Man Drives Suv Into Planned Parenthood Clinic

[CatherineM]

We don't need to make martyrs for their cause.

[Giolla]

He should have done it late at night when no one was around.

Edited January 22, 2009 by Giolla

[HisChildForever]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1758782' date='Jan 22 2009, 06:40 PM']I've often found it difficult to rationalize why violence is not justified in the case of the abortion mills. It would have been acceptable to use violence in Germany to shutdown Auschwitz, correct? How is this any different except that the numbers are higher, the victims are more innocent, and the damage more severe? I understand the repercussions of using violence, of course. I'm not advocating it; I'm merely asking the honest, sincere question of why, for some reason, the principles of just war / aggression are (seemingly) not employed in the case of the baby-murder mills.[/quote]

In theory I suppose it is justifiable. But the wisest way to approach this severe matter is through peace. Why? Because we want violence (abortion) to stop, and would be contradicting ourselves if we used violence to stop violence. I can hear the pro-choice people now: "They say it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy and yet they run around torching our buildings and harassing our employees?"

[[edit.]]

Furthermore, murdering children is a barbaric act. We should respond like the civilized people we are.

Edited January 22, 2009 by HisChildForever

[cmotherofpirl]

The end doesn't justify the means.

[Giolla]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1758786' date='Jan 22 2009, 07:46 PM']In theory I suppose it is justifiable. But the wisest way to approach this severe matter is through peace. Why? Because we want violence (abortion) to stop, and would be contradicting ourselves if we used violence to stop violence. I can hear the pro-choice people now: "They say it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy and yet they run around torching our buildings and harassing our employees?"

[[edit.]]

Furthermore, murdering children is a barbaric act. We should respond like the civilized people we are.[/quote]

"Freedom is not doing what we want but what we ought!" His Holiness John Paul the Great

[Giolla]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1758782' date='Jan 22 2009, 07:40 PM']I've often found it difficult to rationalize why violence is not justified in the case of the abortion mills. It would have been acceptable to use violence in Germany to shutdown Auschwitz, correct? How is this any different except that the numbers are higher, the victims are more innocent, and the damage more severe? I understand the repercussions of using violence, of course. I'm not advocating it; I'm merely asking the honest, sincere question of why, for some reason, the principles of just war / aggression are (seemingly) not employed in the case of the baby-murder mills.[/quote]

I understand what you saying to degree but in the long run its like the death penalty. I think those who have and give abortions should be imprisoned or rehabbed but not killed.

[sweens8403]

[quote name='HisChildForever' post='1758786' date='Jan 22 2009, 07:46 PM']In theory I suppose it is justifiable. But the wisest way to approach this severe matter is through peace. Why? Because we want violence (abortion) to stop, and would be contradicting ourselves if we used violence to stop violence. [b]I can hear the pro-choice people now: "They say it's wrong to terminate a pregnancy and yet they run around torching our buildings and harassing our employees?"[/b][/quote]

I wonder though, wouldn't torching empty buildings or destroying machines used in abortion be akin to harrassing supply lines of your enemy? No lives would be lost, just property. You however hinder their ability to fight or in this case locally hinder their ability to murder children. Food for thought.

[BG45]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1758773' date='Jan 22 2009, 07:23 PM']Hmmm. When was the last time there was a shooting or bombing at an abortion clinic? Wasn't it a bunch of years ago - mid-90s or something? The timing, so shortly after Obama became president, is probably not incidental.

So sad. It's not enough just to believe in a good cause - you have to use good means to acheive it. Violence, being quick and easy, is not the true answer.[/quote]

Not 100% sure, but I'm pretty sure it was the terrorist Eric Rudolph who also bombed the Atlanta Olympics. Whose capture, as he was a Christian, barely made a blip on the national news...unless I'm forgetting someone, which is always a possibility.

[Apotheoun]

When governments pass legislation that is contrary to the moral law (e.g., laws allowing abortion and euthanasia, or laws promoting homosexual activity) there is a danger that violent and irrational actions will occur in response to government sanctioned injustice.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Apotheoun

[Saint Therese]

Abortion is the direct work of the evil one.

Edited January 23, 2009 by Saint Therese

[thessalonian]

It sounds like this guy does have issues in the latest news. He has been hospitalized 12 times but his distress is certainly not without reason.

"He saw all these little babies that made it and he heard all these horror stories about the babies that made it in the trash can making noise. It made him sick," Georjean said holding back tears. "He worries about these babies that get aborted and he obsesses on it."


Some of what he was dealing with, i.e. hearing the cries of babies in trash cans would disturb anyone. Here is the latest report.
[url="http://kstp.com/article/stories/S756876.shtml?cat=1"]http://kstp.com/article/stories/S756876.shtml?cat=1[/url]

[Ziggamafu]

Well...again, can anyone provide a justified basis for the disconnect between Auschwitz and the abortion mills? The legalization of abortion is not a mere "unjust law", like laws hampering freedom of speech. Do we not have a right to - by any and all means - stop the murder of our children? I merely see a disconnect, and I am merely asking if anyone can provide an explanation.

[thessalonian]

It is a question I cannot answer other than with "feelings" about it being wrong to take such matters in to our own hands. That somehow seems unsatisfying.

[MithLuin]

It would have been justifiable for the US gov't to bomb (or attempt to free) a concentration camp - just war applies specifically to [i]governments[/i], not to individual actions.

Even if an action is just, there is the matter of 'taking it into your own hands'. Attempting to stop abortion? Sure. That's what protesting in front of the clinic is all about. Deciding that those who take babies lives must die - ummm, since when do we get to exact divine justice? That is not for us to decide. We can [i]call[/i] someone a murderer, but we cannot try or condemn them as one, personally, on our own. Becoming a vigilante is to step outside the law and determine for ourselves what is right or wrong.

We complain when people do that about religion; why should it be any more acceptable in terms of legality and justice?

I mean, Batman is a very likable character, but there are some serious flaws with the idea that he can just beat up and harass people whom he identifies as 'criminals'. There is a great scene in 'Me, Myself and Irene' that makes that point...he trashes the car of a young, healthy man who parks in a handicapped spot...only to see the owner of the car (an elderly handicapped man) come out of the business. Ditto with 'The Oxbow Incident' - a posse decides to condemn and hang three men for murder...without going through the usual steps to verify guilt or innocence. There are flaws in our justice system, surely....but there are a lot more flaws in throwing the system out and living by, "in those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes."



Destroying a building when there is no one inside is much more tempting, of course, but again - are you [i]sure[/i] the cleaning staff isn't there? What if someone happened to be in the building when you blew it up? Wouldn't you feel pretty terrible if you killed an innocent person who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time? And even if you are sure no one will be injured...do you personally really have a right to destroy someone else's property? Can you go torch someone's house just because he's a condemned mass-murderer?

God doesn't ignore evil. Anyone who doubts that need only read the first chapter of Isaiah - but [i]he[/i] will punish injustice. We are to do what we can to fight it, to take up the cause of the orphans, but not to the point of exacting revenge.

Change hearts. Change people. Change lives. Only then will the abortion clinics go out of business.

[Ziggamafu]

If you walk down a street and notice a mother taking her three year old by hand and lifting her up into a wood-chipper, do you have a moral right to stop the murder from taking place by any means necessary? Or are you morally restricted to prayer, while you walk by? I'm not questioning if you have the obligation to physically stop the murder, just if you have the right to. It seems obvious to me that you do have the right to stop the murder from taking place. Now what if the government legalized the practice of throwing children into wood-chippers and businesses sprung up to serve that purpose for a fee. Where is the disconnect between this and the legalized opportunities for entrepreneurial baby-murder?

Edited January 23, 2009 by Ziggamafu