Tiller and the logic of the pro-life position

I actually disagree about John Brown. Civil war was inevitable anyway at that point in history, and if there had been an actual slave insurrection- as opposed to the slaves being granted their freedom from above, which is what actually happened- the Southern white elite might have been terminally weakened. And they might not have been in a position to re-impose segregation 15 years after the end of the war. No, the South was already in a revolutionary situation which John Brown simply aggravated. He was no criminal, but a good man and a martyr.

I think the salient difference from abortion are these: we are not even on the brink of civil war or revolution in this country, it is possible for decent people to deceive themselves about abortion in a way that it wasn't (even in 1850) about the nature of slavery, and in any case not all peaceful methods of fighting abortion have yet been exhausted.

Exempting Haiti slave insurrections usually didn't work. It had been tried before in the South and failed.

And inevitably isn't a good argument for comitting violence. John Brown was a kook, pure and simple.

Can one be truly pro-life if they are simply pro-birth? What about those who believe (or at least practice) that life begins at conception and ends at birth?

I guess it depends on youn religious beliefs, but there are those for whom abortion is not the sole issue that defines the sanctity of life.

Steve Waldman has a post this morning that is well worth considering.

blog.beliefnet.com/stevenwaldman/2009/05/tiller-assassination.htm

"We'll see if Roeder maintained his ties to the militia groups or had shifted his focus to abortion only, but at a minimum, conservatives have to make a new choice: take seriously right wing extremists -- the real ones, not the bloviators -- or run the risk of truly being lumped together.

In a way, conservatives now face a choice similar to what liberals in the late 1960s and early 1970s faced during the hayday of the Weather Underground. Some on the New Left defended them as legitimate-albeit-excitable members of their broad coalition, while other more traditional liberals attacked them as extremists who violated liberal ideals. My sense of the history is that enough on the New Left defended extremists to tar all of liberalism. Will that happen for conservatives now?"

A Christian that does not oppose war is no better than a Christian who does not oppose abortion.

You will face your maker and be forced to defend your beliefs, your actions, and your inaction.

Rod is right: this won’t end well for us on the pro-life side. We simply cannot tolerate this sort of vigilante violence if we ever want to see some real progress: legally, constitutionally, and, please God, socially. The zealots will all offer their justifications, just as the pro-choicers will issue condemnations. However, for me and probably for several others, coming to see the truth about the pro-life world view (because it’s more than just a “position”) is/has been a journey. And murders like this aren’t just bumps in the road; they’re potentially disastrous roadblocks. What was that about not giving scandal to our neighbors? This sort of violence demolishes the moral capital gained by opposing Obama’s visit to Notre Dame. All the good, solid, principled discussion washed away by the blood of someone who now will be considered a martyr. Wonderful…just absolutely wonderful….

He was no criminal, but a good man and a martyr.

If people who murder farmers and porters are your cup of tea, I guess that'd be right.

I've thought about Damon's point. One response might note that the abortion doctor after all is only an agent of the mother. The threat to the fetus is not ultimately in the abortionist, but in the abortive will of the mother. Ultimately the only way to remove the threat to the fetus is if the mother contemplating abortion freely changes her mind.

For political reasons the pro-life movement focuses its ire on abortionists rather than mothers. It presumes as a default position that mothers have little moral responsibility for their abortions. But this is really not tenable, imo. Abortive mothers certainly can face pressures and diminished culpability due to ignorance, etc. But in the end, in the US today, it is virtually always the mother's decision to abort — not the abortionists'.

Rod,

The decision not to start shooting abortionists has very little to do with mere "prudence," and everything to do with the natural law's teaching of valid political authority. Only the proper authority's possess the lawful use of force.

You make it sounds as if being peaceful is a utilitarian decision. It is not. It's rooted in the natural law and its teaching about rightful authority.

I can here the question already: "What about, say, Bonhoeffer and other political resisters?" Those people were using violence to resist a regime that had lost its claim to valid, just authority.

Rod - Head over to freerepublic.com and you'll see an awful lot of people cheering what happened yesterday. To a moderate, that place looks an awful lot like some neighborhoods of Palestine on 9/11.

"For political reasons the pro-life movement focuses its ire on abortionists rather than mothers."

