The problem with your position is that it takes no real accounting of the facts of this case. Please answer directly the following questions:
1. Do you agree that any human being has the natural right to self defense?
2. Does that right to self defense include the right to use force in the defense of life?
3. If you agree that people do have a right to use force in the defense of life, then do you agree that one may use force in the defense of the life of another, innocent person?
(I'm really hoping you've answered "yes" thus far, as I'd hate to think that any American would deny any of that).
4. Do you agree that the human fetus is a human person, deserving of all the rights recognized for all others?
5. If you do believe that the fetus is a human being with rights on par with those of others, then do you believe that one may use force to defend them when their lives are threatened?
6. If not, why not?
Just re-read some of his posts and consider his tone:
Which is it, my friends? (in #21)I really would like to hear a satisfactory explanation, because frankly speaking I don't like holding the position that logic compels me to adopt.
I await your considered reply. (in #28)I therefore gently reiterate my friendly challenge to you and others on this thread to address the arguments made above using reason alone.
I await your reasoned response. (in #89)Again, somebody please prove me wrong. Give me at least one good argument...
But alas, I see no way around it. (in #77)
Certain others, who I will not directly name, have failed to offer decent rebuttals to his deserving and sincere questions. (A half-hearted attempt at seriousness, post #35, was subsequently defeated by Heartbreak in #39.)
Instead of reasoned argument, they have responded with vitriolic accusations and name-calling:
"troll, " "arrogant," "duplicitous," "disturbed," "disruptor," and "piffle"
(in #67, #70, #74, #82, etc.)"There are none so blind as those who will not see." (in #67)
"I'm sure there are ministers and psychologists who would be happy to help you with your profound problems." (in #82)
Worst of all, Heartbreak of Psoriasis is accused of being "new" (#70).
I believe that the kind of posts that Heartbreak of Psoriasis has submitted are thought-provoking, and his questions stimulating, and this (at least in times past) is what FreeRepublic is supposed to be all about. And frankly, I am ashamed at the behavior of his respondents.
Heartbreak, you appear to be a zealous defender of the innocent. I welcome you to FreeRepublic, and I hope you stick around. Your sincere posts deserve honest, genuine responses, which have thus far been denied. Therefore I will try to give one:
You are right. The "rule of law" dictum that people are throwing up at you is not central in this issue. We agree that inalienable rights to life (can only) come from our Creator, that His Moral Law is higher, but that "that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men". Yet countless times in the past, men and governments of men have justified (perfectly "legal") atrocities in the name of their "law". Sadly, America is increasingly becoming less different.
But we are not called to take up arms to avenge evil:
Vengeance is mine saith the Lord; I will repay. In due time their foot will slip; their day of disaster is near and their doom rushes upon them. The LORD will judge his people and have compassion on his servants when he sees their strength is gone and no one is left. (Deuteronomy 32:35-36)
Do not repay anyone evil for evil. Be careful to do what is right in the eyes of everybody. If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone. Dearly beloved, do not take revenge, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord. On the contrary: "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head." Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good. (Romans 12:17-19)
The "burning coals" speak of God's final judgement.
In post #44 you asked,
1. Do you agree that any human being has the natural right to self defense?2. Does that right to self defense include the right to use force in the defense of life?
3. If you agree that people do have a right to use force in the defense of life, then do you agree that one may use force in the defense of the life of another, innocent person?
(I'm really hoping you've answered "yes" thus far, as I'd hate to think that any American would deny any of that).
Yes, we do have these inalienable rights, but that is not all that God is concerned about. It is not only a question of "rights," but what is better in God's eyes.
One must have faith to accept it, but in the eyes of God it is actually better for us in the long run that we do not insist upon the finality of these earthly rights. Instead we are called to "take up our cross daily," and follow Him, sharing in His sufferings:
Now if we are children, then we are heirs -- heirs of God and coheirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory. (Romans 8:17)
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering. (Hebrews 2:10)
Since we do not "wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in the heavenly realms" therefore we ought not fight this war with earthly weapons. Instead we are called to take up "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God." (Ephesians 6)
I admit that it is sometimes very difficult to wait upon the Lord's judgement. I struggle with it, and sometimes my faith is weak. Sometimes I am tempted to exact my own vengeance, or to prevent those who would do evil from acting. But the Bible is very clear that it is best in God's eyes for us to accomplish His mission in His Way, for His power is made perfect in our weakness.