Message Font: Serif | Sans-Serif
 
UnThreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (221) | Ignore Thread Prev Thread | Next Thread
Author: AdvocatusDiaboli Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: of 196889  
Subject: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist.... Date: 9/3/2003 5:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
He will go to hell
He will go to heaven
Other
Don't know
Neither heaven nor hell exist

Click here to see results so far.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gelfson Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100127 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 5:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
"It is appointed unto men once to die and then the judgement...as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats...inasmuch as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it unto me. and these will go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into everlasting Life...Then I saw the great white throne judgement... and books were opened...and the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books."


In my human judgement he is a goat for having commited murder.

In my human judgement he is a sheep for having stopped the future murder of "innocents."

To where does he belong then: with Mother Theresa, or Ted Bundy.

I think I'll say a prayer that he repents before he is executed by the state. And I'll let my heavenly Father judge him as he deserves.

"Lord have mercy on ME, a sinner!"
Gelfson



Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100128 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 5:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
<<In my human judgement he is a goat for having commited murder.

In my human judgement he is a sheep for having stopped the future murder of "innocents.">>

Since when are we authorized to act as agents of God's wrath? We serve an omnipotent God who is quite capable of judging WHO he wants WHEN he wants and HOW he wants.

Besides murder, the man in question is also guilty of:

Blasphemy--attaching God's name to an act God finds reprehensible
Heresy--spreading his false doctrine of hate and vengence
Pride--the nerve of this guy, to presume God approves of his actions.
And many others, I'm sure.

As for a last minute repentance, I sincerely doubt it. He thinks he'll get into heaven BECAUSE of what he did, not IN SPITE of it.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100129 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 5:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Besides murder, the man in question is also guilty of:

Blasphemy--attaching God's name to an act God finds reprehensible
Heresy--spreading his false doctrine of hate and vengence
Pride--the nerve of this guy, to presume God approves of his actions.
And many others, I'm sure.

As for a last minute repentance, I sincerely doubt it. He thinks he'll get into heaven BECAUSE of what he did, not IN SPITE of it.

==========

All very correct.

And the answer still is, God only knows. However, seeing he's an unrepentant murderer, I don't have too much doubt.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: AdvocatusDiaboli Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100130 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 5:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 11
Blasphemy--attaching God's name to an act God finds reprehensible
Heresy--spreading his false doctrine of hate and vengence
Pride--the nerve of this guy, to presume God approves of his actions.


Interesting how well that would fit the current US president.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100131 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 6:16 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
This is a very interesting question. On the one hand, I would have no problem with a law saying that abortion providers and the women who seek them, are worthy of and would receive death. (If it is murder one has no reason not to treat it like murder). But on the other hand, one does not have the right (Biblically) to throw the law to the wind and kill wrongdoers. Fortunately, the salvation question is a bit easier. If he is one of the elect (People who have been redeemed by Jesus), then he is in. Otherwise he ain't. All people (elect and non elect) make mistakes and sin. One is not made less worthy due to one committing more heinous sins while made more worthy due to committing less heinous ones. The only difference is the consequences on earth for committing such sins.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100132 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 6:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
AdvocatusDiaboli,

He's going to be executed tonight. He does not regret his deed, and he believes he will go to heaven.

We may never know how many innocent lives were saved by his action. Even if only one, though, the good of his action clearly outweighs the evil of his action. There's no way that one who derives his income by killing innocent human beings, and intends to continue to do so, is innocent.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100134 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 7:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 16
We may never know how many innocent lives were saved by his action. Even if only one, though, the good of his action clearly outweighs the evil of his action.

Norm,

I consider you one of the more succinct posters on this board. I am extremely surprised by your statement.

The man talked about how he killed, in detail, and had not a drop of remorse. I wasn't aware that there is a scale that lets you weigh good and evil actions (sin, if you like the term better).

I might add, that by using your logic, one of the abortion doctors may have done more good than harm by aborting the next Stalin, Hitler, or Hussein. Does that make it alright?


cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Fallout2Queen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100135 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 7:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 12
We may never know how many innocent lives were saved by his action. Even if only one, though, the good of his action clearly outweighs the evil of his action. There's no way that one who derives his income by killing innocent human beings, and intends to continue to do so, is innocent.


That is a disgusting sentiment. I've lost a lot of respect for you, Norm. :(

For the sake of arguement, let's assume abortion is as bad/evil as the prolfe position repersents it to be, how do you know that the doctor wouldn't have repented? Other abortonists have.
http://www.prolife.com/EVERETT.html

Is it OK that he killed the clinic escort? How about wounding the doctor's wife and her escort? Does he get a pass on those, too?



Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100137 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 7:38 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I might add, that by using your logic, one of the abortion doctors may have done more good than harm by aborting the next Stalin, Hitler, or Hussein. Does that make it alright?

The guy who killed the abortionist knew what the abortionist intended to do. The abortionist, on the other hand, had no way of knowing what the babies he killed might do. So your analogy is absurd.

Let me ask you this, Cliff. Let's say you were walking down the street, and just happened to be mute. But armed with a rifle. On down the road, you noticed that there was a man who you knew to be a killer about to kill a young child. Would you stop the man with your weapon? Killing him is the only way you can stop him from killing the child. You can't yell for help, because you have no voice.

Would you just ignore the situation? After all, perhaps the young child would grow up to be Hitler.

I'm not defending this man. Neither am I willing to condemn him. The aborionist, on the other hand, was a murderer, clear and simple.

TDT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100138 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 7:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
The aborionist, on the other hand, was a murderer, clear and simple.

we differ on this point. It is one that has been kicked around and I would not put the board through that if we can agree to disagree.

However, the question might be, does the means justify the ends. It is not pointed specifically at you or Norm. Norm stated that the 'good' which the abortionist killer did (save the life of an unborn) outweighed the bad (killing a doctor, who was within the rights of the law). Following this line of thought, my analogy is not absurd.

Going by human standards, an unborn (fetus, embryo, cells, baby, human, your choice) is defenseless and innocent. My understanding of theology says that they are as much a sinner (original guilt and such) as the man who committed the murder.

So where does one killing justify another? Who is actually the more innocent?

Lastly, I shoot the guy...... in the leg. So the child and supposed killer in your analogy both live.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: Pennsyltuckian Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100139 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 7:55 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Blasphemy--attaching God's name to an act God finds reprehensible
Heresy--spreading his false doctrine of hate and vengence
Pride--the nerve of this guy, to presume God approves of his actions.

Interesting how well that would fit the current US president



AD,

Actually, that kind of applies to me, too.

Peace,
bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100140 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 8:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
The problem with a thread like this is there are those who strongly believe the doctor to be the murderer. Others believe the killer of the doctor was in the wrong. I am not sure there is middle ground on this.

As someone who is pro-choice, I am stunned at the lack of remorse by the doctor. Where does this kind of vigilante "justice" end? Do escorts deserve to be murdered? What about the woman carrying the child on her way to to clinic? My fear is this crude act of murder will not end at doctors.

The killer believes he is a martyr now. I hope to God he is wrong. We can not have people going around and killing doctors, escorts, or others. It is wrong, and these people ARE NOT above the law.

In the end I will have to tell people like Norm we need to agree to disagree. It pains me that we will never see eye to eye on this, but that is the way it is.

Peace,
Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100141 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 8:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"He's going to be executed tonight. He does not regret his deed, and he believes he will go to heaven.

http://edition.cnn.com/2003/LAW/09/03/abortion.execution/index.html

So, is he in for a fiery surprise?"

It is interesting to me that so many people in this discussion are basing their opinion of his final destination on what he did. Salvation is not a matter of works. Even if this person was right, which I do not for a minute believe, in the righteousness of his action, it would have nothing to do with his going to heaven. We don't earn our way to heaven. And if it was a sin, which is what I believe it was, it has nothing to do with his salvation. His salvation is based on whether or not he is trusting in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and trusting His finished work at the cross for his salvation, not any good works he might have done or any sins he may have committed.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100142 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 8:08 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
"However, the question might be, does the means justify the ends. It is not pointed specifically at you or Norm. Norm stated that the 'good' which the abortionist killer did (save the life of an unborn) outweighed the bad (killing a doctor, who was within the rights of the law). Following this line of thought, my analogy is not absurd."

IMO the ends never justify the means. An evil act done for an ostensibly good purpose is still an evil act.

Although it is talking primarily about the relationship between a beleiver and a non-beleiver, I think the following verse is on point in a secondary application:

(2 Cor 6:14 NASB) Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness?

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100143 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Going by human standards, an unborn (fetus, embryo, cells, baby, human, your choice) is defenseless and innocent. My understanding of theology says that they are as much a sinner (original guilt and such) as the man who committed the murder.

So where does one killing justify another? Who is actually the more innocent?

Lastly, I shoot the guy...... in the leg. So the child and supposed killer in your analogy both live.


Orthodox theology would hold that the babies are in heaven. The abortion doctor is in heaven, too, if he accepted Christ. As is the man who died tonight. What they did has nothing to do with their salvation, but rather for their need of a savior.

Lastly, if he had shot the doctor........ in the leg, he would have gotten better and killed more babies. He would have lived, and more babies would have died.

TDT


Print the post Back To Top
Author: dianakalt Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100144 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 9:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Since when are we authorized to act as agents of God's wrath? We serve an omnipotent God who is quite capable of judging WHO he wants WHEN he wants and HOW he wants.

I wonder that every time the state murders someone.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: zeegirly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100145 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 9:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Salvation is not a matter of works. Even if this person was right, which I do not for a minute believe, in the righteousness of his action, it would have nothing to do with his going to heaven. We don't earn our way to heaven. And if it was a sin, which is what I believe it was, it has nothing to do with his salvation. His salvation is based on whether or not he is trusting in Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior and trusting His finished work at the cross for his salvation, not any good works he might have done or any sins he may have committed.

Amen and Amen!



Print the post Back To Top
Author: zeegirly Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100146 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 9:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Orthodox theology would hold that the babies are in heaven. The abortion doctor is in heaven, too, if he accepted Christ. As is the man who died tonight. What they did has nothing to do with their salvation, but rather for their need of a savior.

And AMEN!



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100147 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 9:18 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Since when are we authorized to act as agents of God's wrath? We serve an omnipotent God who is quite capable of judging WHO he wants WHEN he wants and HOW he wants.


I wonder that every time the state murders someone.

Romans 13:1-4.

Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.

Um does the state hold the sword vain or not? Is it supposed to bear it for decoration?

