Abortion and Murder, Again
Here is Randall Terry’s reaction to the murder of George Tiller in his church yesterday:
Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue states, “George Tiller was a mass-murderer. We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God. I am more concerned that the Obama Administration will use Tiller’s killing to intimidate pro-lifers into surrendering our most effective rhetoric and actions. Abortion is still murder. And we still must call abortion by its proper name; murder.
“Those men and women who slaughter the unborn are murderers according to the Law of God. We must continue to expose them in our communities and peacefully protest them at their offices and homes, and yes, even their churches.”
No condemnation; no horror that a man was killed in his church, while his wife was just a few feet away singing in the church choir. Just regret that he did not repent in time. The thing to recognize, though, is that this is absolutely an appropriate reaction for someone who, as Terry does, thinks abortion is “murder,” full stop. If you are (1) not a pacifist; and (2) believe abortion is murder (without some sort of qualifier to make it clear that you are using that term in a metaphorical sense); then you should not be morally horrified by Tiller’s killing in the way you would of any other murder (i.e., as an intrinsic evil). If you are morally horrified by the killing in this sense (as I think you ought to be), then you cannot simultaneously hold positions (1) and (2). If you do hold both (1) and (2), you might think Tiller’s killing was imprudent; you might regret it (even very deeply) because you think it will harm the anti-abortion cause. You might even regret the death of the doctor as you would regret the death of an enemy soldier or the violent criminal you kill in self-defense (or, to make the parallel more complete, in the defense of a stranger). But you cannot be mortified by it as intrinsically wrong, as itself murder. You can only disagree with it on tactical grounds. This is the consequence of categorizing abortion as murder, full stop (as Terry correctly suggests).
Let me be clear: I am not saying that one cannot think that abortion is evil, even gravely evil, and still oppose the murder of abortion doctors. But consider this statement by Archbishop Sobrinho during the controversy over the excommunication of the people involved in the abortion given to the eight-year old rape victim in Brazil earlier this year: “Abortion is much more serious than killing an adult. An adult may or may not be an innocent, but an unborn child is most definitely innocent. Taking that life cannot be ignored.” If you agree with this sort of rhetoric, then you must embrace the consequences of that position, and one of those consequences is that the killing of abortion doctors is not itself necessarily murder but an arguably justified killing in defense of the innocent. You also shouldn’t be too surprised when people reach a different prudential conclusion than you might about the wisdom of killing abortion doctors. For me, these are reasons to back away from the position that abortion is literally murder. Others will (obviously) disagree.
UPDATE: In response to a fair point in the comments below about the ambiguity of the point I was trying to make, I’ve modified this post to try to make clearer that I am not saying that believing abortion is murder mandates that you support killing abortionists. But I do think it rules out a certain sort of moral reaction to such killings (i.e., the reaction that views them as intrinsically wrong in the way that murder is wrong). This does not, of course, rule out the sort of regret we might feel even for those we kill under situations where that killing is justified. Terry’s regret that Tiller died before he could repent seems to fall into that category, for example.
UPDATE II: Bill O’Reilly (via TPM) provides some examples of the sort of rhetoric I’m talking about.
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:47 am
Eduardo, you and David Nickols keep pushing this line of argument. To suggest that the only thing that stops pro-life activists from taking up arms is that they don’t really believe their own rhetoric is just unfair. (I happen to agree that many people don’t really believe their own rhetoric, but I don’t tie it to their unwillingness to take up violence.)
In defense of pro-life activists who would never contemplate comparable action, there is a differentiating factor extant in our society: Abortion is legal and shooting people and bombing clinics are not. Whether you think that your opponents are deeply misguided, you can obviously see that many people don’t agree with pro-life rhetoric. In this respect, as with capital punishment, it is pointless, fruitless and ultimately self-destructive to “go after” individuals involved in abortion (or capital punishment). Imagine, for instance, targeting judges or juries or prosecutors for assassination on the basis that they participated in a criminal prosecution for which they enabled or advocated for the death sentence.
Much as pro-life activists may be horrified by abortion, they are right to be horrified by extralegal remedies, which, among other things, can easily get out of hand (the same man who firebombed an Alabama abortion clinic bombed Centennial Park in Atlanta during the 1996 Olympics) and can easily be turned around and used against perceived fellow travelers, for instance, protesters, who are deemed to be a little too threatening.
To suggest that true commitment can only be shown by acts of violence is a fallacious line of argument and it disserves non-violent activists everywhere.
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:49 am
Well said and written. Now, can we make a case not for formal or material cooperation but remote cooperation with the killer by folks such as Terry, Bishop Naumann, etc.
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:52 am
Thank you, Barbara, for this very fair and accurate analysis.
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:53 am
Barbara says: “Whether you think that your opponents are deeply misguided, you can obviously see that many people don’t agree with pro-life rhetoric. In this respect, as with capital punishment, it is pointless, fruitless and ultimately self-destructive to “go after” individuals involved in abortion (or capital punishment).”
You are illustrating my point. This is the language of prudence, not moral principle.
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:57 am
Eduardo, moral principle and prudence are not mutually exclusive concepts. One can hold deep moral principles and pursue them with prudence. That is where your analysis fails. You have assumed, a priori, that a given moral principle should result in a particular action. I think that assumption is incorrect.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:06 am
My concern, and one I think Eduardo gets at, is that so many anti-abortion activists and leaders have assumed themselves that a given moral principle should result in a particular action.
For example, the most frequent meme is that abortion is like the Holocaust, pro-choicers and abortionists are like Hitler and the Nazis, and WWII was justified, ergo…
Or slavery–it was legal, and required a Civil War to extirpate it (well, at least officially).
If you say violence was jsutified then, and the situation is the same today, and you regularly use the most bellicose terms in calls to arm, it’s a bit disingenuous to recoil in horror when people act on those arguments. No?
Also, this is the kind of thing everyone was warning about. There is no surprise in this attack. The DHS had a memo on it a few weeks back. This happened when Clinton was elected, and it seems likely to continue under Obama.
Where does the responsibility lie?
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am
No, Barbara — You’re misunderstanding my post. I’m not saying that a certain position necessitates any particular action. I’m saying that it rules out certain ways of understanding and responding to that action (i.e., as wrong on anything other than prudential grounds). That is, unless you are a pacifist, you cannot say, “I’m pro-life, so I oppose killing abortion doctors too.” This would be to ignore the evil you think abortion doctors are engaged in and that their killing would prevent. Killing abortion doctors under those circumstances would be a classic case of justified killing under traditional Catholic teachings relating to the taking of human life. You can only say, “I oppose killing abortion doctors because I think it will be politically counter-productive.” I’m not denying that this is a “moral” position at all, but it’s not a principled moral opposition to the killing of abortion doctors as intrinsically wrong. It’s an opposition based on pragmatic calculation.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:18 am
While I think Eduardo has a point asbout “practical calculation,” Barbara’s issue of rhetoric strikes me as critical.
We have a major group talking about common ground.
Now this.
Either we move forward with some mutual respect or we’ll call out the marshalls to uphold the law with folks more divided (and Christians, ala Fr. Kavanagh, hating each other.)
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:20 am
Eduardo, you and David Nickols keep pushing this line of argument. To suggest that the only thing that stops pro-life activists from taking up arms is that they don’t really believe their own rhetoric is just unfair. (I happen to agree that many people don’t really believe their own rhetoric, but I don’t tie it to their unwillingness to take up violence.)
Barbara,
I think I have a slightly more nuanced position, although I probably haven’t made it clear. I am not sure Catholic morality ever would condone assassination. But the rhetoric of some in the pro-life movement is so extreme that if it is to be taken seriously, surely an excellent case could be made that “working within the system” is an inadequate response to a “holocaust.” The system itself is said to be “fundamentally flawed.” Why work within a fundamentally flawed system that permits (and some would say facilitates or even encourages) 1.3 million “murders” a year.
Why do those who believe we have a holocaust occurring in the United States continue to live here and pay their taxes?
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:21 am
I would like to take a little different track here. I am going to do a ’suppose’. I am wondering (from reading the previous question–also on abortion), I am wondering if the
bishops who spoke out so strongly against President Obama, Governor Sebelius, Vice President Biden, etc.—-are they going to be put on the “Homeland Terrorists’ List”?
I have no doubt that any of them would ever encourage the murder of anyone who performs abortions. But with the murder of a doctor—and right inside (vestibule?) of his church—-what will be the ramifications? Just as a stone cast into a pool has ever widening ripples outward, I believe this action is going to stretch out to unbelievable conclusions.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
In any decent legal theory — and in any decent moral language — the term “murder” has to do not only with outcomes but also with intentions. It is possible to hold that while the killing of a fetus is no less a homicide than the killing of a one-year-old, it far less likely to be a murder — at any time or in any place, but especially in our society today. To put it another way: One can be prolife and still concede that it is far easier to be wrong about the moral status of a fetus than it is to be wrong about the moral status of, say, a toddler. The murder of an abortionist is, among other things, an act of terrible presumption. Tiller’s murderer evidently believed not only that Tiller ought to have known better, but that he did know better. And why would one believe this? So the man who killed Tiller was imprudent, yes (and as Barbara points out, imprudence properly understood is also a serious moral failure), but not only imprudent. If you killed a short-sighted man because he had shot several people in the belief that they were bears, your guilt would be real and deep, even though you were right and he was wrong about who it was he had shot.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:36 am
Eduardo, per my post in the other thread, I do have misgivings about notions of Christian pacifism, but it’s the word “only” that I find so problematic. Whether or not you are right on the point of justifiable killings, I have never been under the impression that justifiable killings are mandated by any moral principle. The decision not to engage in a killing that might be judged as justifiable is an eminently defensible one on both moral and prudential grounds.
If you are suggesting that in order to be true to their principles, pro-life activists can’t criticize people like Roeder for undertaking an otherwise “justifiable” killing, unless they are themselves pacifists — well, I think the whole notion of justifiable killing is premised on imminent harm. Certainly, they can come to the conclusion that the killing was not justifiable even if under some circumstances some killings might be. They aren’t bound by any principle to see this particular killing as justifiable.
They are also entitled, IMHO, to take refuge in the notion that the law may not always be moral, but it is entitled to great respect as an arbiter of what actions may be considered moral in response to injustice. In this case, there can be no doubt that shooting someone at church is not justifiable under any secular legal principle. Whether it would be justifiable under Catholic doctrine is open to great debate. In other words, it’s not black and white and pro-life activists are no more required to see it that way than I am.
Let’s just say that I reject nearly any effort made by anyone in defense of any moral principle to sweep away circumstance and nuance and critical thinking and reasoning. This effort to push people into a rigid moral framework is wrong when done by pro-life activists but it’s wrong when it’s done by others as well.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:38 am
Matthew- this argument doesn’t hold up for a number of reasons.
(1) The rhetoric I’m discussing just is the rhetoric of murder, not “homicide,” which is a much larger category.
(2) more importantly, the justification for killing here would not be punitive but preventative, and so the doctor’s state of mind would be largely irrelevant, except to the extent that his state of mind leads to the belief that he is likely to continue to engage in abortion.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:44 am
Barbara — to be clear. My target is not the pro-life movement as a whole, but a particular kind of rhetoric. I don’t think all pro-life people use the facile rhetoric of murder. But many do.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:52 am
Eduardo,
What argument doesn’t work? I agree with you about the dangers of using the term “murder.” Prolifers should avoid it; careful prolifers do. But when its use seems to motivate or justify some crime, it is important not to say that this just goes to show that anyone who really thinks abortion is the killing of an innocent human being would have to kill abortionists — or at least approve of those who do. My whole point was to distinguish between the term “homicide” and “murder,” and to suggest that prolifers stick to the former. I don’t think you disagree.
As for your second point, I’m not sure how much work your “would” is meant to do here. Do you know that Tiller’s killer did not intend to punish him for the abortions he had performed? I don’t think you do; and unless you do, there’s no reason to presume that presumption wasn’t involved.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am
In any decent legal theory — and in any decent moral language — the term “murder” has to do not only with outcomes but also with intentions. It is possible to hold that while the killing of a fetus is no less a homicide than the killing of a one-year-old, it far less likely to be a murder — at any time or in any place, but especially in our society today.
