The Consequences of the Culture of Death

The American Spectator ^ | 6.29.09 | Doug Bandow

[rhema]

The culture of death continues to claim victims, this time abortionist George Tiller. The tragedy of his murder is compounded by the obvious contradiction of someone killing him in the name of life. Perhaps it should not surprise that murder is seen as the answer in a society which devalues life.

Protecting life is the foundation for a republic such as our own. Indeed, the most fundamental liberty is to life itself.

Tiller's murder obviously violates both a commitment to life and the rule of law. No free society can survive if its members believe themselves authorized to mete out their personal version of justice on others.

The murder has turned Tiller into a martyr to some yet, ironically, his lifework was death. Celebrated by the Center for Reproductive Rights as "a stalwart and fearless defender of women's fundamental health and rights," Tiller was known for performing partial birth abortions. That often meant delivering and then killing a fetus well past "viability," that is, the ability to survive on its own.

There's no doubt that the circumstances of many of those seeking abortions are difficult. Nor can any defender of liberty feel comfortable advocating government intrusion in such a personal matter as childbirth.

Yet a baby is not the property of his or her mother. Few people disagree that children have the full right to life like adults. Moreover, the moment of birth makes no difference in the moral value of life. Even some abortion advocates are uncomfortable with the brutality of many late term abortions, of which the late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan said "This is too close to infanticide."

[rockrr]

"Tiller's murder obviously violates both a commitment to life and the rule of law. No free society can survive if its members believe themselves authorized to mete out their personal version of justice on others."

The two sentences are mutually exclusive and ultimately meaningless. tiller's murderer didn't believe himself "authorized" to mete out justice, he saw no other recourse in a "justice" system that is anything but.

We submit to government by consent - we put our collective faith in our laws and our representatives to govern over us. When they distort the law, pervert the law, or ignore the law altogether, we seek recourse...or we decide that the compact has been broken and no longer abide by it.

I don't condone what's his name's actions (actually either one of them), but I understand the growing frustration with the lack of respect shown the law - by the establishment.

[Lucky Dog]

From the article: Peaceful battle, that is. Pro-life must mean pro-life. The murder of abortionists -- there have been five since Roe -- must be roundly condemned by anyone committed to the protection of life. There can be no moral justification for murder.

Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this [is] the first commandment.

Mar 12:31 And the second [is] like, [namely] this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Ponder this dilemma: You have two neighbors who are fighting with the intent of killing each other. One of these neighbors is the aggressor, with no regard for the rights of the other, and the other, innocent, is acting only in self defense. However, having been attacked, the previously innocent neighbor is intent on ending, not only, the current threat, but any future ones with the death of the aggressor.

You have tried to intervene with persuasion to end the conflict. However, your peace making efforts have failed miserably.

If you intervene with something other than persuasion, you may be forced to severely injure or, even, kill one of these neighbors. If you do nothing, one will most certainly die and it will probably be the innocent one.

You have been commanded to love your neighbor, but which one? What will you do?

Let’s complicate the situation just a bit. Instead of the innocent neighbor fighting to defend his or her life, let us say that he or she is incapable of resisting the aggressor. Do you stand by and do nothing?

While I do not condone murder in any sense, it would seem that the situation may be just a “tad” more complicated morally than the author of this article presents it.

[Islander7]

Since the passage of Roe vs Wade

Abortionists murdered = 5

Babies Aborted = Approximated 49,000,000

[Lucky Dog]

So... Your answer to the dilemma I posed is what, exactly?

[onedoug]

Why was Tiller’s death not a late term abortion?

[Emmett McCarthy]

Under civil law, Tiller’s killing is described or charged as a “murder”, yet the 60,000 (by his own count) innocent lives he took are legally defined as something else, not even really acknowledged as “killings” much less “murders”. There is what can only be termed a “culturally fatal dissonance” in all that for anyone who has the blinders imposed by Roe removed. “Tiller’s Temple of the Barbaric Sacrament” is no more, so some good came out of this. The law will condemn the shooter as a “murderer”, of course. And I imagine the shooter fully expected that and is willing to accept that personal consequence. I can’t really share in the judgement that civil law makes on him and won’t pretend that I do.

[Islander7]

I see no dilemma. Murder is wrong, period. However, the left wishes to beat us over the head with the 5 deaths of abortionists (which has been roundly condemned by everyone I know) while ignoring the deaths of 49,000,000 innocents. Let them explain that.

