Tuesday, June 02, 2009

More thoughts on Tiller the killer

Another few thoughts I'm thinking about the abortion of Tiller the abortician. From this article, worshipers at Reformation Lutheran were horrified at the abortion taking place in their own church's foyer. One wonders if they'd be similarly horrified if someone were to eat a chicken dinner in the foyer - the problem is that it took place in the wrong venue, right? I mean, you're *supposed* to eat chicken dinners in the fellowship hall, near the kitchen. Not the foyer! Similarly, you're *supposed* to perform abortions at the abortuary, where it's out of sight from normal everyday well-groomed, well-dressed churchgoing folk. Not in the foyer! So, bring an abortion out of its assigned geographic locality, the people of Reformation Lutheran get all upset. Duly noted. They should probably make that really clear on their website, though I didn't see anything about strict policies of segregation of activity to specific and denoted rooms in the building. Presumably they'll get on that first thing after the funeral.

The article states:
Church members said anti-abortion protesters have shown up outside the church on Sundays regularly.
"They've been out here for quite a few years. We've just become accustomed to it. Just like an everyday thing, you just looked over and see them and say, 'Yup they're back again."'


And this church never did anything about it, did they? How their consciences must be seared by now! To have a career baby-murderer in your congregation, a member in apparently good standing, an usher who is typically accompanied by a frakking bodyguard...You smile at him, "Hey George" while mixing Sweet 'n' Low into your coffee cup Sunday morning, thinking (or not) that a mere 24 hours later he'll be using chemical weapons against the smallest, weakest, and most invisible, marginalised, and voiceless members of our society. You ask what it means when the Bible mentions "their consciences seared with a hot iron"? Exhibit A: Reformation Lutheran of Wichita.


The article continues:
He added: "We had no idea that someone would come into our church and do such a bad thing like that — inside of a church."

Apparently Reformation Lutheran includes as an unwritten part of its paltry belief statement the superstitious view, like on the TV show "Highlander", that a church is 'holy ground' or something by virtue of the building's carrying the word "church" in its title, on the placard somewhere.
Revelation 3:1 To the angel of the church in Sardis write:
He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars, says this: "I know your deeds, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. 2 Wake up, and strengthen the things that remain, which were about to die; for I have not found your deeds completed in the sight of My God. 3 So remember what you have received and heard; and keep it, and repent. Therefore if you do not wake up, I will come like a thief, and you will not know at what hour I will come to you."

This church is a dead church, having a name like it's alive, and lookie here - Jesus has indeed come to them like a thief, in judgment on one of its members. Mercifully, I'd say - this time around He only enacted judgment on the main evildoer, an individual in the midst of the enabling group, rather than on the evildoer AND the enabling group as He's done many times before. No doubt He is giving them time to repent, and I pray that they will. But where did this guy get the idea that violence is any better or worse inside a building that calls itself a church? I might agree with that in MY church, yeah, b/c of the environs and people that, there, give glory to Jesus and take what He says very seriously. Clearly this church does not do that, however, so we have to ask whence comes this sentiment? How does this guy know that violence is wrong? Why should anyone honor his building and gathering with the title "church"?


In a Facebook thread discussing this incident, an acquaintance of mine said this more or less:
It is sickening to imagine that God would allow a man to be shot by a crazed vigilante who could just as easily have decided to direct his hate toward an ethnic minority or gays.

A couple of things:
1) Note the implicit seared conscience, again.
One is BORN as a member of a certain ethnicity.
One CHOOSES to engage in homosexual behavior.
One CHOOSES to murder babies.
It is certainly understandable that some people might find the existence of a serial baby-murderer in their city intolerable to the point that they might pick up arms to take care, themselves, of what the gov't wouldn't. I invite you to get off your high horse and consider the similarity of this action to, say, the firebombing of a legitimately legal KKK headquarters building, a group of brothers ganging up to beat the daylights out of the drug dealer who raped their younger sister, concerned citizens slashing tires in the dead of night outside a known crack house, etc. None of these actions are, strictly speaking, legal, nor are they necessarily ethical. But one can certainly see how the sentiments leading to the actions arose and accord to the perpetrators a measure of sympathy: "I wouldn't've done it like that, but I definitely see where he was coming from."

2) I encourage you to read the book of Habakkuk, among other places such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Judges, the list goes on and on. Habakkuk has long been a favorite of mine, even when I was an atheist, as it contains complaints from a human perspective against God on the subject of theodicy. (When I was an atheist, I only liked the complaints from Habakkuk, not God's answers, but anyway.) It follows this pattern:
Habakkuk: God, evil all around. Won't You act?
God: Be patient, it's coming. In fact, when it comes it's going to be horrifying, way worse than you could have imagined. What's more, I'm going to use the evil, hated, idolatrous Babylonians to enact My judgment on Judah.
Habakkuk: Another brief complaint.
God: Repeat.
Habakkuk: Ah. Let me take this moment to compose a psalm of heartfelt praise.

