Abortion and Eric Rudolph: A Trajectory of Evil

  • Thread starter Thread starter gnjsdad
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

gnjsdad

Guest
While the issues surrounding the Eric Rudolph case are being discussed in other threads, I think there is an aspect to the story which has not been adequately addressed and, therefore, I’ve started a new thread.

Since the Eric Rudolph case has emerged in the news lately, all the usual suspects have entered the fray to fill in what seems to be the predictable media template, which reads:

Eric Rudolph is a deranged fanatic who bombed and maimed and killed in the name of being “pro-life”.

Groups in the pro-life movement exist which condone the killing of “abortion doctors” as acts of justifiable homicide or self defense.

The fact that these groups exist and people like Eric Rudolph exist means that…

All pro-lifers are really just latent Eric Rudolphs whatever their leaders say.


Do 99% of the people in the pro life movement abhor violence? I would say, yes.

Would any but a tiny minority even consider using violent means in furtherance of the pro-life cause? Of course, not.

Isn’t this really obvious to all by now? I would answer emphatically, yes.

Yet, when incidents like the Rudolph case arise, pro-life spokespersons for the 99% who reject violence always feel compelled to take extraordinary pains to distance themelves from the violent acts of the few. Despite their strenuous efforts, they never get cut any slack by the pro-abortion media, which always seems ready to accept the template outlined above.

What we all should consider is that what we need to emphasize in our discussions and debates, is the notion of the public consequences of evil acts, and to ascribe blame for the fallout from such acts where it really belongs. Some acts (abortion) are so evil, at times so publicly evil, that their effects linger in the public square long after the actual deed is done. The toxic after-effects of evil acts create their own evil trajectory. Evil begets evil, we can say.

Are some people (Eric Rudolph? Paul Hill?) psychologically incapable of handling the after-effects of evil? Yes.

Do some people (those who advocate the killing of abortionists as justifiable homicide) find the constant exposure to evil (years of sidewalk counseling and standing in front of the slaughterhouses) too much to bear? Have some been in the trenches too long and seen too much slaughter?

While people must be held accountable for their acts, it is appropriate and necessary to assign blame as well to the promoters, advocates, and practitioners of legal abortion. They are the ones who inflict the first violence. They cannot be allowed to evade their share of responsibility.
 
This is a good thread, dad. I am surprised more people have not taken you up on it. Burnout, perhaps. A lot of us are just plain tuckered out.

I have heard the ‘Just War’ thinking applied to protecting the unborn. To tell you the truth, I have not really thought it completely through. At first glance, it would seem to me that a pro-life position would preclude violence, including justified ‘defence’ of the unborn. Let me think this matter through. Ani.
 
Ani Ibi:
This is a good thread, dad. I am surprised more people have not taken you up on it. Burnout, perhaps. A lot of us are just plain tuckered out.

I have heard the ‘Just War’ thinking applied to protecting the unborn. To tell you the truth, I have not really thought it completely through. At first glance, it would seem to me that a pro-life position would preclude violence, including justified ‘defence’ of the unborn. Let me think this matter through. Ani.
Thank you very much. I really appreciate that.🙂

An article I read about 10 years ago really delved into just that issue (killing abortionists as self defense and why that defense doesn’t work). It appeared in a magazine called Fidelity, now called Culture Wars. It was written by Dr. E. Michael Jones. The article was called Death in Pensacola: Lancelot Comes To Happyland, USA. Perhaps copies can be obtained from the magazine. The article discussed the shooting of abortionist David Gunn by fundamentalist minister Paul Hill. “Lancelot” is the title character of the only Walker Percy novel I ever read, and it’s a novel that explores the theme of evil acts begetting evil consequences. The protagonist, an intelligent and erudite man, ends up burning down his own home, killing his wife and her lover, after he discovers her infidelity.
 
It is legal to kill unborn children. Why shouldn’t it be legal to kill abortionists?

It is considered to be heroic for Americans to go to Iraq and defend people by killing terrorists. Why shouldn’t be considerd heroic for Americans to defend babies by killing abortionists?

50% of Catholics believe that it should be perfectly legal to kill babies and they remain in good standing with the Catholic Church. Why shouldn’t 50% of Catholic believe it should be perfectly legal to kill abortionists?

Catholic politicians lead the fight to kill babies. Why shouldn’t Catholic politicians lead the fight to kill abortionists?

People believe it is wrong to do nothing if someone is being beaten up in a city park. Why do they believe it is wrong to stop someone from chopping a baby up in pieces?

If it is wrong to defend babies from being attacked by abortionists, it is wrong to defend anyone from being attacked by terrorists.

If it is wrong to defend children, which are our future from being masacred, it is wrong to defend the United States from foreign invadors.

Why is pacificism the considered the correct solution when it comes to defending unborn children from being masacred, but the incorrect solution in every other circumstance?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top