Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Opinion: The sword belongs in its sheath. Killing of George Tiller a ‘Malchus Moment’
Catholic Online ^ | 6/1/09 | Deacon Keith Fournier

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 ...


TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Editorial; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: abortion; choice; georgetiller; prolife; tiller
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-237 next last
To: 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.

Aren't we overdoing the moaning and wailing over this monster's murder? Sure it's a crime and I abhor all murder, especially children in the womb. And I would never condone any act of violence against abortion providers. But all and all they're monsters and good and decent people are murdered every day and I never read how we're all supposed to decry those foul deeds.

161 posted on 06/01/2009 8:15:16 AM PDT by pgkdan ( I miss Ronald Reagan!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
I'd leave the room.

Tiller is not the problem here. Your way of thinking is *amazingly* short sighted and self defeating. Governments now have such unbelievable firepower relative to the citizenry that anyone who even shows the *potential* to mount any sort of armed insurrection are dealt with preemptively(e.g. Rubyridge, Waco). The government *loves* using violence because it's what they're best at.

162 posted on 06/01/2009 8:17:10 AM PDT by ketsu (ItÂ’s not a campaign. ItÂ’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: soccermom

Pardon soccermom - you seem to have misunderstood the questions.

When I asked what the dividing line here for extraordinary measures I meant in general - not in this specific case. You seem to be making an argument that there are extra-ordinary measures which can dismiss our responsibility to accept the rule of law and work within it. I’m just trying to find out what those boundaries are in general. For example: Does having to elect two new officials always count or does the power of the office have something to do with it? (e.g. It’s an extraordinary measure to have to remove a Governor but not a dogcatcher. That sort of thing.)

Also - I know I’m personally free to decide what I want. I’m curious as to whether you believe individuals, in general, should get to decide when extraordinary measures justify abandoning the rule of law or if there are specific and objective guidelines or boundaries we must follow. Do I just get to wake up one day and say “This is intolerable!” and start shooting? If not, why not?

To clarify the last question - Lets say that the Tiller killer had instead targeted the governor and the prosecutor for death. Would that have required more or less of an extraordinary measure to kill them instead? If not, why not? If so, why so?


163 posted on 06/01/2009 8:17:49 AM PDT by TomOnTheRun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: Westbrook
This is what I have tried to say with every post on Pro-Life Threads on FR. This has done more to advance the cause of killing than ANYTHING Mr. Roeder could have chosen to do. He is guilty of premeditated, cold blooded murder. If he is found guilty, I'd volunteer to give him the tongue-lashing of the century. He's just like those I pray for every day and every night. He's a deceived simpleton who is in desperate need of redemption (but in the meantime, I'd lock him up on bread and water and hard labor for the rest of his natural life).
164 posted on 06/01/2009 8:18:37 AM PDT by Constitutions Grandchild
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: ShandaLear
there is no justification for gunning him down in his church

I agree even though I have questions about the legitimacy of a church which would tolerate his membership. I've never been a member of a church which would not have excommunicated Tiller.

165 posted on 06/01/2009 8:20:02 AM PDT by CommerceComet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: CommerceComet

You can look up this “church”’s positions online,

it is clearly apostate and by no means should be considered a “House of God”.


166 posted on 06/01/2009 8:21:26 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: pgkdan

“Aren’t we overdoing the moaning and wailing over this monster’s murder?”

I regard ANY destruction of human consciousness as a tragedy - but I take your point.

I’m simply not shocked that this happened though and I regard that as most distressing for the rule of law. Especially when I see people (elsewhere online and on earlier threads this weekend) suggesting that a sort of “the law be damned!” approach.

BTW - aren’t you reading people decry those foul deeds here and now?


167 posted on 06/01/2009 8:22:13 AM PDT by TomOnTheRun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

I mourn for Tiller like I mourn for Jeffrey Dahmer. Both were serial killers, both were killed outside of the law. Frankly, I hope that abortionists will be terrorized into quitting their business. Let them be constantly looking over their shoulders, expecting to get their heads blown off. Let it never happen, but let them be paralyzed with fear every minutes that they are living their last second on the earth.


168 posted on 06/01/2009 8:27:23 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla ("men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY

A brutal and vicious murderer has himself been brutally and viciously murdered.....I will leave the judgment to a higher court than we can muster on this earthly plane! I know at least a few babies will live that would not have.


169 posted on 06/01/2009 8:29:17 AM PDT by ontap (Just another backstabbing conservative)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

“I’d leave the room.”

You’re either a coward, or worse.

Faced with a moral dilemma, you vote “present”.


170 posted on 06/01/2009 8:30:35 AM PDT by ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY ( The Constitution needs No interpreting, only APPLICATION!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

Terrorism: the use of violence or threats of violence to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes to evade democratic process.


