It is not only immoral, it should even be illegal, for a person to state that abortion is the unjustified taking of the life of a person.
Why would this be.
Well, the unjustified taking of the life of a person is murder. So, to say that abortion is the unjustified taking of the life of a person is to say that abortion is murder. If abortion is murder, it follows that the person who performs the abortion is a murderer.
Murderers should be punished. In fact, many people believe that the appropriate punishment for murder is death. So, to say that abortion is the unjustified taking of the life of a person is to say that abortion doctors deserve to die. In other words, the claim that abortion doctors deserve to die is an incitement to violence.
It is not only immoral, it should even be illegal, to incite people to violence. Therefore, it is not only immoral, it should even be illegal, for a person to state that abortion is the unjustified taking of a human life.
This pattern of argument describes the position that many pro-life opponents seem to take against their pro-life advocates. It is a quick and easy way to condemn them for speaking – to argue as if the mere utterance of the pro-life position is an incitement to violence that is to be morally condemned, if not legally punished.
A lot of the noise made against pro-life groups as a result of the murder of Dr. Tiller follows this line of reasoning. The speaker is ultimately trying to argue that the mere utterance of the pro-life position is immoral and perhaps should be made illegal because it is an incitement to violence.
However, there is a problem with this line of thinking. We can easily reduce it to the absurdity it is.
If this were a valid line of reasoning we could also use it to argue that it is not only immoral, it should even be illegal, for a person to state that the killing of an atheist is murder, or a person of color, or a Native American, or a woman, or a homosexual.
The reasoning would be the same. To say that these types of acts qualify as murder is to incite violence against those who would kill atheists, blacks, Native Americans, women, or homosexuals. It is wrong to incite violence against others. Therefore, these types of claims should be declared immoral and, perhaps, those who make them should face legal penalties as well.
Unreasoned rhetoric sure is tempting. It's quick. It’s easy. It is the perfect tool for those who only care about winning arguments and who care nothing about truth or reason. The reason pro-life speakers and writers love the rhetoric above is that it has the ability to slip past rational defenses – like a virus slipping through a cell wall – and effectively infect the thinking of its target audience.
On the other hand, the person who cares about reason and truth would recognize that it has to be considered permissible for a person to argue for the position that the killing of X is murder, and any argument that aims to silence those who would make such an assertion is somehow flawed.
The flaw is that it holds speakers responsible for the unreasoned inferences of others. It is certainly true that the utterance, "The killing of X is murder" might inspire some people to engage in private acts of violence against those responsible for the killing of X. However, the proposition, "The killing of X is murder" does not in any way entail the legitimacy of private violence. If somebody decides to make that unwarranted leap in logic, the fault is the person who makes the faulty leap, not the person who uttered the proposition, "The killing of X is murder.'
One possible response I can imagine to this is the claim that, “I am not objecting to the utterance of the proposition, 'the killing of X is murder'. I am objecting to the vilification of those who kill X – the name-calling and the hostility that the speaker attempts to stir against those who kill X when he says that the killing of X is murder.
Well, that's a bit like saying, "I am not objecting to the fact that a person says that the killing of X is murder. I object to him speaking as if he really believes it.”
So, a person can utter the proposition that the killing of atheists (or Jews, or homosexuals) is murder. However, he is not to do so in any way that invites listeners to adopt an attitude of hostility towards those who would kill atheists (or blacks, or women). Because, if he does such a thing, then he would be guilty of inciting violence against those who would kill atheists. That is not morally permissible.
If you prohibit people from condemning those who would kill atheists then this is pretty much the same as prohibiting people from making the claim that the killing of atheists is wrong. Similarly, a prohibition on condemning those who would engage in abortions is pretty much the same thing as a prohibition on making the claim that abortion is wrong.
It's like saying, "Sure, you can call Jim a bachelor. However, you are not permitted to say anything that suggests he is not married."
The utterance of the proposition, "Abortion is the unjustified killing of an innocent person," is a legitimate speech act. The condemnation of those who would perform abortions is simply another way of expressing the opinion that abortion is wrong which is a legitimate speech act.
