« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Reason Asks, Why is Killing Abortionists Wrong? Because it is Un-Christian, That’s Why!

A tough question that needs some attention

By: Warner Todd Huston (Diary)  |  June 12th, 2009 at 06:37 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

On a recent Reason Magazine blog called “Hit and Run,” Jacob Sullum asks the tough question of why it’s wrong to kill an abortion doctor if the killer truly believes that abortion is murder? Why would Christian groups, Sullum wonders, denounce the murder of abortionist, George Tiller?

Sullum asks what might appear to be logical questions, but it also seems that he didn’t do much to research the issue before posing them. My cursory look at Christian ethics and the Bible, for instance, shows that there is no way in keeping with a Christian worldview to justify the killing of an abortion doctor by a lone actor outside the duly constituted law.

Still, Sullum asks some salient questions and offers some pointed remarks and they deserve to be addressed.

He begins with this:

Yet if you honestly believe abortion is the murder of helpless children, it’s hard to see why using deadly force against those who carry it out is immoral, especially since the government refuses to act.

Good question. He also wonders why it is wrong to kill an abortionist based on the “inherent morality of killing in defense of innocent children.” He then says following the law is no excuse as he recalls that the official, Jew hating law was inherently immoral in Nazi Germany. So he feels that it isn’t “sufficient to note that killing Tiller was against the law” based on the possibility that the law could be so morally in the wrong. Certainly a good point.

He finishes with the central question:

But how is it possible to believe that fetuses are people with a right to life yet also believe that using deadly force to defend that right is wrong?

Sullum’s questions based on what he sees as the possibly inherent morality of killing an abortionist came to him after seeing the unanimous agreement by Christian groups abhorring the Tiller murder and universally denouncing it.

Curious, I thought I’d take a look to see how a Christian viewpoint might be defined.

One of the most commonly cited Biblical passages that addresses man’s law and a Christian’s duties in connection to it is Romans 13:1-5.

Submission to the Authorities

Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

Also, in First Peter 2:13-17, we see a similar exhortation.

Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king, as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish men. Live as free men, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as servants of God. Show proper respect to everyone: Love the brotherhood of believers, fear God, honor the king.

The Bible seems to maintain that the law of man was not to be violated by its followers. In most cases man’s law was to be suffered and followed. God and Jesus meant to create a kingdom of heaven, not of the earth, so Christian rules and mores are not necessarily meant to overshadow man’s duly constituted authorities.

Further, there are several instances of capital punishment being imposed on criminals in the Bible and several places where the crimes that will bring such a penalty are listed. In Numbers 35:31, for instance, the Bible says: “… you shall take no ransom for the life of a murderer who is guilty of death, but he shall surely be put to death.” Clearly a murderer was meant to suffer death as punishment for his crime and no “ransom” could be made to absolve him of his actions.

On the other hand, perhaps evil laws are not to be followed by Christians and this brings us back to Sullum’s point that some laws can’t be followed as they are too evil. In Acts 5:29, for instance, the Apostles asserted that obeying God’s law “should” be more important: “Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.” So, there is some precedent to say that Christians might decide not to observe man’s laws.

But ignoring laws or not following them is different from implementing your own. There is nothing I can find where the Bible commands an individual Christian to serve as the punishing arm of the state or some vehicle for revenge. (Remember Romans 12:19 that says: “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: ‘It is mine to avenge; I will repay,’ says the Lord.”)

The final word here is that a Christian ethic posits that men are subject to man’s laws and willfully violating them is not a Christian thing to do — but for extreme cases, and then in a more passive manner than not. Additionally man’s duly constituted law is the sword of punishment and punishment should not be carried out by the individual going off on his own hook. Christians do not take the law into their own hands.

So, in answer to Jacob Sullum’s tough question, killing abortionists IS wrong. It is also quite in keeping with Christian practice to suffer under pro-abortion laws without taking the law into one’s own hands to end the life of a doctor committing abortions. The law says that abortion is legal, only the law may impose the sentence of death, and the individual is bound by those facts under a Christian worldview.

It is not an inherently contradictory position to say that abortion is murder yet to also not advocate the killing of abortion doctors. After all, does any citizen feel it is his personal duty to go kill a gang member than shot an innocent kid on the street or do we all imagine it is the duty of the police to arrest and the courts to convict such a killer? The death penalty is still supported even as individuals do not see it as their own, personal duty as to carry out the sentence.

Like the death penalty, abortion is in the hands of the law and a Christian’s duty is to abide by the law. Work to change it through peaceful means, yes, but abide by it nonetheless. So, the fact is, killing an abortion doctor is just as wrong as the abortionist’s actions of killing innocent babies. Regardless, though, is not an individual’s duty to punish the abortionist. That power resides in the state.

Tags:

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • CrabCakes

    I don’t see how you can say so based on the reasoning of this post.

    This is actually a discussion I’ve had with several pacifist friends, with all of them coming down slightly differently on the issue.

    • CrabCakes

      nt

      • Streiff

        If you want to comment on this post, feel free to do so, but we’re not really interested in indulging you on the rightness or wrongness of killing Hitler at some unspecified point in time.

        • CrabCakes

          Summary:

          Is it moral to kill one person to prevent the deaths of others?
          Answer:
          Yes, but that’s the state’s job.

          What if the state fails to do it’s job and sanctions the murder of innocents (classic example=Hitler), can an individual take the law into it’s own hands?
          Answer:
          (Most) Quakers: No, killing is always wrong.
          Bonhoeffer: Yes, its a moral duty to do so.

          It appears that WTH comes down on the side of the Quakers on the general issue based on his post. If you want to take the Hitler example out of the equation, which I only inserted because it’s an easy illustration of the problem, and only focus on the general question, that’s fine, though.

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            Streiff raised a good point that you completely ignored.

            Your question is useless without a complete set of circumstances. When do you propose to kill Hitler?

          • CrabCakes

            I’d say that once it is clear that killing Hitler will prevent the deaths of many more lives, then it would be one’s moral duty to do so.

            Likewise, if one believes that Tiller was committing murder in his clinic everyday, once it is clear that killing him will stop those murders (a supposition proven correct by the fact that his clinic is now closed), it becomes morally acceptable, and indeed mandatory, that one do so.

            I, and apparently the author of the Reason article, don’t see how one avoids this conclusion unless: 1) One sees killing both Hitler and Tiller as wrong or 2) one views killing the unborn as less morally heinous than killing the born.

          • Achance

            In Hitler’s case, he formally controlled all the agencies of the state and, had there been the desire in Germany to bring him to justice for his actions, there was no means to do so. Anyone who called for, say, Hitler being put in the dock for his waging agressive war or for his attempts to exterminate the Jews would have simply been brought to some basement room where they would have died of a 9mm brain hemorhage. Consequently, those whose conscience required that they act to stop him had only illegal means available to them.

            In Tiller’s case, there were legal means to try to bring him to justice or at least stop his practices. Even in the case of Tiller being protected by state authorities, there were still alternatives, e.g., defeat the protectors in the next election, bring charges in another jurisdiction, take direct but non-letal actions to thwart him, etc.

            Consequently, you pose a false either/or alternative because the situations can be distinguished on other grounds.

          • CrabCakes

            As you can see from my comment above, apparently posted at the same time as yours, I had been thinking in a similar direction.

            You put it a bit more eloquently than I, though.

          • CrabCakes

            Is this some kind of glitch?

          • Streiff

            I accidentally vaporized those comments, nothing wrong with either of the comments, just stupidity.

          • CrabCakes

            “I know I read a comment from Joliphant and commented to it. Joliphant isn’t just my imaginary conservative internet friend is he?!”

          • JSobieski

            In terms of disregarding the law, were the Founding Fathers truly left with no legal means to press their grievances?

            I find the juxtoposition of when civil disobedience is permitted to be quite interesting when you entertain both contexts.

            What if a large group of people sabotaged abortion clinics (cutting off power, water, etc)?

            Still outside the law, but not violent activities. Does the answer change?

          • Aaron Gardner
          • JSobieski

            How long were people in Parliament lobbied before the decision was made to declare independence?

            People have been trying to address Roe v Wade for 25 years, the Founders didn’t wait that long, and they weren’t being killed off by the English.

