Abortion Doctor Geroge Tiller Murdered this morning

[RobbyS]

I certainly am not succumbing to sentimental emotion, I’m trying to obey the teachings of the Church, all of them. I believe that one of them is also that I am not the arbiter of who is and is not deserving of God’s mercy and forgiveness any more than I am the arbiter of who lives and dies.

I don’t condone violence and I don’t practice it. And I don’t tell God who I think He should forgive either. I pray that His will be done.

But I think we are in agreement that abortion is horrible and is murder and is a sin against God and is in direct violation of the teachings of Christ’s Church. I join you in prayer that Our Lady will intercede for all of us sinners.
*
“O, my Jesus, save us from the fires of hell, lead all souls to Heaven, especially those most in need of Your mercy.*”

Tiller was a victim of his own actions. He was playing with fire and got burned. It didn’t help that he had supporters like Sebelius. That gave him the illusion that he was safer than he was.

 

[Disciple96]

Murder is not the way we deal with abortionists or anyone else. Murder is what we are against.

 

[Melvin]

Neither the moral or legal doctrine of self-defense and defense of others applies here. If you are convinced that your next door neighbor is planning to kill someone on Monday, you cannot just go next door and kill him on Sunday. That is not defense of others in either the legal or moral sense of the term.

Just a question: is that your own opinion, or are you basing it on Church teaching?

And, as to the argument itself, on its face I agree with you. If the neighbor has no known history of committing murder (in Tiller’s case, one could argue genocide) but especially if he does, and even if all you possess is a suspicion based on any type of evidence, and if time permits, then your first step should be to alert the police and possibly the intended victim as well, in order to allow the police to take action and to give the victim the opportunity to protect himself/herself. Your first step should not be to take the law into your own hands.

But I need to ask a couple of questons…First, what if the neighbor is a known serial murderer or is known to have committed genocide? What if the murder (or in Tiller’s case, possibly genocide) that has been committed is supported by the State…the “legitimate authority,” in such a way that the State not only refuses to take action against the neighbor to protect the intended victim(s), but actually protects the neighbor’s right to commit serial murder (or in Tiller’s case, possibly genocide)? Where does that leave you?

And how does one’s love of neighbor (the unborn (in our culture relegated to a secondary political class with no inherent rights)) come into play?

Just color me befuddled…

 

[Melvin]

Thank you. Someone was*** finally able*** to articulate, in a** very reasoned way**, all of the*** complexities of this case***-it just isn’t as "cut and dried" as so many of these well-meaning posters make it out to be.
Thank you again.

Ditto.

 

[adamsapple]

Just a question: is that your own opinion, or are you basing it on Church teaching?

And, as to the argument itself, on its face I agree with you. If the neighbor has no known history of committing murder (in Tiller’s case, one could argue genocide) but especially if he does, and even if all you possess is a suspicion based on any type of evidence, and if time permits, then your first step should be to alert the police and possibly the intended victim as well, in order to allow the police to take action and to give the victim the opportunity to protect himself/herself. Your first step should not be to take the law into your own hands.

But I need to ask a couple of questons…First, what if the neighbor is a known serial murderer or is known to have committed genocide? What if the murder (or in Tiller’s case, possibly genocide) that has been committed is supported by the State…the “legitimate authority,” in such a way that the State not only refuses to take action against the neighbor to protect the intended victim(s), but actually protects the neighbor’s right to commit serial murder (or in Tiller’s case, possibly genocide)? Where does that leave you?

And how does one’s love of neighbor (the unborn (in our culture relegated to a secondary political class with no inherent rights)) come into play?

Just color me befuddled…

If the neighbor is a known serial killer or whatever, you turn him/her into the police. In Tiller’s case, whatever he did was done with the blessing of the law.

Your love of neighbor comes in when 1) you obey the law and 2) report what you think might be illegal activity. Tiller clearly did not fall into that category.

 

[adamsapple]

Tiller was a victim of his own actions. He was playing with fire and got burned. It didn’t help that he had supporters like Sebelius. That gave him the illusion that he was safer than he was.

Safe from what? From people who disagreed with him? Safe from you? If he didn’t feel safe then I guess the other side is correct - pro-lifers are acting like terrorists.
I guess as long as you vehemently disagree with someone’s actions, you can take the law into your own hands.