The pattern follows in this most recent example. It was not right for this gunman to abort this late-term fœtus named George Tiller, any more than it was right for Tiller to abort so many thousands of fœtuses before. Thus, this gunman is an evildoer whom God used to enact judgment on another evildoer. Sound familiar?
Let us pray that God will have mercy on our nation for allowing this travesty and evil of baby-murder to enjoy legal protection as it does today. Perhaps we will escape the fate of Judah, perhaps not. Lord, have mercy.

52 comments:

Paul C said...

It's strange that, considering how strongly you feel about the state-sanctioned murder of the unborn, you don't actually do anything about it. Why is that?

NAL said...

I wonder how many women will die because Dr. George Tiller isn't around to perform the abortion when the pregnancy is threatening the life of the mother. I wonder what the self-righteous would do if their wife were in a similar circumstance. But it's easy to be self-righteous when it's the life of someone else who's in peril.

Rhology said...

NAL,

Very few women are in danger of death due to modern techniques. This is a smokescreen and a sham argument. If it were above, say, the 1% it currently comprises, you might have sthg. As it is, you have nothing.
And you know, you really are acting like a child. If my wife had an ectopic pregnancy that seriously threatened her life and the baby's life, after careful consideration I would probably choose a medical procedure that would save my wife's life. It would be an accident that the baby's life would end. Such is not abortion; such is saving a life while as an unfortunate consequence ending the life of the baby, who had no chance of survival. To equate that situation with the >95% of abortions performed in this country, and use it as an argument to keep abortion legal, is crap.


Paul C,

You don't know anythg about me beyond the little of my personal life that I share on the blog. Yet you feel free to project your bias onto your view of me and then criticise me on that basis. Why is that?

Paul C said...

If I knew that murders were being regularly committed, if I knew where they were being committed, and I could find out who was committing them, I'd feel morally obliged to try and stop them, possibly at the cost of my own life.

You believe abortion is murder, and you can find out where and who is carrying it out. And yet you're not actually stopping them - oh, you blog about it, maybe go on a protest, but what is that? It's nothing. Nothing. I'm just wondering how you justify this inaction.

I condemn Tiller's killer completely, but at least he had the courage of his convictions. You, on the other hand - well, surprise me. Stopped any murders recently?

Rhology said...

Paul C,

You know nothing about me, but that apparently won't stop you from speculation, so go for it.
And these murders are being committed, yes, but they're legal. That changes a lot.

Paul C said...

Hey, I'm giving you the chance to demonstrate exactly what you're doing to stop these heinous murders. You don't have to give details, obviously - just lay out your general strategy.

And these murders are being committed, yes, but they're legal.The definition of murder is unlawful killing. If you accept that abortion is legal, then you cannot call it murder. Make a decision and stick with it, Alan.

NAL said...

Rho,

That's why late-term abortions are done, to save the woman's life. Kansas has one of the toughest late-term abortion laws in the country. Dr. Tiller was only one of a two or three doctors in the whole country who performed late-term abortions.

PChem said...

Paul C

So do you think that people against the death penalty should take matters in their own hands and execute those responsible for terminating the inmate? Are you against the death penalty in all situations?

Rhology said...

Paul C,

I admit to a great deal of skepticism about the efforts that any one man can accomplish. What can I do? Seems to me, not much. I'm not the most optimistic of blokes. One could accuse me of laziness, and I guess that's a valid concern. Laziness born of frustration with the idiocy of my surroundings.

I agree mostly with your proposed definition of murder. I've used "unjustifiable killing" around here and find that expression more to the point, actually. Some laws are unjustifiable, abortion being one of them. So I can agree to that definition if unlawful = against God's law.
But I also have an obligation as a Christian to obey the law of the land insofar as it does not conflict with God's law. To commit an abortion violates God's law, so if I were a doctor, I would not be justified in performing an abortion. However, I as a private individual am not within God's law to carry out punishment for breaking of God's law when that violation is not in conflict with human law of the state in which I live. That's why what the gunman did is unjustifiable and therefore murder. But Tiller is guilty of far more, far greater crimes.


NAL,

That's not all the truth. That may account for some of them, but not all.
Take a look at Dr Tiller's own site. It says "Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health."
And what does that mean? Answer: Anything the attending physician wants it to. Take your wide-eyed "kill first, kill last" naïveté somewhere else.

