| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 29 2009 : 7:06:15 PM
|
Please DL, use the link. A straw man is when you say something like:
"Like it or not - World War II meets the requirements of the Just War Theory."
You infer here that I don't believe that WWII meets the requirements of the just war theory; and further, that I don't like that it doesn't. The problem here is that I never made the assertion that WWII didn't meet the just war theory.
Here's another example:
"That is no sillier than your argument that it is OK to kill a private citizen because we consider their behavior to be immoral."
Again, you present an argument that I didn't make, stating that I argued that it would be okay to kill a private citizen because we consider his behavior to be immoral. Again, I never took such a position. Maybe it would be helpful if I restated the issue more concisely?
Here it is: Was Roeder's act to kill Tiller in order to stop him from continuing to murder infants morally acceptable? Please take note here, the question is not whether Tiller deserved to be killed, but if it was justified for Roeder to kill Tiller in order to defend the unborn.
Getting beyond the definition of a straw man, here's an example of your approach that led me to change my avatar to reflect how your arguments make me react:
"Until he is convicted in a court of law, he is innocent. While we can judge his acts to be contrary to the moral law - only God can rightly judge his innocence or guilt. Now - if you want to play God..."
There is so much wrong with this that we need to look at in pieces.
"Until he is convicted in a court of law, he is innocent."
That comes from US law, not from theology, philosophy, or critical thinking. The application of assumed innocence is ludacris here. If you cannot recognize that Tiller is guilty of infantacide until a jury of his peers says so, if you cannot at least do that, then I have to conclude that any hope I have of learning from you is futile.
"While we can judge his acts to be contrary to the moral law - only God can rightly judge his innocence or guilt."
Wrong. We can certainly unequivically state that Tiller was guilty of performing abortions. Only God can judge the condition of his soul relative to his salvation. You are confused here.
"Now - if you want to play God..."
Another straw man. You assert that I want to play God & ridicule me for it. For the record, I don't want to play God. This could also be referred to an ad hominem abusive (in insult which has nothing to do with the subject, used to discredit your opponent).
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
 |
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 01 2009 : 11:08:17 AM
|
Back to the subject, this is the first of 2 posts (the second is the next post) that I'd really like to dig into. Does anyone have any reaction to this?
quote:
Originally posted by Chris R
I'm led to a hard conclusion. If Roeder's act was wrong, then the killer of nazis must also be wrong. If we truly believe that the lives of the unborn merit the same protection as the lives of the born, the allegory is perfect.
But perhaps noteworthy... It is assumed in our conversation that the Church has spoken definitively to condemn the act of killing abortionists in defense of life. I share the assumption but just realized that I've never seen a clear reference.
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 01 2009 : 11:09:44 AM
|
This one as well. Apologies in advance for how far I'm digging into the details -- couldn't see another way to get to the question.
quote:
Originally posted by Chris R
Does CCC2306 have any application here? It is confusing to me...
quote:
2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death.
My question is, how is it possible to provide the means to inflict "bloodshed and violence" in "defense of the weakest" without "harming the rights... of other men and societies"? Note that there is no qualifier (e.g. it doesn't say ...without harming the rights and obligations of innocent men and societies, (which I think would make it easier to understand). Given that, should we take it to mean ...without harming the rights ... of ALL men and societies? That can't be right. If it was, knowing that there isn't circumstance where undertaking violence and bloodshed would not harm the rights and obligations of other men (since even the perpetrators of violence against "the weakest" have the right to life)the teaching would be entirely feckless.
Also, the qualifier at the beginning: "Those who renounce violence and bloodshed..." is confusing to me as well. Does this mean that only pacifists may provide the "weakest" with the means to defend themselves? What about those who are so weak (like the unborn) for whom, regardless of any provision, cannot undertake their own self-defense? Does it not follow that the faithful would themselves act in defense of "the weakest"?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding).
|
Edited by - Chris R on Jul 01 2009 11:11:54 AM |
|
|
|
DeniseLawson
Moderator
USA
808 Posts |
Posted - Jul 02 2009 : 3:43:52 PM
|
Chris,
My arguments were not strawmen arguments - they were responses to your arguments you put forward. If my responses were confusing - then that is only because your responses were not clear. It is that simple.
Your initial premise was that in killing Tiller, what Roeder did was no different than killing a mass murderer. Your other premise put forth was that you kinda feel like Tiller had it coming to him.