John Paul II contradicts with that viewpoint in Evangelium Vitae
Of course, abortion is not legally murder in the United States, but no one claims it is.
on June 1st, 2009 at 10:56 am
Barbara,
One thing I really appreciate about your posts is your ability to make distinctions, and I think you make important ones in your response to David and Eduardo. That said, could their argument be salvaged in the following manner: If it were widely held among anti-abortion activists that abortion is murder, we should expect to find more frequent efforts at violent vigilante justice than we do. Because we do not, it is likely that the murder rhetoric of many anti-abortion activists is not entirely sincere. Putting the argument this way would still allow for the group that you rightly highlight; namely, those that think abortion is murder, but, for any number of reasons, do not feel that violent action is called for.
In other words, there may have been many slaves and abolitionists who would not engage in violent rebellion against slavery, even though they thought slavery was a horrible evil, but the existence of a Nat Turner would not be surprising to such people. Can’t Eduardo and David be read as making a descriptive claim rather than an analytic one?
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:00 am
Matthew — Apologies. I misunderstood your point. I thought you were trying to reconcile (as others have) the murder rhetoric by using a “degrees of murder” sort of argument. Thanks for the clarification. I agree that we have no idea what was going on inside the killer’s head.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:01 am
Check this out:
http://tpmtv.talkingpointsmemo.com/?id=2644487&ref=fpblg
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:04 am
Mr. Petit said:
If it were widely held among anti-abortion activists that abortion is murder, we should expect to find more frequent efforts at violent vigilante justice than we do. Because we do not, it is likely that the murder rhetoric of many anti-abortion activists is not entirely sincere.
This is not necessarily the case. One may believe that abortion is murder while also believing that instances of alleged murder are matters to be handled by the law. Unwillingness to take the law into one’s own hands and anti-abortion rhetoric, however imprudent, are not inconsistent.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:06 am
“Now can we make a case not for formal or material cooperation but remote cooperation with the killer by folks such as Terry, Bishop Nauman, etc.”
You could make such a case if these people were aware of the killer’s intention but did not report it or if they had told the killer that taking the Life of George Tiller would be justified. We still do not know what the killer’s motives were. The fact that he performed abortions may not be relevant.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:08 am
Thanks, Joe — I posted the video above.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:09 am
I think that I shall look at the current discussion as an intellectual exercise, and as such note that the Catechism of the Catholic Church states that “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the state.” Tie that with the believe that we are our brother’s keeper, then Eduardo’s argument becomes more reasonable.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:12 am
Mr. Manetti: I agree that the two positions are not inconsistent. My point was to suggest that it would be surprising if EVERYONE who holds that abortion is murder would also conclude that vigilantism is wrong. In other words, I am suggesting that there should be more vigilanti violence than is actually the case, if the murder rhetoric were deeply held by most anti-abortion folks. Because we do not find higher rates of vigilanti violence, I am concluding that the murder rhetoric is not completely sincere in many cases. My argument, however, is inductive, not deductive.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:13 am
Prof Penalver and Mr. Boudway,
Can you explain to a layman what the difference is between homicide and murder? Does this have to do with degrees of murder or intent? Does homicide just mean killing?
I’ve stopped saying that abortion is murder because of posts I’ve read here. But, what does it mean to say that abortion is homicide, then?
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:14 am
oops. Not sure why I went off on a vigilante misspelling spree above — sorry ’bout that.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
The argument of this post could at least as easily go the other way. If one thinks that abortion is murder and is appalled by the murder of George Tiller, I would like to suggest that it might be one’s position on violence in general that needs to be reconsidered. We should not relax our ethic of abortion, but raise our ethic of violence.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:15 am
It is easy to dismiss Randall Terry as a fanatic, but there is a consistency to his position that is hard to deny. In the previous post, Cathy Kaveny quoted Robert George’s strong condemnation of the murder of Dr. Tiller, but she did not quote—though she provided a link to—George’s First Things statement. Here is one bit of the First Things quote:
“I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil.”
To be fair to George, the First Things quote was many years ago. Still, the condemnation of Tiller’s murder rings pretty hollow in light of the above statement. And now that George’s condemnation is appearing everywhere in the conservative blogosphere, it may be worth pondering his earlier statement. It is also worth pondering the fact that most of the denunciations of Dr. Tiller’s murder have the form: “ I condemn George Tiller’s murder, full stop.” It would be nice if such statements actually then stopped. Unfortunately, most of the condemnations don’t stop there but go on to condemn Dr. Tiller.
Update: A more careful reading-than I originally gave it-of the George statement in First Things suggests that the comments were meant as parody. Here for the record is the quote in context:
“I am personally opposed to killing abortionists. However, inasmuch as my personal opposition to this practice is rooted in a sectarian (Catholic) religious belief in the sanctity of human life, I am unwilling to impose it on others who may, as a matter of conscience, take a different view.
Of course, I am entirely in favor of policies aimed at removing the root causes of violence against abortionists. Indeed, I would go so far as to support mandatory one-week waiting periods, and even nonjudgmental counseling for people who are contemplating the choice of killing an abortionist.
I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil. In short, I am moderately
pro-choice.”
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:16 am
Antonio,
As I have argued before, the two comparisons the pro-life movement are most fond of are the Holocaust and slavery in the United States. We consider it very heroic that some defied the Nazis and helped Jews escape or hid them to save their lives. We admire those who defied the law and helped run the underground railroad, illegally aiding escaped slaves. Whether or not violence would be permissible in resistance to our “flawed system,” certainly it would not be difficult to argue that those trying to do something about a “holocaust” taking place in the United States would not be bound by law. Otherwise we would have to look back critically on those who tried to hide Anne Frank, or those who helped escaped slaves, as lawbreakers.
Let me be clear that I am not trying to goad the pro-life movement into breaking the law. I am saying their rhetoric would imply stronger resistance than they are demonstrating, and I am criticizing the rhetoric.
Why would anyone pay taxes in a nation that is so “flawed” it permits a holocaust?
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:29 am
It is clear that Bill O’Reilly is singling out George Tiller to make the point that despite the Laws in place to” restrict the number of abortions” in the United States, there is no penalty for those who break that Law. No where does Bill O’Reilly suggest that killing George Tiller is justified.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:34 am
If the majority of people had spoken out against slavery and the holocaust, no doubt, they could have changed History.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:40 am
David,
I’m not sure you know enough about the prolife movement to be making these broad claims about its bad faith or failure of nerve. Many prolifers have done prison time for nonviolent resistance — for blocking the path to abortion clinics, for example. Their methods were not very different from those of civil-rights protesters in the 1960s. Others have gone to prison or left the country because they refused to pay taxes to a government that funds abortion, just as Thoreau went to jail because he wouldn’t pay taxes to a government fighting for the interests of slaveholders. Then there are the people who devote their whole lives to taking care of pregmant women in distress — people like Chris Bell at Good Counsel Homes. Most prolifers aren’t heroes. Neither were most abolitionists. But if you’re actually looking for heroes in the prolife movement, I think you’ll find them without much trouble.
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:51 am
“Bill O’Reilly (via TPM) provides some examples of the sort of rhetoric I’m talking about.”
The title of the link says Mr. O’Reilly was waging “jihad” against Dr. Tiller (”Bill O’Reilly’s jihad against Dr. George Tiller”), but I thought he was Catholic actually, not Muslim. Or is the title designed to be ironic given the discussion of rhetoric?
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Eduardo, your (1) and (2) are not the only two options. You are overlooking the tradition and teaching of Christian nonviolence. It is not pacifism, though you might call selective nonviolence as applied to a particular social problem. It is belief in the transformstice power of the example of Jesus and the martyrs, and the Church’s modern social teaching that the route to freedom from massive social evil is solidarity with the victims, as applied to a specific evil where society thinks that intrafamily violence is a solution to problems.
From this perspective someone need not devalue a preborn child’s status or understate the injustice of abortion less than how DavidN quotes the Pope as doing, and they can at the same time condemn abortionist killing as morally not just tactically wrong.
This view as applied to other social injustice has been articulated well in progressive communities like Commonweal. But you are saying that if abortion is murder full stop then violence cannot be morally excluded–in other words,
Christian nonviolence cannot be adopted unlessone adopts pacifism. That is not true and it undercuts the entire Catholic approach to social evil, especially the work and writing of Catholics in the peace tradition.
I am increasingly troubled that Commonweal would assert premises that basically attack this tradition, and not even give a rebuttal. I am concerned that convincing people of your view that abortion isn’t murder is more important to you than the basic principles of seamless garment Catholic social teaching.
Saying that abortion can’t really be murder if violence isn’t justified (outside pacifism) is to say that Christian nonviolence is an illegitimate, inadequate response to true social evil. So far DavidG and Cathleen seem to share your view, and Matthew has a more moderate variation of it.
I hope to hear some Commonweal contributors defend against what I think is a subtle rejection of Christian nonviolence. If anyone wants further reading I highly recommend the book “Emmanuel, Solidarity” by John Cavanaugh-O’Keefe, a pro-lifer from the peace movement and not a pacifist.
P.S. The quote above from Robert George is satire. He’s saying the opposite of what you say he is saying.
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:47 pm
The Underground Railroad, to the extent it included violence against slaveowners in the South, was resistance to an invalid legal authority, i.e., the Confederacy (at least from the perspective of the Union). This was different from the situation involving abolitionist John Brown, whose violence occurred pre-secession in the context of valid legal authority, i.e., the United States of America. Likewise, violence that may have been directed at the Nazi regime, in the Anne Frank example given above for instance, was violence that also occurred as resistance to invalid legal authority.
I’m not advocating any violence, but there is a distinction to made, both under the secular law, and natural law, between valid and invalid legal authority. In the case of abortion, I agree with the words of JPII quoted above from EV, but I would not use violence to oppose abortion. We have a valid legal authority in the U.S. that all citizens must recognize, and the wrongful taking of life by Dr. Tiller (my personal opinion) does not justify the wrongful taking of his life.
on June 1st, 2009 at 12:59 pm
I agree with Jason that the quote from R. George mentioned above, and linked to a First Things symposium in the earlier thread by Cathy Kaveny, was intended as satire. Not the most artful satire, perhaps, but read it again, and it appears, to me at least, that he is attempting to turn the “personally opposed, but” argument on its head.
on June 1st, 2009 at 1:00 pm
I’m not sure you know enough about the prolife movement to be making these broad claims about its bad faith or failure of nerve. Many prolifers have done prison time for nonviolent resistance . . . . Others have gone to prison or left the country because they refused to pay taxes . . .
Matthew,
You are probably right that I don’t know enough about people in the pro-life movement. But can you give me some idea of how many went to prison (rather than spent a day or two in jail) for pro-life activities? And how many have refused to pay taxes? And as for those who left the country to protest abortion, where in the world did they go? The United States is often depicted as the most evil country on earth in regards to abortion, but almost all other countries an American would be likely to move to have legalized abortion, often paid for by the government. So I would like to know where people who object so strenuously to abortion in the United States would go that they would feel more comfortable paying taxes.
on June 1st, 2009 at 1:33 pm
The Underground Railroad, to the extent it included violence against slaveowners in the South, was resistance to an invalid legal authority, i.e., the Confederacy (at least from the perspective of the Union).
William,
The Underground Railroad existed long before the Civil War and hence was not an act of resistance to the Confederacy. The people who participated in it were helping slaves who had already escaped make their way through free states to Canada, and consequently it did not involve violence against slave owners. However, helping fugitive slaves was illegal in the United States, and so these people broke the law.
Likewise, violence that may have been directed at the Nazi regime, in the Anne Frank example given above for instance, was violence that also occurred as resistance to invalid legal authority.
In Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship, the American Bishops said, “A legal system that violates the basic right to life on the grounds of choice is fundamentally flawed.” How far is it from saying something is an “invalid legal authority” to saying a legal system is “fundamentally flawed”?
I don’t know whether Catholic thought would ever permit outright assassination, but would it have forbid sabotaging trains transporting Jews to death camps? Or would it have forbid, if it had been possible, blowing up Nazi facilities used to perpetrate the Holocaust? If there had been forces who could have destroyed the physical facilities used as concentration camps, without loss of life, would they have been condemned for destroying property? Why would it be wrong to bomb an abortion clinic, if it is a facility used to murder innocent human persons, if it could be done without any risk at all of loss of life?
