Late Term Abortion Provider

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='StColette' post='1880484' date='Jun 1 2009, 05:56 PM']In self defense of myself, maybe not likely though, or defense of another in my presence, more likely to do this than to defend myself. But aside from that I agree with what Resurrexi said at the beginning of this thread, that "one may never do a moral evil that good may come of it".

Again, that would be your choice to take that type of action just as it would be my choice not to unless in self defense of myself or another.

(having this looming feeling that a lynch mob is gonna come after her)[/quote]
Would I shoot him if he were walking down the street - no. If you walked in the room where Dr. Mengele was torturing ["experimenting"] on living human beings [ many times live twin babies] and you had a gun, would you pull the trigger? I would.

[Resurrexi]

N.B., if you say anything stupid on this thread about the Dr. , you may very well end up on some government list on which you'd rather not be.

[Theologian in Training]

So, from reading this thread, it seems that human dignity is relative. We speak so much about the dignity of the human person, how important life is, until the person "deserves to die."

As I said in another thread: While what he did was incredibly immoral, he is also a person of human dignity and there seems to be a hypocritical understanding that respect for human life is contingent.

Violence may beget violence, but life is life, if we are not consistent in our value for all human life then what are we truly saying about our pro-life stance?

It is these types of things that confuse people and cause them to question Catholics. Besides, if we start saying this was God's work, what are we saying about God? While He is all-powerful and His judgment severe, so too, is His mercy and love. Thing is, I am not God, I didn't make this person, I did not form this Dr. with my "hands" forge him out of love. So, I don't know what God wanted for this person, but I am sure He did not want another to "play God."

While God is, indeed, all-loving, He is also all-just, but would he ever "inspire" another to take a life, the same life He made?

[CatherineM]

Any way we look at it, or feel about what happened, this incident is exactly what they needed to add the entire pro-life movement onto a list of domestic terrorists. The fact that Tiller was a major campaign contributor to the new head of HHS, may give them what they need to throw the full weight of RICO against us.

[rkwright]

I think what Theo is saying is generally right.

Honestly, I haven't completely made up my mind on this because I can see the argument for self-defense of a third party in these cases.

Some of have said that there needs to be an eminent threat in order to be justified in using deadly force. But I really question this, especially in the context of situations where you know someone will be harmed but cannot protect them at that moment. In the abortion situation it is impossible to protect the unborn at the time of the murder.

The other two times where we discuss killing another human are capital punishment and just war theories. People have advocated, with Church documents, that capital punishment can simply be used on the basis of justice. The requirement is the state be the authority to restore justice. But in the abortion context, the state, the "proper authority" is the exact entity allowing the murder to go on. Capital punishment would have been justified for the Dr. had the state had its head on straight.

Why do we allow the state to kill criminals based on prior crimes and a possible threat to other criminals - but not the abortion doctor who the state has said kills legally.

[rkwright]

I just wanted to add, that for me personally, I don't feel totally comfortable with the idea that killing the Dr. was ok morally. And if my conscience is nagging at me, its probably better, safer, to just go with killing the Dr. was not ok.

But, as my previous post stated, think there is a compelling argument to be made. It just doesn't sit well in my heart.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1880578' date='Jun 1 2009, 09:24 PM']Any way we look at it, or feel about what happened, this incident is exactly what they needed to add the entire pro-life movement onto a list of domestic terrorists. The fact that Tiller was a major campaign contributor to the new head of HHS, may give them what they need to throw the full weight of RICO against us.[/quote]
Do you think Tiller was worth more to the abortion industry dead or alive?

[CatherineM]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1880604' date='Jun 1 2009, 07:59 PM']Do you think Tiller was worth more to the abortion industry dead or alive?[/quote]

He will probably be worth more dead. He's 67, so chances are he wasn't going to be actively doing abortions for that much longer. Malpractice insurance is high enough once you get over 65 and are still trying to do surgery. He could have been an important resource to teach younger doctors how to do abortions. My brother graduated from med school 25 years ago, and he said the topic wasn't even offered as an elective. Only two people from his class do abortions, and they learned elsewhere.

I think there will be a time when we point back to this as the moment we wish we could have gotten back. This gives the other side so many different kinds of ammunition. It is one thing to have lots of private attorneys coming at us, but now, we may have to deal with the full weight of the US government on our necks.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Honestly, I haven't completely made up my mind on this because I can see the argument for self-defense of a third party in these cases.