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Gelfson Big red star, 1000 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100148 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 9:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Andrea, and all others including myself,

"Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?" 1Cor.6:2-3

Blasphemy, hereesy, pride, murder, all the sins of and possible in this world we are individually, and collectively guilty of having committed ant least in our "hearts." We are only saved by Gods' grace. And being made righteous in Gods sight, we can and should Judge, discern, and otherwise exercise the divinely given perogatives within our Christian Community.

Was this particular Murderer saved? I surely don't know. Was he justified in what he did for the reasons he did it. Again I don't know.
But my Lord and God and Saviour does Know. The Lord has not seen to it that I know His FINAL decision on this matter at this time in my life.

I will make judgements as will all of you make judgements. I, however am prepared to "...be judged with the (severity) of judgement that I judge with..."

Are You?

Lord have mercy on me a sinner!
Gelfson



Print the post Back To Top
Author: Fallout2Queen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100149 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 9:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Lastly, if he had shot the doctor........ in the leg, he would have gotten better and killed more babies. He would have lived, and more babies would have died.


But we don't know what else the doctor could've done with his life. What if a doctor responsible for 75,000 abortions was killed? If that (getting killed) had happened to Dr. Bernard Nathanson he never would've been able to become a prolife advocate and a Christian. How many abortions have his prolife eforts prevented?
http://www.prolife.com/NATHAN.html
http://www.aboutabortions.com/Confess.html






Print the post Back To Top
Author: JAFO31 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100150 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 9:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Fallout2Queen:

rev2217: "We may never know how many innocent lives were saved by his action. Even if only one, though, the good of his action clearly outweighs the evil of his action. There's no way that one who derives his income by killing innocent human beings, and intends to continue to do so, is innocent."


That is a disgusting sentiment. I've lost a lot of respect for you, Norm. :("

Actually, it is one of the most repulsive statements that I have ever read on TMF and I have lost all repsect for Norm.

IIRC, is not basic theology that none are innocent? That we have all been born sinful (at least since Adam and Eve)? Is that not why Jesus was sent made man, sent for our sins --- because otherwise none could get to heaven?

"Is it OK that he killed the clinic escort? How about wounding the doctor's wife and her escort? Does he get a pass on those, too?"

I expect that we will either hear a deafening silence or some convoluted logic.

JAFO



Print the post Back To Top
Author: CrestlineKathy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100152 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 10:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Will the people who said he is going to heaven or hell please take another look at the "lists" and tell me which one I am on? Must be nice to be privy to that info.

Kathy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100153 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 10:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Lastly, if he had shot the doctor........ in the leg, he would have gotten better and killed more babies. He would have lived, and more babies would have died.

TDT,

What I read in the above statement, is that you think the killing of the doctor was justified. Please let me know if I am in error, as your answer was in the context of our analogy.

Do you think this man made the right decision in executing the doctor? From your answer I guess that you condone it.......

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100154 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 10:56 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Will the people who said he is going to heaven or hell please take another look at the "lists" and tell me which one I am on?"

:-) Kathy, I know you're writing out of frustration--at least I think you are, but you're too quick to let frustration make you question your own salvation.

"Must be nice to be privy to that info." Don't let your frustration continue to be a stumbling block for you. You are "privy" to that information and always have been. It's right in your Bible--if you've accepted and trust Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior, you're going up, babe.

:-)

Pam




Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100155 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 10:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0


rev2217: "We may never know how many innocent lives were saved by his action. Even if only one, though, the good of his action clearly outweighs the evil of his action. There's no way that one who derives his income by killing innocent human beings, and intends to continue to do so, is innocent."

Fallout2Queen:That is a disgusting sentiment. I've lost a lot of respect for you, Norm. :("


Jafo: Actually, it is one of the most repulsive statements that I have ever read on TMF and I have lost all repsect for Norm.

IIRC, is not basic theology that none are innocent? That we have all been born sinful (at least since Adam and Eve)? Is that not why Jesus was sent made man, sent for our sins --- because otherwise none could get to heaven?


There seems to be a bit of convoluted logic on your end. Because people are born sinful, does that make an excuse for wrongdoing? Does that mean that punishment for that wrongdoing is unjust? It seems that the logically conclusion of your thoughts is that all punishment for crime is unjust because none are innocent.

Also there is more than one aspect to the term innocent. When a person usually uses the term innocent, they refer to them not being guilty of the crime that they are charged with. In this case, I think the abortion doctor was in fact guilty of the crime.

The problem I have with rev's statement is that we should not take justice into our own hands, it is the state's responsibility and for us to do what is their job is wrong aka sin.

"Is it OK that he killed the clinic escort? How about wounding the doctor's wife and her escort? Does he get a pass on those, too?"

If this was a state run prosecution, then the people that you refer to could be charged with aiding and abetting. When murder is involved then some serious consequences would be expected.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100156 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 11:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Hey Cliff,

I wanted to take a few minutes and "weigh in" in general on this and your post seems to be as good a place as any. I'm providing my own answers to your questions to TDT--not answering for him but as I said, it's a good place for me to voice my own opinion. I haven't read the entire thread.

"What I read in the above statement, is that you think the killing of the doctor was justified." No way. Never. I watched the tape of him giving his statement on tv yesterday and so help me, I wanted to slap the smile off his face. Maybe that's not a Christian sentiment but you know, on the other hand it just may very well be--let's call it righteous anger or righteous disgust.

"Do you think this man made the right decision..." The man was a coward. Breaking the law is never justified. I have a real good idea who it was that told him he's in for a "reward", and I'm reasonably certain it isn't God. The man was a coward--now that he's gone, at least he's not around to mislead more people here on earth.

There. That's my opinion. FWIW.

Pam

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100157 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 11:14 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
I just wanted to add that yep, I'm anti-abortion, but I'm just as against those who chose to kill others because they aren't. "Wiping them out" doesn't fit into my definition of spreading the gospel.

Pam

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100158 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 11:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 13
If this was a state run prosecution, then the people that you refer to could be charged with aiding and abetting. When murder is involved then some serious consequences would be expected.

so in other words, they got what they deserved.

In this case, I think the abortion doctor was in fact guilty of the crime.

I am unaware of any federal, state, or local laws that the doctor was breaking at the time of his death (unless of course, he was speeding on his way to work). I am cognizant of the fact that you deem 'God's' laws to take precedence over federal, state and local law.

This is a shining example of why there is and should be a wall of separation between church and state. One moment its eye for an eye.... the next its turn the other cheek. It's OK to shoot a doctor who performs abortions...... and next we can stone women for adultery. I'm sure it can all be justified somehow.

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: CrestlineKathy Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100159 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 11:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<:-) Kathy, I know you're writing out of frustration--at least I think you are, but you're too quick to let frustration make you question your own salvation.
>>

No, I was being sarcastic and humorous I thought, we don't know other peoples fate so for anyone to say one way or the other about this man is in my opinion, a waste of time....you don't know and you won't know till your time comes.

Kathy

Print the post Back To Top
Author: HisDelight Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100160 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 11:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
"now that he's gone, at least he's not around to mislead more people here on earth."

This one comment of mine bothered me so much I had to get out of bed and get back online. I'm dangerous when I'm tired, I should know better.

To clarify(God, I hope so *g*, please don't let me make it worse)--I want it to be known that I'm against the death penalty, also. That comment was made quickly and although it's true that he's dead and that he can no longer mislead people (although his "legacy" might) I don't think killing him was the right answer. I don't know if he ever accepted Christ or not. If he hadn't been put to death, he might have been one of the next people to call (from prison) a Billy Graham hotline--asking for help...now he can't.

If anything, Christians (or "Christians") killing abortionists is more an indictment on how much work we have in front of us as far as spreading the gospel, and how ineffective our witness has been so far. I'll grant you, not everyone on earth will accept the Lord before their time has come--but considering the possibility that Paul Hill never had, how do we know that he would not have tomorrow if we hadn't taken that opportunity away from him?

Say goodnight, Pam. Good night, Pam.

Pam



Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100161 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/3/2003 11:58 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I wanted to take a few minutes and "weigh in" in general on this and your post seems to be as good a place as any.

Thanks for 'chiming' in. Always enjoy hearing your thoughts.

I know we probably disagree on a lot of subjects, but we are pretty close on this one.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100162 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 12:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

If this was a state run prosecution, then the people that you refer to could be charged with aiding and abetting. When murder is involved then some serious consequences would be expected.


so in other words, they got what they deserved.

I would say that in a just society the actions of the doctor would be outlawed and his associates would be tried to find out what they knew and what they helped him to do. If they are guilty of what I outlawed then they would receive the proper punishment.

In this case, I think the abortion doctor was in fact guilty of the crime.


I am unaware of any federal, state, or local laws that the doctor was breaking at the time of his death (unless of course, he was speeding on his way to work). I am cognizant of the fact that you deem 'God's' laws to take precedence over federal, state and local law.


Perhaps I should have said guilty of the action. I do not think that using the term crime to describe the massacre of the Christians in Africa due to their not converting to Islam is any less a crime due to their not being a law saying that it is wrong for the Christians to be killed. I think you are unnessarily parsing my words.

This is a shining example of why there is and should be a wall of separation between church and state. One moment its eye for an eye.... the next its turn the other cheek. It's OK to shoot a doctor who performs abortions...... and next we can stone women for adultery. I'm sure it can all be justified somehow.

Any thing can be made inconsistent if you twist its words out of context. Justice and forgiveness are not mutually exclusive. I can forgive the guy who took the role of government into his hands, but can still have government end his life by lethal injection.

Now who said it was okay to shoot a doctor who performs abortions? I didnt say such.

Also who said adultery was not an offense worthy of stoning?

Lastly, I do not get your "moral" outrage being consistent with your worldview? Atheistic or agnostic right? You prefer things one way, and I prefer things another way. Neither is right or wrong. It is just a simple preference. The preference that goes into effect is the one with the most votes.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100163 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 12:29 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Now who said it was okay to shoot a doctor who performs abortions? I didnt say such.

CT, no one has blatantly stated "I think the killing of the doctor was good." I seriously doubt any regular on the board would come out and say it in so many words. Sometimes, you can get more meaning from what is not said, than with any words that are spoken (written in this case). Reading several of the posts in this thread, it seems that some people feel that the killing the Doctor was 'not uncalled for'. I could be wrong, so I specifically asked one of the posters to clarify.

You did not specifically say that it was OK to shoot doctors that perform abortions. However, the following implied (to me) that it wasn't really that immoral of an act:

"Is it OK that he killed the clinic escort? How about wounding the doctor's wife and her escort? Does he get a pass on those, too?"

If this was a state run prosecution, then the people that you refer to could be charged with aiding and abetting. When murder is involved then some serious consequences would be expected.


I disregarded your 'if' in your reply. 'Serious consequences' implying that they deserved to die, too.

Lastly, I do not get your "moral" outrage being consistent with your worldview? Atheistic or agnostic right?

I would have to say this would be irrelevant, but to clarify I would say Deist/Agnostic. This wouldn't be the place to discuss it, but it seems that you are implying that Atheists or Agnostics don't have morals, and that they wouldn't care one way or the other.

You prefer things one way, and I prefer things another way. Neither is right or wrong. It is just a simple preference. The preference that goes into effect is the one with the most votes.

I am very surprised by this statement. Is it really that arbitrary to you? Majority rule is always right?

cliff






Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100164 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 12:54 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
You did not specifically say that it was OK to shoot doctors that perform abortions. However, the following implied (to me) that it wasn't really that immoral of an act:

If this was a state run prosecution, then the people that you refer to could be charged with aiding and abetting. When murder is involved then some serious consequences would be expected.

I disregarded your 'if' in your reply. 'Serious consequences' implying that they deserved to die, too.

And I objected to saying that it is okay to shoot the doctor verses saying the doctor deserved to die. I reject the first and accept the second. The first does necessarily follow from the second.

Lastly, I do not get your "moral" outrage being consistent with your worldview? Atheistic or agnostic right?

I would have to say this would be irrelevant, but to clarify I would say Deist/Agnostic. This wouldn't be the place to discuss it, but it seems that you are implying that Atheists or Agnostics don't have morals, and that they wouldn't care one way or the other.

I would be implying that atheists or agnostics do not have morals. All they have are impulses that tend them towards liking something and disliking something else. To say that is the same thing as morals, i think denigrates morals.

You prefer things one way, and I prefer things another way. Neither is right or wrong. It is just a simple preference. The preference that goes into effect is the one with the most votes.

I am very surprised by this statement. Is it really that arbitrary to you? Majority rule is always right?

cliff


I do not see how right vs. wrong fits in atheist and agnostic viewpoints. There is only what one prefers and what someone else prefers. The only way to determine action is by some sort of majority rules system. Now in theistic (mainly Christian) viewpoints, I can then see the term "morals" having some sort of meaning.

Also my words were spoken from the viewpoint of being an atheist. I do not think things are arbitrary.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100165 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 1:38 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I would be implying that atheists or agnostics do not have morals. All they have are impulses that tend them towards liking something and disliking something else. To say that is the same thing as morals, i think denigrates morals.

I am not aware of a definition of 'morals' that excludes people of different beliefs or philosophical views. Many times I hesitate to include a formal definition in a reply, as it may come across condescending. Please do not take it that way.

morals:
n.
1) The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2) A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3) morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

I don't see any thing that might lend credence in your implication that certain groups cannot or will not have a basis for a system of morals. Atheists, agnostics, deists, muslims, buddhists, Hindu's, christians, etc, have equal footing when creating a 'moral' system... or if you prefer, a code of ethics. You may not agree with this (obviously, you just stated so) but I think its more a matter of your own personal definition of what morals are and where they are derived.

Now in theistic (mainly Christian) viewpoints, I can then see the term "morals" having some sort of meaning.

Again, your own personal meaning added to the formal definition of moral. No, christianity and theism do not have a lock on moral systems.

Also my words were spoken from the viewpoint of being an atheist. I do not think things are arbitrary.

I am going to make another assumption on what you are implying:

If theists (mainly christians) are in the majority, then things are well and good. If they are not in the majority, then things are bad... and they are justified in their claim that God's law supersedes that of the 'majority' and are not bound in following the laws of man. I like to refer to this scenario as 'having your cake and eating it, too'.

cliff


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100166 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 2:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would be implying that atheists or agnostics do not have morals. All they have are impulses that tend them towards liking something and disliking something else. To say that is the same thing as morals, i think denigrates morals.


I am not aware of a definition of 'morals' that excludes people of different beliefs or philosophical views. Many times I hesitate to include a formal definition in a reply, as it may come across condescending. Please do not take it that way.

morals:
n.
1) The lesson or principle contained in or taught by a fable, a story, or an event.
2) A concisely expressed precept or general truth; a maxim.
3) morals Rules or habits of conduct, especially of sexual conduct, with reference to standards of right and wrong: a person of loose morals; a decline in the public morals.

I don't see any thing that might lend credence in your implication that certain groups cannot or will not have a basis for a system of morals. Atheists, agnostics, deists, muslims, buddhists, Hindu's, christians, etc, have equal footing when creating a 'moral' system... or if you prefer, a code of ethics. You may not agree with this (obviously, you just stated so) but I think its more a matter of your own personal definition of what morals are and where they are derived.


When I sent the last post, I knew I should have clarified my ideas about morals. I didnt not mean to say that any group does not have morals. I meant to say that their worldview does not allow for morals. So for certain groups to hold to the idea of morals would be inconsistent with their worldview. To go beyond saying something is a preferences (makes me feel good or makes me feel bad) to something being right vs. wrong or things having "progressed", one must appeal to some standard. I have no idea what standard (permanent) one can appeal to in an atheistic system.

Now in theistic (mainly Christian) viewpoints, I can then see the term "morals" having some sort of meaning.


Again, your own personal meaning added to the formal definition of moral. No, christianity and theism do not have a lock on moral systems.


I think they have a lock on using morals in accordance with their worldview (There exists a permanent standard). Without a permanent standard one has to just prefer something over another thing.

Also my words were spoken from the viewpoint of being an atheist. I do not think things are arbitrary.


I am going to make another assumption on what you are implying:

If theists (mainly christians) are in the majority, then things are well and good. If they are not in the majority, then things are bad... and they are justified in their claim that God's law supersedes that of the 'majority' and are not bound in following the laws of man. I like to refer to this scenario as 'having your cake and eating it, too'.

cliff


First off, "not bound in following the laws of man". I think we are bound, at least to some extent, Christians can not go out and shoot the abortionist. etc.

I do believe that when Christian Rules are used, everyone benefits. However my central point is that atheists have no basis to criticize on the moral plane, all they can do is say that they do not prefer this way and would rather do things another way.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100167 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 3:00 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 8
Norm wrote:

We may never know how many innocent lives were saved by his action. Even if only one, though, the good of his action clearly outweighs the evil of his action. There's no way that one who derives his income by killing innocent human beings, and intends to continue to do so, is innocent.

Norm,

I think you're way out of line, as many others here have no doubt already let you know.

While the doctor may not have been "innocent" in that he was an active provider of abortions, he had never had any sort of due process. No trial, judge or jury. We generally give convicted murders that much before executing them. We gave Hill that much.

There is God's justice. And then there is human justice. We cannot dispense God's justice, so we are left with human justice.

As for human justice, no one should ever be subject to the death penalty without a fair trial and an opportunity to be heard. That abortion is morally wrong doesn't make the murder of an abortion doctor morally right. (We could get into a discussion of Augstine's idea of a just war, but this isn't it, for a number of reasons. Or we could just refer to what our mothers always told us when we were kids: Two wrongs don't make a right.)

I am not against the death penalty, but I think it should be reserved only for the most serious of crimes and only after a person has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. The reason that this is consistent with a pro-life stance is that little babies have never done anything for which they should be found guilty. Their only "crime" is the fact of their mere existence.

Is this a violation of the sixth commandment? Only if the prohibition was originally intended to be against any killing and not just against unlawful killing or murder. Killing does not equal murder. If the correct translation of the verb ratsach in Hebrew refers only to murder and not any killing, than there is nothing inconsistent in such a position. I'll leave this to the Hebrew scholars, which I am not, but I have never understood this commandment to mean the death penalty was prohibited. I freely admit that I likely disagree with the Pope on this one.

Having said that, if I had any experience that proved that criminals could really be put away for life with no possibility of parole, I'd do that. But they aren't. In fact, the average time served for murder is 9 years, 2 months, which is about 44% of the length average sentence for murder. Further, 29% of parole discharges are later reincarcerated for murder. This is not a deterrent. If anything, it's a bad joke or, rather, a nightmare.

I note one rapist, Lawrence Singleton, who brutally cut off the arms of his victim in CA, who was released from prison to FL where he subsequently raped and killed a woman there.

Such vermin need to be legally removed from society in order to prevent further harm to the rest of us. That is society's duty to us and our duty to each other as individuals. No society will long survive if it allows murderers to keep committing such criminal acts. And that includes vigilantes.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100169 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:30 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
<<We may never know how many innocent lives were saved by his action. Even if only one, though, the good of his action clearly outweighs the evil of his action. There's no way that one who derives his income by killing innocent human beings, and intends to continue to do so, is innocent.

Norm.
>>

It sounds like you are supporting the taking of human life. Who else would you add to the list of Americans that should be gunned down on the street?
I consider his action a terrorist act, little different from those of the Islamic extremists.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100171 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:40 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil.>>

This sounds like what happened in Florida last night against a terrorist act. A religious extremist killing and injuring a group of people to make a political statement.



Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100172 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:49 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<No, I was being sarcastic and humorous I thought, we don't know other peoples fate so for anyone to say one way or the other about this man is in my opinion, a waste of time....you don't know and you won't know till your time comes.

Kathy >>

I agree that we do not know the fate of the doctor, the killer, or of each other. However you can know your own, it depends on you knowing the Lord or Him knowing you, whether He lives in you and you live in him, we know it by HIS Spirit that HE has given us.






Print the post Back To Top
Author: Bonhoeffer Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100175 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 8:35 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
IMO the ends never justify the means. An evil act done for an ostensibly good purpose is still an evil act.

Rich,

Walk with me on an exploration of thought, if you would.

You and i have hashed out the death penalty issue in the past. You may remember that my position on that issue is that no one has the right to judge another person's life--whether another person deserves to live or die. No one. Thus i believe that state-sponsored murder of prisoners is just as wrong as the murder which lands a person on death row. And of course Hill's killing of the abortion doctor is horrendous.

Here is where i want to begin exploring. You approve of the use of the death penalty. You believe it is expressly sanctioned by God himself. And you believe that doctors who perform abortions are committing murder. It seems to me that one who believes all abortion is murder and that those who commit murder deserve the death penalty would also believe that those who perform abortions deserve the death penalty. Is there a flaw in my logic thus far?

So, in essence, all that Hill did was partake in vigilante justice. On a human scale of "wrongness," i'm sure you don't sanction vigilante justice, but it sure can't be as bad as the murder of innocents, can it? Superman is the ultimate symbol of vigilante justice for many Americans, and we cheer him on the movies. Sure, it'd be nice if those criminals were subject to due process in our courts, but hey, our courts messed up on abortion, didn't they? So what's left other than vigilante justice for the doctors who murder babies through abortion?

