Deadly Force?
As you may recall, in May 2008 George Tiller, an abortionist, was shot to death while at church. The trial of the man who pulled the trigger begins this week. I found this article by Jacob Sullum to be very interesting. It raises a fair point, namely that:
Obeying the law is generally a good idea, but there are exceptions. When the law blesses the murder of babies, it is hardly worthy of respect, any more than laws blessing the enslavement of Africans or the gassing of Jews were, and violent resistance against such enactments surely can be justified. A pro-life position does not require pacifism in the face of a murderous assault; it allows and arguably demands the use of force in defense of oneself and others.
Do you agree? Was the use of deadly force justified in the killing of George Tiller?
(The author is not advocating, nor calling for the deaths of abortionists. He is, I think, rather raising an interesting argument because it is the defense that the accused is trying to use in court.)
Posts
18 comments:
They call that Anarchy, I think.
I think that is pretty well said SB. How did you and I get on the same page?
I think you are right Bob. The author does go on to admit that killing abortionists (or anyone) is probably not the best way to oppose or change laws.
But it is an interesting defense that the killer is taking. Using deadly force to defend a child (or an adult) whose life is threatened is perfectly acceptable, and mostly legal and justifiable.
What then is the distinction between a life in the womb, and one outside of it?
"What then is the distinction between a life in the womb, and one outside of it?"
is this bait?
I'll bite.
I am Pro-Choice because I believe YOU have the right to decide for yourself when that which in the womb becomes a mortal life. I have my opinion, but it is not related to my Pro-Choice stance.
So the court will chuckle at his defense and will will play no part in his conviction or acquittal, because a higher court has deemed the practice legal. I truly believe that that decision will not be overturned in our lifetime, if ever.
It's not really bait, it's just a plausible play out of what questions the judge and jury may have to answer.
"YOU have the right to decide for yourself when that which in the womb becomes a mortal life."
But then, does one also have the right to decide whether someone outside the womb is worthy of life as well?
Again, what is the difference between life inside the womb, and life outside?
And by what criteria does one make the judgment that the mass of cells inside the womb has become life?
Some use scientific criteria, others Religious, still others use a combination.
Doctors disagree, Theologians disagree, Scientists disagree, which leaves it to choice (IMHO).
Now, no one (reasonably) disagrees that about outside of the womb (except all those states with a death penalty).
And still it is a ridiculous defense. In this case, Jack Ruby did the same thing. He played Judge/Jury and Executioner, but he was still guilty of murder, regardless of the charged 'crime' of the victim.
Maybe he is really going for an insanity plea.
I think the better way to protest a law is to simply not obey it. Civil disobedience does better to legitimize your cause than murdering those who act under legitimate laws.
The Revolution didn't start with a war, as an example. It started with disobedience and protest.
You just pointed out all the reasonable disagreement about life inside the womb, and then said that nobody disagrees.
Which is it?
And if another's right to life comes down to MY choice, then wasn't this man justified in CHOOSING to end the life of George Tiller, just the way that Tiller chose to end the lives of unborn children?
Bob, I re-read your disagreement paragraph, and I had misunderstood it, so disregard my question about it.
Chris, I agree 100%. But how does one disobey a law that legalizes (as opposed to out laws) an action many abhor?
I ought to also say that I'm largely playing devil's advocate here, trying to spark a similar conversation that the jury may have in this case, which I find fairly fascinating. I happen to think that as a defense, the accused is taking a rather brilliant stand, albeit one that could easily spark into action others willing to pull triggers.
I said no on disagrees about life OUTSIDE.
The choice is not about a right to Life, the choice is really, when it comes down to it, what is the definition of a Life.
My belief, your belief, the victims belief has NOTHING to do with the current Law.
On the contrary, it has everything to do with the current law. If Tiller was not killing babies, then his killer has no defense.
On the other hand, if he was killing them, than his killer was justified in shooting the Dr. in order to save the lives of those he threatened.
I realize abortion is legal, but that does not define what abortion actually is.
Again, I think his defense is ridiculous, and contrary to 'defense' He is trying to make a political statement, one which will only cost the state more in the trial.
Whether the victim was killing babies or not is once again a matter of opinion, not fact. Your belief, my belief, the accused belief, the victims belief are just that, beliefs, not fact.
Your argument claims that they are fact and therefore has no teeth.
"Whether the victim was killing babies or not is once again a matter of opinion, not fact."
I'm not contesting that. I'm arguing that HOW that question is answered will determine whether or not the defense is "ridiculous".
Answer this question:
If it's found that Tiller was killing babies, then would his killer be exonerated of murder, based on existing deadly force laws?
I think the Defense could show that based on scientific and medical precedence that the late term abortions that Tiller performed were indeed performed on human babies, actual living, breathing beings. (What else are they, if not humans?)
One more question:
Why is it that Scott Peterson was convicted of double murder when he killed his pregnant wife?
The answer to both questions:
Depends on the Jury.
Which is why I think its a brilliant defense.
However, what I think will send this guy to jail is the fact that he killed Tiller in cold blood, away from his practice, and NOT in the act of threatening anyone's life.
Deadly force laws are generally only applicable to defending a life that is in IMMINENT danger – a man breaking into your home and pointing a gun at your wife, for example, would justify the use of your own gun. Chasing that man down after he robs you and shooting him in the back however, does not.
What the killer did was act out a Minority Report-esque vigilantism of "precrime" justice based on past crimes, and the possibility of future ones. It was unlawful, cold-blooded, and premeditated.
A reasonable jury will send him to jail forever.
But still, I think it's an interesting defense strategy, and one that could have broader implications in the abortion debate.
You guys have long since gone past my point, but just to clarify, I was speaking generally about civil disobedience and protest. You're right, it's a contradiction to disobey a law that is permissive and not mandatory. But, you picket and protest and shout "Hell no, we won't go!" and all that. Pull a Ghandi.
Another's right to life does not come down to choice under Roe v. Wade. Roe's basic text says that, in the absence of better evidence to the contrary, and for the sake of making a distinction, "Life" under the law begins at x point of the pregnancy and any laws created must at least conform to that principle.
The "Life v. Choice" argument is frustrating because they argue two different themes of the argument without refuting each other directly. The choice being sought isn't the choice to murder a life. The choice is to still perform an abortion where there is no legal and, in their view moral, life in question. The protest is where they disagree with the Court's, and by extension the government's, ability to step into that argument at all.
In the end, it sucks if you're stuck on the wrong end of the law, but committing murder in the universally accepted sense to protest that law is unjustifiable and is little more than terrorism.
oh man, am I sad I came late to this party. Really really interesting discussion on defense. It is an interesting defense, and i think won't succeed because of reasons already stated. But man, all this talk about killing babies and not one of you have actually had one grow inside of you and take over your body.
The experience makes me believe that no government should ever dictate what woman can or cannot do with her body, while at the same time want advocate for real change that will reduce the number of women needing abortions. but anyway, good discussion.
But does a woman have the right to do whatever she pleases with the body of another individual?
In other words, at what point does that child become an individual with its own right to life?
Keep in mind, 95% of abortions are voluntary, that is not performed as a result of rape, incest, etc.
(I don't pretend to know the answers to these questions, I'm just making more conversation)
Post a Comment