,” you’ll notice — by which I simply mean people who read a blog but rarely comment.

Posted by Ann Olivier
on May 31st, 2009 at 3:43 pm

” If someone says that nonviolence can’t really be an option if abortion is really murder, than what they are sayins is that Christian nonviolence is inappropriately weighty enough as a response to true injustice.

Jason –

Dr. Nathan’s response at the First Things symposium might interest you. He says that if someone came upon someone actually performing an abortion that the appropriate response to that might be a violent one.

Hmm.

Posted by Ann Olivier
on May 31st, 2009 at 3:51 pm

Oops — “Dr. Nathan” should have been “Dr. Nathanson”,

If I’m not mistaken, Dr. Bernard N. Nathanson is the New York doctor who performed thousands of abortions, but who later changed his moral standpoint to anti-abortion.. He shows, I think, that we must beware accusing pro-choice people of just “making excuses” for their practices Many give every evidence of being sincere..

Posted by Gabriel Austin
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:00 pm

Interesting that the sympathy on this blog seems to be for the abortionist. What of sympathy for the shooter, misguided as he was?
From the verbiage on this issue it is obviously a difficult matter. How justified was the American Revolution? How justified the Civil War [which was not about slavery, but about the Union]?
Would there be so much commentary had Tiller been killed in an automobile accident?

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:06 pm

. . .you are challenging the entire worldview of Christian nonviolence. I would not have expected Commonweal to lead that charge . . .

Jason,

In no way do I speak for Commonweal.

It would take a lot of research for me to even begin to offer an opinion on Christian nonviolence, so I won’t attempt that. What I would say is that I do not, in general, see the vocal opponents of abortion — the people who use the language of murder, baby killing, Holocaust, and so on — to be part of a Christian nonviolence movement. The anti-abortion movement in general is identified with the right wing in the United States, and the right tends to be more in favor of the war in Iraq, “enhanced interrogation,” capital punishment, and so on.

Also, wouldn’t Christian nonviolence embrace tactics such as refusal to pay taxes and nonviolent civil disobedience? What is the pro-life equivalent of the abolitionists’ underground railroad?

I am perfectly willing to respect Christian nonviolence, but based on my Catholic education and my knowledge of Church history, I do not see nonviolence as a major theme running through Catholicism from the death of Jesus to the present day. I think promoting it as an approach among most American Catholics would be an uphill battle.

What seems to be the case to me is that the Church in American, and American Catholics, have a vested interest in keeping the status quo no matter how strongly they oppose abortion. Catholics are just to comfortable in American society to really buck the system. Otherwise we would not be seeing a sixth Catholic being nominated to the Supreme Court.

Posted by Ann Olivier
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:08 pm

Nancy –

I apologize. I misinterpreted your intended meaning of “lurk”. True — it sometimes means just observing from the background. But I’m old, and its immediate meaning for me is from the classic Saturday night serial, The Shadow. Its tagline was: “Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows!!!. Mmmwwaahha- ha ha ha!” (said by the inimitably sinster voice of Victor Jpry in the background Ah yes, the days of black and white morality. I’ve since learned that men who wear black capes, black masks, and black fedoras are not necessarily the best arbiters of right and wrong.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:10 pm

Ann–that’s an interesting theoretical point–also interesting is that if nonviolence is an option in coming upon someone actually performing abortion, then violence would not be justified.

In any event, the tradition of Christian nonviolence looks at both the big and small pictures in responding to massive social evils. Most people think that violence and nonviolence are two actions in a single continuum of response to evils, with nonviolence being lower down the scale for less serious situations. So they would see writing a letter to the editor and picketing and doing a sit in and bombing as just a successive line of actions. But Christian nonviolence sees violence and nonviolence as different kinds of reactions, heading in opposite directions from the same point, if I am making any sense.

If people say that pro-lifers inherently justify violence by claiming that abortion is 50 million murders, what they are saying is, Christian nonviolence is a small-time response to less than really serious problems. This necessarily goes beyond abortion and denies the fundamental idea of the Christian nonviolence and peace movements. Cathleen said she agreed with David, but I don’t know to what extent she agreed. I think it’s important to understand the implications of this argument that to justify nonviolence we must claim that abortion isn’t really as bad as murder and all that. I think Commonweal’s storied contributors to Christian nonviolence thinking throughout its history should have something to say about the claim that if something is really really unjust, nonviolence must be put away as child’s play, and that if one does adopt nonviolence as a responce to an evil, they are logically precluded from speaking up for oppressed victims of that evil as true victims of a horrible evil, because true victims and horrible evil deserve something “better” than wimpy ol’ nonviolence. Yet that is an inescapable premise of the idea that abortion must not really be murder if pro-lifers condemn violence.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:15 pm

David–again, you are free to claim that Christian nonviolence and Catholic theology behind the peace movement are less than intellectually serious or weighty enterprises. People just need to know that that’s exactly what they are doing if they claim that if abortion can’t really be murder because pro-lifer leaders adopt nonviolence towards it.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:16 pm

Cathleen, I do not think this incident, as regrettable as it is, will “hurt the pro-life movement in America.” By now, most Americans even remotely familiar with abortion have made up their minds on the subject. Public opinion if anything is rather complex, and various caveats can be found in the questions and/or in the responses to polling.

I agree with Kathy: the fact that this doctor could serve his parish AND kill (potentially) viable unborn children suggests a rather anemic moral approach to his actions. I can understand — but not approve — abortion in cases of rape, incest, and life of the mother: I leave these cases to God for judgment. Doctor Tiller, on the other hand, engaged in egregiously immoral behavior (indeed, some might describe his actions as amoral).

If any good is to come from Tiller’s murder, it will be to stir conversation not so much about his death but about the continued acceptance of the kind of killing in which Doctor Tiller engaged. I suspect most abortions are done for convenience or choice, not because the mother faces probable death if her pregnancy is carried to term, or because she was raped by her boyfriend, a bar acquaintance, or a relative.

I condemn this doctor’s murder, but I cannot help but conclude that he engaged in the murder of unborn children.

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:18 pm

Interesting that the sympathy on this blog seems to be for the abortionist. What of sympathy for the shooter, misguided as he was?

Gabriel,

I haven’t read a word of sympathy for Dr. George Tiller here. Can you point anything out that I have missed? If the obvious suspicions are correct, this was an assassination. I hope someone will correct me if I am wrong, but even if a violent campaign against abortion were justifiable, I don’t think any believing Catholic could justify an assassination.

Would there be so much commentary had Tiller been killed in an automobile accident?

What a strange question. The issue here is not that Tiller is dead. It is that he may very well have been assassinated by someone from the “pro-life” movement.

Posted by Ann Olivier
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:26 pm

“What is the pro-life equivalent of the abolitionists’ underground railroad?”"

David Nickol –

Many if not all dioceses have safe houses for women in danger of violence from their spouses or boyfriends, men who often want the women to have abortions. Plus there are many other services for women with problem pregnancies.

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:31 pm

David–again, you are free to claim that Christian nonviolence and Catholic theology behind the peace movement are less than intellectually serious or weighty enterprises.

Jason,

I guess I am not being clear, for which I apologize. I do not in any way want to belittle the seriousness or the intellectual underpinnings of Christian nonviolence. I just don’t see any evidence of it playing a major role in America today or in the Church over most of its history. The Church, for example, gave us century upon century of justification for capital punishment. The Church helped give us “Just War” theory, not pacifism. I am perfectly willing to entertain the possibility that Jesus was a true pacifist and that the Church lost its way in becoming entangled with Constantine and the Roman Empire.

I am not passing judgment on Christian nonviolence. I am saying I don’t see it being much of a part of the “pro-life” movement.

