Man Drives Suv Into Planned Parenthood Clinic

[Winchester]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1763464' date='Jan 27 2009, 01:17 PM']I'm still baffled as to why the destruction of an baby-murdering facility necessarily implies the intent to kill those inside. I don't know where people read that into the posts...there was a single aside that brought up the idea that even IF a person were accidentally killed, one would have to question why the principle of double-effect could not be employed.[/quote]
Because schools don't teach people to think, anymore.

[fides quarens intellectum]

As usual, Zig has raised some excellent points.


i'm pretty torn on this one - part of me is glad to see any attempt to stop/slow down the murdering of innocent children via the destruction of abortion mill property, yet part of me wonders whether such actions are more a sign of despair than anything else. i honestly don't know.

[picchick]

[quote name='fides quarens intellectum' post='1763477' date='Jan 27 2009, 01:32 PM']As usual, Zig has raised some excellent points.


i'm pretty torn on this one - part of me is glad to see any attempt to stop/slow down the murdering of innocent children via the destruction of abortion mill property, yet part of me wonders whether such actions are more a sign of despair than anything else. i honestly don't know. [/quote]

I am with you on this 100%...I really don't know.

Edited January 27, 2009 by picchick

[Nihil Obstat]

I was definitely on the fence about this at first, but as I thought more about it, I see bombing them as not particularly effective to make a real change.
Maybe if we had a stronger resistance, and the means to destroy EVERY clinic in the country, and had a real organization to it... (and with this I'm addressing the parallel to concentration camps.)
I think perfect evangelization is the way to go.

Although gluing the keyholes would be fun, and definitely make me feel somewhat vindicated...

[MithLuin]

[quote name='Winchester' post='1763446' date='Jan 27 2009, 01:47 PM'][quote name='"I"']Am I a pacifist?

I am at the very least not a violent anarchist.

I draw a distinction between military might wielded by a legitimate state power and privately produced mayhem.[/quote]
So there is no such thing as a legitimate revolution?
[/quote]

Hmmm. Well, I certainly love Star Wars with its Rebel Alliance and [i]Les Mis[/i] with the defence of the barricade and all of that. But that's fiction.

I think real-life revolutions have to be peaceful to be legit - such as Solidarnosk or the uprising in the Philippines. The Civil Rights movement or Ghandi getting the UK out of India. Those sorts of things.

In the case of the American Revolution and the Civil War, at the very least there was a gov't operating, not just a random band of rebels blowing things up because they were angry. But I'm not sure those were 'good' things, either.

I don't have a t-shirt with Che Gueverra on it, but I can see how that would have a romantic appeal. I've read [i]The Man Who was Thursday[/i]...and [i]The Napolean of Notting Hill[/i]. I sometimes do like the revolutionary spirit a lot, and at other times I am deeply ambivalent about what it tends to look like in reality.

At the end of the day...it is better to live for a cause than to die for one. I do not think anything good would be acheived by blowing up the abortion clinics. The US did not bomb the concentration camps, either, even if it would have been 'permissable'.

[foolishmortal]

Well, academics don't think much. After Ghandi's success, the Hindus and muslims went at each other's throats after the British left. After Civil rights, the gangs went haywire.
Moe thought should have gone into those.

The unborn will not riot nor will the unborn and the euthenasia targets go at each others' throats.

I think a wholistic approach is in order. Little pranks like those I mentioned, plus helping those having a crisis pregnancy. Chastity programs need to be run by volunteers providing their own money. Laws need to be passed to allow us to decide if our taxes go to PP and we need to have a campaign for corporations to give money to its employers it would have given to PP or even ok organizations, so that the employees can donate it wherever, so long as the company isn't shamed (like if one donated to NAMBLA). A strict accounting of where the money went would be required. In fact, the envelopes in a sealed envelope, sealed before many workers' eyes, would be picked up by an unknown mailman to avoid anyone weeding out enveloped to companies they hate. In fact, the envelope from each employee would not have the donatee's company or organization's name and it would only be known after ii's cashed.

