There are two news stories today about preventative killings. In the US, a man who shot a doctor who regularly and famously performed late-term abortions has been convicted of premeditated murder. The man, Scott Roeder, argued that the killing was justified to prevent further abortions. “Those children were in immediate danger if someone did not stop George Tiller,” he told jurors. “They were going to continue to die. The babies were going to continue to die."
At the same time in London, Tony Blair is defending himself in front of the Chilcot inquiry, claiming that waging a war to oust Saddam Hussein was justified because it made the world safer.
"But if I am asked whether I believe we are safer, more secure, that Iraq is better but our own security is better, with Saddam and his two sons out of power and out of office, then I believe, indeed, that we are."
Of course, it was not only Saddam who died, 4,000 US soldiers and more than 100,000 Iraqies, many of them innocent civilians. And they are still dying.
Two people, defending themselves on the basis of the end justifying the means. What is the difference between the two?
No comments:
Post a Comment