 

[Melvin]

If the neighbor is a known serial killer or whatever, you turn him/her into the police. In Tiller’s case, whatever he did was done with the blessing of the law.

Your love of neighbor comes in when 1) you obey the law and 2) report what you think might be illegal activity. Tiller clearly did not fall into that category.

OK…so if you obey the law and report what you think, knowing that “the law” will do nothing, does your responsibility end at that point? Can you then wash your hands of the whole mess?

Thanks.

 

[thereseozi]

catholicleague.com/release.php?id=1623

SCAPEGOATING O’REILLY

June 2, 2009

Catholic League president Bill Donohue comments on a story in today’s New York Times that details how some of Bill O’Reilly’s critics are trying to blame him for the death of Dr. George Tiller:

In all of Bill O’Reilly’s denunciations of Dr. George Tiller, he never once called for anyone to even post his address on the web, never mind call for his death. Yet O’Reilly is being blamed for Tiller’s murder. If O’Reilly’s critics had any sense of decency, or fairness, they would have long condemned what Hustler king Larry Flynt once said about the Fox News Network personality.

On August 5, 2003, Flynt launched a National Prayer Day, calling for O’Reilly’s death. Flynt asked God “to afflict Bill O’Reilly with a brain aneurysm that will lead to his slow and painful death. O, Lord, may his blood vessels bulge out of his head and explode without mercy.”

To my knowledge, none of O’Reilly’s foes have ever damned Flynt for this despicable comment. They therefore have zero moral capital to lash out at O’Reilly for his criticisms of a man who proudly took the lives of over 60,000 children.

Copyright © 1997-2009 by Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.
*Material from this website may be reprinted and disseminated with accompanying attribution.

 

[thereseozi]

Part of an email I received from Fr. Frank Pavone:

*The pro-life movement is a movement of non-violence. As Ghandi and Dr. King taught, and as we teach, non-violence is not passivity, and it is not obscurity. It is a force. It is a clear and strong response against violence, in whatever form that violence takes.

Let the outcry against Tiller’s murder be loud and clear. And let the outcry against the murders he committed - and that other abortionists commit – be loud and clear as well.

Click below to hear Dr. Tiller’s words to prospective abortion clients. Notice, he makes no attempt to deny that this is a baby, and offers the parents the opportunity to view their dead baby and say goodbye with religious and other rituals. (06:43)

priestsforlife.org/audios/george-tiller-1.mp3

If you have trouble opening the link above, go to www.priestsforlife.org/images/tiller-audio.htm

Please watch and comment on Fr. Frank’s You Tube video:

youtube.com/watch?v=ewjWfvAaYtw

Additional note: Luhra Tivis Warren, who once worked at the Tiller abortion business, gave her testimony at a public conference of former abortion providers sponsored by the Pro-Life action League in Chicago on April 3, 1993. She described the crematorium on the premises which George Tiller used to burn the bodies of his victims, which included babies even in the third trimester of pregnancy. She states, “I could smell the babies burning.”

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life and Gospel of Life Ministries*

 

[imperial]

But he did have a chance to repent, as do all. And, like all, that chance is not infinite.

How true, he was given chances, when he was shot in the past and another bombing of his clinic…………… did he repent NO, :nope:
on the contrary he became full of pride. :tsktsk:
Still though bit of a catch 22
He reaps his reward

 

[adamsapple]

OK…so if you obey the law and report what you think, knowing that “the law” will do nothing, does your responsibility end at that point? Can you then wash your hands of the whole mess?

Thanks.

You’re responsibility includes legitimate protest. It does not include violence.

 

[mmm1]

OK…so if you obey the law and report what you think, knowing that “the law” will do nothing, does your responsibility end at that point? Can you then wash your hands of the whole mess?

Thanks.

Then it’s probably time to increase the prayers, fast, penance, organize peaceful, prayerful protests, etc.

 

[lil_flower_luv]

Part of an email I received from Fr. Frank Pavone:

*The pro-life movement is a movement of non-violence. As Ghandi and Dr. King taught, and as we teach, non-violence is not passivity, and it is not obscurity. It is a force. It is a clear and strong response against violence, in whatever form that violence takes.

Let the outcry against Tiller’s murder be loud and clear. And let the outcry against the murders he committed - and that other abortionists commit – be loud and clear as well.

