Killing Abortion Doctors

[cmotherofpirl]

Aggression and self -defense are too different things.

[dairygirl4u2c]

How are they different? If you say because one is in haste so okay, is it okay to think right now that if someone attacks me, I will fully and rationally attack this person?

Or are you implying that it would be wrong to save by force, again say, black people if people started killing them?

Also, what gives the state the right to not follow the ends justifying mean spectrum?

Edited February 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[socalscout]

I have re-convert to the pro-life movement (the ones personally AND socially against it) since a woman is only truly free (as the Pope himself's argument has shown me) when she realizes the baby inside of her is fully entitled to humanity's natural rights.

http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...opic=6891&st=60

I am still open minded. Open minded enough to leave the pro-life movement and open-minded to come back again. (and yes perhaps even so open-minded that my brains have fallen out) but I have more questions.

I am wondering why we don't attack abortion doctors? It's been said that that's breaking the 10 commandments, but how is this different than having a just war?

And if someone were killing say blacks, wouldn't we be obliged to stop them?

Can we say the dispute is understandable enough to allow it to happen because of democratic means but not understandable enough to actively allow it to happen?

What's the deal? I wonder if the Pope has spoken on this issue speicifically about abortion doctor killing.

I also wonder why we aren't more adament about fighting for the people who have their plugs pulled but maybe that's another post.

Let me preface this by saying I am Pro-Life(concerning abortion) and Anti-Capital Punishment.

I think you have to look at intent. Lets take someone like a schoolyard mass murderer and the abortion doctor. Some would argue there is no difference. The difference between someone who walks into a school with an Uzi and opens fire on children and the abortion doctor is intent to kill. The schoolyard killer intends on taking innocent life. The abortion doctor thinks he/she is removing tissue. I am giving the abortion doctors the benefit of the doubt. I do not want to believe they would actually take lives if they believed they were. If they do believe it is a human life then they are just as guilty or worse.

Killing the guy with the Uzi will be defending the innocent against the evil intent of someone else. Killing the abortion doctor will be like killing a stupid person. The doctor's real crime is ignorance. Of cousre that ignorance is slaughtering innocent lives. They need to see the Truth.

Edited February 9, 2004 by socalscout

[dairygirl4u2c]

That's a really thoughful post socal, thanks.

But now that I see that point, I'm starting to second guess my re-conversion to the pro-life. The reaon I came back is because of the women did not have true freedom, having freedom be the basis of my argument. But since we should keep enforcing our morals on others to a minimum when it's understandable they dissent, aren't we stopping their free will? And isn't their free will their God given freedom even if they aren't really free? (since they would insist that they are) Since we can't show them the truth, their only crime is ignorance of the truth, and we are denying them their free will.

Or else why don't we enforce all of our morals such as church attendance and contraception on everyone else? If we insist that it isn't understandable they dissent, shouldn't we hold true to that in these other matters as well? Are we allowed to say we hold to the Church's teaching personally, but legally we should keep our moral enforcing to a minimum in this case and not abortion? Is it because it is less of a crime and so can be tolerated?

We need to consider free will, cuz while the person isn't really free, isn't free will the true freedom God gave us?

[thicke]

dairygirl4u2c, here is the just war doctrine from Catholic Answers:

The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3) there must be serious prospects of success;

4) 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.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Even if the just war doctrine applied here, which it doesn't because it is not a war between two nation, states, governments, etc, the following items would prevent the use of just war doctrine in the fight against abortion.

We have not exhausted all our options as referenced by item #2.

The murder of abortion doctors has not slowed the pace of abortion in this country yet, so item number 3 would not be justified.

It is also questionable if item number 4 would be justified.

So, all we have is one (#1) out of four. In order to have a just war, you have to have all four....

[dairygirl4u2c]

Cuz I'm getting back into isn't free will above life itself? I know what free will without life, but what is life without free will? And since the said life is in question, shouldn't the free will dictate as far as society goes? I'm considering retracting my last post about abortion, but I'm not sure!

