Violence on abortion workers is immoral

[Whitacre_Girl]

First off let me say right off the bat that I do not condone, encourage, support, or even want to give the appearance of any of these things to the violent acts on abortion providing doctors, nurses, or staff.

My husband and I were having a conversation they other day, and since we tend to agree on everything, one of us plays “devils advocate.” We were discussing violence on abortion clinics in light of the recent (some months ago) murder of an abortion doctor.

The line of reasoning went like this:

Does the catholic church say that it is okay to kill one person to save the life of another? Take for example a man who breaks into your house with a gun to rape and murder your wife. You come home to find her beaten and unconscious so there is no doubt that he intends to kill her, so you shoot him to defend your wife. Or another case where you see a child walking on the street, and a man sneaking up behind the child with a gun. Is it morally wrong to kill the evildoer in this case to save the life of the innocent? As far as we could think of, the church says this is okay.

Now, how is that principle not applied to doctors and nurses that are sneaking up on children with scalpels and vacuums? Is it because there isn’t as much sympathy for the child we can’t see? Is it because it’s legal?

Basically, we both agree that killing abortion workers is wrong, but we lack the knowledge that defines this as different from a man sneaking up on a kid with a gun, or on your wife with a knife. How is the logical definition made that separates abortion doctors from murderers with guns in the street?

Again, let me say that we do NOT think it is okay to kill or harm an abortion worker or facility, we are just trying to see how the church makes the difference between the two so we can argue it logically with others when the issue arises.

 

[Eucharisted]

Evil against evil is evil. Self-defense is not evil. Murder is not self-defense.

 

[manualman]

I think this one might be best answered by looking at catholic “just war” theory.

It is indeed, under some circumstances, acceptable to use mortal force to defend the weak against an unjust aggressor. But there are serious stipulations and fine print to that. Google it or just search here, I’m sure it all came up pretty explicitly in the debates about Iraq war.

At the very least (and this is probably the weakest argument against harming abortionists), ‘just war’ requires that the war have a reasonable likelihood of actually REDUCING the total carnage. When somebody kills an abortion doctor, no children are directly saved (there are other abortion doctors ready to step in) and the overall cause of fighting legalized abortion is severely damaged. That fails to pass the ‘just war’ criteria test.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

At the very least (and this is probably the weakest argument against harming abortionists), ‘just war’ requires that the war have a reasonable likelihood of actually REDUCING the total carnage. When somebody kills an abortion doctor, no children are directly saved (there are other abortion doctors ready to step in) and the overall cause of fighting legalized abortion is severely damaged. That fails to pass the ‘just war’ criteria test.

Thank you. I will look that up. This was the same line of reasoning we came to, but then we started going into things like, what if all people who wanted to defend the unborn just started turning to brute force to stop it. A basic out-and-out rebellion against the united states and all of that. I’ll do the reading and see what I come up with.

 

[camerong]

This is an interesting topic. I had a friend who was a very thoughtful fundamentalist who was also pro-choice, because he claimed that if we really thought it was murder of a human being, we would all kill abortion doctors. Because we are not storming planned parenthood, we must not think the killed babies really humans.

I think this one might be best answered by looking at catholic “just war” theory.

It is indeed, under some circumstances, acceptable to use mortal force to defend the weak against an unjust aggressor. But there are serious stipulations and fine print to that. Google it or just search here, I’m sure it all came up pretty explicitly in the debates about Iraq war.

At the very least (and this is probably the weakest argument against harming abortionists), ‘just war’ requires that the war have a reasonable likelihood of actually REDUCING the total carnage. When somebody kills an abortion doctor, no children are directly saved (there are other abortion doctors ready to step in) and the overall cause of fighting legalized abortion is severely damaged. That fails to pass the ‘just war’ criteria test.

I’m not sure about this argument. I really cringe to write this, and please recognize this is COMPLETE MORAL CONJECTURE–but if enough abortion doctors were killed, wouldn’t it stop the practice? It might result in an all out war, really, but it would probably end the practice, let alone reduce it.

Put this another way. What if there were centers that killed Autistic children. (Autism generally cannot be diagnosed until the children are several years old.) What if it were acceptable to kill autistic 4 year olds? Would we be as resistant to those who kill the doctors?

I’m really not sure how to approach this.

 

[manualman]

I think you overestimate our numbers and our ability to have that kind of impact.

Right now, we can’t even muster the numbers necessary to shut down abortion clinics with non-violent protest, like sit-ins. The sheer mass of the morally confused is such that even those, when done, seem to push people more to the pro-abortion side than towards life.