By the way, isn’t John Brown regarded as a hero of sorts?
on June 1st, 2009 at 1:34 pm
David,
I’ll try to find some numbers for you. I don’t have any on hand. My point, though, really wasn’t about numbers. My point was, first, that there have been instances in the prolife movement of the kind of resistance you refer to in Nazi Germany and in the antebellum U.S. and, second, that heroism has always been rare. But prolife self-sacrifice is just common enough that I know people who have done each of the things I mentioned: priests and religious who have gone to prison (yes, prison, not jail) for nonviolent resistance; families that moved abroad after Roe (some to Ireland, some to the handful of other countries where abortion remains illegal); friends who have given much of their time or money or both to projects that provide for young mothers in need. I don’t believe these three kinds of response are of equal value or wisdom, but they do demonstrate the willingness of some prolife activists to honor their commitment at great cost and inconvenience to themselves.
on June 1st, 2009 at 1:54 pm
heroism has always been rare
Matthew,
That is a very good point. Certainly those who participated in the Underground Railroad were a small minority, as were those who hid Jews from the Nazis.
on June 1st, 2009 at 2:19 pm
David N.–
I thought your hypotheticals were all in the context of the use of violence. Non-violent resistance is much easier to address than violent resistance. Who among us wouldn’t have sanctioned, or even participated in, the Underground Railroad? It may have been illegal, but non-violent civil disobedience has a long and IMO honored tradition–Thoreau, Gandhi, MLK, Cesar Chavez, etc. They all post-date the Underground Railroad, but I have nothing but admiration for the participants in the Underground Railroad who used non-violent means to transport slaves to free territory. Instead of using non-violent means, John Brown used violence against the United States, a valid legal authority, in an attempt to further his cause. He’s a hero to some, I guess, but not to me. If everyone employed his means in a society based on valid legal authority, there would likely be chaos and even more killing.
The Nazis had no claim IMO to valid legal authority, especially in the areas they conquered outside of Germany. I think armed resistance to the Nazis was in general moral and legal. In many instances, resistance was self-defense.
When you say why would it be “wrong” to bomb an abortion clinic if it could be done with no loss of life, what do you man by “wrong”….morally wrong, legally wrong? There’s overlap, but they are not necessarily the same thing. Besides, a bomber doesn’t know that when setting the bomb that there will be no loss of life, but even if the bomber could ascertain that fact with certainty, the act itself is inherently violent, and it would still be wrong under U.S. laws. If such conduct were tolerated, we’d be experiencing bombings on a regular basis for a variety of reasons. Perpetrating violence in the face of valid legal authority–and I think we can all agree that we have that in the United States on both federal and state levels–is illegal, and it has legal consequences. That doesn’t mean all of our laws are just and proper, but the recourse in those instances is to work to change such laws, or, failing that, to engage in non-violent civil disobedience, knowing full well that arrest and prosecution may be a consequence.
on June 1st, 2009 at 2:31 pm
Oops, my bad. Thoreau was a contemporary of the brave souls who operated the Underground Railroad, and his essay on civil disobedience, published in 1849, would likely have been known to at least some of them.
on June 1st, 2009 at 2:35 pm
JC, you asked about the difference between homicide and murder.
Murder, according to one source, is unjustifiable homicide.
At the very least, Dr. Tiller engaged in homicide (news reports indicate that he was one of three physicians in the nation who performed abortions on fetuses up to 21 or 26 weeks, i.e., unborn human offspring considered viable or potentially viable outside the womb).
Which begs the question for some folks (albeit not me): Were this doctor’s actions “justified?”
As I’ve mentioned previously, I condemn abortion, period. On the other hand, I’d have a very real practical problem telling a woman who’s been raped by relative/acquaintance/stranger or who’s been told by medical specialists that continuation of pregnancy will truly endanger her life, that she must not procure an abortion. In these cases, I can only remind both doctor and mother (if charitably appropriate) that there are two patients, and I can only leave moral judgment to God alone. As a former pastor noted on more than one occasion (and not with respect to abortion), life can be so terribly messy!
As a pro-lifer, I don’t want to use the word ‘murderer’ to label all doctors who perform abortions. That said, I do believe that Dr. Tiller engaged in murder of unborn children in light of what we know about his medical practice and the notorieity associated with it. He knew what he was doing to viable/potentially viable unborn human offspring. I am not convinced he performed all such procedures solely to preserve the life of the mother.
In his case, I attach virtually no value to his intent. It was his actions I found heinous. He and a few likeminded doctors stand in stark contrast to other physicians who perform abortions.
on June 1st, 2009 at 2:46 pm
I dont know whether this has been referenced yet. It shows that there were not murders and bombings during the Bush years while there were plenty during the Clinton years. Now again with a pro choice president. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cristina-page/the-murder-of-dr-tiller-a_b_209562.html
on June 1st, 2009 at 2:59 pm
I’ve been reading Andrew Sullivan’s steady stream of posts on Tiller and have found the collection of varying viewpoints, along with information about the actual circumstances of the women Tiller served. It is quite illuminating.
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Bill, using your lack of logic, one would assume that those who use anti-war rhetoric are guilty by association to these crimes and others at Military recruitment centers.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,341695,00.html
The fact is, that would not be true unless that person was aware of these crimes and did not report them or called for the use of violence in their anti-war rhetoric.
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:32 pm
William Saletan has a forceful column at Slate today touching on some of the same questions as Eduardo’s post.
http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:34 pm
Another twist on the morality of killing in defense of innocents, which is interesting, but no more comforting is Bonhoeffer’s reflection on his involvement in the plot to kill Hitler. Instead of maintaining that killing Hitler is imprudent but not immoral, as Eduardo and others suggest the “holocaust” rhetoric of some pro-lifers requires, Bonhoeffer suggests that it is prudential reasons that require his assassination attempt despite the principled immorality of the action. He said, “Of course, Christ’s words that those who draw the sword will die by the sword also apply to us (co-conspirators). But right now, reason dictates that we must do this, and then of course we still have to turn to God for forgiveness in Christ.” So, it seems a committment to the principled immorality of all killing does not necessarily mean one will not be caught in the moral tragedy of being required to kill, and such a person, in Bonhoeffer’s estimation, will be no less culpable because of this necessity. This, it seems to me, could be both the “moral tragedy” of the zealous pro-lifer who acts violently against the abortionist as well as the “moral tragedy” of the mother and doctor who find it necessary to abort.
on June 1st, 2009 at 3:42 pm
Prof. Penalver:
It seems the distinction between acts and omissions has some explanatory power to account for how a pro-lifer could deem abortion “murder” and still avoid being obligated to use lethal force to prevent abortions. All people have a generic obligation to promote respect for human life, but I don’t think that general principle translates into a discrete moral duty to prevent a particular unjust killing unless the circumstances surrounding the killing give rise to a duty. Adults are murdered with some regularity in the city I live in; that doesn’t mean I’m bound to walk my city streets at night looking for potential killers just because I consider their crime “murder.” In other words, while I am always bound not to take the affirmative act of intentionally killing another person, whether I have the duty to use defensive–potentially lethal–force to protect another human being depends on the surrounding circumstances.
Similarly, assuming the pro-lifer who refers to abortion as “murder” is operating from traditional Catholic principles, his only means of justifying the private use of coercive force against an abortionist would have to be under some theory of self-defense (in this case, on behalf of another). But because recourse to self-defense requires some imminent threat of life or limb, it’s hard to see how a pro-lifer could ever justifiably use coercive force against an abortionist on behalf of an unborn child. Moreover, even if that requirement somehow obtained, the pro-lifer would still be bound not to act with the intention of killing the abortionist when attempting to protect the unborn child. (See generally Summa Theologica II-II, q. 64 a. 3c, 7c) In contrast, Tiller’s murderer–and other abortionist killers–acted with the intent to kill and under circumstances that make a self-defense justification laughable. Even if the act was done on behalf of the common good and the victim was “guilty,” the private intentional killing of another human being is categorically wrong under Church teaching and has been at least since St. Thomas Aquinas. This principle is nothing new and it’s not surprising that Catholic pro-lifers feel bound by it and yet are still comfortable calling abortion “murder.”
In short, I think you are being a little unfair to pro-lifers who consider abortion “murder” by forcing them to choose between pacifism or hypocrisy.
on June 1st, 2009 at 4:00 pm
This is an extremely disturbing thread.
What is most disturbing is the recurring theme that violence can ever be justified – while of course the whole of human history has shown us that it always can be under some rubric of law or argument if only the time is taken to loosen the moral-logistical knot for the sake of some wiggle room.
It seems to me that any act of violence is a twisting and rendering-evil of what otherwise might be a good or useful or proper impulse (such as revulsion at the thought of slavery or abortion). This seems especially true in light of a Christian understanding of our human experience – one which reflects the sacramentality of death and life, which are paradoxically interwoven, and in which we find ourselves constantly remade.
I often worry that when we come at these questions with the belief that we can come to a solution through argument rooted in law (or any other moral/philosophical “rubric”) that we run the danger of distorting what we know fundamentally to be our better impulses. Isn’t the revolutionary, life-affirming, courageous element to Christ’s way of living with our brothers the radical throwing-off of our need to scapegoat and murder those who do injustice to us? How, then, can any argument, howsoever fully formed and beautifully spoken, convince us to kill?
on June 1st, 2009 at 4:25 pm
Jason Drakes and Bill Collier responded to my earlier post that quoted Robert George’s First Things statement. They suggested that George’s statement was satirical. I reread the statement and I think they are right. My apologies to Professor George, full stop.
on June 1st, 2009 at 4:54 pm
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/why-christianity-abhors-this.html#more
“I am an associate pastor for a church just outside of Wichita. I’ve lived here all my life and am well-versed in the daily vitriol aimed against Dr. Tiller as well as the ridiculous verbal assaults against anyone who questions the morality of abortion. As a pastor I was appalled at the total depraved act of violence perpetrated in a house of worship, a place where family and friends gather to commune with God and one another.
Church is a place where God’s love and grace is freely given and to hear of an individual’s assault on that grace is extremely disheartening. I have come to the conclusion that the Christianists’ aim is the simple denial of God’s grace to anyone who may have a broader vision of the love of Christ.
Do they not understand that each day that Dr. Tiller lived was another opportunity for grace to prevail? For some that grace may have meant he saved the life of a woman needing access to a safe abortion, to others perhaps that grace would’ve been his own turning away from his practice.
But the point is whenever we presume to be the gatekeepers of God’s love and grace, we ourselves are turning away from God. I grieve for the family, the church, and the community left to make sense of this unjust action and were witness to a heinous attempt to deny grace.”
on June 1st, 2009 at 5:10 pm
Thomas Jacobs–thank you for your comment. I have been disturbed in a similar mannner. Eduardo, David G, Cathleen, and to a lesser extent Matthew, who are saying that abortion must be something less than murder, are therefore suggesting that nonviolence is an inappropriate response to truly heinous injustice. They are therefore suggesting, it seems to me, that only a view justifying violence is acceptable in light of extreme oppression. It is a violent view of the world, and it is the last thing I expected to hear from the progressive Catholic perspective on modern social teaching. The latter teaching provides ample reflection and reasoning to take a principled moral, not just prudential, stance against the use of violence against even the most extreme injustice. The teaching in no way suggests that if solidarity is the moral route, the injustice must not be that bad or must not really be murder. If rejecting abortionist killing requires rejecting the description of abortion as murder, you might as well jettison all the writings of recent encyclicals, US Bishops statements on peace, and the thought of Catholic progressives and the peace movement. I am still hoping they will chime in to counter this, because it’s not just a challenge to pro-lifers.
on June 1st, 2009 at 5:20 pm
“William Saletan has a forceful column at Slate today touching on some of the same questions as Eduardo’s post. http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/”
One of the things Saletan points out that we must grapple with, is that the murderer of Tiller probably succeeded in his aim: probably there will be fewer abortions with Tiller’s death.
A number of years ago, tennis star Monica Seles was stabbed by a crazed fan. IIRC, the fan assaulted Seles because she had surpassed the fan’s favorite player, Steffi Graf, in the world rankings. That assault “worked”, too; while Seles was recuperating, Graf was elevated to the #1 ranking.
on June 1st, 2009 at 5:21 pm
No doubt, politics can be an obstacle to living our Catholic Faith:
http://www.bridgeportdiocese.com/story_Ethics.shtml
HT-Insight Scoop
on June 1st, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Jason Drakes, Thomas Jacobs, count me in as a fan of nonviolence, with Jesus as the ultimate model of what that means.
on June 1st, 2009 at 5:34 pm
I’ll try one more time to express my point of view.