If it's understandable that abortionists don't concieve as the baby as entailing natural rights (big if I know), and if we start imposing all our other morals on everyone, contraception, no civil unions etc, aren't we preventing free will??

Thanx thicke! Another thoughful post. I agree that they aren't really the same.

But then are implying that if the government started up slavery again, and started killing them in the process on the side, that we could not do anything about it?

Edited February 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[p0lar_bear]

dairygirl,

I know a lot of people with this same question, so you are not alone.

Not to sound cold, but moral considerations aside, killing abortion doctors is just ineffective. Bombing clinics and killing abortion doctors reinforces the image of pro-lifers as "anti-abortion extremists," which does not further the cause. While such actions may prevent some abortions or frighten some women away, they do not provide a real solution. Changing laws and, more importantly, changing hearts can bring a true end to this horror. Fighting abortion is not just about saving lives, but respecting life and teaching others to do the same.

[cmotherofpirl]

Why do you think free will to do what you want in life is the most important value in existance?

[dairygirl4u2c]

I hold free will above our lives because it is our livlihood. If God didn't want us to have free will, he wouldn't have gave it to us. And since the baby's life is "resonably" in question, we should not impose on her free wil,l one might think.

I guess people can not agree if they want, I suppose they can use contraceptives etc, but as a society we won't allow it. So in a way we're not really opposing free will.

But does that mean we'd have to vote against laws that allowing contraception and and church attendance and stuff??

I suppose in a way you should have to do all this for your religion, but I guess that means that you shouldn't be surprised if that means no one will want to vote for you or want you in politics either.

Edited February 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c

[socalscout]

That's a really thoughful post socal, thanks. 

But now that I see that point, I'm starting to second guess my re-conversion to the pro-life.    The reaon I came back is because of the women did not have true freedom, having freedom be the basis of my argument. But since we should keep enforcing our morals on others to a minimum when it's understandable they dissent, aren't we stopping their free will? And isn't their free will their God given freedom even if they aren't really free? (since they would insist that they are) Since we can't show them the truth, their only crime is ignorance of the truth, and we are denying them their free will.

Or else why don't we enforce all of our morals such as church attendance and contraception on everyone else? If we insist that it isn't understandable they dissent, shouldn't we hold true to that in these other matters as well? Are we allowed to say we hold to the Church's teaching personally, but legally we should keep our moral enforcing to a minimum in this case and not abortion? Is it because it is less of a crime and so can be tolerated?

We need to consider free will, cuz while the person isn't really free, isn't free will the true freedom God gave us?

Yeah your arguement on freewill holds true for most but the abortion issue is different.

The first question that must be answered is: Is this an unborn human life that began at conception with all personhood applied to he/she?

If you answer "No" then we cannot go on.

If it is "Yes" then the next question is: Do you believe it is ok to kill that unborn life?

A "No" to that would make you pro-life regardless of free will. It does not justify killing the doctors or persecuting the pregnant women. It justifies your position that abortion should be illegal. The ingorance of the woman and doctor is irrelevant. It is the law that needs to be attacked.

We are talking about two lives that share the same flesh now. Both carry equal value and neither is expendable regardless of FreeWill.

Take Care.

Edited February 9, 2004 by socalscout

[NewReformation]

Nevermind, I have found my answer:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3417/abortion...nic_attack.html

JK! :D I know someone here's gonna think that was in bad taste. But seriously what are some answers or places to get answers on this?

:sadder:

[cmotherofpirl]

I hold free will above our lives because it is our livlihood. If God didn't want us to have free will, he wouldn't have gave it to us. And since the baby's life is "resonably" in question, we should not impose on her free wil,l one might think.

If God didn't want us to have life, he wouldn't give that to us either.

God entrusts women with the amesome responsiblilty to carry a new life with a soul implanted by Him, for nine months.

Do you think he gave us free will just to kill it?

For every freedom there is a corresponding responsibilty.

We have free will in getting pregnant.

But once you are pregnant you have a responsibility to God to take care of the new life he has shared with you.

THe babies life or humanity is not questionable, it is fact.

Free will is not the end all and be all of existance. It is not something to be worshipped instead of God.

