Posted on 06/08/2009 10:08:40 AM PDT by markomalley
We will have to see on this. The damage done by Eric Rudolph is still cited by pro-aborts (in an effort to squelch pro-lifers) more than 10 years after the fact.
There is either free will or there isn't. Tiller had free will. From the Ten Commandments it is also clear what Tiller deserved. All salvation is a matter of mercy vice justice, so beyond this life it is not up to us to decide.
The "Thou shalt not judge" commandment is often brought up as an admonishment against identifying actions as good or bad, but that interpretation of the commandment would leave us all impotent to have any semblance of law. I understand the commandment as "Thou shalt not damn another". An action which is both an affront to God's power and counterproductive in this world.
I don't believe you do. If you thought that, you would be in jail with Roeder. So would I. I can mouth that kind of rhetoric all day long. It is easy to say, but if you really believed that abortion is equal to the killing of your own children, then no law on earth would stop you from making sure it did not happen again.
Obviously Roeder believed it.
I don't.
Neither do you.
Please don't speak for me.
If you thought that, you would be in jail with Roeder.
No. There are a lot of people who believe that abortion is murder but who don't believe that it is on them to take unilateral vendetta action on murderers.
There are a lot of people who believe that murder of an adult is murder, but they don't go and perform vigilante justice for that either.
The analogue of what you suggest is for me to go out and unilaterally put a cap in every gang banger I run into...after all, many of them will commit murder at some point in their lives.
but if you really believed that abortion is equal to the killing of your own children, then no law on earth would stop you from making sure it did not happen again.
If I saw somebody who presented an immediate threat to my daughter, I would do what I need to do to prevent it from happening, that is true.
That doesn't mean that I would eliminate any potential threat to her before it had a chance to be manifested.
For example, if somebody she knew made a death threat against her, I would contact the police as well as go to court and petition for a restraining order. If I thought the threat was extremely credible and imminent, I would make sure that she presented the minimal target possible (for example, lie down in the back seat of the car so as not to be observed, don't go out in public, don't stand in front of a window, etc.). We might even go to the degree of disappearing.
However, the only way I would use lethal force is if somebody had a gun drawn on her, a knife at her neck, or the like.
And I would hope that you would have a similar reaction.
The difference between people like you and I and Tiller's killer is that you and I have a basic ethical framework from which to operate. I would submit that Tiller's Killer does not have that basic ethical framework. And likely he felt perfectly justified to pursue an illicit means to achieve what he believed to be a good end.
No matter what your rhetoric here, I don't believe that you have that twisted view of the world.
You raise an excellent question, but give your answer in a series of false dichotomies.
Let's deal with this one first. Forgive me for paraphrasing you a little, but what I understand you to say, in part, runs roughly as:
- If one believes that abortion is murder, one will praise Mr. Roeder, and indeed, will kill an abortionist oneself, and wind up, along with Mr. Roeder, in jail. If one does NOT kill abortionists, then one doesn't believe that abortion is murder.
I disagree.
I believe abortion is murder.
But there could be two or three reasons why I don't kill abortionists:
1. I'm a coward (a not altogether unlikely conclusion, at least in my case). Although I might have the physical courage to kill someone, perhaps I don't have the courage to endure the penalties that society will impose upon me for my otherwise courageous act. I have no wish to spend much or all of the rest of my life in a maximum security prison. I have no wish to see my life otherwise ruined, my family ruined, the loss of my business (which is the support of my family), and the consequent loss of our home and all the good things that I provide for my family precisely because I'm not a convicted felon in prison.
2. I believe that the act is mostly futile. Although I may save a few babies from being killed, I see that other times, when abortionists have been killed, abortion went on at the very same clinic. Thus, perhaps a few babies may be saved, or perhaps the women who would have had this particular abortionist kill them on particular dates will go elsewhere and procure the killing of their children, on another day.
Against that, against maybe saving a few lives, or maybe not, I take prison, ruin and grievous harm to my family.
As well, there are folks who go to give witness outside abortion clinics. Many of these folks have, by their witness, persuaded many young women not to procure the murder of their babies. It may be that these particular people are far more effective OUT of prison than IN it.
3. I believe that killing an abortionist will likely help prolong the legality of abortion, if only by one more day. Killing one abortionist will not save the four thousand children murdered in a single day.
Let's face it - the way that the killing of an abortionist is played in the mass media, it does harm to the cause of life. Folks scream “extremist,” “vigilante,” and other, sometimes less delicate words. I know folks who view themselves as staunchly PRO-LIFE who have adopted the mantra that we pro-lifers are too mean, too extreme, perhaps even hypocritical because we want to go out and kill abortionists.
