Why no violence against abortion providers?

[Newbie2]

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.

There are a couple of differences; first, the mother is complacent in bringing her child to the clinic. Second, the concentration camp inmates have/had a chance, however slight, to escape or fight back (even though it may be futile), the fetus has no such option.

I don’t see a parallel for the mom making the decision to kill. Other than that, your analogy is pretty close.

However immoral, the concentration camp killings were legal at the time under the third reich, as are abortions in this country.

Interesting previous post mentions the just war consideration.

 

[didymus]

There are a couple of differences; first, the mother is complacent in bringing her child to the clinic. Second, the concentration camp inmates have/had a chance, however slight, to escape or fight back (even though it may be futile), the fetus has no such option.

I don’t see a parallel for the mom making the decision to kill. Other than that, your analogy is pretty close.

However immoral, the concentration camp killings were legal at the time under the third reich, as are abortions in this country.

Interesting previous post mentions the just war consideration.

Besides which we have the right to advocate against unjust laws – something not available to subjects of the Third Reich.
And, on further reflection, the use of terrorism would probably so discredit the RTL movement’s political efforts that it would be a net loss. Heaven knows the poor dears at PP consider mailing doctors tracts “terrorism”.

You can never tell, though, sometimes terrorism works. The UK would never have offered a power-sharing agreement for the Six Counties out of the goodness of their hearts, it came about because the minority resorted to arms and made the Brits want OUT of the damned place.
Likewise, when I was young, Israel’s prestige was high because they had kicked *** in the '67 and '73 wars. No one ever heard of a Palestinian. Now thanks to terrorist campaigns showing up Israel’s vulnerabilities everyone is talking about “Palestinian rights”.

Like they say, you can get more with a kind word and a gun than with a kind word alone. This is an observation – not a moral justification for terrorism.

 

[Em_in_FL]

Pro-life means pro-life in every sense of the word. If you believe in the dignity of human life then that applies to both the sinner and the victim. You have to be consistant.

Unfortunately the current laws are not consistant. They allow the murdering of innocent human life. But we cannot be inconsistant…

Pro-life is pro-life… violence is violence. We cannot succumb to their violent ways.

 

[twosweetgirls]

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

I think He’d walk right in, with His arms full of the babies that were just killed. Then He’d instantly enlighten the minds of the abortionists, nurses and aborting mothers as to these babies’ lifelong potentials and possibilities, then He’d give these babies wings and let them fly to Heaven, then He’d stay there, stretch His arms out and, with His hands and feet bleeding, plead with all there to come home to salvation and forgiveness in Him.

 

[TMC]

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.

Here’s another analogy. You are a follower of a man who you believe is destined to save all of humanity. He is being attacked by soldiers you believe intend to have him killed. You have a sword. What do you do?

As Christ said to Peter when he would wield his sword on that very occasion, “Stop, no more of this!” Luke 22:51. We are not murderers. We do not meet sword with sword, blood with blood, pain with more pain. That is not the path to healing. Christian love and pacifism are not a strategy, we don’t advocate for peace because we fear jail or being discredited. We do it to follow His example. He showed us the way to true peace, and it cannot be achieved by violence.

 

[rayne89]

17. Do not repay anyone evil for evil; be concerned for what is noble in the sight of all.
18. If possible, on your part, live at peace with all.
19. Beloved, do not look for revenge but leave room for the wrath; for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.”
20. Rather, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals upon his head.”
21. Do not be conquered by evil but conquer evil with good.
Romans 12:17-21

 

[FishMonger]

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.

Well, would you agree that the people would rise up and stop a clinic from stuffing ten-year-old girls into cement mixers and washing them down the sewer? I think that’s a valid supposition. What do you think?

Firemen ran up the stairs of the World Trade Center to save people. The gave up their lives. We sure don’t see anything like that at abortion clinics. That’s why I propose that we really don’t see the fetus as one of us.

