DailyKos: I am embarrassed to be pro-life today (Barf Alert)

DailyKos | 5/31/09

[ShadowAce]

Only half the patients who go into an abortion clinic come out alive.

Less than half--don't forget the multiple babies being aborted, and the occasional issue with the mothers who end up dying.

[Mr. Mojo]

And yes I say this knowing full well I will have “a new one torn” for being honest.

Actually, if you were honest you'd come right out and state clearly that you advocate the killing of abortion doctors, and that Roeder did the right thing. Well, do you have the guts to do so?

[Friendofgeorge]

If a person stormed your home and tried to kill your child, would you not kill to save your child's life? Oh wait, you would call that self defense, so it would not be murder? I agree! Are you then saying that it`s different in that case because your baby is already born? Isn`t that what pro abortion people believe, that a child only deserves protection outside the womb? Just wondered if you really reasoned this out in your head?

If you walked by a store front window and saw children being killed, would you think it was murder if the only way it could be stopped was by force? What would be the difference if the store front window was a abortion clinic, and the only way to stop the killing was by use of force?

Now if you approve of the rescue of the children outside of the womb by force? Then why not the rescue of the children inside the womb by force?

The pro abortion/pro choice approve of rescuing children outside of the womb, but not for those in side the womb.

[Friendofgeorge]

I approve of rescuing children from murder, whether they be held hostage by gunman in nursery school or abortion clinics.

[Mr. Mojo]

Just as I thought — you don’t have the guts.

[Friendofgeorge]

I just said it! apparently you do not think they should be rescued?

Have you got the guts to admit that you believe 6 month old children should be rescued from a gun man at a day care, but not children in the womb at a abortion clinic?

[bdeaner]

Murder is wrong. What constitutes murder is sometimes up for debate. It should be noted, before I say anything further, that the taking of innocent life in the womb, is objectively murder to anyone who understands basic biology--the fetus is a human being and all human beings are persons. Murder is objectively always wrong, and abortion is murder, without question. The question, then, is whether the killing of Tiller is murder or not.

I don't think Tiller's killing can be rationalized as self-defense, because Tiller was not attacking his killer. One could make the argument that he was defending the life of the innocent, which morally justifies the act.

One place to go to clarify the issues here is Just War Theory. When is a war truly just and consistent with the pro-life ethic? It would be necessary, then, first, to argue that Tiller's killing was an act of war, and secondly that this was a just war against the abortionist.

It's possible to argue that the killing of Tiller was a last resort. There had been peaceful attempts to stop his murder of the unborn, and yet he persisted and showed no signs of ceasing his behavior. It is also possible to argu, and I would personally argue, that non-violent solutions had not been completely exhausted, and so it is difficult to justify the use of force at this time.

Second, and more clearly, a just war must be performed by a legtimate authority. So, this is a key point. Unambiguously, Tiller's killer was NOT a legitimate authority; he was a vigilante. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate. This point, I think, makes it difficult to see the killing of Tiller as anything other than murder.

Also, a just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Again, this is debatable in the case of the killing of Tiller.

Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury. This is another problem, because it seems likely that not only will the killing of Tiller not bring back Tiller's innocent victims, his death has elevated him to the level of a martyr and has given his sin a glory that weakens the pro-life cause.

Another major point that makes it fairly impossible to conceptualize Tiller's killing as morally justified: A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable. Tiller's killer will be caught, tried and probably prosecuted. Abortions will go on. The pro-life cause is weakened. Obviously, the killing of Tiller did not win the war and had no hope of winning the war against abortion. So, this is a major problem for justifying the act of killing him.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. Right now, we are seeing more strife, not more peace, as would have been expected.

The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered. I think it's possible to argue that Tiller's murder was less than proportional to the amount of murders of unborn babies he has murdered -- but, as a result of the above points, this alone does not justify his death by killing.

Those are my thoughts. I would be interested to hear what you or others think.

[F.J. Mitchell]

Tiller and his killer will answer to God for their evil deeds, same as will we all.

Tiller seemed to have absolutely no regrets for the evil he did over and over and over. Hopefully his killer has a conscience and will repent for his act.

