« Meddling | Main | Spring Flowers »

April 26, 2007

Comments

What a bummer. Just when we make a positive stride protecting the unborn, this goes down!

I hope the message gets out that Christians don't support this kind of thing.

Todd

"If we are to stop the practice of abortion in this country, justice must be sought through the government as long as it is functioning."

Amy, I hope your statement here is recanted at some point. It's currently common to think this way, but where is God in this equation? First? I know that from reading what you write, that you dont overtly expect to have sucess without God's involvement, but to state it this way betrays the primary source of all good in it's most foundational root level.

You have rightly stated that it's God who gave government authority to not bear the sword in vain, but you would deny the just, good, providential birth of the American experiment if you hold it to mean what you seem to have it mean today. John Knox, and others advocated opposition to some governments and kings based on a more proper explaination of Rom. 13 by the way.

My point is that until the Christian Church, the saints of God, repent from our laziness, we will suffer a society that has laws like legal abortion. Until then, this will torment our righteous souls just like it did for Lot in Sodom see 2Pet.2:6-8.

I'm not arguing for violence, but for the Church to demonstrate the correct amount of outrage that says you cannot murder these innocents. If we dont, it'll continue and we'll have to listen to Tony rightly ask " if you believe that it's murder, why dont you act like it's murder?". You can take it to government until you're blue in the face, some in government will actually enjoy the vexing of the righteous souls that they preside over.

In our fatness, we've covered ourselves in shame.

Brad

>> "In opposing this evil, one is justified in using only the degree of force necessary to stop any harm that it is within his power to prevent. Therefore, one is never justified in using lethal force when other measures are available."

If a Christian cut off the hands of an abortion doctor, and then sewed him up, would this be acceptable?

I still havent got a good answer to this question:

http://www.gregiswrong.com/site-gregiswrong/thought_experiments/abortion.htm

John Knox: "one man with God is a majority"

John Knox: "But hereof be assured, that all is not lawful nor just that is statute by civil laws; neither yet is everything sin before God, which ungodly persons allege to be treason."

oh i almost forgot this one - i like it a little more

http://www.glasskite.com/site-gregiswrong/thought_experiments/slave.htm

Amy, like many people I have struggled with how to respond to the horror of abortion. I want to say up front that I do not believe people should be planting bombs at clinics or shooting abortion doctors. I believe this is wrong.

But this is where we part ways. I do not think it is correct to say that it is 'absolutely wrong', just as I think the justification you give for your position is valid or useful.

We have a biblical duty to protect those who can't protect themselves. It is even ok in the bible if you kill a thief in your house (exodus 22:2), how much more so to kill someone who is about to kill defenseless unborn children?

This is why your comment "God has not given citizens the right to bring His wrath and punishment against those who do evil;" is incorrect. It is not about punishment, but defense.

Even the STR statement on abortion violence is incorrect, where it says "In opposing this evil, one is justified in using only the degree of force necessary to stop any harm that it is within his power to prevent. Therefore, one is never justified in using lethal force when other measures are available."

Abortion is not a nebulous entity, but a large number of individual murders. You and I do not have a non-lethal way to stop any of the individual and senseless murders that are happening repeatedly. In that way, according to your own statement, a person WOULD be justified in taking lethal action. It is as justified as me taking the life of a person about to kill my wife.

The reason I don't think it is correct at this point to take the lives of abortion doctors is to do with wisdom. It isn't the best or long term solution to the problem. Just as on different occasions Jesus told his disciples to take up or put down their swords (Matthew 26:52 and Luke 22:36)

In this, we agree, as you say "The result is that ... the overall cause of ending the practice of killing unborn children suffers a severe setback."

Abortion is the gravest moral evil our society has ever seen. We need to have a consistent and defensible biblical position about why we choose the action we choose and why that is consistent with other principles of self-defense.

Hi Brad - I am confused by your reply to Amy. Please clarify - you do - or do not - support the bombing of clinics ?

Alan, at this point, I am not supporting the bombing of clinics, I'd be more in favor of agressive operation rescue tactics of nonviolent civil disobedience. The ungodly prevailed with rico and we went home with our tails between our legs. I believe that the battle is being fought in visual media and in forums like this one. My point with Amy, is that when God gives the power and the means, He will end our shame as a society. So we'd do well to go to Him first, see His purity and our filth and repent of our sloth having stopped being salt.