Some of have said that there needs to be an eminent threat in order to be justified in using deadly force. But I really question this, especially in the context of situations where you know someone will be harmed but cannot protect them at that moment. In the abortion situation it is impossible to protect the unborn at the time of the murder.[/quote]

as ironmonk and this fellow have noted, 'defense of other' is a compelling argument as well as 'just war'. or, it could be in its own category of acceptable even to good catholics (as iron would argue as well)
it may not be 'imminent' by a legal standard, but it's surely imminent enough. we're only foolin ourselves if we say he wouldn't have did a pointless third trimester again. (the type of thing we have a chance at stopping). it's a rationalization to say 'he might not do it again' etc.
but as i said, if it's not 'defense of other' in that sense, it is at least in another sense, or at least a category of itself that should be allowed.

imminency is just a manmade legal standard anyway... id be more concerned about what theologians say 'defense of others' entails
for example.. i doubt it's necessarily wrong to say it's wrong to kill if u know they're going to kill soon (generally speaking, abortion aside) but u aren't sure how soon or it's not super imminent... it seems that way to me anyway. or, if ya think there should be 'try to mitigate it first' standards (which i see as reasonable, sometimes),,,, then even still, technically... if u know when it's going down... then u should be able to kill even according to imminency standards, cause you wait till it's goin down. though, it seems pretty convuluted me, that you'd have to go to that extent to prevent it. but even still, the principle is tehnically met, if we know it's going down which we surely could determine at some time.
.... so there's no excuse, no matter how ya slice it

im pretty sure id also be able to give arguments, for why many of his actions, weren't even legal. sure, folks say they were, and im sure the judge there said they were. but, they probably weren't even legal.
so we're lookin the other way, even when his murders were illegal.

Edited June 2, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[StColette]

[quote name='Theologian in Training' post='1880575' date='Jun 1 2009, 08:16 PM']So, from reading this thread, it seems that human dignity is relative. We speak so much about the dignity of the human person, how important life is, until the person "deserves to die."

As I said in another thread: While what he did was incredibly immoral, he is also a person of human dignity and there seems to be a hypocritical understanding that respect for human life is contingent.

Violence may beget violence, but life is life, if we are not consistent in our value for all human life then what are we truly saying about our pro-life stance?

It is these types of things that confuse people and cause them to question Catholics. Besides, if we start saying this was God's work, what are we saying about God? While He is all-powerful and His judgment severe, so too, is His mercy and love. Thing is, I am not God, I didn't make this person, I did not form this Dr. with my "hands" forge him out of love. So, I don't know what God wanted for this person, but I am sure He did not want another to "play God."

While God is, indeed, all-loving, He is also all-just, but would he ever "inspire" another to take a life, the same life He made?[/quote]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts Father

[kenrockthefirst]

[url="http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/"]Food for thought[/url].

[quote]So is Roeder getting support from the nation's leading pro-life groups? Not a bit. They have roundly denounced the murder. The National Right to Life Committee says it opposes "any form of violence to fight the violence of abortion," preferring instead "to work through educational and legislative activities to ensure the right to life for unborn children, people with disabilities and older people." Americans United for Life agrees that it was wrong to kill Tiller because "the foundational right to life that our work is dedicated to extends to everyone."

I applaud these statements. They affirm the value of life and nonviolence, two principles that should unite us. [b]But they don't square with what these organizations purport to espouse: a strict moral equation between the unborn and the born. If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for "educational and legislative activities" to stop him. Somebody would use force.[/b][/quote]

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1881103' date='Jun 2 2009, 10:41 AM'][url="http://www.slate.com/id/2219537/"]Food for thought[/url].[/quote]

It reminds me of how people demonize those who "did nothing" while their neighbors were sent to concentration and death camps during WWII. The actions of the majority of the populace then weren't much different that the actions of many today are.

Edited June 2, 2009 by Resurrexi

[dairygirl4u2c]

that article that resurrexi quoted, agrees with me:
(im not the only one who thinks itd at least likely make a difference

"Tiller's murder is different from all previous murders of abortion providers. If you kill an ordinary abortionist, somebody else will step in. But if you kill the guy at the end of the line, some of his patients won't be able to find an alternative. You will have directly prevented abortions."

[dairygirl4u2c]

im not the only one who sees the hypocrisy and cowardice (mostly probably lack of critical thinking, but) here by the prolife movement's response to the murder:

[quote]So is Roeder getting support from the nation's leading pro-life groups? Not a bit. They have roundly denounced the murder. The National Right to Life Committee says it opposes "any form of violence to fight the violence of abortion," preferring instead "to work through educational and legislative activities to ensure the right to life for unborn children, people with disabilities and older people." Americans United for Life agrees that it was wrong to kill Tiller because "the foundational right to life that our work is dedicated to extends to everyone."

I applaud these statements. They affirm the value of life and nonviolence, two principles that should unite us. But they don't square with what these organizations purport to espouse: a strict moral equation between the unborn and the born. If a doctor in Kansas were butchering hundreds of old or disabled people, and legal authorities failed to intervene, I doubt most members of the National Right to Life Committee would stand by waiting for "educational and legislative activities" to stop him. Somebody would use force.[/quote]

[dairygirl4u2c]

he also see the subtlies i try to convey to you guys, about how you all by your actions, show what you really think (particularly w late term- but also w early term since im not hardcore early on, im not hypocritical to not point out the hypocricsy about a lack of action by prolifers there)(though early on there's decent arguments to be against taking action, even if you're hardcore about it):

[quote]The reason these pro-life groups have held their fire, both rhetorically and literally, is that they don't really equate fetuses with old or disabled people. They oppose abortion, as most of us do. But they don't treat abortionists the way they'd treat mass murderers of the old or disabled. And this self-restraint can't simply be chalked up to nonviolence or respect for the law.[/quote]

that author is smart. we need more in the media like him.
(even though i disagree with his ultimate conclusion

Edited June 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c