Abortion providers are typically not forthright about the consequences of abortion with prospective clients, while many of them use unsavory techniques when mothers try to change their minds at the last minute (the abortion has already started because of the pill you took and so on). Since abortion has been legal 'pro-choicers' greatly exaggerated the numbers of supposed mothers who died from 'coat-hanger' abortions in back alleys to further their agenda. They pulled figures out of thin air (I heard 12 million annually) and said it so often people actually believed it. The ever-so-lovely Secretary of State Hillary Clinton recently said on a trip to Brazil half of women were happily giving birth while the other half were dying of botched abortions (because of the illegality no doubt). She couldn't substantiate her claims when asked nor could independents confirm her visit with Brazilian authorities, sort of like when her and Chealsie had to duck all that bullet fire.

"If you've ever been outside an abortion clinic, we target the mother pretty good. We shout stuff and we hold up signs of condemnation."

As a sidewalk counseler my group doesn't do this. We do appeal to mother and co. in a respectful manner and have had positive results this way. We get confused with protesters alot even though we don't have signs or preach condemnation or hellfire the way many fundies do.

It would be interesting to see what would happen if someone posted abortions on the web. The major networks will never show them. I've always wondered about what the effect of that would be. Of course you'd have to sneak a camera in to the mills. But they are miniature enough now. The problem would be access. You'd probably have to be someone who actually assists with the abortion procedures and dispose of the bodies to be close enough to make the tapes. So it would kind of be a Faustian bargain.

Brainstorming here... maybe if you worked for a security company of telecom company you could rig some extra camera and bugs in the places. Or the garbage company that hauls away the bloddy corpses. It's all so disgusting.

Exempting Haiti slave insurrections usually didn't work

But oh my! what a splendid success it was in Haiti1

I agree with Tiller, but I have to wonder how many pro-lifers have really thought this issue through. I suspect the number is relatively few, because they so rarely talk about it. In other words, in their refusal to defend the fetus like they'd defend other human beings, pro-lifers reveal that they don't really believe fetal life is on the same plane as born life.

Jim,

The moral law evolves, as we become more aware of the nature of both spiritual and material reality. Regardless of how Jews at the time of Moses may have understood the Mosaic law, by the First Century both Jews and Christians understood it to forbid abortion except perhaps in extreme cases. I can't give you explicit canonical sources, but the Didache, the Apocalypse of Peter and the Letter of Barnabas explicitly condemn abortion, which at the very least shows that the early Christian church condemned abortion. And according to Flavius Josephus, so did the Jews.

Moreover, the grounds on which abortion is often justified (radical individual autonomy, self-ownership of the body, the need for women to be 'just the same' as men) seem to be contrary to a Christian anthropology.

Abortion providers are typically not forthright about the consequences of abortion with prospective clients...

I don't dispute this at all...and I think this offers a much better opportunity for effective pro-life legislation than a human life amendment or attempts to criminalize abortion as murder.

I would absolutely support legislation requiring abortionists to document the informed consent of their patients seeking abortion.

I would support regulations mandating preabortion counseling, including warnings of post abortion trauma, mandated ultrasounds, and mandated provision of information about adoption opportunities and social services for mothers.

I would make the regulatory burden onerous, explicitly to discourage abortion -- and I would subject abortionists to heavy civil penalties and loss of license if it were shown they did not follow the regulations scrupulously.

But: I also think the attempt to force the state to directly guarantee the unborn's right-to-life is a fool's errand doomed to failure...not because the unborn don't have, morally, such a righht-to-life, but because the unborn have never in history fallen under the jurisdiction of civil governments...and directly protecting the unborn requires more of civil governments than they can reasonably be asked to provide.

Question: Would you describe this position above as pro-life, or pro-choice?

If abortion truly is what the pro-life movement says it is -- if it is the infliction of deadly violence against an innocent and defenseless human being -- then doesn't morality demand that pro-lifers act in any way they can to stop this violence? (Emphasis added.)

Why does this come out to shooting a doctor in the middle of a church service? After all, there are lots of doctors, and probably someone can be found to take his place. Will any abortions really be prevented by this act?

What if you really wanted to stop the kind of abortions Dr. Tiller performed, late abortions of terribly deformed babies? What would you do?

Could you provide emotional and financial support to mothers who choose, at great personal cost, to bear such children anyway? Could a foundation be created to guarantee lifetime medical care for such children, at no cost to the mother? (Those lifetimes can be very short, but also very expensive! Seen an unedited hospital bill lately??) Could platoons of volunteers be assembled to give such mothers respite from the 24/7 burden of the care of such children? Could financial guarantees of the long-time security of such children be made, for those few who survive for more than a few weeks?

