breaking and entering

[photosynthesis]

is it acceptable to break into an abortion clinic with sledgehammers and smash up all of the equipment they use to abort babies?

[sraf]

NO.
Reasons:
-That is a violent method of protest, and those don't work, they only make you look like a lunatic (TRUST ME, I KNOW)
Furthermore, Ghandi and Dr. King both disapprove of violence, and so did Jesus, most of the time.
-That equipment is darned expensive, and you'd probably have to pay for it, not to mention the criminal charges you're already faced with for breaking and entering.

That is in a solely objective light, mind you.
Did I mention that it is legally a crime and that the courts of law won't care how many babies you were trying to save?
(And I won't even mention any desperate thirteen-year-old who has just lost her only way out...)

All love and respect, really. But peaceful action, please.

Newly yours,
sraf

[photosynthesis]

as far as the thirteen year old goes, killing is not the answer, though. It is never the answer.

breaking and entering into an abortion clinic and destroying abortive equipment is violence toward objects.

but using such equipment to perform abortions is violence toward people. People are always more important than objects.

Even if it cost a lot of money to repair the equipment and you'd have to face criminal charges, one could argue that it is worth it because you're saving people.

[sraf]

But breaking and entering is still a violent statement and a crime. Nonviolent methods first. You could be jailed for breaking in - a crime against a machine now, what next? A crime against an abortion doctor? A [good] lawyer and judge's job is to look at the law. And the law says that breaking and entering ANYWHERE to deliberately destroy equipment is not a happy camper.

It is true that killing is not the answer. But if a girl hasn't gotten all the education she needs to understand the rest of the answers, where else can she go? Protest against the system that makes abortion a reality - the lack of proper sexual education in schools, lack of the proper counseling for desperate young women to choose to give the baby up for adoption. Breaking into an abortion clinic right there is like cutting off a weed near the soil. The weed will grow back, just as stubborn as before. You have to dig out the root to kill the weed.

Slightly less new,
sraf

[Nathan]

[quote name='sraf' date='Dec 11 2005, 02:36 AM']Protest against the system that makes abortion a reality - the lack of proper sexual education in schools, lack of the proper counseling for desperate young women to choose to give the baby up for adoption.  Breaking into an abortion clinic right there is like cutting off a weed near the soil.  The weed will grow back, just as stubborn as before.  You have to dig out the root to kill the weed.[right][snapback]820302[/snapback][/right][/quote]

Precisely.

We must think about the big picture. Someone breaking into an abortion clinic and smashing it up with a sledgehammer would ultimately only weaken our cause, and strengthen the pro-choicers/abortionists'.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 11 2005, 03:08 AM']is it acceptable to break into an abortion clinic with sledgehammers and smash up all of the equipment they use to abort babies?
[right][snapback]820294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Catholic Principle: The end does NOT justify the means.
We need to change hearts, not become criminals ourselves.

[photosynthesis]

what about going into a Nazi crematorium and destroying their instruments of death?

[sraf]

First of all, it's NOT THE SAME THING.

Women [i]choose[/i] to have abortions. For whatever reason on earth, the women choose. They don't pick a pregnant woman off the street or round up all the pregnant women and then abort their babies without the women's knowledge or consent. That's why it's called the pro-CHOICE movement.
The death camps were not a matter of choice on the part of the Jews and other 'undesirables,' the German dictator (Hitler) decided that these people were unfit to live and ordered them out of every country he conquered. They did not choose to be sent to death camps, nor were they even told where they were going.
It's NOT THE SAME THING, so if we're in a debate, that argument is invalid.

Second of all, instead of just turning off the gas in ONE lousy Nazi crematorium, how about working to stop Hitler? That would be a much more efficient way. (Because the Germans were so organized at that time that destroying their instruments in one camp would mean they would only call up and have those instruments replaced.)
And remember, nonviolence.

[rkwright]

[quote]First of all, it's NOT THE SAME THING.

Women [i]choose[/i] to have abortions. For whatever reason on earth, the women choose.  They don't pick a pregnant woman off the street or round up all the pregnant women and then abort their babies without the women's knowledge or consent.  That's why it's called the pro-CHOICE movement.
The death camps were not a matter of choice on the part of the Jews and other 'undesirables,' the German dictator (Hitler) decided that these people were unfit to live and ordered them out of every country he conquered.  They did not choose to be sent to death camps, nor were they even told where they were going.
It's NOT THE SAME THING, so if we're in a debate, that argument is invalid.

Second of all, instead of just turning off the gas in ONE lousy Nazi crematorium, how about working to stop Hitler? That would be a much more efficient way. (Because the Germans were so organized at that time that destroying their instruments in one camp would mean they would only call up and have those instruments replaced.)
And remember, nonviolence.
[/quote]

eh... I would argue that they are closer than you say... You're right the woman has the choice to have the aborition, but the baby that is killed doesn't. The germans had the choice to have them killed, but the jews didn't. Either way the 'victim'* does not have a choice.

