Some Fear Kansas Ruling May Spur Abortion Violence

[Winchester]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 January 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1263577802' post='2037764']
a murderer was murdered. Jesus himself said, if you live by the sword you will die by the sword. [/quote]
Those who live by the sword die by those who live by the gun.

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 January 2010 - 03:22 AM' timestamp='1263453738' post='2036834']
That it is morally acceptable to use violence if doing so is necessary to defend oneself.
[/quote]


Providing other non-violent means are used first.

Jim

[JimR-OCDS]

[quote name='Winchester' date='14 January 2010 - 07:34 PM' timestamp='1263512072' post='2037229']
I'll bet he's totally nuts.
[/quote]


And thereby making pro-lifers look as nutty as they line up to defend this guy, which only helps the pro-abortion side.

Jim

[Winchester]

[quote name='JimR-OCDS' date='15 January 2010 - 03:26 PM' timestamp='1263587201' post='2037846']
Providing other non-violent means are used first.

Jim
[/quote]
Untrue. I may as my first act against an unjust aggressor use violence. The Church doesn't require retreat or for one to take the chance of being killed.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='14 January 2010 - 11:20 PM' timestamp='1263529252' post='2037474']
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?
[/quote]

If it came down to it, they'd get a bullet in the leg, or in the abdomen. But all injuries can prove fatal under the correct set of circumstances. Even a punch to teh face or a kick to the crotch.

And as it stands, my best friend is a black belt in ninjitsu, she doesn't need me or my gun to save her from an aggressor.

As for shooting abortionists in the act of abortions, they're sitting down, gowned up and in a situation where running away quickly isn't easy. There's no need for a head shot.

In fact most of these arguments of "would you kill some guy if someone you cared about was in danger" are facetious. Very few situations would arise where you actually have to kill the guy to ensure safety. Unless it was Jason or a zombie or something, its not likely to transpire anytime soon.

And Tiller was outside a church, chatting with someone, no one's life was in immediate danger, therefore defence of others cannot really be justified. If you justify his death then you must start supporting the killing of women who have had abortions, as chances are, they might have another one, and we have to save that potential life, right?

Edited January 15, 2010 by Happy_Catholic

[Winchester]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='15 January 2010 - 12:50 PM' timestamp='1263577802' post='2037764']
a murderer was murdered. [/quote]
Explain to me how it is intrinsically disordered to kill someone who is in the business of murdering people. Not one person has explained this or argued that the unborn should not be protected in the same manner as the born. I see few options to call the act itself murder. One could argue he wasn't in the act at the time or on his way to commit the act, but that doesn't seem to be the tone. The argument seems to be that if one kills unborn children for money, then one may not be stopped from killing unborn children by lethal force. I understand the practical answers--the political damage to the pro life cause, for instance. But from a purely moral standpoint, no one has explained why it's intrinsically murder.

I could see an appeal for not doing it due to the fact that our leaders have misdirected us and so disordered the social moral compass that the doctors need be educated and prayed for. Certainly I think there's something to that. That's mercy.

I could see turning this over to God so as not to take a chance in killing someone out of anger--"Let the other guy murder people, I won't"--that makes sense. That's protection of one's soul and avoidance of possible vengeance. One leaves the disposition of the unborns' soul in the hands of God. Thus trusting in Providence and providing a murderer the chance to repent.

I can see arguing that prayer is the best system because the problem won't be solved by killing those involved in abortion. In fact, I think that's very true. I don't think things are so bad that violence is the only option. Or even a desirable option

None of these makes the act of killing an abortion doctor murder, though.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='15 January 2010 - 04:48 PM' timestamp='1263592082' post='2037896']
If it came down to it, they'd get a bullet in the leg, or in the abdomen. [/quote]
Yeah, why not increase chances of injuring a bystander?

Center of mass. If you're not willing to do that, then get rid of your gun.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Winchester' date='15 January 2010 - 04:55 PM' timestamp='1263592505' post='2037903']
Yeah, why not increase chances of injuring a bystander?[/quote]

No false modesty, but I'm a heck of a shot. Its a farm girl thing.

Subsquently, this is what's the problem with your argument or situation. You keep changing it to seek out an answer you find most useful for your purpose. Where did these bystanders come from? Before it was just me, my friend and an unjust aggressor?

Surely, those bystanders would be assisting, would they not? Especially if they were standing behind the aggressor as he was advancing towards my hapless friend?

[quote]Center of mass. If you're not willing to do that, then get rid of your gun.
[/quote]

So I can get rid of my gun. Great! I never wanted it in the first place. I was going to say I'd drop the guy with a few moves I know, but I figured you'd come up with some equally loaded rebuttal about how I only have a gun on my person.

And there are a few places in the torso you can shoot at without killing the guy instantly.

