Abortionists Shoot People Too . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

. . . thought you ought to know.

That is all.

[Maxel]

You lie! Abortionists don't like guns and would never touch one to even hurt a fly!

Actually, I'm not seeing anything that says an abortion activist was the one doing the killing... Did I miss it?

[Just_A_Guy]

Good point, I may be jumping the gun.

Of course, if an abortion doctor is shot in front of his clinic, we all know who did it--right?

[Traveler]

The problem is that those that respect life should not be killing people that don't -- and that happens to be a point I agree with. One would expect that someone willing to take a life for convenience to be involved in other kinds of “killing” not someone that claims to respect and honor life.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

The problem is that those that respect life should not be killing people that don't -- and that happens to be a point I agree with. One would expect that someone willing to take a life for convenience to be involved in other kinds of “killing” not someone that claims to respect and honor life.

The Traveler

What happens when one goes to war to prevent genocide? War to defend your fellow's lives? A man breaks into your house and is going to kill your family, out of respect for their lives you end his? I think most (or at least quite a few) people can see situations where out of respect for one life one ends another, the thought process isn't quite so foreign as some like to portray it. To invoke Godwin, I don't think most people would see a disconnect between a respect for life and somebody killing Gestapo agents to save Jews from being carried off and killed.

Now before people start screaming at me I don't think abortion is the same situation and I don't approve killing doctors who perform abortions. I'm just commenting on the whole, If you respect life you'd never take one sentiment.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Dravin

[Traveler]

What happens when one goes to war to prevent genocide? War to defend your fellow's lives? A man breaks into your house and is going to kill your family, out of respect for their lives you end his? I think most (or at least quite a few) people can see situations where out of respect for one life one ends another, the thought process isn't quite so foreign as some like to portray it. To invoke Godwin, I don't think most people would see a disconnect between a respect for life and somebody killing Gestapo agents to save Jews from being carried off and killed.

Now before people start screaming at me I don't think abortion is the same situation and I don't approve killing doctors who perform abortions. I'm just commenting on the whole, If you respect life you'd never take one sentiment.

This is an interesting point and argument. But there is a flaw – or at least there should be an understood flaw. When we stand to defend against lethal force we have no choice but to counter with lethal force. But to use lethal force when such force is not being used is very questionable in my mind.

As a trained combat soldier I realize that most people thinking to defend their homes actually put themselves and their families at greater risk in the manner that they think to defend their home. In war one cannot be making individual decisions when to kill but must rely on their training and “rules of engagement”; the same in protecting one’s home. In this sense we do not decide to “kill” an individual but engage those that are in the theater of war according to the rules of engagement.

I understand that there are those that have declared war against abortion. According to the laws of our land they have no such authority for such a declaration and will be held according to the law. I clearly support the laws of our land – which is in part why I served as a combat engineer and also with an intelligence company in the US Army. Never at any time did I personally determine any rules of engagement but I was obedient to the laws of the land. Under this covenant if there is blood spilt it is not on my hands but the law of the land and the citizens of that law. If someone takes the law unto themselves then they must answer to the law for any blood spilt.

And so it is my observation that those that take the law unto themselves to take another life cannot be a respecter of life or honor life.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

Police say second apparent homicide discovered this morning in Owosso Township - MLive.com

This person will be found but the sad part, is coming when they find themselves beyond mortality in repaying the crimes in a unrepentant state.

[Dravin]

This is an interesting point and argument. But there is a flaw – or at least there should be an understood flaw. When we stand to defend against lethal force we have no choice but to counter with lethal force. But to use lethal force when such force is not being used is very questionable in my mind.

Lethal force is being used though, its a question of against what. Depending on your stance its a lump of cells that lethal force is being applied against (like say, a tumor), or its a human being. Abortions result in the termination of life (either human or simply an unwanted group of cells depending on your outlook), of course so does disinfecting your hands or killing a cow for food, the value you place on that life determines just what actions you may be willing to take to prevent (or further) the termination of that life.

