Are Abortion Clinic Snipers Hell-bound?

[estesbob]

So, you would say that it was immoral for American soldiers to kill Nazis valiantly defending the death camp mass murder process?

That’s the real question.

Distinguish, if you can!

Because you condemn abortion clinic snipers who shoot abortion clinic mass murdering doctors, are you condemning American soldiers who shoot mass murdering Nazis?

I am? WOW-and I didnt even know it.

Can you show where our Church teaches that it is OK to shoot abortion providers?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

I am? WOW-and I didnt even know it.

Can you show where our Church teaches that it is OK to shoot abortion providers?

It doesn’t.

Should it? That’s the question.

My point is, Surely the Church would approve the shooting of 10 Nazi stormtroopers guarding a facility where 5,000 Jews are at the moment being gassed and burned, if it is reasonably clear that NOT shooting them consigns 5,000 people to their deaths.

 

[Havard]

Okay, here’s a snippet from a great essay on this very topic by my former professor and friend, Charlie Rice.

In self-defense or defense of others, against an aggressor, the intent must be to defend, rather than to kill. Consider two situations. In the first, Able, an abortionist’s assistant in the killing room, suddenly has a change of heart moments before the abortion begins. He has a right and even a duty to use force to defend the child He intends to defend the child, not to kill the abortionist. In the second situation, Baker, an opponent of abortion shoots the abortionist in the parking lot as he is approaching the building to do abortions a few minutes later.

One difference between the two cases is imminence. Able engages himself in the immediate defense of the child; he has no intent but to defend that child; he has no separate intent to harm or kill the abortionist. Recall that, in justified self-defense or defense of others, the intent cannot be to kill the aggressor, but rather to stop the attack Baker, by contrast, is not in the heat of a physical struggle to save the child. He thinks, “I can get no closer than this. If I do not stop him he will go in there and murder babies. So I will shoot him in the head.” His purpose or motive is to save children. But his intent in the act he performs that moment is to blow the baby killer’s head off in order to achieve that purpose of saving children. Apart from the just war, capital punishment, or the justified rebellion, which derive from the authority of God, no one may ever intentionally kill anyone. Baker is intentionally doing an intrinsically evil thing to achieve a good end. He assumes the authority of God, to decide when that person will face the final judgment of God. His act cannot be justified. St. Thomas, quoting St. Augustine, said that " ‘a man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evildoer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him’ ” (Summa Theologiae, II, II, q. 64, art. 3).

Some may argue that killing the baby killer in the parking lot is defense of the child because that is as close as Baker could get. But if Baker may kill the abortionist when he is not actually performing an abortion, why does he have to limit himself to the parking lot? Why can he not conclude that the only practicable way he can get a clear shot at him is to shoot him on the golf course? Or at the video store? St Thomas speaks of the justified defender as one who “repels force.” See the Catechism, N. 2264. Unless we are to declare open season on abortionists, so as to justify their intentional execution by anybody so inclined wherever practicable, the right to defend the child must be restricted to the immediate performance of the abortion. Even then it is practically inconceivable that lethal force would have to be used.

Charlie taught me jurisprudence, I couldn’t have said it any better myself.

Full essay found online here: trosch.org/wri/rice4i01.htm

 

[estesbob]

It doesn’t.

Should it? That’s the question.

My point is, Surely the Church would approve the shooting of 10 Nazi stormtroopers guarding a facility where 5,000 Jews are at the moment being gassed and burned, if it is reasonably clear that NOT shooting them consigns 5,000 people to their deaths.

I am at a loss as to how you know what the Church would “surely” approve of. What we do know is that our Church does not approve of shooting abortion providers.nor, BTW, do I. In fact as one who is very involved in the pro-life movement I dont know of a single person I work with who thinks its ok to shoot abortion providers.

Are you running low on straw?

 

[HickmanJosh]

Oh, my heavens! You are so wrong!

In my opinion, it is gravely, gravely sinful to not kill the terrorist immediately.

So because he is a terrorist you the right to take his life away without a second thought?
Peter Dawson:

So, you would say that it was immoral for American soldiers to kill Nazis valiantly defending the death camp mass murder process?

That’s the real question.

Distinguish, if you can!

Because you condemn abortion clinic snipers who shoot abortion clinic mass murdering doctors, are you condemning American soldiers who shoot mass murdering Nazis?

Do you condone the firebombing of Tokyo? Or the carpet bombing of Dresden?
Regardless by the end of the second world war there wasn’t exactly much fight left in German solders, if they wouldn’t surrender than it is only logical to stop them. But that still doesn’t make it morally right to kill. And i think there wouldn’t exactly be very many solders still fanatical enough to defend death camps, especially with hitter gone and Berlin in soviet hands.

 

[GEddie]

So because he is a terrorist you the right to take his life away without a second thought?

If they are in the process of killing someone, then no second thought is required. If not, then killing is not moral at all.

Do you condone the firebombing of Tokyo? Or the carpet bombing of Dresden?

