“When I was a little boy everything was black and white, good and evil, you see. Then I grew up and discovered there was only gray.” –Nicolae Breslaw, Highlander: The Series, The Valkyrie

George Tiller, who provided late-term abortions in the mid-west, was shot dead Sunday morning, by a 51-year old abortion opponent named Scott Roeder. There’s been a lot about this murder on the blogosphere, and the inherent hypocricy displayed by Mr. Roeder — after all, how can you claim to be pro-life when you, in fact, take a life?

Is Roeder’s conduct terrorism? I have to say, I’d love to hear an argument that it isn’t. Although “terrorism” is sometimes — quite often — misapplied, I think a very basic definition would have to follow something like this: “Terrorism is an act or threat of violence against a group of people – usually civilians – in order to achieve or avoid a legal or political consequence.” I think quite possibly the text-book definition of domestic terrorism (other than Oklahoma City, ), would be the Dawson murders in Baltimore.

With that definition (and I’m on the money, according to dictionary.com), I’m right on the money.

This established, however, it’s important to remember that one person does not act for a group. The terrorists on September 11th were not representative of all Muslims, and Scott Roeder is not representative of all abortion foes. It’s easy to vilify “the other.” It’s easy, I’m sure, for either side to vilify either George Tiller, or Scott Roeder, but in that vilification there reaches a point where those of us not so fortunate to be bat-shit-insane think to themselves, “Well, if he’s so evil, why not do something about him?”

And so Scott Roeder did.

Is he a hypocrite? I had a harder time coming up with an answer for this, largely because, let’s face it: we’re all fucking hypocrites about something, so tarring someone in that way just seems stupid. On the face of it, killing someone when you proclaim yourself to be pro-life is an act extremely at odds with one’s professed belief. On the other hand, if you believe that one murder will prevent XX abortions, and if you believe that abortion is murder, aren’t you justified? I mean, in your own head — there’s no justification for Roeder’s actions.

Rod Dreher expands:

“The consequences for introducing lawless violence into a society, even in a righteous cause, are unpredictable, and stands to bring about a worse evil than the evil the violence is designed to fight.

Think of the anti-slavery radical John Brown. He grew weary of the peaceful tactics of abolitionists, and engaged in revolutionary violence. His cause, obviously, was just. But he helped lead the country to civil war, and mass slaughter. Is that what pro-lifers want, or want to risk?”

Violence begets violence.

Finally: I’m pro-choice.

Why am I pro-choice? It’s not because I think abortion is all that and a jar of jelly. It’s because I don’t feel that I or anyone else has a right to tell someone else how to live their lives. It’s very easy to mark all those who seek abortions as “easy” or “slutty”, or as individuals who prefer to have a night of fun and not have to deal with the consequences. Andrew Sullivan’s blog the last few days has been chock-full of stories of people — individuals and couples — who found themselves having to make a very difficult and traumatic decision regarding abortion. Abortion is not a black-or-white issue, as some would like to suggest, rather, it’s entirely composed of shades of gray.