It isn't an unreasonable belief that killing abortionists in small numbers will prolong the time that abortion on demand in the United States is kept legal, and that under that legal protection, another three or four thousand babies will be killed each DAY. Personally, I can't kill enough abortionists to make up the difference there. Even if this Tiller killer was killing an average of 200 babies per month, even if absolutely no abortion that he would have performed would occur for a span of six months, one day's extra day of legal abortion on demand would triple the number of lives he would have killed in six months.
There - three reasons why someone who believes that abortion is murder might not the less not kill abortionists.
There are other issues that play into the question, and I think that your arguments present other false dichotomies, but this post is for this particular argument - that one must either kill abortionists or one cannot believe that abortion is murder.
sitetest
Yes, the LCMS was right in this case. We discussed this at length in our LCMS adult Bible study this past Sunday and all the elders were in agreement with our congregation excommunicating anyone doing the "occupation" Tiller was in.
Unfortunately, he was able to run to another church which welcomed him and gave him the Gospel, when what he needed to hear was LAW.
Unfortunately, he was allowed to practice his "occupation" because the SCOTUS changed the LAW and said abortion is legal because of privacy issues.
Your words speak for themselves.
Your posts are so nuanced that your real feelings are hidden not only from the readers, but I think they are hidden from you.
I don't believe you think that abortion is the same thing as someone killing your daughter. Your words belie that fact. You wouldn't be so nuanced about esoteric points of the law if you knew that tomorrow some guy was going to murder your daughter and the government refused to do anything to stop it and the only way to absolutely prevent that from happening was to take out the killer.
You and I would both do that in a heartbeat. We wouldn't worry about the various nuances of the legal theories of justifiable homicide, we'd kill the bastard and THEN worry about it.
So I can only conclude that since you neither share in Roeder's conviction or his jail cell that you don't believe your own words.
BTW are you a lawyer?
Which means, when it comes down to brass tacks, what Tiller was doing was not murder.
Your conclusion is false.
My statements have been based by my training that I received throughout my military career, part of which was extensive training on use of deadly force in law enforcement and security situations, as well as rule of law training (in some of my duty assignments I had to work in close proximity to nukes...everybody that had security as either a primary or secondary duty had to receive use of deadly force training as well as participating in many, many exercise scenarios to drive the point home. In other assignments, I've had to work with and provide training for military from some third world countries: thus the rule of law training).
BTW are you a lawyer?
Hardly. Neither am I a prostitute. (Oh, wait, I just repeated your allegation)
I guess I won on the point that I addressed in that you have passed over it in silence. So, it's now established between us that one may know that abortion is murder and yet one might not kill an abortionist. That was easy!
;-)
“’There are other issues that play into the question....’
“Which means, when it comes down to brass tacks, what Tiller was doing was not murder.”
Although what Mr. Tiller was doing was murder in the moral sense, in the legal sense, you're correct. It is not legally an act of murder under the law in any state to kill an unborn child. “Murder,” as defined in the law, is not a term that the law applies to what an abortionist does. Even though it is actually murder.
That IS one of the issues that comes into play.
sitetest
Apparently that is all that matters.
We can't "take the law into our own hands" even to save condemned children who are destined to be murdered before our eyes (or behind clinic walls).
As long as it is "legal" to perform abortions, then I guess it is both legally and "morally wrong" to take any kind of "illegal" step to prevent the murder of any specific child.
Instead we hold candlelight vigils at night while during the daytime abortionists are executing our posterity with inmpugnity.
I give up.
Nobody really believes it is "murder" so why should I bother fighting against it?
When someone takes a drastic step and actually does prevent a few actual and specific murders we are all on board condemning him for breaking "the law".
To Hell with it. If nobody really believes it is "murder" except in some esoteric moral sense, then who am I to condemn the abortionist. He's making money by legal means. That is what capitalism is all about.
Instead of calling it "murder", let's just call it what it is "CAPITALISM".
Your post explains a lot. Thank you for the history lesson, too! I did not know those things.
I grew up Catholic, and my former Pastor at my Lutheran Church was so nice when I first checked out the church with my daughter. He suggested that if I come back to come to the early service as it was more “formal” than the later service and I might like it better! LOL
I have several other Lutheran churches to check out as well up here — this area was settled mostly by Germans and Poles — so there are a lot of different Lutheran Churches, and Catholic churches here! :)
Anyway, thanks again. It makes more sense to me now. :)
Come on P-M - your last question was rhetorical, I answered the questions in the middle, and here’s the only question I didn’t answer (yet):
“How was any of that going to stop Tiller from murdering the specific children that were scheduled for execution by Tiller on Monday Morning? Huh?”
I will answer this, and there’s *no* sense in which I am not answering your questions, nor ‘talking over’ you...come on.
Here’s my answer to the question above - Tiller and the parents and the society probably would have murdered more children. But killing Tiller did not stop the masses of abortions and many more were murdered since 5/31 in Wichita - and what has Roeder, or you, done about that? Huh?