Click below to hear Dr. Tiller’s words to prospective abortion clients. Notice, he makes no attempt to deny that this is a baby, and offers the parents the opportunity to view their dead baby and say goodbye with religious and other rituals. (06:43)

priestsforlife.org/audios/george-tiller-1.mp3*

If you have trouble opening the link above, go to www.priestsforlife.org/images/tiller-audio.htm

Please watch and comment on Fr. Frank’s You Tube video:

youtube.com/watch?v=ewjWfvAaYtw

Additional note: Luhra Tivis Warren, who once worked at the Tiller abortion business, gave her testimony at a public conference of former abortion providers sponsored by the Pro-Life action League in Chicago on April 3, 1993. She described the crematorium on the premises which George Tiller used to burn the bodies of his victims, which included babies even in the third trimester of pregnancy. She states, “I could smell the babies burning.”

Fr. Frank Pavone
National Director, Priests for Life and Gospel of Life Ministries

I also receive emails from Fr. Pavone and I totally agree with him and you! Amen!

 

[Angels_Unaware]

78% of Americans profess membership is an established Christian sect. Nearly half of Americans are pro-choice. So at least half of pro-choice Americans are members of an established Christian sect. The numbers on Americans and religion are available here:

religions.pewforum.org/reports

This is irrelevant; professing identification with a Christian sect says nothing about the teachings on abortion of that sect.

However, if we use the criteria of taking all people who claim a religous background at face value and considering that their opinion is representative of their religion, then we would have to include millions of people who consider themselves Catholic and are also pro-choice. The issue is not how they religously identify, the question is does their religous tradition teach there are grave moral implications to ending a life through abortion.

As far as what other religions teach, I also found some information on that topic at Pew Forum. They claim that among major Christian sects, only the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong. Episcopalians, Lutherans-MO Synod, Southern Baptists, the National Council of Evangelicals and Mormons all allow abortion under limited circumstances, usually health of the mother, rape and incest. American Baptists, Evangelical Lutherans, Methodists, and UCC allow abortion, but generally frown on its use for mere convenience or ordinary birth control.

Among other religions, Pew says that Hindus are against abortion, but that Buddism has no official position on the issue. It also says that some Muslim scholars teach all abortion is wrong, and that some allow it up to the fourth month.

pewforum.org/docs/?DocID=351

So, again, I agree with you that the pro-life position is not radical and that it is supported world-over by many religions. But I disagree that it is the position of all major religions, or that most pro-life people are agnostic or atheists.

That is an over-simplication of the general Protestant, Muslim, and Buddist traditional teachings on abortion if it implies that these religions do not treat the subject of abortion seriously and do not recognize the personhood of the fetus. All are traditionally opposed to abortion, not simply as a means of birth control, but opposed on the principle that abortion takes a human life and to take a human life is a grave and serious matter.

Certainly, there are writings and religious opinions that will consider ethical dilemmas that are rare and extreme, such as the imminent death of the mother or even rape. The fact that those considerations exist should not lead us to conclude the Catholicism is the only truly pro-life religion, and that it represents a non-normative way of viewing abortion. In fact, these other religous traditions see abortion essentially the way that we see abortion. They consider it the destruction of the body and soul of a life that is not justified by “temporary depression of the mother”, or disability of the fetus, or other mother-centered concerns.

Traditionally Buddhists are opposed to abortion, as stated in the original link I provided. It is considered a denial of a soul’s growth and need to incarnate at a particular time with a particular family, and holds negative karma.In other words, it is normally and traditionally taught by organized world religions that the fetus is human, has a soul, and is not to be discarded as non-human.

This is a fundamentally, not superficially, different stance on abortion than groups who hold highly materialistic worldviews. It is important because it establishes that it morally normative in our world and throughout history for strong, surviving cultures to protect the unborn. It is not a fringe, marginalized interpretation of Christianity.

The rhetoric in the mainstream media specifically targets conservative Catholics and Evangelicals as “radical fundamentalists” who hold fringe viewpoints on abortion. This is a gross mischaracterization in light of history.

 

[Gabriella_San_S]

The health of the mother doesn’t necessarily mean she would die if she gave birth. I don’t think he ever said that all his patients would die if they didn’t get an abortion.

?

Oh, then it was just for convenience of the mother? and huge profit for Tiller?

