The Murder of an Abortion Doctor

I find it hard to argue with Jacob Sullum's logic:

Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to act. It may be unwise or counterproductive to the cause, as Schenck suggests when he worries that the killing could be "a greater setback to the pro-life movement than anything the so-called pro-choice movement could do." Promoting an image of pro-life activists as murderous extremists might dim the prospects for legislation restricting abortion, thereby leading to more deaths of unborn children than eliminating one abortionist prevents. But this is a tactical question that does not have to do with the inherent morality of killing in defense of innocent children.

Nor is it sufficient to note that killing Tiller was against the law. 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 is justified in principle.

Some of Sullum's commentors point to a third option: pacifism, which might decry abortion as murder, but morally forbid violence in response. Others discuss the nuances of Just War Theory as it would relate to an extrajudicial killing.

UPDATE: Further ruminations from the ever-thoughtful Megan McArdle.

So. Now I can move onto the observation that if you actually think late-term abortion is murder, then the murder of Dr. Tiller makes total sense. Putting up touching anecdotes about people he's helped find adoptions, etc, doesn't change the fact that if you think late-term abortions are murder, the man was systematically butchering hundreds of human beings a year--indeed, not merely butchering them, but vivisecting them without anaesthetic. I'm sure many mass murderers have done any number of kind things over the course of their lives, to which the correct response, if you're trying to stop the murders, is "so?"

Imagine a future in which the moral consensus has changed, and our grandchildren regard abortion the way we regard slavery. Who will the hero of history be: Tiller, or his murderer? At the very least, they'll be conflicted, the way we are about John Brown.

Can You Oppose Abortion Personally But Support Its Legality?

SimplyComplexJen:

Ok, ok... I have a friend that I go round and round with. She tells me you can not be against abortion on a personal level, yet on a political level support choice. I still stand by my argument that a person can and I do.

I can understand the reasoning behind a 'yes' answer to the question in the title bar of this post. It fits in (hypothetically) with my libertarian politics. For example, I believe that idolatry is immoral, but should not be illegal. I believe that homosexual conduct is immoral, but should not be illegal. I believe that smoking is immoral, but should not be illegal. I believe that using marijuana is immoral, but should not be illegal. No action should be illegal which harms only those who consent to the action.

Following this thread, I think that an unborn child is a human life and that abortion does not acquire the consent of all of the affected people, namely the child. It is, therefore, the deliberate, non-consensual killing of a person, i.e. murder.

I also believe that the state has only a few legitimate functions:
1. Protect citizens from crime.
2. Protect citizens from invasion.
3. Enforce contracts between citizens.

Abortion, being murder, would fit into category 1, and is therefore a legitimate concern of the state.

So, assuming that one holds:
1. That abortion takes a human life without consent
2. And that one purpose of the state is to prevent non-consensual harm

...then one cannot morally reject abortion but support its legality.

UPDATE: On the rape/incest exception: I don't support it because of Assumption 1. The unborn child is still an innocent human life. S/he has done nothing to merit death because of his/her origins. The mother deserves our compassion, love, and assistance, but not our permission to kill a child.

Also: Henry Neufeld responds:

Frankly, I think John has left out most of the logic on this one. Hidden assumptions lumber through this like elephants, just begging someone to see them. One may, for example, simply disagree with the idea that the state always has a duty to accomplish the goals John states.

Wow. He's a lot more libertarian than I am.