I'm fairly ambivalent about Ann Coulter, but she often has the pithiest pointy elbows on my side. Here she is on the killing of abortionist George Tiller:
I wouldn't kill an abortionist myself, but I wouldn't want to impose my moral values on others. No one is for shooting abortionists. But how will criminalizing men making difficult, often tragic, decisions be an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the shootings of abortionists?Following the moral precepts of liberals, I believe the correct position is: If you don't believe in shooting abortionists, then don't shoot one.
Someone please enlighten me as to why she's wrong, but Tiller was right.
Well, there's no question that Tiller was alive and capable of suffering. That question is open for a sufficiently young foetus. (although not the ones that Tiller often targetted.)
The other difference is that Tiller did not depend for his existence on his shooter. If he were a dependent on his killer, like a weak siamese twin, that would be closer to an equivalent.
1) Suffering: I don't see what suffering has to do with it. If you kill someone quickly enough there's no suffering. Or if you kill someone painlessly. Etc.
2) Life: I don't think anyone doubts that zygotes, or even gametes, are "alive". They're certainly animated and have all the characteristics of life.
3) Dependence: Newborns are dependent on others for their lives, and yet you probably don't think we can kill them with impunity.
Tiller killed thousands of late-term unborn babies who could have survived outside the womb with support from someone other than their mother.
1) Suffering is important because it's often considered OK to kill or injure a creature which can't possibly feel it. Eg. it's ok to kill a spider or catch a fish.
2) If a gamete is alive, is it murder to wear a condom?