Some Fear Kansas Ruling May Spur Abortion Violence

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Winchester' date='15 January 2010 - 10:40 AM' timestamp='1263512454' post='2037232']
Straw man. And simply because an argument is dangerous does not mean it's wrong. Much of Catholic theology is dangerous.

I agree that murder is murder, but murder is unjust killing with the intent to take a life--legislation does not play a role in the morality of killing. Would it be murder to kill someone legally killing two year olds, if that were the law? What is the difference between a two year old and an unborn child that makes stopping one murder wrong and another laudable?
[/quote]


Now you are using specious arguments - so I reposted my "straw man again". If you start with the assumption that killing anyone who is involved in abortion is ok, then you have to include the mother of the child since it is through her cooperation that it is possible. The abortionist doesn't seek her out, she seeks him out. So the mother is equally culpable. Now of course if you kill her, then the baby dies, so you have to keep her alive, but then the baby doesn't die, so she isn't guilty of abortion. I think then what we need to do is to take all pregnant women and hold them against their will in places of "safety" for the baby until after the baby is born. Don't you see how stupid it is when you start down roads that lead nowhere? The abortionist is the gun that the mother uses to shoot her baby. Where does blame start and stop? They are both wrong, but they don't need condemnation - they need salvation.

I don't think there is a lot of point in my being on this thread any more since I find the logic circuitous and basically "illogical". Murder is murder is murder in my opinion, and I am not going to change yours and you are not going to change mine.

[Nihil Obstat]

Nunsense, I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question. Answer it or don't, because I don't plan on becoming involved in this discussion either way, but I think my question is a good one to consider for anybody.

You position is that shooting George Tiller was wrong. What I'd like to ask you is, if you somehow ended up in a 'clinic', in the actual room where an abortion will be performed, and you saw a late term abortionist about to cut into the child inside that mother, would you in that case use potentially lethal force to stop him? For simplicity's sake, let's say hypothetically that you have a firearm with you, and firing a round is the most sure way of stopping him.... and also, obviously, potentially very lethal.

Like I said, no obligation to answer, because I plan on participating to a minimal degree in these threads.

Edited January 15, 2010 by Nihil Obstat

[Winchester]

I've been sloppy in a couple of places, but not in pointing out your straw man argument. I'll take some time before putting down a more accurate position.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='15 January 2010 - 11:11 AM' timestamp='1263514298' post='2037254']
Nunsense, I'd like to ask you a hypothetical question. Answer it or don't, because I don't plan on becoming involved in this discussion either way, but I think my question is a good one to consider for anybody.

You position is that shooting George Tiller was wrong. What I'd like to ask you is, if you somehow ended up in a 'clinic', in the actual room where an abortion will be performed, and you saw a late term abortionist about to cut into the child inside that mother, would you in that case use potentially lethal force to stop him? For simplicity's sake, let's say hypothetically that you have a firearm with you, and firing a round is the most sure way of stopping him.... and also, obviously, potentially very lethal.

Like I said, no obligation to answer, because I plan on participating to a minimal degree in these threads.
[/quote]

nihil - I know you said you aren't getting involved so I am not sure what response I should give that won't cause more questions or desire to respond, and I am trying to withdraw from this thread myself as I see it going around in circles endlessly.

When Scott Roeder came upon George Tiller, Tiller was not in the act of committing a late term abortion - he was standing chatting with someone else. What we sometimes forget is that we are dealing with two human beings here, not just theories and ideas, so I want to call them both by name for a change. And I want to make sure that we are talking about what actually happened - a premeditated murder.

You ask me to tell you what I would do if I was in the room when George Tiller was committing this act? I don't know. I know for sure that I would not pick up a gun and shoot him because that is not who I am (I know how to fire a rifle as I used to own a ranch where one was needed - but have never fired a gun at a person or in anger). I could imagine a scenario where I "save the day" for all concerned with no loss of life through my brilliant intercession of a combination of prayer and compelling conversation, but I admit that this is just an imaginative fantasy based on my desire to be the heroine of my own life (call it a saint complex if you will).

The reality would be much messier than that I am sure, and would probably be more likely to involve me throwing myself bodily across the mother's stomach and trying to convince her that this is not what she wants, that she would be killing her own baby and that she would never forgive herself for this. The abortionist could do nothing if she refused consent. I was trained to use some of this type of conversation when handling the hotline at an anti-abortion shelter, when women who were actually sitting in the abortion clinic would sometimes phone up and ask up what they should do! The outcome of this would probably be that security would be called and I would be taken away and arrested, and depending on the state of the mother's mind at the time, the abortion would either be done, stopped or rescheduled (the last two are both wins).

If only this world were not so complex and that people could be convinced of the moral right with just a few words, but this just isn't always the case. In either scenario (the fantasy or the reality), for me the weapon of choice would be prayer and absolute faith and trust in the protection of Our Lady and the love of God. Then no matter what happened on a worldy level, at least the souls of all would be entrusted to the mercy of Our Lord Jesus.

But then even my priest calls me "naive".