Could all this be communicated to the moms in such crisis?

"We'll be there for you. And for your baby. Don't you worry about the hospital bills, we'll see to that. And if the baby lives beyond a few days, and if you take her home, know that someone will be there, any time you call, 24 hours a day. If you need to take a walk by yourself. If you just need company. We'll bring photographers to the delivery room, to take pictures of this brief life. And clothes for the christening.

"We won't leave you alone with this."

I'm guessing that something like this would prevent ten times the abortions that will be prevented by shooting George Tiller.

But it's harder, isn't it, than just parading around with signs in the streets for a few hours. That would involve the participants in sharing the pain of such moms (and their joys!) and would require some sacrificial financial giving.

So much easier to condemn everyone involved and move on.

Erin,

Perinatal hospice operates in a handful of locations. The rest are online support organizations only.

Surely you realize how inadequate these resources are.

Still, I'm glad to know that these places exist.

They were certainly nowhere to be found when I needed them. And from the accounts I've read from Dr. Tiller's patients, they're still pretty hard to locate. Not to mention the resources needed when a handicapped child actually manages to survive early infancy! Good luck with that, you moms! Everyone in America knows that rich people get medical care, everyone else no! Why, this idea has been repeatedly defended by the conservatives, right on this site!

I don't see any concrete help with hospital bills here either. No. Easier to condemn, huh.

I think that if concrete financial and other assistance were really universally available, the number of the kind of abortions Dr. Tiller offered would drop dramatically.

I think most people are good, if they can see their way. Moms in this situation, who have carried pregnancies into the third trimester, mostly really want these babies. When a devastating diagnosis is received, I think most of them want to do the right thing.

I just don't think most people can do it alone, and I don't think an online support group really cuts the mustard.

But it doesn't matter what I think, or what you say, Erin. These abortions will continue so long as desperate moms see no way out. If you really care about this, you will work and contribute to seeing this fixed.

There's bound to be wealthy people who had kids with spina bifida, OI, Down's syndrome, etc. Maybe someone should get them together to set up a foundation for people with such a child.

I think that condemning other people is very easy, whereas actually putting resources into helping them is much harder and more expensive, both financially and emotionally.

And I'm suspecting that condemning people is most of what the anti-abortion movement is about.

If that were not true, there would be massive foundations now in existence offering adoption assistance, free pre-natal care, support for women who conceive seriously disabled babies, financial support for the sometimes crushing hospital bills, on-the-spot (not on-line) support groups for mothers in difficult situations, and so forth. A financial and emotional and spiritual safety net. Readily accessible, widely known.

Look around. If you, as a young woman, were informed today that your unborn child was going to be born without a brain, where would you look? Is it obvious? Can you find it even? What if you learn that that baby will live but nevertheless have with a very serious lifelong disability? Do you have any assurance that someone will be there for you, to pay the bills you cannot pay, to make this massive burden bearable?

Do you call Operation Rescue? Be prepared to be told that they are outta there at birth. Your problem, baby. Go to your parish, if you are a Catholic? Be prepared to be met with blank stares, as I was.

So, what next? Do you call Dr. Tiller or his equivalent? Sure you do. Is that the best answer in an ideal world? Probably not. But can we provide better choices? Probably, if we weren't so busy out on the picket lines.

Actually, this concept has arisen before: in 1994, and again in 2000, First Things published articles dealing with the issue of those who kill abortion doctors (after the website redesign, the First Things website seems harder to search for archived articles, so forgive me for posting links to secondary sources for them--they are the original articles). These articles were somewhat controversial at the time, and re-reading them, I still get creeped out.

Fitzpatrick's article seems to conclude that it's not morally wrong to kill an abortion doctor per se; or at least that the goal is laudable. The reason he says it is impermissible is that there are so many people of good will who are not sufficiently convinced of the correctness of the pro-life position. Like some here, he draws the analogy with slavery in the antebellum South. Of course, that lead to war. Moreover, it seems to me that his conclusion is unsatisfactory. Pacifists condemn all killing. Anyone else, though, would be likely to allow for insurrection, violent resistance, etc., in at least some circumstances (e.g. the Free French in WW II). If all abortions at all stages are to be exactly equated with murder of innocents, it's really hard for me to see how a non-pacifist can with strictly logical consistency condemn abortion-doctor killers.