Again you're right that the Germans were organized, but so is the aborition agenda. Stop one place and they'll head down the road.

* Disclaimer I don't mean to say women aren't also the 'victims', just not the victims of death... no offense to anyone intended!

[rkwright]

overall its a tough question... when do we start calling aborition what it is, genocide? When do we start to fight it? What makes the genocide of WWII or Kosovo any more worthy of violence and not this one? Should we have used peaceful means to stop Hitler? How many more lives must be lost before we take action?

I don't really know, but I'm having a hard time at what the difference is between this and Kosovo. You had a leader killing off a group of people for no good reason.

[rkwright]

umm re-reading my posts... I am not advocating violence in anyway... work within the law... the question is how far do you go within the law. How many people are killed while you try to stop the law?

[sraf]

If you make abortion illegal... *ahem*
When Prohibition started, that is, when alcohol was made illegal, what did that lead to? Well, it coincided with the start of the Jazz Age: music, smoking, high skirts, and... bootlegging. The black market to sell illegal alcohol grew and grew in this time period. At some point someone wised up and made alcohol legal again.
But the black market remains. Now it sells illegal narcotics, drugs, hallucigens, and still alcohol, all of which tear apart people's lives through sale which the government has a hard time completely catching. All because of a well-intentioned move to stop alcohol selling.
Now change that to abortion. If abortion was made illegal, say, tomorrow, then all the rich people who want abortions can go across the border to Canada, but what about poor people who can't afford to pay for another child, nor can they afford to fly to Canada or Mexico for an operation?
We start having abortions done in bathrooms, in alleys, in apartments - imagine. The babies are still getting killed, the women in the procedure still are not being helped, and the worst of all is, the procedure itself is not in a sterile environment and probably not done by a professional doctor.
Think about that.
THAT is the real reason why no President in his right mind, no matter how much he says he will, will make abortion illegal right away. And that is why we need to make haste slowly in order to reach a good compromise on this issue.
[quote name='cmotherofpirl']We need to change hearts, not become criminals ourselves.[/quote]
Thank you, [b]cmom[/b].

[rkwright]

[quote name='sraf' date='Dec 11 2005, 12:59 PM']If you make abortion illegal... *ahem*
When Prohibition started, that is, when alcohol was made illegal, what did that lead to? Well, it coincided with the start of the Jazz Age: music, smoking, high skirts, and... bootlegging.  The black market to sell illegal alcohol grew and grew in this time period.  At some point someone wised up and made alcohol legal again.
But the black market remains.  Now it sells illegal narcotics, drugs, hallucigens, and still alcohol, all of which tear apart people's lives through sale which the government has a hard time completely catching.  All because of a well-intentioned move to stop alcohol selling.
Now change that to abortion. If abortion was made illegal, say, tomorrow, then all the rich people who want abortions can go across the border to Canada, but what about poor people who can't afford to pay for another child, nor can they afford to fly to Canada or Mexico for an operation?
We start having abortions done in bathrooms, in alleys, in apartments - imagine.  The babies are still getting killed, the women in the procedure still are not being helped, and the worst of all is, the procedure itself is not in a sterile environment and probably not done by a professional doctor. 
Think about that.
THAT is the real reason why no President in his right mind, no matter how much he says he will, will make abortion illegal right away.  And that is why we need to make haste slowly in order to reach a good compromise on this issue.
[quote name='cmotherofpirl']We need to change hearts, not become criminals ourselves.[/quote]
Thank you, [b]cmom[/b].
[right][snapback]820619[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


whoa I totally disagree here... Just because something is illegal and people break that law doesn't mean we should abandon the law or the moral law behind it. It is wrong 99% of the time to take another human life (with some exceptions), and just because it happens doesn't mean we should allow it so it is done in a 'good' way. Morality is not dependant on what people do.

People murder each other, should we make it legal so that is done in a sterile way?

The reason why it is still legal and no president has really backed change is because that person would lose a TON of votes if they attacked the pro-choice movement. And its not even in the President's hands... its in the courts.

Edited December 11, 2005 by rkwright

[photosynthesis]

sraf, I know you said that Martin Luther King + Gandhi were all about nonviolence, but where in Catholic teaching or Scripture would you justify nonviolence in all situations?

[sraf]

And the courts belong to the people and to the educated.

CHANGE THE SYSTEM THAT MAKES ABORTION A NECCESSITY.
-Teach children at around grade 4-6 about sex, STDs, condoms, and the complete effects of having sex without commitment
-For any young girl with an unwanted pregnancy who has nowhere else to go, give her a safe place to go and counseling and support
-Show this aforesaid young girl her complete options: to abort the baby (and its complete emotional whallops), to give it up for adoption (and that one's complications and whallops) or to keep the baby (and the horrible financial situations that that one entails). Give her the complete facts and LET HER CHOOSE.