In later posts - you worked into the argument the issues of the Nazis killing innocent Jews and the argument that a private citizen would be right to kill a Nazi because of the regime's slaughter of the Jews (and others).
These were the posts I was responding to. You bring forth numerous issues here that should be addressed one by one. Unfortunately, your continued obfuscation of the subject with more issues before completely addressing the first ones leads me to believe you do not really want to address the issues. Essentially - you're all over the place in your thoughts.
When you can respond with a clear, specific issue you would like addressed, I will glady respond to you on that issue. Until then - there is no need for further response from me to you on this thread. You've made it perfectly clear that your intent here is one only: to muddy the waters. Well, you've succeeded, my friend.
------------------------
Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like yours. |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 02 2009 : 5:14:46 PM
|
DL how dare you judge my intentions? Any objective reader would see that I've gone to great pains to clearly show that your arguments are exact examples of strawman arguments (a term which, despite my best effort to explain, you still don't grasp). I haven't obscured a thing -- I believe that you have muddied the waters by hurling insults & adding heat rather than light to the discussion.
Anyhoo, I didn't plan for this to be a to/fro between us & I am interested in getting on with the subject. Maybe someone else could chime in?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
|
|
|
DeniseLawson
Moderator
USA
808 Posts |
Posted - Jul 04 2009 : 1:47:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris R
DL how dare you judge my intentions? Any objective reader would see that I've gone to great pains to clearly show that your arguments are exact examples of strawman arguments (a term which, despite my best effort to explain, you still don't grasp). I haven't obscured a thing -- I believe that you have muddied the waters by hurling insults & adding heat rather than light to the discussion.
Anyhoo, I didn't plan for this to be a to/fro between us & I am interested in getting on with the subject. Maybe someone else could chime in?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding).
I did not judge your intentions, unless merely restating your arguments you put forward is now somehow judging them.
Each of my responses have been specifically to your arguments as a straight point/counter-point. Any objective reader can see that. If they cannot, then perhaps it is because they have allowed their emotions to obscure reality.
------------------------
Jesus meek and humble of heart, make my heart like yours. |
|
|
|
Pro-life Sarah
Moderator
653 Posts |
Posted - Jul 08 2009 : 12:59:07 PM
|
Gosh, I missed a very good discussion while taking time to have a baby....something that could be inserted into the argument is what other things can and should be done besides taking a life to get the end result? There are sooooo many things that can be done to fight abortion besides killing the abortion doctors. And though it didn't seem that way, there were a lot of things that could be done to fight the Nazis during the Holocaust. Does it make all options safe? No. Absolutely not....but does it mean other options are not there? And truly, if more people banded together to resist/fight both the Nazis back then and abortion supporters now, more would have and can be accomplished. There is strength in numbers.
Take Care and God Bless,
Sarah
Please say one Hail Mary a day for the intentions all forum members |
|
|
|
Pro-life Sarah
Moderator
653 Posts |
Posted - Jul 15 2009 : 04:57:52 AM
|
Here is an interesting article on why Pope John Paul II maintained that the war in Iraq was unjust. Though the topic is different, perhaps (and I'm just saying perhaps) some of the rationale could be used against the just war theory for killing Tiller?
It is a copied and pasted article....from: http://www.the-tidings.com/2009/071009/benson.htm
Friday, July 10, 2009
Turning the other cheek
From "just war" to "just peace": A growing Catholic moral focus.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Rev. Richard Benson, C.M.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the lead-up to the United States' second military conflict in Iraq, Vatican leadership --- including that of Pope John Paul II --- made it clear that they were unconvinced that military intervention by the U.S. was morally justified.
In an address to the Diplomatic Corps at the Vatican on January 13, 2003, Pope John Paul II declared, "War is never just another means that one can choose to employ for settling differences between nations" and can never be "decided upon except as the very last option and in accordance with very strict conditions."
On March 5, 2003, Cardinal Pio Laghi was sent as an ambassador from the Vatican to speak to President George W. Bush to make a final appeal for peace. Cardinal Laghi said after his meeting with Bush that a war would be "immoral ... illegal, unjust." A decision regarding the use of military force, the cardinal added, "can only be taken within the framework of the United Nations" (Catholic News Service, March 7, 2003).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By moving from a focus on "just war" to a focus on "peace building," the Church is attempting to form good consciences that challenge all disciples of Jesus to take up their call to be blessed as peace makers.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Even after Bush initiated the use of military force, Pope John Paul continued to voice his opposition. On June 4, 2004, in an address to Bush who was visiting him in Rome, the pope told him, "You are very familiar with the unequivocal position of the Holy See in this regard, expressed in numerous documents, through direct and indirect contacts, and in the many diplomatic efforts which have been made since you first visited me…."
