"It is wrong to break the laws of the land and commit murder even if we feel the murder to be somehow justified. The ends do NOT justify the means."
Sorry, have to disagree. Sometimes laws are as evil as the monsters they allow to thrive.
Posted on 02/05/2010 1:47:12 PM PST by presidio9
This past Friday, Scott Roeder was sentenced to life in prison for last May’s shooting death of George Tiller, one of the few doctors in the country who performed partial-birth abortions. Tiller was a doctor only in the legal sense of the word. He was not a healer, but a killer—a callous monster who could hold a baby in his hands as the child emerged from the mother, puncture its skull, and suck its brains out. Tiller was a mass murderer, though the unjust laws that govern that practice in America sanctioned his butchery.
It does not follow, however, that Roeder was justified in what he did, as almost every Christian opponent of abortion would agree. Nonetheless, is there any opponent of abortion who has not asked himself, “If I truly believe this is murder and that these abortionists are mass murderers, why do I not put actions to words and physically stop them, even kill them, sacrificing myself for these helpless innocents?” But having explored that train of thought, we have all (but for a tiny handful) pulled back from it. Why? Is it just cowardice and hypocrisy? Or do we sense intuitively the ungodliness of that course?
I find that evangelicals, like most Americans, are divided within themselves on this question. Our political heritage is one of rebellion and self-assertion, and yet also one of law governance. At its heart, this is a question of authority, submission, and trusting God.
The reason for rejecting the final premise in the argument for assassinating abortionists is a theological one that is clearly stated in Scripture. It is found in Romans 13:1-5:
“Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment. For rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval, for he is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword in vain. For he is the servant of God, an avenger who carries out God’s wrath on the wrongdoer. Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.”
In short, it is not the place of private individuals to execute justice. God has established governments, and He has entrusted that responsibility to them and to them only. You are no more justified in killing abortionists who practice their hideous trade under the cover of law than you are to gun down your daughter’s killer after a corrupt or incompetent legal system failed to convict him.
Each semester, I confront my students with this teaching, and invariably they bristle. Should a people not rebel against an unjust government, or even a murderous one? What about genocide? What about Hitler? I tell them that they are expressing utilitarian ethical views, not Christian ones. Never mind what God says. That’s so unclear, especially when we’re confronted with strong moral passions. Isn’t it clear enough that if there is evil happening, and the appropriate government is not stopping it (if there is an overseeing government), then anyone who is willing and able to step forward and get the job done should do so? As Scott Roeder said, “If someone did not stop [Tiller], these babies were going to continue to die.” Or I suggest that they are simply distrusting of God. What ought to be done is obvious. Kill Hitler or the abortionist before either of them kills again. If God will not act, I must push Him from his throne and do it myself.
If a private individual is justified in assassinating Hitler because Hitler is obviously evil and undeserving of the civil magistracy, then would that moral liberty have extended also to someone who was equally convinced that George W. Bush was a usurper of power and a war criminal? I suspect that those who would believe it their moral obligation to fire off a round at Hitler from a crowd, given the opportunity, would have recoiled at the notion of encouraging their angry left-wing neighbors to follow through on their moral convictions and attempt to fell President Bush by whatever violent means seemed most likely to succeed.
After Roeder was convicted, the Los Angeles Times reported, “Advocates for abortion rights praised the verdict.” Christians can and should (and many do) also praise the verdict as God’s just judgment faithfully pronounced. With uncompromising hatred for the evil of abortion, we can say boldly that God did not entrust the power of the sword into the hands of every individual for use when we are really, really sure and deeply appalled, but solely into the hands of the civil magistrate.
The Scriptural principle is “do not return evil for evil, but good for evil.†You cannot make a logically consistent argument that because Tiller was killing human beings, therefore I have the right to kill Tiller. Two wrongs do not make a right. God has instituted the government and given it the power of the sword, not individuals. I have no sympathy for Tiller, and I can understand the desire to stop this monster, but killing Tiller is also murder.
If you were in Tiller’s business, would you continue operating as if nothing happened?
What if you were the 2nd most prolific abortionist in the country?
If we “take back” the House, Senate & Whitew House, we need to FREE Scott Roeder.
Let that be a TOP priority for US.
What about working within the system to change it to represent moral values of the majority of people? The government as set up in this God blessed nation is supposed to represent the will of the people. The way courts have changed from honoring The Law into interpreting, changing and working off precedents instead of the merits of each individual case based on how God said to judge justly are why this moral dilemma exists in the first place.
I agree with you. This is what is known in logic as false comparisons. The differences between killing Tiller and killing Hitler are far too great to make a logical comparison. You can take any argument to an absurdity. Would it have been wrong for an American sniper to have killed Hitler? There is a difference in killing someone in the name of Christ, and killing someone as a political act. If you think about it, you could make the argument that there should never have been an American Revolution since King George was instituted by God as the legal authority. My point is that you have clearly distinguished between the church and the state. How does anyone know for certain that God did not use Tiller’s murderer as a means to stop Tiller. If God can use Judas to betray Jesus, why not use a murderer to kill Tiller? I understand the author’s moral objectivism, for it is similar to Kant’s deontological moral philosopohy, and I certainly understand the dangers of moral relativism, but to not consider the consequences of one’s actions can lead to some unethical behavior.
