Abortion - Killing Abortion Doctors

[Brendan]

(
One cannot call a person a murderer who has not violated the law.

Is Murder defined strictly in terms of civil law, or it the primary objection that it is against the Natural, Moral Law.

To a Catholic, it is a violation of the Natural Law laid down by God, so the killing of an infant in the practice of Abortion is rightly called murder, and those who willfully participate in abortion are correctly called murderes.

Part of the problem with the whole abortion debate is that people try to change the law instead of the heart.

James

How about the Catholic method, where we work to change both at the same time?

If people of morals waited until hearts were changed before looking at changing the laws, we’d still have slavery in the South.

But laws were changed FIRST and then the work could begin on changing hearts, even then, it’s taken the the better part of century.

Would you have honestly preferred that the Abolishists have permitted slavery to continue during the Reconstruction, and only ended it after southerns had come to fully recognize the inherent equality of blacks?

 

[JRKH]

As I read this a second time…I realize that you are assuming that I call people a murderer when I talk about this. I think there are very few that do that although I would not argue that point with the accusers.

But when people go to places for advice or guidance such as this forum and see that some argue that it is less than murder, it makes it easier for them to make the wrong choice.

You also make the statement that if people thought it was wrong that they wouldn’t do it. I disagree completely with that. I think that MOST do know it is wrong yet do it anyhow for selfish reasons. There will be fewer people have an abortion if they think it is murder. Arguing that it is not will help many justify it.

obviously we were both responding at the same time.

I know you are a sincere person and your posts are well written and clear. But we must remember what the OP was about and that was killing an abortion doctor. The entire conversation developed from that. That type of extremist act is just the type of thing we must guard against.

I have no tolerance for extremists and that is what I am trying to argue against. Someone here didn’t understand the difference between changing law and changing hearts. I find that sad because it misses the whole point.
What we seek to do is to prevent abortion.
To do that we must change hearts.
To change hearts we must exibit love.
Love for both the unborn and the mothers and the doctors etc.
Time and again I see discussions sink into the chaos of accusation and counter-accusation followed by defensive wall building.

It makes me tired to the point of tears.
Help me build avenues by understanding the language and the conversation. Help me convince the other side with love and reasoned arguments. Not with accusatory statememts.

I’m not pointing the above at you or anyone else specifically, it’s just a bit of a rant.

James

 

[dmelosi]

Perhaps we should start a thread on the best way to approach others. That is not what this thread started as and it is not in the approach that I responded.

I am saying that if it comes down to it, abortion is what it is. Calling it anything else is simply dumbing it down and making it easier for those on the fence to slide downhill.

obviously we were both responding at the same time.

I know you are a sincere person and your posts are well written and clear. But we must remember what the OP was about and that was killing an abortion doctor. The entire conversation developed from that. That type of extremist act is just the type of thing we must guard against.

I have no tolerance for extremists and that is what I am trying to argue against. Someone here didn’t understand the difference between changing law and changing hearts. I find that sad because it misses the whole point.
What we seek to do is to prevent abortion.
To do that we must change hearts.
To change hearts we must exibit love.
Love for both the unborn and the mothers and the doctors etc.
Time and again I see discussions sink into the chaos of accusation and counter-accusation followed by defensive wall building.

It makes me tired to the point of tears.
Help me build avenues by understanding the language and the conversation. Help me convince the other side with love and reasoned arguments. Not with accusatory statememts.

I’m not pointing the above at you or anyone else specifically, it’s just a bit of a rant.

James

 

[JRKH]

Is Murder defined strictly in terms of civil law, or it the primary objection that it is against the Natural, Moral Law.

The definition of Murder that I provided would be a civil definition. However I don’t see it being any different in a moral discussion. After all, killing is not always considered morally wrong is it? Murder on the other hand…

Someone rasied the point that a “murderer is a murderer”. I only wanted to distinguish between a moral act and a civil act.