I fear though this is edging into some sort of debate over the justification of killing abortion performing doctors or is it human (vs lump of cells worthy of no protection and areas in between) and other such issues. Its a question of, can one kill and still respect life? Its almost a mantra (if you really respected life you wouldn't take it) that is trotted out in cases like those mentioned in the beginning of the thread and held up as if its an absolute, which is what I disagree with. One can kill and respect life and furthermore one can kill out of a respect for life.

And so it is my observation that those that take the law unto themselves to take another life cannot be a respecter of life or honor life.

So the aformentioned killer of Gestapo is not a respecter of lives? To do so would have been against the law of the land in which he resided (I'm assuming he's in Germany), making himself a law unto himself. If so I'll grant you consistency but I disagree that a fundamental principle of respecting life is respecting law (well, at least man's law). If one ends life believing it saves another the legality of it doesn't really play into if one respects life or not.

If you kill people trying to prevent them from blowing up a barge full of small children (or old ladies, or middle aged accountants), your respect for life doesn't change based on if a law says its okay or not to prevent that action.

That said, the man who defends his family, we'll give him the benefit of legality, we'll even say hes competent enough or the situation such (maybe even artificially created) that by taking life he will save other life (100% surety), we'll even make it a greater number of lives than that taken and we'll make the one whose life is taken threatening (and willing to follow through) those lives he has in mind to save.

If he can take that life and still respect life then we have no disagreement, if he can't, if all taking of life, legal framework or not, but heck we'll even add the caveat that it is legal then we disagree. I don't think that's your position, that the entirety of everyone who has taken a life (including God if we believe the scriptures) does not respect life. I could be suffering from some horrid reading comprehension issues though.

If someone takes the law unto themselves then they must answer to the law for any blood spilt.

Assuming the law catches and convicts them (else the law lacks the ability to make one answer) that goes without saying, for speeding tickets as well as homicide.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Dravin

[Traveler]

Lethal force is being used though, its a question of against what. Depending on your stance its a lump of cells that lethal force is being applied against (like say, a tumor), or its a human being. Abortions result in the termination of life (either human or simply an unwanted group of cells depending on your outlook), of course so does disinfecting your hands or killing a cow for food, the value you place on that life determines just what actions you may be willing to take to prevent (or further) the termination of that life.

I fear though this is edging into some sort of debate over the justification of killing abortion performing doctors or is it human (vs lump of cells worthy of no protection and areas in between) and other such issues. Its a question of, can one kill and still respect life? Its almost a mantra (if you really respected life you wouldn't take it) that is trotted out in cases like those mentioned in the beginning of the thread and held up as if its an absolute, which is what I disagree with. One can kill and respect life and furthermore one can kill out of a respect for life.

So the aformentioned killer of Gestapo is not a respecter of lives? To do so would have been against the law of the land in which he resided (I'm assuming he's in Germany), making himself a law unto himself. If so I'll grant you consistency but I disagree that a fundamental principle of respecting life is respecting law (well, at least man's law). If one ends life believing it saves another the legality of it doesn't really play into if one respects life or not.

If you kill people trying to prevent them from blowing up a barge full of small children (or old ladies, or middle aged accountants), your respect for life doesn't change based on if a law says its okay or not to prevent that action.

That said, the man who defends his family, we'll give him the benefit of legality, we'll even say hes competent enough or the situation such (maybe even artificially created) that by taking life he will save other life (100% surety), we'll even make it a greater number of lives than that taken and we'll make the one whose life is taken threatening (and willing to follow through) those lives he has in mind to save.

If he can take that life and still respect life then we have no disagreement, if he can't, if all taking of life, legal framework or not, but heck we'll even add the caveat that it is legal then we disagree. I don't think that's your position, that the entirety of everyone who has taken a life (including God if we believe the scriptures) does not respect life. I could be suffering from some horrid reading comprehension issues though.