If even non-violent action isn’t enough to energize people’s deadened consiciences, violence would cause an even worse backlash. That’s basic sociology, right?

Martin Luther King and Gandhi had success with disruptive, but non-violent protest because they correctly judged that they would be calling attention to what ALL decent human beings had to admit was horrific injustice. But abortion seems to be different in that the general populace is more able to deny to themselves the reality of what abortion IS.

That’s why people are so DESPERATE to avoid viewing pictures of an abortion. You can air open heart surgery on PBS and not generate ONE protest letter. Why aren’t abortions shown? Because the reality is unavoidable when you see it.

If you want to take the strongest possible action against abortion, keep pictures of it handy. Show them to anyone who argues for ‘choice.’ Ask them why they won’t look. Why is it different than pictures of any other surgery? Ask them if they are worried that the conscience will come to life if they look.

We have to wake the conscience of America, not kill the killers. That’s the only effective way to stop this crime.

 

[kage_ar]

Does the catholic church say that it is okay to kill one person to save the life of another? Take for example a man who breaks into your house with a gun to rape and murder your wife. You come home to find her beaten and unconscious so there is no doubt that he intends to kill her, so you shoot him to defend your wife. Or another case where you see a child walking on the street, and a man sneaking up behind the child with a gun. Is it morally wrong to kill the evildoer in this case to save the life of the innocent? As far as we could think of, the church says this is okay.

This is a misunderstanding of the Church teaching.

The Church does not say it is okay to kill anyone.

What the Church says is that in defending the life of another or yourself the degree of sin may be lessened. It may not be a mortal sin to kill someone who is going to kill a child, it may be venial sin. It is still sin.

Out of chairity, we should always attempt to do the thing that does not take life.

 

[camerong]

I think you overestimate our numbers and our ability to have that kind of impact.

Right now, we can’t even muster the numbers necessary to shut down abortion clinics with non-violent protest, like sit-ins. The sheer mass of the morally confused is such that even those, when done, seem to push people more to the pro-abortion side than towards life.

If even non-violent action isn’t enough to energize people’s deadened consiciences, violence would cause an even worse backlash. That’s basic sociology, right?

Martin Luther King and Gandhi had success with disruptive, but non-violent protest because they correctly judged that they would be calling attention to what ALL decent human beings had to admit was horrific injustice. But abortion seems to be different in that the general populace is more able to deny to themselves the reality of what abortion IS.

That’s why people are so DESPERATE to avoid viewing pictures of an abortion. You can air open heart surgery on PBS and not generate ONE protest letter. Why aren’t abortions shown? Because the reality is unavoidable when you see it.

If you want to take the strongest possible action against abortion, keep pictures of it handy. Show them to anyone who argues for ‘choice.’ Ask them why they won’t look. Why is it different than pictures of any other surgery? Ask them if they are worried that the conscience will come to life if they look.

We have to wake the conscience of America, not kill the killers. That’s the only effective way to stop this crime.

I don’t think this issue comes down to likelihood. I think we can agree that enough coordinated violence could theoretically lessen abortions. Arguably, the killing in Kansas this summer already reduced abortions, because (as I understand it) the clinic did not reopen for some time. But it cannot be the factual difficulty of lessening abortions through violence which makes killing abortion doctors immoral–this would be to argue that if we COULD lessen or end abortions through killing, it would be morally acceptable to do so.

I absolutely agree with the rest of your points, but I don’t think we’ve identified the reason why killing abortion doctors is wrong.

 

[gmcbroom]

Violence against anyone is immoral. What they do for a living doesn’t justify violence. The Catholic church went through this before remember? The inquisition. Thats why the church has this current stance against violence, so we won’t go down that slippery slope again.

 

[crazzeto]

Agreed, one man’s sins do not ever excuse your own. Violence, other than say the case of pure self defence, is never excusable and always dreadfully sinful. There is no value in harming abortion doctors, no positive outcome.

 

[camerong]

Playing devil’s advocate, how is killing an abortion doctor, who is about to perform an abortion, and different than killing someone in self-defense (or in defense of another)? I would originally think imminence, but if the violence befell a doctor moments before he or she performs an abortion, then the harm prevented was just as imminent. It would not be killing because of a person’s profession, but to stop him or her from killing another.

Let me add a disclaimer that this is a purely conjectural discussion to determine the bounds of morality.

 

[Brendan]

This is a misunderstanding of the Church teaching.

The Church does not say it is okay to kill anyone.

What the Church says is that in defending the life of another or yourself the degree of sin may be lessened. It may not be a mortal sin to kill someone who is going to kill a child, it may be venial sin. It is still sin.