Posted by Ann Olivier
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:33 pm

“I condemn this doctor’s murder, but I cannot help but conclude that he engaged in the murder of unborn children.”

Mr. Austin –

Unless you knew Dr. Tiller personally, how can you possibly make a judgment as to the state of his conscience? Reflect on Dr. Nathanson.

Murder is the intentional killing of a thing *known* to be an innocent person. If you don’t have evidence that Dr. Tiller does think that fetuses are persons and that he kills them anyway, you are not justified in calling him a “murderer”.

Posted by Claire
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:39 pm

Murder is the extreme of a violent action: Self-sacrifice is the extreme of a nonviolent action.

“If someone came upon someone actually performing an abortion that the appropriate response to that might be ” — the appropriate nonviolent response might be to step in and say “only over my dead body!”, while not defending oneself.

Nonviolence does not have to be a small-time response. It can be extreme, too.

Posted by Claire
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:41 pm

Appropriate, for those of you who believe abortion is murder, of course.

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:43 pm

Many if not all dioceses have safe houses for women in danger of violence from their spouses or boyfriends, men who often want the women to have abortions. Plus there are many other services for women with problem pregnancies.

Ann,

That is commendable. My question, though, is how “pro-lifers” are resisting a “fundamentally flawed” legal system “that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice.” Those participating in the underground railroad were defying unjust laws and putting themselves at risk. I don’t wish in any way to say people who do good works on behalf of women in difficult situations are not worthy of praise. I am just asking where the resistance is to the legal system that permits “slaughter.” Who in the pro-life movement in America is the moral equivalent of the people who hid Anne Frank and her family from the Nazis? There is plenty of opposition coming from the “pro-life” movement. Where is the resistance? Who, in the face of this alleged Holocaust, is putting his or her own safety and freedom on the line?

Posted by Jason Drakes
on May 31st, 2009 at 4:49 pm

David–thank you for the clarification. I propose that one small bit of evidence that nonviolence is part of the pro-life movement is the article that Margeret refers to in that link I provide above, and another is the fact that if you click on the webpage of just about any pro-life organization in the country this fine Sunday afternoon, you will see a statement unequivocally condemning the murder of George Tiller. But my issue isn’t whether all or even most pro-lifers or I myself faithfully live nonviolence in practice. If you want to say that the pro-lifers are being inconsistent for some other reason then go ahead. My issue is with the notion that IF one condemns things like the Tiller murder THEN one must not think abortion is really 50 million murders, because social evil of that magnitude rules out Christian nonviolence as a response. Such a view is a direct challenge to the Christian nonviolence and peace movements, not simply to the pro-life movement.

Posted by Crystal Watson
on May 31st, 2009 at 5:07 pm

I can’t believe that so many comments seem to justify using violence. I know Catholic history is an example of the ends justifying the means – the past Church accepted war, torture, capital punishment – but if being Christian means following the example and teachings of Jesus, then non-violence should matter. Hateful rhetoric, harrassment, bombings, murder – this stuff is terrorism – and attaching good ends to these means doesn’t change that.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on May 31st, 2009 at 5:27 pm

“This cannot but hurt the pro-life movement in America.”

Cathleen, are you somehow trying to imply guilt by association, as if the Pro-life Movement is associated with vigilantes?

Posted by Ann Olivier
on May 31st, 2009 at 5:40 pm

” My issue is with the notion that IF one CONDEMNS things like the Tiller murder THEN one must NOT think abortion is really 50 million murders, because social evil of that magnitude RULES OUT Christian NONVIOLENCE as a response. ”

Jason –

All those negative premises are breaking my old brain. Is there some way you could express your argument in more positive language? I’m having real difficulty following you. Also I don’t see why Christian nonviolence is ruled out by the size of the evil done. Or did I get that wrong?

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on May 31st, 2009 at 5:46 pm

Nancy, some members of the pro-life movement are vigilantes.

http://www.kansas.com/news/breaking/story/833730.html

That’s the problem for the rest of the movement. It will be a problem–my guess is that the attempt to put radical pro-lifers on the domestic terror watch list are going to be successful now.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on May 31st, 2009 at 5:58 pm

Robby George’s current commentary–very good. HT Andrew Sullivan.

“Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. “Vengeance is mine, says the Lord.” For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller’s life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life,” – Robert P. George, current theocon-in-chief.

Posted by Bill deHaas
on May 31st, 2009 at 6:13 pm

Keep in mind in terms of language – only a few weeks ago we had one of the Catholic bishops of Kansas openly and proudly declare that “we are in a war!”

Yet, not a comment from him so far. What does that say?

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on May 31st, 2009 at 6:20 pm

Cathleen, isn’t there a need to define a “radical” Pro-Lifer before the United States Government puts someone on the domestic terror watch list? Why wouldn’t you refer to the person who committed this crime as a vigilante if the motive was related to the fact that George Tiller performed abortions? How do you even know yet what the motive was? This line of reasoning doesn’t sound like you.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on May 31st, 2009 at 6:28 pm

Bill, keep in mind in terms of language that a “war” can also be known as “a struggle or competition between opposing forces” (from the Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary)

Posted by Christopher Ruddy
on May 31st, 2009 at 6:28 pm

“How often we wish that God would show himself stronger, that he would strike decisively, defeating evil and creating a better world. All ideologies of power justify themselves in exactly this way, they justify the destruction of whatever would stand in the way of progress and the liberation of humanity. We suffer on account of God’s patience. And yet, we need his patience. God, who became a lamb, tells us that the world is saved by the Crucified One, not by those who crucified him. The world is redeemed by the patience of God. It is destroyed by the impatience of man.”

–Pope Benedict XVI, Installation Homily, April 24, 2005

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on May 31st, 2009 at 6:35 pm

I don’t know what the motive is. But I think it likely, as does Professor George, that it is related to the fact he performed abortions.

Yes, Bill. I think the language of war generates part of the problem.

Yes, Nancy there is a need to define a “radical” pro=lifer before putting them on the watch list. Just as there is a need to define a “radical” Muslim fundamentalist.

Posted by Bill deHaas
on May 31st, 2009 at 6:53 pm

A student of mine; now a captain with the Chicago Fire Department, commented a few weeks ago about an exercise the department was involved in which required them to prepare for a city wide or neighborhood wide trauma event created by “radical” pro-lifers. He was embarrassed because some of the scenarios referenced “catholic” pro-lifers and he was at a loss to explain this ……catholics preach/live peace and non-violence and yet the fire department is preparing to handle violence caused by a small “catholic” group.

Those of us who responded to him were, in general, embarrassed and supportive of the pain this caused him.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on May 31st, 2009 at 6:55 pm

Ann–as in David’s first post above, some people say that if abortion is really murder, it’s really a massive injustice, and therefore things like killing Tiller are justified. They thus conclude that if pro-lifers say that killing Tiller is unjustified–if they adopt nonviolence towards abortion–then abortion must not be that massive injustice of 50 million murders.

My point is that this reasoning doesn’t just apply to abortion–it is a total rejection of the Christian nonviolence perspective, because it says that really serious social injustices don’t allow for nonviolence–therefore, nonviolence is not an adequate response to the big problems of the world. It is a second rate project.

On the other hand, if Christian nonviolence is an appropriate response to even the most massive horrible injustices, abortion or whatever, then there’s no reason at all to claim that abortion isn’t murder and isn’t really as bad as pro-life “rhetoric” says it is, just because pro-lifers condemn violent responses to it. They can condemn violence and still think abortion the utmost injustice, by adopting Christian nonviolence as a response to abortion.