NAL said...

Rho:

And what does that mean? Answer: Anything the attending physician wants it to.

Only the doctor, in consultation with the patient, based upon the woman's particular circumstances can make this decision.

Kansas law requires the approval of two independent physicians.

Paul C said...

@PChem:

So do you think that people against the death penalty should take matters in their own hands and execute those responsible for terminating the inmate?No. None of the arguments against the death penalty are that it is murder.

@Rhology said...

One could accuse me of laziness, and I guess that's a valid concern. Laziness born of frustration with the idiocy of my surroundings.Don't be so coy! We can accuse you of more than just laziness. We can accuse you of hypocrisy, for saying one thing and doing another; and we can accuse you of cowardice, for failing to act on your express convictions.

But I also have an obligation as a Christian to obey the law of the land insofar as it does not conflict with God's law. To commit an abortion violates God's law, so if I were a doctor, I would not be justified in performing an abortion. However, I as a private individual am not within God's law to carry out punishment for breaking of God's law when that violation is not in conflict with human law of the state in which I live.Here's an interesting twist: if you were in Germany in 1940, and Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, communists and so forth were being carted off to the concentration camps, you could use exactly this argument to excuse the fact that you stood by and let it happen.

Take a look at Dr Tiller's own site. It says "Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health." And what does that mean?I would assume that it means that Kansas law allows for post-viability abortion procedures when continuing the pregnancy is detrimental to the pregnant woman's health. As we know from previous experience, you do have problems with understanding basic English, but perhaps you could present us with some evidence to support your claim that this is not in fact the case.

NAL said...

Here's an interesting story of a 19-week pregnant woman's struggle to find a doctor to remove her dead fetus.

Between a Woman and Her DoctorWomen will suffer, and die, because Dr. Tiller was murdered.

William Wallace said...

I live in a country where commenting on issues like this can get you on a now fly list right quick. So, in lieu of that, I'd like to talk about a German citizen who gunned down a NAZI gas chamber operator, upon learning that he was a NAZI gas chamber operator, and after the NAZI gas chamber operator had been previously stabbed in both arms in a futile attempt to get him to stop killing innocent Jewish people.

Some say this German citizen was a vigilante, a terrorists. Others say he was a murderer, and that the NAZI gas chamber operator was just earning a living and following orders.

Such issues are too complex for a simple mind like mine to figure out.

William Wallace said...

I live in a country where commenting on issues like this can get you on a no fly list right quick. So, in lieu of that, I'd like to talk about a German citizen who gunned down a NAZI gas chamber operator, upon learning that he was a NAZI gas chamber operator, and after the NAZI gas chamber operator had been previously stabbed in both arms in a futile attempt to get him to stop killing innocent Jewish people.

Some say this German citizen was a vigilante, a terrorist. Others say he was a murderer, and that the NAZI gas chamber operator was just earning a living and following orders.

Such issues are too complex for a simple mind like mine to figure out.

Regarding the removal of a dead fetus...that is not the type of abortion any pro-life person I know about is concerned with. There is no prosecutor in the U.S. who would prosecute a doctor for removing a dead fetus from a womb.

A live fetus, because the pregnancy depresses the mother, is another story.

William Wallace said...

Paul C wrote: "We can accuse you of hypocrisy, for saying one thing and doing another; and we can accuse you of cowardice, for failing to act on your express convictions....if you were in Germany in 1940, and Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, communists and so forth were being carted off to the concentration camps, you could use exactly this argument to excuse the fact that you stood by and let it happen."

I just made a similar analogy without first reading your point. I agree with you though.

And, I'm a coward in this regard. I am standing by while innocents are slaughtered for profit and convenience. Actually, I just value my family more than becoming a criminal.

Abortion is legal, sadly. Those who do the morally right thing, and stop abortion doctors from doing their deeds, are usually considered criminals in this country.

This is not to say that I support those who murder abortion doctors. I would much rather see vandals remove and/or destroy the abortion instruments instead. But even that is a crime, so I can't actually advocate it.

It is time that good Christians started standing up against the abortion industry though. Turn the other cheek does not mean stand by while innocents are slaughtered. Perhaps there are ways that do not entail violence or vandalism. Buying stock in and taking control of corporations that manufacture abortion instruments, for example.

NAL said...

William Wallace:

Regarding the removal of a dead fetus...that is not the type of abortion any pro-life person I know about is concerned with. There is no prosecutor in the U.S. who would prosecute a doctor for removing a dead fetus from a womb.

You think? Thanks for missing the point of the story.

/Not a true scotsman.

Rhology said...