Anyway, all bases need covering.

We could have 2 people gossiping graphically in public places about someone who had a botched abortion that actually happened to someone. Abortion needs to be defamed and it doesn't require expensive fundraisers, though the work of the HLI, Priests 4 Life, and Life Decisions International do do important things and some require lots of cash. Word of mouth can do a lot. Posing on blogs and youtube, if you are not addicted, can do a lot.



[quote name='MithLuin' post='1764083' date='Jan 27 2009, 09:22 PM']So there is no such thing as a legitimate revolution?


Hmmm. Well, I certainly love Star Wars with its Rebel Alliance and [i]Les Mis[/i] with the defence of the barricade and all of that. But that's fiction.

I think real-life revolutions have to be peaceful to be legit - such as Solidarnosk or the uprising in the Philippines. The Civil Rights movement or Ghandi getting the UK out of India. Those sorts of things.

In the case of the American Revolution and the Civil War, at the very least there was a gov't operating, not just a random band of rebels blowing things up because they were angry. But I'm not sure those were 'good' things, either.

I don't have a t-shirt with Che Gueverra on it, but I can see how that would have a romantic appeal. I've read [i]The Man Who was Thursday[/i]...and [i]The Napolean of Notting Hill[/i]. I sometimes do like the revolutionary spirit a lot, and at other times I am deeply ambivalent about what it tends to look like in reality.

At the end of the day...it is better to live for a cause than to die for one. I do not think anything good would be acheived by blowing up the abortion clinics. The US did not bomb the concentration camps, either, even if it would have been 'permissable'.[/quote]

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='foolishmortal' post='1764363' date='Jan 27 2009, 11:38 PM']Well, academics don't think much. After Ghandi's success, the Hindus and muslims went at each other's throats after the British left. After Civil rights, the gangs went haywire.
Moe thought should have gone into those.

The unborn will not riot nor will the unborn and the euthenasia targets go at each others' throats.

I think a wholistic approach is in order. Little pranks like those I mentioned, plus helping those having a crisis pregnancy. Chastity programs need to be run by volunteers providing their own money. Laws need to be passed to allow us to decide if our taxes go to PP and we need to have a campaign for corporations to give money to its employers it would have given to PP or even ok organizations, so that the employees can donate it wherever, so long as the company isn't shamed (like if one donated to NAMBLA). A strict accounting of where the money went would be required. In fact, the envelopes in a sealed envelope, sealed before many workers' eyes, would be picked up by an unknown mailman to avoid anyone weeding out enveloped to companies they hate. In fact, the envelope from each employee would not have the donatee's company or organization's name and it would only be known after ii's cashed.

Anyway, all bases need covering.

We could have 2 people gossiping graphically in public places about someone who had a botched abortion that actually happened to someone. Abortion needs to be defamed and it doesn't require expensive fundraisers, though the work of the HLI, Priests 4 Life, and Life Decisions International do do important things and some require lots of cash. Word of mouth can do a lot. Posing on blogs and youtube, if you are not addicted, can do a lot.[/quote]
So a bit of a viral campaign?

[Winchester]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1764083' date='Jan 27 2009, 09:22 PM']So there is no such thing as a legitimate revolution?


Hmmm. Well, I certainly love Star Wars with its Rebel Alliance and [i]Les Mis[/i] with the defence of the barricade and all of that. But that's fiction.

I think real-life revolutions have to be peaceful to be legit - such as Solidarnosk or the uprising in the Philippines. The Civil Rights movement or Ghandi getting the UK out of India. Those sorts of things.

