ENDS NEVER JUSTIFY THE MEANS

May 31, 2009 in Liberals, Pro-Life by RR | 25 comments

The murder of Dr. George Tiller will likely incite a great deal of discussion in the coming week. Many will state their opinions, debate, and make judgments. As you find yourself weaving in and out of these discussions make sure that two truths are always recognized: Dr. Tiller was a despicable person, and so is his assailant.

Dr. Tiller represents the worst in American society. He was blessed with the necessary talents to become a physician.  However, instead of using those talents to enrich, protect, and heal people, he did the opposite. Unlike noble physicians who save lives, he destroyed them. He is responsible for many deaths, and he made a killing off of it. Being one of the few doctors who performed partial-birth abortions, Dr. Tiller was happy to kill anyone’s baby regardless of its viability so long as the woman was healthy enough and wealthy enough for an abortion. He, like all abortionists, was a stain on the medical profession, and his practices were more than worthy of protest and condemnation.

His assailant’s actions are equally worthy of protest and condemnation. He is just as bad as Tiller. He may claim he is saving lives, but he is no martyr. He represents the difference between simply being against abortion and pro-life. He is not a member of the pro-life movement because what he did is inherently contradicts those positions. The pro-life stance is an ethical based on a number of principles. One of those principles is that “ends never justify the means.” Even if Tiller’s death saves life in the short term, which it may not, it was procured through immoral and unjust means, which undermines the pro-life movement.

In fact, Tiller’s death is as tragic for the pro-life movement as the abortions that he profited from. First and foremost, it adds to the death count of born and unborn lives. Second, it makes the pro-life movement appear to be extreme because of improper connections between the pro-life movement and the assailant. As a result of this killing, people will unreasonably paint opponents of abortion with a broad brush and take abortion related violence out of context. Although abortion clinics and abortion providers are frequently protested, abortion related violence in America has only claimed nine lives[1]. While this is nine too many, it shows that 99.9% of the people who oppose abortion in America are not violent—like Tiller’s assailant. In truth, the pro-life movement condemns anyone who kills an innocent life. Thus, we condemn both Tiller and his assailant.

Tags:

25 comments

Comments feed for this article

Trackback link: http://www.squarewon.org/2009/05/31/ends-never-justify-the-means/trackback/

  1. rr on June 1, 2009 at 8:34 am

    Correction: In truth, the pro-life movement condemns anyone who INTENTIONALLY kills an innocent life.

  2. whs on June 1, 2009 at 11:29 am

    Whether or not you agree with abortions in the second trimester, this was an act of domestic terrorism. Exterme rhetoric from fringe far right groups like Operation Rescue are partly to blame.

  3. rr on June 1, 2009 at 6:07 pm

    I do not agree with abortions - period. It makes no moral difference when it occurs. However, I absolutely agree that this was an act of domestic terrorism, and my heart goes out to Tiller’s family for their loss. His assailant had no right to kill him, and if the man in custody is the killer, he should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. Albeit a victim in this instance, Tiller is still no martyr.

  4. whs on June 2, 2009 at 10:16 am

    We have a fundamental disagreement on the abortion issue, so we will have to agree to disagree.

    This tragic incident is a prime of example of how deadly and toxic the fusion of religion and politics can be. The hate language that has been coming from the so called christian pro-life groups is breathtaking — the statement given by Randall Terry yesterday was particularly disturbing. Many of these pro-life groups have more or less encouraged that Dr. Tiller be stopped by any means neccesary. While I completely understand and respect the position of rational pro-lifers like yourself, the hateful and dangerous rhetoric coming from many of these pro-life groups contributed to the death of Dr. Tiller, which is of course what they’ve wanted all along. So, I do think it’s fair to say that the most vocal leaders of the pro-life movement are extreme. Religion + politics = extreme

  5. wwilberforce on June 2, 2009 at 12:52 pm

    whs,
    Your equation “Religion + politics = extreme” suffers from a false premise that you may not realize. Religion, in your “math,” could be a proxy for anything. Anything could be put in its place and if the result was extreme violence, the equation would be true. The sad fact is that most folks view an abortion as a woman going in a clinic pregnant, something nebulous happening, and the woman leaving “not” pregnant. Here’s a couple of definitions to use in a new equation.

    Pregnancy: A woman has within her uterus a unique organism. It is dependent on her for nourishment, to the same degree as a newborn who needs to nurse, even more so, because she is the proxy for the baby’s underdeveloped lungs. But for nourishment and air, the baby could exist outside her as long as it could develop in another atmosphere conducive to its nascent skin.

    Extreme: Here, the issue is bloody violence. Grotesque taking of the life of another human being. Human being defined as a unique organism, with only human DNA, fundamentally different in that respect from any other member of the homo sapiens species.

