Posted on 06/01/2009 6:00:53 AM PDT by tcg
All who know the objective truth about the dignity and value of every human life, from conception to natural death and at every moment in between, should decry this horrible act of violence. It must be unqualifiedly rejected and condemned within the Pro-Life community because of our unwavering conviction that every life, at every age and stage, has dignity and must be respected, protected and honored. This bedrock conviction should inform a “whole life/pro-life” ethic in those who gather under the banner of being Pro-Life.
A moral analysis tells us that the killing of a defenseless George Tiller is similar to the killing of every defenseless child in the womb who dies due to procured abortion. Both acts of killing are evil. Both must be completely rejected. Both should be decried by every person who is Pro-life.
We reject intentional abortion because every procured abortion is the killing of a member of our human family. The dignity of that little human person in the first home of the whole human race cries out for changing the unjust approach to giving protected status to intentional abortion in America. However, this dignity is present in all human persons, even those with whom we disagree and those whose actions we decry.
(Excerpt) Read more at catholic.org ...
“It was absolutely unreasonable.”
You seem to have misunderstood. I didn’t say the government took reasonable steps - I said it was reasonable for them to believe there might be further violence in the face of (1)A recent record of violence & (2) Further radicalization of rhetoric that could lead to violence.
“And this was in response to something like two or three attacks on abortionists — among more than 20,000 murders every year — in this country of 250+ million people”
There are two responses to that:
(1)
The number of people people being killed was not strictly relevant because this sort of violence is especially antithetical to America. We don’t use violence or fear to achieve change that we can achieve democratically. It destroys the process when people do so with impunity.
(2)
I would suggest that protestors at military bases aren’t killing people but some protestors at abortion clinics were. It seems to be reasonable to take extra precautions in situation where people are being killed vs. situation where they are not.
In the meantime, people are dying; and in this case, monstrously!and killing him won't change a thing. Other than giving LEO's an excuse to lay the smack down on pro-life groups.
Perhaps, but it is also possible that, as the reasoning of the killer get air time, MORE people will be made aware of just what the pro-abortion side espouses - the killing of up-to-birth babies in the womb. I do believe this could go both ways.
“And it is disingenuous to pretend there was any legal avenue left unturned that could have stopped him.”
Are you saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to elect a governor that wouldn’t take Tiller’s money and provide him political cover? Are you saying it was IMPOSSIBLE to get a prosecutor that would do the job faithfully?
It seems to me that elections happen on a regular basis - even in Kansas - and that people need to work harder to win them.
Not a Malchus moment. As for human dignity, it’s an oxymoron. Being human means being an unrepenting thief. Talking of “human dignity” is as filled in political vanity and hypocrisy as the brash attack on the doctor itself. The article seeks a Pharisean righteousness and beauty equal or worse than the murderer. Beauty steals whereas repenting in wretchedness is better. Best is to be given while wretched and not because inspiring. What credit is it when beauty is involved in the act of receiving? It’s called an empty victory, much like the career of this doctor and these “women” he served will be empty victories.
If one of the babies had been alive to “forgive” the doctor, it would be Malchusian. This will not happen because they are murdered before given a chance. Would the abortion doctor allow a resurection of his victims for such to happen?
The truth has been buried by this act. It’s a sad story of despair and loss of faith.
It’s not so much the servant of evil Jesus protected as He sought to protect His followers and His unadulterated sacrifice on the cross.
Always protect the foundation first.
Do you see a basic problem there, tangentially related,Government's *always* want more power. That's why we have checks and balances and a reliance on law over opinion.where we have a government and leos that seek to enforce such things on the people?
The minute you stop adhering to those rules, the government does too. And *they* have a monopoly on violence.
“The legal means of addressing this HAD been thwarted but thwarted and exhausted are not the same thing. This could have been done legally - somebody just chose not to bother with that.”
Again, there are legal means and there are extraordinary measures. To suggest this “could have been done legally” would have required the extraordinary measure a removing not one, but TWO officials from office for refusing to enforce the legal measures already in place. This country’s legislature wouldn’t even impeach a man who clearly obstructed justice. I don’t presume to know what was in the mind of the vigilante killer, but I’m guessing he rightly assumed it would be a cold day in Hell before anyone would get around to enforcing the law. Meanwhile, more and more babies would die horribly. I have more outrage for Joe Horn than I do for this guy. I condemn the actions of both, but feel Horn had a lot more options and far fewer justifications than Tiller’s killer.