In the case of the American Revolution and the Civil War, at the very least there was a gov't operating, not just a random band of rebels blowing things up because they were angry. But I'm not sure those were 'good' things, either.[/quote]
A personal opinion, then, and based upon broad suppositions about the motivation of all rebellions. By cheapening violent revolutionaries, you have created a straw man. Your position is neither properly seated in logic nor in line with Catholic moral theology. It's purely personal opinion. Being a pacifist by choice is fine, but violent opposition to evil is morally permissible. Thus legitimate. While I don't say it is in this case proper to oppose abortion by violence, I do say violent opposition to unjust governments by private citizens is morally excusable in some cases.

Edited January 28, 2009 by Winchester

[Tufsoles]

[quote name='eagle_eye222001' post='1758581' date='Jan 22 2009, 12:47 PM']Stupid. Not helping the cause.

Ways to fight a war...ways to not fight a war.[/quote]

I was thinking the same thing. He wasn't the brightest crayon in the box.

[MithLuin]

I am not a pacifist. I think that you can (rightly) defend using violence. I just suspect that even if a violent action is justified, a more perfect way would be to overcome evil with good.

And I am [i]very[/i] ambivalent about Just War theory being applied to private actions, because vigilante justice has a tendency [i]not[/i] to be just. It was not intended to be used in defense of anarchy or 'private wars' - it was developed as a way of judging conflicts between nations. Private citizens do not a nation make.

Certain things have to be true to make a non-violent resistance feasible - I am not suggesting that it always will work or is the answer to every conflict. But in general, if you are the first one to pick up a gun, your cause loses, even if you win the skirmish. Waco stockpiled weapons because they were afraid the gov't would come after them. Ended up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.


But just because my last post did not reference Catholic social teaching on this subject does not mean I am ignorant of it nor does it mean that my views are not compatible with it.

In the case of an unjust government, overthrowing them may be legitimate, but a violent coup, civil war or revolution is hardly the only way to do that. In democratic countries, you have the opportunity to throw out your leader every few years. There can be a turn-over of elected officials. If you don't work for this, and go straight for the kill....people would be right to view you as a terrorist and a warmonger. You wouldn't have met the criteria of exhausting other means first. In the case of an oppressive dictator (such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe) the situation is different.

[indent]* the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
* all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
* there must be serious prospects of success;
* the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. [/indent]

I guess the second and last point is what makes me very nervous about considering an uprising to be legitimate - is there a reasonable chance that a just society will be restored, or are you creating anarchy and chaos? Was that really 'the only way?'



When I was in high school, everyone in my area complained about the new developments all the time. All the old farm land was being lost and converted, etc. One obvious way of stopping it would have been to destroy the buildings while they were under construction, before anyone moved into them. No one would have to have been hurt, maimed or killed if you blew up houses. Still, I think anyone can see that that is not the right way to go about halting development. You can't just go blow up someone else's property like that. If you want them to stop building houses, you fight them on the zoning laws in the first place. You can't unilaterally decide that the house shouldn't be there.

An abortion clinic is not a house, and the fact that babies are killed there makes a huge difference in how strongly people feel about this as well as the moral justification for taking action. But. You still do not have the personal authority to declare war. If the Catholic Church, as a whole, decided to go to war against abortion clinics, then yes, we could discuss violent means of preventing it. But [i]phatmass[/i] can't just up and declare war!

Here are what are considered the necessary criteria for declaring war justly:
[indent][b]* Just cause[/b]
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."
[b]* Comparative justice [/b]
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.
[b]* Legitimate authority[/b]
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.
[b]* Right intention[/b]
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.
[b]* Probability of success [/b]
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;
[b]* Last resort [/b]
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.
[b]* Proportionality[/b]
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the [i]jus in bello[/i] principle of proportionality. [/indent]


Stopping abortion may well be a just cause, but I don't think all the rest of those apply. We haven't reached last resort yet, and we aren't the legitimate authority. As far as probability of success goes...stopping people from having abortions is very tricky. Stopping them from having an abortion [i]today[/i] and [i]in this place[/i] can be prevented by violent means...but what of tomorrow, down the street?

