The Missing Martyrs

Here is my thought on martyrs.

Bryan,

It does make sense - they're just missing an entrepreneur.

There's a simpler solution to the "puzzle" of the missing anti-abortion terrorists: Christ taught a Gospel of love, "turn the other cheek." Anti-abortion terrorism is against the Christian faith.

What this (amusing) post illustrates is: Economists REALLY don't understand religion.

Suicide bombing is not a religious phenomenon. It is a political tactic, invented by radicals in Eastern Europe and later perfected by the Sri Lankan Tamil Tigers. Its use by Islamo-fascists attracted the muslim notion of martrydom, but that idea is not central to the practice.

There's a simpler solution to the "puzzle" of the missing anti-abortion terrorists: Christ taught a Gospel of love, "turn the other cheek." Anti-abortion terrorism is against the Christian faith.

"Turn the other cheek" applies to crimes against oneself, not to crimes against others, right? Your answer doesn't hold up when you consider the fact that most conservative Christians support the death penalty and certain wars.

If abortion is murder, and if the death penalty is a proper punishment for murder, then it follows that doctors who perform abortions should be killed not only in retaliation for their past crimes, but also to protect the unborn whom they will probably kill in the future.

That most anti-abortion types do not accept this conclusion suggests to me that they don't really believe that abortion is murder.

Interesting that the suicide bomber phenomenon should be tackled by economists. Israeli experience confirms that there is no dearth of voluntary would-be suicide bombers (in the Palestinian side). Their problem is to find de organizational framework to make their suicide an act of trascendental meaning. The suicide has to take place within an environment symbols, rituals, ceremonies, it has to have observers, commenters, public, to be worth the while. Without ideologues, organizers, journalists, TV cameras, there will be no suicide bombers.

I've always been curious about the use of the term 'holocaust' to describe the abortion scene in the United States. If the users are implying an equivalence between the destruction of the Jews and the abortions that occur, are they also implying that they themselves would have been content (as either citizens or foreigners) to let Hitler annihilate the Jews as long as he wasn't invading other countries at the same time.

Indeed, would they consider it unethical to attempt to overthrow him? After all, GWB allows abortion under his reign. Would they endorse a foreign attempt to replace the government with one denying abortions? Would they even endorse the United States invading countries that support abortion...

I suspect that despite the use of the word, even the most die-hard realize that they feel no moral equivalence, which makes it a wee bit hypocritical.

My reply was a bit lengthy, so I posted it as a separate entry.

My comment was a bit flawed, and thanks to Brandon Berg for catching it:

"Turn the other cheek" applies to crimes against oneself, not to crimes against others, right? Your answer doesn't hold up when you consider the fact that most conservative Christians support the death penalty and certain wars.

If abortion is murder, and if the death penalty is a proper punishment for murder, then it follows that doctors who perform abortions should be killed not only in retaliation for their past crimes, but also to protect the unborn whom they will probably kill in the future.

But let me revise the point and say: Let's suppose that Christianity is a religion deeply skeptical of all violence, reluctant to endorse even violence by recognized legitimate states, let alone by private agents acting outside the law, and that extra-legal killing of abortionists would be considered by virtually all Christians, and by all traditional Christian authorities, to be a violation of the Christian faith.

How would an analysis of "supply" and "demand" for martyrs accommodate this little factoid? It can't. Which shows is that this is a ridiculous way to frame this particular question. You have to ask what good is to be achieved through martyrdom.

The big difference between economics and religion is that for economists, the purpose of life is a "black box," whereas religion plunges in and answers it.

First, since Christianity opposes suicide in general, the question should be: Why aren't there more anti-abortion people waiting outside clinics ready to shoot (or otherwise kill) doctors who perfrom abortions?

Second, I imagine a big reason why anti-abortion advocates don't do this is because they realized that it was not an effective way to turn public opinion against abortion. This is the only way in the long run to stop abortion - not through fear, since fear will eventually subside.

Finally, it seems that there is/has been a non-negligible amount of violence against abortion clinics - from http://www.religioustolerance.org/abo_viol.htm (just the first google result):

"Violent protests, in the form of arson, firebombing, and vandalism started in the early 1970's in the U.S." ... "However, recent cases involving the assassination and attempted murder of abortion providers in both the U.S. and Canada have shown that perpetrators appear to be sheltered by a network of sympathizers."

"One source reported in late 1996, that there has been "over $13 million in damage caused by violent anti-abortion groups since 1982 in over 150 arson attacks, bombings, and shootings."'

People (like me) who are against abortion are also against suicide and murder. Besides, you don't need "recruiting, training, and launching" to become an anti-abortion terrorist - all you need is a gun and a phone book; to me it's obvious that there is very little supply.

Paul N,

Let me disagree. A terrorist act seems extremely simple to carry out, but in fact requires a certain environment and organization. There are no spontaneous suicide bombings - maximum, a person goes amok and takes the kitchen knife and kills somebody on the street. That is ineffective and can be dismissed. An effective spectacular act requires lots of work. Think it over. Supply of volunteers is endless, but there is a problem of quality. You need reliable, precise, trained, capable suicide bombers, if not, your whole investment goes up in a police success.

Why would radical anti-abortion groups embrace suicide bombings when they can just do regular bombings sans suicide? In the case of Israel & 9/11, one could argue that suicide missions were the most effective military tactic in those cases.

Remember the first truck bombing of the world trade center as well as Tim McVeigh's bombing of the Federal Building? They didn't utilize suicide bombers....even though the former was done by Muslim radicals. Since then it became very difficult to pull off non-suicide truck bombings around major landmarks like the Pentegon...hence the suicide mission on 9/11.

If Israeli security was not keeping a close eye on incoming Palestinians as well as 'packages' left alone in public I would expect them to suffer many more non-suicide bombings.

Right. What I am saying that the supply of volunteers is greater than the demand.