Kage, that is an oversimplification. The Church correctly says that it is not OK to intend the death of another in self defense. We can only intent to use such force as necessary to stop the attack.

If such force results in the death of the person, there in no sin on the part of the person doing the defense, venial or otherwise.

Any guilt actually resides on the attacker.

Evangelicum Vitae

legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life, the common good of the family or of the State. Unfortunately, it happens that the need to render the aggressor incapable of causing harm sometimes involves taking his life. In this case, the fatal outcome is attributable to the aggressor whose actions brought it about, even though he may not be morally responsible because of a lack of the use of reason."

Note that this only applies to one who has responsibility over another’s life. That is why we cannot go charging into an abortion clinic and claim self defense.

The father of a child about to be aborted, however, has such a right and may morally defend their child from the abortionist, even using force if necessary. But only such force as necessary to stop the attack.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

Note that this only applies to one who has responsibility over another’s life. That is why we cannot go charging into an abortion clinic and claim self defense.

The father of a child about to be aborted, however, has such a right and may morally defend their child from the abortionist, even using force if necessary. But only such force as necessary to stop the attack.

Wow, great point. My husband and I originally got on this topic when we were discussing living in Nazi Germany as catholics. Would it have been wrong to attempt to destroy concentration camps through deadly force and free the captives, much like soldiers of WWII did. Then we got on the topic of using similar tactics with abortion clinics.

Anyway, yes I can see that. Although, sadly for the father, if he tried to save the life of his child by busting down doors and pushing the doctor out of the way, and forcably removing his wife/girlfriend/lover from the clinic, he would be arrested.

There have been some good points raised, especially on the theory of Just War. I can see two things that would invalidate a physical war on abortion. Success is not likely. Although I have to wonder about the tactics that may be employed later. It seems like this whole thing is going one of two ways.

It is my guess than many people on these forums were alive in 73 when this became legal, and may still seem “new.” But there are people in my generation where it has been around many years before we were born. I myself was almost aborted, I have siblings who have been, and I know that given the rate of abortion many of my friends may have been killed before we ever met. This fills me and my generation who stand against abortion with rage. I was recently talking to a very frustrated friend of mine who is at a loss and despair as the abortion rate in my state tops almost 50% that she just feels that the time for talking and passive aggression has come and gone. Our WHOLE lives, abortion has been legal. It’s really hard to accept when we think about it.

But, in all the talks, we were trying to pin down how it is morally different to kill an abortionist than to kill a murderer bent on killing yours, or your friend’s child. shrugs it’s a touchy discussion, and I think all of us can agree it’s wrong, but we need to flesh out logical discussion as to why it’s different. You guys all have really good answers!!

 

[camerong]

The father of a child about to be aborted, however, has such a right and may morally defend their child from the abortionist, even using force if necessary. But only such force as necessary to stop the attack.

This is a good point. But I don’t see how your interpretation of the quote, or the quote itself, works for every situation. Do you interpret it as meaning that it would be immoral if I noticed someone about to kill an innocent bystander, and I stopped that person by killing him or her (using the minimum amount of force that I reasonably believe to be necessary)? I don’t have any duty or responsibility to defend that person. But surely it is moral for me to do so, even if it means killing the attacker. I think instead, the closer answer is that we have a moral duty to protect whomever we reasonably can.

I also like the point that only necessary force may be used. Perhaps the question should be, is violence sufficient only to maim an abortion doctor acceptable? Clearly killing a person is more force than necessary.

 

[manualman]

Brendan,

So if you were walking in the woods, came across a man savagely beating and raping a woman and a stout handy stick were nearby, you would not use it to maximum extent to resuce her unless she were a family member? Even though such a brutal weapon would be likely to kill the rapist if you used it with enough force to be sure of your ability to both protect her and yourself?

I think you are reading the quote wrong. It may not be your moral DUTY to risk your life in such a rescue effort, but you’d not be doing wrong by going beyond duty either.

Same goes for abortion, except that our actions must be not only be in the best interest of the weak at the given moment, but overall. I DON’T agree with the previous poster that we could end abortion by killing abortion doctors, even if we wanted to. Step back and look at the lessons of history.

Slavery abolitionists were sometimes violent in their opposition to slavery. Look at John Brown. Some regard him as a hero/martyr in the fight against slavery, but the REAL effects of his actions were to inflame the (misdirected) righteous anger of the slave owners and southerners against the cause of freedom for the slaves. Could we have ended slavery WITHOUT a civil war had there never been violent abolitionists? I don’t know. You don’t get to know what ‘might have been.’ But I suspect that we could and would have eventually as people were forced to see slavery for what it is. Just like we ended institutional racism in America through nonviolent confrontation.