Brad

This makes me furious. One more reason for abortion proponents to say, "See! That's what the pro life side is all about!"

As if it is not hard enough already to try to talk reason into people. Now we have garbage like this to deal with, and have to explain once again that just become one person or group does something so stupid and wrong, it doesn't mean all those on the pro life side agree with it.

Oh for goodness' sake, Tony Montano, what sort of an argument is that?

Mo,

Only the most kick--- arguments evaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Alan Grey said: "Abortion is the gravest moral evil our society has ever seen."

Why? I think this is clearly personal opinion.

I'm sorry, but as a Christian, I just cannot justify putting abortion at the far end of "most heinous" status. I cannot speak objectively as to WHAT is at the far end of that status, other than to say some things seem worse to me than others. But everyone feels more or less strong on these issues than others. The Bible is ambiguous as to degrees of sin - what's worse, what's lesser.

But murder is murder, whether it's a baby, adolescent, or adult. I could never warm up to "abortion is the worst moral evil."

This issue seems very much related to the subject of Christian pacifism. To what extent is a Christian justified in taking violent action to prevent a moral wrong? We are, as Christians, first to look to the authority of the teachings of Christ.

The Romans passage doesn't really speak to the basic issue in my opinion.

If it is at any time permissable to commit a violent act then the bombing of a structure may be permissable.

That is a different situation than the bombing of a structure that kills innocents, which is different from bombing a structure that kills only those engaged in moral wrong. I think of some of the reasoning behind Just War theory here.

"If war is ever lawful, then peace is sometimes
sinful." --C.S. Lewis

Some may be interested in a related discussion on Ben Witherington's blog for April 22, 2007 concerning Christians and gun control. The posting and the comments struggle with Jesus' teaching related to non-violence and non-retaliation.

http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/

I note that the STR position on abortion violence doesn't explicitly ground itself in scripture. I think that it would be more powerful to Christians if it did.

The greatest answer to this question was offered, I believe, by Koukl; although I am not certain.

He proposed: If you were able to breach security at a Nazi prison camp; would you kill the first Nazi you saw and out yourself? OR if you were able; would you infiltrate the camp and disarm all the gas chambers to save more lives? Taking a machine gun around to abortion clinics, I believe, would actually cause more lives to be lost: born and unborn.

My apologies if I misrepresent the argument; but I think this is a strong one. Simply saying, “why don’t you treat it like murder?” is absurd. We do. I do.

Before someone asks me if I would break into an abortion clinic and destroy equipment (wouldn’t surprise me to get this response at all); I’d like to point out the comparison.

Killing the first Nazi = Killing abortionists

Disarming gas chambers = Legislation

I'm not wild about the argument (of Greg's) you quoted. It seems (as Tony has pointed out) that the reason he doesn't advocate killing the abortionists is a pragmatic one -- killing one doctor won't achieve our ends. But what if we "got organized" (as Tony says) and systematically destroyed all the clinics? It seems, it is argued, that we have the numbers to do so.

I claim it is wrong to bomb the clinics for another reason -- we don't have the liberty of violating one law because we oppose another (that's called vigilantism). Now, an opponent will quickly ask about Nazi Germany, and "shouldn't we oppose the system when the system itself is evil". I don't have a good answer as to when we label a government as being as bad as the Nazis, but we're not there yet.

I had one other follow-up, and that is to say that it is entirely possible that pro-abortionists would plant a bomb (one that wasn't able to detonate) at an abortion clinic, for the purpose of gaining public sympathy, and paint all pro-lifers as wackos.

Paul,

Out of curiosity, what number do you think we would have to cross such that Christians would feel justified in military operations?

As a reference, the estimated number of abortions since Roe V Wade is 48,589,993.

The number of lives lost on all sides in World War II is 60,000,000.

Lincoln killed 260,000 southerners to free about 4 million slaves (as per the census of 1860).

Kevin W, I sat on this for a few days to see if I'd lose my indignation over the last post you gave where you consider this question absurd ]"if you believe it's murder, why dont you act like it's murder?"]. I dont, and I'm not surpirsed Tony asks it because it doesn't look like we Christians believe it's murder.