    The middle part, the “something nebulous” of abortion, ignores what happens during the abortion process and obscures us from the violence you are willing to pin on Tiller’s murderer (and rightly so) but not willing to pin on Tiller himself.
    Something nebulous (a.k.a.-abortion) A unique organism, quantitatively different from the mother (DNA, development, ability, size) is (a) ripped apart limb from limb; (b) boiled alive in saline within the uterus; or (c) viciously lobotomized and then extracted. The more revealing equation is “Pregnancy + abortion = extreme.” It isn’t the injection of religion that made this situation extreme–it was the injection of violence by both Tiller when he murdered babies and the man who murdered him. They both deserve condemnation. I feel for his family and I do for the mothers and fathers of all the children whom he killed in his clinic. To say otherwise isn’t an honest evaluation of the nebulous term “abortion” and isn’t fair with the facts.

  6. whs on June 2, 2009 at 2:57 pm

    I want to start of by reminding you that every abortion that Dr. Tiller carried out was perfectly legal. And the “murdering babies” comment is in line with the extreme rhetoric that I referenced.

    I guess I don’t fall into your “most folks” category of not realizing the graphic details of abortion. I think most intelligent adults are aware of the awful ways in which late term abortions have to be carried out, so you can leave that out next time. But I guess you were trying your best at making a sensationalized point.

    I am not pro-abortion or “pro-death” as one squarewon contriubtor put it, but I do think abortion should be available to be used in emergency situations. Just as you try to attach a human element to the unborn fetus, I will try to attach a personal, human element to the woman carrying the fetus. Imagine if a woman close to you was raped and became pregnant. Would you tell her she couldn’t have an abortion? Imagine if a woman close to you was told that if she carried out her pregnancy, she would die. Would you tell her she couldn’t have an abortion? And what about incest? Abortion is terrible, but sometimes it is neccessary for the woman’s health and well-being. It’s a personal choice for the woman carrying the child, not yours. There’s also a constitutional right to privacy involved in the decision. This also comes down to a question of government intrusion into private life.

    I still stand by my argument that the fusion of religion and politics can be very deadly and toxic.

  7. lj on June 2, 2009 at 6:38 pm

    whs -
    You write as if it is questionable that an embryo is a person, when Dr. Jerome Lejeune* of Paris, France, a physician and Doctor of Science and Professor of Genetics for 25 years, stated in 1989, during testimony on The Seven Human Embryos in Tennessee, “…as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man.”

    Besides, politics is toxic by its nature. ANYTHING mixed with politics is toxic. Those who follow Christian principles mitigate that toxicity.
    Intentional murder is not a Christian moral option.

    *”Dr. Lejeune discovered the genetic cause for Down’s Syndrome. He received awards such as the Kennedy Prize and the Memorial Allen Award Medal; he was a member of The American Academy of Arts and Science, the Royal Society of Medicine of London, and the Royal Society of Science in Stockholm. Dr. Lejeune died April 3, 1994.”
    http://www.physiciansforlife.org/content/view/467/43/

  8. wwilberforce on June 3, 2009 at 8:31 am

    whs,
    My namesake, William Wilberforce, put an end in England to that “peculiar institution” which brought American through a civil war–slavery. He did so by letting people know what went on, by publishing the first hand accounts of folks like John Newton. Ever read any of the writings of that time? Take a gander at Ioan Gruffudd’s portrayal of him in “Amazing Grace.” It is a pretty accurate historical account of Wilberforce’s actions. And he did it by letting people know what when on in the clinic. The efforts about abortion generally aren’t “sensationalized,” but “educationalized.”
    As regarding the incest and rape, the science and research is against you. In the only major study done of post-rape abortion, more than 3/4 of women decide against abortion. See Dr. Sandra Mahkorn, “Pregnancy and Sexual Assault,” The Psychological Aspects of Abortion, eds. Mall & Watts, (Washington, D.C., University Publications of America, 1979) 55-69.
    As regarding emotionalism, we’ll go down that road also. Take out your argument for the personal element and merely look at the biology. But for the size, level of development, environment, and degree of dependency, there is no difference in that human in the womb from me, you, or any other person on the planet. And because we can’t defend killing persons based on size (we don’t let big people kill others simply because they’re smaller); based on level of development (we don’t let people who are past puberty kill children simply because they haven’t reached it yet); based on environment (we don’t let people outside a house kill others simply because they are inside); and based on degree of dependency (we don’t let people who aren’t diabetic kill others simply because they are on insulin, we don’t let adults kill children who are nursing simply because they need to nurse for food); because none of those salient differences matter, we must follow the logic–we can’t end the life of that human in the womb for rape or incest. The law of biogenesis dictates that from conception the organism within a woman is undeniably human in every relevant way. It is not a spider, bird, dog, or fish. So only by asserting greater power can one take its life away.
    But don’t take my word for it. Here’s a quote from an article I will link. “Julie Makimaa, conceived by an act of rape, works diligently against the perception that abortion is acceptable or even necessary in cases of sexual assault. While sympathetic to the suffering her mother endured at the hands of her attacker, Julie is also rightfully proud of her mother’s courage and generosity. Regarding her own view of her origin, Julie proclaims: “It doesn’t matter how I began. What matters is who I will become.”

