A couple things real quick
@Iambic Pen: ‘pagan’ was used earlier to refer to a behavior that’s more evolutionary in nature…remember that ‘paganism’ is still a religious label and doesn’t imply anything other than a non-abrahmic belief system. in addition, it’s not a very nice word, and so probably should be used. I’m sure you wouldn’t permit the use of the Nggr word, either.
@all: tacking ‘ist’ onto the end of everything that you don’t fully understand is the best way to guarantee that you never understand. People label me as an evolutionist which, while to a certain extent I am, the label implies a complete ‘understanding’ of me and my beliefs…sorry, but very few people have that. Not every stance is a belief-structure. Putting an ‘ist’ on the end of it defines a cubbyhole for that person to fit into with no accounting for moderates or subjective reasoning. Nothing is truly black-and-white…we live in a sea of gray.
Well - if you know me (and I assume none of you do) my commentary was slightly facetious, but I dare not say tongue-in-cheek.
My viewpoint is that it is no one’s responsibility but one’s own to defend his family and self at all costs. Having legal retribution against a person you let kill you will do YOU no good and possibly detriment your family to a great extent (a one time payout for murder doesn’t compare to a lifetime of memories and payroll). The fact is, the legal system demands this of us - responding with violence will only bring corresponding charges against you.
There are cases all over the place just like this - a man in Conn. was arrested for assault when he intentionally knocked unconscious his estranged wife who had broken into his house and handcuffed herself to him while he slept and proceeded to bit him as he called 911 for help. A woman in California was fined more than 50k in civil court for the ‘wrongful injury’ of a man who had already mounted her and was in the process of raping her when she emptied her pepper spray into his face. Technically speaking, you could face attempted murder charges for a botched suicide (clearly, a successful suicide would leave you without a proper defendant for a murder trial).
Now, if you’re arguing that the violent defense of an innocent child (but why limit it to children?) is morally defensible - from an humanitarian stand-point, you are in the right. But violating the terms of your citizenship, you have made yourself a liar (which I believe is a sin) and have enacted violence (which is very anti-NewTestament). The reason why this is even a question seems rather obvious to me. I have no qualms with the execution of murders (even rapists). It must be remembered that an abortion doctor has taken the hippocratic oath and, as such, truly believes that they are improving the quality of a life by carrying out their procedure. But also consider that they really are providing an invaluable service by making the procedure safe for the mother, as painless as possible, and providing both pre- and post- counseling services. They also don’t default to abortion…they always explore adoption and PlanB first thing. Even Planned Parenthood views abortion as a last resort. Abortion doctors also save the lives of women who’s pregnancy has complications that can cause the death of the mother (sometimes even before the child has reasonably gestated). This procedure has been carried out in back alleys and poorly sterilized offices for thousands of years. We finally have a safe alternative. To drive this practice back into the black market is to lead to the death and maiming of countless women, but also the legal conviction of good doctors who believe (firmly) that they are doing the right thing.
But I’m surprised it hasn’t been mentioned - the abortion doctor really just provides a legal service that is demanded by the populace. Wouldn’t the real murderer be the ‘would-be mother’? Everyone likes to blame abortion doctors and Jack Kevorkian, but in the US we also prosecute the person who contracted a killing…not just the executor.