I carry a picture of an aborted child with me. I show it those who are outspoken in their support of abortion on demand. I tell them, “This is what you support!” They never want to be look it. They are never confronted with the consequences of abortion.

[Lucky Dog]

Under civil law, Tiller’s killing is described or charged as a “murder”.

A minor point, but I think you intended to cite "criminal law." Under "civil law" the act causing Tiller's demise would have been a tort known as "wrongful death."

The law will condemn the shooter as a “murderer”, of course.

In deed, it will. However, "murder" to prevent a potential perpetrator from "murdering" an innocent third party is a valid defense, provided the act against which the action is certain.

[Lucky Dog]

I see no dilemma. Murder is wrong, period.

The dilemma which you do not see is as follows: Is it wrong to murder an individual to prevent him or her from murdering a third party?

If you do nothing to prevent the "murderer" from committing his or her act, then you are, in effect, an accessory to murder. If you murder the would be murderer, you become a murderer... hence, the dilemma: Which evil is the lesser of the two?

Now, do you see the dilemma?

[Emmett McCarthy]

I should have more correctly labelled it as “man’s law”, but your point of distinction within that realm is taken. Since Tiller’s activities are not even recognized as having been illegal, much less fitting within the legal definition of “murder”, I doubt that such a defense would be entertained by courts operating under “man’s law”. God, of course, may see things rather differently, although I really can’t say for sure.

[Lucky Dog]

I doubt that such a defense [murder to prevent murder] would be entertained by courts operating under “man’s law”.

Actually, such a defense is valid in certain circumstances in many states, e.g., shooting a bank robber who is about to shoot a bank official for "failing to deliver the money." Of course, you must be able to demonstrate before a judge and jury that "the ordinarily reasonable person" would have interpreted the situation as you did and then acted as you did. If you can cross that hurdle, it is a valid defense.

... Tiller’s activities are not even recognized as having been illegal, much less fitting within the legal definition of “murder”...

Unfortunately, it seems you are correct. However, public opinion seems to have "turned a corner." More and more people are willing to state their opposition to abortion. Possibly in a few more years, there will enough to force our "elected representatives" make abortion illegal.

[Emmett McCarthy]

I believe that public opinion and perception of this horror has changed. In the Tiller matter, I wouldn’t be surprised that the state would possibly “go for a plea” in order to avoid a jury trial because there’s always the risk of “jury nullification”. That would show “the will of the people” in a way that neither the state nor the federal government would like much.

[Lucky Dog]

...the state would possibly “go for a plea” in order to avoid a jury trial because there’s always the risk of “jury nullification”

You could be correct. However, I do not think the perpetrator would go for the deal in this case.

As I recall, the individual is 71 years old. It could be that he "sees the end" looming and would demand his day in court. If such were the case, the state could only oblige or drop the charges all together... an very unlikely course of action.

"Jury nullification" in the Tiller case would probably be very difficult. I am sure the judge would probably not allow the defense to present the kind of "inflammatory" evidence that would potentially lead some jurors to contemplate such an action.

[Islander7]

I read your ‘what if’ scenario. I don’t play ‘what if’ games. Let’s stick to reality, OK.

[Lucky Dog]

I don’t play ‘what if’ games. Let’s stick to reality, OK.

All of life is a "what if" game. Thousands of times a day, we ask ourselves "what if" questions. "What if" is the way we do risk assessment to determine which alternative course of action to pursue in "reality."

If one is too mentally lazy to examine life through "what if" scenarios, then, to paraphrase Plato, why live it?

[Emmett McCarthy]

No, I don’t see the guy going for a deal, either. And judges have refused to allow similar defenses - “acting in defense of innocent life” - before.

[Islander7]

Geez! Thankfully I have learned to handle life as it presents itself. I don’t ‘hand wring’ about all the ‘what ifs’, like ‘what if little frogs had wings, would they bump their butts when they jump?’

If you have questions about your scenario, it is an indication to me that you are indecisive. That is an issue you can work on. You’ll find that life is sweeter once decisions are made and you abide by the results, come good or ill.

[Lucky Dog]

How interesting... I have been "decisive enough" to make it through two combat theaters and more than 5,000 hours in the cockpits of combat aircraft... even to run my own business...

However, you seem to hold the opinion that possessing the depth of thought to contemplate moral and philosophical issues, is indecisive.

It must be very hard to humble when someone is as great as you are...

[Islander7]

You’re catching on...