Have you been arrested for trying to stop an abortion, been spit on, venomously cursed and yelled at? I'm pretty sure that abortions take place in your town also, what actions show your belief that murder is taking place in your town?
[so when God says in his word, "you shall not commit murder" and in Pro 24:11"deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter, Oh hold {them} back. Pro 24:12 If you say, "See, we did not know this," Does He not consider {it} who weighs the hearts? And does He not know {it} who keeps your soul? And will He not render to man according to his work?] and oh there's lots more.

This is nothing personal, Kevin W, but do you really act like it's murder? My opinion is that although the abortion mill bomber[s] act unchristlike, he at least left no doubt about his belief. Tony's question hurts so much because it rubs salt into an open sore that has pus running out if it. It burns, and it stinks and if the Christian church would turn and face it we couldn't deny our guilt in not delivering those going to their death right in our own towns. 75%+- of the people in the U.S. say they are Christian, where are the masses defending the innocent? The actions of these show more devotion to the god of convienence, the god of greed, the god of selfishness, and the endless list of other gods. The psalmist says it best in Psalm 106, "Thus were they defiled with their own works, and went a whoring with their own inventions."

Brad

Perry.

The number of abortions worldwide (paul gave US figures) is roughly 50 million each year. The murder of 50 million innocent and defenseless unborn doesn't merit the comment that "abortion is the gravest moral evil our society has ever seen"? Because the bible is 'ambiguous' as to degrees of sin?

Please. The bible is quite straightforward as to how sins were punished in the old testament, especially the killing of an innocent.

If you cannot call the yearly murder of 50 million innocent and defenseless unborn the gravest evil, then I am afraid your 'feelings' about what is right and wrong need a good dose of biblical understanding.

Alan said: "If you cannot call the yearly murder of 50 million innocent and defenseless unborn the gravest evil, then I am afraid your 'feelings' about what is right and wrong need a good dose of biblical understanding."

It's not about right and wrong. I believe it is wrong (well, at least in most cases...sometimes it may be justified). I just think words like "most evil" are always subjective, based on our personal hot and cold meter.

Look, I wish abortions would stop, don't get me wrong. I just don't connect with the activist part of it that would lead to shootings of doctors or bombings of clinics.

“This is nothing personal, Kevin W, but do you really act like its murder?”

Yes. Again, the question is absurd. We don't have to grab an M-16 and get on a plane to Africa to act like murder isn't going on there. Brad, you already have a vision of how one 'ought' to act against murder in your head. My question is this: When does anyone act like ANYTHING is murder? By the way, Tony's question doesn't hurt me at all, but this is the last thing pro-life individuals should be quarrelling about.


>> "Tony's question hurts so much because it rubs salt into an open sore that has pus running out if it. It burns, and it stinks..."

Tony-Montano! it's like that Stephen King book I read!

[From the moderator: Okay, so I changed your swear word to your own name instead of Jesus'. You don't mind, right?]


Kevin W,

>> “We don't have to grab an M-16 and get on a plane to Africa to act like murder isn't going on there. Brad, you already have a vision of how one 'ought' to act against murder in your head.”

But let’s say a Christian did become an African Freedom Fighter – say to a protect a village of Nigerian orphans who were about to be killed in an experimental medical research project. Suppose he had to bomb the clinic research facilities and shoot the evil doctor.

We would actually make Hollywood movies about that guy and his book would get on the best seller list.

But something funny happens when you change the age of the Nigerian orphans. Make them only a few months old, and nobody cares.

And they call the Freedom Fighter a terrorist.

Actually, ----! that's kinda what hapenned in "Tears of the Sun" with Bruce Willis. I havent seen it but i think i'll go rent it.

Well, as Paula Cole sang:

Where is my John Wayne
Where is my Prairie Sun
Where is my happy ending
Where have all the cowboys gone ooooooh hooooooooo

>>”We would actually make Hollywood movies about that guy and his book would get on the best seller list.”

What gets someone on the best seller list means absolutely nothing with regards to morality. Who cares about the best seller list?

>>”But something funny happens when you change the age of the Nigerian orphans. Make them only a few months old, and nobody cares.”

