Why no violence against abortion providers?

[stjosephtomasi]

I am not advocating violence against abortion providers and intuitively I know it would be wrong.

But if someone were routinely killing three-year old kids, many of us would use any means (including violence) to stop it.

So why do we say it is wrong to use violence against abortion providers when we can use it in the above example or in other, everyday situations (like protecting our family)?

 

[whatevergirl]

I am not advocating violence against abortion providers and intuitively I know it would be wrong.

But if someone were routinely killing three-year old kids, many of us would use any means (including violence) to stop it.

So why do we say it is wrong to use violence against abortion providers when we can use it in the above example or in other, everyday situations (like protecting our family)?

I have no answer, but just wanted to comment that your thread is very interesting, and I look forward to the replies! I will say though that using violence to prevent it…I dunno…it doesn’t seem to stop it.

 

[DJgang]

I’m just praying that I see the day abortion is illegal and watch these thugs go to prison where they belong.

I’ve often asked myself, if Jesus were walking, right in front of a clinic, what would he do?

I think that’s where we need to focus our attention.

So, what do you think Jesus would do? Would He resort to violence?

Don’t get me wrong, my human nature would love to get a right hook in on these providers and try to knock some sense in them…but that’s just not the right thing to do (and they may right hook me back, ouch!)

 

[stjosephtomasi]

I’ve often asked myself, *if Jesus were walking, right in front of a clinic, what would he do? Would He resort to violence?

good question - seems like He would remain non-violent, although He did (at least once) get physical with sinners when he overturned tables . . . . and that was for money changing in the temple (a non-violent act)

 

[whatevergirl]

I’m just praying that I see the day abortion is illegal and watch these thugs go to prison where they belong.

I’ve often asked myself, if Jesus were walking, right in front of a clinic, what would he do?

I think that’s where we need to focus our attention.

So, what do you think Jesus would do? Would He resort to violence?

Don’t get me wrong, my human nature would love to get a right hook in on these providers and try to knock some sense in them…but that’s just not the right thing to do (and they may right hook me back, ouch!)

No, Jesus wouldn’t resort to violence, history from the Bible tells me. He saw many injustices, and He did not react in violence. HOWEVER, He would have said something…He would have reacted to injustices, but in a different way. The doctors (they know not what they do?) are not fully to blame…but the lawmakers, who make it possible for the doctor to “legally” kill a baby.

 

[Steve40]

I’m just praying that I see the day abortion is illegal and watch these thugs go to prison where they belong.

I’ve often asked myself, if Jesus were walking, right in front of a clinic, what would he do?

I think that’s where we need to focus our attention.

So, what do you think Jesus would do? Would He resort to violence?

Don’t get me wrong, my human nature would love to get a right hook in on these providers and try to knock some sense in them…but that’s just not the right thing to do (and they may right hook me back, ouch!)

There may be a difference between what would Jesus do in the first coming and what will Jesus do in the second coming. Part of me believes that I am no better the the Germans who stood by and watched 6 million Jews be killed. What are the numbers up to now almost fifty million? But Jesus also said father forgive them they know not what they do, when they were killing him.

At a minimum we need to be out there on the street and be a voice for the unborn and at the same time intercede in prayer for the killers. Hell is going to be harder than any of us could imagine. We have to pray for conversion and mercy.

When Jesus comes for the second time, they will not survive and abortion will be thrown down to the hell where it came from.

 

[DJgang]

No, Jesus wouldn’t resort to violence, history from the Bible tells me. He saw many injustices, and He did not react in violence. HOWEVER, He would have said something…He would have reacted to injustices, but in a different way. The doctors (they know not what they do?) are not fully to blame…but the lawmakers, who make it possible for the doctor to “legally” kill a baby.

What do you think Jesus would say? (I’m just making conversation with ya here)

Or do you think He would just make a presence? Like Steve40 said, we must keep a presence at the clinics. In a sense, Jesus is present as long as we are there, praying.

 

[DJgang]

There may be a difference between what would Jesus do in the first coming and what will Jesus do in the second coming. .

Great point!

Revenge is the Lord’s.

 

[whatevergirl]

What do you think Jesus would say? (I’m just making conversation with ya here)

Or do you think He would just make a presence? Like Steve40 said, we must keep a presence at the clinics. In a sense, Jesus is present as long as we are there, praying.