171 posted on 06/01/2009 8:31:19 AM PDT by TomOnTheRun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: TomOnTheRun

Sure is. So what!


172 posted on 06/01/2009 8:33:11 AM PDT by Lucius Cornelius Sulla ("men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." -- Edmund Burke)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

I am guessing, but there is a good chance knarf is referring to more of an “Enemies Foreign & Domestic” situation.

Defense against a modern military is futile, destructive to the entire neighborhood, etc.

What biologists call “selective population reduction” is another thing.

Personally, I think America will manage this war between collectivists and American individualists in a not violent manner.

Never to be forgotten is Margaret Thatcher’s famous “The trouble with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people’s money”.

All socialists eventually founder on that rock. Obama will be no different.


173 posted on 06/01/2009 8:35:11 AM PDT by GladesGuru (In a society predicated upon freedom, it is essential to examine principles,)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: GladesGuru
What biologists call “selective population reduction” is another thing.

Also referred to as "the Bowman effect" in modern parlance.

174 posted on 06/01/2009 8:36:37 AM PDT by MrB (Go Galt now, save Bowman for later)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Lucius Cornelius Sulla

The so-what stems from my belief that nothing destroys American security and liberty more than terrorism - domestic or foreign.

If we endorse this how do we distinguish ourselves from other terrorists, revolutionaries, barbarians, etc.? If we cut down the laws and engage in terrorism where does it stop? What society will we be left with? On what basis will we seek justice? On what basis will we enforce contracts? On what basis will we seek restitution? On what basis will we seek redress from our government?


175 posted on 06/01/2009 8:38:26 AM PDT by TomOnTheRun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: ketsu; MrB

A jury and democracy do not apply when judging the law, but a Republic. This is the great error and hypocrisy of democratic “justice”.

But if their were such “jury” on what murder is, the “jury” is still confused. Our lawyers fail time and again to protect clients and instead want to discuss the law to juries (a grander job which the Supremes in their corrupt activisms have distorted).

It’s not a matter of persuasion.

I find it strange to see those condemning the act of vigilantism going vigilante on Tiller’s murder suspect.

Suffice it to say, a real man would give his body to her for sake of the child’s life. Truth be told, it’s indeed a poor and suspect way of securing this goal by murdering an abortion doctor.

Lot’s incest with his daughters illustrates the point, as well as foreshadow Mary’s virgin birth (but it were not if it had been a female Jesus, although the chromosomal miracle imports). What if the man gives his life and a girl is born instead of a boy? Would the alternative of “letting” the child die instead be allowed? (So as to insure survival of the race, or would the flesh of animals be used instead as an alternative?)

The mysteries of keeping the flame going lays in our respect of those and making sure we not test it recklessly indeed. The real murder is the confusion making due to vanities.

More than the evil “doctors”, the open activists and vanities should be targeted. Many doctors are going to be forced to perform abortions. The ones with “clean hands” laughing it off or not risk more in their interest than the performers: the devil was the true molester of the tree in intent while Adam and Eve polluted the source in fact, making the true murderer now promoted to prosecutor with a “tree” as a victim he “protects” (notwithstanding the knowledge power he profits from).

What should one really fear? Fear should not be our lot, but absence there of, and only faith and fear of Him accomplishes that... lest we err like these animal people...


176 posted on 06/01/2009 8:39:19 AM PDT by JudgemAll (control freaks, their world & their problem with my gun and my protecting my private party)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
You’re either a coward, or worse.

Faced with a moral dilemma, you vote “present”.

Believe what you want.
177 posted on 06/01/2009 8:40:28 AM PDT by ketsu (ItÂ’s not a campaign. ItÂ’s a taxpayer-funded farewell tour.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: MrB; 1rudeboy; soccermom; knarf; ketsu; DTogo; Liberty Tree Surgeon; ROLF of the HILL COUNTRY
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.
178 posted on 06/01/2009 8:44:17 AM PDT by bdeaner (The bread which we break, is it not a participation in the body of Christ? (1 Cor. 10:16))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy
I'm going to need more than a few drinks to think this out: logically, if one is to claim that the murder of this doctor is justified because of a higher law, then why should one expect the murderer to be "absolved" (too early to think of a more accurate word) by the law?

Who's saying that?

It's obvious the guy is going to be subject to the laws of Kansas, if not some federal show trial as well.

I haven't read anyone here say he should be "absolved" according to those laws.

179 posted on 06/01/2009 8:44:44 AM PDT by Trailerpark Badass (Happiness is a choice!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ketsu

Ketsu has actually made a very firm moral stand here. It’s not your moral stand - it’s certainly not conventional in FReeper circles - but that doesn’t make it less of very considered moral stand.


180 posted on 06/01/2009 8:44:57 AM PDT by TomOnTheRun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 141-160161-180181-200 ... 221-237 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson