Abortionist’s murder is enigmatic for pro-lifers

Self-defense excluded, are we--as mere human beings--empowered to defend the innocent by taking a life without the benefit of trial? Let’s consider a couple of scenarios.

First, let’s assume that a serial killer is on the loose. You have reason to believe the killer is your neighbor. Quite correctly, you contact the authorities. But the subsequent investigation doesn’t produce enough evidence for a conviction and the suspected killer walks free.

You remain convinced that the neighbor is guilty and will kill again. Are you within the bounds of righteousness to take that life in order to spare the future victims?
Now let’s consider a second scenario.

Suppose you were a guard assigned to Auschwitz during World War II. You witness the daily atrocities Josef Mengele commits on the Jewish children imprisoned there. You’ve seen his brutal murders and his ghastly human experiments. And there’s no legal way to stop him.

Is it proper for a just person to kill Mengele, thus preventing the maiming and murder of untold numbers of men, women and children?

In the first scenario there’s no firsthand knowledge of wrong-doing. There isn’t sufficient evidence for a guilty verdict, but the possibility for a legal remedy remains. There’s also the old argument that two wrongs don’t make a right.

Even though killing your neighbor may preserve an innocent life, there are legal avenues for dealing with the suspect that haven’t been exhausted. Therefore, unless you are attacked, you cannot legitimately pronounce yourself judge, jury and executioner.

Conversely, if you were the Auschwitz guard no one would’ve condemned you for killing the Nazi “Angel of Death.” There was no other viable option for stopping his barbarism.

Applying these scenarios to the killing of abortionist George Tiller--a man responsible for killing thousands of unborn babies--presents pro-lifers with some interesting questions.

Did the shooter commit an act of murder? Did he take a life without the benefit of a legal decision in a society where such a verdict remained possible? Or, did the shooter’s act preserve innocent life, like the Auschwitz guard’s imaginary killing of Josef Mengele?

We must conclude that Tiller’s death fit’s the first scenario. As troubling and divisive as abortion on demand is, there is still the opportunity to deal with the issue through legal channels. Therefore, the shooter violated both George Tiller’s right to life and the pro-life message itself.

However, just as surely as two wrongs don’t make a right, another old argument applies here. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.

Tiller’s murder is no reason for joy by any means. Yet his life and medical practice weren’t cause for celebration either. Tiller’s practice was directly responsible for at least 250 late-term abortions each year. For those services Tiller received over a million dollars. And that doesn’t include the number of “normal” abortions performed at Tiller’s clinic.

Pro-abortion activists have eulogized Tiller as if he were Albert Schweitzer. They even called for a national day of mourning in his honor. But their praise is an empty talking point. And it exemplifies their scorn for the thousands of unborn babies who died at Tiller’s hand.

George Tiller was no Dr. Schweitzer. In fact, he had more in common with Josef Mengele.

Tiller’s murder presents an interesting enigma for proponents of innocent life. On one hand, Tiller will not render his “services” again. On the other hand, the way he was stopped violates the core principles of the pro-life message. Yet it is entirely consistent for pro-life organizations to denounce Tiller’s murder while refusing to defend his life.

Pro-abortion activists face a deeper conundrum. They must reconcile their outrage over George Tiller’s murder while defending his daily regimen of death.

Even in this complex situation the pro-life message remains far more consistent and much easier to defend.