Assuming the law catches and convicts them (else the law lacks the ability to make one answer) that goes without saying, for speeding tickets as well as homicide.

If we believe in law then we must abide by law. But the interesting thing is that not all law (including just law) is enforceable in all circumstances. For this reason many believe that G-d is ultimately the law and that the enforcement of just law cannot or do not take place until after death.

And so the unjust taker of life claiming to justify law is caught in a lie. If they believe G-d is just and will judge all injustice then to take a life outside of law is unjust, irrespective of life and blasphemous of a just G-d. If they do not believe in G-d then they are still outside of justice and therefore still irrespective of life because they act outside of law which is the definition of murder – and this holds even if they think they are preventing murder because law is not based in an individual interpretation of law. Law is not determined by any individual but by consent of society.

Which brings me back to my original point – which is that respect for life can only be realized within the context of law. Without law there is no murder and therefore no unjust taking of life. If there is law then to take a life outside of that law is murder – which by definition is disrespect for life.

The Traveler

[Dravin]

Okay, so Mister Gestapo killer is not a respecter of life. I'm not sure most would agree with you (not that such makes you wrong of course), which goes back to my original point, the idea of taking life while still respecting it is not so foreign as some like to portray.

Which brings me back to my original point – which is that respect for life can only be realized within the context of law.

So you do agree one can take life and still respect it (because one can be justified within the context of the law in taking life, sometimes in ways we agree with such as self-defense and other times in ways we don't, the aforementioned Gestapo).

[Traveler]

Okay, so Mister Gestapo killer is not a respecter of life. I'm not sure most would agree with you (not that such makes you wrong of course), which goes back to my original point, the idea of taking life while still respecting it is not so foreign as some like to portray.

So you do agree one can take life and still respect it (because one can be justified within the context of the law in taking life, sometimes in ways we agree with such as self-defense and other times in ways we don't, the aforementioned Gestapo).

The point that I have tried to make that you do not understand is that an individual does not ever take life under the law. In the context of the law it is the law that defines and makes the decision to take a life. Therefore all that hold to the law share in the responsibility – not any single individual – so it is not the individual but the collective in the law that that makes the decision and takes life. When an individual decides, on their own, to take a life – it cannot ever be argued that they respect life. If a person refuses to obey the law then the argument concerns if the individual respects the law – not life. So one that obeys law could respect life and in obedience to law share in the death of all those that die at the hands of the law – the same if they are the executioner or the observer or unknown to them the act in which someone died under the law.

The law, on the other hand, does not respect life per say. The law respects the society. You may think of this as semantics but in is important to understand. A policeman does not decide when to fire their weapon – that is predetermined in the law. Failure of an officer to follow procedure (law) is a breach of the law and under the law individuals are held responsible for their breach or unlawful action. The same is true of a solder in combat. All citizens are equal under the law for all that the law acts upon. Equal refers to both rights and responsibilities.

The Traveler

[boyando]

The problem is that those that respect life should not be killing people that don't -- and that happens to be a point I agree with. One would expect that someone willing to take a life for convenience to be involved in other kinds of “killing” not someone that claims to respect and honor life.

The Traveler

To me, the problem is two fold.

One, like you, I don't think that taking a life of an abortion doctor, make anymore since than killing an unborn child.

Two, stereotype is a word the left hates, until it is applied to the right. In there eye's, anyone who is conservative, supports the killing of abortion doctors.

To be fair, I stereotype most liberals as only giving lip service to cutting down the amount of abortions.

[Dravin]

Edit: I'm kinda running out of interest and energy for this topic, so I'm willing to just say we disagree where we disagree and agree where we do. I hope this isn't coming crossed as a cop out but it is a derailment of the thread anyway.

Note to Self: If engaging another poster in a philosophical debate, make sure you're up to it before you start. :)

Edited September 16, 2009 by Dravin