NAL,

You've no doubt heard of conflict of interest...

-Women will suffer, and die, because Dr. Tiller was murdered.-

She suffered, but didn't die.
And I note again the willful blindness. These thousands of babies Tiller murdered - are they really nothing to you?



Paul C,

OK, I'm lazy and a coward and a hypocrite.
Now, how does this affect my points here?


-if you were in Germany in 1940, and Jews, gypsies, homosexuals, communists and so forth were being carted off to the concentration camps, you could use exactly this argument to excuse the fact that you stood by and let it happen.-

Hmm, you make a good point. One answer is that anyone who came to me asking for help or else she'd be forced to abort her baby, I'd help her. My wife has spent quite a bit of time volunteering at a local crisis pregnancy center, counseling with non-English speaking minorities.
I should think a significant difference is that women who abort do so voluntarily, and my getting in their way would be interfering with their voluntary action. Not so with the 1940s Germany example.


If you're too dense to understand the wide and deep vagueness of "detrimental to the pregnant woman's health", you've not been paying attention to the issue.

Paul C said...

OK, I'm lazy and a coward and a hypocrite. Now, how does this affect my points here?

Who cares about your points? I was just interested in whether you're prepared to admit that either you don't in fact believe abortion to be murder, or you're a lazy, cowardly hypocrite. So I guess my work here is done.

NAL said...

Rho:

She suffered, but didn't die.

The ones who die usually don't write about their experience.

Does their suffering really mean nothing to you? Whould it make a difference to you if a woman had died? Or would you consider her death the price to be paid for elimination of abortion?

Rhology said...

Her case revolved around ignorance in her local medical community of a certain procedure. It's not strictly all that relevant to abortion, ISTM.

Paul C said...

I mean that criticism in a constructive sense, of course, hoping that this new self-awareness will lead you to think about making some changes to your general attitude. Who knows? If you were more humble and pleasant, you might have more success evangelizing. Just imagine!

William Wallace said...

"/Not a true scotsman."

I run into that a lot. E.g., with things like "No legitimate scientist would ....".

But, in this case, removing a dead fetus from womb would be done by even a strongly pro-life priest's niece, with the blessing and prayers of the priest.

Consequently, there isn't much to discuss. The procedure you link to is not inherently controversial.

NAL said...

Rho:

Her case revolved around ignorance in her local medical community of a certain procedure. It's not strictly all that relevant to abortion, ISTM.

Her case revolved around the lack of expertise in her local medical community of the D&E procedure.

Legally, a doctor can still surgically take a dead body out of a pregnant woman. But in reality, the years of angry debate that led to the law’s passage, restrictive state laws and the violence targeting physicians have reduced the number of hospitals and doctors willing to do dilations and evacuations (D&Es) and dilations and extractions (intact D&Es), which involve removing a larger fetus, sometimes in pieces, from the womb.

This is a direct consequence of the fight against abortion.

PChem said...

Paul C,

I think the analogy is valid. Capital punishment is the legal execution of an offender. I can see how a person who is opposed to the death penalty in all cases would view the death of the person as murder, since in their view the person should not have been killed to begin with. By analogy, abortion currently is legal in the US. You said that Tiller's killer at least had the courage to stand by his convictions because he viewed abortion as murder. How come you wouldn't expect the same of people opposed to the death penalty? Are they hypocritical cowards?

The definition of murder is unlawful killing. If you accept that abortion is legal, then you cannot call it murder.

Your missing a key part of this. Just because we have a law about something does not make it morally correct. Why do you think there are massive movements across the US to repeal things like Prop 8 and the DOMA? Another example, suppose we had a law making it okay for 17 year olds to execute their parents if they think it will improve their health (mental or physical). Would you seriously not say that the parents are not murdered? Similarly, terminating a baby is not right even though we have laws allowing it.

Paul C said...

I can see how a person who is opposed to the death penalty in all cases would view the death of the person as murder, since in their view the person should not have been killed to begin with.

As far as I know, most anti-death-penalty advocates do not refer to state-sanctioned execution as murder. If that's the case, then it's irrelevant what you can or can't see, and the analogy is not valid.

By analogy, abortion currently is legal in the US. You said that Tiller's killer at least had the courage to stand by his convictions because he viewed abortion as murder. How come you wouldn't expect the same of people opposed to the death penalty?

Because they don't view state-sanctioned execution as murder.

Your missing a key part of this. Just because we have a law about something does not make it morally correct.