I’d also suggest we don’t know much about how we think and how we develop the attitudes we have. We really don’t understand the processes by which we make decisions. We talk about logic and rationality, but then we lump whatever we don’t understand under emotion. We actually don’t know squat about our psychology. We like to think we do, and we try to shoe horn human behavior into the thimble of knowledge we have.

So, I’d be interested in other ideas about why those firemen were so willing to run into the WTC, but abortion clinics get no such response? As I said, I think we really do see a basic difference between us and the fetus.

And, there’s always the fun qustions. If you were in a burning bulding and could save a two-year-old child or a refrigerated cooler of embryos, which would you take? Why?

 

[HailMary]

Violence is used all the time, except its on a spiritual level: and the Divine Liturgy is the greatest weapon for this.

 

[Pug]

Well, would you agree that the people would rise up and stop a clinic from stuffing ten-year-old girls into cement mixers and washing them down the sewer? I think that’s a valid supposition. What do you think?

Here is one difference between the girl in the cement mixer and a baby being aborted scenarios. Once you save the girl from the cement mixer, you will return her to her parents who will be thrilled to have her back and she will be safe. The bad guy will have been vanquished. The situation will have been remedied. And even if you figure that her parents don’t want her back, then she will go to the state and the state will send her parents to jail for having given her to the cement mixer killers.

It is the same with 911. If they risked their lives and saved someone, most likely the person that they saved would not be placed in another burning building next week by their parents in some other state where you can do nothing about it.

The scenarios do seem a little different to me on account of that.

 

[FishMonger]

Here is one difference between the girl in the cement mixer and a baby being aborted scenarios. Once you save the girl from the cement mixer, you will return her to her parents who will be thrilled to have her back and she will be safe. The bad guy will have been vanquished. The situation will have been remedied. And even if you figure that her parents don’t want her back, then she will go to the state and the state will send her parents to jail for having given her to the cement mixer killers.

It is the same with 911. If they risked their lives and saved someone, most likely the person that they saved would not be placed in another burning building next week by their parents in some other state where you can do nothing about it.

The scenarios do seem a little different to me on account of that.

So, you attribute the difference to the fact that the fetus rescue won’t have maximum efficiency and might have to be repeated? Would that be because the rescuers have better things to do with their time?

I wonder if the strip mall with the cement mixers would have been left standing? I wonder if any of the mixers would be left in the country after the first ones started up? I wonder if the people would have removed any posisbility that the mixers could start grinding flesh and bone again. I wonder at the fate of the operators of the mixers? I wonder if law would even matter? I wonder if the cops would be helping the people rip down the walls?

I’ll grant the difference in scenarios. They are not identical. But is the difference sufficient to explain the difference in the behavior of the population? I think there is something more at work, and it is quite uncomfortable to face.

 

[Pug]

So, you attribute the difference to the fact that the fetus rescue won’t have maximum efficiency and might have to be repeated?

It is *a *difference. It is not the sum total of the difference/differences.

Would that be because the rescuers have better things to do with their time?

No, not exactly. But I suspect they do wonder about the correctness of using violence as a solution if it really isn’t going to be a solution. It is not the same, I know, but in the case of a just war, even if it is otherwise just, you still don’t wage it if you won’t win. I wonder if that is a small part of the effect here.

I wonder at the fate of the operators of the mixers? I wonder if law would even matter?

This is a difference between the two scenarios. In the abortion scenario, if you kill an abortionist, he will be replaced because society has plenty of them to spare and supports their work. In the cement scenario, if you kill the cement killer, he will not be replaced because society does not support his line of work. You will succeed in ridding society of his menace if you kill/stop him.

Warning to the general readership: I am not advocating going around and killing abortionists! Please don’t say that I am.

 

[FishMonger]

It is *a *difference. It is not the sum total of the difference/differences.

