Yesterday and today, we have been witness to the seemingly endless parade of those who oppose legalized abortion firmly condemning the murder of Dr. George Tiller, which took place Sunday morning in a church in Wichita, Kansas. There can be no doubt that many - in fact, I would guess most - of these individuals are sincere in their condemnation, in that it reflects a genuine belief that the killing was morally wrong and logically inconsistent with their self-styled pro-life stance. There are certainly those as well who silently, or at least discreetly, approve of this killing. Many of them will join in the condemnation of this murder, knowing that such expressions of disapproval are political useful for their cause.
The latter are the real danger to those who actually put themselves in the literal line of fire in the abortion issue. But they're also the more logical of the two groups I've described.
When the stipulation is made that a fetus is an innocent life, then it logically follows from that stipulation that, except perhaps in the most extreme of circumstances[1], abortion is murder.
It is further widely accepted, at least in contemporary American society, that the use of lethal force to stop the murder of an innocent human being who is unable to defend itself is ethically and morally justified.[2]
This ain't rocket science, folks.
The point is that the shooting in Wichita is not an example of some rogue pro-lifer getting unreasonably carried away with his beliefs. It isn't passion gone awry. It's not an individual losing sight of his core beliefs. No. Quite the contrary.
The murder of Dr. George Tiller is the logical conclusion of the claim that abortion is murder.
Simply put, the extreme action of murdering (which is how Dr. Tiller's actions have repeatedly been described by the pro-life movement) pre-born infant human beings (which is how, or similar to, the way fetuses are persistently described by the pro-life movement) calls in moral human beings concerned with children (as they see children) extreme actions, up to and including the taking of human life in order to stop what they see as murder.
How hard is it to understand the very simple notion that the taking of human life to prevent the murder of one or more innocents is perfectly acceptable, even if the state considers such a killing to be murder? Indeed, given that the state, in the mind of many if not most pro-lifers, is complicit in the murder of children, why should that state - having demonstrated from the pro-life point of view its utter disregard for innocent life - hold any moral sway?
Scott Roeder didn't merely get carried away when he shot and killed Dr. George Tiller. He simply applied the logic presented to him by his brothers and sisters in the pro-life movement; innocents are being killed. Stopping the stipulated murders of stipulated innocent human beings is the very natural recourse, even through means that may or will prove deadly to those responsible for the stipulated murders.
Once again, because it bears repeating, this time in capital letters:
THE MURDER OF DR. GEORGE TILLER IS THE LOGICAL CONCLUSION OF THE CLAIM THAT ABORTION IS MURDER.
Do I mean to say that all pro-lifers supported this killing? No, I do not. But those who hold that abortion is murder thereby provide intellectual and logical support for the logic of this killing, whether or not they wish to do so. We all have to live with the outcomes of our opinions. And like it or not, if you think Dr. George Tiller murdered hundreds of innocent children while the state was adamant that it was not going to take any action to stop him, are you really going to tell us that killing him was wrong? And if you are, then what sort of pretzel-logic gets you to those dual conclusions?
So to those who are pro-life[3] I will simply point out that logic is a journey to a destination. If you don't like where your logic has taken you, maybe it's time to alter your underlying stipulations.
[1] - Such extreme circumstances might include a situation where the mother will (or very likely will) die if the pregnancy is not terminated. In such a situation the loss of a life is certain or likely, and for a variety of reasons it can plausibly be argued that aborting the fetus is the best (or least bad) remedy to the situation. There is some logical consistency in such a stance by a pro-lifer.
[2] - Examples might include a police officer using lethal force against someone who is using potentially lethal force against a third person, a SWAT team sniper using lethal force against someone holding hostages, or a private citizen using lethal force in a situation where they are witnessing something like a massacre such as took place at Columbine or Virginia Tech. Few would condemn the officer, the sniper, or the citizen acting as described in these situations.
[3] - I am sure there exist those rare persons who actually oppose all killing in any circumstances, or at least in such circumstances as described in the previous two footnotes. Such persons would be the exception to the general thrust of this diary, and could on logical grounds oppose the killings of both what they perceive to be human beings not yet born, and Dr. George Tiller. I suspect such persons are exceedingly rare, and even most of those who claim to be such persons in reality are not.