"i Shot Us Abortion Doctor To Protect Children,"

[Jaime]

[quote name='Revprodeji' date='28 January 2010 - 09:16 PM' timestamp='1264731402' post='2046882']
For the sake of discussion lets play with this.

If a group of innocent people pled for defense against genocide many of us would feel it was morally plausible if not our duty to defend these people.



Are we responsible to defend and protect the unborn?

I speak as a soldier, as someone that has seen genocide and defensive violence. Perhaps that is why I can make this leap easier.
[/quote]

Its a failed example. If I stand between an innocent person and a madman with a gun, I'm defending that person. If however, I go into that madman's church and gun him down preemptively, I'm a murderer.

[princessgianna]

[quote name='USAirwaysIHS' date='28 January 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1264728568' post='2046829']
The terms "doctor" and "clinic" have no place in this article. A doctor is a healer; a clinic is a place of healing. An abortionist does not heal, and health is not found within an abortion mill.
[/quote]
well you know.... those are mere technicalities.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='28 January 2010 - 10:24 PM' timestamp='1264735479' post='2046933']
Its a failed example. If I stand between an innocent person and a madman with a gun, I'm defending that person. If however, I go into that madman's church and gun him down preemptively, I'm a murderer.
[/quote]
this is true...

i think roeder should have made it a habit of running into tiller's massacre house, jumping on top of women to block the instruments from entering her womb and killing her child...

...if more of us pro-lifers did that, we would surely cause a dent in the whole bloody business...but of course, more of us would spend a great deal of time locked up for it...

Edited January 29, 2010 by dominicansoul

[Jaime]

[quote name='dominicansoul' date='28 January 2010 - 10:39 PM' timestamp='1264736391' post='2046954']
this is true...

i think roeder should have made it a habit of running into tiller's massacre house, jumping on top of women to block the instruments from entering her womb and killing her child...

...if more of us pro-lifers did that, we would surely cause a dent in the whole bloody business...but of course, more of us would spend a great deal of time locked up for it...
[/quote]

see this is closer. Like if we were to stand in front and say "you have to kill me before you can take the baby" . That I'm actually ok with. Going in and shooting people at church doesn't help much.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='28 January 2010 - 11:17 PM' timestamp='1264742263' post='2047086']
see this is closer. Like if we were to stand in front and say "you have to kill me before you can take the baby" . That I'm actually ok with. Going in and shooting people at church doesn't help much.
[/quote]
Now what if someone suggests running into an abortion mill and gunning down any employees involved in the actual abortions?
For the sake of discussion. I'm not advocating anything.

[Happy_Catholic]

I'm glad Roeder was given his right to take the stand and defend himself. I read an article a few days ago saying that the prosecution was taking another crack at preventing him taking the stand. Its the cornerstone of the justice system that people are allowed to defend themselves.

I actually think that Roeder's lawyer has put Roeder on the stand in the hope of getting a lesser form of murder due to some form of mental illness or defect.

However, I'm so cussin' glad that he's on that stand telling the jury and the rest of the court room about the truth that goes on in those clinics, especially that cuss Tiller's. From what I remember, Paul Hill wasn't able to use abortion as his defence. I think it was Paul Hill (I forget his name, the guy who blew up a bunch of clinics and a gay night club and got the needle for it a few years back).

No one can be 100% as to what the jury will decide, but I am really interested to see what would happen if they said he was not-guilty by reason of defence of others. I mean, what will that mean for other abortionists? Will it result in more violence carried out by equally unstable individuals or will it cause the public to really start detesting what goes on these places?

As the saying goes "America will not reject abortion until America sees abortion". The pro-aborts have kept abortion hidden and secret for too many years now.

[jeffpugh]

Despite this despicable evil, I believe that something good will come out in the end no matter what. God makes miracles of messes.

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 January 2010 - 12:43 AM' timestamp='1264743826' post='2047103']
Now what if someone suggests running into an abortion mill and gunning down any employees involved in the actual abortions?
For the sake of discussion. I'm not advocating anything.
[/quote]

That's been suggested and done by the Army of God.


