Buffalo Abortionist Killer "Kopp"s a Guilty Plea

You may be right. My feelings regarding the subject were not born of some altruistic sense of right or wrong, but of the blood of my unborn children.

Feel free to criticize me after you've walked in my shoes for awhile. Until then your words are as empty as my heart.

Since I doubt my arguements will change your mind and, since I know yours won't change mine, we might as well end this exchange and save bandwidth. Have a good life.

Was it wrong to kill a Waffen SS officer in World War II in order to save the Jews he might have killed?

Does the Doctrine of Just War not apply to the abortion holocaust?

Does the Doctrine of Just War not apply to the abortion holocaust?

It does not.

Those of you who favor violence against abortion providers harm the pro-life movement more than the abortion providers themselves.

Nice explanation......."it does not"..........

Why not? do we need a declaration of war in order for it to apply?

Or are you an Aquinas scholar?

Look up the definition of "war."

Here you go, Brainiac:

war

n 1: the waging of armed conflict against an enemy; "thousands of people were killed in the war" [syn: warfare] 2: a legal state created by a declaration of war and ended by official declaration during which the international rules of war apply; "war was declared in November but actual fighting did not begin until the following spring" [syn: state of war] [ant: peace] 3: an active struggle between competing entities; "a price war"; "a war of wits"; "diplomatic warfare" [syn: warfare] 4: a concerted campaign to end something that is injurious; "the war on poverty"; "the war against crime" v : make or wage war [ant: make peace]

ftp://clarity.princeton.edu/pub/wordnet/wn1.6unix.tar.gz

I applaud your patience, sink. There appears to be a new infestation at FR ...

The abortion holocaust fits the requirements of a Just War:

Whether it is always sinful to wage war?

Whether it is always sinful to wage war?
Objection 1. It would seem that it is always sinful to wage war. Because punishment is not inflicted except for sin. Now those who wage war are threatened by Our Lord with punishment, according to Mt. 26:52: "All that take the sword shall perish with the sword." Therefore all wars are unlawful.

Objection 2. Further, whatever is contrary to a Divine precept is a sin. But war is contrary to a Divine precept, for it is written (Mt. 5:39): "

But I say to you not to resist evil"; and (Rm. 12:19): "Not revenging yourselves, my dearly beloved, but give place unto wrath." Therefore war is always sinful.

Objection 3. Further, nothing, except sin, is contrary to an act of virtue.

But war is contrary to peace. Therefore war is always a sin.

Objection 4. Further, the exercise of a lawful thing is itself lawful, as is evident in scientific exercises. But warlike exercises which take place in tournaments are forbidden by the Church, since those who are slain in these trials are deprived of ecclesiastical burial. Therefore it seems that war is a sin in itself.

On the contrary, Augustine says in a sermon on the son of the centurion [Ep. ad Marcel. cxxxviii]: "If the Christian Religion forbade war altogether, those who sought salutary advice in the Gospel would rather have been counselled to cast aside their arms, and to give up soldiering altogether. On the contrary, they were told: 'Do violence to no man . . . and be content with your pay' [Lk. 3:14. If he commanded them to be content with their pay, he did not forbid soldiering."

I answer that, In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign by whose command the war is to be waged. For it is not the business of a private individual to declare war, because he can seek for redress of his rights from the tribunal of his superior. Moreover it is not the business of a private individual to summon together the people, which has to be done in wartime. And as the care of the common weal is committed to those who are in authority, it is their business to watch over the common weal of the city, kingdom or province subject to them. And just as it is lawful for them to have recourse to the sword in defending that common weal against internal disturbances, when they punish evil-doers, according to the words of the Apostle (Rm. 13:4): "He beareth not the sword in vain: for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath upon him that doth evil"; so too, it is their business to have recourse to the sword of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Hence it is said to those who are in authority (Ps. 81:4): "Rescue the poor: and deliver the needy out of the hand of the sinner"; and for this reason Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 75): "The natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who hold the supreme authority."

Secondly, a just cause is required, namely that those who are attacked, should be attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault. Wherefore Augustine says (QQ. in Hept., qu. x, super Jos.): "A just war is wont to be described as one that avenges wrongs, when a nation or state has to be punished, for refusing to make amends for the wrongs inflicted by its subjects, or to restore what it has seized unjustly."