In case anyone reading got confused, the above paragraph does not represent my own beliefs. It is my mental exploration of the position of those who believe in using the death penalty to punish murderers and who also believe that all abortion is murder.

Anyone feel free to comment.

Bon

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Pennsyltuckian Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100179 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 9:32 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Bon,

A man who chooses the screen name Bonhoeffer takes it upon himself to treat this issue very carefully, don't you agree?

How might the life and death of your namesake shed light on this question? Dietrich Bonhoeffer made choices and weighed the consequences of his actions both during his participation in the conspiracy against A.H. and during his imprisonment.

Unlike brother Hill, he did not expect heavenly reward for the murder he was helping to plot - to the contrary, at times he feared he was sacrificing his immortal soul for the good of his country. As a young man he wrote a book called The Cost of Discipleship - as a prisoner and finally a victim of the Third Reich, that cost became much less abstract to him.

Ultimately D.B. and Hill stand before the same Judge. I don't pretend to know what either result will be, but both men perceived a great evil to be killing their nation, and both men chose to leave the sphere of conventional morality "for the greater good".

It's a fascinating divergence, isn't it - the moment in a person's life where what's good and what's right part company?

If you're going to "mentally explore" the position of another, I would invite you to avoid the pitfall that one finds so often in criticism that flows from the right to the left (or maybe I'm just more sensitive in that direction)- don't start from the assumption that the other person's thinking is simple or somehow "broken." Straw men may help us to score debate points, but they don't have much to teach us about one another. I expect that the path that leads from "Babies are being killed " to "Pull the trigger" is much more complicated than a Superman plot. I don't think anyone is "just" a vigilante.

I'd be interested in hearing from folks about their own journeys along this path. Can we cut through the abstracts and bumper stickers and actually testify to one another about what God has done in our lives to bring us to our current positions?

Peace,
bob



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Bonhoeffer Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100180 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 9:48 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Straw men may help us to score debate points, but they don't have much to teach us about one another. I expect that the path that leads from "Babies are being killed " to "Pull the trigger" is much more complicated than a Superman plot. I don't think anyone is "just" a vigilante.

I perhaps came across poorly in my wording. For that i apologize. It honestly was not my intent to set up a straw man and/or score "debate points." If that is how it appeared, i did not express myself very well (wouldn't be the first time : ).

My intent was to express my base-level thoughts on the logical conclusions that would follow from a starting position which asserts that the death penalty is justified and that abortion is murder. I simply wanted to lay them out there and invite comments. I directed my post at Rich because i have specific knowledge of his views on the two issues i used as my starting point, and i enjoy reading what he has to say.

I don't think anyone is "just" a vigilante.

I don't think aynone is "just" anything. We are all complicated creatures with a lot going on inside of us. However, i cannot yet see how Hill's action in killing an abortion doctor is anything other than vigilante justice if one holds the beliefs i reference above. From that position, the doctor deserved the death penalty, but our courts have made that unavailable for those who commit abortions. Thus it may be unfortunate when anyone "takes the law into his own hands," but if i held the point of view i wish to explore, i don't think i could avoid feeling some sense of satisfaction at Hill's actions. Norm certainly seemed to.

Just trying to understand.

Bon

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100181 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 10:26 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Bon and others,

There is no sliding scale of evilness in God's eyes. As someone pointed out, my list of Hill's sins could apply to many others as well. Hill was guilty, the abortion doctor was guilty, and all of us are 100% guilty as charged in God's eyes.

Salvation depends on recognizing one's sin as such and accepting God's forgiveness (made possible through the death of Jesus). I certainly don't know for sure where Hill will spend his eternity, but he seemed unrepentant to the end.

Vigilante justice is not justice--it's what happens when we let our human impulses take over.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: Fallout2Queen Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100183 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 10:57 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
I would say that in a just society the actions of the doctor would be outlawed and his associates would be tried to find out what they knew and what they helped him to do. If they are guilty of what I outlawed then they would receive the proper punishment.


Would you make your punishments retoractive? (i.e. even though abortion is legal now, if you outlawed it tomorrow would you still punish someone for what they're doing today?)


If your answer is yes, I suggest you read The Handmaid's Tale by Margaret Atwood.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/038549081X/qid%3D1062687232/102-8115951-9656930



Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100184 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:10 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
We may never know how many innocent lives were saved by his action. Even if only one, though, the good of his action clearly outweighs the evil of his action. There's no way that one who derives his income by killing innocent human beings, and intends to continue to do so, is innocent.

Norm.


Coming to this thread late. Something about two wrongs don't make a right and turn the other cheek.

JLC


Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100185 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:13 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
I would have to say this would be irrelevant, but to clarify I would say Deist/Agnostic. This wouldn't be the place to discuss it, but it seems that you are implying that Atheists or Agnostics don't have morals, and that they wouldn't care one way or the other.

They may have morals, but they lack much basis for them, unless they care to argue for Socratic ideals. But that makes them more deist than atheist. And even then, the ideals don't make much sense unless there is a God who intervenes to enforce the ideals, which puts them on the road to theism.

Escapes such as rule of law, majority rule, and so forth can be counterexemplified at will (ie, Dred Scott, Jim Crow laws).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100186 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:20 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Bon,

My intent was to express my base-level thoughts on the logical conclusions that would follow from a starting position which asserts that the death penalty is justified and that abortion is murder. I simply wanted to lay them out there and invite comments. I directed my post at Rich because i have specific knowledge of his views on the two issues i used as my starting point, and i enjoy reading what he has to say.


You and I agree on this one, both in our reasons for opposition to the death penalty, and to the validity of thought experiments involving straw men (as you well know from our discussion on another board, where it's my staw man that is under consideration).

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100187 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:31 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
They may have morals, but they lack much basis for them, unless they care to argue for Socratic ideals. But that makes them more deist than atheist. And even then, the ideals don't make much sense unless there is a God who intervenes to enforce the ideals, which puts them on the road to theism.

If you think that a moral system comes directly from a higher power then your opinion would be accurate. I don't believe the basis of a moral system has to come strictly from a higher power (god). I think there are community, societal, personal needs or desires that can be the basis for a code of ethics.

Reiterating, I have yet to see a definition of 'morals' that contains the caveat 'only available to thiests'.

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100188 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:33 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Bon: You and i have hashed out the death penalty issue in the past. You may remember that my position on that issue is that no one has the right to judge another person's life--whether another person deserves to live or die. No one. Thus i believe that state-sponsored murder of prisoners is just as wrong as the murder which lands a person on death row. And of course Hill's killing of the abortion doctor is horrendous.

Is not murder a legal term? So to say state-sponsored murder is incoherent? Would wrongful killing be more appropriate title. Also I would argue that no person should decide whether a person deserves to live or die. Jury's should decide if the defendant did what they are charged with doing. If so then God has already told us what the just penalty is. This is not some homebrew solution.

Here is where i want to begin exploring. You approve of the use of the death penalty. You believe it is expressly sanctioned by God himself. And you believe that doctors who perform abortions are committing murder. It seems to me that one who believes all abortion is murder and that those who commit murder deserve the death penalty would also believe that those who perform abortions deserve the death penalty. Is there a flaw in my logic thus far?

I do not think there is a flaw in your logic.


So, in essence, all that Hill did was partake in vigilante justice. On a human scale of "wrongness," i'm sure you don't sanction vigilante justice, but it sure can't be as bad as the murder of innocents, can it? Superman is the ultimate symbol of vigilante justice for many Americans, and we cheer him on the movies. Sure, it'd be nice if those criminals were subject to due process in our courts, but hey, our courts messed up on abortion, didn't they? So what's left other than vigilante justice for the doctors who murder babies through abortion?


I do not know what Superman you saw when you grew up. (To be fair, I did not read Superman comics but instead watched the cartoons and the looked at the old black and white tv show). Superman was not vigilante justice, he was more like the good samaritan. You never saw superman kill the bad guys or even just beat them up for the heck of it. He first spoiled their plan then left the bad guys tied up for the police. Basically he was the Ultimate Private Citizen.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100189 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:37 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I would say that in a just society the actions of the doctor would be outlawed and his associates would be tried to find out what they knew and what they helped him to do. If they are guilty of what I outlawed then they would receive the proper punishment.

Would you make your punishments retoractive? (i.e. even though abortion is legal now, if you outlawed it tomorrow would you still punish someone for what they're doing today?)

No I would not.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100190 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:42 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
They may have morals, but they lack much basis for them, unless they care to argue for Socratic ideals. But that makes them more deist than atheist. And even then, the ideals don't make much sense unless there is a God who intervenes to enforce the ideals, which puts them on the road to theism.

If you think that a moral system comes directly from a higher power then your opinion would be accurate. I don't believe the basis of a moral system has to come strictly from a higher power (god). I think there are community, societal, personal needs or desires that can be the basis for a code of ethics.

Reiterating, I have yet to see a definition of 'morals' that contains the caveat 'only available to thiests'.

cliff


Cliff,
My argument is only saying that non theists, can have only preferences on how they decide to run a their society. If that is how you define 'morals" then yes they can have morals. My problem is that when someone uses the word morals, they imply that something is 'right' vs. something being 'wrong' to do or not do. In non theistic systems there is only that what you like and that which you do not like.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100191 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 12:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0

If that is how you define 'morals" then yes they can have morals. My problem is that when someone uses the word morals, they imply that something is 'right' vs. something being 'wrong' to do or not do.


I'm not defining morals, CT. I'm using the word as it is already defined.

In non theistic systems there is only that what you like and that which you do not like

I do not hold the opinion that it is a simple as you present. There may be morals within my system that I find distasteful or do not like, yet still abide by them because they may be set up for the good of an entity (humans, communities, societies, etc) and they are 'good' or necessary for the entitiy to survive/flourish.

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100192 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 12:20 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
<<I do not hold the opinion that it is a simple as you present. There may be morals within my system that I find distasteful or do not like, yet still abide by them because they may be set up for the good of an entity (humans, communities, societies, etc) and they are 'good' or necessary for the entitiy to survive/flourish.>>

I'm not sure I understand. Are you equating "morals" with "laws?" By that logic, slavery and segregation were moral in their respective times. If you had lived in the South during segragation, would you have objected? As for the "morals" you find distasteful, what makes them distasteful in your eyes? If you believed society had it wrong on some issue, would you work to change things? If so, what basis would you use to justify making a change?

With all these questions, I probably sound like an interrogator. But I really am curious how you deal with the morals/laws issue.

Andrea



Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100193 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 12:35 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
If that is how you define 'morals" then yes they can have morals. My problem is that when someone uses the word morals, they imply that something is 'right' vs. something being 'wrong' to do or not do.