And they're wrong

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='29 January 2010 - 12:45 AM' timestamp='1264747553' post='2047161']
That's been suggested and done by the Army of God.


And they're wrong
[/quote]
I've been thinking about this scenario for months and can't seem to arrive at a clear answer in my head. If we can justify [i]any[/i] force at all, i.e. blocking the abortionist and maybe wrecking his tools, then where do we draw the line at where that force is no longer licit?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 January 2010 - 11:16 AM' timestamp='1264781777' post='2047251']
I've been thinking about this scenario for months and can't seem to arrive at a clear answer in my head. If we can justify [i]any[/i] force at all, i.e. blocking the abortionist and maybe wrecking his tools, then where do we draw the line at where that force is no longer licit?
[/quote]

Nihil it's important to understand the distinction that the Church makes. Let's say you see a guy who is clearly drunk and wants to get into his car and drive away. The right thing to do is try talk him out of it or try to take his keys. What would be even more appropriate would be to call the police. What would not be an appropriate response would be to slash all four of his tires while he was still in the bar drinking. (Unless you're Carrie Underwood and you want to write a pretty good country song) Now why would the Church say that this was a wrong action? It stopped him from driving drunk and killing people! She would say that slashing his tires impeded on his free will. You would have taken away his ability to choose the right thing(because now there is no choice, he can't drive) and you're taking away an opportunity for redemption.

That's what Roeder did. He took away Tiller's opportunity to choose to do the right thing. The argument is "Well what if he never chose to do the right thing?" and the response is "Who has the right to judge?" Roeder didn't (neither do you or I) and he'll have to realize that at his own peril. Tiller acted as God but so did Roeder and both will have to resolve that.

And here's the thing. (and in my opinion the most important thing) We all are horrified and outraged by abortion. We all become even more sickened by monsters like Tiller who happily take the lives of children ready to come out of the womb and breathe their first breath. And probably every single person reading the post in their heart of hearts would like to have 15 minutes alone in a room with someone like Tiller and beat them until all our rage was drained from our souls.

That's exactly what Satan wants.

Because the more time and energy we spend on trying to get rid of our rage caused by the actions of these monsters, the less time we have to love and care for the women who are asking for the death of their children. When we show women that they are sacred, they cannot help but see the sacredness of the child in their womb. When we as a society understand this, we win the war against abortion.

[Nihil Obstat]

I do understand that, but there are times where we licitly remove the free will of an aggressor. Where is it right to do this, and where is it wrong?

[Jaime]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='29 January 2010 - 12:27 PM' timestamp='1264786047' post='2047265']
I do understand that, but there are times where we licitly remove the free will of an aggressor. Where is it right to do this, and where is it wrong?
[/quote]

Look at an action and say "is this an act of defense or vengeance?" That should make things pretty clear.

[organwerke]

Ok, killing is also a sin.
But if I have to judge a man who kills thousands of innocents, and a man who kills a murderer, well I think the first is much worse.

[Thy Geekdom Come]

[quote name='organwerke' date='29 January 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1264787540' post='2047284']
Ok, killing is also a sin.
But if I have to judge a man who kills thousands of innocents, and a man who kills a murderer, well I think the first is much worse.
[/quote]
Murder is a sin. Killing is amoral and depends on circumstances (are we killing a human or a duck? Is it an innocent or guilty human whose risk to human life is otherwise uncontrollable?).

[Jaime]

[quote name='organwerke' date='29 January 2010 - 12:52 PM' timestamp='1264787540' post='2047284']
Ok, killing is also a sin.
But if I have to judge a man who kills thousands of innocents, and a man who kills a murderer, well I think the first is much worse.
[/quote]

Not according to the Church

[quote][b]1861 [/b]Mortal sin is a radical possibility of human freedom, as islove itself. It results in the loss of charity and the privation ofsanctifying grace, that is, of the state of grace. If it is notredeemed by repentance and God's forgiveness, it causes exclusion fromChrist's kingdom and the eternal death of hell, for our freedom has thepower to make choices for ever, with no turning back. [b]However, althoughwe can judge that an act is in itself a grave offense, we must entrustjudgment of persons to the justice and mercy of God[/b].[/quote]