Man Drives Suv Into Planned Parenthood Clinic

[Fidei Defensor]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1763008' date='Jan 26 2009, 09:23 PM']God forbid a Planned Parenthood [i]door[/i] be damaged in the fight against abortion! Horrors!

I'd object to this action not because it was immoral, but because it was useless. Damaging actual abortion equipment would be much more effective. And he probably made a mess of the paint job on his vehicle in the process.[/quote]
Property is property. Doesn't matter whose it is, you don't have the right to damage another's private property.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='fidei defensor' post='1763048' date='Jan 26 2009, 10:25 PM']Property is property. Doesn't matter whose it is, you don't have the right to damage another's private property.[/quote]
Right. Forgot you aren't the church burning sort of atheist.

I also don't see anything morally wrong with petty vandalism. On the other hand, do you think that maybe we're more valuable talking, rather than that.
Vandalize their doors, or even their equipment, and at best you shut them down for a few days. Tops.
Maybe in the day or two that the clinic is shut down, one or two women will think about it a bit longer and decide against it. At best.
...but then you're probably going to jail. Maybe not at first, but if you do it more than once, eventually you'll have a criminal record.
Instead of that waste of time, why not campaign. Talk to people. Make speeches and signs and start demonstrations. Who knows how many people you could change. We have no idea, but I'll bet if you worked at it, you'd get a heck of a lot more than one or two, and likely no criminal record.

Blowing up an abortion clinic makes a statement, to be sure. A very strong statement. In the end though, I think the effect is limited. On top of that, it'll harden some people against us. If that weren't enough, no matter how careful you are, innocent people are in danger. Look at the eco-terrorists who blew up that logging mill. Sorry I can't source that, but long story short, innocent people were killed.

I'd say campaigning on the front lines is more effective in the long run. Less spectacular, and you won't feel as vindicated, but I think it's more effective.

[MithLuin]

Precisely. The methods employed by the [url="http://www.diogh.org/RespectLife/gabrielproject.htm"]Gabriel Project[/url] and the [url="http://www.sistersoflife.org/apostolates.html"]Sisters of Life[/url] are more likely to be effective, because rather than trying to make it difficult to get an abortion, they try to make it more managable to have a baby. A woman who has just found out she's pregnant has all sorts of emotions to deal with. Even if she is happily married and really wants to start a family, she might be pretty scared or ambivalent. Add to that a difficult relationship or financial or family situation, and the fears surrounding pregnancy are much more debilitating.

Nobody [i]wants[/i] to have an abortion. It's not a fun thing to do. True, some people think it is no big deal, but if there were someone there to listen and help them out, maybe women would make different choices. (Not [i]all[/i] women - but certainly some.)

It is easier to blow up a building than evangelize a country. But the commission Jesus gave us was to spread the gospel.

[sweens8403]

Yes, y'all are probably right. The problem with the chap driving his vehicle into the clinic is that the pro-death/indifferent/pro-life folks don't care how morally neutral something like that is. All they see is bad PR.

[Hilde]

There was also a German guy who crashed into a church roof, probably an accident, though.

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1763316' date='Jan 27 2009, 08:53 AM']Precisely. The methods employed by the [url="http://www.diogh.org/RespectLife/gabrielproject.htm"]Gabriel Project[/url] and the [url="http://www.sistersoflife.org/apostolates.html"]Sisters of Life[/url] are more likely to be effective, because rather than trying to make it difficult to get an abortion, they try to make it more managable to have a baby. A woman who has just found out she's pregnant has all sorts of emotions to deal with. Even if she is happily married and really wants to start a family, she might be pretty scared or ambivalent. Add to that a difficult relationship or financial or family situation, and the fears surrounding pregnancy are much more debilitating.

Nobody [i]wants[/i] to have an abortion. It's not a fun thing to do. True, some people think it is no big deal, but if there were someone there to listen and help them out, maybe women would make different choices. (Not [i]all[/i] women - but certainly some.)

It is easier to blow up a building than evangelize a country. But the commission Jesus gave us was to spread the gospel.[/quote]

See, this seems to be similar to the logic that liberals employ in electing pro-choicers; that rather than making the woman's choice illegal, an environment should be fostered in which the choice for abortion is inhibited.

[picchick]

One question about this situation for those for destroying abortion clinics and killing abortionists: How many of you did it? How many of you are going to go out today and follow through on your support? Are you just supporting other people doing it or are you going to do it yourself?

Am I willing to be arrested for the cause? Sure.

Concentration Camps: If we stood outside with a protest what would happen? Greater means was necessary.

Abortion Clinics: I have never rammed into abortion clinics. I have never killed anyone. Have I done other things? I have seen abortion clinics shut down from prayers and fasting and peaceful demonstration. So...I don't know.

There are a lot of thoughts running through my head right now. So I don't know.

[Winchester]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1762968' date='Jan 26 2009, 09:22 PM']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?

[Winchester]

[quote name='foolishmortal' post='1763007' date='Jan 26 2009, 10:21 PM']Shooting your gun to stop one from being killed by a redneck or gangbanger is different than killing abortionists in that the latter's killing is lawful.

We need to be as wise as serpents and as gentle as doves. I still say we should, unless it's lying, get hired as a front desk person and be very rude to customers. It definitely would not be lying in any way for a non-regular protester woman to go in with a man, who is also not a regular. The woman can go into the room, start screaming and run out. Clever tactics that are morally permissable is the way to do it.[/quote]
I believe you mean "former." So for you, what is declared legal by the state is "lawful" and may not be opposed by violent means.

But that idea is a very good one. Very good, indeed.

[Ziggamafu]

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.

[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.