Abortion Clinics on Edge After Manifesto

  • Thread starter Thread starter dumspirospero
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
40.png
Trelow:
I do agree.

But please explain your swat team idea, so that I understand you better. If that was a civilian militia, then I disagree with that. They would not have had serious prospects of success.
It would not be haphazard. But civilian or government controlled, it would be justifiable. Let’s put it this way. If I was the father, I would attempt it. If I got killed in the process, I don’t think God would hold it against me.
 
40.png
Fieryjades:
While I do not agree or condone the bomber’s violence, the abortion doctors andetc. are guilty of murdering innocent unborn children while the bomber is guilty is of murdering those guilty of murder. Make sense?

Either way, I believe in “thou shall not kill” and I hope God will have Mercy on the bomber, those killed and the unborn.

Peace!
Actually, in the case of Rudolph, he is guilty of a random attempt at murder (Olympic bombing) to make a statement and attempted murder of people in a homosexual bar. He attempted (and succeeded) in killing non-killers.
 
40.png
Brad:
It would not be haphazard. But civilian or government controlled, it would be justifiable. Let’s put it this way. If I was the father, I would attempt it. If I got killed in the process, I don’t think God would hold it against me.
Well our call to protect our family trumps nearly every law.

But for others (civilian) to do such wouldn’t be prudent unless they had a serious prospect of success. If there isn’t then it’s a zealous suicide. And benefits no one.
 
Don’t we believe that it is not permissable to commit an evil act even if the intention is for good to come of it? That would ixnay the bombing of abortionists would it not? Don’t get me wrong, I wish I could burn down that abysmal clinic I pray across the street from twice a week, but I couldn’t justify killing the people who work there. Pro-life is pro-life. You loose credibility as a pro-lifer if you justify killing the abortionists, right? At least, that is my perspective.
 
40.png
Trelow:
Well our call to protect our family trumps nearly every law.

But for others (civilian) to do such wouldn’t be prudent unless they had a serious prospect of success. If there isn’t then it’s a zealous suicide. And benefits no one.
Where do we draw the line? If you or I are the parents, we want those zealous civilians with us.

On a more practical note, 100,000 peaceful Christians (I’m sure there is at least that number in Florida) outside the hospice probably would have done the trick too. My question is where were they and why did many Christians and Catholics actually oppose protestors. Pretty lame example of living the Gospel.
 
40.png
legeorge:
Don’t we believe that it is not permissable to commit an evil act even if the intention is for good to come of it? That would ixnay the bombing of abortionists would it not? Don’t get me wrong, I wish I could burn down that abysmal clinic I pray across the street from twice a week, but I couldn’t justify killing the people who work there. Pro-life is pro-life. You loose credibility as a pro-lifer if you justify killing the abortionists, right? At least, that is my perspective.
Again, there is no justification for bombing or killing etc., but you do have to understand what you are up against. Those on the pro-death side will never see pro-lifers as credible.
 
40.png
Trelow:
Law.
I we throw out law then we are no better than those who use the law to commit evil.
You missed the point.

God’s law permits self-defense and third party defense. Not only is it permitted, but in some cases it is required. Certain people, police, military for example are obliged to defend third parties. Additionally, man’s law also permits the defense of third parties. It is intrinsically evil for man’s law to deny one class of people (the unborn) from protection of third party defense while at the same time allowing third party defense of all other classes (the born) people.

Man’s law makes the difference between what is legal. God’s law makes the difference between what is moral. We are dealing here with the moral issue. The moral issue (God’s law) is superior to man’s law. My questions are directed to the moral issue.

I repeat my questions:
What makes it wrong? What is the intrinsic difference between using deadly force to stop the Nazis and using deadly force to stop the Abortionist? In both cases innocent people are being killed unjustly. In both cases a third party who sees the injustice, meets the injustice with equal (or greater) deadly force to save the lives of the innocent. The fact that the third party defender is an individual or a government is immaterail to the moral judgment. Most, if not all States have laws that allow a third party to use deadly force to defend another party against deadly force. The law that allows the legal, immoral killing of innocent unborn persons is actually no law in the eyes of God according to Church teaching so how can it be claimed that using deadly force to stop a deadly, unjust law is immoral? It may not be effective, at least on this small level, but is ineffectiveness alone sufficent reason to judge the act an immoral one? If it became effective, ie the level of deadly force was increased to a rebellion so that the killing of the innocent unborns was drastically reduced, would it then, on that basis, become moral?

HOW is the use of deadly force to save the innocent from being killed any different in the abortion situation than in any other situation?
 
40.png
Trelow:
We have legal means of acheving our goal.

I would say that if we were to apply the just war DOCTRINE (I know you know it’s a doctrine, but some folks jsut don’t grasp that) to the situation then we would see that militant action is not approprate.
Are you sure?

Legitimate defense by miliitary force requires:

“–the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.” This condition is met. The death of 40+ million in the USA alone is lasting, grave, and certain.

