I am stating that those who make a BLANKET case about “law and order” and such have not thought this through.
Am I allowed to be “pro choice” on the subject of abortion doctor shooting?
If not, why not?
Our founders made it very clear that a government that did not have the “consent” of the governed would INVITE violence.
I have tried, very hard, in my own way, to teach prolifers how to use the political process to achieve their goals.
However, I am not at all surprised that the predictions of our founders are coming true!
You should not be surprised, either!
Tyrants invite violence.
Our government is run by tyrants.
No, you are not allowed to be pro-choice on killing abortionists any more than mothers are allowed, morally, to be prochoice on killing their babies—but for different reasons. The baby is innocent. “Nuff said.
Tiller was guilty—some of his abortions are legal (but violate natural law) under our unjust abortion laws. Other things he seems to have done seem to have been illegal. But justified/moral punishment even for the guilty must be carried out after legitimate legal proceedings and by legitimate authority.
Sorry, we don’t get to pick and choose when to take the law into our own hands. This is a blanket principle. In a home invasion or in various other sorts of emergency settings, we do have the choice of self-defense but even then as a last resort).
Since you say you don’t justify this killing, we apparently agree. When I defend my condemnation of the killing by appeal to law and order, I do so by appeal to principle and by applying reasoning about the circumstances of this case to the principles, not by mindless “blanket case” argumentation. So I really don’t know what your beef with me is—if you indeed are not justifying the Tiller shooting.