Abortion Clinics on Edge After Manifesto


#1

I do not in any way support murderers…even those who bomb abortion clinics…it is very troubling and repulsive…with that said, I thought there was a lot of irony in the statement (red text in italics) that I read in this article…Are not pro-abortion people extremist who believe in justifiable homicide? Their method of murdering the unborn, infanticide, is disgusting…it seems to me they are the ones who are thirsty for blood.

news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050414/ap_on_re_us/eric_rudolph_clinics

ATLANTA - Abortion clinics around the country are bracing for attacks after Olympic bomber Eric Rudolph issued his manifesto justifying the use of violence to stop “the worst massacre in human history.”

us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050413/thumb.gfx36004132232.eric_rudolph_gfx360.jpg
AP Photo
[us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20050414/thumb.nccb60304142016.eric_rudolph_bombs_nccb603.jpg](“javascript: rs(”)
[AP Photo](“javascript: rs(”) http://us.i1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/i/auctions/cam.gif[ Rudolph Pleads Guilty to BombingsSlideshow:](“javascript: rs(”)

“When one of these extremists puts out a call to action, oftentimes, others do try to follow in their footsteps,” said Vicki Saporta, head of the National Abortion Federation, which represents 400 U.S. clinics. "He clearly is speaking to the extremists who believe in justifiable homicide."

Rudolph will get four life sentences without parole after pleading guilty Wednesday to carrying out the deadly bombing at the 1996 Atlanta Olympics and attacks at two abortion clinics and a gay nightclub. The blasts killed two people and wounded 123.


#2

The whole thing is diabolic Rudolph and the abortion mills they work under the same master:crying: Both feel justified in their slaughter:crying:


#3

Glen Beck had a nice show regarding this nut job. It’s spooky how many people agree with Rudolph.


#4

Killing people blowing up a murder clinic is wrong.

Bulldozing an empty clinic…:hmmm:


#5

[quote=Dj Roy Albert]Killing people blowing up a murder clinic is wrong.
. . . .]
[/quote]

What makes it wrong? What is the intrinsic difference between using deadly force to stop the Nazis and using deadly force to stop the Abortionist? In both cases innocent people are being killed unjustly. In both cases a third party who sees the injustice, meets the injustice with equal (or greater) deadly force to save the lives of the innocent. The fact that the third party defender is an individual or a government is immaterail to the moral judgment. Most, if not all States have laws that allow a third party to use deadly force to defend another party against deadly force. The law that allows the legal, immoral killing of innocent unborn persons is actually no law in the eyes of God according to Church teaching so how can it be claimed that using deadly force to stop a deadly, unjust law is immoral? It may not be effective, at least on this small level, but is ineffectiveness alone sufficent reason to judge the act an immoral one? If it became effective, ie the level of deadly force was increased to a rebellion so that the killing of the innocent unborns was drastically reduced, would it then, on that basis, become moral?

HOW is the use of deadly force to save the innocent from being killed any different in the abortion situation than in any other situation?


#6

right or wrong, I think it’s at least worthy for a few to blow up abortion clinics to save millions of human lifes, even if Rudolph goes to hell for this.

sorry for the violent comments but it’s what I have in mind


#7

Hey, your on to something…:hmmm: :thumbsup:


#8

[quote=Lisa4Catholics]The whole thing is diabolic Rudolph and the abortion mills they work under the same master:crying: Both feel justified in their slaughter:crying:
[/quote]

Please don’t take this the wrong way…

I can see the logic in Rudolph’s arguement on justification of bombing abortion clinics.

Let me put it this way.

If i was walking down the street and came upon a man/woman violently attacking and infant with the intent to kill him/her, I would, without hesitation, end their[the person attacking the infant] miserable life.

He attempted to stop people from RIPPING healthy unborn babies to pieces. That is more detestable than any “chainsaw massacre” movie.

Kinda puts it in a new light.
Its a tough one, and it is hard to think about.

My Christian side says find a peaceful way, but my enraged, apalled, gnashing-of-teeth side, is quietly rooting Rudolph on.

Forgive me, and dont think bad of me.
Peace of the Lord be with you all.


#9

While I will always pray for an ask for the repentance and conversion of anyone who works in the abortion industry, I see no problem morally with destroying a facility that is engaged in providing abortions. This may be against secular law, but I don’t think that the Lord is going to condemn you for it.


#10

[quote=All4lifetoo]What makes it wrong? What is the intrinsic difference between using deadly force to stop the Nazis and using deadly force to stop the Abortionist? In both cases innocent people are being killed unjustly. In both cases a third party who sees the injustice, meets the injustice with equal (or greater) deadly force to save the lives of the innocent. The fact that the third party defender is an individual or a government is immaterail to the moral judgment. Most, if not all States have laws that allow a third party to use deadly force to defend another party against deadly force. The law that allows the legal, immoral killing of innocent unborn persons is actually no law in the eyes of God according to Church teaching so how can it be claimed that using deadly force to stop a deadly, unjust law is immoral? It may not be effective, at least on this small level, but is ineffectiveness alone sufficent reason to judge the act an immoral one? If it became effective, ie the level of deadly force was increased to a rebellion so that the killing of the innocent unborns was drastically reduced, would it then, on that basis, become moral?

HOW is the use of deadly force to save the innocent from being killed any different in the abortion situation than in any other situation?
[/quote]

Law.
I we throw out law then we are no better than those who use the law to commit evil.


