Who Should Be The Criminal?

[Gamera]

So you are saying that the reason a person can claim mass murder but yet content him or herself to writing letters is that there is no imminent threat? That definitely confuses me.

If as you say millions of babies are being beheaded in 748 death camps in the US there is certainly an imminent threat to babies.

Or are you saying that there is no imminent threat to the anti-abortionist.

A person cannot resort to violence unless faced with an imminent threat. Let’s follow your example where you know your neighbor to be a murderer who somehow enjoys legal protection. You can’t just walk over to his house one night and burn it down with him inside because “he’s a murderer.” You’ve no right to do so – he posed no imminent threat to anybody, laying home in his bed. This is one reason (among others) why the radicals who kill abortionists are in the wrong – they have no moral right to kill someone who poses no imminent threat to another person.

Your belief seems to be that in your scenario, one is entitled to hunt down and kill those he deems deserving of death. That’s precisely the mindset that gave us abortion in the first place.

 

[crowonsnow]

A person cannot resort to violence unless faced with an imminent threat. Let’s follow your example where you know your neighbor to be a murderer who somehow enjoys legal protection. You can’t just walk over to his house one night and burn it down with him inside because “he’s a murderer.” You’ve no right to do so – he posed no imminent threat to anybody, laying home in his bed. This is one reason (among others) why the radicals who kill abortionists are in the wrong – they have no moral right to kill someone who poses no imminent threat to another person.

Your belief seems to be that in your scenario, one is entitled to hunt down and kill those he deems deserving of death. That’s precisely the mindset that gave us abortion in the first place.

So to summarize, what you are arguing is that despite the fact that, as you claim, millions of babies are being beheaded in hundreds of death camps, anti-abortionists have no better option than to write letters, that to do anything else is a greater evil than allowing these millions of babies to be beheaded in these hundreds of death camps? Is that your position?

 

[Gamera]

So to summarize, what you are arguing is that despite the fact that, as you claim, millions of babies are being beheaded in hundreds of death camps, anti-abortionists have no better option than to write letters, that to do anything else is a greater evil than allowing these millions of babies to be beheaded in these hundreds of death camps? Is that your position?

No, not even remotely. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. One cannot murder for any reason, not even to stop a worse murder. Without an imminent threat, violence is not defensive and therefore is not permitted to private individuals, not even to prevent a greater evil. The false notion that “the end justifies the means” is precisely the kind of thinking that gives us abortion in the first place. If everyone resorted to violence to make the world the way they thought it should be, then people like abortionists would rule the world.

I still can’t understand why you keep dissing “writing letters” and “licking stamps”. The pen is mightier than the sword. A well-written pro-life letter published in a newspaper can save more babies’ lives than a lunatic who attacks an abortionist.

You still haven’t told me which cause you’ve devoted yourself to advancing with full-time, day-and-night activism. According to your earlier posts, the only way to avoid being a “hypocrite” is to spend your whole life toiling tirelessly for your chosen cause. So what cause do you spend day and night working at to avoid being a “hypocrite” by your own definition?

 

[crowonsnow]

No, not even remotely. Proportionality has nothing to do with it. One cannot murder for any reason, not even to stop a worse murder. Without an imminent threat, violence is not defensive and therefore is not permitted to private individuals, not even to prevent a greater evil. The false notion that “the end justifies the means” is precisely the kind of thinking that gives us abortion in the first place. If everyone resorted to violence to make the world the way they thought it should be, then people like abortionists would rule the world.

I still can’t understand why you keep dissing “writing letters” and “licking stamps”. The pen is mightier than the sword. A well-written pro-life letter published in a newspaper can save more babies’ lives than a lunatic who attacks an abortionist.

That doesn’t even begin to make sense to me. You are contradicting yourself. You are stating it is okay to permit the murder of millions of babies but that permitting one murder to stop thousands or millions more murders is not acceptable.

I can only conclude from this that you do not really believe that millions of murders are being committed.