Not everything has to be about killing.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Winchester' date='15 January 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1263592418' post='2037901']
Explain to me how it is intrinsically disordered to kill someone who is in the business of murdering people. Not one person has explained this or argued that the unborn should not be protected in the same manner as the born. I see few options to call the act itself murder. One could argue he wasn't in the act at the time or on his way to commit the act, but that doesn't seem to be the tone. The argument seems to be that if one kills unborn children for money, then one may not be stopped from killing unborn children by lethal force. I understand the practical answers--the political damage to the pro life cause, for instance. But from a purely moral standpoint, no one has explained why it's intrinsically murder.

I could see an appeal for not doing it due to the fact that our leaders have misdirected us and so disordered the social moral compass that the doctors need be educated and prayed for. Certainly I think there's something to that. That's mercy.

I could see turning this over to God so as not to take a chance in killing someone out of anger--"Let the other guy murder people, I won't"--that makes sense. That's protection of one's soul and avoidance of possible vengeance. One leaves the disposition of the unborns' soul in the hands of God. Thus trusting in Providence and providing a murderer the chance to repent.

I can see arguing that prayer is the best system because the problem won't be solved by killing those involved in abortion. In fact, I think that's very true. I don't think things are so bad that violence is the only option. Or even a desirable option

None of these makes the act of killing an abortion doctor murder, though.
[/quote]


What makes it murder is by the lack of authority. The Church allows the state to execute someone who society has deemed dangerous. The Church does not allow the execution of an individual by another individual. Killing is only allowed (by the individual) when it is necessary for defense of yourself or defense of others.

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Winchester' date='15 January 2010 - 04:53 PM' timestamp='1263592418' post='2037901']
Explain to me how it is intrinsically disordered to kill someone who is in the business of murdering people. [/quote]

Legally, its not murder. Roe removed the charge of murder or culpable homicide from abortionists if they were caught in or after the act of aborting a pregnancy.

Legally, the gun tootling members of the anti-abortion fringe element don't have a leg to stand on.

And that's the problem.

Unless you guys who support kiling or justify killing abortionists are going to get out there with a truck of C4 and an Uzi and KILL every beaver dam one of those SOBs you can find, you aren't doing a heck of a lot of good for the unborn. Only soiling the name of the movement trying to do some real good to assist them.


[quote]Not one person has explained this or argued that the unborn should not be protected in the same manner as the born. I see few options to call the act itself murder. One could argue he wasn't in the act at the time or on his way to commit the act, but that doesn't seem to be the tone. The argument seems to be that if one kills unborn children for money, then one may not be stopped from killing unborn children by lethal force. I understand the practical answers--the political damage to the pro life cause, for instance. But from a purely moral standpoint, no one has explained why it's intrinsically murder. [/quote]

I support personhood for the unborn. Roe contains a clause that states if personhood for the human uterine entity is established then abortion becomes illegal and a criminal offence pretaining to murder, or words to the effect.

We get personhood for the unborn, we end abortion, or at least "legal" abortion.

In the eyes of God, and in every moral sense, abortion is murder. However, we have to conduct ourselves legaly and shedding the blood of some baby killer isn't legal, as much as we want it to be.

Abortion is murder in the same way of what Hitler did to the Jews was murder. It might have been "legal" it might have not been "murder" on paper, but it was murder. The unborn is simply a human being in a different stage of development to us bornies. To justify their slaughtered based on their developmental stage is morally repugnant and biologically void.

Self defense is legal only if the death of the aggressor takes place immediately before, during or immediately after the act of aggression. If a man was stabbing you and you got the bugger in the temple with your car keys and he expired - self defense. If a guy was walking around your house shooting a gun through your windows and you threw a pot plant out and clocked him in the face and he dies - self defense. If someone just murdered your family and had just finished raping you and you brained him with a 2"4 when he was doing up his pants, self defense.

Part of what makes self defense self defense is there's no plan or intent. Its an immediate, sudden reaction to a terrible situation where the part of you thats in charge is the whole animalistic drive thing.

Frankly, I think Roeder was mentally unstable, however, it seems awfully like motivation and plan that he jsut happened to be driving/walking by Tiller's church with a gun in possession and then happened to walk up to Tiller and blast his brains out. Whatever Roeder's plans or intentions, they were not developed on a whim.

Tiller was not in the act of aborting. We cannot know for sure that Tiller's intention to continue aborting children was firm. He could have decided to quit right that afternoon. IF Roeder had walked into the clinic and shot Tiller as he was performing an abortion, then, maybe, you could argue defense of other. But the thing, legally, the unborn isn't an "other", its a "thing" a "non-person".

As for the political damage to the Pro-Life movement, I dont' really care. The liberal side of the fence have always hated us and will continue to hate us, and that's not going to stop because we don't have lunatics shooting their baby killing heroes.