I'm not defining morals, CT. I'm using the word as it is already defined.

Fair enough, I think my issue is that the non theistic system for defining morals is inherently arbitrary and whimiscal. If that is true then I think the definition of morals as defined by dictionaries is not applicable.

In non theistic systems there is only that what you like and that which you do not like

I do not hold the opinion that it is a simple as you present. There may be morals within my system that I find distasteful or do not like, yet still abide by them because they may be set up for the good of an entity (humans, communities, societies, etc) and they are 'good' or necessary for the entitiy to survive/flourish.

cliff


Let me reiterate, it is not that I believe atheists do not have 'morals', it is that I do not think morals are consistent with being an atheist.

Now all you have demonstrated is that you hold some preferences higher than others. You prefer that society looks a certain way in the future, therefore you hold down other preferences in order to accomplish a certain goal. Someone else can prefer society to look or function a different or perhaps even opposite way. It comes back down to who has the most votes, biggest guns etc. as to which plan is done. You cannot call their vision for the future evil or wrong. At worst it is just inefficient (to your goals). At best it is just different. But in no case is it "wrong", because their is no standard by which to measure it.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100195 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 1:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
If you think that a moral system comes directly from a higher power then your opinion would be accurate. I don't believe the basis of a moral system has to come strictly from a higher power (god). I think there are community, societal, personal needs or desires that can be the basis for a code of ethics.

And I have yet to see a code that doesn't fail, becoming unjust in the way I described. Furthermore, total relativism makes it impossible to value one code of ethics over another.

So there is nothing to say that vigilanteism is bad, and you have no basis to kill the killer of a killer.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100196 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 1:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Pennsy,

Appreciate your post. I do not condone the murder of the doctor, but his being killed did prevent more abortions.

I've pretty much been pro-life and stridently so all of my life. It was strengthened greatly during my teen years when my mother and sister were heavily involved at the state and national level in the pro-life movement. The women they brought to the house who had been though an abortion or were considering one and talked about it helped to only solidify my resolve in my position.

The one other event in my life that reinforced my belief in the sanctity of life at all ages was the birth and death of my daughter. I have talked about it here before but I repeat it for the reason of elaborating, as Pennsy mentioned, why I am so strongly pro-life. My daugher, Trinity, was born premature at 25 weeks due to my wife having preaclympsia toxemia and it almost taking both their lives. My daughter only lived a few moments after being born but for me that moment will last for all my life. Holding her in my arms for those few moments really brought thoughts to my mind of how precious life is and how in the world could any person viciously rip apart a human being like this one in the mothers womb.

I only hope that all of this discussion forces more of us to stop and think about that sanctity of life both in utero and out.



Stockemup

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100197 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 1:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I do not hold the opinion that it is a simple as you present. There may be morals within my system that I find distasteful or do not like, yet still abide by them because they may be set up for the good of an entity (humans, communities, societies, etc) and they are 'good' or necessary for the entitiy to survive/flourish.

Then presumably you would consider [the pre-Civil War South] to have a reasonable moral system. After all, it was surviving, indeed flourishing, in the 1850s. (Or substitute what you want between the brackets.)

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100201 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 1:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I'm not sure I understand. Are you equating "morals" with "laws?"

No, there is a large distinction. Laws are a compulsory set of rules established by a government or society. Laws may or may not be based on a moral system, i.e. Is it against your morals to build an eight foot fence vs a six foot fence; it is against city code in my area.

If you had lived in the South during segragation, would you have objected?
yes, I would have objected.

If you believed society had it wrong on some issue, would you work to change things? If so, what basis would you use to justify making a change?

this is the heart of the matter. Lets take slavery again. I would think that most people on this board would say they were against slavery. Why? Because god doesn't like it? Because it is inhumane? Because people shouldn't own people? Are the reasons theists or non-theists use to form a moral system that abhors slavery that much different? Is the theist supposition, that slavery is immoral, superior to an atheist or agnostics view that slavery is immoral just by fiat?

No. Not, IMHO.

cliff





Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100202 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 1:43 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
My daugher, Trinity, was born premature at 25 weeks due to my wife having preaclympsia toxemia and it almost taking both their lives. My daughter only lived a few moments after being born but for me that moment will last for all my life

Sometimes words are inadequate. My deepest sympathies.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JLC Big gold star, 5000 posts Top Recommended Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100203 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 1:50 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Is this in context or is my following statement out of context?

If given the above verse, why did we attack Iraq?

JLC, playing a little devil's advocate

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100204 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 2:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Cliff,

Thanks for the kind words. If Trinity were here today she'd be 14. I have found that ever since that moment as I go around in life and see girls at about the age my daughter would be I think would she look like that or be that tall or many other questions that hit a parent.



Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100205 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 2:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<I do not hold the opinion that it is a simple as you present. There may be morals within my system that I find distasteful or do not like, yet still abide by them because they may be set up for the good of an entity (humans, communities, societies, etc) and they are 'good' or necessary for the entitiy to survive/flourish.>>

<<Is it against your morals to build an eight foot fence vs a six foot fence; it is against city code in my area.>>

Slavery was necessary for the agrarian economy of the Old South. The six-foot-fence rule, according to those who run your community, is necessary to preserve neighborhood aesthetics (however you define it). You said that morals are established to further the greater good of a community/society. Well, the folks who set up these systems thought they WERE furthering the greater good. You can say they weren't, but then you have to define "greater good," and you run into the same problems as with defining "morals".

<<Is the theist supposition, that slavery is immoral, superior to an atheist or agnostics view that slavery is immoral just by fiat?>>

I think it's great that many atheists have moral standards--I just wonder how you justify them. If morals are determined by prevailing opinion, legislation, or any other human standard, then you run into slavery and segregation again. If they are determined by some fixed standard, what is it? You can use Kant's categorical imperitive, but what makes that better than Bentham's utilitarianism? Lots of smart people have tried develop moral criteria, but they disagree with one another. So who's right?

Andrea




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100207 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 2:22 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2

I think it's great that many atheists have moral standards--I just wonder how you justify them........ Lots of smart people have tried develop moral criteria, but they disagree with one another. So who's right?

How is this different in the realm of theists? I have yet to see a group of theists come to the same conclusion in defining their moral system. Observe this thread as an example; indeed, look at the many sects of christianity. Everyone reads the same book? Theists should all be on the same page when it comes to a code of ethics, but they disagree with one another. So, I point your question back at you. So who's right?


cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100209 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 2:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<I only hope that all of this discussion forces more of us to stop and think about that sanctity of life both in utero and out.>>

stockemup,

You definitely made ME think. Thank you for sharing your story with us. I am so sorry you had to go through this.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100210 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 2:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Andrea,

Another one that did give me cause to think is that my wife miscarried another child of ours only 3 years ago while she was 12 weeks along. That devasted her. She went into Post Partum Depression at a medium level if you will(There are basically 3 levels of PPD). She became a woman I barely knew and it scared me. Fortunately through me being persistent and forceful and gathering information on PPD, I got her help and she was back pretty close to normal within 3 months.



Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100211 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 2:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
<<Theists should all be on the same page when it comes to a code of ethics, but they disagree with one another. So, I point your question back at you. So who's right?>>

Not all theists read the same book. Even among Christians, some like to throw out portions of the Bible they don't agree with or that they think don't have practical relevance today, a dangerous practice IMHO, since (as you point out) that leaves us with no more justification for our beliefs than anyone else.

Among who accept the whole thing as the inspired Word of God, there is still room for disagreement on issues that aren't covered explicitly. God expects us to use our own judgment and intelligence in such cases. I could give Biblical arguments for and against capital punishment, for example. Or a state-sponsored lottery to fund schools. Or smoking.

But there are also some issues that just don't leave much room for argument, IF you believe the entire Bible is inspired by God. There is *no* Christian justification for what Paul Hill did. Jesus explicitly commanded us not to resist an evil person, to turn the other cheek, and not to return evil for evil. Many other issues are like that. Some people think they are being "righteous" for not paying their taxes (in protest of our immoral government) but Jesus commanded us to give Caesar what is Caesar's. And so on.

By the way, many church divisions are not due moral issues at all. Some involve things like liturgical vs. contemporary worship, the role of political activism, and other personal preferences.

Andrea






Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: stockemup Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100213 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 2:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
I forgot to say that I think many women go through the emotional and physical stresses of miscarriage which is equally as saddening to me. I believe when women go though that it does tend to have an enlightening effect on how delicate and precious life is.

I can't say exactly when it started in our society, but it seems like it has been within the last 40 years that life has become cheap and disposable, if you will, in our society. Abortion became common such to that point that it is used as birth control. Teenage girls began throwing the babies they gave birth to into trash cans and toilets. Youth on youth violence unlike ever before. It is a seemingly endless parade of destruction of human life where examples are endless.



Stockemup

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100214 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 3:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God.

Is this in context or is my following statement out of context?

If given the above verse, why did we attack Iraq?

JLC, playing a little devil's advocate >>


The Current Regime in Washington thought they had the authority and they used it.





Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100215 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 3:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Something else just occurred to me. The New Testament is much more explicit as to personal morality--the way individuals should behave--than it is about the role of government and what should be legal/illegal. This makes sense because the vast majority of people, both currently and historically, live in societies where they can do little to affect public policy. Even here, I can't change the government on my own. However, I can change my own behavior.

That's not to say the Bible is irrelevant to public policy, just that there's more room for argument about that than about personal morality.

My point--and I do have one ;-)--is that when Bible-believing Christians disagree, at least they have a common frame of reference in which to make their case.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100217 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 3:23 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
My point--and I do have one ;-)--is that when Bible-believing Christians disagree, at least they have a common frame of reference in which to make their case.

Let's say you have a yardstick(i.e God) and use it as the basis for a measurement of length. If everyone who uses that yardstick comes up with a sizable difference in measuring, how useful is the tool?

I decide that I derive my measurement of length not from your pre-set yardstick but from counting 3 paces using the length of my foot (secularism, nature, observation, whatever you want to plug in). Other non-christians or non-theists compute their length the same way..... but we have different size feet. How useful is the tool?

The tools provide a common point of reference; that is all.

I don't see any difference where you get your morals..... everybodys code of ethics will differ slightly, no matter whether you are an atheist or theist... or somewhere in between.

cliff



Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100223 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 3:52 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"It seems to me that one who believes all abortion is murder and that those who commit murder deserve the death penalty would also believe that those who perform abortions deserve the death penalty. Is there a flaw in my logic thus far?"

Yes. I don't believe every act of killing is murder and that there are degrees of murder and I personally would reserve the death penalty for the most heinous acts of murder.