 

[Gamera]

That doesn’t even begin to make sense to me. You are contradicting yourself. You are stating it is okay to permit the murder of millions of babies …

No, I never said it is “okay.”

but that permitting one murder to stop thousands or millions more murders is not acceptable.

No murder ever is “acceptable.” God forbids murder, regardless of the motive. If you don’t like the Ten Commandments, take it up with God. I plan to continue to obey them.

I can only conclude from this that you do not really believe that millions of murders are being committed.

Because I shout to the world that abortion is murder every day but won’t resort to immoral measures.

Please stop ducking my question. To what cause have you devoted yourself to toiling day and night to avoid falling into your own definition of “hypocrite?” None? Then I can only conclude that you don’t really believe that anything bad is happening in the world.

 

[crowonsnow]

No, I never said it is “okay.”

No murder ever is “acceptable.” God forbids murder, regardless of the motive. If you don’t like the Ten Commandments, take it up with God. I plan to continue to obey them.

Because I shout to the world that abortion is murder every day but won’t resort to immoral measures.

Well, clearly you’ve contradicted yourself, and in my humble opinion repeatedly. That you don’t recognize it means the conversation is not worth pursuing any further. So cheers until our next exchange.

 

[jmcrae]

Well, clearly you’ve contradicted yourself, and in my humble opinion repeatedly. That you don’t recognize it means the conversation is not worth pursuing any further. So cheers until our next exchange.

There have been folks who declared open season on abortionists; they came to a quick and sad end. No, the fight cannot be a physical fight, precisely because we are outgunned, and they are more used to killing than we are. (Aside from the fact that all murder is wrong - it is hypocrisy to murder the abortionist while saying that every human being has the right to life, because the actions don’t match the words.)

That’s why the letter-writing and the educational campaigns are a better approach. Even so, we are still considered “hysterical” - but there are more and more of us “hysterics” out here, now, it seems - more and more people are recognizing the science that tells us that that’s a human being there, inside the human woman’s womb. Progress is being made.

How do you think women got the vote, equal rights, and equal pay? It was by letter writing and education - not by means of violence. We will win the rights of the unborn the same way.

 

[Gamera]

Well, clearly you’ve contradicted yourself, and in my humble opinion repeatedly. That you don’t recognize it means the conversation is not worth pursuing any further. So cheers until our next exchange.

No, I haven’t contradicted myself, and it’s quite telling that you fail to p(name removed by moderator)oint the alleged “contradiction.”

Look, defensive force must meet several criteria. The threat must be imminent, AND the threat must be proportionate to the force applied. I told you repeatedly that the threat is not imminent. Your reply is, ‘Yes, but the threat is proportionate!!!’. Both elements must co-exist. The threat must be proportionate AND imminent. I patiently repeat that the threat is not imminent, and you accuse me of not “really” believing the threat is proportionate. That makes no sense.

I stand entirely consistent with Catholic morality. You don’t like it? Take it up with the Catholic Church. But don’t call me a “hypocrite” for being consistent by fighting like hell for what I believe is right without ever crossing the line into immoral tactics.

Meanwhile, please stop ducking my question. To what cause have you devoted yourself to day-and-night labor, in order to escape your personal definition of a “hypocrite?”

 

[robsonwin]

The probable answer to this is both, with lots of reservations & considerations. The reason for the legal abortion is because of our law, Roe v Wade. Politicians, Lawyers & Judges are responsible for that law. Are they criminals also? Maybe, maybe not, but they are certainly part of the conspiracy to murder the born & ubnorn. As Christians, it is up to us to eliminate this evil before it eliminates us. God is certainly wondering if we really love each other as he commanded. Pray.

 

[SeanTom]

1. Both are guilty if both freely agree to murder the child.
2. Yes, because the other person becomes complicit in the murder.

I’m not sure who is the legal"criminal" here - it depends on the law as pertains to abortions, as far as civil laws are concerned.

However, they are both guilty in violating the teaching of Jesus . It is morally wrong, wrong, wrong.