If we are to move forward along the path of common ground, then the pro-life movement needs to tone down its rhetoric. Nice distinctions between murder and homicide or lengthy self justifications won’t do it.
The path to common ground is not a lawyerly adversarial or fornsic debate contest as many posts on many threads appear to me to be at this blog.
It is not the matter of principle, but of the ability to maturely make one’s case both in word and example.
Of course if there’s no common ground, let’s keep having multiple and repetitive threads on abortion as the only or not the only issue.
And continued division (hatred?).
on June 1st, 2009 at 6:29 pm
It is interesting that there is so much discussion of the proper use of the word ‘murder’ and all it connotes in regards to abortion. Now the position of Operation Rescue and other groups, including many in the hierarchy seems to be as follows:
1) human life begins at fertilization/conception
2) Abortion is the willfull killing of the unborn
3) most, if not all abortions are not justifiable by self-defense or any other justification for killing
4) Murder is defined as intentional, unjustified killing of a human being.
Therefore most abortion is properly deemed murder.
The premises can be attacked, such as #1 and the theory of when human life begins. Or abortion is not always willfull, but people are often misinformed. And we can make up any number of justifications for why abortion is not murder along similar lines.
What is really interesting is the facility in which murder has been ascribed to the intentional killing of Tiller. The same mental gymnastics to avoid the militant use of the word ‘murder’ in application to abortion can be used to avoid the use of the word ‘murder’ for the killing of Tiller.
1) Dr. Tiller is a human being
2) Dr. Tiller was deliberately killed by a gunshot wound
3) The killing was not justified by self-defense or defense of others
Therefore Tiller was murdered.
#3 seems to be the most likely premise to attack. Was the killing justified/justifiable? From what I can see, it was likely the use of excessive force and a strategic blunder that fails to justify the killing. One of the primary conditions for self-defense is the use of reasonable force to halt aggression. Chopping off Tiller’s hands, though disgusting, would have likely stopped the abortions just as well as shooting him.
on June 1st, 2009 at 6:35 pm
Murder is a specific type of homicide a subcategory of homicide prohibited by law. Abortion has, even when prohibited generally not been treated as murder under the law. There is a special crime of abortion.
For the record, I think that ANY use of violence moves beyond the use of civil disobedience to the realm of civil war. Any use of violence must be justified by the just war criteria. I do not believe violence is justified in the case of abortion. This is one, but only one, reason I have strongly resisted the abortion-slavery abortion-holocaust argument.
More generally, I strongly believe that people have the right to rely on the rule of law in a generally just society such as the United States. NO one private person has the right to treat the legal system as remade in his own image. So I categorically reject the claim that what Tiller’s killer engaged in was any form of justifiable homicide.
Robby George was clearly engaged in satire in the First Things piece. I think the satire, in that context, was both unseemly and morally irresponsible. His current response is welcome, strong, and appropriate.
on June 1st, 2009 at 6:38 pm
The ISTM there is another argument implicit in the defense of the killer of Dr. Tiller: It is this: the government ought to protect the lives of the innocent. government refuses to protect the lives of the innocent unborn. Therefore I must protect the innocent unborn.
I don’t believe that individuals have the right, much less the duty, to, in effect, usurp the judgment of the community (through the judgment of the courts) as to who is or who is not guilty of murder. But the question remains: does the government have the right/duty to *define* what murder is? I would argue that if it does NOt have this duty, then who does? Surely not any individual or sub-group.
Granted the government can be mistaken. However, the duty of the government to define murder and judge who is guilty of it presupposes that the government will *in all probability* do a better job than any individual or small group — at least it will eventually make better judgments than individuals. Note how slavery was ultimately eliminated.
Unless, of course, God has willed that we ought to be governed by infallible theocracies which somehow have inerrant access to what
God thinks.
on June 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
JC –
Homicide the killing of one person by another person. Murdur is a KIND of homicide — the kind that is deliberate and unjust/illegal.
Some people do not seem to think that it has to be deliberate — all it has to be is ugly/pitiful/grisly enough for us to be horrified by it. Others think that whether or not the killer *knows* it is a person is irrelevant just so long as it is ugly/pitiful/grisly enough. In other words, the evil is in the outcome, and not at all in the intention.
on June 1st, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Jason Drakes, Thomas Jacobs, count me in as a fan of nonviolence, with Jesus as the ultimate model of what that means.
Gentle Jesus, meek and mild — the ultimate model of nonviolence — seems to have resorted to violence on at least one occasion. And it doesn’t even make sense, since all these people were absolutely essential to temple worship.
on June 1st, 2009 at 8:10 pm
Ann,
It seems to me very easy to construct an argument along the lines you have mentioned. Pope John Paul II said abortion was murder in Evangelium Vitae and described it in terms that clearly depict it as a particularly heinous type of murder. The United States unjustly refuses to protect the lives of “a whole class of persons,” and they are persons who are utterly helpless and utterly innocent. It’s like slavery or the Holocaust, and if you sit by and do nothing, you are responsible. The American Bishops have said our legal system is “fundamentally flawed.” But heaven forbid anybody take matters into their own hands, break a law, or do something violent. It seems to me to be a lot of mixed messages. If a group of terrorists were raiding hospitals and stealing newborn babies from the maternity wards to take to their headquarters and slaughter, is there anybody who wouldn’t put up some kind of resistance if the government looked the other way?
And of course this is often mentioned but never satisfactorily resolved (as far as I am concerned). John Paul II says, “The moral gravity of procured abortion is apparent in all its truth if we recognize that we are dealing with murder . . . . [and]] sometimes it is precisely the mother herself who makes the decision and asks for the child to be eliminated, and who then goes about having it done.” Yet the pro-life movement depicts women who procure abortions as victims who should not be punished.
on June 1st, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Eduardo,
Except for his unwarranted use of the word “execute,” what is inaccurate about O’Reilly’s vocabulary?
on June 1st, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Cathleen said, “Murder is a specific type of homicide a subcategory of homicide prohibited by law. Abortion has, even when prohibited generally not been treated as murder under the law.”
The legal definitions of course do not exhaust the meaning of what “murder” is morally, which an important if not the important sense at issue in thw question being posed and answered by Eduardo and by JPII. Murder is quite simply the unjustified killing of a human being. If abortion isn’t murder, preborn children are less than full human persons.
Eduardo is saying that abortion can’t be murder if violence to stop it is viewed as unjustified. Later he nuanced his remark but not enough to change its implications, by saying that abortion can’t be murder if violence to stop it is viewed as unjustified by principle and not merely by prudence (unless you’re a pacifist). But the effect of his assertion is the same: views which object to such violence in moral principle, whether the issue be abortion or any societal evil, are not possible if the evil is really really bad like widespread murder. This excludes the moral approach of Christian nonviolence thinkers (including many progressives) and the modern social encyclicals and the US Bishops for example on peace and seamless garment principles. It relegates their peace-centered approaches as inadequate. It pats them on the head and tells them to go play in the corner while the adults deal with the important societal problems by using “realistic” approaches, which must include violence in principle.
on June 1st, 2009 at 9:33 pm
Prof Kaveny said: “Murder is a specific type of homicide a subcategory of homicide prohibited by law. Abortion has, even when prohibited generally not been treated as murder under the law. There is a special crime of abortion.”
This is helpful. Would Glendon or Noonan’s book help me understand this further?
So, how do I explain why this special crime of abortion is wrong, if not murder?
on June 1st, 2009 at 11:09 pm
JC–
There’s a lot of semantics in the abortion as “murder” issue, as both sides in the abortion debate seek to influence public perception of what an abortion entails.
All crimes must be defined by statute, with their various elements set forth in the definition. As noted earlier, murder is a subcategory of homicide, but ordinarily abortion is not set forth as a subcategory of murder. Instead, abortion is its own statutorily-defined category.
Murder has a very negative connotation; it also presupposes that a “person” is involved. Pro-choice advocates don’t want a negative connotation associated with the intentional termination of a pregnancy, i.e., the standard definition of “abortion,” and they deny that the embryo or fetus being aborted is a person. Some pro-life advocates, on the other hand, seek to associate abortion with “murder” in order to emphasize that there should be no legal distinction made between unborn and born who are killed with the intent required in murder statutes (e.g., with premeditation, maliciousness, or willfulness). As noted above, JPII equated abortion with murder in Evangelium Vitae.
Prof. Kaveny is right that abortion is generally not defined in criminal statutes as a type of murder. For example, the Texas criminal statute at issue in Roe v. Wade prohibited the “procuring of an abortion,” or the attempt to procure an abortion, except when it had been medically certified that the mother’s life was in danger. The word “murder” didn’t appear in the statute, and abortion was set forth in the Texas criminal statutes as its own crime.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:03 am
If we are going to implicate anyone who has referred to abortion as “murder,” including may bishops, in the murder (and yes, it was murder) of Dr. Tiller, do we not also have to implicate all involved in a legal system where Dr. Tiller was not in prison, as he should have been, but out where he could be exposed to a murderer like this?
on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:11 am
OK – let me get this straight. It is disengenuos for people who believe the Church’s teaching on abortion – that it violates the fifth commandment – to also protest the killing of people like Tiller.
Yet, the same people making this argument on this blog see no inconsistency when a politician says he or she believes the Church’s teaching on abortion, but supports abortion on demand.
Color me confused.
As for the so called Jihad – it is indisputable that Tiller and his partner performed more than 2000 late-term abortions on of which almost 300 were on viable infants. They reported this themselves during the time they were required to by law. This was just for a few years of reporting, and Tiller did this for more than a decade before the reporting requirement started and for several years since it stopped. Of those, only one, just one, was identified as involving a serious physical health risk to the mother, and not a single one involved a threat to the life of the mother. His own “patients” and workers in his clinic reported scores of procedures where the intact infant was alive, and moving outside the mother with the exception of its head when he performed his “medical” procedure.
I understand the tragedy of Tiller’s murder, and don’t condone it, but how, exactly does one describe this horrific practice if not as killing?
on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 am
Sean, you tell us. Why don’t you condone Tiller’s murder. Why do you see it as a murder rather than as a justifiable killing?
That’s the piece of the story that pro-lifers need to take more efforts to get out there.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:53 am
David N.:
Nonviolence is not the same as spinelessness! As to the passage of Jesus at the temple, there are many commentaries that explain it from a nonviolent perspective better than I could (wikipedia is a start). Taken as a whole, it is obvious, to me, that the entire life and Passion of Jesus are permeated by nonviolence. But it is not the main subject of this thread, and I am really not competent to discuss it either.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:10 am
In response to Bob Nunz: I recently attended a seminar on non-violent conflict resolution, given by a visiting professor associated with my husband’s alma mater.
In any event, he has tried to systematically study peace initiatives and the tactics and strategies that allow for non-violent resolution of conflict. What he told us seems so simple, but it’s worth thinking about. On any serious issue with conflicting positions, people obviously have varying levels of intensity of feeling about it. On one end, if you were to use abortion as the example, you would assign a value of 1 to the “extreme” pro-life position (whatever it is) and a 10 to the equally forceful but opposite camp. And then there’s everyone in between.
In his view, so long as the discussion or the framing of the issue is between 1’s and 10’s, there’s no chance of resolution, let alone peaceful resolution. If you examine situations where social progress has been made, such as in the civil rights movement, what you find are 3’s and 4’s trying to persuade 6’s and 7’s to make a slight shift — maybe to 5 & 6.
I think that the pro-life movement has actually had that kind of effect over the last two decades, so that there are more restrictions and more public consciousness on the issue. I think the real difficulty is that there is a substantial group of 1’s and 2’s for whom that will never be enough — whereas the 9’s and 10’s on the pro-choice side are more willing to look at options like prevention and education, the 1’s and 2’s are so committed to a strict code of reproductive and sexual conduct they find it difficult to imagine any kind of compromise with anyone who is not a 1 or a 2.
Moreover, there is a bedrock of support, perhaps muted unless one is personally affected, that more or less enables even later abortions if the circumstances are sufficiently dire — for the life and health of women, and even, more controversially, where there is real and substantial evidence that the fetus’s life will be short, and likely full of suffering. This is the space that Tiller inhabited and it is the very unwillingness of society to really come down hard on women of the kind he helped that helps create the nearly desperate feelings of those who opposed him.