As for money, well, there were times in Tiller's career when the rat b@stard gave them away for free! I think it was the 30th anniversy of Roe.

[quote]
None of these makes the act of killing an abortion doctor murder, though.
[/quote]

Legally, you are flawed. Killing anyone, with intention to kill them, and plan to kill them is murder. Especially if they were a born person.

Tiller was in the business of performing, no matter how morally debase and repugnant a legal service.

Of course, interestingly, Tiller was being investigated for all kinds of illegal shenanigans and he was in the process of going before the court system. Tiller could have been stopped through legal means! And Roeder would have known this if he'd been stalking the sheep dags. Instead of taking Tiller down in a cloud of bribery, medical mal-practice and other crimes, shaming him, embarrassing him, and bringing the most tasty disrepute on his dispicable profession, he was turned into a hero and a martyr for his manaic kin. At his funeral people were saying "There's a special place in Heaven for Tiller".

It could have been "I can't beleive we thought that guy was a champion of women's rights!"

Anyway, a bit off topic, but the fact remains we have no right, legal or otherwise, to kill another human being.

Violence in the process of self-defense can be justified if its the last option available to the victim.

Violence in the process of defense of others can be justified but only if its again, the last option available.

And both self-defense and defense of others can only be mitigated if the act to stop the aggressor is committed during the aggressor's actions or it is discovered 100% that such actions are going to be committed.

Refusing to be pulled into the twisted logic of "killing aboritonists is right" does not limit the value we place on the Unborn. I for one view all human life with equal value, maybe not equal innocence, but innocence and value are two totally different things. I didn't want Saddam to be hanged, I didnt' want Timothy McVeigh to be needled, I wouldn't want Osama to be executed, and I don't want abortionists to be killed.

All life belongs to God. It is not our's to end, no matter what petty human justification we think we have.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='15 January 2010 - 05:04 PM' timestamp='1263593081' post='2037912']
No false modesty, but I'm a heck of a shot. Its a farm girl thing.

Subsquently, this is what's the problem with your argument or situation. You keep changing it to seek out an answer you find most useful for your purpose. Where did these bystanders come from? Before it was just me, my friend and an unjust aggressor?[/quote]
Bullets can go pretty far. Are you in some desert wasteland in your scenario?

[quote]
Surely, those bystanders would be assisting, would they not? Especially if they were standing behind the aggressor as he was advancing towards my hapless friend?[/quote]
If by assisting you mean recording it for upload to youtube, then probably.


[quote]
So I can get rid of my gun. Great! I never wanted it in the first place.[/quote]
Well now that I've given you permission, it's okay.

[quote] I was going to say I'd drop the guy with a few moves I know, but I figured you'd come up with some equally loaded rebuttal about how I only have a gun on my person.[/quote]
It's not my fault I'm better at this than you. Stop hatin'.
[quote]
And there are a few places in the torso you can shoot at without killing the guy instantly.

Not everything has to be about killing.
[/quote]

If you're that good a shot in a combat situation, then I think that's wonderful.

[Winchester]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='15 January 2010 - 05:10 PM' timestamp='1263593414' post='2037920']
What makes it murder is by the lack of authority. The Church allows the state to execute someone who society has deemed dangerous. The Church does not allow the execution of an individual by another individual. Killing is only allowed (by the individual) when it is necessary for defense of yourself or defense of others.
[/quote]
How is it not the defense of others? This is my question. Labeling the killing execution merely charges it with emotion. Emotion often seems to be the factor in the act of killing the doctor.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='15 January 2010 - 05:29 PM' timestamp='1263594551' post='2037923']
Legally, its not murder. Roe removed the charge of murder or culpable homicide from abortionists if they were caught in or after the act of aborting a pregnancy.

Legally, the gun tootling members of the anti-abortion fringe element don't have a leg to stand on.

And that's the problem.

Unless you guys who support kiling or justify killing abortionists are going to get out there with a truck of C4 and an Uzi and KILL every beaver dam one of those SOBs you can find, you aren't doing a heck of a lot of good for the unborn. Only soiling the name of the movement trying to do some real good to assist them.[/quote]
Legality is immaterial to the argument.

The last paragraph was made by me with less mouth-foaming.



[quote]
In the eyes of God, and in every moral sense, abortion is murder. However, we have to conduct ourselves legaly and shedding the blood of some baby killer isn't legal, as much as we want it to be.[/quote]
The Church does not require us to follow unjust laws. Revolt against tyranny is permitted.