"It is wrong to break the laws of the land and commit murder even if we feel the murder to be somehow justified. The ends do NOT justify the means."
Sorry, have to disagree. Sometimes laws are as evil as the monsters they allow to thrive.
The questions I have for all of you saying that this murder was a good thing are these....
1. Are you advocating that all Doctors who perform abortions be murdered?
2. Would you, yourself commit such a murder and deem in justifiable?
It's easy for you to type words on a keyboard and say murder is an appropriate response, but there needs to be consistency on your part. Is it righteous to kill all those involved in abortion, and would you take a gun and kill an abortionist?
“How many lives did he really save?”
In the short-term, a fair number. I read that Killer Tiller's clinic often butchered a handful of children each day, and he was the only provider of these “services” for some hundreds of miles.
It took a while for someone to step up to replace him, so the direct effect was to save scores, perhaps hundreds of babies.
But here's the thing - exterminating Killer Tiller certainly didn't bring the end of the legal regime of abortion on demand one day closer to an end. In fact, although it'd be tough to demonstrate direct cause and effect, one might readily assert that exterminating the murderer likely put that day further into the future.
And even if exterminating the butcher prolongs the current legal regime by one day, that's an additional 3500 lives lost.
So even in the most utilitarian moral calculus, ridding the earth of the verminous Tiller likely caused more harm, more death of innocents, than good, than more saved babies.
sitetest
I thought I'd read that someone HAD decided to carry on with Killer Tiller's macabre “work.”
sitetest
But thats the problem. You and I see the difference; the writer is the one who equated them. According to his distinctions, a German citizen could not morally cooperate with the Americans to overthrow Hitler nor could he act against Hitler on his own. I'm not sure thats what he would mean to say had he thought it through.
The whole issue of "just war" is seldom going to be entirely clear cut, and in any conflict you'll find good people in disagreement with one another as to what is right and proper, but this writer hasn't attempted to draw the necessary distinctions. He has I think falsely equated the two cases.
This article
http://www.open.salon.com/blog/lina_thorne/2009/12/09/support_dr_carhart
suggests that the baby-butcher named Carhart has expanded his “practice” to abortions of six-month old and older unborn children in response to the extermination of Killer Tiller, although he will continue to operate from Nebraska rather than from Killer Tiller's old clinic.
Since women often travel great distances to have their older unborn children killed, it may be that Killer Carhart’s intervention will reduce, even entirely, the effect of the elimination of Tiller.
sitetest
Suppose the home plate umpire at a ball game calls the first nine pitches "strikes" even though the batter watched motionless as the ball hit the ground en route to the catcher and went nowhere near the plate. With the other team pitching, he then proceeded to call "ball" on a dozen pitches that went right through the strike zone, loading the bases. The laws of baseball say that the home plate umpire's judgment is to be regarded as final, and there would be no legitimate basis for the offended team refusing to play. Nonetheless, I would suggest that at a certain point, for the offended team to refuse to play on would be less of an affront to the integrity of baseball than for them to keep playing.
Cicero -
You know I deeply respect your opinions (which usually fall in lockstep with my own), so I would appreciate your thoughts on the following scenario I previously posted on a thread about Roeder’s conviction:
A group of school children are sitting together in a theater, all strapped into their chairs watching a movie or play. In walks a lone gunman who, one by one, begins shooting the children. One of the adults present, who happens to be carrying a weapon of his own (it is a right-to-carry state :-) ), shoots the gunman dead.
My view is that the adult who shot the gunman not only would not be prosecuted (as it would be considered justifiable homicide in the name of protecting human life, per your comment), he would be celebrated and regarded as a community hero, especially by the Pro-life community.
Now, this question remains. If we as pro-lifers REALLY believe that unborn children are fully human and thus deserving of the same rights and legal status as born children - what is the MORAL difference between the two scenarios (I understand the current legal difference,which we obviously want to change)?
Granted, if we do not consider the unborn to be fully human, but rather a fetus or some other euphamism - it is an easy distinction to make. But most pro-lifers say they do not believe that.
It always strikes me as a contradiction that pro-lifers quickly condemn those who commit violence against abortionists, yet in the scenario I described above, they would be the first to cheer the person who killed the individual killing children.
Again - if we truly believe babies in the womb are just as alive as babies out of the womb and deserving the same protection - what is the moral difference?
One of the problems as I see it, is in leaving to the individual the decision of who needs to be murdered because their acts are so heinous, and assuming that God is speaking to any individual and telling him or her to commit murder.