The answer is to promote a Pro-Life Ethos in America. The answer is to Promote the Way, the Truth and the Life in America - Jesus. The Answer is to promote and push for political change in the way we treat abortion - to make it taboo again - because we truly believe in our hearts it is murdering children; babies.
Now your turn, tell me what you plan to do about promoting Life in America. Give us something positive to ponder P-Marlowe. And if you don’t, I will.
Although what Mr. Tiller was doing was murder in the moral sense, in the legal sense, you’re correct.
P-M: Apparently that is all that matters.
++++++++++++++
It does matter morally. Absolutely and always. Christianity did not overtake Rome in a day. It was not taken by force. Morality and Truth and God’s heart in the matter, do matter.
This religion disussion brings up a point. Do those who believe in predestination believe that it is possible for Tiller to be in heaven. In other words, it doesn't matter what you do, if you're destined for heaven, you go, regardless.
Nobody really believes it is “murder” so why should I bother fighting against it?
When someone takes a drastic step and actually does prevent a few actual and specific murders we are all on board condemning him for breaking “the law”.
+++++++++++++++++
There are SO many drastic steps (and otherwise) we can say and do, other than assassinating abortionists.
If we’d all get together and do them, we’d stop abortion and the death cultists in their tracks.
Why aren’t we doing all we can?
Why aren’t we doing what is within our reach to do?
Many are and will continue. We need to band together and not lose heart in this struggle.
Read about the Romanian Christians against Ceausescu - that will inspire you about how things can change.
I may be totally wrong, but wasn’t Tiller still up on charges for something like 12 botched abortions that resulted in injury to the mothers? If so, then there were still legal things pending, so the argument that all options were exhausted, that wouldn’t be true. But, as I said, I could be wrong.
Just saying, this is why I’m glad I’m not God. I wouldn’t want to stand in a place to judge this mess, but he’ll work it all out in the end... I honestly just can’t believe there are people who would perform late-late term abortions when the babies could survive outside the womb! For gosh sakes there are a ton of couples everywhere that might adopt that child, but they kill it instead. That’s like the WORST thing I can imagine — that and the born alive abortion situation where they cast the baby aside...
I don’t know how anyone could be “OK” with the late-term abortions, or the Born Alive Babies that are cast aside. I honestly don’t think that many who think they are pro-choice know exactly what it is they are condoning most times.
I think those who are “pro-choice” to think of abortions happening very early in pregnancy, and they don’t bother to think about all the “unintended consequences” of the situation we face in this country regarding abortions, and the work of ‘doctors’ like this — especially those whose clinics are not properly staffed, and they are not prepared as they should be for complications.
I definitely don’t condone what Roeder did by killing Tiller. It was wrong. Killing is definitely not the way to end the killings in this case.
One more comment I had on this — Many people are pro-life in the sense that they themselves would NEVER have an abortion, but they are scared people will still seek them even if they are made illegal, with horrid consequences (Back-Alley Abortion Clinics). They understand the morality of not killing a conceived child, but are unwilling to follow through and make the necessary changes to the laws.
I felt this way as a teenager, and young adult. I lived my life according to how I believed (my then-boyfriend (now husband for almost 17 years) and I had our first child when I was 19 and he had just turned 21 — abortion was never considered). However, I too was scared that if we made abortion illegal then there would be horrible consequences. As I got older though I began to see that those things I was afraid of — well, it’s still the same actions taken on the part of mothers, with doctors assisting to kill their children. If it was so horrible if it was illegal, why is it not horrible just because some court has said it’s OK?
I was also faced with a friend who said she was Pro-Life — even moreso than I was in my teens and early twenties. She got some tests done, and it was determined that her baby might have downs syndrome. I urged her not to abort the child, and her motive was selfish (do you know how hard it is to raise a handicapped child?). Then she said I just wouldn’t understand because all my four children were healthy.
That encounter with my friend (and knowing that sometimes the DS tests are false-positives) horrified me. It also pretty much cemented my belief now that abortion IS murder, and it should be punished as such — both the mother who seeks an abortion, and the doctor who performs it except perhaps in emergency medical situations, but all possible must be done to protect the life of the mother AND the child... Roe v. Wade is Unconstitutional, IMHO - and as Thompson said, “It’s just bad law”. Murder of a pre-born infant should be included in the Criminal Codes of the States themselves — that’s my view on the law part.
I truly believe that if we want the killings to stop we have to definitely speak with those who say they are pro-life, but believe in “pro-choice” laws. Most of the time I think they see it as not forcing their morality on others because many equate Pro-Life with Religious beliefs. The thing is - if it truly is murder - then you are not forcing a religious belief, you are protecting an innocent child’s life, and a mother from a lifetime of grief and guilt, too. If we can get these “Pro-life/Pro-Choicers” to see the light there might be a chance to change things...