The thing is, if a doctor is truly a practicing Christian, let’s say–I can’t imagine him/her being able to perform an abortion. Now, most likely, we’re dealing with doctors who are not practicing anything…so, if Jesus were standing before them…would they convert? Perhaps! That is what happened to the Roman soldier, in addition to others, who were merely in Christ’s presence. I look at society as it’s really only advanced in the sense of technology. Our society is still as mean spirited, and ugly, as it was in Jesus’ time…ultimately, Jesus gives us the chance to change…but will we accept it? So, would these doctors be moved to change, if Jesus was standing before them? Some, yes. Some, no.

I could see Christ saying…‘Forgive them Father, for they do not know what they are doing.’ (as the doctors enter their respective clinics)

I also wonder what will happen during the ‘end’ times. I think negotiating with His people is pretty much over at that point.

 

[DJgang]

The thing is, if a doctor is truly a practicing Christian, let’s say–I can’t imagine him/her being able to perform an abortion. Now, most likely, we’re dealing with doctors who are not practicing anything…so, if Jesus were standing before them…would they convert? Perhaps! That is what happened to the Roman soldier, in addition to others, who were merely in Christ’s presence. I look at society as it’s really only advanced in the sense of technology. Our society is still as mean spirited, and ugly, as it was in Jesus’ time…ultimately, Jesus gives us the chance to change…but will we accept it? So, would these doctors be moved to change, if Jesus was standing before them? Some, yes. Some, no.

I could see Christ saying…‘Forgive them Father, for they do not know what they are doing.’ (as the doctors enter their respective clinics)

I also wonder what will happen during the ‘end’ times. I think negotiating with His people is pretty much over at that point.

Don’t you just know that Jesus’ heart is breaking everytime someone kills a child?

I see tears streaming down His face. Very few words, other than the ones you mentioned.

 

[whatevergirl]

Don’t you just know that Jesus’ heart is breaking everytime someone kills a child?

I see tears streaming down His face. Very few words, other than the ones you mentioned.

oh, absolutely. But, if the doctors don’t know Jesus…or don’t care about Him–His tears don’t mean anything to them…We are meant to be Jesus’ words, hands, feet, etc on earth…ultimately, it’s up to us to speak on His behalf.

 

[Gamera]

I am not advocating violence against abortion providers and intuitively I know it would be wrong.

But if someone were routinely killing three-year old kids, many of us would use any means (including violence) to stop it.

So why do we say it is wrong to use violence against abortion providers when we can use it in the above example or in other, everyday situations (like protecting our family)?

Do you mean, why is it morally wrong? Because one can use force against another person only under certain conditions. One condition is that the threat against which one is defending must be imminent. In other words, if Joe breaks into my house and tries to kill my relative right there and then, I have a moral right to defend my relative by using force against Joe. But if I know that Joe is going to attack “somebody” “sometime,” I cannot just break into Joe’s house and blow him away pre-emptively, because the threat Joe poses isn’t imminent.

We don’t have the right to physically attack abortion “providers” precisely because the Fifth Commandment shows us that all human lives are sacred.

 

[stjosephtomasi]

if Joe breaks into my house and tries to kill my relative right there and then, I have a moral right to defend my relative by using force against Joe. But if I know that Joe is going to attack “somebody” “sometime,” I cannot just break into Joe’s house and blow him away pre-emptively, because the threat Joe poses isn’t imminent.

Please help me to understand this.

If Joe decides that he is going to kill anyone that walks onto his property and begins to do so, the police are going to stop him and they will use force to do so. They will NOT stand outside his house and say, “let us wait until he tries to do this again and then we will stop him.”

Instead, they say, “this man has killed people that walked onto his property and we must go to stop him now before he does this again.” And they will use violence if necessary.

But if there is an abortion clinic next door to Joe, and they kill a steady stream of unborn babies every day, we are forbidden to use violence to stop them.

Why? Help me to understand the difference.

 

[FishMonger]

Suppose parents were bringing their ten-year-old girls into abortion clinics down the street where they were forced through cement mixers, then washed down the sewer? I speculate that the local population would storm the clinic and stop the practice. Atheists, Catholics, Jews, Wiccans. Democrats. ACLU. Congresmen. Parolees. They would all be there. Anyone disagree?