[Mr. Mojo]

I just said it!

No you didn't; you talked around the issue. But I'll give you another chance. If you advocate the lawless killing of abortion doctors, then say it. ...and say it clearly.

Have you got the guts to admit that you believe 6 month old children should be rescued from a gun man at a day care, but not children in the womb at a abortion clinic?

Here's the difference -- abortion, alas, is legal; killing abortion doctors isn't. The pro-life movement isn't going to win this fight by resorting to Roeder's lawless tactics.

[Mr. Mojo]

From your tagline: "I LOVE SARAH PALIN"

You'll be sorry to hear that she and I see eye to eye on this issue.

From the article: "Regardless of my strong objection to Dr. Tiller's abortion practices, violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message." - Sarah Palin

[nickcarraway]

Hve you killed abortionists to save children?

[dan1123]

Well, hard-left-leaning reddit has this gem:

What's wrong with infanticide?
Seriously.
I see nothing wrong with ending the life of an infant at the age of, I dunno, lets say 10 or 11 months from conception, if there is something wrong with it. Infants at such a young age have no concept of personhood. They don't know who they are, what they are. They don't have goals to look forward to, or an understanding of what their life will be like with some disease or deformity. Until the cognitive abilities to understand these concepts are developed, I see no difference between ending the life of an infant and ending the life of a blastocyst.

[Friendofgeorge]

To say otherwise would be political suicide! I am sure that Sarah is so broken up today over the death of the Dr that she is unable to cope...Heavy sarcasm

[Friendofgeorge]

No I have not! Just simply commenting that it is not a bad day for unborn children. Possibly we will hear one day of a woman that went through with child birth, that would not have otherwise.

[Mr. Mojo]

To say otherwise would be political suicide!

lol...so you're staying that Sarah is lying for political expediency? ...and that she really doesn't believe what she said (that "violence is never an answer in advancing the pro-life message"). Your opinion of her appears to be quite low.

I am sure that Sarah is so broken up today over the death of the Dr

I'm sure she didn't shed tears over Tiller's death either. But again, you can't seem to comprehend the distinction between not being broken up over the death of abortionists and advocating killing them. Huge difference.

[nickcarraway]

Well, it may be a bad day for future unborn children.

[Talisker]

And you....have not. What's the deal Talisker? You have very pointed opinions, and no posting history to back them up. I hope you realize that your own words give you away. You're a troll. If you truly want to troll, speak like a hick.....nobody expects dumbasses like me, but everyone see's a University grad from ten miles away. Any questions?

Yeah, I have a few questions. Like, what's an unpointed opinion? Doesn't that mean you have nothing to say? Or is that like a talking point you won't back up, and have to run back to the collective to get responses from? And what's my posting history got to do with any particular pointed opinion I have - is there some sort of statistical response averaging equation I don't know about? Also, since I'm not a university grad and therefore, in your words, I am a hick, aren't I speaking like a hick by definition? Finally, what time machine threw us all back to Ma and Pa Kettle, where the delineating demographic is college grads versus hicks? Is that a new talking point you were told to try?

Please run back to your handlers and get new talking points to address these issues as soon as you finish your latte. Thanks so much.

Oh by the way, nice screen name. It sums up the Left perfectly.

[ScreamingFist]

Please run back to your handlers and get new talking points to address these issues as soon as you finish your latte. Thanks so much.

Nice rant. Total mis-direction, you didn't say a thing. Oh, and when you can't think of anything else, shoot for the other poster's name. Very impressive.

[ScreamingFist]

They've been here fore a long time. But their marching orders on this issue are clear - sorrowfully declare that this gives all pro-lifers a bad name, undermines the pro-life movement, discredits the pro-life argument, and generally shames any pro-lifer from being able to defend their position anymore.

These are your words. So let me get this correct. I'm a leftist shill because I don't condone blowing a guys head off on the steps of his church?

[ScreamingFist]

The psycho-programming is as ham-handed as ever with these twits

I know it's getting late for you over there in Europe, but I also wanted to point out that "twits" isn't in the vocabulary of most of us Yanks. BTW, I tried Talisker scotch, it's way over rated.