 

[Veridical16]

For those who like to throw around haphazardly the word “an act of terrorism” earlier in this this thread. Without really recognizing it as an act of a fanatic.
Where is the outrage for the politically/ religiously motivated murder of the army officers, over this past weekend?
Where are threads put up for them? Oh, that’s right, it’s pretty hard to instigate a commotion amongst Catholics who are pro-life in the case of such equivalent isolated incidents…

William Long died yesterday. The 23-year old Army Recruiter was gunned down by a fanatic; another fellow soldier was wounded in the ambush. The soldiers had just completed their basic training and were talking to potential recruits

I’m tired of this nonsense from the pro-choice side trying to exploit the event with disingenuous outrage, when they’re really just using the tragedy to slam pro-life people in a selective matter (as evidenced by not a whisper about equally tragic murders.)
The media is guilty of this as are some people in this thread.

 

[TMC]

Just a question: is that your own opinion, or are you basing it on Church teaching?

And, as to the argument itself, on its face I agree with you. If the neighbor has no known history of committing murder (in Tiller’s case, one could argue genocide) but especially if he does, and even if all you possess is a suspicion based on any type of evidence, and if time permits, then your first step should be to alert the police and possibly the intended victim as well, in order to allow the police to take action and to give the victim the opportunity to protect himself/herself. Your first step should not be to take the law into your own hands.

But I need to ask a couple of questons…First, what if the neighbor is a known serial murderer or is known to have committed genocide? What if the murder (or in Tiller’s case, possibly genocide) that has been committed is supported by the State…the “legitimate authority,” in such a way that the State not only refuses to take action against the neighbor to protect the intended victim(s), but actually protects the neighbor’s right to commit serial murder (or in Tiller’s case, possibly genocide)? Where does that leave you?

And how does one’s love of neighbor (the unborn (in our culture relegated to a secondary political class with no inherent rights)) come into play?

Just color me befuddled…

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

Defense of life and person
Everyone has the right to defend his life against the attacks of an unjust aggressor. For this end he may employ whatever force is necessary and even take the life of an unjust assailant. As bodily integrity is included in the good of life, it may be defended in the same way as life itself. It must be observed however that no more injury may be inflicted on the assailant than is necessary to defeat his purpose. If, for example, he can be driven off by a call for help or by inflicting a slight wound on him, he may not lawfully be slain. Again the unjust attack must be actually begun, at least morally speaking, not merely planned or intended for some future time or occasion. generally speaking one is not bound to preserve one’s own life at the expense of the assailant’s; one may, out of charity, forego one’s right in the matter. Sometimes, however, one may be bound to defend one’s own life to the utmost on account of one’s duty of state or other obligations. The life of another person may be defended on the same conditions by us as our own. For since each person has the right to defend his life unjustly attacked, what he can lawfully do through his own efforts he may also do through the agency of others. Sometimes, too, charity, natural affection, or official duty imposed the obligation of defending others. A father ought, for example, to defend the lives of his children; a husband, his wife; and all ought to defend the life of one whose death would be a serious loss to the community. Soldiers, policemen, and private guards hired for that purpose are bound in justice to safeguard the lives of those entrusted to them.

newadvent.org/cathen/13691a.htm

 

[TMC]

This is irrelevant; professing identification with a Christian sect says nothing about the teachings on abortion of that sect.

However, if we use the criteria of taking all people who claim a religous background at face value and considering that their opinion is representative of their religion, then we would have to include millions of people who consider themselves Catholic and are also pro-choice. The issue is not how they religously identify, the question is does their religous tradition teach there are grave moral implications to ending a life through abortion.

That is an over-simplication of the general Protestant, Muslim, and Buddist traditional teachings on abortion if it implies that these religions do not treat the subject of abortion seriously and do not recognize the personhood of the fetus. All are traditionally opposed to abortion, not simply as a means of birth control, but opposed on the principle that abortion takes a human life and to take a human life is a grave and serious matter.

Certainly, there are writings and religious opinions that will consider ethical dilemmas that are rare and extreme, such as the imminent death of the mother or even rape. The fact that those considerations exist should not lead us to conclude the Catholicism is the only truly pro-life religion, and that it represents a non-normative way of viewing abortion. In fact, these other religous traditions see abortion essentially the way that we see abortion. They consider it the destruction of the body and soul of a life that is not justified by “temporary depression of the mother”, or disability of the fetus, or other mother-centered concerns.

