Posted on 06/03/2009 11:13:53 AM PDT by lewisglad
In a commentary today, Creighton theologian R.R. Reno parses the justifications for killing an abortion doctor like George Tiller, and finds that alleged murderer Scott Roeder came up short–though barely. Reno says that “The blanket condemnation [by Catholics bishops] of ‘violence’ seems unhelpfully expansive” and so he wants to explain that the reasons Tiller’s killer was wrong “are not as simple as they seem.”
Reno says that under Christian thinking, such an action would have to satisfy three conditions: It would target the guilty, not the innocent; it would have to be necessary (principally to protect others); and it would have to be an act of self-defense that does not “violate the principle of legitimate authority” by being premeditated and calculated violence, as Tiller’s killing was. Reno says the suspect got two out of three:
The emphasis on “unlawful use of violence,” the evocation of “vigilantism,” and the description of Tiller’s killer as a “vigilante killer” are all exactly right. We are all sinners, but it is painfully obvious that Dr. George Tiller acted in wanton disregard for the sanctity of life. Killing him did not violate the principle of innocence. Moreover, he gave no evidence of stopping. As a result, perhaps something like the principle of necessity can be satisfied. But it is certainly obvious that his killer was acting as the law unto himself. He arrogated to himself the roles of jury, judge, and executioner. He violated the principle of legitimate authority.
That strikes me as far too close to justification, as others would argue that unjust laws shouldn’t stop us. With their redesigned site, the First Things blog now allows comments, and the first commenter on Reno’s thread pressed him to go further, asking how Reno’s argument would apply to Bonhoeffer or the Nazi resistance. Good question.
(Excerpt) Read more at commonwealmagazine.org ...
Adoption!
Young couple will spend 10's of thousands of dollars to adopt. They go outside this country to find babies because there are so few that are adopted here.
Mostly causing you to ping your posse, lately.
I truly don't understand how he or the mothers could abort a baby. When I was younger I had friends that had no problems with abortions. Now some of them are big pro lifers . I wonder if its guilt. One of my friends who had quite a few abortions now can't get pregnant. I try to avoid her as much as I can. I hate hearing of her treatments & she refuses to adopt. It all gives me a headache.
Are you seriously suggesting that a child is better off being aborted?
By this logic people should be killed the moment they are Baptized.
An unwanted child, raised without love in an orphanage or worse, endures a life of addiction and hate and sin and crime and pain.
Where are the orphanages in the United States? Do you realize that it is nearly impossible to adopt a newborn baby in the United States? The FACT is that there aren't any "unwanted" newborn babies in the United States.
Where is the data to support your claim that an adopted child is any more likely to become an addict than a child raised by the natural parents?
As a result, the child's soul is forfeit. A sinner most foul.
The child grows and sins, as a result of the sad circumstances. And is damned.
By what logic do you reach this conclusion? Why is a child damned because his or her mother didn't want the baby?
Or, are you suggesting that certain women just shouldn't be having children in the first place? If this is the case your logic is even more flawed because it fails to account for the fact that most people who we would consider monsters had very loving mothers.
Exactly!
When you can nut-up and discuss this without your posse, I might deign to talk about it.
Are you seriously suggesting that a child is better off being aborted?
By this logic people should be killed the moment they are Baptized.
An unwanted child, raised without love in an orphanage or worse, endures a life of addiction and hate and sin and crime and pain.
Where are the orphanages in the United States? Do you realize that it is nearly impossible to adopt a newborn baby in the United States? The FACT is that there aren't any "unwanted" newborn babies in the United States.
Where is the data to support your claim that an adopted child is any more likely to become an addict than a child raised by the natural parents?
As a result, the child's soul is forfeit. A sinner most foul.
The child grows and sins, as a result of the sad circumstances. And is damned.
By what logic do you reach this conclusion? Why is a child damned because his or her mother didn't want the baby?
Or, are you suggesting that certain women just shouldn't be having children in the first place? If this is the case your logic is even more flawed because it fails to account for the fact that most people who we would consider monsters had very loving mothers.
Just because you don't have any friends....
Whatever.
It's pretty weak when somebody feels the need to gather a group to "defeat" one person.
Too late, lynch mob already called.
Try again in a couple of days if you are really interested.
I actually wasn’t looking for anyone to back me up. I was simply pinging people to my response to the pathetically ignorant excretion.
I never actually expected anything in the way of an intelligent response, it would probably be grammatically correct but still hollow.
As a general rule as a thread progresses, the ping lists tend to grow. I have had a number of disagreements with wagglebee on this thread and others. He did not ping his "posse", he just pinged a bunch of us who had responded to his posts, argued with him, agreed with him or whatever.
Maybe you should just respond to the post and not pay so much attention as to who gets pinged. This is a public forum and if you expect your responses to be considered private, then I'd suggest you use FReep Mail.
Right.
Have a nice day.
Anyway I've no further wish to discuss it under the current circumstances.
Getting beat on by dozens of people is not on my agenda today.
Bad for digestion.
This was pretty much the response I was expecting all along.
Not necessarily, nor is the wanted child guaranteed an escape from the evils of this world, either.
It is a question of the choices made during the child's life, whether to embrace addiction, sin, hate, and crime, or to embrace the teachings of Jesus and all that is good.
A choice God gave all people, and one which the abortionist denies by preempting any opportunity to choose.
I have seen lives turned around, first by the birth of a child and the change in focus that brought the parent(s).
God works in mysterious ways, and not all that would appear to be a burden is not actually a blessing in disguise.
Similarly, poverty is not a guarantee of poor character, although poor character may often guarantee poverty. Those who refuse to embrace 'victimhood' usually turn out all right despite rough or humble beginnings.
That's how it reads to me. Justify abortion by saying that if you kill them, they go straight to heaven so isn't that better?
sick, sick, sick,....
You're right, in retrospect I should have simply pinged you for clarification of your comments before I pinged anyone else.
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.