Search This Blog

Sunday, May 31, 2009

Safe, Legal, and Rare

This item is about the silly hyperventilating about the recent murder (or, as I'd be more apt to put it, the "murder") of the mass-murderer, George Tiller.


Consider this profoundly silly comment by Robert P. George, on National Review's "the corner" blog: Gravely Wicked (since it's probably not obvious to you, Gentle Reader, that "profoundly silly" characterization is meant to mirror the "gravely wicked" Since 'wicked' is a moral term, I'd considered saying "profoundly foolish," but I finally settled on the non-moral characterization of "silly").

Or consider this profoundly misguided reaction by NRO's Kathryn Jean Lopez to Operation Rescue's press release concerning the abortionist's death: The Wrong Release.

This is one fact: all elective abortion is murder. This is another fact: the elites who rule us *condone* such murder; sure, they have their varying reasons for why they actively support or passive enable the abortion regime, but the end-result is the same. And this is one more uncomfortable fact: many of us "regular people" *condone* such murder; sure, we have varying reasons for why we may actively support or passive enable the abortion regime, but the end-result is the same.

=============
A thought-experiment about the "gravely wicked" charge:
Let us suppose that there is a chain of private schools; quite exclusive in their enrollment policies, but also quite inexpensive in their tuition; and of which everyone in the nation realizes that by any objective standard they deliver an exceptional education. Naturally, we will see at once that everyone will be clamoring to get their children into one of these schools.

Now, let us further suppose that after some number of years it comes to light that the *reason* these schools are so exclusive in their enrollment policies is that they're carefully pre-screening the parents before revealing to them a certain heretofore secret policy of the schools: that each year at each individual school, one incoming student is chosen to be a human sacrifice. As in, ritually killed; dead. Thus, at least one parent of all the students enrolled in these schools was aware of this and had agreed to it beforehand.

Then, let us further suppose that after this horrific news becomes public knowledge, it is learned that it's all quite legal. How this enormity became legal doesn't matter to this thought-experiment; what matters is that it is legal by the laws of the land -- and that the politicians and other elites (and those who like to imagine they themselves are among the elite) have no intention of changing that.


So, since we are a "nation of laws, and not of men" (never mind that that hasn't actually been true for many years), and since (as Mr George asserts) "[n]o private individual [has] the right to execute judgment against" the staff of these schools, then ... what? Well, if Mr George, and Miss Lopez, and all the other hand-wringers are correct in their reasoning and assertions, then we must all stand by and allow these yearly human sacrifices, these "legal" murders, to continue indefinitely.

And, if all such namby-pamby Churchianity enablers of the abortion regime (inadvertent, perhaps, but enablers nonetheless) are correct, then, when eventually some individual -- say, the divorced father (who thereby had no say in the matter of his child's enrollment) of one of this year's human sacrifices -- does "take the law into his own hands," then we all must condemn him, and we are duty-bound to help bring him "to justice," but never them, really.


So, Gentle Reader, does the reasoning really work? If you reject this reasoning as applied to these hypothetical schools, how is it that you accept it as applied to the mass-murder going on daily in our nation? Where is the difference? What am I missing?

If you reject this reasoning as applied to these hypothetical schools, then why would it be morally permissible for someone, even someone not related to one of the murdered children, to execute the staff of these schools -- even though the State will do nothing about the yearly murders -- and yet it is not morally permissible for someone to execute an abortionist, also condoned (and even subsidized) by the State, who may well murder daily?

Was Antigone wrong, after all, to defy the legal command of Creon, the king?

=============


As I said earlier today to a man who is both pro-abortion and rather blasé about the death of this particular abortionist:
So, apparently, we're both 'pro-choice' about the killing of abortionists.

You know, in the "While I, personally, wouldn't kill an abortionist, I support others' right to do so" way.

Or, maybe it's the "While I am personally opposed to the termination of abortionists, I simply cannot impose my personal morality upon those who make the difficult personal decision to terminate an abortionist" way.

But, surely, all persons of good-will can come together on common ground to work toward making the termination of abortionists "safe, legal, and rare."

One out of three ain't so bad, is it, no matter which side of the fence you're on? The killing of abortionists *is* rare. This is what, perhaps the ninth or tenth since the 1973 Roe v Wade judicial usurpation?

Update:
According to the National Abortion Federation, from 1977 until now, there have been 7 prior murders (or "murders") of abortionists in the US and Canada. So, what's the score? Eight to something like 50,000,000?

Most news reports are saying things like this:
...
Dr. Tiller’s death is the first such killing of an abortion provider in this country since 1998, when Dr. Barnett Slepian was shot by a sniper in his home in the Buffalo area. Dr. Tiller was the fourth doctor in the United States who performed abortions to be killed in such circumstances since 1993, statistics from abortion rights’ groups show.
...

