Dr. George Tiller was murdered, it seems, because he performed abortions. Those who defend such actions justify them by claiming that it is entirely appropriate to kill a person in order to prevent their killing others. Are they right?
It's important to ask this question, upsetting as it may be, because the fundamental claim (no pun intended) made in defense of Dr. Tiller's murderer does follow a certain logic, which if correct, might justify the actions of his actions. They claim that killing Tiller saves many lives and is therefore justifiable.
According to Jewish law, the principle which they argue is, in fact correct. It's called the law of the rodef, or pursuer. Based on a rule found in Exodus 22 and explained by the Babylonian Talmud on page 73a, this law actually demands that one preempt a murderer by killing them before they commit their crime. So again, one might come to the conclusion that the events in Kansas actually have the biblical and religious grounding that supporters of accused murdered, Scott Roeder, claim. They are wrong, at least from the perspective of Jewish law.
Under no circumstances is a fetus considered a human life, according to Jewish law. Ironically, Maimonides, calling a fetus a rodef, uses this law to explain why a baby must be aborted if the pregnancy endangers the mother's life. While Jewish law is no fan of abortion, and does not sanction abortion on demand under all circumstances, it is never murder.
Now, I have no expectation or desire to see Jewish law become the law of the land. Nor do I expect to convince radical Christian murderers to change their ways because of a Jewish reading of scripture. But I think that all of us who want to see Dr. Tiller's murderer prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and even more importantly, bring about an end to such murders, consider the claims made by the murderers. We must, because actually our views are ultimately not so different. Yes, I really mean that.
If we truly believed that abortions were murder, and had the ability to stop someone from performing them, would we not be justified in using all available means to do so? Would we not want someone to do just that if a person was heading off to kill one of our kids?
So how would you respond to someone who genuinely believes that is the case in this case? What arguments can be used to dissuade the future murderers from following a path to what they imagine to be a justifiable homicide and most of us know to be murder?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
Author, radio and TV talk show host, and President of CLAL-The National Jewish Center for Learning and Leadership, Brad Hirschfield is the author of 
Paul,
Don't you know that abortion is a very profitable (often cash) business? Pro-life is not profitable and I would argue it actually incurs a net loss financially. Plus it is easier to win over people with the promise that their desires and urges are more important that restraint and responsible behavior. So, no, the pro-life path is more difficult and expensive. Make no mistake: many are motivated by profit in Big Abortion.
Tom:
I read Yochanan's statement and I totally rejected it. I noticed that he did not actually give the scripture, I referenced it so that the readers could see for themselves what it says. In Exodus 22:21, the way that I read it is that; if the death of the child is accidental or incidental then it is treated like manslaughter, but if it is directed and purposeful then it is murder. If you don't see it that way then that you have your own interpretation and you will have to answer for yourself.
Who is arrogant here? I was not addressing you, I never called anyone derogatory names and I never stated what God desires. I simply quoted some scripture, gave an opinion and gave the writer a couple of simple facts to think about.
BS"D
While abortion is not considered exactly the same as murder, the Torah clearly forbids abortion in all but the most extreme of circumstances (e.g., saving the life of the mother) based on Genesis 9:6 which can be translated, "Whoever sheds the blood of a person within a person (adam ba-adam), his blood shall be shed, for in the image of G-d made He man." Rabbi Ishamel notes in Sanhedrin 57b that adam ba-adam refers to a fetus inside his or her mother. This general prohibition of abortion is among the sheva mitzvot b'nei Noach, incumbent on non-Jews as well. Significantly, unlike the prohibition of murder contained when the same verse is read with the prefix "ba-" as "by" rather than "within," the punishment for abortion is meted out by G-d Himself and NOT by a human court as is the case for murder. There is no room for vigilantism here!
Sadly, the effect of this cold-blooded murder has been to harden the hearts of those insensitive to the suffering of fetuses through abortion. So even from a purely practical viewpoint, din rodef does not work here. Better to follow the advice of Beruriah, who told her husband Rabbi Meir that the verse from Psalm 104:35 should be understood that sins (rather than sinners) should disappear from the Earth (Brachot 10a). We should pray and act to ensure that those who do not properly respect the sanctity of life see the light and do teshuvah.
BS"D
One additional point. While abortion per se is not murder, the procedure the abortion profession calls "intact dilation and extraction" and which critics call "partial-birth abortion" may well be murder according to halacha. According to Mishna Ohalot 7:6, we can dismember a fetus limb by limb if necessary to save the mother's life, but once the greater part has been born (either the head, or as in this case, the majority of the body), we may not distinguish between one life and the other. This also pertains to induced labor abortions where the baby, now fully outside the body and domain of the mother, actually survives the attempted abortion and unfortunately, is often denied even comfort care and is left to die. This controversy came up in Illinois several years ago, and President Obama's actions when he was a state senator there repeatedly blocking legislation to save these born alive babies is a good part of what has made him such a lightning rod on the entire abortion issue.
It is a scientific fact that human life begins at conception. Therefore, abortion destroys human life and is thus, murder. Do you really see a difference between someone murdering your 1 yr. old child at his/her daycare and abortion? The only difference is that you are choosing the abortion yourself (may God have mercy on your soul if you do).
Why are the recent crimes where a mother is cut open and her baby stolen from her prosecuted as two murders? Because two human lives were taken (in cases where the unborn baby dies). For some reason, our society does not clearly see the truth that an unborn baby and a born child should have the exact same rights. The same rights as you and me.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.