Lawyer-Wearing-Yarmulka

I’ve got a gripe with many conservatives in this country, especially Christian conservatives.  And that gripe is the classification of abortion as “murder”.  

Abortion is not murder.  It may be evil, wrong, selfish, a sin, and many other things, but it is not murder. (side note- partial-birth abortions according to Halacha/Jewish law is may very well be murder, but partial-birth abortions are quite rare)

And I can prove abortion is not murder, at least it’s not in the eyes of those who claim that it is.  

If abortion truly is murder, then everyone who believes that would be morally obligated to kill doctors who perform abortions.  There would be no difference between a doctor who is about to perform an abortion and robber about to shoot a 7-11 clerk.  If you have the ability to stop it, then you have a moral obligation to do whatever is necessary- including using deadly force to prevent the murder.  

If pro-life activists really believed abortion was really murder then abortion clinic bombings would be a regular event.

The fact that there have been only half a dozen or so murders of abortion providers proves that there are only a few people our there who honestly believe that abortion is murder.

I think the pro-life movement would have more success and more credibility if they moved away from the abortion = murder platform.  People can see right through that comparison- it’s just hyperbole.  

People can believe that certain things are murder but still recognize that other values outweigh the value of stopping the murder. They believe abortion is murder. But they could also recognize that blowing up abortion clinics would have a deleterious effect on society that would be far worse than the few abortions a year.

They could also feel that killing an abortion doctor would be worse than killing the fetus. The reason we allow killing in self-defense by the bystander is because the lives are weighed equally and the perpetrator brought the action upon himself. But if the attempted murderer's life was worth more than his victim's, we might not allow it. Perhaps the fetus is not worth as much as the doctor.

In short it's hard to say that because they don't kill doctors they don't believe their own rhetoric. I agree, though, that framing the abortion issue as murder is not the most effective means of convincing the average American.

partial-birth abortions according to Halacha/Jewish law is may very well be murder, but partial-birth abortions are quite rare.

Are you sure about that? I don't see why Halacha would distinguish, in regards to murder, once the fetus existed for more than 40 days.

Once the baby's head has emerged, the status changes, at least for din rodef. I'm pretty sure it's because it's no longer considered part of the woman but it's a seperate entity. Thus it may be considered murder.

I can prove to you that people do not really believe that murderers should receive capital punishment. How many acts of vigilante justice occur when a murderer is paroled? QED.

There are transaction costs to vigilante justice my friend. That's why rely on the state to execute the laws and why people focus their efforts on changing the law rather than take it into their own hands.

That's why people rely on the state...*

I'm inclined to agree with R2JB and Nephtuli's respective points.

There's also a difference in the type of murder: As much as one may truly believe it is murder, and very well may be, we still do make exceptions (death of mother, for example) in which abortion would be permitted. This implies a difference, however slight, in the level of life we attribute to a fetus. It is alive; but it's not "as" alive as a living, breathing human being. We wouldn't take away another's life for it.

That said, if one would not consider it "murder", [I think] it would be neither evil nor wrong nor even a sin. Selfish, maybe - but people don't usually care much about others being selfish. People really do feel it is murder; but understand the necessity (as stated above) to go about this in a proper fashion. Most are also not inclined to have it banned in all cases, which is what the far-right might want.

CWY,

Oh, you were talking about the procedure for partial-birth abortion that was banned by the Senate a few years ago (a law which will undoubtedly be struck down by the courts). I'm not sure that all procedures require that the baby's head be removed before killing it. But you are correct.

Ezzie,

Halachically we allow abortion even in the last trimester because the baby has the status of a rodef. In American law I believe that exception is allowed because society recognizes that there are two lives at stake here and we might as well protect the one that is already alive.

Halacha also gives numerous reasons outside of murder for why abortion is wrong. But even non-Jews could say that abortion is wrong (even if not murder) because it is the illicit termination of potential human life. Abortion can be a sin and not murder.

A few points-

Nephtuli- There are more than a few abortions every year, it's more like 1.3 million every year.

Pro-lifer's don't view one life (the doctor) as more valuable than an other (the baby) Otherwise, why not allow abortions- the mother's life is more valuable than the baby's.

R2JB- There's a difference between killing a paroled murderer and a doctor. By the murderer, the crime has already been committed, killing him won't prevent the taking of innocent life. Besides, people view the death penalty as a state imposed punishment. But by abortion, it should be no different than the 7-11 clerk- if the cops aren't around, it's not considered vigilantism if you shoot the robber.