I am all for finding common ground where it exists, but I actually think there is not a whole lot of common ground that is highly visible. Maybe if those who are 3’s and 4’s felt freer to speak publicly, but then, they probably look at how people such as Doug Kmiec were vilified for doing just that. And I guess, this is where I see the true failure of the Catholic Church, for not stepping back and, without changing its theology, evaluating what is a truly reasonable expectation in a democratic and pluralistic society where there is real conflict on an issue.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:25 am
David, in response to your post of June1 at 7:46 regarding Jesus’ Cleansing of the Temple, we all know that Jesus was not a fan of hypocrites.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:30 am
I wonder why more people didn’t torture the Bush administration. The hypocrisy of this inaction boggles the mind.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 8:32 am
:-)
on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:04 am
I suspect many of the dotCommonweal bloggers would say Will Saletan is the type of reaonable pro-choice person pro-lifers should be working with.
Yet, in the article referred to above, Saletan praises Dr. Tiller as “brave.” In the same article, he describes seeing the different-sized forceps available for abortionists, so it cannot be said that he is writing from ignorance.
Now if, as a reading of dotCommonweal would suggest,, the primary focus of pro-lifer’s energy should be to policing its own rhetoric and purging it of elements that could be perceived as divisive, shouldn’t the same also apply to the other side?
There are many mainstream pro-choice voices hailing Dr. Tiller as a “hero.” Any pro-lifer who uttered anything resembling praise for Dr. Tiller’s killer would be rightfully deemed unfit for public conversation, and would launch another round of hand-wringing about how the pro-life movement needs to curb its rhetoric. Yet, it’s apparently ok for even “reasonable” pro-choicers like Saletan to praise someone who made his living performing brutal, vile, late-term abortions.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:10 am
David, in response to your post of June1 at 7:46 regarding Jesus’ Cleansing of the Temple, we all know that Jesus was not a fan of hypocrites.
Nancy,
My point was that Jesus resorted to violence, and one wonders how someone who resorted to violence could be the ultimate model of nonviolence.
It is off topic, but who were the hypocrites in the story of the Cleansing of the Temple. There is absolutely nothing in the text to support claims that money-changers were hypocritical, or dishonest, or wrongdoers of any kind.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
John McG, you’re mischaracterizing Saletan’s column (as well as the discussion on dotCommonweal). The notion that he’s “praising” Tiller by calling him “brave” relies on ignoring the follow-up sentence — “His work makes me want to puke” — as well as the fact that he later describes Tiller’s murderer in parallel terms. If he’s praising one, he’s praising the other. “The people who do late-term abortions are the ones who don’t flinch. …The people who kill abortion providers are the ones who don’t flinch.” They’re both extremists; both examples of the kind of extremism Saletan wants to avoid. The whole point of Saletan’s column is to highlight the kind of abortions Tiller performed, and not to lionize him.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:22 am
Yet, in the article referred to above, Saletan praises Dr. Tiller as “brave.”
John McG,
He was brave. He was risking his life. I am certainly not endorsing anything he did, but he was brave. He had been shot previously, and his clinic had been attacked. He was accompanied by a bodyguard some of the time. He knew he was in danger from some elements of the “pro-life” movement, and ultimately he was killed.
Now if, as a reading of dotCommonweal would suggest,, the primary focus of pro-lifer’s energy should be to policing its own rhetoric and purging it of elements that could be perceived as divisive, shouldn’t the same also apply to the other side?
John, I don’t believe anyone has said that the “primary focus” of the pro-lifers should be to police their rhetoric. That’s just silly.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
I wonder why more people didn’t torture the Bush administration. The hypocrisy of this inaction boggles the mind.
Kathy,
It’s just a fact that there is a lot of extreme rhetoric from the pro-life movement, and if the current opposition to abortion is comparable to the opposition to slavery in the United States in the first half of the 19th century, or the opposition to the Holocaust in Nazi Germany (and German-occupied territories) — both of which were only ended by very bloody wars — what are the plans from the pro-life movement to deal with a problem of the same magnitude as slavery or the Holocaust?
It appears very much like those in the pro-life movement who talk about “crimes against humanity,” or holocausts, of “slaughter of the innocents” actually are (thankfully) committed to using nonviolent, lawful methods to try to achieve their end. But the rhetoric they are using could so easily be used to make a case for people taking the law into their own hands that they almost look foolish denouncing the murder of Dr. Tiller.
Of course, it is the rhetoric that most of us are criticizing, and not the fact that the pro-life movement isn’t bombing more clinics.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:00 am
If the bishops had their way and abortion were banned, I wonder what the average pro-lifer would consider the appropriate penalty for someone they described as a “baby killer” and a “mass murderer”? The death penalty, perhaps?
on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:08 am
Mr. Kmiec discusses his conversation with Prof. George nad Ambasador Glendon at the NCR site today with a number of “common ground” recommendations.
I continue to insist that these will not be heard or muted until the rhetoric of pro-life is tuned down.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:10 am
Mr. Nickol,
You quote a passage of the Bible in which Jesus appears to coerce others’ behavior through the use of violence. Yet there is no mention that Jesus inflicted physical pain of any kind on any person. Certainly, you would agree that he does not murder anyone for defiling his father’s house, the temple. This is especially important in light of the fact that He is the temple, who was destroyed. Rather, as you point out, the story makes clear that Jesus is no fan of hypocrites. Clarifying the proper use of the temple seems to me to be the purpose of the story, rather than a precedent-setting moment for violent action.
Falling back on that slim passage, taken out of context & assuming a specific meaning, to justify the murder of abortionists is just the kind of thinking that I find so disturbing. What about Jesus’ chastisement of Peter for his use of the sword at his apprehension? Does that carry exactly the same kind of argumentative weight in this discussion? Which passage is more relevant?
I suggest that it is in the broader context of the Christ story that we see the true model for right living. In saying, “one wonders how someone who resorted to violence could be the ultimate model of nonviolence,” you seem to be ignoring the fact that Jesus allowed himself to be subjected to the ultimate form of indignity & violence, death on the cross. This he did without resistance, without upheaval, and certainly without murder. It seems to me that he asks the same of us – after all, we aren’t called to live & die by the sword, but to pick up his cross.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:03 am
Saletan did contruct a parallel narrative for Tiller’s murderer, but stopped short of calling him “brave.” And I would suspect that if any bishop were to refer to him as brave, it would launch several posts here condemning it, and I would tend to agree. I also note that those who acknowledge Tiller’s bravery in the thread below do not do so for Tiller’s murderer.
Saletan’s take on Tiller seems to be that he was one who was doing hard but necessary work. That it “makes him want to puke” is not a moral condemnation. The work of an undertaker or one who cleans up roadkill on the highways, or even of a soldier may make we want to puke. That is not a moral condemnation of their work, just an acknowledgement that it is aesthetically ugly.
John, I don’t believe anyone has said that the “primary focus” of the pro-lifers should be to police their rhetoric. That’s just silly.
Hmmmm — take a look at posts at dotCommonweal on the issue of abortion. I would submit there are much more posts scolding pro-lifers for divisive rhetoric than there are on any aspect of the issue.
Why did Prof. Panalver choose Randall Terry’s reaction to the murder, rather than one of the dozens of unequivocal condemnations?
on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:15 am
David,
The Allies did not fight World War II for the sake of European Jewry. They should have but they didn’t. Their primary motive was stopping aggressor nations.
Likewise the North did not invade the South for the sake of the slaves but for, at least primarily, for economic self-interest.
This is a completely different story than either of those two cases. A closer but still enormously distant analogy would be the Weimar Republic during the rise of Nazism. We are in a country in which officials act unjustly, and often with a taint of eugenics. It’s a sick political situation but not a warful one, and not, I think, unsolvable. (But again, this is a very very distant analogy. Judges aren’t afraid of being hanged or shot for the “crime” of incorruptibility.)
on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:17 am
John McG., Let me explain to you why. Let us say you are a married woman and your husband beats you from time to time. It may be infrequent. The interim peaceful periods may be very happy. But it simply cannot be avoided that your marriage will be defined by the most violent events. It is the extremes to which we are willing to go that often defines us — whether it is extreme bravery or extreme cruelty. A war hero might have done no more than 30 seconds worth of duty to deserve lifelong accolades. This is how life works.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 11:20 am
Falling back on that slim passage, taken out of context & assuming a specific meaning, to justify the murder of abortionists is just the kind of thinking that I find so disturbing.
Thomas,
Hold on a minute! I did not cite this passage to “justify the murder of an abortionist.” I cited it to question the statement that Jesus was the ultimate model of nonviolence. We cannot tell from the text whether Jesus actually struck anyone with the whip he fashioned, but the incident as described is violent. If I come after you with a whip to chase you away, that’s violence, whether I hit you with it or not. And if I go into a place of business and overturn the tables being used by the workers, that’s violence.
It was Nancy Danielson who mentioned hypocrisy. I don’t find any indication of hypocrisy on the part of the money-changers or the others driven from the temple area.
I suggest that it is in the broader context of the Christ story that we see the true model for right living.
The story of Jesus and the money-changers is often cited to assert that there is nothing wrong with righteous anger. My purpose is to point out that Jesus became angry and resorted to violence. I do not like to see Jesus portrayed as “gentle Jesus, meek and mild.” He was no such thing. He was bold enough to defy authority to the extent that he was executed for it. If you want to take Jesus as a true (and perfect) model for right living, then it seems to me you can’t ignore this incident. However, I would certainly not use it try to justify murder!
As for what the story means, it is actually quite a mystery. The accounts do not say the money-changers were cheating people. Money-changers and those who sold animals at the temple were absolutely essential to temple worship. People came from distant lands to offer sacrifices at the temple. They could not bring animals with them, and in order to buy them in Jerusalem, they had to be able to convert whatever money they were carrying into local currency. In Luke 2 we even have Mary and Joseph coming to the temple to sacrifice two turtledoves. It’s quite baffling that Jesus would say, ““Take these out of here, and stop making my Father’s house a marketplace.” Without the money-changers and those who sold animals, Mary and Joseph could not have done what they did in Luke 2. Was Jesus making a direct assault on the whole system of temple worship? I don’t think there is any definitive answer.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:00 pm
Mr. Nickol,
I didn’t mean to put words in your mouth – but such is one of the too-frequent limitations of the blog-post medium. I’m inclined to agree with you that there isn’t any definitive answer to the questions of interpretation. I was only trying to say that it’s not clear to me that Jesus’ behavior in the temple-marketplace is either a) literal or b) violent. On the second point we seem to disagre.
I very much appreciate what you say about not wanting to portray Jesus as meek & mild – there is nothing comelling to him in such a portrayal. Yet, I believe that his defiance & potency stem not from violence, but from a subversion of the very world itself as we understand it. Perhaps this is a violent act, in a cosmic sense. I’m not certain I would call it that in the way we usually mean violence, physically. To my way of thinking, this subversion renders coercion or violence of any kind impotent.
As for the suggestion that Jesus may have been making an assault on the whole system of temple worship: Let me open a whole new can of worms by noting that this has often struck me as a central theme of the Bible. Leon Kass’ book “The Beginning of Wisdom” unpacks several passages in Genesis in such a way as to understand that God never meant for us to sacrifice living beings to Him; that goes for the doves in Luke 2. (Christ’s death on the cross is, then, the practice of ritual sacrifice taken to its extreme, with the intention of reinforcing for us God’s original point not to do it in His name.) I can’t, of course, do justice to Dr. Kass’ readings here, but if that question resonates for you (or anyone) the book is well worth a read.
This line of interpretation is, of course, my personal bias, to which I readily admit. I’ve often said on the CW boards that I’m uncomfortable with the notion of operating within systems or rubrics of morality, when it seems to me that Jesus fulfils a richer, truer form of law, which isn’t navigated in the same way we navigate our other forms of law.
Anyhow, back to work. Cheers.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 12:54 pm
I hope this thread is long enough that a little more digression on the temple incident won’t put anyone off.
I’ll preface my remarks by agreeing with David N. that there may not be any “definitive answer” to why Jesus chased the animal sellers and money changers out of the temple. However, the incident takes place in all four Gospels, so the incident is likely important in trying to understand Jesus’ ministry.