"On a human scale of "wrongness," i'm sure you don't sanction vigilante justice, but it sure can't be as bad as the murder of innocents, can it?"

Sure it is. Ever see The Oxbow Incident? Vigilante justice is unbibilical and is no justice at all. The Bible says the king bears the sword. Jesus said that we personally are to put up our swords.

"So what's left other than vigilante justice for the doctors who murder babies through abortion?"

God.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100225 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 4:01 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<Let's say you have a yardstick(i.e God) and use it as the basis for a measurement of length. If everyone who uses that yardstick comes up with a sizable difference in measuring, how useful is the tool?>>

First of all, we DO agree on most issues, most of the time. It's just more interesting to talk about what we don't agree on.

The yardstick works great when everyone agrees to use it as the only standard. If someone adds plastic caps to the ends, you will get a slightly different measurement. The yardstick also only works when people use it properly. As one who is mechanically challenged, I assure it is possible to misuse a yardstick :-)

And, a yardstick doesn't work for all measurements. You can't measure water with a yardstick. Similarly, people try to use the Bible in ways it wasn't intended, such as for scientific purposes.

As I said in an earlier post, some behaviors are not covered explicitly in the Bible (smoking, gambling). We have to deal with them using more general principles, such as using resources wisely (stewardship).

<<I don't see any difference where you get your morals..... everybodys code of ethics will differ slightly, no matter whether you are an atheist or theist... or somewhere in between.>>

Many, many issues are covered explicitly in the Bible. Some may choose to ignore the Bible's stand or explain it away. Others claim to believe the Bible, but their behavior indicates otherwise. The yardstick isn't the problem in these cases. The people (mis)using it are the problem.

Andrea


Andrea

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100227 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 4:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
"Would you make your punishments retoractive? (i.e. even though abortion is legal now, if you outlawed it tomorrow would you still punish someone for what they're doing today?)"

The Constitution prohibits ex post fact laws.

God bless,

Rich

Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100229 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 4:09 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
The yardstick isn't the problem in these cases.

I reserve the right to disagree with that statement (are you surprised :^), but it deserves its own thread (probably on the theist/atheist dialog board).


Others claim to believe the Bible, but their behavior indicates otherwise. ...........The people (mis)using it are the problem.

The end result is the same, is it not?


I will now retire from this thread. I don't think I can add anything more to the topic. Thanks to all for the discussion.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100231 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 4:54 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
<<Others claim to believe the Bible, but their behavior indicates otherwise. ...........The people (mis)using it are the problem.
The end result is the same, is it not?>>

Cliff, I'm sorry to see you go--just when things were getting interesting ;-)

But you ended with a question, and I feel compelled to answer it.
I don't know what you mean by "result." What I do know is that hypocrites who don't believe/follow the Bible do nothing to refute the validity of the Bible itself.

I think the U.S. Bill of Rights is a beautiful document full of high standards for how our government ought to conduct itself. At times, though, our government has not followed the BOR. Many laws have been declared unconstitutional. Indeed, many think some current laws and policies are unconstitutional. And many people, including those on the Supreme Court, disagree on how to interpret or apply the Bill of Rights.

So, does all that make the Bill of Rights a useless document? I hardly think so!! Think about how different our country would be without it!

Andrea


Print the post Back To Top
Author: cevera1 Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100232 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 5:03 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Cliff, I'm sorry to see you go--just when things were getting interesting ;-)

I'm not leaving.... to the chagrin of many! It's just that this thread has reached critical mass.... I don't think I can contribute anything more of substance at this time..... I won't quit reading the thread. Heck, I may learn more.

I know that a lot of the readers here prefer that a single thread or poster not dominate the board. As a 'guest' of the board I try to pick and choose what interests me, learn and contribute, and watch to see what unfolds.

cliff


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100233 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 5:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Cliff,

I consider you one of the more succinct posters on this board. I am extremely surprised by your statement.

You apparently are not the only person whom I surprised, shocked, or stunned -- but that's okay. With any luck, my comment will lead to deeper consideration and an appreciation that some moral issues are not as clear as we would like them to be.

Morally, you have the right to defend not only yourself but other innocent parties as well -- with deadly force, if necessary -- if somebody poses an imminent threat. The obvious weighting factors are (1) the imminence of the threat and (2) the availability of other means to neutralize it.

The man talked about how he killed, in detail, and had not a drop of remorse.

Why do you expect remorse from somebody who believes, in his heart, that he acted out of necessity to save innocent lives?

I might add, that by using your logic, one of the abortion doctors may have done more good than harm by aborting the next Stalin, Hitler, or Hussein. Does that make it alright?

Can you identify which infants would be the next despots? Or is it okay to kill many innocents to take out the guilty? I think that your comparison breaks down on these points.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100234 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 5:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
<<I'm not leaving.... to the chagrin of many! It's just that this thread has reached critical mass.... I don't think I can contribute anything more of substance at this time..... I won't quit reading the thread. Heck, I may learn more.>>

I think you're right--we may be getting tiresome for the others who don't find this topic as fascinating as we do ;-)

Sorry if I was being tedious, everyone! I promise to shut up on the moral code issue until . . .uh, indefinitely.

Andrea
high school debater who keeps trying to kick the habit


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100235 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 5:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Fran,

For the sake of arguement, let's assume abortion is as bad/evil as the prolfe position repersents it to be...

Stop right there. Why does one have one have to "assume" anything? Is there doubt?

The only way that it could be otherwise would if the child in the womb were not a living human being -- in which case, one has to argue that

>> (1) the child in the womb is a part of the mother's body in the same sense as her appendix or her stomach,

>> (2) the child in the womb is not living, or

>> (3) the child in the womb is not human.

Biological evidence weighs very strongly against all three of these tenets. When the scientific evidence is so clear, I don't see how there can be any room for doubt.

how do you know that the doctor wouldn't have repented? Other abortonists have.

I don't know any such thing. Nonetheless, it is morally permissible to use deadly force to defend not only one's self but also an innocent person from an imminent threat. The key moral factors are (1) the imminence of the threat and (2) the lack of other means to neutralize the threat. By way of example, it's morally permissible for a sniper to shoot an armed bandit who is holding a gun to the head of a hostage.

Is it OK that he killed the clinic escort? How about wounding the doctor's wife and her escort? Does he get a pass on those, too?

It would depend entirely upon the circumstances. A deliberate act to kill or even to wound an innocent bistander clearly would not be tolerable. Indeed, there's a clear moral obligation to minimize the likelihood of collateral damage. OTOH, some level of risk to bystanders may be morally acceptable if the situation does not allow any time for delay.

Norm.




Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: andryia Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100237 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 5:41 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 4
Norm, I think I speak for others on this board when I say, *You are scaring me!!*

Jesus does not permit us to kill, even in self-defense, or even to defend an innocent person. See Matthew 5: 38-39 below.
______________

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
______________

Jesus was the most innocent person who ever lived. But when Peter drew his sword to try to prevent the Romans from crucifying Jesus, he got a stern rebuke. Look at all the Christians who were martyred and didn't put up a fight. There is just no place for violence in Christianity.

Andrea

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100238 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 5:44 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Cliff,

John: The aborionist, on the other hand, was a murderer, clear and simple.

we differ on this point.

Let's see. "Murder" is willful and premeditated action intended to terminate the life of a human being. In order to disagree with John, you have to assert that either

>> an abortion is not a willful and premeditated action or

>> the child in the womb is not a living human being.

The first of these claims obviously is not logically defensible because all clinics schedule an appointment in advance for the express purpose of performing each abortion. That fact, of itself, is sufficient proof of both intent ("willful") and premeditation. As I noted to Fran, the second requires that either

>> the child in the womb is not living,

>> the child in the womb is a part of the mother's body (in the same sense that, say, the mother's appendix is part of the mother's body), or

>> the child in the womb is not human.

The biological evidence against all three of these possibilities is very compelling.

Going by human standards, an unborn (fetus, embryo, cells, baby, human, your choice) is defenseless and innocent. My understanding of theology says that they are as much a sinner (original guilt and such) as the man who committed the murder.

From a moral perspective, a person who is not capable of acting on his or her own initiative or who is uninvolved (i. e. a bystander) is innocent.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: katinga Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Ticker Guide Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100239 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 6:04 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 7
Norm,

I've followed your reasoning, but I can't buy it this time.

The Roman Empire was not a just system, yet Paul clearly says that the power of judicial killing lies with the state, not the individual. Nowhere in Paul or Jesus is armed insurgency permitted to a Christian. That seems to be the option that you are advocating.

Katinga

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100240 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 6:13 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3
Charlie,

The problem with a thread like this is there are those who strongly believe the doctor to be the murderer. Others believe the killer of the doctor was in the wrong. I am not sure there is middle ground on this.

As I have noted in several other posts, I don't see how the definition of the term "murderer" and the biological evidence admit any conclusion other than that the doctor is a murderer.

BTW, note that the U. S. Supreme Court has NEVER ruled on the question of whether a child in the womb is a "person" under law. The court's practice is to decide only that which is disputed. Wishing to legalize abortion by judicial fiat, the liberal Warren Court of 1972-1973 found a case (Roe v. Wade) in which the attorney general who opposed legalization of abortion (Wade) argued from the false premise that the child in the womb is a "potential person" rather than a real person and attempted to argue that the state had an interest in protecting such a "potential person." The plaintiff, OTOH, argued that any rights of a "potential person" (the child) could not trump the supposed rights of a real person (the mother). Since the legal standing of the child was not in dispute, the court did not rule on the issue of whether the child in the womb is a person or not. Rather, the court proceeded on the assumption of both sides that the child in the womb was a potential person and issued a ruling consistent with the plaintiff's argument.

Note, BTW, that the staunch advocates of abortion are quite aware of this weakness in Roe v. Wade and the subsequent decisions on abortion. When cases having nothing whatsoever to do with abortion have arisen in which lower courts have upheld state laws predicated on the assumption that the child in the womb is a person, organizations like Planned Parenthood have actively discouraged appeal of such rulings as part of their campaign to protect the Roe v. Wade decision. (By way of example, this issue might come into play in a trial for murder for hitting a pregnant woman in the stomach in a way that caused a miscarriage without killing the woman or in which the law provides a stiffer punishment for killing a pregnant woman based upon the fact that it's a double murder, as in the Lacy Peterson murder case now going to trial in California.)

As someone who is pro-choice...

It may surprise you to learn that I also am pro-choice. I believe that a woman should not have to bear a child if she does not wish to do so. I also believe that a man should not have to father a child if he does not wish to do so. That's why I support very severe punishment for offenses like rape, which breach the victim's right not to conceive a child.

