Societal questions concerning killing abound when discussing Tiller. His clinic was bombed. He was shot. And, perhaps more importantly, Tiller and his clinic specialize in 2nd and 3rd trimester abortions, which tends to magnify those questions.

An essential ethical, legal, and political predicament confronting Kansas this and every week involves a decision about whether the value of human life is intrinsic or conditional. Some view life in the womb as inviolable, while others believe all life is inherently worthy of protection.

Hutchinson Senator Terry Bruce, for example, deems provisional the right to life. When discussing Kansas’ capital punishment law, wherein certain factors exacerbate intentional, premeditated murder, he argued, “If you commit one of these acts, you have forfeited your right to live.”

In fact, the presence of these factors only provides the option of the death penalty and does not mandate forfeiture of one’s “right to live.” Nevertheless, Sen. Bruce’s slavish adherence to legal precedence to resolve this critical and challenging moral quandary reveals much.

Seven factors uniquely qualify premeditated murderers for this most grievous state sanction: kidnapping, contract murder, murder by an inmate, murder of rape or sodomy victim, murder of a law enforcement officer, multiple murders, and child murder or murder involving child sex.

Huh? What is it about kidnapping or, gasp, kidnapping for ransom that rises to a capital offense? Perhaps something about the money makes contract killing so much more vile than simple premeditation. Murder of anyone by inmates is somehow monumentally worse than them killing while not incarcerated.

I strongly believe in equal treatment for sexual minorities. Still, are Kansans honestly convinced same-sex intercourse that ends in murder warrants the death penalty? Hell, criminal sodomy on its own is only a class B misdemeanor. Inclusion of this factor says more about heterosexism and homophobia than state killing.

Needless to say, capital punishment does not deter, is applied both inequitably (often racially) and arbitrarily (across crimes), and is considered by many to be unusually cruel. “Good” lawyers almost always avoid the death penalty for their clients.

Retribution, then, carries the day. The state should kill murderers because they killed someone. Killers deserve to be killed . . . because killing is wrong, especially killing one’s partner after anal intercourse. Victims’ families deserve “closure,” even if they don’t want it. The state better knows what’s right for them.

Admittedly, this bill raised more problems than it solved. Arguing a moral question on fiscal grounds seems a priori flawed. Although I understand death penalty opponents’ inclination to use whatever arguments are available, this agonistic strategy often backfires.

Does womb life that threatens to kill women forfeit its “right to live”? Ironically, advocates and opponents of intrinsic life often switch sides when the issue shifts from capital punishment to abortion. Do doctors who kill womb life forfeit their “right to live”?

What about doctors who perform “particularly pernicious” procedures, like 3rd term abortions? The womb life’s nearness to birth could be an aggravating factor, too. Do potential patients sitting in clinics and only considering abortion forfeit their “right to live”?

Abortion opponents compare Tiller to the infamous Nazi “monster,” Dr. Mengele, and employ appellations like “Dr. Tiller, the baby killer.” Likening opponents to monsters, baby killers, and Nazis actually facilitates doing grave violence to them. Dehumanizing, for instance, sodomite premeditated murderers or womb life makes both easier to kill.

Contrarily, humanizing individuals also alters the equation, as Tiller demonstrates, “Women and Families are intellectually, emotionally, spiritually, and ethically competent to struggle with complex health issues—including abortion—and come to decisions that are appropriate for themselves.”

Even casual examination of Tiller’s treatment reveals ulterior prosecutorial motives aimed at ending his career and closing his clinic, despite the judge’s refusal to dismiss this case due to misconduct by Phill Kline.

Abortion helped Kansas become radically conservative after 1991’s “Summer of Mercy.” The political implications of reinvigorating abortion opponents are profound and far-reaching. This time around, however, single-issue politics likely will make Republicans ever more irrelevant.

Absolutist moral consistency is illusory and highly dangerous. The art of democratic compromise in our divided nation is politically exigent and ethically indispensable. Neither of which obviates the vitally important need for public dialogue about relative sanctity of life or complete lack thereof.

So, who should we kill?