[CatherineM]

[quote name='Winchester' date='14 January 2010 - 05:34 PM' timestamp='1263512072' post='2037229']
I'll bet he's totally nuts.
[/quote]
Just one of the 85% of people with schizophrenia who don't take their medication properly.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='15 January 2010 - 11:41 AM' timestamp='1263516091' post='2037278']
Just one of the 85% of people with schizophrenia who don't take their medication properly.
[/quote]

I used to be a psych nurse. Often when schizophrenics feel bad, they don't want to take their medication because they are too paranoid, and then when they feel good they don't want to take their medication because they think they don't need it. It is a very difficult condition to treat because medication is so important in handling it, but so often it is the last thing a schizophrenic wants!

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='14 January 2010 - 07:11 PM' timestamp='1263514298' post='2037254']
You position is that shooting George Tiller was wrong. What I'd like to ask you is, if you somehow ended up in a 'clinic', in the actual room where an abortion will be performed, and you saw a late term abortionist about to cut into the child inside that mother, would you in that case use potentially lethal force to stop him? For simplicity's sake, let's say hypothetically that you have a firearm with you, and firing a round is the most sure way of stopping him.... and also, obviously, potentially very lethal.

[/quote]

Question: why do these questions always involve a "you gotta kill the guy" situation? There are other ways to incapitate people without blasting their brains out. Shoot the guy in the shoulder or the leg or stomach. Non-fatal injuries if dealt with quickly. And what's to say you shoot him in the head and he injuries the woman due to some instrument flailing about in his cold, dead hand?

And quite frankly, I'd like to meet an abortionist who'd continue with an abortion if someone was holding a gun to his head demanding he stop.

And if you really wanna put him out of commission. Shoot the b@stard in the spine.

Or threaten to shoot him in the crotch. There might be an abortionist who'd risk his life for abortions but would he risk his future without a crotch?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='nunsense' date='14 January 2010 - 06:47 PM' timestamp='1263516477' post='2037285']
I used to be a psych nurse. Often when schizophrenics feel bad, they don't want to take their medication because they are too paranoid, and then when they feel good they don't want to take their medication because they think they don't need it. It is a very difficult condition to treat because medication is so important in handling it, but so often it is the last thing a schizophrenic wants!
[/quote]
When we married, my husband gave one extra vow, that he would take his neuroleptics. He gets the once every two weeks depo injection. Much easier side-effects wise, but can be hard to schedule vacations around it.

[AccountDeleted]

[quote name='CatherineM' date='15 January 2010 - 12:24 PM' timestamp='1263518653' post='2037318']
When we married, my husband gave one extra vow, that he would take his neuroleptics. He gets the once every two weeks depo injection. Much easier side-effects wise, but can be hard to schedule vacations around it.
[/quote]

He isn't allowed to give them to himself (like diabetics do)?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='nunsense' date='14 January 2010 - 07:35 PM' timestamp='1263519300' post='2037324']
He isn't allowed to give them to himself (like diabetics do)?
[/quote]
The medicine gets mixed by the nurse, and the needle is over 4" long. The whole set up is in a box the size of a loaf of bread. He can't even look at it, and I'm sure not doing it. It has to be refrigerated like insulin too.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='14 January 2010 - 06:57 PM' timestamp='1263517054' post='2037294']
Question: why do these questions always involve a "you gotta kill the guy" situation? There are other ways to incapitate people without blasting their brains out. Shoot the guy in the shoulder or the leg or stomach. Non-fatal injuries if dealt with quickly. And what's to say you shoot him in the head and he injuries the woman due to some instrument flailing about in his cold, dead hand?

And quite frankly, I'd like to meet an abortionist who'd continue with an abortion if someone was holding a gun to his head demanding he stop.

And if you really wanna put him out of commission. Shoot the b@stard in the spine.

Or threaten to shoot him in the crotch. There might be an abortionist who'd risk his life for abortions but would he risk his future without a crotch?
[/quote]
To clarify, I'm pretty sure that when shooting at a person, you're generally instructed to aim at the greatest body mass, which is obviously the torso.

In any case, every shot one fires is potentially quite lethal.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='14 January 2010 - 10:42 PM' timestamp='1263526964' post='2037438']
To clarify, I'm pretty sure that when shooting at a person, you're generally instructed to aim at the greatest body mass, which is obviously the torso.

In any case, every shot one fires is potentially quite lethal.
[/quote]

Could we instead pistol whip the guy?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='14 January 2010 - 11:16 PM' timestamp='1263529018' post='2037470']
Could we instead pistol whip the guy?
[/quote]

Would you shoot an unjust aggressor if doing so were the only way to prevent the life of your best friend from being taken by said unjust aggressor?

Edited January 15, 2010 by Resurrexi

[Winchester]

I failed to draw a distinction between the act itself and culpability.

Procured abortion is inarguably murder. It is intrinsically immoral. This is not to say one is culpable for the act, but by itself procured abortion is murder.

Killing is not always murder, however.

An abortion doctor is a murderer by fact, but perhaps it's not imputed to him because of ignorance.

We agree so far?

[dominicansoul]

a murderer was murdered. Jesus himself said, if you live by the sword you will die by the sword. does the murderer of the murderer have justification? [i]only if he was in the act of defending or protecting life...[/i]

...this is an interesting case, in that, this judge happens to be suggesting, that Roeder might have been...in fact...defending and protecting life...

...it will definitely be an interesting case to follow...