Since that forms precisely no part of my argument, I haven't missed it all (and nor do I believe it, otherwise I wouldn't have made my Godwinly comparison to the holocaust). My point is that *if* somebody believes that abortion is "murder" due to their belief that their is a higher religious law - such as Rhology, and presumably you - then they are morally obliged *by their own belief* to prevent it. Since the vast majority of people making such statements do nothing to prevent it, we can see two possibilities:

1. They genuinely believe it, but are lazy, cowardly hypocrites - and I personally feel no need to pay much attention to such people.
2. They don't genuinely believe it - it's just a manipulative rhetorical device used by people who have no rational argument to support their case.

Rhology said...

Paul C,

This and its original post say it better than I could. This is the 1st time I've ever thought longer than a few seconds on this issue, so it's apparently taking my brain a while to boot up.
I'm also still on pain meds from my recent tonsillectomy. Might have a little sthg to do with it. ;-)
And while I'm at it, I think sdfalkdfj;lkmvc na; ,m /, /,. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

PChem said...

And you think their moral obligation must extend to vigilantism? Give me a break.

You are right, I am morally obligated to try to stop the abortion industry, but that does not mean I am supposed to do so through immoral means (i.e., shooting an abortion doctor at his church). There are other ways to work against that industry, namely through educating people, vounteering to council expecting parents, influencing law and policy makers, voting for pro-life legislators, and personally contributing financially to pro-life organizations and crisis pregnancy centers. One does not have to go to immoral means to state their opinion against bad government practices.

PChem said...

The vast majority of pro-lifers do not believe that killing abortion doctors is part of their approach to stopping abortion. You have taken a person on the fringe and implied that all should either do the same or stop being pro-life. I am taking a different case - the death penalty - and applying your rationale. I am well aware that most people do not view it as murder, but there may be some fringe individuals who take the idea of state-sanctioned executions as morally wrong and then kill the state officials responsible. That doesn't mean that other people who are opposed to the death penalty should do the same.

We can take a different approach. Many people are opposed to the Iraq war. Hundreds of civilians have died in Iraq as a result of the war. Should opponents to the war be obligated to stop the killing of those civilians by any means necessary, including killing army officers? Of course not! That would be ludicrous. The point is, you can be opposed to something without becoming a vigilante.

Darlene said...

Good, rational thinking, PChem.

Paul C said...

PChem, before I respond to your counter-arguments, we need to establish one thing very clearly. Do you believe that abortion is murder?

If you don't, then none of my points applies to you. I was only commenting on those who do believe it is murder, and yet do nothing - like Rhology.

Rhology said...

Nothing? Methinks you exaggerate a bit, Paul C.

Apparently you're of the opinion that if I don't do what you think I should:
1) I therefore do nothing.
2) I am not doing enough.

Said another way, if my whole life isn't 100% dedicated to trying to stop abortion, I'm somehow lazy, a coward, a hypocrite.
Take the conflict in Iraq. Plenty of leftists think what's going on there is murderous and barbaric, yet I don't see truckloads of leftists going over there to serve as human shields to the poor, huddled masses of jihadists and suicide bombers. I guess all those people are lazy cowardly hypocrites too.

Paul, we all have diff levels of responsibility and priority for diff areas of influence and diff problems in society and zones of interaction we have in our lives. I happen to have a wife and 2 small children, and while I am convinced abortion is murder, it's still legal and many women choose to go that route. What can I do to stop them? Not much. Can I have a lot of good influence in my family? With God's help, yes. I choose to expend my efforts where I think they'll make a difference.

For an atheist who has no foundation for objective morality, you sure like to make a lot of hay about morality. You're like the Jolly Nihilist. You can't keep your hand out of the cookie jar, can't live a life consistent with your worldview.

Paul C said...

Apparently you're of the opinion that if I don't do what you think I should: 1) I therefore do nothing. 2) I am not doing enough. Said another way, if my whole life isn't 100% dedicated to trying to stop abortion, I'm somehow lazy, a coward, a hypocrite.

No. That's not my argument at all, and that is clear to anybody who cares to read what I have actually written here.

You claim to believe that abortion is murder. I assume that you would agree that if an individual knows that a murder will be committed, knows where, when and by who, they should make every effort to stop it. If they don't, then they are a combination of a) lazy, b) cowardly or c) hypocritical.

It is irrelevant what my beliefs are, since we are discussing your beliefs. It's far easier to tell what people really believe - rather than what they persuade themselves they believe - by observing their actions rather than listening to their words. There are three ways out of this for you:

1. Ignore this argument entirely and continue in exactly the same manner as before.

2. Admit to yourself that you are a lazy, cowardly hypocrite, otherwise you would actually do something about it. If you do this, however, it's hard to imagine why anybody would ever listen to you screaming incoherently about morality.