It should be patently obvious that our nation needs conversion if we are going to convince people of the value of the culture of life. We should work towards that. Destroying property is unlikely to advance the cause or save many lives, so it should be eskewed for those reasons.

[quote]"War is a violent way for determining who gets to say what goes on in a given territory, for example, regarding: who gets power, who gets wealth and resources, [b]whose ideals prevail,[/b] who is a member and who is not, [b]which laws get made,[/b] what gets taught in schools, where the border rests, how much tax is levied, and so on. War is the ultimate means for deciding these issues if a peaceful process or resolution can't be agreed upon." [url="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/"]http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/war/[/url][/quote]

So, if we are right and abortion is killing an innocent baby (duh, we're right on that), then we need to convince people of that to make that idea prevail. Violent means means we've given up on even believeing that the truth is on our side. That is why damaging buildings does not help.

For a more full explanation of Catholic teaching on this subject, there is always [url="http://www.usccb.org/sdwp/international/TheChallengeofPeace.pdf"]The Challenge of Peace: God's Promise and our Response[/url] from the US Catholic bishops.

[Winchester]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1764870' date='Jan 28 2009, 05:27 PM']And I am [i]very[/i] ambivalent about Just War theory being applied to private actions, because vigilante justice has a tendency [i]not[/i] to be just. It was not intended to be used in defense of anarchy or 'private wars' - it was developed as a way of judging conflicts between nations. Private citizens do not a nation make.

Certain things have to be true to make a non-violent resistance feasible - I am not suggesting that it always will work or is the answer to every conflict. But in general, if you are the first one to pick up a gun, your cause loses, even if you win the skirmish. Waco stockpiled weapons because they were afraid the gov't would come after them. Ended up being a self-fulfilling prophecy.


But just because my last post did not reference Catholic social teaching on this subject does not mean I am ignorant of it nor does it mean that my views are not compatible with it.

In the case of an unjust government, overthrowing them may be legitimate, but a violent coup, civil war or revolution is hardly the only way to do that. In democratic countries, you have the opportunity to throw out your leader every few years. There can be a turn-over of elected officials. If you don't work for this, and go straight for the kill....people would be right to view you as a terrorist and a warmonger. You wouldn't have met the criteria of exhausting other means first. In the case of an oppressive dictator (such as Mugabe in Zimbabwe) the situation is different.[/quote]Again with the presuppositions.

There is not a type of body capable of waging war who does not typically use it unjustly. Numbers don't make the likelihood of abuse any less. Democracy has borne this out over its history.

The group in Waco wasn't revolutionary--they were nutjobs. They were apocalypse freaks. They are an unacceptable example. A better choice would have been the PIRA.

I didn't accuse you of being ignorant of it, so there's no need to mention that.

In democratic countries, the power is rarely couched in one person and the parties which gain control are suitably staggered in their various offices so as to make real "throwing out" next to impossible, especially once the press is moved in. As much as I love the US and feel we're still in the top nations (and enjoy my freedom), I know there's next to no chance of stemming the tide of leftism that is going to drown those freedoms. But our system will likely exist enough to permit the inevitable backlash. We're looking at decades--our government moves at a snail's pace, but the world is headed in the direction of the left, so we're not going to be any different. The real revolutions are generations off, but they will occur because one day, our leftists will grow up into the Lenin/Stalin/Mao model. Again, this will take a couple of generations. Or maybe they'll die off because the movement is so entirely asinine it's unbelievable anyone follows it. But I doubt it. People are stupid and getting worse every day.

But that doesn't go along the lines of my argument, anyway. I just couldn't resist commenting on the red herring.

[foolishmortal]

Ok. The hacking and website crashing idea I once had was a bit pushing it.