If a speaker advocates acts of private violence (as opposed to changing the law), then he has made a transgression worthy of condemnation. If he actually engages in violence, he has made a transgression worthy of condemnation. If you cannot provide evidence that the speaker has done one of these things – if all you can show me is that the agent asserted that abortion is murder and those who perform abortions should be treated as murderers, you have not given me evidence of wrongdoing.
10 comments:
I'll try to make the point again:
Tiller killed by someone steeped in extremist rhetoric, derived from an authoritarian, fundamentalist Christian anti-abortion literature.
Bill O'Reilly shined a national spotlight on Tiller, giving a platform to leaders from the above movement to denigrate and attack him. O'Reilly himself spread LIES and FALSEHOODS about Tiller's activities.
So what am I to do about this. Act as if the latter can't possibly have anything to do with the former.
It's intellectually dishonest to recognize a connection between extremism and violence? This is an absurd proposition. Are we to say that the assasination of Rabin in 95 had nothing to do with the religious beliefs of his killer?
I have a feeling that I agree with you more than disagree, but am looking at the issue from diffrent meta-levels of analysis.
I must also say that I find your position on this matter and your position on the AIG commericial almost completely at odds.
This pattern of argument describes the position that many pro-life advocates seem to take against their pro-life opponents.
Shouldn't that sentence be reversed?
A thought provoking post.
NAL
Thank you. Correction made.
Hume's Ghost
If you have a quote from somebody saying, "Go kill Dr. Tiller" or otherwise advocating private violence, then those people can be legitimately condemned. The right to freedom of speech does not extend to the right to threaten violence.
However, it is not sufficient to condemn the person who says, "This type of action should be made criminal." Otherwise, one would never be permitted to say, "This type of action should be made criminal."
Even though, "This should be made criminal" explicitly implies the statement "People who do X should be punished."
Hi Gang,
First, I don't agree with abortion, and not for religious reasons. With that out of the way, I think there is a need to focus, if there could be a need, on the person "delivering up a fetus to be terminated".
Taking a hint from history, it should be noted that hangmen, head choppers, etc. wore hoods or disguises so they could not be identified. They were, in fact, only doing what they were commanded to do by higher powers. They had an unsavory job to do. Society did not attack hangmen.
Killing of abortion doctors is yet another example of the ignorance of their killers.
It really could be boiled down to a case of money. Abortion doctors, backroom abortionists and head choppers all do it for money.
It really could be boiled down to a case of money. Abortion doctors, backroom abortionists and head choppers all do it for money.
What?? That's ludicrous! You don't think there's any motivation to do so because they want to help people? The only reason people become doctors or cops or teachers is for the money? This strikes me as a statement similar to Left Behind's infamous "Sort of like doctors wanting people to be sick or injured so they have something to do"
Uneasz:
Our world has millions of examples of people who decide first what they want to do then, and only then, do they come up with altruistic reasons for their actions -- ones that sound good. Those who are truly motivated to help their fellow man are rare and even fewer are qualified. The naive among us need to believe . . . and most of them can be found in church on Sundays!
'However, it is not sufficient to condemn the person who says, "This type of action should be made criminal." Otherwise, one would never be permitted to say, "This type of action should be made criminal."'
If someone says being gay should be criminalized, I am certainly going to criticize that view. It doesn't mean that the person isn't permitted to express the view.
The point I was making about the AIG video: It doesn't say to kill atheists. It says something about atheists that is based in prejudice and bigotry which could serve to promote violence or persecution of atheists. When I watched the video, my impression was that they were saying that atheists have no morals and your life depends on you and others being Christians because atheists are amoral killers. The person with the gun was supposed to be a Columbine type school killer. I found it also to have a subtext saying an atheist's life is of less value than a Christian's.
Demonizing an out-group as a dangerous threat to your in-group has historically predated some of the worst atrocities in human history. What I'm trying to say is that we don't have to wait until someone says "go kill X" to find something morally objectionable and worthy of condemnation in someone else's speech. When hate based violence occurs, it informs the reaons why we condemn such speech in the first place whether or not we can say with 100% certainty that particular speech is responsible for that particular crime.
This and are exactly the sort of activity that I'm condemning O'Reilly for in relation to Tiller's death.
He's helped promote, mainstream, and normalize/legitimize the hatred that fuels the movement Tiller's killer emerged from.
Post a Comment