If someone takes the view that a truly serious social injustice necessitates that violence is justified (that nonviolence can’t be a good response)–that is an attack on Christian nonviolence itself. It is a statement that people who support Christian nonviolence can’t really serve true sufferers of extreme injustice, or describe their plight accurately as massive injustice. Because if they were true sufferers of extreme injustive, according to this view violence would have to be on the table. Since violence is not on the table for the Christian nonviolence approach, it’s not a high stakes injustice (like abortion being murder).

I think the peace movement veterans here would be surprised and troubled by that line of reasoning.

Posted by Steve Taylor
on May 31st, 2009 at 6:59 pm

I have long felt that pro-life meant only life for the unborn, not for those already alive, and certainly not those who are slaughtered daily in Africa, Pakistan, Asia, etc., but only for unborn. If our priorities were correctly situated, pro-life would mean all life, not just life in the pampered USA. In Africa their concern is living to the next day, and through the next genocide. When will these people pull their heads out of their nethers, and face the fact that this issue, while of extreme importance, is not the one and only issue of EXTREME importance in our world.

What this stance essentially says is that only our American values of life matter, and oh, sorry about your genocide, but we have to worry about abortion first.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on May 31st, 2009 at 7:13 pm

Ann, it was I, not Mr. Austin, who made the statement you quoted.

I was using the word ‘murder’ in a more generic sense, not a legal one. I did not know Dr. Tiller, but his actions — killing unborn children capable (or possibly capable) of surviving outside the womb — speak louder than any words one could use to describe them.

If we accept your line of reasoning, to wit, that Dr. Tiller did not consider fetuses to be persons, then we can also state that the Nazis did not consider homosexuals, the disabled, Jews, and other undesirables to be persons and, therefore, deserving of protection under the law. At what point do we consider unborn human offspring persons?

Dr. Tiller knew exactly what he was doing in tearing/ripping unborn human offspring from their mothers’ bellies. He had medical/scientific training. He could see the grisly “fruits” of his labors. He was killing fully formed human offspring.

It’s a morally deficient society that permits abortions at this stage of prenatal development (26 weeks, give or take).

I condemn Dr. Tiller’s murder, and I’ll acknowledge God’s right to judge this physician’s motives, etc. In the meantime, I can only judge his professional behavior as morally reprehensible, as murder.

Posted by william collier
on May 31st, 2009 at 7:55 pm

In the First Things symposium link provided earlier by Cathy Kaveny, I think Nat Hentoff got it exactly right:

“The killing of an abortionist makes one the mirror image of the abortionist.”

Posted by Bill Mazzella
on May 31st, 2009 at 8:48 pm

“I have long felt that pro-life meant only life for the unborn, not for those already alive, and certainly not those who are slaughtered daily in Africa, Pakistan, Asia, etc., but only for unborn. If our priorities were correctly situated, pro-life would mean all life, not just life in the pampered USA. In Africa their concern is living to the next day, and through the next genocide. When will these people pull their heads out of their nethers, and face the fact that this issue, while of extreme importance, is not the one and only issue of EXTREME importance in our world.

What this stance essentially says is that only our American values of life matter, and oh, sorry about your genocide, but we have to worry about abortion first.”

Right you are Steve Taylor. This is the rub. We are extremely vocal about a fetus, which no one has proven is a human person. But we are silent about the clearly human persons who are starving and being killed every day.

The only effort needed in anti-abortion is a loud mouth or a loud pen. To help beings who are demonstably human takes effort and sacrifice.

For every Steve Taylor post there is a zillion anti-abortion posts.

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 9:02 pm

If we accept your line of reasoning, to wit, that Dr. Tiller did not consider fetuses to be persons, then we can also state that the Nazis did not consider homosexuals, the disabled, Jews, and other undesirables to be persons and, therefore, deserving of protection under the law.

Joseph,

I am not an expert here, but I don’t recall ever hearing that the Nazis considered Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, Jehovah’s Witnesses, and a number of other groups they exterminated to be nonpersons. It is true that the Aryans were thought of as the “master race,” with other racial groups being inferior to one degree or another. But the Nazis wiped out millions of people for nonracial reasons. I don’t think there is a parallel between abortion in the United States and the Holocaust, and of course Jews are deeply offended by the comparison.

Posted by David Nickol
on May 31st, 2009 at 9:22 pm

“The killing of an abortionist makes one the mirror image of the abortionist.”

William,

Surely someone — even a vigilante — who kills a “mass murderer” is not a mirror image of a mass murderer.

Posted by George Crosley
on May 31st, 2009 at 11:55 pm

Bill Mazella says that no one has proved that a human fetus is a “human person.”

I guess that says all you need to know about the scientific, not to mention the intellectual, prowress that you’ll find on the left and on the pro-abortion side so easily accomodated at websites like this.

Posted by Sunil Korah
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:37 am

David Nickol

Here is the Klinghoffer link

http://www.firstthings.com/article.php?year=2008&month=09&title_link=003-baby-talk-14

Posted by Antonio Manetti
on June 1st, 2009 at 1:45 am

Since violence is not on the table for the Christian nonviolence approach, it’s not a high stakes injustice (like abortion being murder).

What does Christian non-violence or non-violence of any kind have to do with this issue? We are not speaking of any circumstances that even remotely come close to justifying violence by any non-state actor, no matter what their beliefs are.

Posted by David Nickol
on June 1st, 2009 at 7:45 am

I guess that says all you need to know about the scientific, not to mention the intellectual, prowress that you’ll find on the left and on the pro-abortion side so easily accomodated at websites like this.

George,

This is a good example of what many in the pro-life movement believe — that their position is so self-evident that anyone who claims to disagree with them is either intentionally dishonest, self-deluded, or ignorant.

Posted by Bill Mazzella
on June 1st, 2009 at 7:49 am

George Crosley writes:

“Bill Mazella says that no one has proved that a human fetus is a “human person.”
I guess that says all you need to know about the scientific, not to mention the intellectual, prowress that you’ll find on the left and on the pro-abortion side so easily accomodated at websites like this.”

George, then maybe you can explain how babies before baptism were demonized as “children of the devil” and if they died without baptism were in hell for eternity. The left, unfortunately, concedes this point that the fetus is full human. Certainly we must give all respect for the life process. But to say abortion is killing is incorrect and certainly no comparison to the holocaust.

The teaching on abortion is not infallible. (Not to mention that infallibility was unheard of until the 12th century. But I can understand the right’s fanaticism if the fetus is indeed a full human. Damned to hell if miscarried or aborted according to the church for 1700 years.

The bishops have led people down a slippery slope. I can understand their clinging to abortion because they have little else. It will go the way of demonizing children, demonizing women, burning at the stake. chopping of heads.

Is this the history you are proud of, George?

Posted by David Nickol
on June 1st, 2009 at 7:53 am

We are not speaking of any circumstances that even remotely come close to justifying violence by any non-state actor, no matter what their beliefs are.

Antonio,

The American Bishops have told us that our legal system is “fundamentally flawed.” The pro-life movement says that the 1.3 million abortions each year in the United States are murders — that we have the equivalent of the Holocaust occurring in this country, that the government doesn’t protect the lives of “a whole class of people.” If all of this is true, it seems to me it is a lot easer to make the case for breaking the law (although not necessarily carrying out assassinations) to try to end the “murders” than for staying within the law.

Posted by David Nickol
on June 1st, 2009 at 8:03 am

Sunil,

Thanks for the link. It is an interesting piece.