ALL JMHO! :)
Yep, I can tell by their bulletins and such usually what kind of church they are. You can tell the liberal churches right away... Some are like reading a DNC newsletter! LOL
I don’t believe in predestination, so I can’t answer your question on that...
“’Although what Mr. Tiller was doing was murder in the moral sense, in the legal sense, you're correct.’
“Apparently that is all that matters.”
No, it's not ALL that matters, but it sure as heck is a very important part of the question. Christians are instructed to obey the laws of the land. I don't remember that the Church's reaction to the Romans legally handing Christians over to torture and death was to kill individuals who actually performed the moral crimes. Killing persons who commit murder with legal impunity isn't the only option (and often may not be a moral choice) for the Christian, as testified by two thousand years of history.
“As long as it is ‘legal’ to perform abortions, then I guess it is both legally and ‘morally wrong’ to take any kind of ‘illegal’ step to prevent the murder of any specific child.”
You may guess that it is morally wrong, and others have so argued.
I haven't argued that it is morally wrong, at least not intrinsically. The question of the morality of killing baby murderers isn't as straightforward in my own mind. I can't say, “It's against the law, it's legally ‘murder’ and thus, it's immoral.”
I may come to the same conclusion, that it's morally wrong, but perhaps for different reasons, and for more contingent reasons.
For instance, it appears to me to be an act of futility, or even a severely counterproductive act.
If I really believed that killing an abortionist would actually reduce the number of dead babies in the long term, I might then say it would be a moral act to do so (there are other moral obstacles, but at least this one would be overcome, that the act of killing the abortionist might actually INCREASE the number of dead babies). But to the best of my judgment, I think that it will delay the end of legal abortion on demand in our country, and thus will ultimately lead to more dead babies.
I can't countenance such an action as objectively moral under those circumstances.
“Instead we hold candlelight vigils at night while during the daytime abortionists are executing our posterity with inmpugnity.”
First, a lot of folks actually get out there in the daylight and try to persuade women, one person at a time, to change their hearts and minds, and not procure the killing of their baby. You have thus far ignored these folks in our conversation, but I suspect that person for person, they save more babies than Mr. Roeder. But I acknowledge that it isn't as emotionally satisfying as exterminating a baby murderer.
But beyond that, part of the issue is whose posterity is being executed. Mine isn't. In your analogy as to what would one do if one’s daughter were about to be murdered, the failure occurs because, well, it's not my daughter. My daughter, or son, are not being threatened with government-permitted death. What I might do where my own children are immediately threatened with death might differ from what I might do to protect from death some folks whom I don't know.
It doesn't mean I don't think that their murders are actually murder, it just means that I'm a limited human being who must make choices as to how to spend my life.
Christians are murdered with impunity in places like Pakistan, Sudan, Iran and other places. Ever heard of Darfur? They are really and truly murdered. I am fully persuaded that they are murdered. And I think, so are you. So, how many government soldiers in Darfur did you kill? So why aren't you on the next plane to one of these countries to kill at least one murderer to prevent him from murdering again? Don't you believe that they are truly being murdered?
“Nobody really believes it is ‘murder’ so why should I bother fighting against it?”
What folks find hard to believe, or at least take seriously, are the arguments you present, full of logical holes and fallacies. You elide over a lot of the complications inherent in the question. To seize the moral high ground, you wave them away as if they were but quibbles. You equate moral complexity with casuistry or jesuitism.
You're wrong to do so.
The fact of the legality of the act of unborn baby-murder greatly complicates the question of what should we do in return. I've tried to lay out a little bit of what's involved, but it seems to frustrate you, and you then wave it away as if it wouldn't really matter if we really did believe that abortion is murder. But the issues involved DO matter. A lot. Even though we know that abortion is murder.
I understand the frustration, the anger, even the sense of bitterness that I feel because I am so limited in my capacity to act to change the fact that several thousand babies are murdered each day in our country. There is very little that I can do about it on my own, alone by myself, that is truly effective, and that frustrates and angers me, especially because I'm an intelligent, capable person, and ordinarily I'm able to do lots of good stuff on my own.
But it isn't moral reasoning, it isn't a moral act to sweep away all the complexities of killing someone to prevent them from performing a legal act, and act from my anger, frustration and bitterness.
“To Hell with it. If nobody really believes it is ‘murder’ except in some esoteric moral sense, then who am I to condemn the abortionist. He's making money by legal means. That is what capitalism is all about.”
Many folks really believe that what the abortionist does to the unborn child is murder. The moral sense in which it is just that, murder, is not esoteric. But currently, that moral sense is not vindicated in law. Which is why we continue to try to change the laws.
But we accept the frustration, the anger that come our way by having to hold two true things at the same time: abortion IS murder; yet, generally, we should not slay the perpetrators of the crime.
sitetest
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.