Using Tiller's Murder to Attack the Pro-life Movement

The fears of many that the Tiller murder would be used as a way of attacking the pro-life movement have indeed materialized.

Pro-Legalized Abortion Groups Attack the Pro-Life Movement

Not wishing to "waste a good crisis," and sensing an opening, the pro-legalized abortion forces have launched an attack on the pro-life movement by trying to blame it for the murder of George Tiller last Sunday. (See, for example, Margaret Wente in The Globe and Mail). But their effectiveness has been blunted by the speed, clarity and eloquence of the condemnation of the killing by all pro-life groups, including Operation Rescue. One of the first, best and clearest statements came for Dr. Robert George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. It has been quoted and endorsed widely on the web since Sunday.

"Whoever murdered George Tiller has done a gravely wicked thing. The evil of this action is in no way diminished by the blood George Tiller had on his own hands. No private individual had the right to execute judgment against him. We are a nation of laws. Lawless violence breeds only more lawless violence. Rightly or wrongly, George Tilller was acquitted by a jury of his peers. "Vengeance is mine, says the Lord." For the sake of justice and right, the perpetrator of this evil deed must be prosecuted, convicted, and punished. By word and deed, let us teach that violence against abortionists is not the answer to the violence of abortion. Every human life is precious. George Tiller's life was precious. We do not teach the wrongness of taking human life by wrongfully taking a human life. Let our "weapons" in the fight to defend the lives of abortion's tiny victims, be chaste weapons of the spirit."

This statement is clear, unequivocal and biblical; it represents what the mainstream pro-life movement believes and I endorse it heartily. Even fair-minded outsiders to the pro-life movement think likewise. For example, an article by James Kirchick in the Washington Post refutes the liberal slander that the Religious Right is responsible for the murder of Tiller and is just as dangerous as Muslim terrorists. As he says, the largely Christian pro-life movement does not glorify, revel in or call for violence against abortionists. Instead, it condemns it. Murderous acts like the shooting of Tiller are the work of a tiny, fringe group or isolated individuals. This is the plain truth, as uncomfortable as it might be for those wishing to utilize every opportunity to demonize and marginalize the pro-life movement.

A Pacifist Criticism of the Pro-life Movement

Sadly, certain pacifists who themselves claim to be pro-life, but who take advantage of every opportunity to distance themselves from the pro-life movement, have put forward arguments that give aid and comfort to those who are attempting to blame the pro-life movement for Tiller's murder. For example, this post argues that:

"As such, I submit that there is no consistent way to be pro-life and at the same time condemn the murder of abortionists — unless one is a pacifist. Only if you truly believe that violent action cannot be morally used in the service of life and peace does it make sense for pro-lifers to condemn murdering abortionists. And to my knowledge and experience, the majority of pro-lifers, at least in America, are quite hawkish and would never be caught dabbling in pacifism. This majority brand of the pro-life position is rightly caught in a moral conundrum. They have no consistent moral ground to oppose violence against abortionists so long as they affirm the morality of any and all defensive violence. As such, you can’t be a consistent as a pro-life condemner of actions like Roeder’s unless you are a pacifist."

So here is the argument:

Major Premise: Some pro-lifers believe in justifiable killing such as just war.
Minor Premise: Individuals shooting abortionists is a form of killing
Conclusion: Pro-lifers are self-contradictory and logically should support murdering abortionists.

The argument is, of course, obviously invalid because, while shooting abortionists is a form of killing, it is not a form of justifiable killing. All, or nearly all, pro-lifers, (along with just about everybody else in the world), distinguish between justifiable and unjustifiable killing.

The hidden premise in this argument is a belief that all killing is unjustifiable. Such a belief may be rooted in a form of anarchism that views all killing and all violence as morally the same, whether it is carried out by deranged individuals or through the judicial process of the State. But this radical political philosophy is rejected by everybody except a few pacifists who also happen to be arnachists. Therefore they bear the burden of proof in demonstrating that all killing is unjustifiable. Sheer assertion is insufficient here.

Pacifism, however, need not be anarchist. Yoder's Christological Pacifism acknowledges that the State becomes God's instrument for punishing evil-doers through His providence, according to Romans 13, and holds that this is true even though the Church is called to refuse to be involved in killing, even State-sanctioned killing.

God may (and does) order the violence of the State to enforce an imperfect form of justice in this fallen world, but Christians ought to allow the state to exercise its monopoly on violence and refuse to take matters into their own hands. This is why Christian Christological Pacifists reject violent revolution (while still striving for justice using all available non-violent means). The murder of Tiller would be similar to violent revolution precisely in its lawless - the individual taking into his own hands the state's perorogative to punish evil. Christians must not do this: not with an isolated case of a noterious late-term abortionist, not in a violent revolution, and not in the use of violence in any way to advance justice. The Christian response to abortion, which is consistent with Christological Pacifism, is to use all available non-violent means to change the laws and save lives.

As far as non-pacifist pro-lifers are concerned, there is no inconsistency in them opposing the murder of an abortionist. Even if a non-pacifist pro-lifer were to think that violent revolution (eg. in Hitler's Germany) was morally licit in theory, it would not be licit in just-war terms today unless all possible alternatives were exhausted. But this is certainly not the case in 21st century America.

America was a slave nation for 80 years and has been an abortion nation for 40 years. In the last election, the Republicans were leading in the polls in early October and if the economic crisis had come three months later than it did we might very well have President McCain about to replace David Souter on the Supreme Court with a 5th anti-Roe vote. If there had been a 4% vote swing in the last election the same scenario could be in place. This means that the pro-life movement is very close to making giant strides toward the reducing of abortion through non-violent means and that eventual victory is not unforseeable. So no conditions exist that would justify a resort to violence, even for those with a just war position.

Conclusion
I draw three conclusions.

1. Christological pacifist pro-lifers can condemn the murder of Tiller as wrong because only the State, and not individuals, has the right to punish injustice in this age.
2. Just-war pro-lifers can condemn the murder of Tiller because individuals do not have the right to take justice into their own hands except in extreme situations that do not currently exist.
3. It is not the case that the pro-life movement, as an alliance of pacifist and just-war Christians, is inconsistent in condemning the murder of Tiller and to say so is to criticize unfairly the one movement in the Western world that stands up for the protection of the most vulnerable among us.