Posted by Barbara
on June 1st, 2009 at 8:21 am

Jason posts as if the concept of “Christian non-violence” is a well-established tenet of Church doctrine (or Christian doctrine in general). How so? Jesus rejected violence in a number of Gospel passages, most notably as a means of “redeeming” him from his final agony. But to look over Christian tradition and find, after the first or second century, any unwavering allegiance to solving conflict with non-violence, you would have to wait until the emergence of clearly dissident sects, such as Quakers or the Church of the Brethren. There were probably Catholic movements as well, but these were splinter, separatist efforts at most.

The concept of “using” non-violent action as an organized and assertive means of countering injustice is the work of Mahatma Gandhi, and MLK’s use of the tactic is drawn directly from Gandhi, not biblical parallels. Of course, he Christianized it so that he could more directly speak to his audience. (Non-violence is apparently not ubiquitous among Hindus either — the leader of the Tamil Tigers was a devoted Hindu who probably should have studied up on his Gandhi as well as his Marx a little better than he did.)

Anyway, I disagree with the notion that devotion to non-violence is a deeply held value among Christians, and I believe that explains why the push to violence in the pro-life movement is not all that far beneath its surface, and why, if leaders of pro-life organizations truly abhor violence, they should tone down and depersonalize their rhetoric, and try to remember that the protesters outside clinics are not just in conflict with clinic personnel but with the women who want to use the clinic’s services. This puts them in a very different place from the lunch counter or comparable protests that they claim to be emulating.

Our legal system isn’t fundamentally flawed just because it fails to enforce Church doctrine.

Posted by Sean Hannaway
on June 1st, 2009 at 8:55 am

David N,

This attempt to place the blame of this tragic event at the foot of the pro-life movement is not only unsupportable, it is dishonest.

The pro-life movement in the US has the longest and best record of non-violent protest of any movement that you can identify. The US civil rights movement, women’s rights, gay rights, and Vietnam anti-war movements were all accompanied by more violence than the pro-life movement, but no one condemns their legitimate protest rhetoric as the cause of isolated incidents of violence.

Of course the US legal system is flawed. According to immigration rights advocates it is seriously flawed, but would that justify shooting border patrol agents? Of course not.

It seems to me that the pro-life movement is held to a rhetorical standard that no other political or civil rights group is held to.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:00 am

Sean, don’t you think the rhetoric of the pro-life movement (war, murder, genocide) is far more extreme and pervasive than the other movements?

Posted by Barbara
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:05 am

Sean, there is violence that is undertaken for display (deeply wrong, in my view, in that destruction of property is still wrong, and there is always a chance that people will be hurt as well) and there is violence that is undertaken to target and kill individuals (a whole lot more wrong).

People in the pro-life movement, self-identifying as such, have engaged in the latter — execution style killings and terrorist style bombings. The group they most resemble in this respect is the Basque separatist movement in Northern Spain, which uses a combination of assassination and targeted bombings, along with a political agenda. When the political agenda flags, the bombings and assassinations pick up.

There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of committed pro-life activists are non-violent and would never consider violence. But the thing you must grapple with is that it doesn’t take very many people who are not similarly committed to wreak havoc on your cause.

Posted by JC
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:29 am

I think Prof. Kaveny and others have made a convincing argument that pro-life rhetoric can contribute to violence.

But, then how should the pro-life movement talk about abortion? How do we convince people that abortion is a very serious crime, if not exactly murder? If comparing abortion to genocide, the holocaust, etc. is not helpful, then what can we compare abortion to in order to make our argument? Maybe capital punishment? No vigilantes go after Utah’s firing squad.

How should we talk about abortion?

Posted by Jason Drakes
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:36 am

Barbara–I believe that Christian nonviolence finds a lot of support in Christian history and theology. Moreover, I think Commonweal has been a leader in helping articulate the Gospel foundations of Christian nonviolence and the theological underpinnings of Catholic participation in the peace movement. And as I said, I don’t claim to be a consistent example of Gospel values.

But I am troubled by the suggestion of David and also seemingly from Cathleen that if a social evil is truly large scale murder, violence must be justified, and if advocates speak up for the oppressed that they serve by calling the injustices murders, they must accept violence as a legitimate response.

What seems to be suggested here is that if you use language describing brutal victimization as what it really is, you are supporting violence. This is antithetical to the approach of Christian nonviolence that Commonweal and Catholic progessives have heretofore been so articulate in explaining. It means that if abortion really were little murders, and if the victims really were spoken of as murdered persons, nonviolence would be inadequate.

That view trivializes and cheapens the approahc of Christian nonviolence. It makes Christian nonviolence basically irrelevant as a response to important social evils. It tells people who advocate Christian nonviolence that in principle they can’t humanize the victims that they hope to serve, and they can’t oppose the oppression, because if it was really oppression, nonviolence wouldn’t be an appropriate response.

If you insist that abortion not be called murder, or if you insist that calling it murder implicates violence, you are declaring Christian nonviolence an empty project. That is troubling in light of the Church’s social teaching in recent years and also in light of otherwise articulate defenses of Christian nonviolence by progressives.

Posted by David Nickol
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am

Jason,

The problem is that the number of Catholics (and Christians) committed to Christian nonviolence is miniscule. I assume Christian nonviolence includes pacifism, and there just aren’t many pacifists. Even the opposition to the Iraq war from John Paul II and Benedict was criticism of it for not meeting the criteria for a “just war.”

It is not an attack on Christian nonviolence to say that a lot of the rhetoric we get from the pro-life movement would justify violent resistance among those not committed to Christian nonviolence. If the Catholic Church has ever argued for pacifism (as opposed to “just wars”), I am unaware of it.

I can’t site statistics, but I am really quite certain that those truly committed to nonviolence are very few in number.

Posted by David Gibson
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:09 am

I think JC’s question is on target and the most relevant:

“But, then how should the pro-life movement talk about abortion?”

Posted by Jason Drakes
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:14 am

David if people say that condemning an injustice justifies murder and therefore the injustice really isn’t murder, they are excluding Christian nonviolence on principle. That is antithetical to the Catholic and specifically the Catholic progressive approach to social evil.

If all you saying is that condemning injustice might make people think it’s a serious injustice, that is not a very significant statement and it is no different than any other social evil. It is an argument for never opposing any oppression. But that’s not all people seem to be saying–they are arguing that if abortion is murder than necessarily violence is justified.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:19 am

DavidG–JC’s question is: IF abortion is “not exactly murder,” if its not as serious as all that, then how do we talk about it. The question you say is on target adopts the same anti-nonviolence premise that seems to be becoming a theme here–abortion can’t be “that bad” because violence against it isn’t justified, so how do we talk about it. If that’s the relevant question, the relevant premise is a rejection of Catholic progessive’s approach to Christian nonviolence and responding to evils in general. It’s a seismic shift.

Posted by David Nickol
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:27 am

David if people say that condemning an injustice justifies murder and therefore the injustice really isn’t murder, they are excluding Christian nonviolence on principle.

Jason,

I would say that the people who are not committed to Christian nonviolence, which is practically everybody, reject Christian nonviolence on principle, and this particular case plays little or no role in their position. I a not making a case against Christian nonviolence. I am merely pointing out that it is a minority view.

Posted by Bill Mazzella
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:31 am

Cardinal Egan showed just how shallow the argument is about the fetus being a person when he said: “No one has ever proven that the fetus is not a human being.” Ok, but no one has ever proven that the fetus is human. It is circuitous.

Certainly, we can all come together if we worked for life from the beginning to the end of life. That means as much energy must go into making men as responsible as women for the pregnancy, offering more than just moral support, etc.