No, not exactly. But I suspect they do wonder about the correctness of using violence as a solution if it really isn’t going to be a solution. It is not the same, I know, but in the case of a just war, even if it is otherwise just, you still don’t wage it if you won’t win. I wonder if that is a small part of the effect here.

This is a difference between the two scenarios. In the abortion scenario, if you kill an abortionist, he will be replaced because society has plenty of them to spare and supports their work. In the cement scenario, if you kill the cement killer, he will not be replaced because society does not support his line of work. You will succeed in ridding society of his menace if you kill/stop him.

Warning to the general readership: I am not advocating going around and killing abortionists! Please don’t say that I am.

I think we have come full circle. You observe that society supports the abortion clinic, but does not supprt the cement mixers. This is the point where I offered the explanation that people of all persuasions do not see the fetus as one of us.

I am sure the anti-abortion people would rip the cement mixers apart side-by-side with everyone else, but we can see they leave the abortion clinics alone. My explanation: they really don’t think the fetus is one of us, regardless of the rational they offer saying a fetus is one of us.

Neither of us is supporting violence against abortionists. I think we are engaged in an exercise to uncover the real attitudes of people regarding the fetus. The attitudes toward the fetus are obviously very different than the attituds towards the ten-year-old girl. I don’t think anyone sees them as equal without going through some intellectual exercise, but that exercise is insufficient to overcome the more primal attitude that the fetus just ain’t one of us.

 

[Pug]

I think we have come full circle.

I disagree with your analysis, unless I misunderstand it. If we could somehow take several Americans out of America, yet leave their attitudes intact, I think the treatment of cement mixers and the abortionists comes to a more level ground. At least, for some Americans, presumably those that are not pro-choice.

I think a person might use force to stop an abortionist as they might a cement mixer if they could equally stop the death from happening by their use of force. If they were equally able to stop the death by tying up the cement mixer as by tying up the abortionist, I think they would do either one. That equality of ability just isn’t the case on American soil.

You observe that society supports the abortion clinic, but does not supprt the cement mixers. This is the point where I offered the explanation that people of all persuasions do not see the fetus as one of us.

I think some people don’t see the child as one of us. Some do, though. The fact that the government supports the one and not the other alters the effective choices that are available for a person to consider doing in each case. Well, also some choices are more or less possible because the child is in a mother in the one case, making it harder to control for some factors, like you can’t take the child to some other (safer) place without also taking the mother there as well.

Neither of us is supporting violence against abortionists.

You probably wondered at my odd disclaimer. It was not directed towards you and has everything to do with my experiences on this board. Sorry if that was confusing.

 

[Galandriel]

The ends do not justify the means.

 

[DanteAlighieri]

I’d like to reiterate what Steadfast Love said about "throwing a rock into a hornet’s nest.

The general public reaction, from where I’m sitting, whenever some wacko blows up an abortion clinic or shoots an abortionist, is one of outrage. Frankly, it reflects badly on the pro-life movement when one of our own takes a life in order to further the cause.

Think about it:

1. Pro-lifers are already too commonly seen as and portrayed as fanatics.
2. Violent pro-lifers are characterized (and usually truly are) extremists.
3. Extremists don’t get much good publicity.
4. One bad apple spoils the bunch in the eyes of the public at large.

Whether or not this is justified is irrelevant. To some extent, perception is reality – at least, in the minds of the masses – and an increase in violence against abortionists and clinics, particularly by Catholics, would in fact create scandal and set the pro-life movement back years, if not decades.

Peace,
Dante

 

[FishMonger]

I disagree with your analysis, unless I misunderstand it. If we could somehow take several Americans out of America, yet leave their attitudes intact, I think the treatment of cement mixers and the abortionists comes to a more level ground. At least, for some Americans, presumably those that are not pro-choice.

I think a person might use force to stop an abortionist as they might a cement mixer if they could equally stop the death from happening by their use of force. If they were equally able to stop the death by tying up the cement mixer as by tying up the abortionist, I think they would do either one. That equality of ability just isn’t the case on American soil.