To a Catholic, it is a violation of the Natural Law laid down by God, so the killing of an infant in the practice of Abortion is rightly called murder, and those who willfully participate in abortion are correctly called murderes.

That may well be true here, but in a court of law they would not be called a murderer.

James

 

[dmelosi]

What is so confusing to many is that if a person murdered a pregnant woman, they would be charged with 2 murders in many states.

If the mother kills her baby through abortion it is not murder, but if someone else does it is.

I don’t know how it can be both ways.

And this is sure not aimed at anyone, just a very confusing issue.

The definition of Murder that I provided would be a civil definition. However I don’t see it being any different in a moral discussion. After all, killing is not always considered morally wrong is it? Murder on the other hand…

Someone rasied the point that a “murderer is a murderer”. I only wanted to distinguish between a moral act and a civil act.

To a Catholic, it is a violation of the Natural Law laid down by God, so the killing of an infant in the practice of Abortion is rightly called murder, and those who willfully participate in abortion are correctly called murderes.

That may well be true here, but in a court of law they would not be called a murderer.

James

 

[JRKH]

What is so confusing to many is that if a person murdered a pregnant woman, they would be charged with 2 murders in many states.

If the mother kills her baby through abortion it is not murder, but if someone else does it is.

I don’t know how it can be both ways.

And this is sure not aimed at anyone, just a very confusing issue.

I agree with that. It would be one thing if the law was consistant but…

 

[seekerz]

I agree with that. It would be one thing if the law was consistant but…

I read your posts with great appreciation because it’s encouraging to find someone who shares the same sentiments about the fight against abortion.

Only God can change people’s hearts, though He surely can work through mere mortals. My firm belief is that no meaningful inroads can be made against the plague of abortion except through evangelization.

What’s a civil law? A changeable thing. If abortion becomes illegal tomorrow, what’s the chance it’s going to remain illegal forever? I know people like the slavery comparison, but it’s an illusion - somewhere (historically the North) hearts had to first change, before the law changed. Those who pressed for change became aware that it was not enough to not participate in it while allowing others to do so. If America had been two countries, then slavery would have persisted in the South until hearts were changed. Except in a dictatorship, change of heart in the major or dominant portion of a society always precedes change of law.

If men have in their hearts no fear of God and place the values of this world before His values, how can they ever show proper respect for life (in the womb or outside)? While we judge by God’s standards, they judge by the world’s, so taking the life of an abortionist would make us the murderers in their eyes. Then what hope of *ever *bringing them to Christ?

 

[HOPEFUL_IN_UK]

obviously we were both responding at the same time.

I know you are a sincere person and your posts are well written and clear. But we must remember what the OP was about and that was killing an abortion doctor. The entire conversation developed from that. That type of extremist act is just the type of thing we must guard against.

I have no tolerance for extremists and that is what I am trying to argue against. Someone here didn’t understand the difference between changing law and changing hearts. I find that sad because it misses the whole point.
What we seek to do is to prevent abortion.
To do that we must change hearts.
To change hearts we must exibit love.
Love for both the unborn and the mothers and the doctors etc.
Time and again I see discussions sink into the chaos of accusation and counter-accusation followed by defensive wall building.

It makes me tired to the point of tears.
Help me build avenues by understanding the language and the conversation. Help me convince the other side with love and reasoned arguments. Not with accusatory statememts.

I’m not pointing the above at you or anyone else specifically, it’s just a bit of a rant.

James

I agree with you.

 

[rboo124]

My theology teacher told us that we can’t walk into an abortion clinic and kill the doctor because the end doesn’t justify the means.

If I see someone on the street being murdered, I can stop it from happening, even if it results in the death of the attacker.

What’s the difference?

The difference is, the law protects the abortion doctor. In the eyes of the law, what he’s doing is not ‘murder’, it’s simply a medical procedure to terminate an unwanted pregnancy.

What you’re describing out on the street is murder, not a legal medical procedure.