Nobody cares? You mean you don’t care? Or the majority of people don’t care enough? As I said, this means nothing and proves nothing. If you want to claim morality by consensus, or morality by NYT best seller list, or morality based on the actions of those making contrary claims to yours-just come out and say it.

You obviously have a very very strong opinion of how people ‘ought’ to act towards immorality (murder).

Hi Kevin W, I didn't have getting on a plane and going to anywhere in mind, since like I said:"I'm pretty sure that there are abortions in your town." Have you at least stood on a sidewalk in front of an abortion mill? Is this too much to show that you think murder is going on? Have you found any other way to "deliver those who are being taken away to death, And those who are staggering to slaughter? Have you in any way put youself between the killer and the unborn?[with your time?] [money?] People who act like murder is going to happen do heroic things to save a life. What I see is very few heroic acts, and like I said earlier when the godless prevailed with RICO, many went home with their tail between their legs.

If Tony's question doesn't hurt you, you are missing the fair placement of guilt that you bear. In the US, we are a government of the people by the people, representative republic where whe elect supposedly the best among us to be our voice. Your and my voice says it's ok to kill the unborn, what actions do we show to betray that voice? Convince me otherwise, or I'll still be indignant when you say "I do" to Tony's question, because I know and support those who do "act like it's murder".

Brad

Brad,

You asked:

>>“Have you at least stood on a sidewalk in front of an abortion mill? Is this too much to show that you think murder is going on?”

Brad with all due respect, I simply cannot take you seriously. I can’t believe my pro-life position is being challenged in this manner. I could turn your assertions against you so easily but I will refrain; because then I’d be engaging the same tactics you are.

>>“If Tony's question doesn't hurt you, you are missing the fair placement of guilt that you bear.”

You know nothing of my guilt.

>>”Convince me otherwise, or I'll still be indignant when you say "I do" to Tony's question, “

Think what you may Brad; but it won’t do you any good--or save any lives. I have nothing to prove to you. I am glad, however, that you are voice for the unborn in the world.

Brad, you want to compare pro-life battle scars and war stories to prove sincerity--This is why, again, I cannot take you seriously.

I condemn all abortion related violence.

Please review this link and do a blog on it!

http://www.theologyonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=37080

From Dean Barnett on Hugh hewitt's blog:

"BEFORE GETTING TO TORTURE, ALLOW ME TO MAKE a quick digression into abortion. I’m pro-life. I strongly feel that every abortion is the taking of an innocent life. But please note what I didn’t call it – murder.

Murder requires what those in the law refer to as a specific mens rea. That little Latin phrase in this context means you need a precise and knowing intent to kill someone in order to qualify as a murderer. The typical mother who has an abortion and the doctor who provides it have no such intent. They don’t feel they’re taking a life. I feel they’re wrong, and most of the readers of this site probably feel they’re wrong. But because they lack that specific and knowing intent, they’re not murderers.

What drives me crazy about the abortion debate, specifically on our side, is our stridency. There’s little attempt to understand the other side, and little effort to comprehend why a mother-to-be might desperately want an abortion. One of the reasons we toss around terms like “murder” is because they’ll end conversations, not begin them."

Alan said: "What drives me crazy about the abortion debate, specifically on our side, is our stridency. There’s little attempt to understand the other side, and little effort to comprehend why a mother-to-be might desperately want an abortion. One of the reasons we toss around terms like “murder” is because they’ll end conversations, not begin them."

Bravo. This is what has bothered me for years about the abortion debate on "our" side.

And another thing...it's one thing to feel strongly pro-life. But if you're a father, or a husband, and your daughter or wife is faced with an unwanted pregnancy, then I'd like to see how adamantly pro-life you remain. It's easy to be strident when you're not the one facing the issue. It is naive to think that even the most adamant pro-lifer would not entertain flashes of other possibilities when put into a situation where those possibilities exist.

"Murder requires what those in the law refer to as a specific mens rea. That little Latin phrase in this context means you need a precise and knowing intent to kill someone in order to qualify as a murderer. The typical mother who has an abortion and the doctor who provides it have no such intent."

