Planned Parenthood Shooting in Colorado – Pro-Lifers Look Bad?

Some say that the shooting at the abortion clinic makes Pro-Lifers look bad.

I disagree. When one correctly understands the philosophies involved this shooting makes those who favor legalized abortion look bad.

On another forum, the subject was raised on whether or not the “rhetoric” of those who defend the lives of Conceived Children was somehow to blame for this violence. For more information, see

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=13473490&postcount=217

forums.catholic.com/showpost.php?p=13475718&postcount=237

There are those who try to frame the discussion to make Pro-Lifers look as the culprit in this tragic event. This is why labels are important.

“Pro-Choice”label is not Valid
Those who run the abortion clinics are not “Pro-Choice” people, because they do not recognize the choice of the Conceived Child.

“Anti-Abortion” label is not appropriate.
Those who run abortion clinics refuse to call us as we are, Pro-Lifers.
They insist on only referring to us as “Anti-Abortionists.” And their attitude here is part of the problem in what they indirectly and perhaps unintentionally promote.
It is not adequate to call Pro Lifers as “Anti-Abortionists.” Robert Dear might have been an “Anti-Abortionist.” His views are not yet clear, but that is not what we Pro-Lifers are. We condemn his unjust killings.catholicnewsagency.com/news/pro-life-groups-condemn-planned-parenthood-shooting-pray-for-victims-94611/

“We condemn violence of any kind against Planned Parenthood, abortionists, or any abortion industry workers,” said Kristan Hawkins, president of Students for Life, in a statement issued hours after the Nov. 27 shootings. “People using violence to promote their views should be held criminally liable for their actions. Period. We pray for the victims and their families of this senseless act.”

The pro-life advocacy group Susan B. Anthony List also offered prayers for the shooting victims and their families. “Violence is never justified. The actions of the shooter are in complete contradiction to the aims of the pro-life movement,” stated Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List, on Monday.
They also praised police officer Garrett Swasey, who was killed in the line of duty responding to the shooting.

“Officer Garrett Swasey embodies the spirit of the pro-life movement in this tragedy,” Dannelfelser said, adding that he “charged headfirst into danger to protect lives inside their [Planned Parenthood’s] clinic. He believed, as we do, that all lives are equally valuable and worthy of protection.”
And, now finally I will get to my point of why the shootings of Robert Dear actually do not make Pro-Lifers look bad, but instead point to the problems inherent with those who run Planned Parenthood clinics. Those who would kill a Policeman or even an Abortion doctor in cold blood because he disagreed with what they do has adopted a similar philosophy of the Pro-Abortionists of Planned Parenthood. They both favor killing others because they find the other inconvenient to their own way of thinking and living. And it is this philosophy which is in both of these groups (Planned Parenthood and those who would shoot the abortionists) that is to blame here.

As stated above by Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony List,
“Officer Garrett Swasey embodies the spirit of the pro-life movement in this tragedy,”

.

It does make pro-lifers look bad and must be denounced. Just like ISIS makes Islam look bad and must be denounced.

When someone takes on the appearance of belonging to a certain movement or institution, then acts in a reprehensible way, the movement or institution needs to condemn what has been done in their name. If they don’t, then they reasonably become tarred by the actions that took place.

I think now the right thing to do is for the pro-life protesters to change their signs to read: “Save Lives. Do not shoot. Do not abort.”

Or something.

Because yeah. Right now I’m feeling like a frustrated Muslim after yet another suicide bombing.

Hardly a comparison. ISIS kill wantonly.

ISIS can be compared to Planned Parenthood.

When someone takes on the appearance of belonging to a certain movement or institution, then acts in a reprehensible way, the movement or institution needs to condemn what has been done in their name. If they don’t, then they reasonably become tarred by the actions that took place.

Violence is not acceptable and yet if babies were older and born then defence would be justified…? There is a contradiction here. Oh, I forgot, the West hasn’t been defending the victims of ISIS in the Middle East. Go figure (I think the U.S term is?).

You see the hypocrisy?

Of course, we don’t advocate indiscriminate killing. If we represent good then we don’t do this example any justice by doing the opposite. However, innocent children/babies have been slaughtered legally (and illegally) under western systems of democracy. So where does just defence come in? No, killing is not right, murder is not right, but I still blame the pro-abortionists for causing all this.

THEY ARE THE CAUSE. Those who follow suit are the consequences who should/could have found another way to express their dismay.

It does beg the question: why are people allowed to go into abortion mills and commit murder?

And this guy killed selectively – including a police officer – so it’s OK.

Gee, I can’t imagine why people think pro-lifers are crazies who are willing to kill their foes.

I hadn’t finished my post, sorry. No, it is not okay. As you will see I wrote.