            My point in all of this is that the question of when someone properly decides to step outside the laws of their civilization is not easy to answer.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            that the fact that we have not had a revolution over the 49 million babies killed via abortion since 1973 is the best evidence of our barbarism and cowardice (I include myself) as a society. Imagine if 49 million 2, 12 or 22 yr olds had been murdered? We would have risen up.

            But when I say risen up, I mean against the government (5+ oligarchs and the executive that refuses to stand against them), not those that act under their protection (abortionists).

            It is not an easy question when, as MLK refrained

            How long? Not long?….

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            how they acted before they were poor serfs. They seized the moment.

          • Aaron Gardner

            The Founders showed quite a bit of restraint all things considered.

            You are correct that they seized the moment, but had they tried to do so a moment too soon we may have been left to the dust bin of history as a small uprising quickly squashed under the boot of the King.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            much more suffering and destitution

          • JHancock

            Kinda like how more than 50% of America doesn’t favor abortion unless it is for the life of the mother, but can’t do anything about it because.

            1)It is very difficult to get a Supreme court case overturned-to my knowledge it hasn’t happened since Brown vs. Board and

            2) Financial rather than ethical issues take precedence in politics so many of the anti-abortion crowd voted Democrat and

            3) Because of RVW we are prevented from actually holding a vote on what circumstances a woman can or can’t abort other than term limits and notification laws (which can be circumvented)

            4) Also remember that Hitler ruled by the will of the people and was very popular well into the extermination of the Jews so the will of the people does not constitute an ethical or moral mandate

            I think the logic and ethics behind the Tiller assassination were sound, but that the timing was off, violence isn’t warranted until the political process has been exhausted–which given Dem control of the country may happen soon, but hasn’t happened yet.

            Tillers killer, thus is like John Brown before the Civil War?he had the right idea but was a bit premature in his execution of his ideals?given another 10 years he would have been the perfect patriot.

          • Puritan

            ,,,and while I agree with those who oppose the killing of Tiller, I’m not sure I completely agree with their reasoning that brings them to that conclusion. Some things to consider:

            1) The premise of Sullum’s argument is questionable, in that it assumes that (a) the bringing of Tiller to justice and (b) the immorality of the act of abortion should take precedence over the desire of the pro-life cause to minimize the number of victims of the immoral acts in question. If the net result of killing Tiller results in more abortion victims, the act of killing Tiller then becomes immoral. One might argue that it is not possible to predict the net result, but that does not weaken the argument at all, and in fact strengthens it because it implies that one must carefully consider the consequences. If the consequences are in doubt, we lose the justification that we are saving lives.

            2) It’s not really clear that the killing of Tiller will really save all that many lives, if any. The fact that his clinic is now closed does not make a difference in a land where abortion is permitted by law. Those who would have sought abortions from him will most likely find another state-sanctioned killer to perform the deed. If this is in fact the case, the only justification left is the taking of revenge, which puts us at odds with Romans 12:19.

            3) On another level, given the current state of our culture and it’s lack of moral clarity, the killing of an abortionist actually is a detriment to the pro-life cause. If the intent is to save lives, the best way to accomplish this is through persuasion of the culture, not the taking of law into our own hands, which will only serve to harden the culture and make it more difficult to persuade them of the immorality of abortion.

            4) As to the Hitler question, I think the above points make the comparison irrelevant. I have not read Bonhoeffer’s argument, so I cannot comment on that. One would have to evaluate the merits of his argument on its own terms, and would, as in the abortion debate, need to take into account the circumstances of the times.

  • Streiff

    because unless the infanticide Tiller was caught in the act of trying to suck the brains out of an infant, killing him would be illegal in every state in the union even if abortion was considered murder.

    • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

      I agree, Streiff.

      • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

        Given a society under the rule of law, are there any *normal* people who seriously advocate a duty or license to kill abortionists?

        • leftylurker

          But there are relatively normal people who advocate threats, intimidation, and harassment. These things are by no means the same as actual violence, but they are in the same general spectrum, and they do create a climate where violence can form.

          I think this is an AMAZING post by Warner Todd Huston btw, I was going to say by WTH but that might have been taken wrongly. Well researched, and well read. I might also say you could add the Third Commandment to your list as well.

          What I mean by that is that to say you speak for God is very dangerous, and to kill a man you think is evil is to take God’s work into your own hands. I’m no theologian, so take that with a grain of salt, but it’s how I interpret that commandment

          • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

            When you said…

            “to say you speak for God”

            That is the prime reason I usually stay out of religious discussions. I just can’t see myself saying “God says” a whole lot. He doesn’t answer my emails directly, ya know?

            But, I thought that there was some basis for what I did find in the Bible.

            Additionally several of the RedState frontpagers helped me tighten this up, so I cannot take sole credit for this — though I thank you for the kind words.

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            They are politics as usual for certain people who follow the teachings of Marxist agitator Saul Alinsky. See the reaction to Prop 8 and Carrie Prejean. See the relentless demonization and harassment (including legal harassment) of Sarah Palin and her extended family. See the years of abuse against Ronald Reagan. See the abuse of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. See the smear that Nazis and classical liberals are “right wing”, when they don’t share any beliefs in common.

          • leftylurker

            Just because there are hateful individuals on the left doesn’t excuse them on the right.

            I agree with some of the things you say, but threats, intimidation, and harassment aren’t limited to the bad actors of any single party. I don’t want to have to pull up links, but you *know* I can, for people in both parties.

          • DONTREADONME

            really, seriously I want to see the murderous right wingers of the world. Sorry to say there Lefty, but the left has Stalin, Hitler, Monarchs, Military dictatorships, Hugo Chavez, Che, Castro, Pinochet, Mulahs of Iran, Saddam Hussein, basically all Communist Socialist dictators, theocracies, emperors, monarchs what have you. That is all people who believe they can dictate to the masses how to live is considered left, and there you go the lexicon is set. I do not know of very many anarchists (extreme far right) that ruled a country. That my friend is the difference between the right and the left.

          • leftylurker

            Pretty much everyone in politics is left wing, with maybe the exception of the anarchists who shut down WTO meetings.

          • DONTREADONME

            If my comment annoyed you for painting a picture of the left as bunch of crazy X-file conspiracy types bent on control through intimidation and death then you know how we feel when every news outlet even FNC (shep smith) did that same thing with the right yesterday. Make sure you understand this and make sure your lefty friends understand that as well, because from where I stand you may be the exception to the rule for your understanding of a whack job is a whack job.

          • leftylurker

            A lot of people I’ve met who are on the right are thoughtful, kind, wonderful people.

          • DONTREADONME

            don’t, but I figured you may have lib friends that may.

            I find what irritates me the most is listening to every news outlet paint this whack job as a right wing fanatic. Individual liberty and wanting American exceptualism does not allow for racism and hate.

          • leftylurker

            Is trying to hit the Republicans as hard as they can when they thing they’re down. This is the Chicago way, and while I think it’s kind of wrong and gross (I want 2 thriving parties in solid opposition), it’s what they’re up to.

            Thanks btw, for seeing that, despite my handle, I’m not a knee jerk jerk. =)

        • redstatebluestate123
        • JSobieski

          and instead are talking about the specific time at which an abortion is performed?

          Does that change the answer?

          • http://beaglescout.wordpress.com LJ “Beaglescout” Miller

            Good idea. Let’s arm children in the womb.

            OK, the problem is how to manage it.

          • JSobieski

            It is not “self” defense, but would still be a legitimate use of force.

            Talking about arming children in the womb is what people in law school call “fighting the hypo”

    • JSobieski

      Does that change the answer?

      I should also note that this country was founded by upstanding, educated men who did not submit to authority.

      Providing an answer to Reason magazine based on a biblical citation is not exactly persuasive—or at least cannot be thought persuasive by those one is arguably trying to persuade.

      A faithful Christian will and should go outside the boundaries of the law in certain circumstances while staying within the confines of an immoral law in other circumstances. Any objective reasoning would need to be based on weighing (1) the specific magnitude of the immorality represented by the “bad law” (this favors killing a well-known abortionist); (2) the specific magnitude of the corrective action (this favors not killing the abortionist, but also comes out against the taking of a life to save another); and (3) the overall value/moral justification of an orderly society (killing an abortionist in the US undermines law and order in the US, a place where there are political alternatives, and our nation on the whole does a good job preserving liberty—in contrast, a society that exists without such benefits would not be entitled to the same weight in terms of a just and orderly society).

      In summary, I like the post and think it is a good question—-I just don’t think the answer is the right approach for the target audience. I also think the quesion is more difficult that the answer suggests.

      Given the stated answer, was George Washington immoral for fighting against the English crown?

      • Streiff

        If I buy into the Reason article’s thesis then it would have been ok to kill OJ because he murdered two people and and wasn’t punished. Or I could kill someone belonging to MS13 or some other street gang because they would, arguably, kill or conspire to kill someone in the future. That put’s you in Death Wish territory which made for a pretty good Charles Bronson movie but really crappy public policy.

        The question posed by Reason is simply juvenile. Even if abortion were murder, the guy killing Tiller, or a policeman for that matter, would be wrong as deadly force under those circumstances would not be allowed in any state in the union. All Sellum is doing is setting up an argument where someone who is pro-life either agrees that killing Tiller was right or that we really don’t think abortion is murder.

        I don’t know your qualifications for pronouncing what constitutes as “faithful Christian” but vigilantism is not part of the Catholic tradition. Punishing men is a function of the civil authority and not liking the law doesn’t give you the right to violate one of God’s laws as revealed in the Decalogue.

        I struggled to catch the analogy between one man killing a doctor and the struggle of a people for independence and couldn’t grasp it.

        • JSobieski

          it gets to the heart of whether pro-lifers such as myself truly believe that the unborn fetus is an human being subject to legal protection.

          The person from Reason may or may not be asking the question in good faith, but that doesn’t mean the question is juvenile.

          If you really believe that an unborn baby is a human being, when would violence be justified? If your answer is “never”, then do you believe in the ability to take a life in certain circumstances in order to save another life?

          I agree that vigilantism is NOT part of Christianity. Nor is pacifism necessarily required by Christianity. Thus, the question is when is violence resulting in death permissible?

          This question can and should be asked both from a perspective of civil society as well as from a religious perspective.

          The person from Reason was NOT arguing that OJ could be killed on sight.

          • Streiff

            vigilantism is a valid action. Otherwise it is nothing more than mental onanism,

            It is a juvenile question because even in the case of real people recognized as such by the pro-abort crowd it is illegal to kill a person who is not in the act of trying to kill someone.

            If you are seriously discussing when violence outside the law is permissible the answer is pretty simple. Never. And the answer is the same from a legal and religious perspective.

            As a matter of site policy, if you want to advocate that there is another answer you probably should do it some other place.

            The person from Reason was making a patently dishonest argument that he could have solved very easily by substituting the name of any convicted murderer in the equation.

          • JSobieski

            not a license to hunt abortionists at will. You do not read carefully, which is why you find my follow-up discussion annoying. Note that my comment above refers to catching a person in the act of killing another. This makes the question far more interesting, yet you insist on beating up the straw man position.

            “vigilantism is a valid action. Otherwise it is nothing more than mental onanism,”

            RESP: I am talking about catching someone IN THE ACT of killing another, please re-read my comment above

            “It is a juvenile question because even in the case of real people recognized as such by the pro-abort crowd it is illegal to kill a person who is not in the act of trying to kill someone.”

            RESP: You are denying the hypothetical scenario where the abortion is in progress, i.e. the person is in the act of killing another. Again, please re-read my prior comment.

            “If you are seriously discussing when violence outside the law is permissible the answer is pretty simple. Never. And the answer is the same from a legal and religious perspective.”

            RESP: It is not necessarily illegal to use deadly force so save the life of another if their murder is in progress.

            “As a matter of site policy, if you want to advocate that there is another answer you probably should do it some other place.”

            RESP: We are talking about the deadly use of force when someone is IN THE ACT of killing another human being. There is nothing improper about the discussion.

            “The person from Reason was making a patently dishonest argument that he could have solved very easily by substituting the name of any convicted murderer in the equation.”

            RESP: My modification of the question is what makes it interesting. If you caught OJ in the act of killing your neighbor, you could use deadly force against him. What if you saw an abortion in progress?

        • JSobieski

          OJ most certainly could have been killed while he was in the act of committing his murders.

          So, point by point?

          • Streiff

            OJ is at church

            I actually address the “in the act” aspect, which doesn’t apply to Tiller, about 3 times in this thread.

          • JSobieski

            what I am saying is that the question posed in Reason is more challenging when it is an “in the act” scenario.

          • Achance

            Some states only allow civilian use of deadly force to protect your own life and, usually, the life of those on your property if subjected to the credible threat of deadly force.

            In any state, you’d best have a damned good lawyer, money, and friends if you shoot someone in the commission of a crime not against you.

          • JSobieski

            There are states that limit the use of deadly force when you are not the victim, and in all states (even Texas), there needs to be a credible threat to justify deadly force even when you are the victim and its own your property, but if I shoot someone in Vermont who is about to kill a child, I suspect the worst charge I am going to face is manslaughter.

            Your last sentence is nonetheless true—with regards to any serious criminal trial.

  • ciscoguy

    I was excoriated on here in the immediate aftermath because I didn’t wholeheartedly agree that this act was 100% unjust. Sure, in a legal sense, this murder is the same as any other murder, but that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. Whatever your feelings about abortion, this guy routinely destroyed late-term babies who, had he just delivered early, probably would be walking around today. I’m sorry – I have no sympathy for Tiller.

    This article doesn’t make much sense to me. On the one hand, it acknowledges the righteousness in overthrowing tyrannic authority, such as Nazi Germany, yet cites some Bible passages indicating that submission to authority is the Christian thing to do. So, was it now immoral for us to revolt against the authority of the British Crown over petty things such as taxes? It also tries to make some distinction between disobeying the law and creating your own laws when none exists.

    I don’t agree that this killing was necessarily rooted in “revenge” – maybe it was, but we’ll see when this comes to trial. For all we know, the killer took no delight in killing Tiller but only did it to prevent further loss of life. “As I live, saith the Lord God, I desire not the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way, and live” – Ezekiel 33:11

    I think history will ultimately tell the narrative for this story – if this was an ideological act of gratuitous violence, as it is widely regarded now, or if this served as a wake up call for an introspective look at the incongruity between morality and our current laws.

    • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

      I suppose one might be able to make a strictly logical justification for killing an abortion doctor. But, I was trying to stick to a religious reason, really.

      • ciscoguy

        It may well be that God holds any killings outside of the “Just War” theory in contempt, but I don’t think God is an absolutist about circumstances in which one kills (and thus the very reason the “Just War” theory exists).

        I think there is a lot of pressure from the pro-abortion left to equate this killing to any other killing, as a way to force pit pro-lifers against our principles and legitimize their baby-killing practices. Anything less than full-acceptance of this is an excuse to be be labeled an amoral radical and charlatan. While most of us could not bring ourselves to kill another human being, we know that motivations and circumstances do matter, if not to the laws of men but the laws of God.

        I do not know how God will handle Roeder when he is judged, and I personally don’t think he will damned for it because the Bible says to submit to legal authority, irrespective of situation and circumstance. Did he kill out of malice or was he was reluctantly prepared to sacrifice his freedom so that others may live and be free? In a legal sense, this doesn’t matter, but in a moral sense, it makes all the difference.

        I think it is this issue that poses such a dilemma to serious Christians and moral thinkers, alike. It is certainly not the same as killing someone out of sheer rage or over worldly possessions, no matter what the pro-abortion movement says.

        • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

          and I have been having mixed feelings over the reactions to this shooting. To put it bluntly, I don’t think what Roeder did was all that wrong.

          Let me use an analogy. A man walks into a grocery store and starts taking aim and shooting various customers. Another man in the store has a concealed carry permit and a loaded Glock. He is not law enforcement, but he is an armed citizen with the power to stop what is happening. What should he do?

          Tiller killed innocent children every day. He did not hide or deny this fact. He openly admitted this heinous, evil lifestyle. At the same time, the state was not doing anything to stop this continuous infanticide. Roeder stepped in and acted. As a result that “clinic” (death factory) is now closed. Why is what Roeder did so wrong?