I am not sure I buy this view entirely. I think a dead fetus is exactly what is intended, there is usually no attempt to save the life of an aborted fetus.

The real question is not if there is intent to kill, but is the fetus innocent human life worth defending. Legally this isn't an individual's choice to make. If the society places the fetus in the category of valuable human life, it is murder.

Someone who believes that the fetus is a valuable human life is justified in viewing the abortion action as murder.

If it is true that "One of the reasons we toss around terms like “murder” is because they’ll end conversations, not begin them." then, if our purpose is to engage in conversation and not simply pass judgement, it would seem wise to avoid the term in those circumstances.

"There’s little attempt to understand the other side, and little effort to comprehend why a mother-to-be might desperately want an abortion"

Perhaps in some circles. I think organizations like CareNet do a good job in dealing with these concerns.

"...and Lard --- just sat back and enjoyed what he'd created. A complete and total barf-o-rama."

- Stand By Me, Stephen King

Aw, Tony, why you gotta test me like this? You had to get one more in there. Now I have to go back through all the comments on this post and edit out your language. And I was about to finally go to lunch. Bummer.

I cant even say the A word??????????

oh

and it was a characters name too

well ok

Hi Kevin W, my discussion with you isn't personal on this issue. I'm not doubting your pro-life view in particular. I am doubting the stance of yours, mine, and all the others who are pro-life and howmost of us do not act like it's an innocent life being taken. It is not my intent to compare battle scars, I have a few, but not as many as a lot of others. The point is, like James says "show me your faith by your works". I find it hard to believe if the murder of post birth children was routinely being carried out in your town, the whole place wouldn't riot and stand between the innocent and the killer with you in the lead. You tell me, what is the difference?

William is right on, this cannot be sugar coated in our day and age--we know that it's a baby so early on [prior to most abortions] that it's not even debatable by objective inspection.

And then there's that last quote about the pro-lifers not trying to understand a mother to be desperately wanting an abortion. This characterization is so far from what the front line defenders of life deliver, I have seen a level of compassion there that is seldom duplicated. Many personally know the devastation associated with abortion, but people are being offered a poison pill and the passion to save life is sometimes misunderstood. And, the usual media coverage is of course the worst possible example so that a guy like Dean Barnett will make statements like he did. Ardent pro-lifers are compassionate, dont be fooled! Laws against pandering used to protect the general public against this type of appeal to base lusts. This is exactly what abortion is, an easy answer to a tough problem and the language used is the honey that hides the taste of the poison.

For those who are Christian, hear the voice of wisdom in Proverbs ch. 8 say "For he who finds me finds life And obtains favor from the LORD. But he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death." Please test what I am saying with wisdom.

Brad

Okay guys...there seems to be a little bit of dodgey reasoning going on here....

Specifically, the whole idea that "Murder requires what those in the law refer to as a specific mens rea. That little Latin phrase in this context means you need a precise and knowing intent to kill someone in order to qualify as a murderer." and any other derivatives mentioned.

You are trying to use the very law that pro-life people are objecting to, in order to justify that abortion is not murder. As an example of how absurd this argument is, think about the slaves in the US. They were regarded as property, not 'people' or persons (the Dredd Scott case), and so someone killing a slave would not be guilty of 'murder' under the law.

Now people do think that killing a slave back then was murder. But morality, and whether an act was justified does not depend on the law, nor on the time period one reviews the action.

So, this position either begs the question or holds to an absurd position that a single act can be both justified and unjustified depending on who is reviewing the action and when.

The second is the red herring argument about whether someone with an unwed teenage daughter would be so strident in their prolife views. This is a pointless comment, trying to infer that the only reason someone is pro-life is that they are not in the tough situation that others are.

"The second is the red herring argument about whether someone with an unwed teenage daughter would be so strident in their prolife views. This is a pointless comment, trying to infer that the only reason someone is pro-life is that they are not in the tough situation that others are."

Hi Alan, I found Dean's comments interesting because they pretty much reflect reality. When it comes to actually making them, abortion laws are set up to keep most women in their place while being sure that safe abortions will still be available to the right sort of people who, of course will always have reasons that make their case "different" from those "other" women. In the real world abourtion laws are almost never about protecting the unborn.

The comments to this entry are closed.