Perhaps most disheartening to the president and his supporters at the time was the fact that the Vatican refused to bestow the administration's plans for Iraq with the benediction of being a "just war."
To be sure, there were Catholic voices who opposed the position of the Holy Father and the Vatican. At least one Catholic columnist and ethicist chose to publicly dissent from the Holy Father's teaching and published a number of articles defending "preventative war" as an acceptable moral position that would justify a preemptive attack on Iraq.
Another Catholic ethicist, and a member of a Washington think tank, even went to Rome where Catholic News Service reported that he gave a symposium to Vatican officials in an attempt to convince them that an American attack on Iraq was a "just war."
'Just war' vs. 'peace building'
The interchange between the Vatican and Washington raised the question in the minds of many Catholics, both here and throughout the world, about how to understand and apply the "just war" tradition that has been part of Catholic teaching since St. Augustine began its development in the fourth century.
However, beyond a renewed interest in the laity in understanding what constitutes a "just war," it became clear that Catholic leadership was becoming more interested in helping Catholics move from a "minimalist" morality of "just war" to a "maximalist" morality of peace building. The common saying, "The best defense is a good offense," has been evolving in Catholic theology --- especially since the end of World War II and the advent of the nuclear arsenal --- to move the meaning of "offense" from a primary focus on superior military capability (offensive and defensive) to a renewed focus on superior "peace building."
In their 1983 pastoral on peace, The Challenge of Peace, the U.S. bishops raise the provocative question about whether there could ever really be a "just war" in a nuclear age, since the huge amount of innocent civilian casualties that would inevitably result from such a conflict could never be morally justified:
"A nuclear response to either conventional or nuclear attack can cause destruction which goes far beyond 'legitimate defense.' Such use of nuclear weapons would not be justified.… We therefore express our view that the first imperative is to prevent any use of nuclear weapons and our hope that leaders will resist the notion that nuclear conflict can be limited, contained, or won in any traditional sense" (n. 160, 161).
At the same time, the Church continues to teach that both individuals and societies have a right to "legitimate self defense." Embedded in this right is the "just war" theory, long accepted by the Church:
"The Fifth Commandment forbids the intentional destruction of human life. Because of the evils and injustices that accompany all war, the Church insistently urges everyone to prayer and to action so that the divine Goodness may free us from the ancient bondage of war. All citizens and all governments are obliged to work for the avoidance of war.
"However, 'as long as the danger of war persists and there is no international authority with the necessary competence and power, governments cannot be denied the right of lawful self-defense, once all peace efforts have failed'" (Catechism of the Catholic Church, n. 2307, 2308).
What did Jesus say?
Perhaps the best way to understand how 16 centuries of "just war" tradition is moving to a focus on "just peace" would be to begin with Jesus' teachings.
Jesus proclaimed to his disciples, "Blest too are the peacemakers; they shall be called the children of God" (Matthew 5: 9). This theme was woven throughout his teachings; the theme of non-violence is a clear challenge that he leaves to his Church:
---"Blest shall you be when people hate you, when they ostracize you and insult you and proscribe your name as evil because of the Son of Man. On the day they do so, rejoice and exult, for your reward shall be great in heaven" (Luke 6: 22-23).
---"Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you; bless those who curse you and pray for those who maltreat you. When someone slaps you on one cheek, turn and give them the other; when someone takes your coat, let them have your shirt as well.… When someone takes what is yours, do not demand it back.… Love your enemy and do good…. Be compassionate, as your Father is compassionate. Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned" (Luke 6: 27-36).
---"Put your sword back in its place, for all those who take up the sword perish by the sword" (Matthew 26: 52).
A question that Catholics must continue to wrestle with is how to integrate these clear teachings from Jesus into the complexities of the political situations that confront the human population around the globe, especially when the political leaders of one's country declare the nation to be at risk and are contemplating declaring war or otherwise engaging in the use of military force against another nation perceived as an aggressor.