        • cwilson

          The Bible does not actually say that “killing” is wrong. It says that murder is wrong, if you look at the original Aramaic. Now we get to argue about the difference between those two words…

          • ciscoguy

            The laws of man are more clearly defined to create order in society (and thus the reason Roeder will face jail or worse). Overlooking Roeder’s breech of law for what are morally just reasons leads us down a path to anarchy. As a society, we can only hope to align our laws with what we believe our moral ideals to be, but those ideals always seem to be at war with the human instinct to legalize and legitimize what we WANT, but is not necessarily right or just.

            I do believe our Creator looks at everything, and I also believe that many of our moral classifications for the manner in which death is administered fall in line with American jurisprudence. However, I don’t think God looks at those classifiers in black & white, as our laws must. Therefore, I don’t think God much cares for the language we use to describe the circumstances surrounding the termination of Tiller so much as the moral circumstances by which He governs, which may or may not be reflected in our laws.

            I think most of us would agree the right to an abortion, let alone a late-term abortion, in which we know that nascent human life is usually sustainable on its own if simply delivered instead of destroyed, is inconsistent with basic moral principles yet legally permissible. Therefore, we can arrive at the correct conclusion that Tiller routinely terminated viable, defenseless human life, which, morally speaking, amounts to murder. Murdering Tiller to prevent further legalized murder does not hold water in a human court of law but may well stand up before the eyes of God. It’s certainly a moral question worth evaluating.

    • leppard

      similar to you..

      Of course I get emotional about this issue and reading the arguments above makes my head spin. =D

  • JSobieski

    So while the post is well written, it is not fully satisfying in terms of the supported conclusion.

  • penguin2

    what does a nation do as a group? I’m thinking specifically of genocide in Rwanda, Cambodia, Kosovo, and of course Iraq. Sometimes we intervened, sometimes not. We’ve used our conscience as a nation to step in (for which I’m glad), but are we justified? I guess uptread the Quakers caught my eye and they do not justify violence for any reason, even that sanctioned by the state.

    The article and analysis explains why an individual should not act, because murder is murder, no matter who does it. But I am trying to understand how to justify group/nation interventions when it is the humanitarian thing to do. Don’t get me wrong, I want and believe we should intervene, but what consistent argument can be given to those that turn a blind eye to horrific evil.

    I also believe that if the media did not cover up the atrocities of abortion, our nation would not be turning a blind eye.

    • http://www.publiusforum.com Warner Todd Huston

      And one I’d have to think about. I have no glib answer.

    • Jack_Savage

      There are a few Anabaptist denominations that are pure pacifists and denounce violence for any reason.

      I would think that one of the first justifications for group intervention would be self-preservation / self-defense. That was part of the basis for the pre-emptive war doctrine of Bush and the reason for the intervention in Iraq. Awful as the genocide in Rwanda was, there was no threat to America. Intervening to prevent people from killing each other or to prevent a majority group from killing a minority group is where it gets dicey.

      Perhaps there should be a consideration for proximity – if the killing is in your country, intervene. If it is in a neighboring country, maybe. If it is 5000 miles away, well…

      We’ll have to ponder that one. After self-defense, I am not sure where the line should be drawn.

      • penguin2

        Putting geography into the equation adds even more to the weight of the question, or should I say to the answer. Self-defense is a strong position to start from, and one could interpret close proximity i.e. “neighboring country” into the self-defense argument. Geographical distance is where our conscience as a Judeo-Christian nation would allow us to step in.

        Interestingly, the abortion issue in this country could be thought about in the same way. People are desensitized to it by a psychological distance as well as not in close proximity. The desensitizing has occurred over several decades, propelled on by a decaying culture. The easy acceptance by society of divorce, out of wedlock births, free and irresponsible sexual behavior are all part of the desensitization to moral constraints. This is turn has enabled an erosion of the value of human life. IMO, this intangible variable, is what allows the depth and scope of abortion to continue.

    • http://www.evanweeks.com EvanWeeks

      …of a moral dilemma facing Christians for millenia. See St Augustine’s treatise on “Just War” and the debate that has raged since. To summarize, there are two parts of a Just War, those being the Jus ad bellum or “Justice to War”, IE the right to go to war, and Jus in bello, or “Justice in War”, IE the righteous conduct OF war.

      But rare have been the wars in human history that meet all of Augustine’s criteria for the justification of war. Look it up and read, it’s heavy stuff.

  • http://www.evanweeks.com EvanWeeks

    http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=3909

    Al Mohler is the President of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, KY, and a very insightful theologian and political commentator, so far as it applies to the Christian viewpoint. This article is actually his response to the murder of Dr Tiller. For more background, read Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s Letters And Papers From Prison, the closest thing we have to an autobiographical account of his moral reasoning in choosing to oppose Hitler with violence.

    http://www.amazon.com/Letters-Papers-Prison-Dietrich-Bonhoeffer/dp/0684838273

  • warweaver

    Abortion is wrong because it destroys a conceived human life.

    Killing an abortion doctor is wrong because it destroys a conceived human life.

    Why do people feel the need to resort to Old Testament Law to articulate the basis for why something self-evident, like killing a human being, is wrong?

    Jesus brought a new law – in that sense, anything violent vis a vis another human being is wrong and therefore, Un-Christian.

    But what about war? Would we say that war is Un-Christian?

    I am unaware that Jesus forbad us from killing even when necessary to avoid being killed.

    I dont know. At any rate – the Old Testament is replete with law that permits killing. Is the Old Testament Christian? Is the old law Un-Christian? Jesus said that much of it was . . . if it isn’t, then what is the basis for saying that killing an abortion doctor is Un-Christian in the first place? The argument can easily be made that killing an abortion doctor is killing in order to prevent a murder – which is justifiable in the Old Testament, and every other source of law known to man.

    I’m legitimately confused. Someone help me out here. I mean, if killing an abortion doctor is only wrong because it is Un-Christian, than is any form of killing not Un-Christian?

    • Aaron Gardner

      and as far as murder vs. killing in war see my comment below.

    • Lammo

      is wrong because, sadly, abortion is permitted in this country. Another poster wondered if it would be legitimate defense of others to shoot and kill an imminent daycare bomber. Assuming you are justified under the standard use of force continuum, killing the daycare bomber would be legitimate defense of others because bombing daycares is not permitted in this country.

      Killing another in self-defense and in defense of others are recognized as forms of justifiable homicide. In order to qualify, the “killer” has to make sure the one that is killed is actually engaged in unlawful conduct that presents an immediate threat to the life of the killer or another innocent person. Clearly the abortion doctor on his way to work present and immediate threat to the life of an innocent person (probably several innocents on any given day). Unfortunately, the abortion doctor at this time is not engage in unlawful conduct so killing him is not legitimate defense of others.

      My apologies if all of that sounds like a lawyer’s answer – - I can’t help it.

      P.S. – - make no mistake – - I absolutely believe that abortion is murder, that is, the unjustified killing of innocent persons. My comment here is to try to clarify the legal concepts. If you are still confused, my work here is done. :-)

      • Streiff

        of deadly force.

        For instance, you confront an armed burglar and tell him to “drop it”. Instead of dropping it, he turns and runs. If you shoot him, it is going to be nearly impossible to get a justifiable homicide verdict, outside jury nullification, because the guy was running.

        Whacking an abortionist on the way to work, even if abortion was considered murder, wouldn’t pass the test. In the operating room, after you told him to stop, yes. Driving to work or at church? Even a cop would have a hard time getting a sympathetic hearing for that.

        • Lammo

          I don’t disagree with you. First off, all generalizations are false. We can add and subtract facts and tweak scenarios all day and come up with different results every time but I’ll try to clarify (how’s that for a lawyer’s answer?).

          The burglar running away is no longer engaging in conduct that presents an immediate threat. If you shoot and kill him I don’t think you will be able to show that the killing was justified, especially if you shoot him in the back.

          Sadly, as the law stands today, you cannot even “whack” the abortion doctor in the O.R.. The distinction, which I believe is wrong, is that his conduct is not unlawful. If we someday succeed in making abortion unlawful, then I agree with your points on the sliding scale: on the way to work or at church, no; in the O.R., yes.

  • Aaron Gardner

    You use murder and killing interchangeably when in reality they are not the same thing.

    The 5th or 6th Commandment, depending how you order them, uses the term murder. This implies offensive use, whereas kill is the defensive use.

    Roeder was the offender here so he committed murder.

    To use a self-defense defense Roeder would have had to be in danger of loosing life or limb.

    Funny how American laws line up so nicely with Biblical law when we use the right words in the right context.

    • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

      he was acting in defense of those who were in danger and did not have the means to defend themselves. In that way, Roeder’s actions were justified. Had he not acted in the way he did, Tiller would still be killing the unborn daily.

      In other words, he was not acting in self defense, but in the defense of others.

      • Aaron Gardner

        you also have to take intent into account when you judge the difference between murder and killing. Roeder did not want Tiller to surrender, he just wanted him dead for his own purposes.

      • Amy Miller

        This Roeder gunned down a man in the street, in cold blood. Not trying to be a complete bore here, but acting out “The Boondock Saints” on a random weekday is no way to go through life, even if the person you’re taking out is a complete bane on society.

        I think it’s risky business to go down the “in that way, so-and-so’s actions were justified” road, because in so many other ways, what he did was absolutely reprehensible.

  • MNConservative

    Consider the following scenario:

    You get wind of someone planning to bomb a daycare. You try to call the police, but your cell phone is dead. You rush to the scene to try to stop the bomber. As you arrive on the scene, you see the crazed bomber pulling the pin on a grende, and you instinctively pull out your concealed Glock. But once your sights are lined up on the fellow about to throw the grenade, you begin to wonder whether killing in defence of innocents is justified. You decide not to shoot, and the bombing happens. How moral was your decision?

    An abortionist on his way to work is a person on his way to kill babies.

    • Aaron Gardner

      you have to work within the law…once you cross over you become a tool of the left used to beat up those of us who do work within the law…even if sometimes at the very margins.

      • Amy Miller

        I know things are pretty bad for conservatives right now. The party is, at this point, a dead stick. Lefties are in control, and there’s nothing official we can do about it except fight…constructively. Gunning people down is not constructive.

        We can’t (CANNOT CANNOT CANNOT CANNOT EVER) descend into anarchy just because we’re frustrated with “working within the law,” as Aaron said. This would not only be irresponsible, but really, really, REALLY glaringly stupid. Advocating this type of vigilantism will shoot our credibility to hell, and we’ll be the only ones to blame for it.

        • Achance

          in charge of the federal government. We Republicans still control about half the states. If we too hadn’t either conscously or unconsciously bought into the Lefties thinking that everything emanates from DC, we would tend our own vegetables back in our states and in many cases could simply say: Comrade Obama has issued his edict, now let him enforce it. We could also make live all Hell for Democrats and Democrat fronts and operatives in our states. But, we are still in thrall to a leadership that only cares how it is viewed in NYC, DC, and LA.

          I just practically face-planted myself into this with my recent sojourn back into electoral politics. Somehow I thought that after a nasty, expensive campaign with all the Democrat front groups and unions united behind the Democrat, the Rotary Club Republicans might be able to figure out that these people were not their friends. Instead, I quickly became the villian because I was being divisive and was threatening the good relations with the people who had just tried to move both Heaven and earth to defeat them – and very nearly succeeded. I’m pretty close to concluding that opposition is futile because the people who should be leading the opposition so desperately want to be loved by the enemy. It leaves me longing for a cabin in the woods where I can quietly live out my days and hope the government doesn’t come for me.

          • Amy Miller

            When I say “lefties” I mean the Left in general. Federal gov’t, overall “popular” sentiment (what they TOUT as popular sentiment anyway), the media, etc. It’s why I said we need to fight constructively; any helpful opposition is going to come from what is now being branded as the “far right”: people like us who will not lower ourselves to the butt kissing and kow towing of the “moderate Republicans” who think they can win by ingratiating themselves to the slime on the Left. This is why I said we need to be constructive–advocating the slaughter of abortion doctors is not helping.

            You’re right…we have all these states we’re in control of, and nothing to show for them. It’s really appalling, but I’m willing to, like you, be a divisive, threatening villain if that’s what it takes to get our point across.

        • steelstand

          This is a Bipartisan catastrophe, our politicians have sold us out. Purposely bankrupting the U.S. is TREASON. We need to be mad at the people that caused this , Obama, Pelosi, and Reid and YOUR CONGRESSMAN ! Power corrupts ! They are bought and paid for ! Diversion is their tool of choice, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Abortion, Big Business, Race, Party, whatever, divide us into groups, pitting one against another. Obama and Congress have sent BILLIONS to ACORN. People from within ACORN are telling the truth how the thugs took over the organization and how money is being funneled to Progressive agenda’s. No wonder Congress and Obama are trying to use the FCC to silence the opposition . Congress woman Michele Bachmann wanted to stop the transfer of funds to ACORN until an investigation is done but Barney Frank has blocked her efforts. The same B.Frank that should have been investigated for corruption, ACORN has been found guilty of fraud and other crimes in at least 14 states but is still eligible for Government funds ! Our Government is in the process of taking away our freedoms and destroying the Constitution, That?s what your should be made about !

          • http://impudent.blognation.us/blog kyle8

            Sometimes I know all too well it looks like things are going to hell in a handbasket and, well, they are. BUT, I was very, very, frightened that this bunch in Washington would do like Bill Clinton, and triangulate, thus staying in power forever.

            But they are not, Obama is rushing to the far left at full speed, and this will be their undoing. He is going too far, too fast, and soon the economy will really tank. (I am not hoping for it, but I don’t need to hope, it is going to happen, there is no doubt).

            That is when we have to state our case and offer a real fiscal conservative message. This is what we need to concentrate on now, fiscal conservatism, sound money, an end to corporate handouts. This is what will sell, But in order to believable we cannot back liberal losers like Crist.

          • steelstand

            The Cornyn response was predictable on Crist. It seems he?d rather support a shoe-in RINO than a true Conservative who may have to battle to get elected. That?s whats WRONG with the party leadership. there is no reason why Rubio couldn?t win , he?s a good man with more courage and intestinal fortitude that the GOP leadership. We don?t need another Mel Martinez! Charlie Crist couldn?t make the tough decisions as Governor because he was more worried about his political career then doing what was best for the state. He will do whatever he needs to do to advance his political career if he gets to DC. That includes being in the pocket of the Democrats when needed ! The GOP leadership should be weeding out RINO?s, not helping them get elected. They just don?t get it !

        • JSobieski

          nt

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            that acted under color of the unjust laws made by the government. Some times a revolution is justified. I believe ours was and given the many years since 5 oligarchs seized control of this issue and the 49 million dead because we haven’t changed the law or had executives and congressmen willing to uphold the actual organic law of the Constitution (i.e. defy the 5 oligarchs), then I do think a revolution against the government would be justified, but that we haven’t taken more bold action shows to me how far we have descended into barbarism and cowardice

            including me.

            But the revolution would be against the government that empowers the abortionists, not the abortionists themselves by acts of murder.

          • JSobieski

            were themselves elected representatives of the people, and not a small cell of rebels also factors into the equation.

            What I find a bit disappointing is how many people are willing to say the law must be followed, not matter what is going on. At some point, I think there is a moral imperative to disregard an unjust social order. It is the lesson of Washington, Jefferson, et al.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Amy Miller

            between justified social action and murder. Gunning someone down is not the next logical step, I’m sorry.

          • JSobieski

            Surely you aren’t saying all you have to do is call it a war to make killing ok?

            Surely you aren’t saying that if the laws of nation require the killing of a large percentage of the population, that you are not allowed to use deadly force in opposition?

            There is a thin line, but it is good to think about that hypothetical line from time to time.

          • Amy Miller

            Good grief.

            ~holds head in hands~

          • Amy Miller

            Good grief.

            ~holds head in hands~

            There is a difference between the Revolutionary War, and the war on abortion. God will take care of these abortionist sleazebags so I don’t have to.

          • Amy Miller

            Internet FAIL.

          • JSobieski

            My point is simply that question of when law and order merits allegiance vs. when revolution is justified or even mandatory is not as simple as you and others have argued here.

            As a free people bound by a Constitution, it is important to take a step back and think about these broader questions from time to time. The article is a great opportunity for self-examination, a traint which is not found in liberals.

            Do we think that the unborn MAY be human beings and are pro-life as a result of risk balancing assessment (better to give rights where none exist than to be complicit in genocide)?

            Or are we convinced that the unborn are human beings subject to constitutional protection, and there is not doubt?

            If we are convinced that abortion is murder, then would we react the same way as we have to Roe v Wade (non-violent response) to a future court decision that says baby’s as old as 2 years old could be killed by their parents?

            If we would respond differently to the situation above, why?

            If we would not respond differently to the situation above, what would it take to make another proud and loyal citizen of the US to decide that the US was no longer worthy of their loyalty?

            What would it take to inspire you to behave as our Founders did, and decide that starting a new country was your only option? How far with the country have to go before you made that decision?

            Thats all I am getting at. These are the questions that every free person should ask themselves from time to time.

          • Aaron Gardner

            once that possibility is gone and the State is independent of its citizens then we have the right to form a new gov’t made up in ways we see fit.

            The argument you want to have was made in the DoI. That is the standard for revolution in that age, now adapt the circumstances to today’s age and there you have it.

            I would also think about how long it took to get from Disgruntled Colonial Subject to Revolutionary.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            redress the grievances of 49 million dead two year olds, a revolution would not be justified?

            The substantive merits matter as well as the representative procedures, although certainly the bar for revolution is higher now than under despotic rule.

            The fact is that even self governing we the peoples can lose our way in such a way as to be ripe for a just revolution.

            I think the slaughter of 1-9 month olds since 1973 would be moral justification for a revolution, especially considering the efforts to correct the matter w/i the system. It is barbarism.

            The inside the womb pictures have begun to shame more and more into admitting what we have always known about ourselves.

            I think ‘ski’s 2-yr old analogy illustrates the point quite well.

            The reason we see a difference in the 1-9 mths in the womb vs 2 yr olds is a function of the Pandora’s box barbarism we have embraced, not any moral distinction.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Seriously, we have prisons full of murderers. Heck, Chicago is more dangerous than Baghdad. Why don’t we have a revolution over that?

            I would guess that the reason we don’t revolt is because it’s not the government doing those things to us…it’s US!!

          • Menlo

            The murderers in prison didn’t have their murders specially sanctioned and protected by the marshals.

          • Aaron Gardner

            But my point is that you don’t jumped to violent revolution when you still have the State gov’ts to work within, and a center right SCOTUS, and generally free and fair elections.

            To make the jump, at this point, is to do so out of desperation rather than reason.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            The Court unconstitutionally sanctioned the killing of the politically powerless in 1973 and murders of the born are illegal in Chicago. Not seeing your “logic”.

            The reason we haven’t revolted since 1973 is because we and our leaders are barbaric cowards. Surely the moral justification for 49 million dead after 26 years is greater than the Stamp Act, even given the representation mitigation.

          • Lammo

            In a way, the government is doing it to us – - Chicago gun ban prevents the innocent from fighting back.

          • Menlo

            The problem is that it is not right to let majority opinion dictate the rights of those who have no say. Besides, nothing has changed public opinion in 35 years; it’s not going to change.

            Government action in this case is warranted in defiance of the voting majority, especially given the constitutional mandate for “equal protection.”

          • Aaron Gardner

            What gov’t action are you wanting to take place? What voting majority are you talking about?

          • Menlo

            The executive branch (law enforcement) should shut down the abortionists, whether or not the voters support it and whether or not a court or any other public official, state or federal, issues orders to the contrary. Actually, the legislative and judicial branches should be ordering such action.

            While such an action may be justifiably initiated at the state or federal level, equal protection is ultimately not a “states’ rights” issue, nor is it subject to popular opinion. Federal marshals should be shutting down abortionists, not protecting them!

            Though violent action would certainly not be warranted, defiance of the conventional rules, methods, and procedures of the legal system among public officials (already tried and failed the past three decades) is. Roe and subsequent rulings were illegal and unconstitutional and deserve no legitimacy by those charged with enforcing the Constitution.

          • Aaron Gardner

            or endorsement of Roeder’s ilk.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            and yes, I would be fine with a President (see my sig line) that would defy the court and enforce the 14th Amendment’s Due process clause that requires a jury trial before killing someone. But that none has for 36 years is why revolution is justified.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Aaron Gardner

            So you can pretty much stick that question back in the crevice in which you found it.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            grounds for revolution, I am just trying to find out via analogies and extreme examples, although given the 49 million already dead that doesn’t seem to move you given that their death grievances could still be “re-dressed” so long as we have the right to vote, it appears that the Aaron Gardner rule is that a representative democracy could legalize the murders of all but the 545 persons required to occupy elected offices, and no revolution should morally obtain until less than a quorum of House and Senate members have survived the slaughter.

            And in what crevice of your personage does revolution calculus form that does not consider the numbers of the unjustly killed with the license of government?

            Just not following your logic my brother, which seems to be mass slaughter with representation is ok.

          • Aaron Gardner

            I said my view on revolution isn’t dependent on numbers of dead, not that they shouldn’t be considered.

            I have been consistent so I am not sure why you are confused.

            You work within the law, as long as that is an option available. If that option gets cut off by overreaching politicians who wish to usurp control of gov’t from the people, well then I will go weapons free.

            We aren’t there yet, and when we get there you won’t have to question if we are there….it will be self evident.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            and divert attention from the substance of the matter by attacking nits in the comments of others, why not state with more detail the circumstances under which you would deem a revolution morally justified (not necessarily whether you would support one, but simply if it would be morally justified).

            But maybe you have answered it with the simple phrases of:

            “You work within the law, as long as that is an option available. If that option gets cut off by overreaching politicians who wish to usurp control of gov?t from the people, well then I will go weapons free.

            We aren?t there yet, and when we get there you won?t have to question if we are there?.it will be self evident.”

            If so, then what is self evident to you certainly isn’t to me, and so there not to “we”. Based on the above, it appears that your unstated answer to my questions re the examples I gave that seemed self evident to me, is that NO, you would not deem a revolution morally justified if “working within the law” is an available option “not cut off” by overreaching politicians.”

            Mass slaughter, so long as done within your parameters above could abound indefinently. Neither the egregiousness of the moral crime nor its prolific exercise would enter into Aa’s calculus.

            Thomas Jefferson’s trees of Liberty would not get watered in your Garden-er!

            smile

          • Aaron Gardner

            If you get right down to it one life lost should be enough moral grounds to do it if I follow your logic.

            So lets just say that I am somewhere between 1 and infinity and will gladly play Paul Revere for you when I reach my limit to working within the law.

            As a side note, this is not the type of discussion we should encourage in the public…sorry but those are my true feelings. I may be a revolutionary at some point in the future, but you won’t see me proclaiming such on RedState….you would simply wonder why I haven’t posted in such a long time.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • http://www.ssce.net/Web-Articles/Web-articles-indexed-authors.html#authors-l JLenardDetroit

            RedState may became very desolit, as we’ll all be very busy elsewhere I would predict/presume.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            Revolutions are called revolutions because they are rare. Uprisings falling short of revolutions are less rare, but also rare.

            The American revolution is the greatest political revolution, by far, and it took 5000 years for it to occur.

            But history is filled with morally acceptable circumstances that would have justified revolutions that were not acted upon.

            So, when you say it will be self-evident, I think you are 180 degrees out of phase. Our own revolution was only self evident to about 30% of the populace at most.

            more later

          • furious

            Listen to Admiral Akhbar.

            …when I said “I smell a trap…

            …not only are “Christians”, upon further reflection, ok with murdering abortionists, they’d also suborn violent overthrow of the government, as well. Add them to Sec’y “Blame-Canada” Napolitano’s list.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            not the licensees

            and the first shot would be fired by the government

            first steps would be civil disobedience and then forced closure of clinics

            Furious, if we let the Left decide what is acceptable intellectual discussion, then all we would be allowed to say without being “trapped” would be, after the left says states their positions, we could say

            ditto

          • Amy Miller

            In that comment, you VERY NEARLY accused me of being a frosty, waffling squish on abortion, before questioning my love for and dedication to America. I’m not having it.

            Yes, you are done. Go away now.

          • Amy Miller

            :o )

          • mbecker908

            Franklin, etal.

            They weren’t arrested, tried and hung simply because they won.

