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?
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.