However, Jesus also said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's but give to God what is God's" (Matthew 22: 21). And Jesus' righteous wrath erupted when he chased the merchants from the temple (John 2: 13-16).
How does this teaching and this action of Jesus participate in forming our consciences about acting rightly as Catholics, as authentic disciples of Christ?
Power and stewardship
What is clear are two points. First, this question Jesus asks about Caesar is obviously a rhetorical question and every politician needs to recognize it as such. In fact, everything, all creation, belongs to God. In reality, nothing belongs to Caesar. The best political leaders always recognize that they hold their power in stewardship and they answer to God also regarding their stewardship.
Secondly, stewardship implies moral boundaries. Caesar cannot demand that citizens render unto him that which only belongs to God. It is clear that from the Catholic perspective, war is never the best moral answer, but at best, only a toleration of the lesser of two evils.
In his first encyclical, Deus Caritas Est, Pope Benedict XVI, made a statement, clearly embedded in the tradition of Catholic teaching, that was nevertheless a bit startling to some who may have been expecting something a bit more normatively directive:
"…it is not the Church's responsibility to make this (social) teaching prevail in political life. Rather, the Church wishes to help form consciences in political life and to stimulate greater insight into the authentic requirements of justice as well as greater readiness to act accordingly, even when this might involve conflict with situations of personal interest."
Pope Benedict is convinced that by engaging in the formation of good consciences, Catholics who understand the consistent ethic of life and who believe that every human being has been created in the image of God, will bring these convictions into the political square. Catholics will see that peace building is integral to being pro-life.
The Catholic moral vision is one that ensures the protection of every human life from conception to natural death. War is the enemy of life. By moving from a focus on "just war" to a focus on "peace building," the Church is attempting to form good consciences that challenge all disciples of Jesus to take up their call to be blessed as peace makers. Peace, as always our primary goal and first choice, is foundationally pro-life.
The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church tells us, "Peace is a value and a universal duty founded on a rational and moral order of society that has its roots in God… Peace is not merely the absence of war, nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies. Rather it is founded on a correct understanding of the human person and requires the establishment of an order based on justice and charity" (n. 494).
The Church, the Compendium continues, is challenging Catholics to form a conscience in which the desire to act on behalf of peace is united fundamentally with a desire to act on behalf of justice: "Peace is the fruit of justice" (n. 494).
In her contemporary teaching, the Church makes it clear that it condemns "the savagery of war" (Gaudium et Spes, n. 77). "War is a scourge and is never an appropriate way to resolve problems that arise between nations, it has never been and it will never be" (John Paul II, L'Ossevatore Romano, Jan. 21, 1991).
Catholic peace-building
In April 2008, Notre Dame University hosted a conference on the future of Catholic Peace-building designed to "showcase and contribute to a larger effort to develop a conceptually coherent, theologically accurate, spiritually enlivening and practically effective approach to Catholic peace-building that can begin to match the sophistication of Catholic thinking on the ethics of war and peace." This is an example of the emergence of how "just peace" is coming more and more to the fore in Catholic theology and magisterial teaching.
Without abandoning the right of individuals and societies to self defense, the Church is beginning to more deeply and fully understand all the implications of the consistent ethic of life.
Preaching in word and action the salvation won by Jesus and working tirelessly for the end to abortion, the end of the death penalty, the end of war, the end of racial injustice, the end of hunger, the end of poverty and helping to build a just and lasting global peace, are all part of proclaiming the reign of God and are all part of the bringing the Good News to the poor.
Take Care and God Bless,
Sarah
Please say one Hail Mary a day for the intentions all forum members |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2009 : 10:29:21 AM
|
I don't see how to tie in just war teachings with the subject with which we are now grappling. That said, I would appreciate anyone's insights on my comments/questions about CCC2306 (and other questions, like, does anyone have a clear reference wherein the Church binds the faithful to believe that violence against abortion providers is forbidden?).
That we present so much in the way of teachings about other subjects that ostensibly infer teachings about this subject (as in Sarah's entry above) is troubling. Has anyone actually seen a binding document (not someone's opinion piece) that deals with this subject?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2009 : 10:33:44 AM
|
quote:
DL "I did not judge your intentions, unless merely restating your arguments you put forward is now somehow judging them.
Each of my responses have been specifically to your arguments as a straight point/counter-point. Any objective reader can see that. If they cannot, then perhaps it is because they have allowed their emotions to obscure reality."