That said, I also believe that the murder of one's child, either directly or by hiring a "hit man" to do so, is not an appropriate way to exercise one's choice -- and an abortionist is nothing but a "hit man" who currently has legal protection from prosecution for his crimes by virtue of an utterly indefensible fiat of the U. S. Supreme Court.

In the end I will have to tell people like Norm we need to agree to disagree. It pains me that we will never see eye to eye on this, but that is the way it is.

I have no problem with disagreement if those who disagree can present rational arguments to support their position. OTOH, those who take the path of least resistance rather than considering all aspects of the issue in sufficient detail to come to a position that they can defend are shirking their duties as citizens. I'll let you decide which category fits your situation.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100241 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 6:28 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Jesus does not permit us to kill, even in self-defense, or even to defend an innocent person. See Matthew 5: 38-39 below.
______________

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Speaking about scary. Do you think Paul contradicted Jesus when he said in Romans 13:4, that the the state does not bear the sword in vain? Now the state is not an individual but has individuals that it sanctions to do jobs for it. That means the state will have people end others lives under its sanction. Self-defense is completely lawful and is sanctioned by the state. (The state will even tell you that you can not hold it liable for what happens before the cops get there to help you).

I believe that you have stretch the context of Matthew 5:38-39, which has to do with forgiveness and returning good for evil. The sanction of self-defense is not talked about here.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100242 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 6:34 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
"So what's left other than vigilante justice for the doctors who murder babies through abortion?"


Prayer

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100243 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 6:39 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ChristianTrader,

The problem I have with rev's statement is that we should not take justice into our own hands, it is the state's responsibility and for us to do what is their job is wrong aka sin.

Fundamentally, I agree with your statement and never suggested otherwise -- though a lot of people seem to have read your contrary assumption into my post.

That said, there is, by way of exception, a very limited set of circumstances in which a threat is so immediate as not to admit time for recourse to the state. Under those circumstances, one's options are to allow the crime to proceed, thus becoming an accomplice thereto, or to take matters into one's own hands by acting to stop the injury. Morally, the force applied to prevent a crime may never exceed the gravity of the crime (thus, deadly force is justified only for the gravest of crimes such as murder, treason, and perhaps violent rape) and one must choose the least injurious option if there are several ways to prevent the crime.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: JavaTraveler Big funky green star, 20000 posts Top Favorite Fools Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100244 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 6:40 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
I have no problem with disagreement if those who disagree can present rational arguments to support their position. OTOH, those who take the path of least resistance rather than considering all aspects of the issue in sufficient detail to come to a position that they can defend are shirking their duties as citizens. I'll let you decide which category fits your situation.



Norm,

I have been party to many discussions on the abortion and death penalty issues. I did not feel I needed to re-hash old arguements. I feel very hurt by your above comment. I do not come to my beliefs on abortion or the death penalty lightly. I suspect you have carefully thought yours out as well. If my inital post hurt you I apologize. My intention was not to hurt. I just wanted to make a comment, and hope we could raise the level of the conversation. As it stands this thread as left me feeling ill(as the others I have read on various boards), and will comment no further on it.

Charlie

Print the post Back To Top
Author: lhaselden Big funky green star, 20000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100245 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 6:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 5
<<Jesus was the most innocent person who ever lived. But when Peter drew his sword to try to prevent the Romans from crucifying Jesus, he got a stern rebuke. Look at all the Christians who were martyred and didn't put up a fight. There is just no place for violence in Christianity.

Andrea >>

"Those that live by the sword will die by the sword."

A rebuke or a promise?
There is a time for violence, however I assume that God will judge those that shed the blood of man. I would prefer to leave vengence to the Lord who judges justly. There may be a time when I cannot do that but I will expect to have to answer the Lord for my actions.

As for the man in Florida. He was a terrorist. He not only killed an abortionist, but a guard and also injured several more people. He also probably prevented no abortions. Those that wanted abortions just went elsewhere. He prevented nothing except the repentance of the Doctor and the Guard. He did injury to the cause he claimed to support. Pro-life .... but he takes life. How can every life be sacred, when you murder others?
I do not know the state of his soul, but I do not believe God approved of his actions.

Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100246 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:00 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 3

The problem I have with rev's statement is that we should not take justice into our own hands, it is the state's responsibility and for us to do what is their job is wrong aka sin.



Fundamentally, I agree with your statement and never suggested otherwise -- though a lot of people seem to have read your contrary assumption into my post.

That said, there is, by way of exception, a very limited set of circumstances in which a threat is so immediate as not to admit time for recourse to the state. Under those circumstances, one's options are to allow the crime to proceed, thus becoming an accomplice thereto, or to take matters into one's own hands by acting to stop the injury. Morally, the force applied to prevent a crime may never exceed the gravity of the crime (thus, deadly force is justified only for the gravest of crimes such as murder, treason, and perhaps violent rape) and one must choose the least injurious option if there are several ways to prevent the crime.

Norm.


The problem with your reasoning is that abortion is legal. If it was illegal we could then talk about using deadly force to prevent it. In order to rightfully use deadly force in non self-defense manners, you are going to need state approval. Otherwise you go into the realm of vigalante justice.

CT

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100247 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:06 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
CCSand,

I think you're way out of line, as many others here have no doubt already let you know.

So be it.

While the doctor may not have been "innocent" in that he was an active provider of abortions, he had never had any sort of due process. No trial, judge or jury. We generally give convicted murders that much before executing them. We gave Hill that much.

As I have pointed out in several other replies, there is an exception. You have a moral right to defend yourself and to defend other innocent parties if there is an immediate threat that does not allow time for recourse to the state. Morally, of course, the force that you use in this way must not exceed the gravity of the crime that you are trying to prevent (so deadly force is permissible only to prevent the gravest of crimes such as murder, treason, or perhaps a particularly violent rape) and you have to choose the least injurious option if you are aware of two or ways to prevent the crime.

I am not against the death penalty, but I think it should be reserved only for the most serious of crimes and only after a person has been found guilty by a jury of his peers. The reason that this is consistent with a pro-life stance is that little babies have never done anything for which they should be found guilty. Their only "crime" is the fact of their mere existence.

We agree on this.

I also do have concerns, in general, about the dispensation of justice in this country. There have been a few too many instances in which juries have decided the defendant must be guilty because the grand jury would not have returned an indictment, or the prosecutor would not have prosecuted the case, or whatever, if the defendant were not guilty, or assumed that a police officer must be telling the truth when in fact he is lying, and too many cases in which an elected official stood to gain political capital by winning a conviction even though the official knew that the defendant was not guilty of the crime. We ridicule the O. J. Simpson murder trial, yet the stubborn facts remain that there were glaring inconsistencies in the evidence, clear evidence of tainted evidende, the glove that did not fit, and a lead detective who perjured himself on the witness stand -- thus discrediting all of his testimony and leaving the jury with no credible evidence linking the defendant to the crime. O. J. got the proper verdict based upon our legal system's presumption of innocence, but I wonder how many other people have been convicted improperly simply because they could not afford adequate defense counsel. The system is broken, and I think that we need to fix it before we start restoring capital punishment.

Is this a violation of the sixth commandment? Only if the prohibition was originally intended to be against any killing and not just against unlawful killing or murder. Killing does not equal murder. If the correct translation of the verb ratsach in Hebrew refers only to murder and not any killing, than there is nothing inconsistent in such a position. I'll leave this to the Hebrew scholars, which I am not, but I have never understood this commandment to mean the death penalty was prohibited. I freely admit that I likely disagree with the Pope on this one.

I think that we are in agreement.

Norm.


Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100248 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:11 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Lawrence,

It sounds like you are supporting the taking of human life. Who else would you add to the list of Americans that should be gunned down on the street?

I don't think that I advocated taking of human life at all. The better solution to the abortion issue would be a constitutional amendment stating that human life begins at conception and ends at natural death, and that it must have full protection between these limits.

Of course, we might not need a constitutional amendment because a case will arise sooner or later in which the U. S. Supreme Court will find that it will have to issue such a ruling. Once that happens, the "due process" clause kicks in and protects the unborn, the elderly, the mentally retarded, the disabled, and any other groups of human beings who might become victims of supposed euthanasia. I simply would like to expedite the process.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100249 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:24 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Fran,

Would you make your punishments retoractive? (i.e. even though abortion is legal now, if you outlawed it tomorrow would you still punish someone for what they're doing today?)

It may surprise you to learn that retroactive punishment for abortions that are taking place today, here in the United States, may well become a reality -- in spite of our constitution's prohibition of ex post facto laws!

So how can this happen? Simple -- all that needs to happen is for the U. S. Supreme Court to reverse its decision in Roe v. Wade -- thus removing the impairment of laws defining abortion to be murder that actually remain on the books in most states, even though impaired. If the law is on the books at the time of the offense and the court lifts the impairment, prosecutors can bring charges for all offenses that are still within any applicable statute of limitations. The court's reasoning is that a decision removing a judicial impairment of the law does not change the law itself. Historically, prosecutors usually have exercised their prosecutorial discression not to bring charges for offenses committed while a law remained impaired, but the courts nonetheless have found that they can do so.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100250 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:25 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Norm wrote:

As I have pointed out in several other replies, there is an exception. You have a moral right to defend yourself and to defend other innocent parties if there is an immediate threat that does not allow time for recourse to the state. Morally, of course, the force that you use in this way must not exceed the gravity of the crime that you are trying to prevent (so deadly force is permissible only to prevent the gravest of crimes such as murder, treason, or perhaps a particularly violent rape) and you have to choose the least injurious option if you are aware of two or ways to prevent the crime.

The problem is that abortion is legal. There is no recourse to the state. In a situation where you have a valid defense of others, the state would have intervened to prevent the criminal act in the first place, had it known about it. That is not so here.

I think a resort to vigilante justice is no justification at all. The solution is to change the law.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100251 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:29 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Paul,

They may have morals, but they lack much basis for them, unless they care to argue for Socratic ideals. But that makes them more deist than atheist. And even then, the ideals don't make much sense unless there is a God who intervenes to enforce the ideals, which puts them on the road to theism.

The Catholic Church has always separated moral doctrine from theological doctrine and based moral doctrine solely on the philosophy of natural law -- which is binding on all humanity regardless of religious beliefs.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100252 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:45 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Rich,

The Constitution prohibits ex post fact laws.