I like that.
I fear being one whom has itching ears, heaping upon myself, teachers.
Perhaps, but it is also possible that, as the reasoning of the killer get air time, MORE people will be made aware of just what the pro-abortion side espouses - the killing of up-to-birth babies in the womb. I do believe this could go both ways.That really worked for Mcveigh didn't it?
“Again, there are legal means and there are extraordinary measures.”
Question: When does the legal means to accomplish an end become an extraordinary measure? What’s the dividing line that you appear to be arguing for here?
Question: Am I free to decide this as an individual or is this objective in some way?
Question: What issues bring special consideration to deciding if the legal means has become an extraordinary measure?
Question: Would a different selection of targets - say the Governor or the prosecutor - have made this more or less of an extraordinary measure?
McVeigh killed children, this guy killed the killer of children. There is a difference.
There are going to be hotheads, and there’s really no way of stopping them, as was shown in this case.
I (and some others have) asserted that the hotheads aren’t pushed to action while non-extraordinary legal means are available.
It’s a continuum. At some point, the “legal measures” become SO “extraordinary”, that common folks act out like the “hotheads”.
McVeigh killed children, this guy killed the killer of children. There is a difference.Wait till you hear the spin and see the repercussions.
Government has a monopoly on the legal use of violence.FReeper with rifle < UAV with hellfire.
Forget that at your peril.
“It’s a continuum. At some point, the “legal measures” become SO “extraordinary”, that common folks act out like the “hotheads”.”
I agree you with 100% here.
“I (and some others have) asserted that the hotheads aren’t pushed to action while non-extraordinary legal means are available.”
However, I disagree with you strongly on this one... I believe hot heads can be pushed by passion rather than reason. Passion leads us to believe that our wants and desires are more important than the rule of law. This passion can eventually lead people to act in violence when legal means of redress still exist.
> You sound like you have an intimate understanding of his
> succession plans. How do you know what is going to happen
> with his business operations?
I don’t, but most businesses have a succession plan in place. There are stockholders or partners. They will assure that the killing of babies will continue unabated.
>> Are any of his murderous peers likely to find something
>> else to do, now that they have Federal Marshalls as body
>> guards paid for by the tax payer, rather than having to
>> hire their own? No.
>
> How do you know that?
I read the news. See the following.
“Attorney General Directs U.S. Marshals to Protect Abortion Providers After Murder”
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/05/31/pro-life-groups-fear-backlash-tiller-murder/
“Question: When does the legal means to accomplish an end become an extraordinary measure? What’s the dividing line that you appear to be arguing for here?” In this particular case, I would say that having to go through the process of impeaching 2 officials, simply to get them to enforce the law would be an “extraordinary measure”.
“Question: Am I free to decide this as an individual or is this objective in some way?” You’re free to decide whatever you want. This is a philosophical discussion.
“Question: What issues bring special consideration to deciding if the legal means has become an extraordinary measure?” In my opinion, the notion that anyone would have to impeach an official, simply to have a law enforced, is an extraordinary measure. If that is something common in your state, remind me not to visit your state.
“Question: Would a different selection of targets - say the Governor or the prosecutor - have made this more or less of an extraordinary measure?” Not sure what you’re asking here.
Let me ask you all a question:
If you were in the room with Tiller as he was about to rip apart a child almost born, would you stop him?
We all sit here at our desks, arguing about “Rule of Law” and procedure, but I suspect at least some of us have lost sight of the real issue. Why do we have “Rule of Law”? To prevent men from ruling arbitrarily according to their personal whims, and ensure the will of the people was followed.
This case about the rule of law being overthrown (and, yes, the “procedures” to deal with corruption); men WERE ruling arbitrarily!
In this case, I find the people (in this example : one man) had little recourse, but to enforce THEIR law THEMSELVES.
I want to remind everyone that, prior to the creation of the standing police forces in the late nineteenth century, we citizens were self-policing. Citizens themselves enforced the laws, and while major and capital offenses were brought before a sheriff or town constable for formal charging; if an offender fought his arrest, a citizen was not found guilty of wrongdoing for killing him while trying to subdue him!
Whose mind will be changed on either side of the issue because of this? The left will do what they always do and nothing will change. More people say they are pro life now than pro abortion. The country is moving in the right direction and this is just a news story that will run it’s course in a few days or weeks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.