3. Admit to yourself that you don't really believe that abortion is murder, otherwise you would actually do something about it. If you do this, you will find that people are far more prepared to engage you in discussion and you may even find it easier to win people over rather than alienate them.

It seems to me that option 3 is a far healthier and more productive, but my guess is that you will select option 1.

PChem said...

Paul,

Yes, I believe abortion is murder, BUT we need to further clarify what murder is. If we use the definition that murder is the unlawful killing of one human by another, then we need to know whose laws are being broken. I reject the idea that murder is defined by the consensus of a group of people that is codified into a law.

knows where, when and by who, they should make every effort to stop it.

"Every effort"? If you are insinuating that pro-lifers should engage in violent acts to stop abortions, then I disagree. We use many efforts, including those I listed in a previous post, but violence is not one of them. Are you prepared to extend your logic to those among the far left who oppose the Iraq war because civilians are murdered?

I disagree with the idea that a person is a hypocrite if they do not devote 100% of their energy to solving the problem. Are you passionate about anything? Are you devoting 100% of your energy to it?

Admit to yourself that you don't really believe that abortion is murder, otherwise you would actually do something about it...you will find that people are far more prepared to engage you in discussion and you may even find it easier to win people over rather than alienate them.

You can't be serious about this. Do you really think that people who act like Tiller's killer really advance the cause?

Paul C said...

Do you really think that people who act like Tiller's killer really advance the cause?

No. My point - which is clearly a bit too subtle for you and Rhology - is that you don't actually believe that abortion is murder, otherwise you would do something about it.


Try this thought experiment. I'm holding a baby and a knife, and I tell you that in 1 minute I'll stab the baby to death. I assume that you will try to stop me. Now I'm in a clinic with a pregnant woman, and I tell you that in 1 minute I'll be carrying out an abortion procedure with her full consent. I assume that you won't try to stop me. Yet you claim the two situations are morally identical - that they're both murder. So if you would try to stop one, but not the other, what does that say about your claim?

I despise Tiller's murderer, and I disagree absolutely with his views; I cannot however fault his commitment to those views. By his actions he demonstrated that he truly believed that abortion was murder. All I am doing is asking you to admit that you don't believe that abortion is murder, and it is this that will make dialogue possible - when you stop lying to yourself, lying to the rest of the world, and lying to your God.

PChem said...

Hi Paul,

This is a good question. I plan to think about it over the weekend. I don't know if you are aware of this, but it is very similar to what Jacob Appel has propounded.

Here's my initial reaction...

The two situations you set up are are morally equivalent, but your analogy is a little bit off. To be accurate, you should say that you know there are people holding knives to babies all across the US. You should also state that there are approximately 115,000 babies dying each day by knife attacks in infanticide clinics, coupled with a massive amount of the population that views such killings to be okay.

Now, as you correctly pointed out, the goal is to stop the killings as fast as possible. Furthermore, we should use whatever moral means are necessary to save as many lives as possible. Here is where we break: I simply do not agree that physically stopping the doctors of the infanticide clinics would have a positive effect. Sure, it may save a handful of children, but at what expense? You rightly agreed that acts of violence, which would necessarily be involved if we followed what you suggest, are counterproductive to stopping the abortion industry. Analogously, they would be counterproductive to stopping a hypothetical infanticide industry. Such acts may galvanize the pro-infanticide groups, shift public opinion towards a pro-infanticide point of view, and result in far more deaths than if you had not broken into the clinic.

The only real way to stop this is to change the hearts and minds of people. Going into killing clinics and engaging in some form of vigilantism is absolutely the wrong way to go. It alienates the very people you are trying to convince and does serious harm to stopping abortion.

I see what I do (engaging people on a one-on-one basis, voting for pro-life politicians, influencing my legislators, etc.) as the best way to stop abortions. You think that this is not consistent with my view of abortion as murder, but I do these things because I view abortion as murder. I can't help it if my priorities and personal view of how to best handle the situation is not what you think they should be.

Paul C said...

I'm afraid we'll need to repeat the thought experiment until you actually give an answer. I'm holding a baby and a knife, and I tell you that in 1 minute I'll stab the baby to death. I assume that you will try to stop me. Now I'm in a clinic with a pregnant woman, and I tell you that in 1 minute I'll be carrying out an abortion procedure with her full consent. I assume that you won't try to stop me. Yet you claim the two situations are morally identical - that they're both murder. So if you would try to stop one, but not the other, what does that say about your claim?

I see what I do (engaging people on a one-on-one basis, voting for pro-life politicians, influencing my legislators, etc.) as the best way to stop abortions. You think that this is not consistent with my view of abortion as murder, but I do these things because I view abortion as murder. I can't help it if my priorities and personal view of how to best handle the situation is not what you think they should be.