In each of the Synoptics, Jesus makes reference to those engaged in commercial activity as a “den of thieves.” (Mark 11:15-18; Matt. 21:12-17; Luke 19:45-48) Scholars have noted that this phrase may have come from Jeremiah 7:11. While there is no direct evidence that fraud was going on, the reference to “thieves” may indicate that such activity had been taking place. In addition, I remember reading that the only acceptable currency was Syrian, and that worshippers had to exchange other currencies for this specific one. Perhaps exchange rate fraud was taking place.
A background footnote in the New American Bible seems to support the fraud hypothesis, and it also notes that Jesus may have had a more important purpose in mind: “The activities going on in the temple area were not secular but were connected with the temple worship. Thus Jesus’ attack on those so engaged and his charge that they were making God’s house of prayer a den of thieves constituted a claim to authority over the religious practices of Israel and were a challenge to the priestly authorities.” Th challenge-to-authority conclusion seems to be borne out in the Synoptics because shortly after the incident occurs, Jesus is confronted by the temple authorities with the question “by whose authority have you done this?” (Mark 11:27-33; Matt. 21:23-27; Luke 20:1-8) Jesus tells the authorities that he will answer their question if they answer just one question from Him: “Were John’s baptisms divine or human in origin?” The authorities sidestep the question by answering that they “don’t know.” Jesus then refuses to tell them by whose authority he acted.
Perhaps the incident with the animal sellers and money changers, and the subsequent confrontation with the temple authorities, was merely intended by Jesus as an attention-getting device, something akin to a teacher speaking loudly in class, or making a very loud and unexpected noise, to get the students’ attention. Jesus’ actions were viewed by many people in the temple, and the Synoptics note “that the whole crowd was astonished at his teaching.” Perhaps the crowd also realized that in outfoxing the temple authorities during his confrontation with them, Jesus had strongly conveyed his authority.
There are also other theories that have been offered– e.g.., that the temple authorities were getting kickbacks from fraudulent commercial activity taking place in the temple, or that Jesus was demonstrating that animal sacrifice and paying for worship were no longer necessary because He is the Paschal Lamb and the way to salvation is though Him.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:22 pm
Here is the substance of Saletan’s quote:
To me, Tiller was brave. His work makes me want to puke. But so does combat, the kind where guts are spilled and people choke on their own blood. I like to think I love my country and would fight for it. But I doubt I have the stomach to pull the trigger, much less put my life on the line.
To me, he is saying that:
a) There are situations in which late term abortions, like war, are unavoidable. Say, when the life of the mother is at stake.
b) Like war, late term abortions involve ugly experiential realities that few people are willing to face.
To me, the usual pro-life claim that the life or health of the mother can never be at stake in these situations is simply unfounded. Complications can arise that no law or regulation can foresee and no self-serving, after the fact judgements by those with an ax to grind will convince me otherwise. That’s why these decisions cannot be left in the hands of pro-life zealots.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 1:27 pm
I’ll have to admit to considerable weariness at dotCommonweal’s threads on abortion. Which is why the Sotomayor’s threads gave such a nice break (esp. after countless threads on Obama & ND).
That said, I’ve found this and the other long thread on Tiller very interesting. No small thanks to the various challenges posed by Jason Drakes, Thomas Jacobs, Barbara, etc., to Cathleen Kaveney, Eduador Penalver, David Nickols, etc. The back-and-forth has been intellectually stimulating & largely civil.
Nice work & I wouldn’t be surprised if some of the lurkers have felt the same.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:09 pm
One thing noticeably absent from this discussion is the local scene. Not surprising because dotCom regulars are more concerned with theology than history, with universals than particulars. Here’s something for a change:
http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=a8660380-b6b3-435b-a24d-a5890cb535d7
In the 19th century, Kansas was a hotbed of political extremism–from abolitionist John Brown to temperance crusader Carrie Nation. The Populist Party won control of the state legislature in 1890 and elected the first Populist senator. But for most of the 20th century, its politics was dominated by moderate Republicans like Alf Landon and Bob Dole. That changed in the 1990s–and it had something to do with George Tiller and Operation Rescue…
on June 2nd, 2009 at 2:29 pm
William Collier, thank you.
So, the pope is wrong to call abortion murder? Is he being prophetic, but we shouldn’t always be prophetic? I sometimes call abortion “the taking of innocent human life.” Does that solve the problem?
on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
“So, the pope is wrong to call abortion murder? ”
Hi, JC, it’s important to note that it is not the pope’s job to craft political solutions to the problem of abortion. That’s the role of the laity. The role of the pope and bishops is to teach, including to be prophetic when prophesying is necessary, as it frequently is for those of us who swim in the culture of death all day.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 3:49 pm
“Mr. Kmiec discusses his conversation with Prof. George nad Ambasador Glendon at the NCR site today with a number of “common ground” recommendations.”
Here is the link to Professor Kmiec’s piece:
http://ncronline.org/news/politics/finding-common-ground-life-issues
If I may, I’d like to paste here Kmiec’s six common sense proposals. I agree with all of them.
* Helping President Obama convince the Congress to fund the economic help for pregnant women and educational and adoption efforts noted above and to the extent that President Obama already has such funding under the stimulus legislation for such purposes, to get on with the business of spending it;
* Working with the leaders of our respective religious communities to ensure as many faith-based pregnancy support centers exist to transform the culture in favor of life, one woman in need of our love and attention and support at a time; why, for example, given the importance of this issue to the Catholic Church, isn’t there a center in every parish now?;
* Drafting sensible conscience clause regulation that clarifies the well-established conscience clause protection that already exists in the US code and that President Obama clearly affirms; what clarification is needed? Protecting doctors and nurses with religious or moral objection from having to participate in abortion, while also responsibly providing that advance notice of ethical objection be made, and that non-objecting personnel without ethical concern make timely referrals;
* Drafting federal legislation building on the encouraging “pro-life” polling data to prohibit all late term abortions; this was largely Professor George’s focus, and it is a worthy objective;
* More meaningfully build a coalition in favor of reversing Roe, arguing for the additional novel holding from the Supreme Court that the dormant commerce clause preclude States thereafter from legislating for or against abortion (thereby keeping all legal thumbs – federal or state — off the scale and placing the burden of the case for life where it belongs – on us, as parents, spouses, neighbors, fellow churchgoers)
* Honestly recognizing that science does not give an answer to the legal personhood question of the un-implanted embryo created in a laboratory for non-reproductive research purpose. President Obama has decided to forego this therapeutic embryonic stem cell research for now, I suspect out of respect for our faith claims, but the pursuit of common ground asks us to be cautious about overstating the science. While I fully accept the Catholic teaching, and the desire by our bishops for others as well to come to share the belief that we should treat even an embryo created in a petri dish never intended for implantation as a person, we need to acknowledge that reason here may not – yet — be on the same path as faith.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 4:02 pm
So, the pope is wrong to call abortion murder?
JC,
I believe John Paul II used the word murder in reference to abortion only once in Evangelium Vitae. Now, I haven’t read the whole thing through carefully, but I am willing to bet he didn’t say “baby killer” even once. There is a big difference between expressing an opinion that abortion is murder in an intellectual document like an encyclical and ranting on television or on your web site about mass murderers, baby killers, and slaughtering innocents.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:01 pm
Jim Pauwels, thanks.
David Nickol, I agree. I’m not at all defending people who use baby killer etc.
But, I am unsure about how we should be talking about abortion.
Everyone here offers just criticism about how not to talk about it, but nobody is answering the question of how we should talk about it. I was just looking at the Catechism and it doesn’t say that abortion is murder.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:05 pm
For more on the Saletan article see Eugene Volokh’s response and the comments (mostly from a non-Catholic perspective):
“It seems to me that there’s a third option that the piece deliberately omits — that abortions, whether all abortions, late-term abortions, or some other subset of abortions — are not quite murder but should still be forcibly prevented. I take it that is the view of many generally pro-choice people about late-term abortions. There is very broad support for criminalizing such abortions but not, I think, for treating them as murder. I think that the article is right in saying that even most pro-life people don’t really view abortion as morally tantamount to murder; but that doesn’t mean that it has to be just a ‘tragedy.’”
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1243965559.shtml
on June 2nd, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Barbara, I agree that nonviolence is helpful for conflict resolution that is between different moderate positions, but I think we need to clarify that an approach of solidarity and nonviolence cannot be relegated to those middle categories or declared inadequate for resolving the most serious situations. If we say that, we are saying that nonviolence is really a second class approach, that when the going gets tough, violence must in principle be justified. That is to despair of nonviolence and to make it really irrelevant when it is most needed for society’s worst injustices. Doing this tells nonviolent progressive approaches and consistent catholic social teaching that it really has no business speaking up for the really oppressed, because in those instances violence must be justified. To me, that is what Eduardo, Cathleen, DavidG, and some others are doing when they say that you can’t call abortion murder (something really bad) and take a moral position against violence to stop it. A wonderful statement that should be read in this light is the US Bishop’s statement against the Tiller murder–one that 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.
on June 2nd, 2009 at 10:04 pm
There seems to be a similar discussion at this blog:
http://www.volokh.com/posts/1243965559.shtml
But, the question of why abortion is wrong if it is not murder is not really answered.
One comment suggests that abortion is wrong but not murder because we do not know if the fetus is a person, but since it might be we should usually make abortion illegal.
Another comment suggests that some guy named Robert Merrihew Adams has made this “not murder but still wrong” argument. Ever heard of him?
on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:11 am
Strange that issues about life threatening situations haven’t been discussed much on this thread, since those are a significant factor in late term abortions. Why is that?
With reference to the Volokh thread on this issue, here’s an entry that ought to at least give one pause.
A pre-eclamptic woman can be so sick that she cannot risk labor or c-section. In that case the safest course is to remove the baby through the vagina without putting the mother into labor. And you can’t get an intact head through an undilated cervix. So, “partial-birth abortion.”
One woman who had this happen tells her story *here*. A close friend of mine who works with the Pre-Eclampsia Foundation says that she personally knows of “at least a dozen” women with similar stories.
I was radically pro-life for many years before I learned of this and similar phenomena. As I was shocked to discover, the idea that medicine has completely eliminated maternal-fetal conflict is a pro-life myth, equal parts wishful thinking and ideological disinformation. Although I still find myself disturbed by stories of abortion for severe birth defects, such as Tiller performed, I now realize that nobody who is not a medical expert is equipped to judge the best course in these cases. Indeed, in most of these types of discussions I see some ignorance of even the basics of pregnancy. For example, the reason such abortions are inevitably late-term is that the defects in question cannot be reliably diagnosed until about 20 weeks gestation; there goes the argument that it’s the women’s fault for not getting “early screening.”
None of this touches the questions of “personhood” or murder as such. But whether a mother whose wanted and planned-for child can only be born to a brief, agonizing life should carry it term and watch it die or have it euthanized in the womb (which is basically what George Tiller did) is not a fit subject for a court of law, I think. To bring it to that venue would only add to the parents’ agony. As with some forms of accidental child neglect, the thing itself is punishment enough. That some percentage of us think we would act differently in their shoes is not enough to warrant legal sanctions. Why bring judicial and political actors into it, trampling on the most intimate and painful aspects of life, with no consensus that the results of doing so will be morally better anyway?
on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 am
Here’s another case from the same thread.
I read this profoundly moving article by a pro-life Christian woman who ended up needing a late-term partial birth abortion. She was carrying twins discovered to have serious problems late in the pregnancy: the larger twin was not viable but was consuming all the nutrients of the smaller one who would have a 5% chance of survival without the other one. If she did not abort the larger one, they both had a 0% chance of survival.
She specifically benefited from the vilified “dilation and extraction” procedure because it was the only way they could preserve an intact body for her to grieve over.
These are extremely tragic, highly complex ethical situations. Politicians have no business making blanket statements and exploiting them to stir up “the base”
These cases suggest that no law may be able to justly deal with the conditions that may arise in late term pregnancies.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:58 am
Cathleen
The answer is simple. Justifiable homicide requires necessity, and I, foolishly perhaps, believe we live in a society where this practice can be stopped without resorting to violence.
This is what disturbs me about this discusion. The willingness of people to refrain from violence, I believe stems from this belief, yet pro-abortion on demand advocates do everything they can to deny the ability of pro-life groups to resort to peaceful political means. They support limiting the ability of objectors to to avail themselves of conscience protections. They push the state to force people to take their resources and fund the practice. They will use this event to further their objectives in this regard. They already are. Why, for goodness sake, is the Justice Department involved in this investigation?
