If abortion were murder

Dr. George Tiller was murdered this week by an anti-abortion coward with a gun.

But maybe he wasn't a coward, but a bold principled warrior for the anti-abortion movement.

Suppose you believe unequivocally that "abortion is murder," just as the bumper stickers proclaim. You see would-be mothers as accomplices to murder and abortion providers as mass-murderers, with sometimes thousands more victims than the cruelest serial killers. Dr. Tiller was "the concentration camp 'Mengele' of our day," as the killer, Scott Roeder, wrote in 2007.

You also recognize that stopping this mass-murder through peaceful legal means has largely failed. Abortion remains legal 35 years after Roe v. Wade, despite the occasional successes of anti-abortion advocates (e.g., the recently repealed global gag rule, the ban on 'partial birth' abortion, the Henry Hyde amendment that screws poor women by restricting federal Medicaid dollars, etc.). Of course you'd prefer peaceful legal advocacy, but in 35 years, the anti-abortion movement has failed to reverse the law. So you begin to examine other options to combat the status quo. After all, nearly everyone believes in the occasional necessity of war and violence.

You could slow the mass-murder of the unborn by murdering just one person - and not just any person but a murderer who promises to murder again (excuse "murder" but I'm working within their paradigm). Why not pick up a gun? Most people would also murder one person to save many (that is, the person who'd be responsible for the death of many - not any random passerby) - or at least respect someone who did (or tried). In Tiller's case, it really was that straightforward. Fewer abortions will happen now that he's gone, if only because fewer doctors, fearing violence, will provide the procedure. So Tiller's murderer seems more savvy and principled than deranged. In fact, unless you believe all killing is wrong (very unlikely), the killer's actions made sense.

Abolitionist John Brown, who understood in 1859 that slavery could not be ended peacefully and organized the still-controversial raid of the federal arsenal at Harpers Ferry, might sympathize.

My question: Why did so many anti-abortion activists rush out on the Sunday afternoon of the murder to denounce the action? The National Right to Life Committee announced it opposes "any form of violence to fight the violence of abortion." Americans United for Life stated that "the foundational right to life that our work is dedicated to extends to everyone," and disowned the killer completely: "Roeder is most definitely not part of the pro-life movement." Sarah Palin wrote that "the tragedy that took place today in Kansas clearly violates respect for life."

Were they worried about their own criminal liability, perhaps for inciting violence? No, I think not. Bill O'Reilly stood by his anti-Tiller crusade (video): "Nazi stuff," "operating a death mill," "executing babies for 5,000 dollars," "if I could get my hands on him," etc. And it's certainly not that the pro-life movement actually believes in life. The same people support the death penalty (and war). Nor were they merely concerned for their image (though they were). Perhaps they condemned the murder out of respect for the rule of law. That's possible, though I imagine that abortion opponents see themselves as answering to a higher power.

No, they condemned the murder because deep down, I think, the vast majority do not actually equate the abortion of a fetus with the death of a human being. Abortion isn't murder after all. Or it's murder with an asterisk.

Still, there are always a few principled literalists who take the "abortion is murder" slogan seriously. It's terrifying to think that another abortion provider could be gunned down by yet another religious zealot. These stalwarts of the anti-abortion movement will not be swayed by appeals to women's rights. Dr. Tiller's murder has forced us to return to the basics - the dreaded "when does life begin" question and the "personhood" debate (ugh) that I'd rather see disappear - and to explain (somehow) that fetuses are not entitled or actual lives, and that while our obligations extend to future people (both in particular cases and as a society), they do not extend to potential people. And until the woman decides to carry to term, a fetus is nothing more than a potential person.

But America isn't suddenly going to come around. The mainstream "pro-life" movement has not only harnessed the power of conservative hate speech but is also politically savvy enough to have disowned its hitman, Scott Roeder. Perhaps abortion foes will one day have the courage to admit that abortion, however undesirable, is something other than murder. Until then, let's hope they continue to disregard the meaning of their slogan and the dangerous imperative it may present.