Dr. Tiller the Babykiller

This weekend, Dr. Tiller, a man who performs abortions, including late-term abortions, was murdered while attending church.

The alleged shooter, who is now in custody, had this to say: "To call this a crime [in other words, killing the guy] is too simplistic. There is Christian scripture that would support this." In other words: it's OK to kill him because God said to.

Operation Rescue had this to say: "George Tiller was a mass murderer and we cannot stop saying that. He was an evil man -- his hands were covered with blood." In their minds, abortion is always wrong; therefore, this man deserved to die.

I don't know the answer to the question of when life begins. And it frightens me that people who probably aren't too terribly bright think it's OK to take the law into their own hands because they do unequivocally know. So maybe it's time to pose a few theories.

Some people think that life begins at conception: when sperm meets egg. Seems awfully early to call that a baby--especially since it couldn't possibly exist outside the womb, but it's not an invalid conclusion on its face.

Before modern technology, Catholics and old legal scholars used to think a fetus became a child when quickening occurred. Quickening is when the mother first feels the baby stir. With the advent of ultrasound and such, Catholics apparently moved up their idea of when life begins.

My mom takes a unique biblical take on the topic. She points to Genesis where God breathes "the breath of life into Adam." Under her take, abortion isn't murder because the baby hasn't exited the birth canal and breathed yet. Pretty interesting logic, if you ask me!

Then there is the Ramsey Theory. The Ramsey Theory of Death holds that you are not dead until your heart stop functioning, your lungs stop functioning, and your brain stops functioning. Thus, if the absence of these three characteristics signifies death, the presence of one of them could mean life. When does the embryo's heart start to beat? As early as two weeks. Under this theory, birth control and "the morning after pill" are always morally OK. But terminating the pregnancy after two weeks could be murdering a child.

Finally, there's what the U.S. courts currently say. The basic holding of Roe v. Wade is that a mother has a constitutionally protected privacy interest in terminating a pregnancy up until the point of viability. 410 U.S. 113, 154 (1973). Viability is defined as "potentially able to live outside the mother's womb, albeit with artificial aid." Id. at 160. Roe was decided in 1973. Since then, the point of viability will now come more quickly due to better technology. Why chose viability at the cut off point? Well, according to the Court, at that point the mother's right to choose becomes outweighed by the fetus's potential right to life. Id. at 164-65. Some legal thinkers have extrapolated the "point of viability" argument to conclude that arguments for abortion could also frighteningly be used for infanticide. After all, a baby isn't really viable until s/he is several years old. Before then, the baby depends on the care of an adult or s/he will die.

Needless to say, when life begins is not clear.

Even if you settle on a definition, once you get beyond the legal and moral questions, you may want to look at the social questions. Many women who seek abortions are young. They cannot afford a child. They cannot properly raise a child and give him or her even the most basic things a child needs and deserves.

It may seem crass to weigh what very well may be a potential human life in such economic terms, but... is it completely wrong to think that maybe some lives aren't worth living? Maybe terminating the pregnancy is better for all involved: impoverished mother and almost-certainly-doomed-to-failure child? Indeed, famed economist Steven Levitt argues in Freakonomics quite persuasively that the drop in crime in the 90s was a direct result of Roe v. Wade. The very children who would have grown up impoverished, without fathers, without proper guidance, who likely would have turned to drugs and violence were the ones who were often aborted instead.

It's dangerous to start weighing potential human lives in terms of social results. After all, it's not much different than the man who murdered Dr. Tiller: to him, the ends justified the means. But it's instructive, at least, to see how legal and moral policy can produce profound social results.

Finally there is the whole issue of "don't tell me what to do with my body." The jurisprudence of the Supreme Court shows a march toward greater freedom to do what one wants with one's body. First, the Court struck down a law which had prohibited married people from using contraceptives. Then, unmarried people. Over time, these decisions would be used to invalidate laws that prohibited consenting gay adults from having sex in the privacy of their own home under penalty of imprisonment (in 2003, no less)! At some point, do you not have to balance not only a woman's right to choose with the fetus's potential right to life but also a woman's right to do what she wants with her body without government interference with the government's vague right to protect the life of a fetus that may--or may not--be a person?

The point is simply this: No one can definitively say when life begins. Definitions have shifted over the centuries and even today we have answers that range from the precise moment of conception to the precise moment the baby takes his or her first breath of oxygen after birth.

Because we do not--and cannot--know, we should be respectful of others' opinions. Oh, and we shouldn't kill abortion doctors.