What will more like make this turn to violence is not the rhetoric of bishops, but when peaceful alternatives are completely shut off by the state.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 8:15 am
Antonio, thanks for posting that. Andrew Sullivan also posted a number of “real life” stories. These cases are, fortunately, rare, and it’s frightening to see not only the disproportionate amount of attention paid to them, but the almost willful refusal to actually understand why people who sometimes desperately want a baby find themselves seeking a late term abortion instead. You don’t do that out of inconvenience or a sudden change of mind.
Maybe we find this so unsettling because it’s a reminder that even with all of our sophisticated medical interventions, raw necessity can still overwhelm our efforts and compel us to make tragic decisions. I guess we can all be thankful that we weren’t alive several thousands of years ago when cruelty and heartbreak were the norms, not the exceptions, where pregnancy and childbirth were concerned.
Pre-eclampsia continues to be the number one cause of maternal death in the developed world and it continues to elude scientific understanding.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 9:03 am
. A wonderful statement that should be read in this light is the US Bishop’s statement against the Tiller murder
But that doesn’t serve the “harsh rhetoric is undermining the pro-life movement” narrative, so you won’t find it cited here. Much better to point to and hilight the needles of statements that stop short of condemning the murder among the haystack of statements from pro-life groups that equivocally condemn it. Then we can all go along saying that the pro-life movement is unworthy of our support and not have to associate with Republicans.
Yes, that last paragraph was less than an charitable. But so is this notion that the pro-life movement’s general rejection of violence couldn’t possibly be motivated by a commitment to the principle of nonviolence, because many pro-lifers are Republicans, and Republicans brought us the Iraq War and Abu Ghraib.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 10:27 am
In my opinion, the issue of complications during late term pregnancy is the 800 pound gorilla in the room that no one wants to talk about. The usual response is to declare as an article of faith that abortion is never required in these cases, then change the subject.
Instead, we get into these pointless, mind-numbing discussions about appropriate rhetoric and principles of law and dogma which occur in some platonic universe and lead nowhere — forgetting that underneath all the rhetoric are real human beings faced with difficult decisions.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 11:47 am
Cathleen asked me a question on this issue on the previous thread but I didn’t get to respond because comments were closed.
As far as what I would like to see in terms of an approach to nonviolence, I think every diocese should do seminars and training on understanding and living the virtue of solidarity with respect to the abortion centers locally and the women and families in need. Though, just to clarify, I consider nonviolence not a strategy in the reductive sense like Eduardo seems to be saying when hr talks of a tactic. It is a comprehensive moral approach to a social evil.
Cathleen, you made a helpful clarification of your legal perspective on abortion as not needing to be considered murder. But murder is also (arguably firstly) a moral category. Do you think morally that abortion is rightly considered murder, as Pope John Paul II explained in Evangelium Vitae?
on June 3rd, 2009 at 11:58 am
Antonio
It is not an 800 lb gorilla, but an enormous red herring. So let’s not change the subject.
This is not to say that late term complications do not occur, they do. The data, however, does not reasonably support the idea that late term abortion is necessary to address this as a public health issue. The AMA, hardly a “pro-life” advocate, itself has declared that late term abortions are never medically necessary. In the case of full blown eclampsia the most that can be said is that a late term abortion might reduce some risk of maternal mortality. The risk itself is very small in developed countries, less than 7% in the most serious cases of full blown based on what I have read, and this doesn’t even account for the maternal risk of the abortion procedure itself. This is not to say this is not a very serious problem, but there are many things that can be done short of aborting a late-term infant.
As I said earlier – go look at the Kansas Health Deptartment’s data on late-term abortions (almost all collected from Tiller and his practice) and you will see that Tiller himself did not identify a single procedure of over 2000 as being necessary to protect the life of the mother – not one.
I would not venture to say a woman’s life is never at serious risk, but using it as a basis for a late-term abortion on demand policy is like having a building code that requires 2 inch plate steel roofs because someone had a meteor land on their house.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Antonio, you are forgetting to observe that even if complications require a pregnancy to end, they don’t require that the baby’s brians be sucked out or his arms and legs be torn off. Delivery or c-section, with an attempt to save the baby even if unsuccessful, is always an option. What “abortion” is doing in all these circumstances we are talking about is directly intentionally kill the child, with the desire that the child be killed and not even an attempt to save it. No one objects to getting the baby out distinct from attacking it. But none of the procedures in question can be describe as attempts to produce a live birth, or even something that falls under double effect. Killing the child is the thing that isn’t needed, and it is the thing that is indisputably intended in these situations we are criticizing as abortion.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:47 pm
But that doesn’t serve the “harsh rhetoric is undermining the pro-life movement” narrative, so you won’t find it cited here
John McG,
See, however, R. R. Reno writing in First Things, in which we find the following”
on June 3rd, 2009 at 12:55 pm
The AMA, hardly a “pro-life” advocate, itself has declared that late term abortions are never medically necessary.
Sean,
I don’t believe this is correct. Please cite a source. Are you thinking of “partial-birth abortions”? Even there, the AMA wanted some exceptions inserted into the law banning them.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 1:04 pm
ACOG Statement on the US Supreme Court Decision Upholding the
Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003
Washington, DC — Despite the fact that the safety advantages of intact dilatation and evacuation (intact D&E) procedures are widely recognized—in medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, clinical practice, and in mainstream, medical care in the United States—the US Supreme Court today upheld the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003.
According to the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists’ (ACOG) amicus brief opposing the Ban, the Act will chill doctors from providing a wide range of procedures used to perform induced abortions or to treat cases of miscarriage and will gravely endanger the health of women in this country.
“Today’s decision to uphold the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 is shameful and incomprehensible to those of us who have dedicated our lives to caring for women,” said Douglas W. Laube, MD, MEd, ACOG president. “It leaves no doubt that women’s health in America is perceived as being of little consequence.
“We have seen a steady erosion of women’s reproductive rights in this country. The Supreme Court’s action today, though stunning, in many ways isn’t surprising given the current culture in which scientific knowledge frequently takes a back seat to subjective opinion,” he added.
This decision discounts and disregards the medical consensus that intact D&E is safest and offers significant benefits for women suffering from certain conditions that make the potential complications of non-intact D&E especially dangerous. Moreover, it diminishes the doctor-patient relationship by preventing physicians from using their clinical experience and judgment.
“On behalf of the 51,000 ACOG members who strive to provide the very best possible medical care to the women we serve, I can only hope that in the future, science will again be at the core of decision-making that affects the life and well-being of all of us,” said Dr. Laube.
# # #
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists is the national medical organization representing over 51,000 members who provide health care for women.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:15 pm
David
You are right – it was partial-birth abortion, but that goes to prove a further point. As Barbara points out, ACOG was still against outlawing even this procedure that is admittedly not necessary to protect the life of a mother. This is about power, not health.
What they are saying is that a partial delivery and killing of the infant is marginally less dangerous than a c-section or a natural birth. It is also less dangerous than other forms of late term abortion such as dismembering the fetus before an intact distraction. In other words, their claim is this is the safest way to kill the late-term infant. That’s great, hard to disagree with their medical conclusions, but you must first accept that destroying a late term fetus is permissable for any reason. How did we ever get to the point where this kind reasoning is considered anything but insane?
on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
One point – what they said was it was never “medically necessary” which is even less than necessary to protect life.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 3:29 pm
Sean, that was the press release. They wrote a whole brief on the matter. Why don’t you read it and report back?
on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:18 pm
It is a distortion to assert that the AMA claims IDE is never medically necessary.
Here’s the text of the AMA letter supporting PBA legislation.
American Medical Association (AMA) is writing to support HR 1122, “The Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 1997,” as amended. Although our general policy is to oppose legislation criminalizing medical practice or procedure, the AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests.
Our support of this legislation is based on three specific principles. First, the bill would allow a legitimate exception where the life of the mother was endangered, thereby preserving the physician’s judgment to take any medically necessary steps to save the life of the mother. Second, the bill would clearly define the prohibited procedure so that it is clear on the face of the legislation what act is to be banned. Finally, the bill would give any accused physician the right to have his or her conduct reviewed by the State Medical Board before a criminal trial commenced. In this manner, the bill would provide a formal role for valuable medical peer determination in any enforcement proceeding.
The AMA believes that with these changes, physicians will be on notice as to the exact nature of the prohibited conduct.
Note that:
While the AMA letter makes it clear that steps to save the life of the mother are licit, as one would expect, nothing in the letter asserts that IDE is *never* necessary. Rather, as the letter states, “[The] AMA has supported such legislation where the procedure was narrowly defined and not medically indicated. HR 1122 now meets both those tests.”
Saying that a procedure is prohibited when “not medically indicated” is not the same as claiming that it’s “never medically indicated”.
Once in a while, I wish that folks making such assertions would take the trouble to check the facts.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 4:34 pm
Antonio, you are forgetting to observe that even if complications require a pregnancy to end, they don’t require that the baby’s brians be sucked out or his arms and legs be torn off. Delivery or c-section, with an attempt to save the baby even if unsuccessful, is always an option.
Unless one has a lot of experience in this area, opinions about what is or is not feasible or appropriate aren’t worth much.
on June 3rd, 2009 at 5:09 pm
So why did you start a discussion that by your standards is worthless? Or do you agree that you can research an area and have an intelligent opinion on it, but others who disagree based on their own research are presenting worthless opinions.
on June 4th, 2009 at 7:12 am
Antonio
Check these facts
It’s time for a reality check regarding what late term abortion is about. The link below is for the Kansas Dept of Health abortion statistics for the last decade. Most of these procedures were performed by Tiller or one of his associates – well over 95% for non-Kansans. In performing between about 293 and 639 procedures a year a majority of which were on viable infants based on the physicians own reporting:
Of these over 5000 abortions
Exactly 0 involved a medical emergency that might result in permanent damage
Exactly 0 were deemed necessary to protect the mother’s life
All were deemed needed because “The patient would suffer substantial and irreversible
impairment of a major bodily function if she were forced to continue the pregnancy.” This is a legal requirement, but a major bodily function includes “mental health.” That being said, in 1998 and 1999, the last two years partial birth abortions were performed in Kansas and the last two years the distinction was made, in 100% of the cases the “major bodily function” was mental health.
Late term abortions are not a necessary evil – they are just evil. They are elective procedures, not medically necessary ones.
These are statistice most of which were reported by the single largest late-term abortion provider in the US. You would think that if the medical threat or necessity were real, he could identify it in even one of the thousands of abortions he provided. The medical establishment’s opposition to these regulations is about power – pure and simple. They are the experts and they don’t want to be told what to do.
http://www.kdheks.gov/hci/absumm.html
on June 4th, 2009 at 8:21 am
Late term abortions are not a necessary evil – they are just evil. They are elective procedures, not medically necessary ones.
Sean,
If personhood begins at conception, why is a late-term abortion any more evil than a first-trimester abortion? Granted, for the average person it is more disturbing, but it was Roe v Wade that made a distinction between first-, second-, and third-trimester abortions. For those who believe that any abortion is murder, it seems counter-productive to me to focus on the evils of late-term abortion. It suggests that a reasonable compromise would be to ban late-term abortions but permit abortion in the first trimester.
Distinguishing between early abortion and late-term abortion is something pro-choice people do, arguing that it is only later in pregnancy that a fetus becomes a person. I don’t see what it is of any concern at all to the pro-life movement. If the right to life begins at the moment of conception, and abortion is an abortion, no matter at what stage of pregnancy it is performed.
Of course, the focus on Tiller and late-term abortions was not for moral reasons. It was because it is a lot easier for the pro-life movement to demonize a late-term abortion provider than an abortionist who performs only first-term abortions. And of course the vast majority of abortions are performed in the first trimester. So organizations like Operation Rescue attempted to make Tiller the “poster boy” for all abortion largely for propaganda purposes, when in the United States only 1.4 percent of abortions are performed at or after 21 weeks.