    Tell her she has no right to existence. Abortion ends the life of real people. There is no logic that can dictate otherwise, only arguments to rationalize away the facts.

    http://www.abortionfacts.com/reardon/rape_incest_and_abortion.asp

    Now that the non-sequiturs and red herrings are boxed in, there is only one conclusion. Sure the argument against abortion is no cake-walk to a victim of rape or incest, but there can also be no denial that it ends the life of a human being without an appeal to emotion, a necessary logical fallacy.

    Question to respond to: Is there any rational, non-emotional reason which requires the human in the uterus to be killed?

    Good discussion, whs.

    WW

  9. whs on June 3, 2009 at 10:36 am

    The question of when life begins is still very much debated to this day, so some folks would say there is a difference between living humans and an unborn fetus. That is your personal belief — there is no evidence that will confirm or deny that claim, so we’ll leave it at that.

    You quoted an interesting statistic — 3/4 of rape victims in the lone post-rape study who became pregnant decided to have the baby. That’s very encouraging, the less abortions the better, but are you going to be the one to tell that 1/4 that they must have the baby of the man that raped them? Also, the story of Julie was very powerful, and I certainly wouldn’t tell her she didn’t have the right to exist, but her mother still should have the option to choose. To tell a rape victim she had no choice would be cruel.

    You asked the question: Is there any rational, non-emotional reason which requires the human in the uterus to be killed? In my opinion, yes. If a woman’s life is in danger because of the embryo or fetus that she is carrying, and that fetus or embryo was not naturally aborted by the body, then I think it would neccessary to abort the fetus or embryo to protect the mother’s life.

    Would you be in favor of having fetal rights enshrined in law, which would then allow women’s bodies, civil rights and helath to be subordinated to the protection of an embryo?

  10. lj on June 3, 2009 at 11:34 am

    You have an unscientific view of the beginning of life - you are stating a “personal belief”, I am stating a scientific fact: a human being is a human being from the time of fertilization.

    The rape is cruel - the baby is not.

    If abortion is the side effect of another life saving procedure - not the intentional murder of an unborn baby, even the Roman Catholic Church makes that exception.

    Actually, unborn babies should have the same protection under the law as mass murderers - equal representation, etc.

  11. lj on June 3, 2009 at 11:36 am

    The last comment of mine was addressing the points made in whs’ last comment.

  12. whs on June 3, 2009 at 12:07 pm

    It is true that the embryo is “alive” just as a single sperm and egg are alive, or any other living organism for that matter. But when that organism actually develops into “personhood” as some call it or develops a soul is still in question. There is not scientific consensus on that. If you can show that to me, I’d be willing to read. And a quote from Dr. Lejeune doesn’t count.

    In regards to your response about the mother’s life being an exception, wwilberforce asked me a question and I gave him an answer. I’m glad you agree too.

  13. rr on June 3, 2009 at 5:20 pm

    There is a clear and very distinguishable difference between the “alive” aspect of an embryo and a single sperm or egg. An embryo’s cells reproduce. The fetus matures and will come to term unless it dies. A sperm either remains does not mature and reproduce its cells. Nor does a sperm continue to live with continued nutrition. It can’t become a human being. Thus, at conception, sperm and egg take on new form and become alive in a very different way their their previous state of being. This liveliness of the embryo is much more akin to our current form then. This isn’t a belief conjured up by some preacher. This is science. This is a life.

    On a separate note, without a right to be born, aren’t all of our other rights just a matter of fortuity — contingent on the will of another?

  14. lj on June 4, 2009 at 6:54 am

    Excellent point, rr.
    whs - You have yet to post valid scientific sources that says an embryo in not a human being.
    Please do,

  15. whs on June 4, 2009 at 9:03 am

    lj, I appreciate your zeal for this subject. As I stated before, an embryo is in fact a “human life” in which it is, in the biological sense, alive and not dead. But to claim that an embryo is an actual sentient human being that is self aware with a soul is still unclear. There is NO scientific evidence or consensus to say otherwise. Again, there is no way to know for sure. I’m not saying you are wrong in believing that, I just happen to disagree. So sorry if that offends you.