I think the errors of Russia kind of communism thrives on people wanting what they want and rationalizing their increasingly bolder means. It's all about undermining the Church and its influence in the world, as has been the aim of the Masons, because Freemasonry is demonic. The Church is the embodiment of all that stands in the way of everyone, with the prodding of the Masons (and related and/or offspring organizations like The Illuminati, The Club of Rome, Rotary International, radical Greens, The Klan, communism, "Big Science", The Bildebergers, etc.) losing their mind in sensual indulgence. The Church is the Bride of Christ and The Masons are the love child of Satan. It's in all the Gnostic imagery. Maybe the Masons is the offspring of the Gnostics. I'll leave that to the historians here. They don't have to explain this to the sophmorics in academia; just supply the weed, coke, heroin, crack, meth, porn of various stripes, mind-distracting rock n roll, etc., they'll become permissive parents, and the later generations of commies can spread their tentacles deeper and deeper into society until we are sheep. Saying that about the Church was like LBJ's platform (maybe not him, then) of saying Goldwater would send more troops to Vietnam and then, doing it himself (despite bad advice, he betrayed America's trust). Nixon's lying was no good, but at least he ended our participation in the war and was still the most hated (I'm no admirer of his, BTW). Anyway, the followers of the left are sheep, but of a shepherd that hates and cares for themselves.

We, the red diaper doper babies and their offspring and the the ones from wise families who get confused by the radicals in high school and college, think with no reason and not critically. A certain feeling-rooted philosophy is called "critical thinking" and so they drop off their reasoning there. Professors' feelings warp their own logic and that affects the thinking of their emulating students. They want to laugh at authority, but, in their sophmorism, they don't question the authority of those that questioned authority. The other worthwhile option is Christianity, as Buddhists and other "wisdom" religions, except Islam, have their thumbs up their you know whats about truth, so no one really benefits. They just want false harmony in the face of evil, even trying to harmonize evil with good. Unfortunately, lies about Christianity, esp. Catholic Christianity, are told so often, many students don't consider it. We have more outspoken people here than in other countries, but things still are sliding left.

We are headed for real trouble. Has it been noticed that the visible decline of Western Civ. has chronologically coincided with tacky art, architecture and liturgical music (both were under attack before the 60s, of course). I think others may not tolerate Catholicism anymore before long, though the war declared against us may win us powerful converts as God brings grace out of evil times. A persecuted status may straighten out the minds of the "reasonable" Catholics who tossed out relics, exorcism, altar rails, etc. in an ironically puritanical manner and, in a Biblical-literalist manner, used the tradition with a small "t" as a technicality to rationalize it (which really separates liberal Catholics from heretics, though the former may be acting with a heretical basis of reasoning).






[quote name='Winchester' post='1764919' date='Jan 28 2009, 07:17 PM']Again with the presuppositions.

There is not a type of body capable of waging war who does not typically use it unjustly. Numbers don't make the likelihood of abuse any less. Democracy has borne this out over its history.

The group in Waco wasn't revolutionary--they were nutjobs. They were apocalypse freaks. They are an unacceptable example. A better choice would have been the PIRA.

I didn't accuse you of being ignorant of it, so there's no need to mention that.

In democratic countries, the power is rarely couched in one person and the parties which gain control are suitably staggered in their various offices so as to make real "throwing out" next to impossible, especially once the press is moved in. As much as I love the US and feel we're still in the top nations (and enjoy my freedom), I know there's next to no chance of stemming the tide of leftism that is going to drown those freedoms. But our system will likely exist enough to permit the inevitable backlash. We're looking at decades--our government moves at a snail's pace, but the world is headed in the direction of the left, so we're not going to be any different. The real revolutions are generations off, but they will occur because one day, our leftists will grow up into the Lenin/Stalin/Mao model. Again, this will take a couple of generations. Or maybe they'll die off because the movement is so entirely asinine it's unbelievable anyone follows it. But I doubt it. People are stupid and getting worse every day.

But that doesn't go along the lines of my argument, anyway. I just couldn't resist commenting on the red herring.[/quote]