tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post360458194092069545..comments2023-09-11T08:30:08.843-07:00Comments on Life Training Institute Blog: From One Extreme to the Other [Elizabeth]SKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-31269281307330756872010-02-02T15:33:16.865-08:002010-02-02T15:33:16.865-08:00Curious,
I didn't read Elizabeth as saying tha...Curious,<br />I didn't read Elizabeth as saying that you can never take human life when an agressor is bent on bringing harm. She simply said that SR did not have sufficient reasons for doing so. I agree.<br /><br />Given my gout flareup makes typing painful for the moment, I'm posting below some thoughts from my friend Melinda Penner (from the STR Blog) that cover some of your other moral questions.<br /><br />---------<br />Moral vs. Pragmatic <br /><br />Some have objected that Greg's argument against killing abortionists is pragmatic rather than moral, and I guess therefore being weaker than it should be. But this is wrong. It is a moral argument. Remember first that is a response to the challenge that the pro-life logic inevitably leads to killing abortionists. We strongly deny this, and this article is a reasoned response to that claim. Second, it's a moral argument because the principles is and remains to end the unjustified killing of unborn children. <br /><br />This is the moral argument, not a practical one. If an action such as killing an abortionist leads to the death of more innocent children, that is an immoral thing. If more children die, it's immoral. Killing abortionists doesn't do anything to end abortion and innocent babies dying - it actually extends it by damaging the moral force of the pro-life argument to bring a final and legal end to abortion. <br /><br />Those who kill abortionists (there have been eight such killings in the U.S.) probably think they are saving some lives of unborn children. One person compared killing an abortionist to shooting a sniper at a playground. Isn't it justified to take out the sniper? These are very different circumstances and killing an abortionist cannot be justified in the same way. <br /><br />One difference in the circumstances is that in the playground comparison there is only a specific group of children on the playground to save and one sniper who isn't likely to be replaced by another; it's not comparable to the industry of legalized abortion. There are other "snipers" operating, and many more children now and in the future are in danger, not just those on that "playground." Shooting this "sniper" doesn't prevent more snipers from continuing to work long into the future. It's all of those threatened lives we have to keep in view, and any action that extends legalized abortion and thus sacrifices more lives of innocent children is immoral and cannot be justified on pro-life logic. <br /><br />Another serious difference in this analogy is that someone taking out a sniper would be operating under the law to stop someone from operating outside of the law. The reverse is true for killing an abortionist, so it's the law that has to be changed, not just individual "snipers." Otherwise abortionists keep operating under protection of the law. We live in a country of laws and are morally obligated to work within those to change a legal but immoral circumstances.<br /><br />Our system of laws is a fabric that protects our citizens, though inadequately and imperfectly. But we have the freedom and obligation to work within our system of laws to challenge, lobby, argue, with the goal of changing the law to protect each and every person. This system of laws is also at stake when vigilantes take matters into their own hands. Our actions should not undermine and weaken the system so that we possibly lose our freedoms to change the law and also undermines a system that protects us. We have an obligation to God to obey the laws and work within the system of laws to include unborn children under that protection....SKhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01905606527143286458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1442827238174603755.post-65458229899531004382010-02-02T08:39:08.122-08:002010-02-02T08:39:08.122-08:00I'm not sure I completely agree with the analy...I'm not sure I completely agree with the analysis of why Roeder's actions were incorrect.<br /><br />For instance, if the law of the land allowed the murder of 2 year olds for convenience, and you knew a man was taking 2 year old inside a house to kill them, is there a moral imperative for you to go beyond the law of the land to obey God's law to protect the innocent? And this means taking the life of the murderer potentially paying with your own (when the law of the land declares you a murderer?). I would think most people will agree that the answer is yes.<br /><br />So why is this case different? For a very simple reason: Proceeding the way of Roeder will ultimately result in civil war leading to a large number of deaths. The only question then is are more or fewer people saved going Roeder's way than going the LTI way?<br /><br />Think of it a different way - when Nazi Germany was exterminating the Jews, what would you say to someone who said that one needed to send apologists into Germany, not fight a war (in fact one very famous pacifist made exactly such a statement)?<br /><br />I am NOT advocating going Roeder's way - but I'm not convinced the argument of why Roeder's way is wrong is clear in what you articulate. For if abortion is murder, then how is "rational arguments and appeal to the intellect" the justified way in this case and not in a case where say murder of a particular class of grown up people is allowed by the law of the land?<br /><br />Someone please respond with holes in my argument and/or refutation for my own education.curiousnoreply@blogger.com