You continue to woefully misunderstand my position. I really don't care how you respond to murder. I'm just wondering how you can live with yourself knowing that, while the state is murdering thousands of children, you respond in the same way you would if your next door neighbour had built a shed that was blocking the sunlight from your garden.

Paul C said...

The easy way out for you, of course, is to simply stop pretending that you believe that abortion is murder. You can quite easily maintain exactly the same position regarding abortion - that it should be illegal and that it's a breach of (god-given) human rights - without assuming a purely rhetorical position that tries to close off the debate before it even begins.

Rhology said...

The difference is the law of the land, which I'm constrained in general to uphold.
In an abortion, the woman and the abortician are willing participants, and I can't legally intervene with force. Not so with the baby-knife situation - you're breaking God's law AND the law of the land.
Both are murder, only one is illegal.

My forceful intervention in the one is illegal, in the other it is not only legal, but possibly obligatory according to the law of the land.

I'm interested in stopping abortions, legally, by changing the law. Forcefully intervening illegally like this would be counterproductive in that pursuit.

You are failing in your attempt to impale us on the horns of a false dilemma.

PChem said...

Paul,

I still maintain that you can't compare the two situations as I clearly laid out before. If both situations are brought on the same level (illegal and rare, like baby knifing today) then of course you would respond in the same way. However, both are not illegal and rare. Abortion is widespread and legal in our country. As I stated, the goal is to stop abortions. Intervening, like you suggest in an abortion, would marginalize your position and cause irreparable harm. This has nothing to do with commitment or cowardice. It has everything to do with trying to reduce as many abortions as possible as soon as possible. We can repeat this all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you have a poor analogy, and I have given my answer.

Murder is murder whether or not the current laws of the land recognize it. You are so insistent that vigilantism is the sole test of committment to stopping murder. Would you support individuals who kill US soldiers because they believe US forces have murdered Iraqi civilians in an unjust war?

Paul C said...

Rhology:

Both are murder, only one is illegal.

Murder is by definition illegal.

In an abortion, the woman and the abortician are willing participants, and I can't legally intervene with force.

Let's tweak the terms of the thought experiment. It's 2020, and euthanasia is fully legal. I'm a doctor who's been given permission by the mother to terminate the life of her child, and she's standing next to me. Both of your objections are now eliminated - the mother is willing and you are no longer legally allowed to intervene with force.

It's safe to assume that you would apply the same argument as you do above, and not intervene. Yet the only thing that has changed is the law of the land, which means that you place the law of the land above God's law - in essence, that in your eyes morality is trumped by legality.

You are failing in your attempt to impale us on the horns of a false dilemma.

Your attempts to minimise the dissonance between your professed beliefs and your actual actions are sufficient reward for me.

Paul C said...

PChem:

Intervening, like you suggest in an abortion, would marginalize your position and cause irreparable harm.

Babies are being murdered while you type those words, and you're worried about "marginalising your position". You should go into politics.

We can repeat this all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that you have a poor analogy, and I have given my answer.

Fine - let's drop that analogy and tweak the thought experiment. It's 2020 and euthanasia is illegal. In your town is a euthanasia camp where unwanted newborns are sent to be killed. What would you do?

Murder is murder whether or not the current laws of the land recognize it.

Tragically this is the opposite of reality, where murder is murder only because the laws of the land recognise it. If there were no laws, there would be no such thing as unlawful killing.

You are so insistent that vigilantism is the sole test of committment to stopping murder.

No, I'm not. I'm just pointing out the dissonance between what I presume you would do if you knew about an actual murder (i.e. try to stop it) and what you do when you know about your "baby murder" (i.e. write comments on a blog post about it). The vast difference between the two responses demonstrates your true beliefs quite clearly.

Rhology said...

Paul,

No, murder is unjustified. Ppl on both sides of the political spectrum blv my definition and not yours, as PChem has helpfully pointed out wrt Iraq.

OK, remember that I am constrained by God to obey the law of the land. Read Romans 13.
In your tweaked experiment, my position and course of action remain the same, and for the same reasons. My view on morality doesn't change - this is murder. What I can do about it is constrained by the law of the land in many ways, since I may or may not have authority to enforce the right thing. That's not my job nor my God-given role as a Christian; I am not a judge, I am a proclaimer of the Gospel of Jesus. Society will not be changed by law towards holiness, but rather by the Gospel. That is probably gibberish to you, but that fact does not change the command of God.