But they aren’t there for the abortion clinic. As the original poster asked, Why not? My answer is that at the deepest level of our consciousness, we don’t consider the fetus to be one of us. We really don’t see them as persons like the rest of us, regardless of the morality, religion, doctrine, philosophy, or rational used to say they are. We just don’t really believe it.

Well, that’s my attempt at a serious and honest answer. I presume many would disagree. If so, what’s your explanation?

 

[MidnightSun02]

Years ago a friend of my dad’s (who was a cop) had to arrest protestors at an abortion clinic…I am not sure if they were acting violently or attempting to prevent something from happening but my dad’s friend told another cop as they were taking people away, “We’re arresting the wrong people.”

Another story:
My grandpa was arrested as he was trying to block the door to an abortion clinic and not allow patients/doctors in. He wasn’t acting violently but he was doing his best to protect those that were truly innocent…the unborn. It was on the news and everything…I was about 5 or 6 years old when I saw him on the news being carried away. I cried then but I am so proud of him now. To me he’s a hero.

 

[kristin2007]

We have logic and reason on our side. We do not need to, and should not, resort to violence.

I recently participated in a colloquium on abortion. My role was designated patsy on the panel. I was supposed to be the ignorant, uptight catholic who could be mocked at will.

Sometimes attack is the best form of defence. I asked my opponents to consider the case of a healthy foetus in a healthy mother. There was no rape. The foetus had been conceived in a voluntary sexual act.

I posed the following questions:

–Consider a continuum from conception to age 20 years. Where along this continuum does the foetus become a human being deserving the protection of the law?

–Can you defend whatever point you choose scientifically, logically and morally?

One of my opponents, call her the radical feminist, said it was the “woman’s choice” up to the point of birth. I replied as follows:

“So it is your position that up to one hour before birth the foetus can be terminated. One hour later it’s a person?”

This proved too much for the other panelists and for the audience. There was some confusion and then one of the panelists said she was “comfortable” with abortion in the first trimester. This of course is not a defendable position. I asked her:

“Are you saying that a woman cannot have an abortion four months into her pregnancy because it would make you uncomfortable? What right have you to impose your preferences on someone else’s personal decision?”

She admitted she could not logically defend a one trimester limit. Nor, it turned out, could she defend any limit except that she felt an abortion after the first trimester was “wrong.” She could not explain why it was wrong. To say her position was confused is to put it mildly and the audience saw it. Call it a TKO.

The panelists started discussing foetal development. They seemed to think that prior to the first trimester the foetus was a “clump of cells.” I pointed out that cell differentiation started almost immediately and the first heartbeats could be detected at about five weeks. This information made a deep impression on one of the panelists. She did not actually support me thereafter but in effect took no further part in the discussion. Call it a KO.

The radical feminist said that if abortion were outlawed after five weeks then no abortion could be performed ever. Most women did not even know they were pregnant after five weeks. However when I asked her whether she stood by her position that it was the “woman’s choice” up to the moment of birth she declined to answer. Call it a victory on points.

During the discussion I was accused of having a hidden agenda. I denied that my agenda was hidden which evoked laughter from the audience.

I refused to be distracted by the usual attacks on the Church. I said I wanted this to be a discussion based on science, reason and ethics, not on religious dogma. My position was that if secular humanists truly cared about human life they would question their own dogma on abortion.

I was asked the usual “hard case” questions about rape, a foetus with a congenital abnormality or the case where continued pregnancy would endanger the life of the mother. I responded by pointing out that this was a red herring. The panelists, with the exception of me, all believed that abortion was a “woman’s right to choose” irregardless of the circumstances. Most abortions were simply “birth control” decisions.

When the other panelists persisted with this line I asked whether any of them in fact thought that abortion should only be allowed under certain restricted circumstances. None did. That ended the subject.

Did I change anybody’s mind?

Probably not.

Did I at least plant some seeds of doubt among the pro-abortion members of the audience?

I think so. Perhaps that’s all that could be done under the circumstances.

I will conclude by saying that I wholeheartedly support the Church’s teachings on the killing of unborn children. My refusal to engage in a discussion about what to do in cases of rape or congenital deformity were tactical decisions and do not reflect any ambivalence on my part.