Note in the First Things symposium such gems as these, with emphasis added: "[Paul Hill, who killed an abortion doctor in Florida] was moved to an awful, rare act, and he focused his lethal assault on a person who was about to engage directly, and deliberately, in the destruction of an innocent life. Unless we dismantle moral reasoning altogether, or remove the gradations that are critical to moral judgment, it should be evident that these two acts of killing cannot stand on the same moral plane." (Hadley Arkes); " I believe in policies that reduce the urgent need some people feel to kill abortionists while, at the same time, respecting the rights of conscience of my fellow citizens who believe that the killing of abortionists is sometimes a tragic necessity-not a good, but a lesser evil." (Robert P. George);" Two intelligent, "mainstream" people writing in a respected opinion journal are in effect waffling on condemning such an action unequivocally! Also note this statement from a letter to the editor regarding aforementioned symposium: " Paul Hill, then, is not someone beyond the pale. On the contrary, he is someone who has remained heroically faithful to reason and to the truth of human equality-at the probable cost of his own life. Regardless of our moral disagreements with him and of our shared dismay at the political consequences of his act, shouldn't we be truthful enough to stand with him against a fundamentally unjust legal regime? A brave and good man is about to be martyred in Florida. We ought all to be there with him, at least in spirit." I wonder how many prolifers would, in moments of candor, agree with these statements, taking the attitude, "Well, it's too bad, but the doctor had it coming."

I see some of the same waffling here. To speak of "prudence" implies that while it's a bad idea practically speaking to kill abortion doctors, it's not necessarily immoral. Yes, we're a nation of laws, but when, say, a shopkeeper shoots the burglars who break in, he gets lauded as a hero on TV, doesn't he? As a culture, we seem to be selective in invoking the "nation of laws" concept against vigilante activities. In defending insurrection and such, Hector seems to leave open, in principle, the concept of "holy hit men", although he doesn't seem to endorse it.

It seems to me that there are two competing moral intuitions here. On the one hand, it seems manifestly intuitively wrong to me, as a prolifer, to destroy a developing human at whatever stage. On the other hand, it seems manifestly intuitively wrong to murder abortion doctors, too. It seems, based on purely logically reasoning, that if we are to equate abortion at any stage with murder, that it isn't really possible to condemn such shootings in a logically consistent manner. Therefore, I conclude that while all abortion is tragically, morally wrong, not all abortion is to be equated with murder. I think this is sound from a Thomistic perspective, in light of his arguments on the point of "quickening". Intuitively, it seems that there is a difference in terminating a two-week pregnancy, e.g., and terminating a twenty-week pregnancy. Both are wrong, but to different degrees. It is in line with this that I tend to agree with Steve Waldman's suggestion that first-trimester abortions be relatively untouchable while later-term abortions be made far harder to get (in line with European practice) as a compromise. Of course, many on both sides don't really want compromise; but that's because many are driven by ideology and don't want to look at the complexities of the moral intuitions involved.

Turmarion, are you having a posting issue--e.g. getting a "Comment held" sort of message?

Erin--Yes, I am having that problem. :( I usually email Rod when that happens, but given his being semi-off right now, I didn't want to bug him, and I wasn't sure if I could email you to catch it. Thus, I was about to try to break the post into two halves as separate posts. Sometimes that works. I see that mine came through, though, miraculously. I think one thing we can all agree on here--CAPTCHA is evil!

Re: In defending insurrection and such, Hector seems to leave open, in principle, the concept of "holy hit men", although he doesn't seem to endorse it.

What? Turmarion, I appreciate your post, but I'm not sure where I implied this. I explicitly said that I do _not_ think that killing abortion doctors can be justified under the right of insurrection. The right of insurrection is meant to cover cases such as the French Resistance, the Sandinistas, the revolution against Ceaucescu, and the Easter Rising. It's not meant to indicate that any yahoo with a gun is allowed to decide who he thinks is a bad man and then start firing away. I'm not sure just where the line is drawn between Charles de Gaulle and Paul Hill, but there is surely a line somewhere.

You may have a point that early term abortions are somehow different than murder, but I'm not sure it goes as far as you want. As I see it, murder of innocent _adults_ or _children_ is wrong for at least three reasons:
1) it dishonors the image of God in man
2) it cheats the victims out of their future plans, achievements, desires, and joys
3) it causes them, and their families, pain and suffering

Now, early term abortion clearly shares Reasons 1) and 2) in common with murder of an adult human being. You're correct that it is different than ordinary murder in that if it's at a very early stage, it may not cause the fetus any pain. Now I certainly don't think that murder is wrong JUST BECAUSE it causes people pain. Painless murder is wrong too, although causing the victim terrible pain would certainly be an aggravating factor in sentencing. Still, if what you want is a concession that early abortion is maybe slightly less bad than ordinary murder, well then OK. It's still very bad though. And quite bad enough to be illegal.