#11

[quote=Trelow]Law.
I we throw out law then we are no better than those who use the law to commit evil.
[/quote]

Are we compelled to abide by man’s law when it is in direct violation of God’s law? Ulitmately, who do we answer to?


#12

Perhaps it’s time for not just more prayer, but more action. More of us on the “protest lines”, more of us lobbying our state government, more of us writing letters to the editor, more of us volunteering for and donating to abortion alternatives, programs for women at risk for abortion, more abstinence education, better catechesis, heck even catchy little slogans, radio and TV programs and movies that depict abortion ACCURATELY and not with the “hazy rosy Hollywood glow” and the mantra of “choice, choice, choice”.


#13

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]Are we compelled to abide by man’s law when it is in direct violation of God’s law? Ulitmately, who do we answer to?
[/quote]

We have legal means of acheving our goal.

I would say that if we were to apply the just war DOCTRINE (I know you know it’s a doctrine, but some folks jsut don’t grasp that) to the situation then we would see that militant action is not approprate.


#14

[quote=Trelow]We have legal means of acheving our goal.

I would say that if we were to apply the just war DOCTRINE (I know you know it’s a doctrine, but some folks jsut don’t grasp that) to the situation then we would see that militant action is not approprate.
[/quote]

I agree, but the problem being that the judges that are in the bench are militantly opposed to changing the status quo. They consider Rv W as “settled, established law”. IT ISN’T. Roe v Wade is a court opinion, there was never a law passed by Congress (the only governmental body allowed by the Constitution to create laws) that gives anyone the right to have an abortion. Yet every day, 4,000 babies die as a result of apathy by society as a whole. Jesus prayed, and when necessary he grabbed a whip and He kicked butt. I think it is time that we, as faithful Christians, added a little more action to our prayer. I am not detailing what that action is. Maybe its forming coalitions to get militantly pro-abortion politicians out of office. Maybe post names of legislators and their voting records publically so people know who supports the killing of babies in the name of utilitarianism. I am not advocating blowing clinics up, but if that is the ONLY option, I am not against it either. But I agree, there are alot of legal avenues that still need to be tried.


#15

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]I agree, but the problem being that the judges that are in the bench are militantly opposed to changing the status quo. They consider Rv W as “settled, established law”. IT ISN’T. Roe v Wade is a court opinion, there was never a law passed by Congress (the only governmental body allowed by the Constitution to create laws) that gives anyone the right to have an abortion. Yet every day, 4,000 babies die as a result of apathy by society as a whole. Jesus prayed, and when necessary he grabbed a whip and He kicked butt. I think it is time that we, as faithful Christians, added a little more action to our prayer. I am not detailing what that action is. Maybe its forming coalitions to get militantly pro-abortion politicians out of office. Maybe post names of legislators and their voting records publically so people know who supports the killing of babies in the name of utilitarianism. I am not advocating blowing clinics up, but if that is the ONLY option, I am not against it either. But I agree, there are alot of legal avenues that still need to be tried.
[/quote]

Agreed 100%.


#16

[quote=Scott_Lafrance]I am not advocating blowing clinics up, but if that is the ONLY option, I am not against it either.
[/quote]

See, there’s the difference between you as a conservative and me as a liberal. :slight_smile:

You say “if that is the only option.” I’m more liberal. My statement is “I am not advocating blowing clinics up, I’m not against it either.”


#17

[quote=Richardols]See, there’s the difference between you as a conservative and me as a liberal. :slight_smile:

You say “if that is the only option.” I’m more liberal. My statement is “I am not advocating blowing clinics up, I’m not against it either.”
[/quote]

So, we are in agreement in principle, but not necessarily in order of effect.


#18

[quote=Trelow]Glen Beck had a nice show regarding this nut job. It’s spooky how many people agree with Rudolph.
[/quote]

They are products of the Culture of Death. Stop the abortions and we will see less of them as well as child rapes and killings, divorce, school shootings, kids on drugs etc etc.

Rudolph is a “wacko” but we cannot label him a wacko on the one hand and not label the heads of the abortion mills mentally unstable themselves on the other.


#19

[quote=Tantum ergo]Perhaps it’s time for not just more prayer, but more action. More of us on the “protest lines”, more of us lobbying our state government, more of us writing letters to the editor, more of us volunteering for and donating to abortion alternatives, programs for women at risk for abortion, more abstinence education, better catechesis, heck even catchy little slogans, radio and TV programs and movies that depict abortion ACCURATELY and not with the “hazy rosy Hollywood glow” and the mantra of “choice, choice, choice”.
[/quote]

I’m about ready to bulldoze the next Bishop’s confines that refuses to allow perpetual adoration when it is asked for(figuratively of course).

We MUST get perpetual adoration across from every clinic. It is INEXCUSABLE that the Church has not accomplished this simple task.


#20

[quote=Brad]I’m about ready to bulldoze the next Bishop’s confines that refuses to allow perpetual adoration when it is asked for
[/quote]

What does the bishop have to do with it? In my city, there are several churches that offer 24 hour Perpetual Adoration and some that do not. Isn’t up to the pastor? Circumstances like crime in an area and convenient access may force pastor to refuse such a request.

Then just go to a parish that offers it, even if you’re not a parishioner there.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.