 

[didymus]

Do you mean, why is it morally wrong? Because one can use force against another person only under certain conditions. One condition is that the threat against which one is defending must be imminent. In other words, if Joe breaks into my house and tries to kill my relative right there and then, I have a moral right to defend my relative by using force against Joe. But if I know that Joe is going to attack “somebody” “sometime,” I cannot just break into Joe’s house and blow him away pre-emptively, because the threat Joe poses isn’t imminent.

We don’t have the right to physically attack abortion “providers” precisely because the Fifth Commandment shows us that all human lives are sacred.

OK, you’re in occupied Poland and you have a chance to kill some SS guards from a concentration camp whom you know are running the gas chambers. By what you outlined above you can only intervene when they are physically about to drop the can of Zyklon B into the chamber, i.e., when it will be impossible for you to intervene effectively.

By analogy, if Dr. X has been preforming abortions for years at the same clinic and we know s/he is going to continue, how is that different from the gas chamber? The clinic will also have security to prevent interference when the actual murder is taking place.

I am NOT advocating killing abortionists – but someone please tell me if/how my analogy with the concentration camp guards is wrong.

For myself, I’m “a good German”. I’m not going to break the law myself, & sad to confess I’m not doing nearly enough to help the RTL movement except vote, pray & the occasional donation.

 

[Steadfast_love]

But if there is an abortion clinic next door to Joe, and they kill a steady stream of unborn babies every day, we are forbidden to use violence to stop them.

Why? Help me to understand the difference.

CCC 2265

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.
As an American citizen there are only a few times when I can use violence: self defense and protecting other people from immediate harm.

• Police officers can use force to hunt down a fellon but citizens generaly do not have authority to use violence in that situation.
• Soldiers can fight wars, but civilians do not generaly have authority to travel overseas and wage war.
• The Coast Guard boats have these HUGE machine guns on them: again, they have the authority to use that kind of force against smugglers, but civilians don’t.

So who has the authority to kill children? Currently the state gives it to mothers and doctors (with age restrictions.) Yes, Catholics are opposed to the killing of children at any age, but as citizens, we have no more authority to use force against mothers and doctors than we do to use force against the U.S. Coast Guard.

But even if we’re not using force, the Pope can still do his Key thing, the saints can do their intersession thing and we can do our citizen thing. Christianity ultimately prevailed over the Pagan ‘pater familias’ (The so-called “right” of a father to kill his wife, children and slaves.) We can likewise to prevail over the so-called “right” of a mother to kill her children. And when we do, the authority to use force will primaraly be granted to someone becides “Joe the nosy neighbor.”

 

[Steadfast_love]

Suppose parents were bringing their ten-year-old girls into abortion clinics down the street where they were forced through cement mixers, then washed down the sewer? I speculate that the local population would storm the clinic and stop the practice. Atheists, Catholics, Jews, Wiccans. Democrats. ACLU. Congresmen. Parolees. They would all be there. Anyone disagree?

But they aren’t there for the abortion clinic. As the original poster asked, Why not? My answer is that at the deepest level of our consciousness, we don’t consider the fetus to be one of us. We really don’t see them as persons like the rest of us, regardless of the morality, religion, doctrine, philosophy, or rational used to say they are. We just don’t really believe it.

Well, that’s my attempt at a serious and honest answer. I presume many would disagree. If so, what’s your explanation?

I disagree with the highlighted part. Callousness towards the unborn is only superficial and cultural. My wife was concieved under conditions that are usualy cited as grounds for abortion. So when people call for the extermination of “her kind” she get’s really steamed. It only takes one good tongue lashing for people to change their minds, or at least condition everything they say about abortion when in earshot of her.

It’s the same as having a real live “N*****” in the room. Suddenly everyone gets very polite towards African Americans.

 

[Steadfast_love]

By analogy, if Dr. X has been preforming abortions for years at the same clinic and we know s/he is going to continue, how is that different from the gas chamber?

The gas chambers were during war time, specifically durring a Just War. Dr. X has the choice to join either side and literaly wage war, but even then he’s not given a license to kill indiscriminately. Sure, he could go on a revenge spree against the guards, but Dr. X should really do something more useful from a strategic standpoint (like communicating secrets and troop movements) or more usefull from a human standpoint (like giving someone a chance to live) instead of throwing rocks into a hornet nest.

Likewise, is a revenge spree against the abortion industry the best strategy? No way! Not as long as we’ve got people like Kristen2007! (By the way, great post!)