True -- but the courts have held that overturning a previous judicial decision that impaired an existing law does not constitute ex post facto law because the legislature did not change the law. Thus, it would be possible to prosecute abortions performed prior to the issue of a decision that overturns Roe v. Wade under existing laws impaird by Roe v. Wade, so long as they are within any applicable statutes of limitations.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100253 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:53 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Andrea,

Norm, I think I speak for others on this board when I say, *You are scaring me!!*

Not deliberately, but perhaps we all need to be scared into doing our homework once in a while....

Jesus does not permit us to kill, even in self-defense, or even to defend an innocent person. See Matthew 5: 38-39 below.
______________

You have heard that it was said, 'Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.'[7] 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.
______________

Jesus was the most innocent person who ever lived. But when Peter drew his sword to try to prevent the Romans from crucifying Jesus, he got a stern rebuke. Look at all the Christians who were martyred and didn't put up a fight. There is just no place for violence in Christianity.


I was speaking from the standpoint of absolute morality based upon natural law and not from the standpoint of Christian theology. The two are not the same, and may well lead to different conclusions in some situations.

That said, many Christian scripture scholars and theologians would say that you are taking those passages out of context and giving them more weight than they deserve. Perhaps we need to do more thorough exegesis on these passages to understand them better.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100254 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 7:57 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Paul,

The Roman Empire was not a just system, yet Paul clearly says that the power of judicial killing lies with the state, not the individual. Nowhere in Paul or Jesus is armed insurgency permitted to a Christian. That seems to be the option that you are advocating.

Hmmm... It's quite clear that you are not getting the meaning that I had intended, but I'm not sure whether it's because I miscommunicated something or whether you're reading something into what I wrote that I did not intend.

For the record, I am not advocating armed insurgency. I also am not advocating that anybody should follow Paul Hill's example. Rather, I was trying to point out that the morality of this situation is quite complex and may depend upon a lot of nuances that many of us don't understand.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100255 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 8:05 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Charlie,

I have been party to many discussions on the abortion and death penalty issues. I did not feel I needed to re-hash old arguements. I feel very hurt by your above comment. I do not come to my beliefs on abortion or the death penalty lightly. I suspect you have carefully thought yours out as well. If my inital post hurt you I apologize. My intention was not to hurt. I just wanted to make a comment, and hope we could raise the level of the conversation. As it stands this thread as left me feeling ill(as the others I have read on various boards), and will comment no further on it.

As you probably guessed, it was not my intent to hurt you and I'm sorry if my words had that effect.

Yes, I have studied this issue quite extensively -- including a college course on the U. S. Supreme Court in which I studied the court's decisions for an assigned project and graduate courses in philosophy that addressed this specific issue as well as fairly extensive theological studies. Nonetheless, I'm not persuaded that one needs advanced education to understand that every abortion stops a beating human heart.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100256 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 8:12 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ChristianTrader,

The problem with your reasoning is that abortion is legal. If it was illegal we could then talk about using deadly force to prevent it. In order to rightfully use deadly force in non self-defense manners, you are going to need state approval. Otherwise you go into the realm of vigalante justice.

Perhaps now we're getting to the source of the disconnect. I don't see the law as the definition of morality -- especially when we're really talking about judicial impairment of laws prohibiting abortion that remain on the books in most states, compounded by the fact that the judicial impairment is predicated upon flawed arguments based upon a dubious assumption, that the child in the womb is a potential person rather than an actual person, upon which the highest court has never ruled.

Note also that I never advocated that anybody should do what Paul Hill did. I only pointed out a moral argument that might justify at least some of his actions.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100257 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 8:19 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
CCSand,

The problem is that abortion is legal. There is no recourse to the state. In a situation where you have a valid defense of others, the state would have intervened to prevent the criminal act in the first place, had it known about it. That is not so here.

And from a moral perspective based upon the philosophy of natural law, the U. S. Supreme Court is clearly in the wrong by its judicial impairment of laws that prohibit abortion. Those laws do remain on the books in many states, even though the judicial impairment of Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions is currently blocking their enforcement. As I have noted in other posts, these decisions are on very shaky grounds because the court has never ruled on a fundamental assumption that a child in the womb is a "potential person" rather than an actual person. In Roe v. Wade, both sides made their arguments based upon this assumption. When the court has to rule on this issue (which probably will happen in a case that has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion), it probably will have to find that the child in the womb is a person -- with the consequence not only that Roe v. Wade crumbles but that all protections of the Bill of Rights kick in -- based upon overwhelming biological evidence from the scientific community.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: ChristianTrader Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100259 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 8:27 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
ChristianTrader,

The problem with your reasoning is that abortion is legal. If it was illegal we could then talk about using deadly force to prevent it. In order to rightfully use deadly force in non self-defense manners, you are going to need state approval. Otherwise you go into the realm of vigalante justice.


Perhaps now we're getting to the source of the disconnect. I don't see the law as the definition of morality -- especially when we're really talking about judicial impairment of laws prohibiting abortion that remain on the books in most states, compounded by the fact that the judicial impairment is predicated upon flawed arguments based upon a dubious assumption, that the child in the womb is a potential person rather than an actual person, upon which the highest court has never ruled.

Note also that I never advocated that anybody should do what Paul Hill did. I only pointed out a moral argument that might justify at least some of his actions.

Norm.


Norm,
I never said that that the law was the definition of morality. My argument is that we cannot go vigalante even when we think the laws should say something (or if they do but no one has challenged the courts) (There are mechanisms for other branches of government to challenge the courts when it oversteps). I agree that abortion is wrong and is wrongful killing, however they is an order to correct such issues and vigalentism is not the way.

CT

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: rev2217 Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100260 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 8:36 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
ChristianTrader,

I agree that abortion is wrong and is wrongful killing, however they is an order to correct such issues and vigalentism is not the way.

I never said that it was. I only stated a moral argument that could apply in a particular case. Of course, Paul Hill is now dead precisely because neither the jury nor the appellate courts accepted that moral argument as legal justification in his case.

Norm.


Print the post Back To Top
Author: TwinDeltaTandem Big red star, 1000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100262 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:10 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
CT:

I agree that abortion is wrong and is wrongful killing, however they is an order to correct such issues and vigalentism is not the way.

Norm:

I never said that it was. I only stated a moral argument that could apply in a particular case. Of course, Paul Hill is now dead precisely because neither the jury nor the appellate courts accepted that moral argument as legal justification in his case.
_____________

I understood your posts, Norm. I'd like to add that the history of the church, from the 1st century martyrs to Martin Luther King, is full of people who were willing to go against the law for Christ, then gladly accept the consequences of justice dealt out by the state.

Also, in theory I don't see Hill's action as one of a vigilante, as much as one protecting a future victim.

TDT

(On the fence, merely looking at both sides)


Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100264 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:26 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 2
Norm wrote:

The Catholic Church has always separated moral doctrine from theological doctrine and based moral doctrine solely on the philosophy of natural law -- which is binding on all humanity regardless of religious beliefs.

Uh, if so that's news to me. I would venture to say that moral doctrine and theological doctrine were united under St. Thomas Aquinas in his Summa Theologica.

The book I was reading this weekend seemed to indicate that, at any rate.

CCSand

Print the post Back To Top
Author: CCSand Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100265 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:47 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1
Norm wrote:

And from a moral perspective based upon the philosophy of natural law, the U. S. Supreme Court is clearly in the wrong by its judicial impairment of laws that prohibit abortion. Those laws do remain on the books in many states, even though the judicial impairment of Roe v. Wade and subsequent decisions is currently blocking their enforcement. As I have noted in other posts, these decisions are on very shaky grounds because the court has never ruled on a fundamental assumption that a child in the womb is a "potential person" rather than an actual person. In Roe v. Wade, both sides made their arguments based upon this assumption. When the court has to rule on this issue (which probably will happen in a case that has nothing whatsoever to do with abortion), it probably will have to find that the child in the womb is a person -- with the consequence not only that Roe v. Wade crumbles but that all protections of the Bill of Rights kick in -- based upon overwhelming biological evidence from the scientific community.

We agree. The case is on shaky ground from just about any honest legal perspective. Even my far out leftist, constitutional and criminal law professor agrees with that.

Having said that the law, in this case, is an a$$, you have two choices: armed insurrection a la Hill, or change the law.

I'm still not a believer in delivering violence for violence. I think that just leads to a pattern of tribal warfare, such as has been going on in places like Afghanistan. You have to work to change the law.

FWIW, I think we're going that direction anyway and what happened today with Miguel Estrada pretty much confirms that train of thought. When you get your representatives and senators elected to Congress and they are incapable of getting a judge appointed because a minority of Senators won't even let his nomination come to a vote, I think that is a really bad blow to democracy. It says that only people with a certain point of view are allowed to have any say in government at all. And that is what leads to totalitarianism.

CCSand

Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Pennsyltuckian Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100266 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/4/2003 11:51 PM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 6
lhaselden,

I think you make a really important point when you say,

He also probably prevented no abortions. Those that wanted abortions just went elsewhere

The issue we have yet to address is that there is a demand for abortion. That demand existed long before Roe v. Wade, and it will exist long after. The problem is not that doctors will perform the procedure. The problem is that many parents will go to any length to abort a pregnancy. There will never be enough laws or bullets to stop people from seeking this procedure. Pregnant women who don't want to have babies will always be able to chose not to have them, whether that choice is protected by the government or not.

I am persuaded that the world would be a better place if abortion did not occur, but I do not believe that changing laws will bring that about.

I think the only reasonable solutions to this problem are likely to be pro-active ones. Folks who are pro-life need to offer better choices. Folks who are pro-choice need to offer life-affirming solutions.

So what do we do? What actions can the church as the body of Christ take in the world to reduce the demand for abortion?

How do we address the circumstances that create unwanted pregnancies?

How do we address the thinking that leads a parent to conclude that the death of an unborn child is the only option available to them?

Prohibition has never prevented sin. Only conversion does that.

So how do we change the world so babies stop dying and parents stop killing?

Peace,
bob



Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Print the post Back To Top
Author: Pennsyltuckian Three stars, 500 posts Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100267 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/5/2003 12:03 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 0
Stockemup,

Thank you for sharing that story. I cannot imagine what it would be like to go through such an experience. You know more about life and love than I ever will.

Just after I read your post, one of my coworkers introduced the office to his new granddaughter today. I don't think I'll ever look at another newborn in the same way again.

God bless you and your family. You are all in my prayers tonight.

Peace,
bob

Print the post Back To Top
Author: rbednarski Big gold star, 5000 posts Old School Fool Add to my Favorite Fools Ignore this person (you won't see their posts anymore) Number: 100268 of 196889
Subject: Re: Poll: About the killer of the Abortionist... Date: 9/5/2003 12:09 AM
Post New | Post Reply | Reply Later | Create Poll Report this Post | Recommend it!
Recommendations: 1