Thirdly, it is necessary that the belligerents should have a rightful intention, so that they intend the advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil. Hence Augustine says (De Verb. Dom. [The words quoted are to be found not in St. Augustine's works, but Can. Apud. Caus. xxiii, qu. 1): "True religion looks upon as peaceful those wars that are waged not for motives of aggrandizement, or cruelty, but with the object of securing peace, of punishing evil-doers, and of uplifting the good." For it may happen that the war is declared by the legitimate authority, and for a just cause, and yet be rendered unlawful through a wicked intention. Hence Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 74): "The passion for inflicting harm, the cruel thirst for vengeance, an unpacific and relentless spirit, the fever of revolt, the lust of power, and such like things, all these are rightly condemned in war."

Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Contra Faust. xxii, 70): "To take the sword is to arm oneself in order to take the life of anyone, without the command or permission of superior or lawful authority." On the other hand, to have recourse to the sword (as a private person) by the authority of the sovereign or judge, or (as a public person) through zeal for justice, and by the authority, so to speak, of God, is not to "take the sword," but to use it as commissioned by another, wherefore it does not deserve punishment. And yet even those who make sinful use of the sword are not always slain with the sword, yet they always perish with their own sword, because, unless they repent, they are punished eternally for their sinful use of the sword.

Reply to Objection 2. Such like precepts, as Augustine observes (De Serm. Dom. in Monte i, 19), should always be borne in readiness of mind, so that we be ready to obey them, and, if necessary, to refrain from resistance or self-defense. Nevertheless it is necessary sometimes for a man to act otherwise for the common good, or for the good of those with whom he is fighting. Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Marcellin. cxxxviii): "Those whom we have to punish with a kindly severity, it is necessary to handle in many ways against their will. For when we are stripping a man of the lawlessness of sin, it is good for him to be vanquished, since nothing is more hopeless than the happiness of sinners, whence arises a guilty impunity, and an evil will, like an internal enemy."

Reply to Objection 3. Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Mt. 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace."

Reply to Objection 4. Manly exercises in warlike feats of arms are not all forbidden, but those which are inordinate and perilous, and end in slaying or plundering. On olden times warlike exercises presented no such danger, and hence they were called "exercises of arms" or "bloodless wars," as Jerome states in an epistle [Reference incorrect: cf. Veget., De Re Milit. i].

It isn't easy to cement me to sinkspur's side of an argument but you are succeeding. I have defended Kopp here at length on other threads.

I am genuinely shocked at his admissions. I am also surprised that few have picked up on the apparent significance of his frank admissions in the context of his refusal in the same interview to discuss other and similar Method of Operation shootings of abortionists by rifle through the windows of their homes of which there have been about three over the years. As to those others, he has no protection from agreements of the United States or any American jurisdiction with France not to execute. Furthermore, you can bet your bottom dollar that he is not taking the stand unless he is an utter lunatic since that would require him to identify others who might be prosecuted as accessories before or after the fact in capital cases.

Note that he is unrepentant which would not be a good posture for him to assume before the judgment seat of God. He can go through the motions of a trial if he likes and make a futile attempt at convincing a jury to acquit him. Even if he were to succeed it would only deepen social civil war for its own sake. To pro-aborts, it would be OJ revisited. There would be extreme pressure on the judicial nominations even in a GOP Senate. Any pro-lifer can be tempted emotionally to side with Kopp but morality and wisdom dictate otherwise. This tactic makes no more sense than does the fantasy of liberation theologians that, returning to the world today, our Lord and Savior would be Comrade Jesus wielding an AK-47 in the Amazonian jungle, slaughtering landowners in the name of land reform. It is all well and good to speculate in a vacuum about whether it is morally justifiable to shoot the abortionist who may kill twenty-five more kids tomorrow (or may die of a heart attack while driving to his grisly work or may decide on a career change in the dead of the same night). It is not so good to carry on such speculations in the presence of the unstable. I have heard nothing but good from my Rescue clients about Jim Kopp.

Obviously in communicating that good of Jim Kopp, I was wrong, as it turns out. I am sorry that the facts require such an admission and my apology for my misplaced confidence in him. Both are nonetheless required and hereby both are tendered. Pray for the repentance of Jim Kopp and others like him and for Bernard Slepian and for anyone else who may have been similarly killed. Like the unborn, each was lovingly formed by our Father in Heaven for better purposes than these.

I will leave the just war theory to others more scholarly than I but I think it is being abused here. It is very hard to meet the standards of a just war. I would also say, that if there is a war with Iraq there are many reasons other than avenging Bush the Elder who, after all, made his own decisions in his own time.