16 comments:

Unknown said...

Good irony.

Murder, though, thanks to the OED, has no consistent definition in a legal sense; one person is free to argue that murder is "unlawful killing" by means of definition 1a, while definition 1c holds that murder is a term usable irrespective of legality.

1c is obviously essential to your points and arguments.

As language has an impact upon how we think, I would think it smart to iron out some sort of rhetoric to once and for all decide precisely what murder actually is in respect to legality.

If murder is simply killing, and we can write away definition 1a, awesome for your points.

If murder by definition is "unlawful killing", then the battle goes to deciding whose laws to refer to when it comes to the word "unlawful"; and although one might believe it's as simple as saying "obviously this set of laws", there remains a discussion to be had.

Peace, bro, and nice thoughts.

Ilíon said...

I believe that murder is the "unjustified and deliberate killing of another human being," and I wholly reject the idea that murder is killing simpliciter.

But, yes, the question then turns to what "unjustified" means? And "deliberate" also has a bit of wiggle-room to be pinned down.

Ilíon said...

Here is a good sermon on this (not that I completely agree with him) -- Douglas Wilson: Don't Start What You Cannot Finish

Here's what he posted when the news first came out -- Douglas Wilson: Getting the Whole Thing Arsy Varsy

Ilíon said...

Should Gentle Reader care to understand just what, at least in part, George Tiller did for a living, see the illustrations here -- La Shawn Barber’s Corner: Child Killer George Tiller Killed

Ilíon said...

Richard Spencer on Taki's Magazine(*): Did George Tiller Deserve to Die? (**)



(*) Just because Taki's Magazine is insane doesn't mean that everyone involved with it is necessarily insane.

(**) The only moral and rational answer is "Yes." But then, that's true of all human beings: we all deserve to die; praise God that he can be merciful without being unjust.

Ilíon said...

Cartago Delenda Est: If You Wouldn't Condone Personally Storming Auschwitz, You Must Not Really Think The Holocaust Is Wrong

Ilíon said...

Brutally Honest: Bonhoeffer and Tiller's killer - are there parallels?

Ilíon said...

AnotherThink: The ethics of murder

Ilíon said...

The author at AnotherThink thinks that the following is "a well-reasoned post on why the Bonhoeffer comparison fails" -- Julie Unplugged: Tiller, "Operation Rescue" and Bonhoeffer

And I gotta say, I don't see the well-reasoning to it.

The gist of it is that an abortion is the result of a private, freely made act/decision, rather than of a public compulsion (and, never mind China).

Well, so can an infanticide be the result of a private, freely made act/decision, rather than of a public compulsion.

Did the State compel either Susan Smith or Andrea Yates to retroactively abort their children? Did the State compel that teenager, whose name escapes me, to deliver her child at the prom and leave it in the trash?

Well, so can the murder of an adult be the result of a private, freely made act/decision, rather than of a public compulsion.

Let us suppose that the killing of George Tiller was not only murder legally, but also, and more importantly, morally.

Did the State compel George Tiller’s murderer to murder him? Or, was it a the result of a private, freely made act/decision?

Ilíon said...

Gentle Reader, please read this one -- George Jonas, National Post: Thoughts from an ex-fetus

I will quibble that the truth about our age (and us) is not so much, "Living in an epoch that is selfish as well as matriarchal, our lifeboats are no longer marked "women and children first," only "women first."" but is, rather, something more like, "Living in an epoch that is selfish as well as matriarchal, our lifeboats are no longer marked "women and children first," but "predatory men first, using women second.""

Ilíon said...

Obama Quietly Issues Statement on Terrorist Attack in Arkansas

MathewK said...

"So, what's the score? Eight to something like 50,000,000?"

And yet the abortionists won't even accept even one death on their part. They just dismiss the 50000000 with a mere wave of their hand, not human beings, no comparison, move along.

Ilíon said...

A culture killing its children is a culture committing suicide.

While I, for one, will not miss the "liberals" and sincerely wish them good journey, the unfortunate fact remains that we all are paying and will continue to pay the consequences for those millions of murders.

Ilíon said...

John Zmirak: Death's Hand on the Tiller

Ilíon said...

Paul Gottfried: Righteous Zeal and the Killing of George Tiller

Chuck said...

A thought experiment for you.

A 9 year old girl is raped by her step-father and doesn't realize she is pregnant until she is what is considered "late term". If she brings the baby to term then both she and the baby will die.

A safe medical procedure will spare her life but kill the baby.

What do you do?

This is a real case that constituted Dr. Tiller's practice.

Let me know what you think.

I'm interested.

Did God want the 9 year old to suffer an incredibly bloody and painful death so that she could bring the product of rape into this world? Where was God when the child was being raped? Is there some hidden sign in her rape that we all must learn from?

Let me know.

Thanks.