We must not forget that this issue has been politicized shamelessly. Used as a fund raiser and to further political ambitions, etc.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am

DavidN–If you assert a premise that excludes Christian nonviolence as an approach to societal evil, you are making a chase against Christian nonviolence and against the arguments for it in progressive Catholic tradition and the Church’s modern social teaching, whether you intend to or not.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:32 am

“but no one has ever proven that the fetus is human.”

This is like saying no one has ever proven that the world is round.

Posted by Jim Pauwels
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:51 am

Inasmuch as I frequently comment on pro-life issues here, let me take the opportunity to unequivocally condemn Dr. Tiller’s murder. May he be with the angels in paradise, may his family receive comfort and love, and may his killer be tried according to the rule of law.

Many reasons have been given here already as to why pro-lifers shouldn’t resort to violent measures. I’d just like to add that Christians are deeply committed to a just society. Part and parcel of that notion is that it is the state, not private citizens, that enforce the laws.

If the legal regime enables abortion, then the solution is not to illegally stop abortion, but to change the laws.

Christianity recognizes that the state may use force (including violent force) when necessary. Thus, in the news article linked above, we learn that when Roeder was captured on I-35, the police officers who apprehended him did so with weapons drawn. I don’t see that as a violation of Christian non-violent principles; it was plain prudence.

Whenever a law is violated, disorder results. We pro-life advocates don’t wish to tear the fabric of society.

Posted by Barbara
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am

Hi, Jason, if you look at the next thread you will see that I share your concern.

Posted by Jim Pauwels
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:22 am

FWIW – here is what Time Magazine is reporting about the suspect:

“The suspect was identified as Scott P. Roeder, 51, by the Johnson County Sheriff’s office. Police were investigating his links to the anti-government group the Freemen in the 1990s; he was also reportedly a subscriber to Prayer and Action News, a magazine that advocated a justifiable homicide position on abortion. “He was on the radar screen” of the FBI, an officer said. In 1996, Topeka police found ammunition, a blasting cap, a fuse cord, gunpowder and other items that could be used to make small bombs. He was sentenced to highly supervised probation for two years. He was expected to be charged Monday with murder and two counts of aggravated assault.”

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1902077,00.html

This is the portrait of a right-wing wacko. Sounds like he belongs on a terrorist watch list.

Posted by Sean Hannaway
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:34 am

Cathleen,

The “war” rhetoric is used by almost all these movements – it’s used by the environmentalist movement all the time. Civil rights advocates have used the accusation of “genocide” many times. Does “No Justice No Peace” ring a bell. More than 50 people were killed and thousands injured to that particular slogan in Los Angeles in 1992.

My point is that in none of these cases is the power of the state used to squelch that speech, nor is it used to attack legitimate groups because of the actions of criminals, but I suspect it will be used by abortion proponents to promote state action in this case.

Barbara,

Any comparison of the “pro-life” movement to terrorism is spurious. These were individual criminal acts. There is no organized terrorist element involved. Simply because these people are anti-abortion does not make them representative of the pro-life movement. What people are trying to do is say, even though they do not advocate violence, the pro-life movement, including Catholic Bishops, are responsible because of their rhetoric – that is not the same thing as organized planning and carrying out violence that are part and parcel of any reasonable definition of terrorism.

Posted by Bill Mazzella
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:56 am

“but no one has ever proven that the fetus is human.”

This is like saying no one has ever proven that the world is round.”

Jason, if you read the whole post you will remember that Egan said “No one has ever proven that the fetus is not human.” I was showing how the argument is fallacious anyway you pose it.

Furthermore, we can prove the world is round.

Posted by Barbara
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:04 pm

Sean, there may be, in fact, individual acts of violence, but there have also been acts of violence that were clearly supported by a network of like minded people, especially in arranging material support and evasion from the law after the fact. Individuals who supported the man who killed Slepian were tried and convicted for conspiracy and were quite well known for their pro-life activities. I am not tarring a whole movement; it doesn’t deserve that, but denying that there are in fact organized efforts to go after doctors is silly.

Posted by Barbara
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:07 pm

Sean:

http://www.splcenter.org/intel/intelreport/article.jsp?aid=62

This is what I am talking about. I suspect (I hope) that the experience of what has happened in the wake of this kind of violence has changed how people such as Kopp are viewed.

Posted by Sean Hannaway
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:22 pm

Barbara

This is nothing but hypebole. Kopp was “supported” by an organization of 2 people who knew what he did as far as the authorities were concerned. Eric Rudolph got help from his family and other local friends and supporters and was arrested scavenging garbage for food – hardly a vast terrorist networks.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:25 pm

http://www.envoyinstitute.net/weareatwar.html

Sean, I just don’t think a parenthetical (God forbid) to violence undoes the militant 30 point war imagery.

Posted by JC
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm

Prof Kaveny,

I think that Robert George quote is satire of people who say they are personally opposed to abortion, but want it legal.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:48 pm

It was satire. I also think it was irresponsible. Fortunately, his new statement is very, very good.

Posted by Barbara
on June 1st, 2009 at 1:09 pm

Sean, if you read the article you will find that he was supported by several known confederates and probably pled no contest when it was made clear to him that he would likely be asked about others. He was, I believe, in France when he was apprehended and the feds had no doubt that he was supported by many people.

Again, I have no wish to tar the pro-life movement but you are in denial if you don’t think incidents like this don’t harm it. They do.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on June 1st, 2009 at 2:55 pm

Bill Mazzella, I believe that both you and Egan are wrong to debate whether or not the fetus is a person. Personhood cannot be proven. It is a moral and legal construct, not a scientific one.

David Nickol, actions speak louder than words. Whether the Nazis “considered” or “regarded” homosexuals, Jews, et al as persons or not is immaterial. The unspeakable crimes perpetrated against these “undesirables” is more than ample evidence that they were perceived as deserving no legal protection or human respect. Forget the “de jure” approach here. Fact is these unwanted folks were not ultimately treated as human beings, much less as persons.

We are challenged to acknowledge the personhood of Jews, the unborn, homosexuals, the disabled, the homeless, et al. Science cannot provide us the answer. It takes a change of heart.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pm

I should add that neither philosophy nor theology can “prove” a human offspring’s personhood.

I should also note that problems of world hunger, torture, etc. should not be used to play down the tragedy of unfettered access to abortion in the United States. While it may be true (or not so true) that pro-lifers focus their attention on unborn children rather than on what happens to children after birth, the fact is that most abortions today are done for convenience or choice (wrong sex, a genetic defect, etc.), not because of rape, incest, or life of the mother.

This thread deals with abortion, not with other problems that deserve our attention and response.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:39 pm

Cathleen, regarding the violence at Military Recruitment Centers, using your logic, all those who use anti-war rhetoric should be seen as “radical anti-warers”, guilty by association as well. The fact is, you know what is and is not an example of remote material cooperation and what is meant by the term guilt by association.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:42 pm

Joseph, if personhood can not be determined then how do we know if a Woman is Pregnant with a Child?

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:49 pm

I think that the use of extreme rhetoric, by anyone, on any sensitive moral issue, with the knowledge that some kooks are likely to take it to heart in ways which result in seriously unjust acts, is grossly irresponsible.

The rhetoric needs to be toned down.

Posted by Joe McFaul
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:54 pm

“More than 50 people were killed and thousands injured to that particular slogan in Los Angeles in 1992.”

And I call “B.S” on Sean.