          • Achance
          • JSobieski

            the argument that the difference between heroic freedom fightors vs. criminality is simply the difference between victory and defeat is the kind of thing one hears from Marxists, Socialists, and Facists.

            The reasons why people do things matters.

            With the Founding Fathers, we have the ability to see what kind society they inteded to create because we can look back at history. When a revolution is in progress, people do not have the same ability to see all of the ramifications of their revolution. However, following Washington in can be easily distinguished on moral grounds from following Castro. These distinctions could be made even when victory or even survivial was certain for neither individual.

            Thus, victory is not the end all and be all of criminality from a moral perspective (it is the end all be all with respect to the more mundane legal question)

          • Achance

            And I really don’t appreciate you comparing me to “…Marxists, Socialists, and Fascists.” Had Washington, Adams, Jefferson et al. lost, they would be little more than footnotes in history. A few people might get all dewy-eyed about what might have been and remember them the way some Southerners remember Lee, et al.

            And there’s just as good an argument that many of the Founders’ ambitions were much less than noble. Hancock’s family owned the biggest docks and warehouses in Boston and were widely believed to be among the foremost smugglers and tax evaders in the Colonies. Washington and many others in the Colonies had extensive interests west of the Appalachians and had been cut off from their interests by the English agreements with France and her Indian allies. Pursuing economic and land interests west of the Appalachians greatly motivated many Colonists’ resistance to England.

          • JSobieski

            as in “only” or “sole”—otherwise, we have no argument.

            Victory for the Founders, without the other stuff, would still left them as basically footnotes in history.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine
          • Amy Miller

            …I see you moved on from calling me an unpatriotic squish, and instead are now likening others to “Marxists, Socialists, and Fascists.”

            Cute how you cannot manage to make a comment without insulting a RedStater in the process It says a lot.

          • http://theminorityreportblog.com David Hinz

            they did not murder innocents.

            They engaged in rebellion against the Crown — a criminal undertaking in the eyes of the Crown — but they fought soldiers — they did not indiscriminately murder children of soldiers.

            Granted, that still made them “criminals” to the British…

      • MNConservative

        But the point of my comment was morality, not legality.

    • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

      I was right about to write a nice long-winded reply to Amy above. but you made my point much better, and more succinctly than I could have. Thank you. I especially like your last line:

      “An abortionist on his way to work is a person on his way to kill babies.”

      Do you mind if I add that to my signature line?

      • Aaron Gardner
        • Amy Miller

          …and more 555555′s.

      • MNConservative

        Thanks for your kind words.

    • Puritan

      Unfortunately there is no scenario that is exactly the same as the abortion issue. If you drop the bomber, you will have saved the lives of innocents. Killing the abortionist at best delays the killing of innocents, and more than likely will be detrimental to overall goal of protecting the unborn. Please see my other post above to see these points more fully fleshed out.

      • MNConservative

        While not *exactly* the same thing, the two situations are exactly morally analogous.

    • Streiff

      The actual story would be “you get wind of someone planning to bomb a day care. You try to call the police, etc. etc. So you track him down and kill him at church.

      I, for one, am glad Tiller is dead. He was a blight on the medical profession and psychopathic killer. You can’t read his own description of the late term abortion process and his menu of “funeral” services he provided the “mother” and not know the man loved his work.

      Having said that, we live in a society where vigilantism is frowned upon. Simply disagreeing with the law does on justify or make moral acting in a manner that results in the taking of life.

      • MNConservative

        While the “euthanizing” of Tiller is on everyone’s mind right now, there have been other cases. Take for example the late Paul Hill, who laid down his own life to save the lives of unborn babies (of people he didn’t even know). That was the actual case I had in mind when I was writing the analogy. There is a *slight* difference between dropping the killers on their way to work, and dropping them in church, in that the latter smacks of retribution rather than a last ditch defence of innocents. Vengance is mine sayeth the Lord, but when it comes to protecting human life, that’s our job.

    • http://www.evanweeks.com EvanWeeks

      Regardless of whether the two may be morally equivalent.

      So, in this case, I like to think I’d drop the bomber. I am morally and legally (in most states) justified in doing so. The fact is, we have not yet exhausted the political means for discouraging and/or outright criminalizing Abortion, and until we face systematic, widespread murder of unborn children with no political recourse to condemn it and effect change, violence simply isn’t justified. To quote Al Mohler, this isn’t Nazi Germany, and Tiller’s murderer is no Bonhoeffer.

      • MNConservative
    • E Pluribus Unum

      Law probably varies state to state, but shooting a person who is holding a grenade, finger in pin-ring, in a populated place is not considered murder, anywhere I’m aware of. Could not quote you chapter and verse.

      Although in all 50 states, if you are not licensed to carry, you will pay big-time for that. But not on a murder rap.

  • unfatmatt

    If a five year old is standing on the street corner and is about to be shot, you are morally justified in saving her life through the mortal blow.

    The laws are different from state to state, does that mean the moral justification changes as well? Does right and wrong change with the laws? If one state makes it illegal to kill in defense of another, is it thereby immoral in that state?

    Now set up the same scenario with an abortionist. Is the abortionist about to perform an abortion? If you kill him in defense of another, is it wrong? Why? Is the unborn not a human being? Is their life somehow less valuable than the 5 year old on the street corner about to be shot? Is the life of the unborn in any less danger?

    The law may protect one, but not the other, but does the morality of the action change?

    As stated earlier, we are to follow just laws, and I would argue that laws protecting abortion are unjust laws. I’ve read in this thread that we have legitimate political means to change the law. I’d argue that is untrue. The law that protects abortion (Roe v Wade) was made by an unelected branch of government which overturned LEGITIMATE laws banning the practice of abortion in nearly every state made by the people through elected officials.

    What legal means do we have to prevent the killing of the unborn? We can’t even pass a partial-birth abortion ban without the unelected judiciary overturning it by activism. Pro-lifers can’t even exercise their first amendment rights without being harassed (by “pro-choicers” and police), sued (Joe Scheidler), physically attacked, none of which is imposed by the voting population but solely by activist judges and the violent pro-abortion supporters they protect. So where is the legitimate means?

  • Menlo

    First off, people who can only see the wrong with abortion based on the Bible have no legitimate or credible basis for opposing the legality of abortion. I believe they lack a proper Biblical understanding too. What we oppose on a Biblical basis is either personal or among believers. With the one exception of protecting the right to worship and evangelize, the Bible provides no information or guidance on laws that are to apply to all society. Such laws need to have a secular purpose. That doesn’t mean you can’t also have religious opposition. However, without a secular purpose, you have no basis for a law.

    That said, I get quite sick of the cliche that abortion is “legal” or Roe is the “law of the land.” The truth is that abortion was never “legalized” because a court cannot make law, and it certainly cannot violate the Constitution in the process. The courts have not only lied in in their opinions but also have neglected the whole thing about “equal protection” in the Constitution. The bottom line is that Supreme Court and its opinions are not necessarily “the law,” and people who think what a court opinion says is what the “Constitution” says or is as much “the law of the land” are ignorant.

    For that reason, what is in practice enforced by law enforcement is not legitimate “law.” That’s not for random individuals to correct though. It is a problem with law enforcement itself (and the executive branch of government) in that they never thought to defy a court where it was so clearly objectively wrong. That a clearly ILLEGAL judicial opinion gets more credibility than a court order for all people to jump off a bridge is the problem. I believe public officials have a duty and obligation to defy the court when it not only lies about but also so clearly and unmistakably defies the Constitution. I would argue that Roe and all cases following from it are illegal.

    Of course, the article by Al Mohler in the comments makes no sense at all in saying that this is not comparable to Nazism. The only difference is that more people support abortion (if only to the extent of not caring about it), and of course the victims are unable to express pain or suffer emotionally. The government may not be directly carrying out executions (for now), but the marshals are there guarding the death camps.

    Regardless of whether something is “legal” or not, it is not for random individuals to act. This is true where most any law is not being enforced. I noticed the example of OJ Simpson earlier which is an apt analogy. More importantly though is that it is not justified because random acts like this cannot stop the abortion industry. For those who don’t know, Leroy Carhart is already planning to use other facilities to take over Tiller’s practice. Certainly, late abortions are still done on request in Boulder and in many liberal hospitals. Jill Stanek had made the case that third trimester abortion is more available than the media would have you believe. Just because no one else advertises it doesn’t mean it is not done. And there is a lot abortionists don’t advertise.