By the way, even if a fetus is a physically complete human being from the moment of conception, until it can safely function outside of the mother's body, many will say that it is still a part of the woman's body and therefore her choice to deal with. It is a valid argument, as valid as any of yours.
And if we allow it, the least we can do is make the procedure SAFE.

[rkwright]

[quote]-Show this aforesaid young girl her complete options: to abort the baby (and its complete emotional whallops), to give it up for adoption (and that one's complications and whallops) or to keep the baby (and the horrible financial situations that that one entails). Give her the complete facts and LET HER CHOOSE.[/quote]

This is the pro-choice agenda! Killing the baby is never a morally acceptable option. Just because life is tough NEVER justifies killing the baby.

Allowing babies to be killed is the same as legalized genocide. It is morally wrong for the state to allow people to choose to kill babies without any recourse.

[quote]By the way, even if a fetus is a physically complete human being from the moment of conception, until it can safely function outside of the mother's body, many will say that it is still a part of the woman's body and therefore her choice to deal with. It is a valid argument, as valid as any of yours.[/quote]

How about an infant? An Infant can't live without its mother (or someone taking care of it). Does that give the person taking care of it the right to choose if it lives or dies? I think not.

[quote]And if we allow it, the least we can do is make the procedure SAFE.[/quote]

If by safe you mean deadly you are correct! How the procedure is carried out doesn't even matter....

The ends never justify the means. Likewise do the means ever justify the ends? If you're end goal is killing innocents then it doesn't really ever matter how it is done.

[avemaria40]

and the worst of all is, the procedure itself is not in a sterile environment and probably not done by a professional doctor.
Think about that.
[right][snapback]820619[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

There is some debate about whether the woman undergoing an abortion has it done by a professional doctor, as not all abortionists are. And yes, nonviolence is the answer, as well as offering help, assistance, Christian love, and compassion to these women, as many are not educated or have no say.
Overcoming hate w/hate will not do any good.

[Socrates]

[quote name='sraf' date='Dec 11 2005, 01:15 PM']First of all, it's NOT THE SAME THING.

Women [i]choose[/i] to have abortions. For whatever reason on earth, the women choose.  They don't pick a pregnant woman off the street or round up all the pregnant women and then abort their babies without the women's knowledge or consent.  That's why it's called the pro-CHOICE movement.
The death camps were not a matter of choice on the part of the Jews and other 'undesirables,' the German dictator (Hitler) decided that these people were unfit to live and ordered them out of every country he conquered.  They did not choose to be sent to death camps, nor were they even told where they were going.
It's NOT THE SAME THING, so if we're in a debate, that argument is invalid.

Second of all, instead of just turning off the gas in ONE lousy Nazi crematorium, how about working to stop Hitler? That would be a much more efficient way. (Because the Germans were so organized at that time that destroying their instruments in one camp would mean they would only call up and have those instruments replaced.)
And remember, nonviolence.
[right][snapback]820585[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
This is flawed reasoning.
Murder is murder, whether it is freely chosen by an individual or forcibly ordered by a government.

How does the fact that people choose to kill babies have any bearing on this?

And btw, the Church nowhere teaches "non-violence" as an absolute principle. MLK and Ghandi were not Catholic.

[sraf]

[quote]This is the pro-choice agenda! Killing the baby is never a morally acceptable option. Just because life is tough NEVER justifies killing the baby. [/quote]
Excuse me. I said to give the girl considering an abortion her complete options. I didn't say "When a girl comes to a clinic seeking help put her on the anesthesia right away and get out the scapel." Abortion, adoption, or keeping the baby - NONE of these are easy. Many mothers regret giving their babies up for adoption, or have difficulty letting the baby go to another family, no matter how good the family is. Keeping the baby could ruin a young girl's life - possibly alienate her from her parents, means she may not complete high school or attend college, she may not be able to rely on the father, and therefore, must support herself and the baby by herself - all while trying to be a good mother to the baby itself! Would you say that is a wonderful start in life around age 16-18? Abortion, it has been proven, causes long-term stress and guilt. [b]All three of these have emotional repercussions and various consequences. [/b]
[quote]And btw, the Church nowhere teaches "non-violence" as an absolute principle. MLK and Ghandi were not Catholic.[/quote]
If that makes their statements invalid, then allow me to quote a source from my memory which I think you will trust:
[quote name='Jesus']You have heard it said, an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.  But I say to you, if one strikes you on one cheek, you will turn the other to him, and if one wishes to steal your cloak, give him your shirt as well.[/quote]
Amen.

[Guest Rick777]

[quote name='photosynthesis' date='Dec 11 2005, 01:08 AM']is it acceptable to break into an abortion clinic with sledgehammers and smash up all of the equipment they use to abort babies?
[right][snapback]820294[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


no.