The Rodney King riots was not any kind of organized movement. How dishonest are you willing to be? The riots are exactly what happens when people just like the Killer of Dr Tiller choose to abandon the rule of law.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on June 1st, 2009 at 4:36 pm

Nancy, personhood and pregnancy are different concepts. Pregnancy can be determined scientifically, but personhood cannot. Pregnancy is a determination made by ordinary observation and/or scientific test. Personhood is an acknowledgement made by the heart, perhaps informed by moral and/or ethical teaching, formal or otherwise. Pregnancy can be ascertained by the senses; personhood cannot.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on June 1st, 2009 at 4:49 pm

Cathleen, I agree we should avoid extreme rhetoric. Speaking only for myself, I don’t ordinarily use the terms ‘murder’ or ‘murderer’ when discussing abortion. In fact, I consider most induced abortions to fall within the category of ‘homicide.’

On the other hand, I cannot assume responsibility for kooks who end up committing seriously unjust acts. I do not use these terms in ordinary discourse, and I seriously doubt kooks read the pages or threads of Commonweal :)

That said, I think Dr. Tiller committed more than one murder in his practice. I’m not concerned with his intent here. It is the egregious nature of his actions, their number, and the years over which they occurred. Tiller was no ordinary abortionist. Apparently according to news accounts, he and a few other doctors were the exception to the rule in the kind of medical practice engaged in.

‘Murder” should not ordinarily be used, but Tiller’s case gives us an exception.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on June 1st, 2009 at 5:08 pm

Joseph, based on your non logic, that means that defining you, Joseph, as a Person, is a matter of opinion. To be or not to be, that is a question that you do not believe has a definate answer. Now I see your confusion.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on June 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm

“…that means that defining you, Joseph, as a Person, is a matter of opinion.”

Thank you, Nancy, for summarizing the points I made above. It is precisely opinion, informed or not by morality or ethics, that considers “the other” to be a person — or not.

However, personhood is not ultimately a matter of logic. It is a judgment of the heart. If I consider Nancy a person, it is not science or logic that informs my judgment. It is my opinion — hopefully guided by my sincere belief (or a change in heart if I did not regard you as a person) — that reflects my belief that you are a person (and not just a mere biologically human offspring).

If the law confers rights of personhood on biologically human beings, it is because ordinary folks (SC justices et al) consider “the others” to be persons and, therefore, worthy of legal protections.

Posted by David Nickol
on June 1st, 2009 at 7:35 pm

David Nickol, actions speak louder than words. Whether the Nazis “considered” or “regarded” homosexuals, Jews, et al as persons or not is immaterial.

Joseph,

It is not immaterial. The argument over abortion is largely a matter of when an embryo or fetus becomes a person. You said

If we accept your line of reasoning, to wit, that Dr. Tiller did not consider fetuses to be persons, then we can also state that the Nazis did not consider homosexuals, the disabled, Jews, and other undesirables to be persons and, therefore, deserving of protection under the law. At what point do we consider unborn human offspring persons?

But the Nazis did not justify killing millions on the grounds that they were not persons. Personhood had nothing to do with it. And abortion has nothing to do with the Holocaust, either.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:34 pm

Cathleen you referred to “the use of extreme rhetoric, by anyone, on any sensitive moral issue” to claim that abortion shouldn’t be called murder. Of course you’re begging the question about what is “extreme,” because you’re defining the preborn as not persons and their brutal killing as not murder but a sensitive moral issue. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be extreme to call abortion murder. And you are maintaining your premise that if abortion really were murder, violence could not be taken off the table, while nonviolence can’t really be adopted towards serious injustice because it inherently justifies violence to dignify and speak out on behalf of the oppressed as being true persons suffering the injustice of things as serious as murder. This premise is a rejection of Catholic social thought and social justice advocacy on behalf of the vulnerable and human rights, which especially has heretofore been well articulated by progressives in Commonweal and other places and by the modern peace tradition of Catholic social teaching.

Posted by Bill Mazzella
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:41 pm

“It is a moral and legal construct, not a scientific one. ”

Joe, you, and no one has shown conclusively that the fetus is a person. Your moral construct is just that a construct. Proving nothing but opinion.

Posted by Angelica
on June 2nd, 2009 at 5:33 am

What (typical) hypocrisy by the contemptible Randall Terry to express “concern” about the state of the doctor’s soul.

Fat lot HE cares. He’s glad the man is dead, and he knows his own hysterical carryings-on and venomous speechifying have led to numerous unbalanced individuals deciding to take the law into their own hands. At the very least, Terry is an “enabler” of anti-abortion terrorism”.

I pity TERRY the day he has to face his Maker–with all the blood on HIS OWN hands!

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:06 am

Jason, cut it out.. I have not defined the unborn as not persons. And I have written extensively on rhetoric and ethics -that’s my current scholarly interest.

Not all taking of human life –even born human life –is murder. There are lots of categories, which reflect the circumstances not only of the victim, but also of the defendant.

With respect to the law, abortion, in this country right now, is not murder. It was generally not murder per se–it was a distinct crime of abortion.

Do you think that extremist rhetoric has changed even one mind? I don’t. I think it makes pro-lifers look crazy. I can tell you that at Notre Dame, many people said to me, “I’m not pro-choice, but I’m anti- anti-abortion. “We were afraid of violence. Thanks to the rhetoric of Randall Terry, the very reasonable response of ND Response was overshadowed.

So how does this scenario help you get what you want?

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:01 am

“Thanks to the rhetoric of Randall Terry, the very reasonable response of ND Response was overshadowed.”

And where exactly was the official voice of Notre Dame regarding the Notre Dame Response? I was at Mass at the Basilica on Palm Sunday where there was no mention of the need to Pray for a change of Hearts to end abortion nor was their mention of the Rosary Rally with Pro-Life speakers that was to take place directly after Mass. Imagine that, on a Catholic Campus, not supporting a Pro-Life Rally for political reasons or maybe it was just because of pride.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:15 am

Joseph, are you saying that it is possible for a Woman to be Pregnant with a Being that is not a Human Individual? (from the Merriam-Webster On-Line-Dictionary, definition of Person:Human,Individual)

Posted by Bill deHaas
on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:46 am

To try to change and get back to some of the original postings. Here is an interesting article by John O’Malley, SJ in America Magazine about the use of rhetoric, language, and words. It sets out a very different tone than what we have seen in many of these posts; the rants of some bishops, the rants of many anti-abortion groups, rants of pro-choice groups.

He titled the article Obama and ND and then compares this to the “spirit” of Vatican II and its style, rhetoric. It is worth reading and comparing to this event and its reaction:

“Catholics who denounce the president for his stance on abortion are of course responsible for many of the mines in the field, but their mines have been so thoroughly discussed lately that for the sake of brevity I will bypass them here.

The other set of mines in the field comes from the expression “the spirit of Vatican II.” The expression, used widely at the time of the council and given a certain official standing at the Synod of Bishops in 1985, has lately in Roman circles been quietly downgraded, if not dismissed as meaningless. No doubt, the expression has been abused to justify interpretations far removed from what the bishops intended, and it has seemed all too prone to ideological manipulation. Your “spirit of the council” is not my “spirit of the council.”

From Grant Park to South Bend, the president’s conciliatory tone calls to mind the spirit of Vatican II.Yet the expression has a legitimate place in our vocabulary and is in fact almost indispensable for grasping the big message the council wanted to deliver. By “the spirit of the council” I mean simply general orientations that transcended particular issues. In my book, What Happened at Vatican II, I argue that beneath the particular issues the council dealt with—episcopal collegiality, for instance, and religious liberty—more profound and far-reaching issues lurked. I call these the issues-under-the-issues. I ground them in the texts of the council and in that way ground “the spirit of the council” and give it verifiable substance.

