Posted on 06/09/2009 3:38:48 PM PDT by lasereye
Leading pro-life activists are denouncing the murder of Kansas abortion doctor George Tiller, but I'm not sure I understand why.
"It is immoral and it is unchristian," says the Rev. Rob Schenck of the National Clergy Council. Calling the killing "a cowardly act," Operation Rescue President Troy Newman says his group "has worked tirelessly on peaceful, nonviolent measures to bring [Tiller] to justice through the legal system, the legislative system....We are pro-life, and this act was antithetical to what we believe."
Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless children, it's hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to act.
Nor is it sufficient to note that killing Tiller was against the law. When the law blesses the murder of babies, it is hardly worthy of respect, any more than laws blessing the enslavement of Africans or the gassing of Jews were, and violent resistance against such enactments surely is justified in principle.
Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry implicitly condemns Tiller's murder, saying, "We grieve for him that he did not have time to properly prepare his soul to face God." Yet Terry continues to call Tiller a "mass murderer" and insists "the pro-life movement must not be browbeaten by Obama or the child-killers into surrendering our best rhetoric, actions and images," adding, "We hold absolutely no responsibility for [Tiller's] death."
How is it possible to believe that fetuses are people with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to defend that right is wrong?
(Excerpt) Read more at reason.com ...
But if he's NOT actually working for Janet Napolitano in an effort to make her seem correct, then he should keep an eye out for her in his rear view mirror.
There may be some misguided, non-Christian folk who think it logical or morally acceptable to commit vigilante murder against a baby killer. But certainly no studied Christian should fall prey to that false doctrine.
By the author's logic, anyone against any of the wars we're currently fighting has the moral authority to kill Army recruiters in Little Rock, Ark. as well.
And if individual Christians are expected to personally be God's enforcers of His law - even against those who might not be believers - then why should we be expected to kill only the contract killer doctors involved? Why not kill the mothers who ordered the hit on their own kids in the first place? Or the SC justices/legislators/etc. that created and encourage the phony "right" to abortion?
Should we Christians all be starting to gather stones to hurl at the homos and adulterers in general. I guess I'd best limber up, a thorough stoning sometimes takes a while and there are literally millions of Americans who deserve it by God's standard. And I'd best get fitted for a helmet myself.
Spreading knowledge and creating a legal environment that prevents the killing of innocents is within our earthly control - and not that far from being accomplished as recent polls indicate. But this act was not justice, as some seem to imply here. It was vengeance and ...
Vengeance belongs to the Lord.
“”When policemen { judges, governors, attorney generals, politicians, etc } break the law, there isn’t any law. Just a fight for survival.””
Our leaders need to remember this. When they give us little to no avenue to make peaceful change, we are left with giving up or violent change. That’s one of the great things about the political process. We can vote.
But when our votes are thrown out because they are judged “illegal,” even though they are obviously not (there is nothing illegal about requiring parental consent for any medical procedure) they are goading the ox.
It can be argued that in Tillers case God took charge of punishment away from Ceasar.
In this life Caesar has control of law, justice and punishment. God will recompense.
Not all Caesar acts are moral, ethical, just. The degree they are not is that degree to which they must be resisted. Rosa Parks knew this. After the deaths of thousands, perhaps 10's of thousands, of very nearly born humans it is clear that 'civil' civil disobedience wasn't working. Was the killer's name Roeder? If nothing else, Roeder moved the conversation to the front burner.
As long as the abomination of Roe v. Wade stands, the wound inflicted by SCOTUS will never heal and there will be supperations of violence from time to time. It doesn't take a prophet to see that.
hinckley buzzard: "because nobody but drooling baby killers and gibbering idiots fall for that straw man argument."
Where is the "straw man" of which you speak?
All I see from Nosterrex is a rhetorical question based on logical extension of a misguided vengeance. I sometimes drool and I might be a gibbering idiot but I can't seem to find the straw, man.
No doubt the Roe decision is infamously immoral. But I think the people of South Dakota, for one example, would disagree with the "forever denied" part of your assertion.
Legislation recognizing that life begins at conception is the route to aborting Roe as the court itself pointed out in '73.
"U.S. soldiers are killing innocent Muslim men and women. We believe that we have to strike back. We believe in eye for an eye. We don't believe in turning the other cheek...an act, for the sake of God..."
Sound familiar?
The best hope of any state is that the impact of Roe v. Wade might be mitigated by practical developments such as an increased unwillingness of ANY health care provider to carry on the grisly and sordid business of baby butchery within the borders of that state.
In that sense the murder of George Tiller will likely have a more direct and powerful adverse impact on the provision of late term abortions than any chiseling around the edges of Roe v. Wade by a state legislature.
That is not an endorsement of murder. Tiller's murderer will and should face the due penalty for his crime.
The point was that SD twice now has come very close to making state law that could be used to bring down Roe on the basis of a legal definition for when life begins. Which even members of the SC in '73 agreed would make Roe moot.
If we lived in a tribal society, killing an abortionist would be OK. However, we live in a nation state, where we give up certain rights in exchange for others.
If someone killed your daughter, and you know it, you still cannot go and shoot the SOB. You gave that right up in exchange for the state ensuring that you would receive a fair trial if accused of a crime.
If you are willing to murder an abortionist, you are breaking the contract that privides you protection from others.
What the hell does that mean.We can’t split hairs on the death of another person.If we are pro-life we are pro-life.
excellant post...we don’t want anarchy and vigilante justice.
And also, why is no one also suggesting that we kill the woman who chose, paid for and went through with the abortion? Or the husband who supported the action?
If we make abortion illegal, why just the doctors?
Such legislation already exist. How else could a man be forced to pay child support? If he is deemed the "father" at conception, then he HAS to be deemed the "father" CONTINUOUSLY through to the birth. You cannot be a father, then not be a father, then be a father again to your child. A "thing", or a lamp shade, etc cannot possess a "father". Only a child can. This means that child support laws already recognize conception as the beginning of life.
Your a loser.Just reading through this thread .Might start at the top and get really pissed off.
Strange little fellow.Smell a troll.
Dude you have a make pretend name.
Why?I am going through the thread and really don’t know.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.