    I believe that an embryo is a potential human being, just as an acorn is a potential oak tree. I’m not comparing a human to an oak tree, just trying to make a point. I am in no way a science expert, so if you want to show me Scientific evidence that an embryo is a sentient human being, I will be happy to change my position.

  16. lj on June 4, 2009 at 11:05 am

    whs -
    You said, in a comment above, “The question of when life begins is still very much debated to this day, so some folks would say there is a difference between living humans and an unborn fetus. That is your personal belief — there is no evidence that will confirm or deny that claim, so we’ll leave it at that.”
    I asked for a valid scientific source for your statement.
    Some people don’t believe in souls - having a soul or not does not determine justification for the taking of a human life.
    Sentient or not - the the taking of human life is killing. The intentional taking of the life of a non aggressive human life is murder
    The Bill of Rights, amendment V states,
    “No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .”
    It doesn’t mention thinking, feeling, awareness, age or the presence of a soul.

  17. whs on June 4, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    You cite the Bill of Rights: No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . .

    The “person” that is referenced is assumed to be a thinking, feeling sentient being, not an embryo. I believe an embryo is a potential person. I don’t know how much more clear I can be.

    I said in the comment you posted above that “there is no evidence that will confirm or deny that claim, so we’ll leave it at that.” So that pretty much answers your question. That is my personal belief as well. As I said, there is no scientific consensus or proof confirming or denying my claim or your claim, so we can agree to disagree. To be honest, I’m not sure exactly what your argument is anymore.

    I tend to agree with the Supreme Court: We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roe_v._Wade

  18. lj on June 4, 2009 at 5:25 pm

    whs - still no source.

  19. whs on June 4, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    I asked you for a source earlier, still haven’t produced anything. This is fun.

  20. whs on June 5, 2009 at 11:26 am

    Andrew Sullivan (who is pro-life) has been recently posting personal stories of couples and women who have gone through the gut-wrenching process of deciding on whether or not to have an abortion. These are not testimonials in defense of abortion, but they are very powerful, intimate stories that make you rethink your views, regardless of your postion on abortion. They also have the views of various physicians in favor and against abortion rights. If you have the time, I highly recommend everyone read through some of these stories. Anyway, here is a roundup of all of the stories so far:

    http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/06/its-so-personal-the-roundup.html

  21. lj on June 6, 2009 at 5:53 pm

    whs - still no source

  23. wwilberforce on June 8, 2009 at 11:15 am

    whs,
    If sentient activity is your threshold of human existence, you are taking the side of the Nazis whether you agree with their “solution” or not. But for the need for protection and nourishment during development, a baby could be raised in the laboratory. My views on the sanctity of procreation in the womb aside, that is a fact. rr has it dead on. A sperm will run out of internal energy and die. In fact, it only has 1/2 of the chromosomes to give, and is a function-based cell “broken off” from the father, as is the egg from the mother.
    After fertilization, all 46 chromosomes have combined to form an utterly unique organism, wholly different in every way you and I are different from each other. Yet the reasons you stand behind for permitting destruction of this unique organism are all logical fallacies. Please address them recognizing that the “something” has human DNA and will grow to maturity but for human/divine intervention; there are only 4.

    Size- you can’t kill something just because it is smaller than you. We don’t allow big people to kill small people.

    Level of Development- you can’t kill something because it is not as developed as you (even if you’re the mom and don’t want a child). We don’t allow teenagers to kill toddlers simply because they haven’t passed puberty. Octogenarian women can’t kill mid-thirties women because they haven’t passed through menopause. Being made up of one cell causes us to ignore that life is a continuum and we are merely in the middle of it. But just because one is on either end (a single-cell embryo or some 110 years old) does not kick you off the continuum.

    Environment- the fact that a baby develops in the uterus does not mean one can kill it out of convenience/emotional pain. I may be mad or angry as can be but I can’t kill someone in the backyard because I am in the kitchen.

    Degree of Dependency- An embryo is as fully human as you or I are but at a different degree of dependency and needs to be in the womb until that degree can be overcome. Should we allow babies who are nursing to be killed? No.

    If there are other reasons that trump these, please flesh them out.

    Good discussion,

    WW

  24. wwilberforce on June 9, 2009 at 11:11 pm

    To clarify, the Nazis began exterminating everyone who they thought were undesireable, beginning with Down’s syndrome children and other folks who were thought to have lower brain function. Check out my earliest article on SquarePost: S.L.E.D.-Simple Pro-Life Logic.

  25. lj on June 11, 2009 at 11:05 pm

    Abortion puts women and their future children at risk.
    Read the article at:

    http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=c8a5da34-3460-4baa-8479-8a43deb2f51a