    If such an act could have stopped the industry OR if it had involved defiance by a public official (lesser magistrate), the situation might be different. As it is, such an act likely saved not a single life. It only strengthened the whole industry with taxpayer-funded protection.

    I would like to point out though that as with other causes, intense opposition to abortion can be on an actual Constitutional and legal basis rather than a religious or moral one.

    • unfatmatt

      @Menlo – Excellent post.

      Say an individual licensed to carry a firearm concealed stops OJ from murdering his wife by shooting OJ. The individual shot OJ, not to stop all murders, but to stop that particular murder. Those licensed to carry concealed don’t do so to stop all murders or attacks, but to try to stop the ones that affect them. Those states which extend concealed carry laws also have lower violent crime rates, probably because criminals are deterred from fear of being shot.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      basis

  • hoosierteacher

    I don’t advocate killing abortionists. Let’s get that out of the way.

    Here’s my problem. If, during the holocaust, a citizen had killed Mengele or Eichmann, history would have held the person up as a hero. In my heart, I feel the killing of millions of babies is no less a holocaust. And yes, I think history will judge Dr. Tiller to be on a level with other mass murderers. I think God already has (judged him at that level).

    At the same time, I feel moraly constrained from acting on that reasoning. I vote and send my money where I think pro-life positions are best served, but something (perhaps my faith) says that I’m not supposed to go out and take a life. I also feel that what Tiller’s killer did was wrong. Of course, I feel there is a special place in Hell for Dr. Tiller too.

    My thinking is (admitedly) hypocritical. I can’t explain it very well. The one thing I feel certain about is that it is a shame that Dr. Tiller (and his killer) weren’t willing to wrestle with morality before they chose their paths. Both are abhorant figures to me.

    • JSobieski

      The reason however that this conversation is interesting is that it gets to the question of when a little revolution is a good or even necessary thing.

      If 49 million black children between the ages of 1 day and 2 years had been killed since 1973, and attempts to stop the slaughter were stopped by a 5-4 decision of the US Supreme Court, would there have been a revolution in this country?

      Each of us should ask ourselves what it would take to get us from law abiding citizens to revolutionaries. What is the line that we won’t cross?

      Keep in mind that only about 1/3 of the colonists supported the Revolutionary War.

  • furious

    …was to forgive and embrace one’s enemies (thereby changing minds) rather than to kill them. Christian witness is about love, not intimidation.

    “Killing them” (Indonesian schoolgirls, Shi’ite pilgrims, Israeli shoppers, Thai Buddhist monks, Spanish commuters, Dutch filmmakers, and so on) and rationalizing the collateral damage is what the Jihadis do.

    Besides, one doesn’t overturn an unjust statute (Roe v. Wade) by violating another, unrelated one (Capital Murder).

    • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

      The idea here is that you’re killing to prevent future murder, not to punish for past murder.

      Your point misses that entirely.

    • Mike gamecock DeVine

      Roe v Wade was no statute.

      But no, murder would not be the way to stop the killing. Free speech and elections first (1972-present) to try and dethrone the self appointed lawyer Oligrachs that violated the law to change it.

      Civil disobedience is appropriate to protest unjust laws. See Rev King.

      And sometimes, revolution against the government (not the abortionists) that empowers the unjust killings.

      One can forgive a convicted killer in prison, but Jesus does not demand pacifism rather than defending innocent others.

      • furious

        …or, rather, it shamed the proponents of Jim Crow into backing down and the Federal Gov’t to act. It didn’t intimidate, or incite to murder. The same can be done to the Abortion industry. Their tortured invocations of “personhood” and “viability” are proof of that. The protests at Notre Dame were a good start.

        Jesus didn’t demand pacifism, but He didn’t exhort his followers to murder, either, even when the temple guards came for Him.

        Thanks for the respectful reply.

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          as MLK said

          How long? Not long?

          How many more must die before shame works?

          Didn’t we take up arms for less against the British?

          And of course, civil disobedience usually hasn’t worked, even in the Christian west, and hardly never is never, anywhere else on such large issues.

          Jesus said render to Caesar and his teachings on cheek turning is more related to his main mission of making eternal life possible for individuals, not govt policy re how Caesar and in a democracy, Christian citizens, should deal with slavery, oppression, genocide, terrorism, crime, etc.

          Honestly, given my sig line, it pains me that no President has been willing to defy the Sup Ct, and pains me more that I, Mike DeVine, am part of the barbaric cowardly tolerance of the slaughter.

          good discussion brother

      • leftylurker

        America is NOTHING like Nazi Germany.

        We have laws, we have courts, and we have social institutions that allow for changes to be made in this country.

        Maybe it would have been okay to kill Hitler, but that’s because you couldn’t vote Hitler out of office, or appoint judges that would overturn his policies, or have a open dialogue in the media that said that his policies were a bad idea.

        There is just no comparing the political universe of our blessed democracy to that Nazi germany, and trying to do so is just a colossal waste of time.

        If you don’t like late term abortions, then run for office, raise public opinion, and get the law changed.

        If you don’t like a murderous dictator who answers to no law, then kill him (or her, let’s be PC).

        Can we consider the issue settled, please?

        • leftylurker

          I do want to come out and say that killing anyone, unless in the strictest self defense, is not something that fits into my faith at all. I’m more of a “if someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other as well” man myself, and I can’t see Jesus bombing or shooting anyone either.

          • Mike gamecock DeVine

            to death for sin before becoming flesh to save us from the sentence he imposed.

            We can’t create a Jesus defined by a small portion of Scripture, for the same Bible that has him turning the other cheek, also has him as the agent of creation and one with the father after the Fall.

          • leftylurker

            I lack a good understanding of the trinity I will confess; there are some mysteries that will always evade me.

            I’ll think on what you said.

        • Mike gamecock DeVine

          unlawfully seized power and usurped the Liberty of We the People to govern ourselves under law by violating their Oath to uphold the Constitution. Yes, we are quite different from NAZI Germany, but that does not preclude the occasional necessity of a new revolution depending on the specific circumstances over time.

  • furious

    …and, and least at Dr. Tiller’s former church, among some Christian denominations, either.

    WHOOSH yourself.

  • avgamerican

    It is never our moral right to enact God’s judgement. It would be disobedient to God and discredit our moral right position. I do believe after we have spoken out against something and petitoned our government we must leave the rest for God to judge. As hard as it may be to accept especially in the case of a Tiller, we must do that.

  • furious

    …first in Slate, and now in the Reason article referenced above.

    Trying to generate a critical mass of “Yes, it IS ok to murder abortionists if one thinks abortion is murder” responses in order to hang the “Domestic Terrorist” blood libel on the whole Pro-Life movement.

    • avgamerican

      It must be made very clear that being pro-life does not. Pro-life advocates must not resort to violence nor even suggest or encourage it.

      • leftylurker

        Pro Life advocates who advocate or practice violence are engaging in the worst kind of irony.

        • furious

          …as “irony” refers to unintended consquences.

        • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

          Pro-life is not equivalent to pacifism.

          You don’t have to be a pacifist to oppose the brutal butcher of innocent babies.

  • CrabCakes

    Both you and JSobieski brought up an aspect that I had failed to consider before: the impact of vigilante justice on the state as a whole, not just with regard to the particular matter at hand.

    In the case of Nazi Germany, the state itself was so thoroughly corrupt that it’s downfall could only prove beneficial. If I understand the two of you right, the United States government, while allowing a practice that (in the view of some) is morally abhorrent, has not gone so far as to render the state worthy of overthrow, a side effect that condoning vigilante justice would inevitably encourage.

    I also thought of another related difference this morning as I pondered this problem: There was no reasonable chance that Nazi Germany was ever going to change its policies toward the Jews without Hitler dying. In the U.S., though, most conservatives believe that there is still hope for a political solution to this problem. As long as this solution remains open, it is harder to justify vigilante justice.

    I imagine that this last difference may be the reason that these kinds of extreme actions occur more often under pro-choice Presidents than pro-life. It appears to some that the political battle has been lost, so the only option left is to take the law into one’s own hands.