I have no problem with either, nor with Hiroshima or Nagasaki, either. There was a war; and neither England nor America started it. It behooved them to finish it, however they knew how. And destroying an enemy’s warfighting resources, in modern conflict, is just as valid as killing his young men (most of whom were coerced to fight anyhow).

Regardless by the end of the second world war there wasn’t exactly much fight left in German solders, if they wouldn’t surrender than it is only logical to stop them. But that still doesn’t make it morally right to kill. And i think there wouldn’t exactly be very many solders still fanatical enough to defend death camps, especially with hitter gone and Berlin in soviet hands.

Since that situation never arose, we can’t historically judge it.

In anty case, again, the defenders of a society have prerogatives, according to the Catholic Church, that average people do not have. Case closed.

ICXC NIKA

 

[estesbob]

What pro-abortion advocates look for in these types discussion is for one who is pro-life to agree that killing death Camp guards to stop the Holocasut would have been accpetable but killing abortion providers is not . At which point they will shout AH HA!!! So you dont really believe that the unborn child has as much worth as the born!

Once we have winded are way down this rabbit hole long enough the next question will be about burning buidlings, a live baby and frozen embryos.

I have been discussing abortion on line for over a Qtr century-the primary tactic of those trying to defend the indefensible is change the subject away for the horror that occurs in these abortion lcinics.

 

[HickmanJosh]

If they are in the process of killing someone, then no second thought is required. If not, then killing is not moral at all.

Killing is wrong, but standing by while someone kills another person is wrong also.

I have no problem with either, nor with Hiroshima or Nagasaki, either. There was a war; and neither England nor America started it. It behooved them to finish it, however they knew how. And destroying an enemy’s warfighting resources, in modern conflict, is just as valid as killing his young men (most of whom were coerced to fight anyhow).

leveling an entire city is acceptable? so i guess this means it was a-ok for the allies to act like the nazis and bomb civilian centers regardless of Geneva conventions. NO!!! Mass-murdering our enemies will get us nowhere!

 

[JRKH]

Originally Posted by JRKH
Soldiers fighting in a war are trying to end the war without getting themselves killed in the process. Their main goal is NOT stopping mass murder.
By the time American soldiers got anywhere near the Death camps the Nazi’s had fled so the killing had alread stopped.
Your analogy is flawed.

Whether you care or not, this was the analogy that you proposed and this was the analogy that I responded to. You may or may not be aware of it, but high level members of both the British and Americans Governments had good information about what was going on in the death camps. They chose NOT to defer resources from the main battles to attack the camps or transprotation networks etc. because they felt that the main goal of ending the war would accomplish the goal of ending the murders.

In the same way, the main goal of the Pro-Life movement is to promote respect for life - ALL LIFE. By changing hearts and minds. That is where our main battlefront lies. This is best served by respecting Life ourselves, which means NOT killing those who hold a Pro-Choice position. Especially when those people are acting within the bounds of the Law of the Land.
How can a person who professes to be Pro-Life, justify killing?

The Bottom line on this is that, if we want to end abortion, we need to change hearts by our Love and our witness, not by violence and force.

Peace
James

 

[Christopher68]

Whether you care or not, this was the analogy that you proposed and this was the analogy that I responded to. You may or may not be aware of it, but high level members of both the British and Americans Governments had good information about what was going on in the death camps. They chose NOT to defer resources from the main battles to attack the camps or transprotation networks etc. because they felt that the main goal of ending the war would accomplish the goal of ending the murders.

In the same way, the main goal of the Pro-Life movement is to promote respect for life - ALL LIFE. By changing hearts and minds. That is where our main battlefront lies. This is best served by respecting Life ourselves, which means NOT killing those who hold a Pro-Choice position. Especially when those people are acting within the bounds of the Law of the Land.
How can a person who professes to be Pro-Life, justify killing?

The Bottom line on this is that, if we want to end abortion, we need to change hearts by our Love and our witness, not by violence and force.

Peace
James

James,

Thank you for an excellent post. Your last sentence sums things up perfectly.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Presumably, American soldiers in World War II who find it necessary to shoot and kill their way into a Nazi death camp, to liberate it and stop the mass-murder, are opting for the lesser of two evils, and thus doing the correct thing.

Are abortion clinic snipers who terrorize clinic abortionists and by that means save the lives of hundreds or thousands of fetal humans justified by the same moral analysis?

Let me ask this to you; You are the sniper and two cars pull up behind the clinic and a man gets out of each car and starts to the back door you shoot them both. In minutes a third car arrives and a 30ish woman starts to the back door you shoot her to. The next day the news reports one of the men was the doctor you intended to kill, the other man was a priest who had been trying to talk to the doctor and the woman was a pregnant mother chasing the priest she and her baby died. Did you do well?

 

[homogotohell]

Abortion is not murder. The fetus has no right to use a woman’s internal organs for its own survival. Look up the violinist analogy for a more detailed explanation.