[quote]Self defense is legal only if the death of the aggressor takes place immediately before, during or immediately after the act of aggression. If a man was stabbing you and you got the bugger in the temple with your car keys and he expired - self defense. If a guy was walking around your house shooting a gun through your windows and you threw a pot plant out and clocked him in the face and he dies - self defense. If someone just murdered your family and had just finished raping you and you brained him with a 2"4 when he was doing up his pants, self defense. [/quote]
I think this is a very good argument. We're not in war, and we're not dealing with enemy soldiers. I can't see a hole in this argument at all, really, right now.
[quote]
Frankly, I think Roeder was mentally unstable, however, it seems awfully like motivation and plan that he jsut happened to be driving/walking by Tiller's church with a gun in possession and then happened to walk up to Tiller and blast his brains out. Whatever Roeder's plans or intentions, they were not developed on a whim. [/quote]
It sounds like he was indeed mentally ill.
[quote]
Tiller was not in the act of aborting. We cannot know for sure that Tiller's intention to continue aborting children was firm. He could have decided to quit right that afternoon. IF Roeder had walked into the clinic and shot Tiller as he was performing an abortion, then, maybe, you could argue defense of other. [/quote]
True. In this instance, one could fall back on "the Nazi eating breakfast at home", but I agree we're not dealing with soldiers or acts of war, so popping someone off not in the act of killing seems illicit.
[quote]But the thing, legally, the unborn isn't an "other", its a "thing" a "non-person". [/quote]
Immaterial. An unjust law need not be followed or respected. If they declared my child a non-person and came to kill her, I would be within my moral rights to defend her with lethal force. The government has no authority to remove personhood and laws to this regard have no authority.

[quote]
As for the political damage to the Pro-Life movement, I dont' really care. The liberal side of the fence have always hated us and will continue to hate us, and that's not going to stop because we don't have lunatics shooting their baby killing heroes.
[/quote]
Tru dat.
[quote]
As for money, well, there were times in Tiller's career when the rat b@stard gave them away for free! I think it was the 30th anniversy of Roe. [/quote]
That's like Circuit City giving away a free television--it don't hurt when you're making money hand over fist.


Well, I think the argument regarding self defense is applicable also to defense of others.



Legally, you are flawed. Killing anyone, with intention to kill them, and plan to kill them is murder. Especially if they were a born person.

Tiller was in the business of performing, no matter how morally debase and repugnant a legal service.

Of course, interestingly, Tiller was being investigated for all kinds of illegal shenanigans and he was in the process of going before the court system. Tiller could have been stopped through legal means! And Roeder would have known this if he'd been stalking the sheep dags. Instead of taking Tiller down in a cloud of bribery, medical mal-practice and other crimes, shaming him, embarrassing him, and bringing the most tasty disrepute on his dispicable profession, he was turned into a hero and a martyr for his manaic kin. At his funeral people were saying "There's a special place in Heaven for Tiller".

It could have been "I can't beleive we thought that guy was a champion of women's rights!"

Anyway, a bit off topic, but the fact remains we have no right, legal or otherwise, to kill another human being.

Violence in the process of self-defense can be justified if its the last option available to the victim.

Violence in the process of defense of others can be justified but only if its again, the last option available.

And both self-defense and defense of others can only be mitigated if the act to stop the aggressor is committed during the aggressor's actions or it is discovered 100% that such actions are going to be committed.

Refusing to be pulled into the twisted logic of "killing aboritonists is right" does not limit the value we place on the Unborn. I for one view all human life with equal value, maybe not equal innocence, but innocence and value are two totally different things. I didn't want Saddam to be hanged, I didnt' want Timothy McVeigh to be needled, I wouldn't want Osama to be executed, and I don't want abortionists to be killed.

All life belongs to God. It is not our's to end, no matter what petty human justification we think we have.
[/quote]

[Happy_Catholic]

[quote name='Winchester' date='15 January 2010 - 05:36 PM' timestamp='1263594984' post='2037928']
Bullets can go pretty far. Are you in some desert wasteland in your scenario?[/quote]

But its [i]your[/i] situation.

Since you keep going on about abortionists, I'm going to presume you're under the impression the abortionist is in an operating theatre, which isn't very large.

If there are bystanders, what are they doing in a desert wasteland? Were we on a plane that crashed? Is this some kind of [i]Alive[/i] situation going on in a juxtaposed environment? Or a shopping mall? Or a church?

[quote]It's not my fault I'm better at this than you. Stop hatin'.[/quote]

Now, now, careful there, pride goeth before the fall.


[quote]If you're that good a shot in a combat situation, then I think that's wonderful.
[/quote]

Well, I am planning up for the zombie outbreak.

And the knowledge I have about anatomy can be obtained from any biological text book.

[Winchester]

[quote name='Happy_Catholic' date='15 January 2010 - 06:44 PM' timestamp='1263599042' post='2037960']

Well, I am planning up for the zombie outbreak.
[/quote]
ftw