I've left my thoughts on this at the link above. Ultimately, strictly on the basis of morality, I don't see how a pro-lifer (and I am one) can condemn violence against abortionists unless they adopt some form of pacifism.

I mean, if violence in defense of the innocent is not immoral, its hard to see how Roeder's actions were. The issue of prudence and pragmatism does not dissolve the moral issue. It may be imprudent to murder abortionists, but that hardly makes it wrong. Unless one categorically rejects all use of lethal violence. Which I think we should, though of course that is not unproblematic either.

Imprudent, but not wrong? Prudence is the very first of the cardinal virtues. Not in terms of being the highest, but as prerequisite for the others.

So, to act imprudently when taking a strongly morally charged action, such as killing someone, is wrong. Prudence often IS the moral issue.

Hector: I seem to have misunderstood you--apologies.

Erin: Thanks for freeing my post! :)

Actually, you may not believe this, but I agree with everything in your post!

You actually clarified my thinking. I had said that I didn't see how there was no inconsistency for a non-pacifist who opposed abortion but thought the killing of abortion doctors is wrong. Your idea of "preemptive" action is really a better framework. E.g., if I see a known murderer on the loose, I do not have license to shoot him on sight even if I know he may murder again. We are agreed.

There is still a problem, though. Remember the survey in which more regular church attendance correlated with greater acceptance of torture? It seems to me that implicitly this also means a greater correlation with being OK with preemptive actions in general--wars, killing malefactors, etc. Also, anecdotally, it seems to me that large swaths of the American public (including churchgoers) have no problem with preemptive actions, in general. In short, plenty of people, in the hypothetical case of the escaped murderer, wouldn't have a problem with shooting him, at least in principle.

I don't think anyone has done studies on this (it would be an excellent thing to study, though), but I would almost bet that more frequently church-going and conservative Christians are more supportive of the death penalty, less inclined to be anti-war, more OK with preemptive actions against crime, etc. The best I can find is data that indicates that the support for capital punishment among such groups is about the same as for the general population, or only slightly lower (except for Traditionalist Catholics, where such support is substantially lower, but still over half).

The point is this: I grant that for a pacifist or for a non-pacifist who opposes preemptive self-defense, it is perfectly consistent to condemn both abortion and those who kill abortion doctors. What I'm afraid of is that a majority of Americans, including churchgoers, probably do support preemptive self-defense, etc., at least in some forms. For those people, whom I fear to be a majority, it is inconsistent for them to oppose abortion and doctor-murdering. I'm not saying they support the latter--just that they can't give any good reason why that is logically coherent.

It is really frightening, in fact, to see how much literature is out there, on the Net and in print, vigorously defending war, capital punishment, and sometimes even doctor-slaughter on the supposed basis of Christian teaching!

I know that you, Rod, and others here hold to the "seamless garment" approach, and that is much to your credit. I myself have always opposed abortion, but have only re-evaluated the death penalty and militarism over the last decade or so. While I don't consider myself a pacifist, I have come to see pacifism as a Christian ideal (sadly unrealizable, perhaps) and certainly oppose the types of preemptive actions of which you speak. In any case, though I consider myself moderate (liberal friends think I'm a fascist and conservative friends think I'm a Commie, so I guess that's "moderate"!), I have moved towards the seamless garment ethos over time.

Unfortunately, we are rarae aves among the American people, and I think you and Rod are even more atypical among conservatives. You are consistent; most people aren't, and that is not only sad, but dangerous, since I think the rather schizoid views of the public at large helps breed the environment in which people like Roeder wind up murdering people like Tiller. I think Drew's and Halden's points are very good in this regard and very much germane to the issue.

In any case, I'd like to recommend an interesting book on issues such as this: Consistently Opposing Killing, edited by Rachel M. McNair and Stephen Zunes, on the issues surrounding the seamless garment of life ethos. It has some interesting and thoughtful essays in it, and gives food for thought on how to promote this understanding in the face of a society that all too often rejects it.