Among the issues-under-the issues was style, the issue especially pertinent for grounding “the spirit of the council.” The council spoke in a new style, a style different from all previous councils. It eschewed words implying punishment, surveillance, hostility, distrust and coerced behavior-modification that characterized previous councils. It employed words that espoused a new model for Christian behavior—not new, of course, to the Christian tradition as such, but new to council vocabulary. I am referring to words like brothers and sisters, cooperation, partnership, human family, conscience, collegiality and especially dialogue. The new words cannot be dismissed as casual asides or mere window dressing. The council used them too insistently, intentionally and characteristically for them to be that. This new vocabulary made the council a major language-event in the history of the church.

The shift in vocabulary had profound ramifications. It meant a shift in values and priorities. Critical among these new values was civility in dealing with persons of different faiths or convictions and a willingness to listen to them with docile heart and mind. This civility was not a superficial tactic but a manifestation of an inner conversion. It of course did not mean surrendering one’s beliefs, but it did mean a willingness to learn from others and a refusal to condemn them without a hearing. Such openness of mind and heart is the essence of genuine dialogue.

The council hoped that this new style of being, which brings with it a new way of proceeding, would lead to cooperation among all persons of good will—Catholics and non-Catholics, Christians and non-Christians, believers and non-believers—on the new, massive, and sometimes terrifying problems that face humanity today. This new way of proceeding in large part constituted “the spirit of the council.” It was one of the big messages the council delivered to the church and to the world at large.”

Wise words to reflect on given this event.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm

Bill, with all due respect, where exactly in the Documents of Vatican II does it say that the Spirit of Vatican II is about compromising The Truth? If it is true that Vatican II was about compromising The Truth then Vatican II was based on a false premise to begin with.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:26 pm

oops, that should read Vatican II, hopefully there will be no need for a Vatican 11

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:08 pm

Nancy, I believe you and I are on the same page: We both condemn abortion. I think it is morally wrong because it involves the unjust taking of human life. I believe the unborn human offspring is a person. I cannot prove this assertion. It is a matter of the heart. As far as I’m concerned, a pregnant woman is carrying a live human being (although pro-choicers like to quibble over the meaning of the phrase ‘human being’). I believe a pregnant woman is carrying a person created in the likeness and image of God.

That said, I am not prepared to tell a victim of rape or incest or a woman facing death from pregnancy that she must not get an abortion. Genuine cases of these kinds are very sensitive, and the expectant mother deserves all the help she can get — even if such help is my keeping my mouth shut. In these situations, I leave moral judgment to God alone. I can condemn the abortion itself, but recognizing the particular circumstances involved, I can only say, “There but for the grace of God go I.” It is such difficult cases for which I simply and humbly do not have an answer.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:23 pm

David, we are simply going to have to agree to disagree.

Actions DO speak louder than words. We know, for instance, that when slavery was legal in the United States, it was not uncommon for observers of the day (as well as today) to exclaim that slaves were not treated as persons. Likewise, the victims of the Holocaust were not treated as persons; they were so much rubbish to be tortured, tinkered with, brutalized, killed, and buried in open pits (I think sick cows are buried in much the same way — if they’re not incinerated beforehand!).

While the “argument,” as you say, is “largely a matter of when an embryo or fetus becomes a person,” the fact is there is no way to demonstrate, much less prove, the issue at hand. We are talkin’ human life here, not inanimate objects, or pigs, or sheep, or lab rats, etc. In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court consigned a whole class of unborn human offspring to legal/constitutional non-personhood. Never mind that such offspring can (not necessarily will) continue to develop both during and after the pregnancy. And, of course, we like to use terms like zygote, blastula, fetus, embryo, etc. because such terms avoid our humanizing the unborn offspring. I’m only 61, but if I were in my 80s or older right now, I’d resent medical professionals referring to me as a ‘geriatric.’ The word might be technically correct, but I’m more than “technically” assembled. I’m a human being, a person.

Words are important, and actions do, indeed, speak louder than any words.

Posted by Joseph Jaglowicz
on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:35 pm

Bill, I agree wholeheartedly with your comments posted yesterday at 10:41 pm.

I cannot “prove” the unborn’s personhood anymore than I can “disprove” it. Yet, I find it ironic that many in the pro-choice movement expect me to somehow prove personhood! They’re asking me to prove what is impossible to prove!

As I’ve said or suggested earlier, we might be able to “prove” something in science, we might be able to demonstrate a point of law, but we can only “acknowledge” the personhood of unborn human offspring (I use the word ‘human’ here in its biological sense, not in any other sense).

Folks who condemned slavery and mass murder were not expected to “prove” the humanity, i.e., essential personhood, of Africans, Jews, or other human offspring considered somehow inferior. It was a matter of the heart. It was also, likely, a matter of observation. After all, we could see that these “undesirables” and “outcasts” were just like us — except in matters of race, religion, or some other deficient or defective trait or characteristic.

Bill, if I can have a heart for the poor, the suffering, the incest or rape victim, etc., surely you can have a heart for the unborn child. Can you not???

Posted by John McG
on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:45 pm

Thanks to the rhetoric of Randall Terry, the very reasonable response of ND Response was overshadowed.

Perhaps that is because supporters of the invitation, in particular here at dotCommonweal, were content to barrelfish against the like of Terry rather than engage more thoughtful criticism.

Posted by Mollie Wilson O’Reilly
on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm

Of course! If dotCommonweal just ignored the excesses of folks like Randall Terry, they wouldn’t get so much attention on the national news. John McG, come on now.

Posted by David Nickol
on June 2nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm

In Roe v Wade, the Supreme Court consigned a whole class of unborn human offspring to legal/constitutional non-personhood.

Joseph,

This is not true. Even when abortion was illegal, the unborn were not legal persons. Anti-abortion legislation in the United States prior to Roe was never based on a legal or moral “right to life.” The unborn had no “rights” prior to Roe, and to attempt to define the unborn as legal persons now is to introduce something entirely new to American law (or perhaps any civil law in any country — somebody else would have to verify that). Even in Chile, Nicaragua, and El Salvador, where the Catholic Church has been very influential in getting anti-abortion laws enacted, abortionists and the women who procure abortions are punished with several years in jail, but they are not treated as murderers.

So the Supreme Court did not do anything resembling what you said. It did not change the status of the unborn. I have recently come to think of an interesting way of thinking about abortion. In some sense, what the Supreme Court did do was give the pregnant woman — and no one else — the power of life and death over her unborn child. It did not declare open season on “a whole class of persons.” No one but the woman carrying the unborn child has any right at all to do it the least harm.

I happened to see an segment on Religion & Ethics Newsweekly about the rights of parents to refuse medical treatment for their children and instead rely on faith healing. More than 30 states exempt parents from prosecution if their children die from being “treated” with faith healing rather than conventional medicine. It seems to me in both the case of abortion and faith healing, parents are being given the power of life and death over their children. Yes, of course there are differences, but the similarities to me are fascinating.

I don’t look at abortion law in the United States as the government denying protection to “a whole class of persons.” An unborn child is protected from harm by American law in many ways, and for some years now those protections have become even more direct and explicit. It seems to me that abortion should be looked at more in terms of parental rights than the withdrawal of rights (which were never recognized in any case) from the unborn.

Would you be in favor of repealing the exemption given to parents whose children die from lack of medical treatment? Or do you think this would be infringing on the religious freedom of the parents? And if religious freedom protects a parent’s rights to withhold life-saving treatment from their dying children, what other freedoms should parents have that would allow them to let their children die?