ISIS and Planned Parenthood are comparable unjust murderers.

The assailant is the vigilante who has acted in a way that contradicts his own values.

Now, I have no problem with Planned Parenthood and those who endorse and finance this organisation of death, being tried under a legal system for crimes against humanity and genocide, and this is the direction that opposition should come from, instead of trying to argue things across a table in which those in favour of abortion have long money strings pulling at their thinking - the use of reasoning faculties do not exist on that side of the table which means the pro-abortionists are simply formidable alien and inhumane monsters who devour the lives of children and with it the collective conscience of those they’ve manipulated.
The only problems that arise are:

  1. The very system we apparently value in place to support the wellbeing of all civilians is run by those who discriminate against unborn children and the long-term wellbeing of mothers.

  2. Babies cannot speak for themselves in a court of law.

These point should be argued. The Nazis were put on trial. Why can’t pro-abortion activists and organisation leaders?

However, there is no place for vigilantism, in the meantime.

To me, the response is simple… pro-LIFE people do believe in murder, period.

Whether the human being is still in the womb, new born, 30-something, sick, elderly, good, or bad; pro-LIFE people do not believe in murder.

This is also why I think the only way to win the political argument is to be consistent on life. While I personally believe that the Death Penalty has it’s uses, it’s hard to make the pro-Life argument while politically being pro Death Penalty… it robs us of some of our credibility from those who cannot understand the difference. After all, progressives & liberals based their societal values on ethics, while conservatives based their societal values on morals. So for someone who looks at it from an ethical point of view, not necessarily based in morality, they will not understand the moral differences (or they won’t accept the moral difference for society).

If politically, we change our view to being against the death penalty (politically, not morally) then we can say “Pro-Life people are against “killing” period”

This would make us “sound more progressive” and help solidify our claims politically. Then pro-life people can say we are 100% against killing while pro-choice is the only group that condones killing people.

God Bless

I’m not sure. I think the death penalty is bad for many reasons. Although the U.S military probably doesn’t see things like that. Where is the room for repentance if people aren’t given the chance. The issue is that “murder” is the word that puts the “killing” into the evil context. Christians are not pacifists. This is incorrect to assume that Christianity is out and out pacifism. It is honourable to defend those whom are in immediate danger with just defense. (Watch the film ‘The Mission’ as an example). It is not “killing” that is wrong, it is “Killing” without just cause i.e:- ,murder. I don’t think the death penalty is justified. Because those who serve time are already out of harm’s way. This vigilante decided for himself without a court of law that someone had to die. This is execution, and murder. But it is revenge murder for crimes against humanity. He will be called to justice. Will those who carry on killing unjustly be called to justice? A re they going to call themselves?

It seems to me that there are people who are called to protect the dignity of fellow citizens who themselves can break the rules while bringing others who also commit evil to trial. This is a form of corruption, yes? A scandal?

I get what you are saying and I agree. However, I wasn’t talking about the military. And I’m not debating the morality of the Death Penalty.

I’m simply saying that POLITICALLY, if we Pro-Lifers change our stance on the civil Death Penalty, I think it can help our argument and cast the Pro-Death camp in a different light.

Since Mr. Dear has given no clear motive for the shooting; to what source do you attribute your conclusion that his actions were specifically pro-life?

I’m wondering if the shooter really said what the media said he said. By all accounts, this guy did not have electricity in his trail or, or where he lived before in Texas. If this is true, how did he see the videos, or for that matter hear about them with no TV? He sounds like he was a bit strange as people said he usually rambled on about things but no one heard him say a thing about abortion.

The “unnamed” official remains just that. It will be interesting to see how this plays out and if he does give a motive. As the saying goes, “the devil is in the details”. And perhaps influenced this man, or maybe the guy even thought he was somewhere else!

Thank you. My point exactly. I live three miles from the shooting area. This case is on our news every night, and in our newspaper every day To my knowledge, based on any credible witnesses, family members, or otherwise, Mr. Dear is yet to make any statements that are coherent enough to fully establish a definitive motive. Hearsay from an “unnamed official” is simply that…hearsay.

have they proved he belonged to any pro-life movement?
from what I have heard he is a rather unsavory character and never really spoke about religion and did not have a lifestyle of a Christian man. Perhaps he didn’t like what PP has been accused of doing, but that doesn’t mean he represents the prolife movement does it?
I don’t know if all the details have come out yet.

it makes you wonder if there really was an unamed official and if there was, why did he say what he did when he admitted he was not authorized to make a statement!

This is why we need to stop labeling people.

I see a lot of people say, oh another liberal or another left wing nut.

Same thing with Muslims, we can not blame everyone for what one person does. Now, if we have signs pointing that pro life people paid this guy to do this, then yes we’re in trouble.

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.