“–all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.” This condition is met. Thirty years of legal and political fighting has still not outlawed abortion and there is no prospect of legal or political success in the future.

“–there must be serious prospects of success.” This condition could be met if a large enough rebellion is started.

“–the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver that the evil to be eliminated.” This condition is met. Consider that the total number of aborted children far exceeds all the US war fatalities since the Revolution, there is no way that the evil of a rebellion could even come close to the evil of abortion.
 
40.png
All4lifetoo:
Are you sure?

“–there must be serious prospects of success.” This condition could be met if a large enough rebellion is started.
.
This is the only point where we fall short., Believe me, if I thought we could do it, I’d be lthe first to sign up.

Can we do it? Can we form Jesusland and whoop up? If so, I’ll grab my arms and be there.
 
40.png
Brad:
Where do we draw the line? If you or I are the parents, we want those zealous civilians with us.

On a more practical note, 100,000 peaceful Christians (I’m sure there is at least that number in Florida) outside the hospice probably would have done the trick too. My question is where were they and why did many Christians and Catholics actually oppose protestors. Pretty lame example of living the Gospel.
Unfortunatly, It’s hard to see wher ethe line is. But obviously bombing people is on the other side.

And yes, we need to mobilize many many many more people.
 
If this sort of thing would actually stop abortion, and if it was the only way to do so, it would be justified, but it doesn’t. Making abortion illegal would dramatically reduce the number of abortions. Promoting chastity and adoption would help. Getting graphic abortion photos into the hands of teenage girls could make a very big difference. It was seeing those photos that changed my mind about abortion at age 17. Bombings really don’t help the cause.
 
40.png
BlindSheep:
If this sort of thing would actually stop abortion, and if it was the only way to do so, it would be justified, but it doesn’t. Making abortion illegal would dramatically reduce the number of abortions. Promoting chastity and adoption would help. Getting graphic abortion photos into the hands of teenage girls could make a very big difference. It was seeing those photos that changed my mind about abortion at age 17. Bombings really don’t help the cause.
You are right about this topic. I think whatever we can do to promote life will go a lot farther than if we did something violent. That is what we are called to do.
 
Hello…Earth to little abner!!! Scott has neve advocated killing anyone…no matter how deplorable they are…I will ask you a question…can you justify killing innocent children to further your Left Wing agenda?
40.png
Mac6yver:
You can justify killing innocent people to further your right wing agenda?
 
40.png
dumspirospero:
Hello…Earth to little abner!!! Scott has neve advocated killing anyone…no matter how deplorable they are…I will ask you a question…can you justify killing innocent children to further your Left Wing agenda?
Dumspirospero:

I believe that Roe v. Wade is the Dred Scott of our age, and as long as our country continues to practice legalized infanticide, we will edge a little closer to the judgement or the civil war which must inevitably come to this nation so long as we continue to trample on the rights of the powerless and the weak.

The God who hears their cry will not allow us to continue this much longer, and then I fear that we shall pay for the crimes of this unjust nation with blood, ours.

Roe v. Wade must be overturne, so that states can outlaw abortions and parents can keep their daughters from getting them through their schools (State of CA - the School can take your daughter for a abortion without even telling you that she;s gone!)

Otherwise, I fear for this country. God is patient and merciful, but he is also just.

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
40.png
All4lifetoo:
Are you sure?

Legitimate defense by miliitary force requires:

“–the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain.” This condition is met. The death of 40+ million in the USA alone is lasting, grave, and certain.

“–all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective.” This condition is met. Thirty years of legal and political fighting has still not outlawed abortion and there is no prospect of legal or political success in the future.

“–there must be serious prospects of success.” This condition could be met if a large enough rebellion is started.

“–the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver that the evil to be eliminated.” This condition is met. Consider that the total number of aborted children far exceeds all the US war fatalities since the Revolution, there is no way that the evil of a rebellion could even come close to the evil of abortion.
All4lifetoo:

There is a 3rd Option, that of MORAL FORCE, or “SATYAGRAHA”, also sometimes called “Non-violent resistence”, “Civil Disobediance” or “Moral Blackmail”.

Before I continue, how many of us are willing to GO TO JAIL repeatedly?? How many of us are willing to lose prospects for jobs because of arrest records?? How many of us are willing to have the police beat us up because they had to drag us out from inside of Abortion Clinics?? How many of us are willing to then be villified and DENIED MEDICAL CARE oir injuries received during these beatings because we opposed the pro-DEATH Orthodoxy of the media and political establishment??

If you are, then red on, if not, just tell me and I’ll not post on this ever again.

In the 1920’s, Mahatma Ghandi started the drive for Indian Independence, not with a bloody battle, but with a demonstration. Indians went to the Salt Factory that was run by the British and formed a line to get inside to MAKE SALT. The British troops blocked the gate armed with clubs and guns.