Would you, or anyone in the pro-life movement, be satisfied with abortion on demand in the first trimester with a strict prohibition on later abortions? I don’t think so.
on June 4th, 2009 at 8:47 am
I found it very disturbing to review the Kansas Dept. of Health reports linked by Sean and to see in black and white that, as Sean noted, each and every one of the 240 partial-birth abortions performed in the state in 1998 and 1999 (58 in 1998, 182 in 1999) was carried out because “the attending physician believes that continuing the pregnancy will constitute a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient’s mental function.” Not one of the 240 abortions was certified as constituting ‘a substantial and irreversible impairment of the patient’s physical function.” And, as the reports indicate, in each of those 240 instances, “the fetus was viable” at the time of the procedure.
on June 4th, 2009 at 10:05 am
William,
Why does the particular procedure used for a late-term abortion disturb you? As I asked Sean, if life begins at conception, why is an abortion at 9 weeks any less evil than an abortion in the 8th or 9th month? (To someone who believes that a fetus only become a person at some point well after conception, it would indeed make a difference how early or late an abortion was. But if it is murder at 9 weeks, then it is no more murder at 9 months.) Is it more wrong to kill a viable fetus than a non-viable one? Actually, if we can agree that it is, we can probably reach a compromise on abortion law, permitting early abortion but putting tight restrictions on late abortions, which account for only a few percent of all abortions performed.
Also, is mental health less important than physical health?
I will admit to being skeptical (as President Obama is) about justification of late-term abortion based on vague claims about mental health. But I would have to know a lot more about some specific cases before I would just assume that carrying a baby to term for some women might be an authentic danger to mental health.
on June 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
William I actually think the mental health certification is a screen for allowing women to have abortions in circumstances where the fetus has grave, mostly lethal defects. I wouldn’t assume that women with normal pregnancies are flocking to Kansas and claiming mental distress. I can’t say that’s always true, but I’m pretty sure that’s what’s going on most of the time, which makes the DOH records less than fully revealing. I said more in the other thread, but if there were a clearer standard for certifying lethal defects and allowing greater latitude in dealing with them in more settings, we might actually decrease the number of women seeking abortions under less compelling circumstances. It’s hard to know for sure.
on June 4th, 2009 at 11:50 am
Well said, Barbara. As one who works in mental health, yes, it can be used as a catch all but would also suggest that a diagnosis of mental health (whatever the exact statement is) might actually be valid for some. To generalize on the Kansas records, I suggest, is a mistake.
on June 4th, 2009 at 11:55 am
David
Thanks for changing the subject, but I was responding to the many posts that were creating the impression that late-term abortions are being performed mostly or even in part to save women’s lives. That is just outright false.
Would I be satisfied with abortion on demand in the first trimester with a strict prohibition on later abortions? No, but while stopping late term abortions is not a suffcient answer to the problem it is a necessary one, so I support outlawing them.
What do you support? I keep asking this and never get a response.
As for the mental health vs. physical health aspect, first ask yourself how often surgical procedures are performed purely for the mental health of a patient and what such procedures are. Next, realize that these procedures are almost always carried out without consultation with a psychiatrist – so how an obstetrician makes this determination I can’t say. Finally, there is overwhelming evidence that women who have abortions are susceptible to all manner of long-term psychological and emotional impacts, yet abortion providers and abortion on demand proponents routinely oppose studying let alone evaluating these issues – so how are they in a position to judge that terminating a pregnancy is better for a patient’s mental health than a live birth?
on June 4th, 2009 at 12:03 pm
Barbara,
Interestingly – we can’t know the answers to questions like that because the abortion lobby – aided by politicians like Katherine Sebelius – have been successful in keeping health authorieties from getting the data.
on June 4th, 2009 at 12:39 pm
Her name is Kathleen Sebelius.
on June 4th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
What do you support? I keep asking this and never get a response.
Sean,
Here’s where I stand. I think “persons” should not be killed, except for grave reasons. When does a person come into existence? I don’t know. If the Catholic Church is correct in saying that an immortal soul exists from the moment of conception (although they don’t actually say that, but just strongly imply it), then I would agree that there should be no abortions, except I would make an exception in authentic threats to the life or health of the mother. However, my position is that I do not believe Catholic doctrine on this matter is necessarily correct. I think the Jewish approach that has been discussed here lately is also a good approach: A human life comes into being at conception, and all life deserves some protection, but a human person doesn’t exist until birth.
As a perfectly practical matter — since even if Catholics are correct, US law is not supposed to be based on Catholic doctrine — abortion should be legal during the first trimester as long as the mother has a sufficient reason for wanting to terminate the pregnancy. I think re-criminalizing abortion would probably have worse consequences than prohibition, and I don’t think it can be done. I don’t think it would have been done if McCain had won and pro-life Republicans for decades afterwards had taken the presidency. I think it is a big mistake for the Catholic Church to involve itself in politics to the extent it has done so far on the abortion issue, and as I have said before, while the Church’s teachings on abortion are ancient and weighty, their teachings on what the law ought to be in a pluralistic society are new and have nowhere near the same weight as other teachings.
I would not support abortion for sex selection, for example (although I am not sure there is a practical way to enforce laws against it). Abortion after that would have to be for some sufficiently grave reason like the life or health of the mother (carefully defined) or serious fetal anomalies. As (among other things) a big fan of the television series Life Goes On, it does break my heart to see Downs syndrome babies being aborted, but on the other hand, as the uncle of a developmentally disabled niece, I have seen the tremendous sacrifice required of parents in a situation like that, and I don’t think I have the right to take away someone’s ability to avoid all that without somehow providing tremendous support.
I would like very much to see a world in which no one ever felt the “need” for an abortion, and I wholeheartedly endorse the parts in the Declaration on Procured abortion that approach the issue from that angle. Along those lines, I support some kind of guaranteed health care for everyone in the United States (including visitors and illegal immigrants). I also support free public education through college.
I do not see abortion as anything resembling a “holocaust,” with the United States being an evil country with a “fundamentally flawed” legal system. I see each abortion as the decision of a mother, a doctor, and perhaps a few others. I think it is deeply misguided to put them all together and make analogies to the holocaust, or slavery, or mass murder.
I see abortion more in terms of parents’ rights than in terms of “a whole class of persons” unprotected by the government. Legalized abortion is not open season on “a whole class of persons.” It is giving parents the power of life or death over their unborn children, and similar (I think) to exempting parents from prosecution who choose faith healing for their gravely ill children over conventional medical treatment. (I would love to see a discussion of that.)
I would like to add one very important qualifier, and that is that I AM A MAN, and almost everybody who writes on the topic of abortion here IS A MAN (and virtually everybody at Vox Nova), and the entire hierarchy of the Catholic Church is made up of MEN and has been for almost 2000 years. Anything that happens regarding abortion should be determined with a minimum of 50 percent input of women. I think there is a lot of truth to the saying, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
I will never get pregnant, and I will never cause anyone to be pregnant, and while I am not saying that disqualifies me from having an opinion, it makes my opinion largely theoretical.
on June 4th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
If it is true that nothing is added to the DNA of a Human Individual after Conception, then despite the many stages of transformation that Human Individual will go through from Conception until Death, that Human Individual is the same Human Individual in every location which includes inside and outside of their Mother’s Womb. Personhood is not a matter of opinion. One is either a Human Individual or one is not. One is either a Human Being or one is not. A Human Individual is a Human Being is a Human Person just as a rose by any other name is still a rose.
on June 4th, 2009 at 4:49 pm
Nancy,
An acorn is not an oak tree, a caterpillar is not a butterfly, and a hen’s egg is not a chicken. Back in the days when we didn’t eat meat on Fridays, we did eat eggs. Are you telling me now that was a sin? (And yes, they were fertilized eggs. We had our own chickens.)
Personhood is not a matter of opinion.
It is a matter of definition, and it depends on whose definition you use. If ET had come to your house instead of Elliott’s, would you have turned him over to the scientists to be experimented on and killed because he didn’t have human DNA and therefore was not a person?
on June 4th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
David, it appears you do not fully understand this Passage in Genesis:
“So God created humankind in His image, in the image of God He created them; male and female, He created them. God Blessed them, and God said to them,’Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.’
I think it is quite clear, that from the beginning, only Humankind was made in God’s image. A Human Being, a.k.a. a Human Person is not an acorn or a caterpillar nor a hen’s egg to begin with. We are unique and have Dignity because we are made in God’s image from the beginning.
Regarding ET, ET would never come to my house to begin with because we all know aliens do not exist. That being said, ET is still one of my favorite movies.
on June 4th, 2009 at 6:52 pm
Ahh, Nancy….just killed off another very worthwhile blog.
on June 4th, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Regarding ET, ET would never come to my house to begin with because we all know aliens do not exist.
Nancy,
Please note the following:
Continued here.
on June 4th, 2009 at 7:38 pm
Or do you agree that you can research an area and have an intelligent opinion on it, but others who disagree based on their own research are presenting worthless opinions.
You made the following factual assertion:
Antonio, you are forgetting to observe that even if complications require a pregnancy to end, they don’t require that the baby’s brians be sucked out or his arms and legs be torn off. Delivery or c-section, with an attempt to save the baby even if unsuccessful, is always an option.
Mr. Drakes:
It is no reflection on your intelligence to suggest that you need to back up such a statement with the facts that support it — especially when the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists does not concur with that view. If you have some special competence in this area, please say so.
on June 5th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Of these over 5000 abortions
Exactly 0 involved a medical emergency that might result in permanent damage
Exactly 0 were deemed necessary to protect the mother’s life.
Mr. Hannaway:
It is no suprise that none of the abortions involved were needed to save the mother’s life (although the reporting criteria for declaring that a condition is life threatenening are not specified). In any event, it appears that the kind of late term abortions perfomed by Dr. Tiller occurred because of problems diagnosed late in the pregnancy under non-emergency circumstances, where the woman had plenty of time to discuss the issues with her caregiver and take action.
More to the point, it won’t do to simply declare by fiat that abortion is *never* necessary to save the life of the woman. Neither the AMA or ACOG supports that view. In a JAMA article *supporting the ban on IDE*, physicians Leroy Sprang and Mark Neerof conclude with a view that is strongly against IDE but allows for exceptions when there is an issue of prolonged fetal survival or a danger to the womans life. They also point out that such decisions must take into account the individual situation.
…Abortions in the periviable period (currently 23 weeks) and beyond should be considered unethical, *unless the fetus has a condition incompatible with prolonged survival or if the mother’s life is endangered by the pregnancy*. (3) If a maternal medical condition in the periviable period indicates pregnancy termination, the physician should wait, if the medical condition permits, until fetal survival is probable and then proceed with delivery. *Such medical decisions must be individualized.* [Emphasis mine]
The full article is available at: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/280/8/744
on June 5th, 2009 at 7:43 am
David
An oak tree is not a person and a chicken is not a person. If they were, my opinion on the treatment of eggs and acorns would be very different, but for now the squirrels can have their way.
Thanks for the thorough response.
The one thing we know – and this has nothing to do with enforcing Catholic doctrine on anyone – is that the fetus, barring natural of purposeful disruption, will be something everyone agrees is a person.
So, if you don’t know if the fetus is or is not a person, by what right can a person claim the authority to destroy it? All the conditions you list are arbitrary. What changes between 2 months and 6 months of gestation that the fetus is more of a person. We don’t treat functionality as the basis for personhood. A man who can’t walk or speak is still a person. The profoundly retarted are still persons. What about a fetus in week 6 makes it less worthy of protection than at week 10?
Nancy is right. Whether something is or is not a person is a fact. A definition is simply a statement of what the declarant believes a word means. We don’t make something a person by calling it one. Certainly, when enough people define something as a person or don’t define it as a person that will result in different treatment, but that’s just about power. If you kill something because you and others say its not a person, just by calling it a non-person you haven’t changed the nature of the act.
Antonio
You say – “In any event, it appears that the kind of late term abortions perfomed by Dr. Tiller occurred because of problems diagnosed late in the pregnancy under non-emergency circumstances, where the woman had plenty of time to discuss the issues with her caregiver and take action.”
Please, provide a single shred of evidence that this is the case. It is hard to do since the medical establishment and pro-abortion groups have steadfastly opposed and prevented the collection of data. However, in the late 80’s the Guttmacher Institute did a study that indicated only 2% of the late-term abortions in its sample involved significant fetal abnormalities, and over seventy percent involved no issues of maternal or fetal physical health. Other studies have shown the most common abnormalities cited a reasons for late term abortions were cleft palates and club feet.
The reality, and the reason the abortion lobby so adamantly opposes collection of data, is that the vast majority of all abortions are purely elective – including late term abortions.
on June 5th, 2009 at 9:30 am
I’m going to close comments here and give everyone a break for the weekend. Or at least till the next time abortion comes up. Thanks for participating, everybody.