I think some people don’t see the child as one of us. Some do, though. The fact that the government supports the one and not the other alters the effective choices that are available for a person to consider doing in each case. Well, also some choices are more or less possible because the child is in a mother in the one case, making it harder to control for some factors, like you can’t take the child to some other (safer) place without also taking the mother there as well.

You probably wondered at my odd disclaimer. It was not directed towards you and has everything to do with my experiences on this board. Sorry if that was confusing.

Would it be your position that the pro-life people would sit back and allow the cement mixers to turn if it was legal? I doubt either the pro-choice people or the pro-life people would sit back.

Do you think the police would protect the cement mixers? Do you think the army would protect them? I don’t. My experience with both indicates they would stop the mixers as soon as they could.

It’s instructive that even in Nazi Germany the Germans hid the killing of the Jews, and had to go to great lengths to find the type of person who would man the camps.

 

[Pug]

Would it be your position that the pro-life people would sit back and allow the cement mixers to turn if it was legal?

I think very few people would stand there and watch a healthy 10 year old visibly ground up for no particular reason. If you change it to a lethal injection, more people might stand there and do nothing, but by far most would do something. If they gave themselves some rationale, like that particular 10 year old needed to die for some reason, for the child’s own good or for that of society or something, I think even more people would stand there doing nothing, but still some would not.

Do you think the police would protect the cement mixers? Do you think the army would protect them? I don’t. My experience with both indicates they would stop the mixers as soon as they could.

I don’t know. I think people will stand there while people are thrown to wild beasts to be eaten alive in a public arena. People will do strange things. They might even cheer. People have been known to do nothing while one man beats another man nearly to death or to death, so long as the one being beaten has been assigned the proper designation or label. I guess this makes me a little cynical, at least for all times and all places. As the police in America are right now, with their current beliefs, they would not stand by. They would act.

It’s instructive that even in Nazi Germany the Germans hid the killing of the Jews, and had to go to great lengths to find the type of person who would man the camps.

Yes, hiding helps. Abortion is fairly hidden as well. Typically, the mother is not watching a video of the death of her child. She can’t see the child, nor hear crying. Not that there would be crying at 8 weeks, but that is in comparison to a 10 year old being killed, who would cry out. This makes a real difference (the pathos, the crying, the visibility).

I do, btw, think part of your point is quite valid. I do think it is possible that some pro-life people could have a view in their mind that treats the unborn as different from the already born. If this is common or not, that I don’t know. I might, in fact, be one of them. It is hard to say. I try not to think about pro-life issues as much as I might because it makes me feel violent, and I don’t know how to cope with that. So I do things like pray or write letters or sign petitions, but I don’t join the pro-life committee at my parish.

 

[vern_humphrey]

We are pro-life, not pro-death. We do not kill others, and most especially we do not appoint ourselves judge, jury and executioner. We work to end this holocaust of the innocent through legal means, not through voilence.

 

[FishMonger]

We are pro-life, not pro-death. We do not kill others, and most especially we do not appoint ourselves judge, jury and executioner. We work to end this holocaust of the innocent through legal means, not through voilence.

Would that be your policy if ten-year-old girls were being stuffed into cement mixers and flushed down the drain at the local strip mall? I doubt it. I suspect you would be with the band of blacks, whites, catholics, atheists, communists, and pagans assaulting the place and putting an end to the mixing.

However, that is the policy with abortion. So what explains the difference. I propose it is because we simply don’t see the fetus as one of us. I’d be interested in other reasons.

 

[OneAugustKnight]

I think it’s a combination of self-restraint and mentally blocking it out. We don’t have to see abortions, and it would drive people crazy to spend a lot of time contemplating what happens during an abortion.

Personally, it’s very difficult for me to be around someone who participated in an abortion, so I don’t talk to them unless I have to.