I also find it very rich that you are foisting all this vituperation on us for (as you perceive it) being all inconsistent with our position, while on atheism, there is no reason one ought to remain consistent with one's position, nor any reason why one ought not murder 6 year old children. Just a thought to remember.

Paul C said...

As I've pointed out, your responses here would mean that you would also have stood by while the Nazis killed Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and the rest. Just a thought to remember.

Rhology said...

I note that you didn't answer the thought to remember from last time.

The big difference is that the woman goes in voluntarily and legally to the abortuary; Jews and gypsies, etc, in the Holocaust were not going voluntarily to the concentration camp.

I can hide Jews from the SS. I can't chain up a pregnant woman in my basement to keep her from murdering her baby.
So there are several central differences.
I suggest you let this go.

Paul C said...

I note that you didn't answer the thought to remember from last time.

I note that you noted it, but it has no bearing on whether you're complicit in the murder of babies. Which you are.

The big difference is that the woman goes in voluntarily and legally to the abortuary; Jews and gypsies, etc, in the Holocaust were not going voluntarily to the concentration camp.

Like babies, Jews and gypsies were seen by those implementing the genocide as being of less value than other humans, and not in a position to make decisions for themselves.

But if I understand you correctly, what you're saying is that abortion is in no way comparable to the holocaust. That's good, that's a step forward towards more reasonable dialogue.

So there are several central differences.

Let what go? I'm not the one who's standing by and doing nothing while babies are being murdered.

Rhology said...

No answer to the points I raised, just naked assertions on your part.
See you.

Paul C said...

So to recap at the end of this debate: Rhology believes that abortion is murder, but a special kind of murder that doesn't require him to lift a finger to prevent it.

I'm not sure why you think this is an assertion, since it's merely an observation. My question is only how you manage to square your professed beliefs with your actual behaviour.

The answer appears to be - as with so many of your professed beliefs - that you just ignore those beliefs that would inconvenience you, and selectively apply your "universal" morality when it suits you.

Rhology said...

...and back we go to the unfounded assumption that I do nothing to prevent it, or that not bending my entire life's effort and work to it means that I don't do enough.

Thanks for playing, Paul. The Wheel of Baby-Murder Apologetics Fortune rolls on.

Paul C said...

...and back we go to the unfounded assumption that I do nothing to prevent it, or that not bending my entire life's effort and work to it means that I don't do enough.

That's not my argument. My argument is that your response to abortion is not proportionate to your response to other types of murder, implying that you do not genuinely believe that it's murder. Nor am I asking you to devote your entire life to it, any more than I'm asking you to devote your entire life to stopping other types of murder.

I'm also fascinated by the fact that you don't seem bothered that your defensive position is exactly the same argument that would have had you standing by and doing nothing during the Holocaust. It's not that position itself that's of interest - just the fact that you claim to be possessed of a superior, "universal" morality that strangely evaporates when confronted with difficult situations.

PChem said...

Paul,

Glad you gave up the poor analogy. Now on to the second poor analogy. If the euthanasia situation is identical to the current abortion industry, then I would respond in the same way. Murdering newborns is the same as murdering pre-borns and. The difference you don't seem to get is that I am convinced that my approaches are the best way to act to have the most impact. Frankly, what you advocate -- acting in a manner you believe will actually have a negative impact on what you are trying to accomplish -- is ridiculously stupid. Do you go around doing things that you believe is completely wrong? You should give it a try since you are so adament that I do it.

Earlier I said that my definition of murder does not depend on the social average of the time I am living in. Lete me make this as clear as I can, I reject the idea that murder is solely determined by what our society has codified in its laws. Of course, the current government does not accept abortion as murder, but that does not change the fact that it is. What is more tragic is that you don't recognize this.

Let's drop the assertions of what I (or Rhology) do. You have absolutely no idea what I do, other than seeing ONE example: writing about it. You then leap to wild baseless conclusions. It really doesn't help you position. The ol' attack the persons integrity if all else fails isn't that great of a strategy.

Anonymous said...

Paul C likes to totally ignore responses to his poorly thought-out arguments and repeat them over and over. He should spend some time talking to the people in white suits who have a special little long-sleeved coat with lots of belts on it that he would look really good in.

He really does not need anybody to talk to...he can just talk to the wall and feel perfectly satisfied

Paul C said...

I don't have an argument at all, just this simple observation: your response to what you believe to be the murder of babies fails to match with what you would actually do if babies were being murdered. All the excuses being put forward here are just that - excuses. Babies. Murdered. Do something, otherwise you are an accessory to murder.

The alternative: drop the rhetorical position (ah, there's my argument - it's just a rhetorical position rather than a deeply-held belief) and discover that people almost instantly become more open to your argument against abortion,