A couple of weeks ago, the US Justice Department announced that it planned to seek the death penalty against the surviving Tsarnaev brother for the terrorist bombings during last year’s Boston Marathon. This of course raises the ethical question of whether or not the government should be in the business of taking human life. (For the record, I define a human being as an independent, self aware, biological organism comprised of DNA matching the human genome.) But that’s not what this post is about.
What did he do that was so terrible as to warrant such extreme sanction? Joker Tsarnaev and his brother are/were rabid Islamists who planted two bombs in an area near the finish line of the marathon, timed to go off in succession to do the most damage, in order to garner media attention and make a political statement about their cause – specifically creating an Islamist theocracy in the Caucasus region of southern Eurasia. They did this with total disregard for the pain and suffering of innocent people who were on the receiving end of their violence.
But if you cut through all the rhetoric and perceived oppression and injustice that they felt, and all of the religious bullshit, when you boil their actions down to the most basic level you get this: they wanted to hurt people for the greater glory of their imaginary sky fairy. And that is a pretty sick and bogus reason to want to hurt people. And really morally or ethically bankrupt.
Thus we are brought to my real question here. What is the ethical difference between these two lowlifes and the Christian protesters, sadistic monsters, who stand outside of abortion clinics with the specific intent to abuse and torment distraught and vulnerable women who, having made what is probably the most difficult decision of their lives, want to avail themselves of a legal procedure, one that is Constitutionally guaranteed? What is the difference? They are both deliberately inflicting pain and suffering on innocent people for the greater glory of their sky fairy. They both have no regard for the rights and well being of other people. They both have an irrational delusion about some sadistic sky monster. Just what is the ethical difference between the two?
Of course, they will say that they are just trying to save the life of the unborn. But that nonsense just proves my point – the life they are trying to “save” is just that – unborn. It is not a person – it is a mass of protoplasm that at this stage is essentially a parasite, requiring the host mother in order to survive. It has no capacity to reason, nor any self-awareness – in short, it is not much different than a gall bladder or an appendix. So any notion that they are saving a person’s life is self-delusion.
Now I don’t take issue with anybody being opposed to abortion and wanting to work to reduce the number of them performed each year. I would be perfectly happy if every pregnancy were the result of a conscious choice by the mother and the resultant child was truly wanted by its parents. The need for abortion would magically disappear and none would ever be performed. Unfortunately, that is not the reality of our world.
And the sad fact is that most rabid anti-choice zealots almost always oppose comprehensive sex education and ready access to contraception. Which just proves that they’re not really interested in preventing abortion and saving lives – they just want to make sure that women are punished for having sex – especially if they might have enjoyed it. And they usually oppose abortion even in cases of pregnancy resulting from rape and incest.
So what else can we call them but Christian terrorists? If we are going to call delusionals like the Tsarnaevs terrorists, then we have to be consistent and use the same terminology to describe their ethical brethren.