Posted by Pamela Ruigh
on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:29 pm

I am a so-called pro-life progressive and a Catholic. My biggest question to the man who shot a doctor in cold blood while he handed out church bulletins in his church is “Where was he when abortions were being performed by the Mafia doctors. Would he be as bold? What will these terrorists do if or when Roe vs Wade is overturned and the practice of abortion is turned over to the underworld. The pro-life movement is naive if it thinks their protests will stop abortion. Where was the Catholic Church when abortions were done illegally in an underground abortion business run by the Mob. Did the Bishops refuse the Mafia Bosses Communion?
Rarely if at all did we hear of a Bishop refusing to give a Mafia family communion because he had connections to the abortions of many many innocents in the womb. No, they were the biggest donors to churches and schools,

Posted by Jason Drakes
on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 am

Cathleen says “I have not defined the unborn as not persons.”

But Cathleen also says “the unborn aren’t persons”
http://mirrorofjustice.blogs.com/mirrorofjustice/2009/01/kaveny-on-the-use-of-analogy-in-the-abortion-debate.html

Figure that one out.

Cathleen, you deny that abortion is murder because you deny that the unborn are persons. But in the process of pursuing those ideas against pro-lifers, you seem to be willing to dismiss Christian nonviolence too and its roots in Catholic social teaching and progressive thought, becaus you are saying that if abortion really could be called murder then anti-abortion violence could not be excluded in principle–which means that there’s no moral principle to exclude violence as a response to serious injustice–which means nonviolence is not a legitimate approach to serious injustice.

You are wrong both about the unborn and about your rejection of nonviolence. If you want to continue denying the personhood of the unborn, don’t drag Catholic thought on nonviolence solidarity into the mud to help your goals.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on June 3rd, 2009 at 7:47 am

1. Morally, I think the unborn are persons.

2. Legally, in the U.S., right now, they are not persons. Roe v. Wade. Therefore, killing them is legally speaking, not only not murder, it is not illegal at all (under many circumstances). In the quote you pull up, I’m describing the legal status of the unborn currently and comparing it to the legal status of slaves (the unborn are not persons under American law, but they’re not chattel property–a mother can’t sell her fetus, can’t mutilate it, etc.)

3. Even in the pre-Roe days, abortion was not “murder”–a particular legal crime, but a separate crime of abortion.

I do NOT advocate total non-violence; I am NOT a pacifist. I strongly adhere to just war theory.

I think ANY use of violence to change the law amounts to a civil war, which must be justified under just war theory. I do not advocate–I totally and completely reject–the idea that a civil war is justified in the United States to to end abortion.

I hope that’s clear, Mr. Drake.

Posted by Jason Drakes
on June 3rd, 2009 at 9:09 am

Thank you–it is certainly clearer, to those reading down the thread this far.
But pacifism is not the same as nonviolenve. The US Bishops and Pope John Paul II charted a path of resistance to massive social evil by solidarity and nonviolence–it doesn’t say one can never have just war, but it says one can and should adopt solidarity/nonviolence in many situations, as a moral matter. Catholic thinkers such as those in Commonweal have expanded on this nonviolent approach. Their view allows for the rejection of violence not as mere prudential matter but on moral principle in response to various social problems. It includes the most extreme social problems like mass murder. So if you say that something can’t be described as mass murder while rejecting violence as a response to it, you are not just saying that you are a pacifist in every serious case, you are saying that you can’t even sometimes exclude violence in principle in any serious case. If you go further and say that as a condition of rejecting violence, the people combatting oppression must dehumanize their victims and downplay the gravity of the injustice being perpetrated against them, you are rejecting the possibility of adopting nonviolence towards serious social evils. That would lay to waste just about every approach to every massive evil that can be read from the Church and Bishops and Christian nonviolence thinkers. The US Bishops’ response against the Tiller murder rejects the violence morally but in no way lessens the gravity of the injustice of abortion. It does so from the peace approach of modern social teaching. It affirms solidarity because abortion is so bad, not despite of it.

So I am still troubled that the only voice of Commonweal commenters on this tragedy so far is to adopt a violent premise that excludes the possibility of nonviolence as a repsonse–that requires someone to either accept anti-abortion violence in moral principle or reject the personhood of the preborn and the murder-status of their killings in moral principle.

You speak of personhood distinguished morally and legally. But I think it also necessary to speak of abortion and murder morally as well as legally. Morally, abortion is “the deliberate and direct killing, by whatever means it is carried out, of a human being in the initial phase of his or her existence, extending from conception to birth.” EV. And morally, murder is the unjust killing of an innocent person. Morally, according to EV, abortion is murder, or else the preborn are not persons. I don’t think you can distinguish personhood morally and legally without also distinguishing abortion and murder morally and legally. It’s necessary to the discussion because whether anti-abortion violence can be rejected by the Catholic approach is mainly a moral issue. If you don’t want your “legal” statements to seem to say what you think of these things morally, as with personhood, you need to elaborate that distinction too.

Posted by John McG
on June 3rd, 2009 at 9:18 am

I do not advocate–I totally and completely reject–the idea that a civil war is justified in the United States to to end abortion.

I agree, in that such a war would not have a reasonable chance for success, and would inflict damage that would not be proportional to the benefit being changed, and there is not a legitiamate authority that could reach such a determination..

Personally, I am probably closer to pacifism than is strictly required by Church teaching. Still, I think abortion would pass the “lasting, grave, and certain” requirement, and it would be possible to conceive of a situation where abortion policy could be the cause for a just war. If the US were invaded by a foreign power that would enact a one-child policy, compelling abortions for women pregnant with a second child, I think that alone would be sufficient cause to justify a violent resistance. I am not inclined to think that imposition of a “pro-choice” regime on a “pro-life” populace would be sufficient cause, though I’d have to think it through more.

In any instance, the case for just war on abortion in the US fails for prudential and technical reasons — it would not have a reasonable chance of success, and would cause disproportionate harm, and there is not a “legitiate authority” that would make this determination. This says *nothing* about the gravity of abortion, or the approptiateness of describing it in strong terms.

It may not be prudent for a child to resist an abusive parent; that doesn’t mean that what’s happening isnt’ abuse.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on June 3rd, 2009 at 9:23 am

I do not think that abortion has to be equated with the crime of murder if and when the unborn are recognized as persons. The definition of a crime takes into account many features, including not only the victim.

I’m open to non-violence as a strategy–ML King–in fact, as the only strategy which can work in most circumstances. We’re talking about Tiller’s murder–a violent act –here.

Posted by John McG
on June 3rd, 2009 at 9:30 am

I would also add that in the case of abortion, it is not apparent that all non-violent means of addressing the injustice have been exhausted, so it would also fail in that regard.

Again, this does not mean that abortion is not a grave matter, and thus should not be categorized as evil.

Posted by Nancy Danielson
on June 3rd, 2009 at 10:10 am

Is there a need for war when Science is consistent with the Universal Truth that the unalienable Right to Life that is endowed by the Creator belongs to all Human Beings? Science has proven that at Conception, a unique Human Individual exists, with DNA consistent of that of a Human Being, separate from that of their Mother. That meets the definition of Person, a Human Individual. Nothing is added to the DNA of that individual at Conception. What is required to sustain Life, is that that individual is Nurtured and Protected.

Personhood is not a matter of opinion. Every Human Individual is the same Person from Conception to Death even though every Human Being goes through stages of transformation.

Posted by Cathleen Kaveny
on June 3rd, 2009 at 10:14 am

Okay, I think this thread has run its course –at 117 comments. Thank you, all.

religion

politics

culture

books

blog

login

register

Abortion Doctor Shot to Death in Kansas

Send to a Friend

Advertisement

Comments

Contributors

Recent posts

Past months

Syndication

religion

politics

culture

books

blog

login

register

Abortion Doctor Shot to Death in Kansas

Send to a Friend

Advertisement

Comments

Contributors

Recent posts

Past months

Syndication

Free e-newsletter