[Peace-discuss] Re: [Peace] Re: Memorial in Champaign-Urbana

[C. G. Estabrook]

Neil--

A large number of Dr. Tiller's procedures resulted in the premature ending of a 
human life, the denial of a "future like ours." That phrase is used in what to 
my mind is the best philosophical demonstration that abortion is unethical: Don 
Marquis, "Why Abortion is Immoral," The Journal of Philosophy, 86:4.  There's a 
summary at <www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/abortion/philosophical/future.shtml>:

"The claim that the primary wrong-making feature of a killing is the loss to the 
victim of the value of its future has obvious consequences for the ethics of 
abortion. The future of a standard foetus includes a set of experiences, 
projects, activities, and such which are identical with the futures of adult 
human beings and are identical with the futures of young children. Since the 
reason that is sufficient to explain why it is wrong to kill human beings after 
the time of birth is a reason that also applies to foetuses, it follows that 
abortion is prima facie morally wrong."

I think you over-generalize a bit about the "pro-life movement."  There are of 
course people who are opposed to abortion, the death penalty, and war (and I 
agree that not to do so would be inconsistent).  See, e.g., Feminists for Life 
<http://www.feministsforlife.org/>.

Solidarity indeed, Carl


Neil Parthun wrote:
> Carl et al.
> 
> There is a significant difference.
> 
> Dr. Tiller's procedures were done for certain situations: -the fetus was dead
> in the womb and it would ridiculous for the woman to carry it to term -the
> woman found out she had a disease (i.e. cancer) late in the pregnancy and
> having the child may kill her -the woman was a victim of rape/incest -- I've
> had the opportunity to hear from some doctors who worked with him who
> discussed a 10 and 11 year old child who was raped by a family member.  He
> performed the procedure so they could have the opportunity for a normal life.
> 
> 
> These were done for documented medical reasons that are widely considered to
> be valid when one looks at the facts rather than the hysteria of "Tiller the
> Baby Killer".
> 
> The usage of US forces, as documented many times by Carl himself, in the name
> of empire is the use of intimidation and violence to achieve geo-political
> goals for the service of a nation state.
> 
> Such fundamental differences are glossed over here.  I understand the 
> consistent life ethic from people like Fr. Berrigan, but this position is
> almost non-existent in today's political structure.
> 
> Today's "pro-life" movement has many inconsistencies (i.e. for the birth of
> children, but for the death penalty, for the wars in 
> Iraq/Afghanistan/Pakistan, etc.) and as such, there are significant 
> difficulties in equating the two deaths and the issue of war/abortion here.
> 
> 
> Solidarity, -N.
> 
> Neil Parthun Sports/politics writer, UC-IMC
> 
> "There are many victories worse than a defeat." - George Eliot
 >
 >
C. G. Estabrook wrote:
 > Dr. Tiller was murdered Sunday 31 May in Wichita, Kansas.  On Monday 1 June
 > US Army Pvt. William Long was shot and killed outside a military recruiting
 > office in Little Rock, Arkansas, by a man opposed to the wars in Iraq and
 > Afghanistan.
 >
 > If a vigil, prayerful or otherwise, is appropriate for Dr. Tiller, why is not
 > one also being organized for Pvt. Long?  The only reason I can see is that
 > the bien-pensant is in favor of Dr. Tiller's activities but opposed to those
 > of Pvt. Long.  The vigil therefore becomes a certain "propaganda of the
 > deed."
 >
 > In default of an adequate argument, war is no more justified by the
 > victimization of those who practice it than is abortion.  --CGE
 >