Okay. Let's narrow this down. Maybe I'm missing something. I maintain that you've misrepresented my arguments. Can you state precisely where you accurately restated any of my arguments?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
|
|
|
Pro-life Sarah
Moderator
653 Posts |
Posted - Jul 16 2009 : 1:32:58 PM
|
Some would consider there to be a war against abortion....and with the parallels to WWII...
Take Care and God Bless,
Sarah
Please say one Hail Mary a day for the intentions all forum members |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 17 2009 : 11:00:18 AM
|
I can see the parallels & wouldn't say that the comparison lacks validity. That said, I sure would like to find a direct, authoritive teaching on the specific subject. It seems that we may be left to sort this one out without one.
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
|
|
|
JRJ
Mary's Servant
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - Jul 17 2009 : 12:55:43 PM
|
I heard Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ on EWTN say something about this the other night. A viewer emailed a question about feeling glad that Dr. Tiller was dead. Part of Father's response was to say that, once you kill the "really bad sinners" who is to stop anyone from deciding those guilty of lesser sins are next? And I thought that Dr. Tiller did that - he decided, with the mothers, who should live and die and based on God's law we oppose that, therefore we cannot DO that. And the shooter did that.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
Chris R
Mary's Servant
USA
259 Posts |
Posted - Jul 17 2009 : 3:35:55 PM
|
There aren't any better sources than Fr Pacwa. Still, I think he took an unfortunate short cut on answering the question. If we assume that the shooter's intent was to save the lives of the unborn by killing Tiller, it isn't so simple as Father's answer suggests. If you've conveyed it accurately, Father suggests in his answer the the shooter's intent was less noble (that he was out to punish Tiller for sins past, rather than to rescue the babies that Tiller would have resumed killing come Monday morning).
Would Father have said the same thing if Tiller's victims (those that he had already killed AND the ones that he was going to kill) were thousands of 10 year-olds? Would you? Perhaps, but I cannot imagine that. This suggests to me that, given that abortion has become a norm in our society, even our best priests are desensitized to the horror of it.
Does anyone have thoughts on the potential application of CCC2306 yet?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding). |
|
|
|
JRJ
Mary's Servant
USA
136 Posts |
Posted - Jul 18 2009 : 11:36:57 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris R
There aren't any better sources than Fr Pacwa. Still, I think he took an unfortunate short cut on answering the question. If we assume that the shooter's intent was to save the lives of the unborn by killing Tiller, it isn't so simple as Father's answer suggests. If you've conveyed it accurately, Father suggests in his answer the the shooter's intent was less noble (that he was out to punish Tiller for sins past, rather than to rescue the babies that Tiller would have resumed killing come Monday morning).
Would Father have said the same thing if Tiller's victims (those that he had already killed AND the ones that he was going to kill) were thousands of 10 year-olds? Would you? Perhaps, but I cannot imagine that. This suggests to me that, given that abortion has become a norm in our society, even our best priests are desensitized to the horror of it.
Does anyone have thoughts on the potential application of CCC2306 yet?
Disclaimer: Unless otherwise precisely stated, the opinions/beliefs stated above do not necessarily reflect those of the author (who is prone to present arguments that are contrary to his own beliefs/opinions as a means to solicit replies that will help to clarify and strengthen his understanding of the teachings of the Holy Catholic Church, which he ernestly seeks to understand and continues to follow regardless of his understanding).
Okay - I'll give it a go. 2306 Those who renounce violence and bloodshed and, in order to safeguard human rights, make use of those means of defense available to the weakest, bear witness to evangelical charity, provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies. They bear legitimate witness to the gravity of the physical and moral risks of recourse to violence, with all its destruction and death. 104 For me, the key here is the qualifying phrase, "provided they do so without harming the rights and obligations of other men and societies." Dr. Tiller was not in the process of killing anyone when he was shot at very close range in his church. As I have pointed out before, IF Dr. Tiller had been about to abort a child and especially if that child had been the son or daughter of the shooter, that act would have been defense of life. To stalk someone to his church and endanger many other people by drawing a gun is not defense of others. It is murder. If we don't want Dr. Tiller and his like to go to the abortuaries and schedule and carry out the execution of babies each workday, then we don't want others to stalk the abortionists and murder them. The mindset is the same: someone has decided another human being must die.
Jennifer |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
George Tiller "the killer" Reaps