I said on a previous thread that I don't believe that God tells any of us to commit sin. It is clear in God's word that we are not to murder, and Jesus goes even farther and tells us not even to hate. There is no situation where Jesus tells anyone to murder anyone else (and He was dealing with Pharisees and brutal Romans, as well as Herod Antipas). I think we can see from Jesus' words and from His example that murdering another is sin, and therefore, Roeder's murder of Tiller, no matter how good the results, is still sin.
Abortion is a violation of natural law. Once prohibited by the Hippocratic Oath, subsequently changed for the sake of political correctness.
Original
I swear by Apollo, the healer, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath and agreement:
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art.
I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan; and similarly I will not give a woman a pessary to cause an abortion.
But I will preserve the purity of my life and my arts.
I will not cut for stone, even for patients in whom the disease is manifest; I will leave this operation to be performed by practitioners, specialists in this art.
In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot.
MODERN VERSION (No Abortion)
I swear to fulfill, to the best of my ability and judgment, this covenant:
I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow.
I will apply, for the benefit of the sick, all measures [that] are required, avoiding those twin traps of overtreatment and therapeutic nihilism.
I will remember that there is art to medicine as well as science, and that warmth, sympathy, and understanding may outweigh the surgeon’s knife or the chemist’s drug.
I will not be ashamed to say “I know not,” nor will I fail to call in my colleagues when the skills of another are needed for a patient’s recovery.
I will respect the privacy of my patients, for their problems are not disclosed to me that the world may know. Most especially must I tread with care in matters of life and death. If it is given me to save a life, all thanks. But it may also be within my power to take a life; this awesome responsibility must be faced with great humbleness and awareness of my own frailty. Above all, I must not play at God.
I will remember that I do not treat a fever chart, a cancerous growth, but a sick human being, whose illness may affect the person’s family and economic stability. My responsibility includes these related problems, if I am to care adequately for the sick.
I will prevent disease whenever I can, for prevention is preferable to cure.
I will remember that I remain a member of society, with special obligations to all my fellow human beings, those sound of mind and body as well as the infirm.
If I do not violate this oath, may I enjoy life and art, respected while I live and remembered with affection thereafter. May I always act so as to preserve the finest traditions of my calling and may I long experience the joy of healing those who seek my help.
The irony is that Scott Roeder is in jail for one murder, while Tiller was able to commit legal murder of thousands of people for years and years and there was no stopping him, as the entire legal system was on his side.
I agree. God sent Elijah to kill Jezebel's prophets. Apparently he thought offing them was justified. If Scott Roeder felt he was doing God's will, that's up to God to judge his motive, and the action.
I hesitate to get too far into this business. But there are well established arguments going back to St. Thomas Aquinas and earlier on Just War theory (when is it right to fight and kill an enemy, and under what conditions), and related theories of self defense. Self defense is justifiable, and is extended to our families and also our neighbors (as in Jesus’ question, “Who is our neightbor?”—which is to say just about anyone who needs our help). If you see some thug just about to murder your neighbor, you would be justified in intervening, and shooting the thug if that was the only way to prevent a murder.
Aquinas argues that we are duty bound to come to the defense our our neighbors if they are threatened with violence, and he bases this on the law of charity. Love of our neighbor demands it. Only so much force should be used to prevent unjust violence as is necessary, but sometimes deadly force may be the only means possible.
One requirement is that the threat should be immanent. It would not be right to shoot someone because they threatened to kill a neighbor next week. But it would be right to intervene if they were about to kill a neighbor.
Some argue, therefore, that it would be wrong to use force to prevent an abortionist from taking innocent lives, unless the threat was immanent. So, if you were in the operating room, and the abortionist was about to stick a pair of scissors into a baby’s head, it might be justifiable to act to prevent him. The problem with that, of course, is that you couldn’t be in that operating room without trespassing, and the abortionist would not allow you to be there.
I once read an article in First Things that made the arguments for killing abortionists from just war theory and self-defense theory and traditional theology, and seemed to demonstrate that it was justifiable to kill an abortionist. Then at the end of the article, however, the writer reversed course and said, of course you can’t do that.
I didn’t quite follow the logic. Why not? On the other hand, I admit that I wouldn’t feel right just going out and shooting an abortionist.
It’s a very difficult business, one of numerous difficulties that were introduced into our lives and culture by Roe v. Wade, which was clearly a wrong, unjust, arbitrary, and unconstitutional decision by SCOTUS. Still, going out and killing someone isn’t something I would choose to do.
One definite thing we can do is pray for the conversion of their conscience and their souls. Norma McCorvey (”Roe) and Bernard Nathason converted, heart and soul, to the pro-life cause.
Thanks for your thoughtful response. Personally, I have come down on both sides of the argument at various times in my life.
What strikes me - and bothers me - is the logical disconnect between what we as pro-lifers say we believe (abortion=murder) and yet we decry those who kill mass murderers. Yet, like you, it just feels wrong. But if it feels so wrong, is aborting a baby truly the moral equivalence of first-degree murder?
It will all be revealed in the end, I know. Thanks again for your reply.
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.