Traditionally Buddhists are opposed to abortion, as stated in the original link I provided. It is considered a denial of a soul’s growth and need to incarnate at a particular time with a particular family, and holds negative karma.In other words, it is normally and traditionally taught by organized world religions that the fetus is human, has a soul, and is not to be discarded as non-human.

This is a fundamentally, not superficially, different stance on abortion than groups who hold highly materialistic worldviews. It is important because it establishes that it morally normative in our world and throughout history for strong, surviving cultures to protect the unborn. It is not a fringe, marginalized interpretation of Christianity.

The rhetoric in the mainstream media specifically targets conservative Catholics and Evangelicals as “radical fundamentalists” who hold fringe viewpoints on abortion. This is a gross mischaracterization in light of history.

I suppose you can say most of any group believe anything, if you give your self the authority to define the members of the group, and to deny that the leaders of the group are accurately representing their own beliefs.

I never said that the pro-life position was radical, extreme or marginalized. It is not. But it is also untrue that most pro-choice people are atheists or agnostics. Many religious people, and several large religions, including some Christian sects, are pro-choice. Misrepresenting that fact does not advance the pro-life cause.

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I suppose you can say most of any group believe anything, if you give your self the authority to define the members of the group, and to deny that the leaders of the group are accurately representing their own beliefs.

I never said that the pro-life position was radical, extreme or marginalized. It is not. But it is also untrue that most pro-choice people are atheists or agnostics. Many religious people, and several large religions, including some Christian sects, are pro-choice. Misrepresenting that fact does not advance the pro-life cause.

I don’t think you are getting this. The issue is not ‘defining the groups.’ The issue is what do those groups teach.

Self-identification with a religion is irrelevant. The force of the argument comes from an analysis of the historical and traditional teachings of major world religions on abortion.

The issue is the normative cultural stance on the morality of abortion throughout history, which is sadly being eroded by the actual practice of the people who profess to be a member of a religion (including Catholics).

NO large religions are pro-choice. What are you talking about? Mis-representing what facts?

Below is a link stating unequivocably that traditonal Buddhist teachings are strongly anti-abortion.

urbandharma.org/udharma/abortion.html

As for the claim that Muslims are pro-choice because there are laws that allowed abortion until the time of quickening, that was also allowed under Catholic law in the Middle Ages. What does that prove?

Traditional Islamic teaching denounces abortion.

renaissance.com.pk/Augq12y4.html

 

[Angels_Unaware]

I don’t think you are getting this. The issue is not ‘defining the groups.’ The issue is what do those groups teach.

Self-identification with a religion is irrelevant. The force of the argument comes from an analysis of the historical and traditional teachings of major world religions on abortion.

The issue is the normative cultural stance on the morality of abortion throughout history, which is sadly being eroded by the actual practice of the people who profess to be a member of a religion (including Catholics).

NO large religions are pro-choice. What are you talking about? Mis-representing what facts?

Below is a link stating unequivocably that traditonal Buddhist teachings are strongly anti-abortion.

urbandharma.org/udharma/abortion.html

As for the claim that Muslims are pro-choice because there are laws that allowed abortion until the time of quickening, that was also allowed under Catholic law in the Middle Ages. What does that prove?

Traditional Islamic teaching denounces abortion.

renaissance.com.pk/Augq12y4.html

Above: I spoke in error, because as I said in a previous post, Judaism is the only major world religion that does not prohibit abortion.

To put it another way, there are two fundamental positons on abortion.

The first is that it is the taking of a human life protected by God.

The second is that a fetus is not human, does not have a soul, and whether or not it becomes a human being is up to the mother to decide.

Secondary issues such as whether Protestants think abortion is ok if the mother is raped, or if Muslims think it is permissable sometimes in early pregnancy do not exclude those religions from being “pro-life”.They are pro-life, with disagreements over ethical dilemmas that might arise, etc.

They are certainly not “pro-choice” in the sense that the National Organization for Women is pro-choice. NOW believes that a mother should have the right to abort a baby for any conceivable reason.

The Catholic position is perfectly sacrifical and moral on the question of abortion, and is the only official religious position that is pefectly moral on abortion.

But the point is that cultures have a deep tradition of respecting life even outside the Catholic church, and that protecting the unborn is equivalent to prohibiting murders and thefts in civilized societies.