Ezzie- Murder is the deliberate taking of an inncoent life. If the baby is threatening the life of the mother, the baby isn't an innocent.
__________________________________

My basic point is that if you truly believe that abortion is murder, then you have an obligation to stop it. Not by filing Amicus briefs or by voting for pro-life candidates.

If the 7-11 clerk is about to be shot, you don't respond by demanding more police officers or for better gun-control laws. You do something about the immediate situation.

Nephtuli/CWY: Granted, the baby is a rodef, and granted, the baby is not innocent. That wasn't my point - as Nephtuli said, "In American law I believe that exception is allowed because society recognizes that there are two lives at stake here and we might as well protect the one that is already alive."

The reason we don't allow the mother to die but the child to live, and instead actively kill the child, is simply because it is not on the same level as the mother. CWY's statement that they are on the same level is false: The issue is in cases where both can remain alive. Pro-lifers do not agree that quality of life for the mother (for example) is a reason to kill the child.

Finally, what you are saying is not possible in a functioning society with many strings of belief. If we would kill abortion doctors, then the Muslims would be allowed to kill us; drug dealers would be shot in drive-bys; etc. Once everyone is taking their own interpretation of the law into their hands - based on their own personal beliefs - chaos would reign. Vigilante justice is reserved for when there is no other good option; active vigilantism is far different.

I'll have to agree with the general trend of discussion. Even according to those who say abortion is murder, doctors shouldn't be killed because of other reasons. What if the guy performs one abortion a day and saves five lives every day?

Also remember that, morally, not everyone reocgnizes the right to kill a murderer before committing the murder. Some states only allow you to kill the murderer, or would be murderer, if you'll save more lives than you will take (or equal to). If you kill two doctors, or the doctor and the nurse, to save the baby, sorry buddy, you go to jail.

You'll tell me those aren't moral concerns, but rather countervailing concerns arguing against killing an abortion doc? You'd be right, which is exactly my point.

What if the guy pointing the gun at the 7-11 clerk is is a firefighter who saves people every day? Do you take that into consideration before killing the firefighter?

I'm not equating killing doctors will vigilante justice- see my earlier comment.

There's a difference between killing a paroled murderer and a doctor. By the murderer, the crime has already been committed, killing him won't prevent the taking of innocent life. Besides, people view the death penalty as a state imposed punishment. But by abortion, it should be no different than the 7-11 clerk- if the cops aren't around, it's not considered vigilantism if you shoot the robber.

That's easily fixed. Suppose the murderer is notoriously evil and is convicted and sentenced to death, but just as sentence is pronounced he flees the dock and is roaming free. Before breaking out he announced his intent to murder again. Given his dozen homicide convictions, we can believe him. If we don't hunt him down we don't really think murder deserves the death penalty?

My basic point is that if you truly believe that abortion is murder, then you have an obligation to stop it. Not by filing Amicus briefs or by voting for pro-life candidates.

If the 7-11 clerk is about to be shot, you don't respond by demanding more police officers or for better gun-control laws. You do something about the immediate situation.

And this, IMO, exposes the flaw in your reasoning. Rodef aside, we do not impose a duty to rescue on people. Are you telling me that if a bad man pulls a gun on the 7-11 clerk while I'm getting my morning coffee and instead of conking the guy with the blackjack I have, I wet my pants, then I do not think that armed robbery and possibly murder is wrong?

My basic point is that people do not take matters into their own hand because it is costly to. That's why we have the state. At least that's the only justification of the state that I know of.

We don't impose a legal duty to rescue. That doesn't mean that there isn't some sort of moral duty to act.

Yes, but my previous comment explained why it is a bad idea to measure the strength of conviction based on a citizen's direct action.

Pro-lifer's don't view one life (the doctor) as more valuable than an other (the baby) Otherwise, why not allow abortions- the mother's life is more valuable than the baby's.

Most pro-lifers do allow abortion in those cases. They are only against abortion where the mother's right to bodily integrity is put up against the baby's right to life. They choose life.

I believe most people pro-lifers would admit that the mother's life is more important.

That said, I agree that people have a moral duty to save innocent lives and most will admit that ideally they should fulfill their duty. So the fact that people might not do so is not relevant to the question of whether they should.

I think Romach's answer might be the best, that not everything is cut and dry because the abortion doctor might save more lives later. I'm sticking to my argument that people who might agree that they have a moral duty to save the lives of the fetus would agree their duty is trumped by other considerations.