As the world’s press watched, Indians by the thousands walked up to the gate one or two at a time to try to gain admittence, and then were promptly clubbed by the Brits who bashed their skulls with their clubs.

It was a PR disaster for the British Empire. The “Savages” had been the civilized ones, while the “civilized” men had acted as “brutal savages” (per the newspaper reports). From that day forward, Britain was under incredible pressure to grant India her indiependence.

Similar scenes typified the NON-VIOLENT RESISTENCE of SATYAGRAHA, but none were so effective as when Indians tried to make their own salt.

FYI, it was this that Martin Luther King, JR., and the Marchers were trying to duplicate (and did - Sheriff Bull Conner’s dogs attacked CHILDREN on NATIONAL TV) when they walked into Selma, Alabama in the now infamous film.

Do you now understand the 3rd way??

We can close these clinics down without firing a shot, but only if we’re willing to BLEED!

Blessings and Peace, Michael
 
I don’t know which is the easiest way to stop abortion
  1. find a suicide bomber
  2. find a non-suicide bomber
  3. organize a civil disobediance
  4. try to outlaw abortion
 
right or wrong, I think it’s at least worthy for a few to blow up abortion clinics to save millions of human lifes, even if Rudolph goes to hell for this.

sorry for the violent comments but it’s what I have in mind​

that’s no good.
 
40.png
All4lifetoo:
What makes it wrong? What is the intrinsic difference between using deadly force to stop the Nazis and using deadly force to stop the Abortionist? In both cases innocent people are being killed unjustly. In both cases a third party who sees the injustice, meets the injustice with equal (or greater) deadly force to save the lives of the innocent. The fact that the third party defender is an individual or a government is immaterail to the moral judgment. Most, if not all States have laws that allow a third party to use deadly force to defend another party against deadly force. The law that allows the legal, immoral killing of innocent unborn persons is actually no law in the eyes of God according to Church teaching so how can it be claimed that using deadly force to stop a deadly, unjust law is immoral? It may not be effective, at least on this small level, but is ineffectiveness alone sufficent reason to judge the act an immoral one? If it became effective, ie the level of deadly force was increased to a rebellion so that the killing of the innocent unborns was drastically reduced, would it then, on that basis, become moral?

HOW is the use of deadly force to save the innocent from being killed any different in the abortion situation than in any other situation?
Matthew 26: 52 “…all who take the sword will perish by the sword”.
 
Traditional Ang:
All4lifetoo:

There is a 3rd Option, that of MORAL FORCE, or “SATYAGRAHA”, also sometimes called “Non-violent resistence”, “Civil Disobediance” or “Moral Blackmail”.

Before I continue, how many of us are willing to GO TO JAIL repeatedly?? How many of us are willing to lose prospects for jobs because of arrest records?? How many of us are willing to have the police beat us up because they had to drag us out from inside of Abortion Clinics?? How many of us are willing to then be villified and DENIED MEDICAL CARE oir injuries received during these beatings because we opposed the pro-DEATH Orthodoxy of the media and political establishment??

If you are, then red on, if not, just tell me and I’ll not post on this ever again.

In the 1920’s, Mahatma Ghandi started the drive for Indian Independence, not with a bloody battle, but with a demonstration. Indians went to the Salt Factory that was run by the British and formed a line to get inside to MAKE SALT. The British troops blocked the gate armed with clubs and guns.

As the world’s press watched, Indians by the thousands walked up to the gate one or two at a time to try to gain admittence, and then were promptly clubbed by the Brits who bashed their skulls with their clubs.

It was a PR disaster for the British Empire. The “Savages” had been the civilized ones, while the “civilized” men had acted as “brutal savages” (per the newspaper reports). From that day forward, Britain was under incredible pressure to grant India her indiependence.

Similar scenes typified the NON-VIOLENT RESISTENCE of SATYAGRAHA, but none were so effective as when Indians tried to make their own salt.

FYI, it was this that Martin Luther King, JR., and the Marchers were trying to duplicate (and did - Sheriff Bull Conner’s dogs attacked CHILDREN on NATIONAL TV) when they walked into Selma, Alabama in the now infamous film.

Do you now understand the 3rd way??

We can close these clinics down without firing a shot, but only if we’re willing to BLEED!

Blessings and Peace, Michael
I have no problem with the “3rd way” but that is not the point of my post. People have said that what Rudolf did at the clinics was wrong. I want them to support their position. I want them to demostrate the logic of their position and show that one standard is being applied to all uses of violence. It is easy to say that what he did is wrong, but it is not so easy to explain why it is wrong. I’m looking for that explanation. Why is it moral for some people to use violence against violence, but not moral for other people to use violence against violence? Why is it moral for a third party to use deadly force to stop a kidnapping he sees, but not moral for a third party to use deadly force to stop an abortion he sees?
 
This is a war against culture of death.
anyone here thinks we used deadly force to stop Nazis killing Jews is wrong? Should we rely solely on peaceful negotiation?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top