Wednesday, December 09, 2009

In Which Pro-Life Camp Do Murderers of Providers Belong?

Posted by Sherry Colb

In my FindLaw column, which will appear here later today, I discuss the distinction between the pro-life movement in this country -- which in general would exempt women having abortions from the criminal responsibility that attaches to providers -- and the pro-life approach of such countries as El Salvador -- where women can go to prison for abortion along with their providers.  I suggest in the column that this distinction may expose an important division between different camps in the pro-life movement on the question of a woman's relationship to her own abortion and, accordingly, to her unwanted pregnancy.  This division may, in turn, reflect a subtle but important difference in how pregnancy and its impositions on women are understood.

In this post, I want to raise a different question:  In which pro-life camp -- that of people who would exempt the pregnant woman from criminal liability or that of people who would punish the pregnant woman along with her provider -- do violent members of the anti-abortion movement belong?  I speak here of those who would bomb abortion clinics and kill abortion providers as a means of "rescuing" fetuses from abortion.  I do not know the answer to this question, but I have two competing hypotheses that I would propose.

The first hypothesis is that one's embrace of anti-abortion violence does not, in theory, necessarily correspond to one or the other view of pregnant women.  That is, one could view women experiencing an unwanted pregnancy as subject to a kind of duress that excuses them from criminal responsibility for having an abortion and, at the same time, view the provider as a mass murderer who may be stopped by any means necessary.

The second and competing hypothesis is that those who murder abortion providers are not operating from an entirely logical and sane platform.  In a society that permits abortion, it is generally considered wrong to murder a provider who has violated no law.  Indeed, it is generally considered inappropriate to murder anyone.  From the perspective of people within the pro-life movement, of course, the fact that the law permits abortion is itself immoral.  Nonetheless, in a democracy, those who believe that the law is unjust attempt to change the law and/or to change hearts and minds through advocacy.  To kill a provider only increases the amount of violence, while simultaneously alienating the very public that might otherwise have felt sympathy for the underlying cause.  Stated differently, "pro-life" murder, though arguably not an oxymoron, as I argued here, is, at the very least, a counterproductive means of achieving nonviolence.

The reason that the deviant nature of those who murder abortion providers is significant, here, is that a person who feels enough hatred and rage to carry out a murder against an abortion provider (despite alternative avenues of peaceful protest and advocacy) is unlikely to feel much compassion for the pregnant woman whose bodily integrity is compromised by an unwanted pregnancy.  He (or she) is more likely to hate the pregnant woman too and, perhaps, to hate the fact that she is free under the law not only to terminate her unwanted pregnancy, but also to engage in the non-marital (or non-procreation-directed) sexual relations that gave rise to the unwanted pregnancy in the first place.

Once again, I am guessing here.  My guess is that a pro-life individual who cares enough for pregnant women to excuse their decision to abort -- notwithstanding a commitment to the fetus's value as a person -- would not be drawn to an act of ultimate violence toward someone who, after all, violated no law.  By the same token, a person willing to murder an abortion provider is unlikely to be sufficiently sympathetic to the woman who chooses to visit that provider to understand the unwanted pregnancy as a form of duress.

2 comments:

Blogger said...

I think you are right that a person who is motivated to murder an abortion provider would likely fall into the zero-tolerance category! In their view, as I understand it, abortion is an ongoing holocaust of unborn babies, and the women having abortions and the doctors providing them are both to blame as accomplices.

I think, though, that those who would murder abortion doctors are not interested in doing so strictly as a general deterrence measure against future abortions, but more as retribution. I am guessing that they do not necessarily believe that killing the doctor will lead to fewer abortions, but that the doctor deserves to be punished for "moral desert." Perhaps, though, they think that if they can lead by example, doctors will be sufficiently intimidated so as to cease their abortions.

But I think you are right in your supposition that such killers would have little compassion for either doctors or their patients who have abortions.

奇堡比 said...

監聽器材
離婚諮詢
監聽手機
財產調查
電話監聽
網路詐欺
女人偷腥
肉體外遇
商業調查
信用調查
婚姻諮商
婚姻問題
老婆外遇
外遇處理
筆跡鑑定
挽回婚姻
老公偷腥
男人外遇
丈夫外遇
婚姻諮詢
感情諮詢
挽回感情
老婆偷腥
工商徵信
商標侵權
市場調查