That’s why I’m strongly for making people see abortion for what it is. Show pictures. Demand answers. Awaken consciences.

 

[Whitacre_Girl]

That’s why I’m strongly for making people see abortion for what it is. Show pictures. Demand answers. Awaken consciences.

 

[kage_ar]

Kage, that is an oversimplification. The Church correctly says that it is not OK to intend the death of another in self defense. We can only intent to use such force as necessary to stop the attack.

If such force results in the death of the person, there in no sin on the part of the person doing the defense, venial or otherwise.

Any guilt actually resides on the attacker.

I was sloppy at the end, my primary reaction was to the errant “the Church says it is okay to kill someone”…

 

[crazzeto]

Playing devil’s advocate, how is killing an abortion doctor, who is about to perform an abortion, and different than killing someone in self-defense (or in defense of another)? I would originally think imminence, but if the violence befell a doctor moments before he or she performs an abortion, then the harm prevented was just as imminent. It would not be killing because of a person’s profession, but to stop him or her from killing another.

Let me add a disclaimer that this is a purely conjectural discussion to determine the bounds of morality.

For starters unfortnetly what that Abortion Dr is doing is perfectly legal, though immoral. Secondly you’ll never find your self in that situation, you’ll have to do it the way tillar was killed, or you’ll have to kill indisciminatly in the hopes of maybe hurting the dr (i.e. some sort of explosive). Thirdly, this is like saying “what’s the difference if you kill someone at any random point in time if they at one point in their life killed someone else”. There’s a big difference, you’re not defending someone’s life at that moment, even in that case you should call the police, assuming they’re wanted (good assumption) rather than blow them away.

Killing abortion Dr’s doesn’t save babies. New Dr’s will step in, the murdered Dr. will become a Myarter for this satanic cause (see Dr. Tillar). If we want to stop abortion then we have to do it first in the media, then either in the courts or in the halls of congress. But the media first, because we need to galvanise a clear majority with a very active repersentitive organization to act. We need to prove our case, and we can prove our case. The pro life argumetns are extrodenarly strong, so strong you could convert an athiests heart on this issue with out need to convert their hearts towards God (the latter would be very very nice, but isnt’ required to end abortion).

If we want to win then I think we need to fight back the same way the culture of death fought it’s way to current prominence. Slowly, steadily, persistantly over time with small victories. It’ll probably even mean short term compramizes in order to turn the eventual tide. For instance, South Dekota failed to pass a law outlawing abortion in their state because people on our side bickered over the exclusion of cases of rape and insense (the only way to pass the law, they tried with no exclusions and were smacked). Why? Why not pass that law, then let planned parenthood challenge it and lose. That alone would have given the pro-life movement a huge boost.

 

[Matrix_Refugee]

Going back to the example of the father of a child about to be aborted. What could be done: tackle the doctor to the floor. Injure him in a way that it’s hard for him to fight back, but not enough to kill him. Why? Because if you kill the abortion doctor, you’d likely be sending his soul straight to hell. But you also have to consider, there are other people in the room: there are likely nurses, etc, who are probably going to try and pull the father off the doctor, call in security (who are probably armed with tazers or something).

I avoided this forum like a plague ward when Tiller was murdered, because I knew there would be people praising his killer for what he did and I knew it would get me into a blind fury. But it shouldn’t have happened at all, and certainly not the way it did, not in front of his family and all those people who happened to be in that church. My dad put it best when he said to me, “Tiller was a murderer, but he wasn’t an axe murderer.” He wasn’t breaking into pregnant women’s houses and tearing their babies out of their bodies (not like a crazy woman here in Mass., who was so determined to have a baby, that she attacked, killed and cut the baby out of a pregnant woman before stuffing her body into a closet).

 

[ahollars]

Everyone who has posted here saying that violence is immoral, take out the word abortion and replace it with slavery. Sound familiar? Using that logic, the American Civil War was an unjust war, and Lincoln was an immoral man for imposing a set of beliefs on the rest of the country against their will, even though they were doing nothing illegal.

We are not immune from another civil war. Every time we have classified a group of people as less than human, we have regretted it later, and innocent people have always been among the suffering. If we are not willing to suffer, and to die if necessary, then we are guilty of doing nothing.

I am biased. My wife is African-American and a descendant of slavery. I am a veteran, as are my wife, our parents, and our grandparents. We believe freedom is not free.

According to doctrine, violence against abortion cannot occur unless the end goal is to replace the system that allowed abortion in the first place. That is not going to happen. This is where we are today. Change from within, but we must be patient, and vigilant.