Ok better still - a representative of Planned Parenthood walks into a pro-life counseling center and starts handing out pro abortion material. And lets say for good measure that it is her sincere and deeply held belief that she is doing good by offering these women a way out of their pregnancy, perhaps she even believes she is in some way serving God. (I agree that she is deceived about her beliefs but that is not the point here)
Does the counseling center have the right to remove her from the property and does the court have the right to jail her if she continues to trespass. And most importantly would you guys defend her right to do so as you have defended this woman.
Most of the pro-lifers I know would welcome such a person, and a chance to educate him, as well as the mother. Our arguments are better, as they are true. We generally don’t resort to ad hominems, and completely avoid straw men. As long as the conversation continues, the mother isn’t killing her child.
You are talking about someone soliciting what should be capital murder. Thank you for playing.
>> would you guys defend her right to do so as you have defended this woman.
Your point is taken.
For the record, I don’t *defend* her actions (as being legally OK) as much as I *respect* her actions (as being righeous), which is different.
It could very well be that she’s wrong in the legal sense, and yet right in the sight of God.
There is no moral equivalency between objective good and objective evil. Planned Barrenhood is an organization dedicated to the killing of innocent pre-born human beings. The pro-lifers are individually and collectively dedicated to the preservation and protection of innocent pre-born human beings. That IS the point here.
The government of Canada, acting through its lawless secular humanist judges such as the dishonorable S. Ford Clements, is the muscle enforcing the murder of innocent pre-born human beings. That Clements engages in such despicable behavior "under color of law" (read: using what he THINKS is the law as his flimsy excuse for being morally complicit in such murders) does not insulate him from being called to moral account for that complicity.
That Mary Wagner and others like her are quite obviously his moral superiors by an infinite margin is not changed by the fact that he is clothed with apparent "authority" to exercise his muscle with total disregard for the truth of his eager participation in Canada's and modern society's shameful holocaust of the pre-born innocents is manifestly beyond rational argument. The judgments rendered by the Allies at Nuremberg after World War II against the Nazi war criminals (including Nazi abortionists for perpetrating abortions) make clear that a nation's laws coupled with "I was only following orders" do not exonerate those who killed or facilitated the killing of the innocent (born or pre-born) obviously ought to have known or did know better. Nuremberg established an unassailable natural law basis for bringing such criminals as Nazis and abortionists to justice when rule by the grown-ups is restored (the sooner the better).
No innocent, much less defenseless pre-born innocents, is threatened with death by peaceful worshiping congregations. Nor, frankly, is any innocent directly threatened by a Planned Barrenhood apologist for the holocaust of the innocent pre-born (largely for the personal convenience of the born patient and the profit of the perpetrator) entering a Church to distribute literature. After an initial response from the congregation and its pastor praising God for delivering to the congregation and its pastor a very serious Planned Barrenhood murder-enabling sinner to be loved and persuaded and converted once the Mass or church service is concluded (God did not lay the foundation for churches just to gather the holy or the forgiven or the non-sinners, assuming there are any non-sinners), the trespasser might be held in a time-out room since the congregation and its pastor (engaged in moral activity) are entitled to priority in the use of their real estate in good behavior.
Ahhh, but trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, should the pro-lifer not be held to the same standard when entering the killing facilities of Planned Barrenhood and therefore be subject to a citizen's imprisonment? Well, obviously not, as you shall see.
If one is my neighbor and owns his/her own house and land and, for whatever reason, despises me (maybe I make pro-life arguments in the neighbor's pro-abortion presence), and orders me never, under any circumstance, to enter that house or land or both, generally speaking a part of that bundle of rights that are collectively the right to own real property whether an abortion mill or a church or a home or a factory or whatever is the right to exclude from that real property any person(s) one may choose to exclude.
Now suppose that the neighbor really hates religion and a Jehovah Witness or a Mormon or a Catholic or an Evangelical has come to the neighbor's door to share the good news of his/her faith with the neighbor. Suppose further that, instead of a polite: "Thanks, but no thanks" or a steamy and emphatic: "Get off my property and never come back," the neighbor grabs the visitor and drags him/her into the house and, taking out a firearm, berates the visitor and threatens to imminently kill the visitor who has, in no way, initiate the use of force against the neighbor. I am morally entitled and legally entitled to enter the neighbor's premises and, using whatever force is reasonably necessary, to prevent injury or death of that visitor. The legal doctrine is called "vicarious self-defense" or "defense of another." If a threat by the neighbor was unwarranted and the visitor who was threatened, if able, was justified in exercising self-defense, then another person is legally entitled to engage in defense of the visitor as forcibly as necessary to thwart the threat. Vicarious self-defense applies.
My intervention is also justified by the legal defense of "necessity." The imminent threat of harm to that visitor is deemed by law to be a more serious evil than any occasioned by my technical trespass on the property (as surely you would agree if you were an innocent and unsuspecting visitor to my neighbor's property having religious conversion of my neighbor in mind). The neighbor (in good behavior) is entitled to send you away in protection of his property rights but is not entitled to threaten your life or safety imminently.
Another application: My wife is eight month's pregnant and appears unexpectedly) to have gone into labor a month early and her contractions are strong and frequent. There is no time to call an ambulance. Delivery is imminent. We get in our car and I speed (carefully) when driving her to the hospital and I disregard the police officer trying to pull me over. I peacefully submit to the officer when we reach the hospital and my wife is being received by the medical personnel. The speeding was necessary (within reason) to prevent a worse damage (to the health and welfare of my wife and child) than the damage that the speed limit statute was designed to prevent. Necessity applies.
If anyone gets their panties in a bunch over my references to Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg and cites the idiotic "Godwin's Law" that the first person to mention the Nazis loses the argument being made, my response is: Get over it. Nazism was not a unique evil in all of human history. We just (understandably) act as though it was. Abortion is not only a direct analogy to aspects of the Nazi Holocaust, but as the published research of a history professor (John Hunt) at St. Joseph's College at West Hartford, CT, has shown, several defendants at Nuremberg were prosecuted and convicted solely for perpetrating abortions.
Fair enough questions. If all the pro-abortion woman did, in your example, is exactly what Mary Wagner did (enter the property, hand out flowers, and talk in a reasonmable way, i.e. with no force or threat of force o coercion) it would be reasonable to request her to leave or to engage her in conversation. If it became necessary to arrest her (e..g it was closing time and she wouldn't leave) I think it would be reasonabel to have the police removfe her, but not arrest heer, and certainly nmot jail her for 6 months.
However this case is different, due to lives being in imminent danger.
Do you think the purpose of law is the protection life and property (in that order)?
Or is it "the orderly administration of injustice"?