If free will is the most important thing in existance, then no law or order is possible. Life would simply be a clash of free will: my free will to knock you down and hurt you vs your free will to do what you want.

The rule of fee will admits NO law above it.

[_bc]

Or else why don't we enforce all of our morals such as church attendance and contraception on everyone else? If we insist that it isn't understandable they dissent, shouldn't we hold true to that in these other matters as well?

The free will God gave us, is the freedom to either choose to follow Him or not. There is a long stretch from that free will, to a carte blanche to do whatever the heck we want to anyone or anything. In fact, that latter distortion of free will is not freedom at all, it is slavery to ones impulses complemented by a good heaping of pride.

The crucial difference between church attendance and abortion, is that abortion severely affects other people, specifically the unborn and possibly their immediate family.

The duty to defend ones life, means that we must defend ourselves and our families from aggressors, even using force if that is the _only_ way possible - but only the minimum amount of force absolutely neccessary. Just war is much the same concept, as far as I can tell.

Obviously, killing abortion doctors is not the minimum amount of force necessary to save the unborn children.

If one wanted to avoid having their argument float around, aimlessly from one extreme to the other, it might be useful to try and apply just a modicum of common sense to whatever position one is adopting that day, and see if it holds up.

[_bc]

I sleepy. Last email have muddled phrasing. I blush. I stop now.

[cmotherofpirl]

Night night BC. Sleep well. :sleep:

[Matty_boy]

dairygirl has a point. The 10 commandments do say "Thou shalt not kill". However, there are specific times where it is justified to use deadly force, to protect your own life or the life of another. Now, in reference to the pro-life war, killing abortion doctors is not okay because in this case it's more than 1 man standing on a street corner with a gun to a little girls head. That immediate issue is between that man, the little girl, and the other people watching. All witnesses agree that what the man is doing is wrong. In the abortion war, there are a bunch of people who believe or want to believe that abortion is okay. The killing of one doctor by one pro-lifer not only paints all pro-lifers as violent murderers, but also takes away any credibility the pro-life group has and pushes the tension level up one more notch. Evil begets evil. If we kill, they get upset and maybe they'll start killing. Honestly I don't want that. I'm a sidewalk counselor and I'm not gonna get violent, but I don't want it to become more dangerous for the peaceful protestors at the abortions mills. It's very tempting to believe that killing an abortion doctor could be the right thing to do, but it's acting on saving a couple of babies now instead of all in the long run. I DO think it would be very interesting to go back and find the women who were supposed to have abortions at the places on the days that the doctors were killed and see if any of them actually chose life or if they all just went another day.

[cmotherofpirl]

THe end does not justify the means.

[Matty_boy]

That's what I'm saying cmother. It sounds like killing a doctor could be the right ing to do, but then there's the whole fact that abortion is still around after that with a whole lot more anger. Fr. Pavone and Priests for Life has actually set up a reward fund for information leading to the capture of anyone who kills an abortion doctor. I think that's kinda cool in a renegade priest kinda way. Fr. Pavone rocks. He likes to play hardball.

[jasJis]

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Dont' just treat the symptoms, without seeking a cure.

Killing abortion Doctors will only encourage pre-abotionists to get Govermental protection for these death "clincs". Protestors against abortion have already been seriously hamperd because of misguided tactics that became abusive.

Support politicians that want to change Adoption Laws, give rights to the UnBorn, give rights to both sets of Parents in deciding about Abortion (including the Father), increase the responsibility (legal and financial) of the Father AND Mother, set limits on birth parental rights if they abdicate responsibility (a bio-parent cannot claim rights if a child goes to adoption or relinquishes rights and responsibilities to the other bio-parent). etc., etc., etc.

[dairygirl4u2c]

You all make a good point that it would not solve anything. But in principle for pro-lifers isn't killing abortion doctors the right thing to do? Some say the end does not justify the means. But wouldn't the lesser of two evils trump that?

Of if you say it doesn't trump it, why can the state who has no other means have a just war? I realize killing the doctors and a just war are not the same, but in principle why can the state justify the end by the means?