Turmarion,

No, I don't agree. There is no reason why someone needs to embrace a seamless garment ethos (which in any case, seems a rather radical break from 14 centuries of Christian history) in order to oppose killing abortion doctors. It all comes down to legitimate authority, and the presene vs. absence of a legitimate revolutionary situation. The French Resistance had it, and Mr. Roeder didn't. One need not object to all violence on the part of the state, or even by insurrectionary movements, in order to object to holy hit men carrying out private vengeance in time of peace.

And yes, maybe part of it is also that, as you point out, while early term abortion is objectively a form of homicide, it may be slightly less bad then killing born children.

Hector: I'm not saying that only "seamless-garment" people can consistently oppose killing abortion doctors. I liked Erin's distinction re those who accept what she calls "preemptive self-defense". One might (as she does) reject such "preemptive self-defense" while (contra her views) nevertheless allow for capital punishment and other non-seamless-garment views. Such a person could consistently oppose both abortion and the killing of abortion providers while not accepting the seamless garment ethos.

If one does believe in preemptive self-defense, however, it seems to me difficult to make a consistent case against actions such as those of Roener. Your arguments regarding legitimate authority are good and in my mind valid, but many probably wouldn't buy them, unfortunately. The fact is that our society is schizoid, since it often exonerates or even praises people who, simply put, perform illegal or marginally legal vigilante or other anti-crime activities (remember Bernard Goetz?).

In any case, it's unhelpful for the cause when pro-lifers essentially say, "I totally condemn this but...." where the "but" is followed by "the doctor was evil, he was a killer, I wouldn't want to be him on Judgment Day, he's reaping the fruits he's sown, etc." Over at the Pontifications blog, it gives the late Cardinal O'Connor's response to a similar case years ago: "If anyone has an urge to kill someone at an abortion clinic, they should shoot me. ... It's madness. It discredits the right-to-life movement. Murder is murder. It's madness. You cannot prevent killing by killing."

There is no reason why someone needs to embrace a seamless garment ethos (which in any case, seems a rather radical break from 14 centuries of Christian history)

I think we had this conversation before way back in a post on torture. I think it can be argued that the for the first four centuries the Church did pretty much embrace a "seamless garment" approach, though of course it didn't use that terminology, and that the following centuries were a departure from the Church's original understanding--a departure that was debatably necessary, but a departure nonetheless. However, we disagree on this, so it's OK. We agree on the more important point that shooting people is wrong.

I'm glad that you are open to the idea of gradations of gravity of sin regarding abortion depending on the time at which it occurs. This is probably one area in which some fruitful discussion can occur in trying to craft some type of compromise that might actually reduce abortions. Time will tell, though.

Observer,
I am very happy to know I was wrong about your circumstances. What a good and compassionate woman you are.

Re: Gabriel project. It is in a great many states. I was hoping to find a link that showed which ones and how many. The interview at Priests for Life may have been an old one and did not include that info. I do know that it is over 10 years old and expanding nationwide.

They DO provide material needs, money etc. for women after the child is born. I have sheltered women in my home after delivery. Some folks in the Gabriel project have sheltered women for years. They are given cars, helped with car maintenance, drivers take them to work if necessary etc. There really are an abundance of things that are offered. Of course the need increases all the time and more always needs to be done. But please know that this sort of help DOES exist and is expanding. The pregnancy centers are just at the beginning of the lifeline.

It is true that 27 years ago these things were largely non-existent. Or if they were around they were extremely rare. People seem to learn slowly. If the Pregnancy Centers ever become obsolete (ie: if abortion is ever outlawed) the need for Gabriel Projects will only increase.

God Bless,
Maria

Non violence does not in reality, always work. Where it has, it has done so against an empire that was a democracy, with a free press, and relatively soft (Great Britain). And in a country that was a democracy where it was possible to whip up public sympathy (the US). It has pretty much failed in recent times (China and Burma).

I feel there is far too much blind respect shown for "moderation". It always sounds like a very reasonable word in the abstract. But in practice moderation is not much more than the unwillingness of people to be consistent in their own thinking, and find ways to make this inconsistency sound noble.
Abortion is one issue where this tendency is noticeable, whether with people who support it, preferring euphemisms to describe the procedure or say that it does not involve any killing, or opponents who regard it as murder but prefer not carry that to it obvious conclusions.
In this area I actually think it is the "extremists" who say honesty they do not care if it involves killing or who say that women who undergo it and doctors who administer it, should be put to death, are actually more intellectually honest and consistent than their "moderate" counterparts.