<table cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" border="0" ><tr><td valign="top" style="font: inherit;"><DIV>This is very helpful. Thanks, Dianne. I had no idea the Catechism addressed the very issue I had wondered about.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>Art</FONT></STRONG></DIV><BR>--- On <B>Tue, 6/2/09, Dianne Dawson <I><rcdianne@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Dianne Dawson <rcdianne@yahoo.com><BR>Subject: [Apologetics] More - Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller<BR>To: "Apologetics Group" <apologetics@gathman.org>, "Jim Murphy" <jmurf80@bellsouth.net>, "Ward Collins" <wcollins@netins.net>, "Michele Allen" <arochaallen@juno.com>, "Colleen Parro" <rnclife@swbell.net><BR>Date: Tuesday, June 2, 2009, 9:53 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv1301151871>
<STYLE type=text/css><!--#yiv1301151871 DIV {margin:0px;}--></STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV><A href="http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/23/the-evil-of-self-defense-using-modern-weapons/" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/23/the-evil-of-self-defense-using-modern-weapons/</A></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>
<H2>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 18pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'"><A title="Permanent Link: When is Self-Defense Evil?" href="http://vox-nova.com/2009/05/23/the-evil-of-self-defense-using-modern-weapons/" target=_blank rel=nofollow><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">When is Self-Defense Evil?</SPAN></A></SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">Traditionally, killing in self-defense has been condoned through the philosophical principal of “double-effect”. There are four criteria of the double-effect doctrine, by which a person’s actions may cause both good and evil effects without guilt being incurred:</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">1) The moral object must be good or neutral, and not intrinsically evil<BR>2) The good effect is intended, the evil effect is not<BR>3) The good effect doesn’t occur as a result of the evil effect<BR>4) There must be a proportionate reason for doing the act</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">The Catechism clarifies that “a bad effect is not imputable if it was not willed either as an end or as a means of an action,” (CCC 1737). In essence, sometimes our good actions have evil side-effects. Sometimes our actions inevitably, yet unintentionally, lead to evil. But if our actions meet the criteria of double-effect, by which it is clear that the evil caused is an unintentional side-effect that does not outweigh the good to be gained, then we are not guilty for that evil. For example, car manufacturers are not morally responsible for the inevitable death of innocents in car accidents, because such deaths are unintentional side-effects that do not outweigh the good of mass transportation.</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">The principle of double-effect originates in St. Aquinas’ reasoning about the morality of civilians killing in self-defense – a situation that he and Saint Augustine distinguish from soldiers or police who authoritatively kill in defense of the common good. The crucial point, for St. Aquinas, is that an individual may <I>not</I> ‘intend’ to kill in self-defense, whereas a soldier may. By this difference, we see that the way an individual defends himself will be different than the way a soldier defends his homeland. With this distinction in mind, let us examine a “tough case”: killing an unjust aggressor in self-defense. I propose two particular cases, one where double-effect applies and one where double-effect does not apply. As the Catechism states (quoting
Aquinas): “the act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor . . . The one is intended, the other is not,” (CCC 2263). While a soldier is trained, armed, and prepared to “shoot to kill”, an individual may never shoot to kill. Rather, an individual may be “forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow” (CCC 2264).</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">Two particular situations can illustrate these principles:</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">1) a man defends himself with his unarmed hands<BR>2) a man defends himself with a high caliber handgun loaded with <A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_point_bullet" target=_blank rel=nofollow><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">hollow point</SPAN></A> bullets.</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">In the first case, an aggressor may be wrestled into submission, and <I>in the process</I> break his head upon the ground and die. Let’s examine the four criteria of double-effect: 1) wrestling with another person is not intrinsically evil, 2) the death of the attacker was not the object of the person’s will, 3) the death of the attacker did not result in the good effect – saving the man’s life, rather, wrestling the man to the ground saved the man’s life, 4) the death of the unjust aggressor is proportionate to saving the life of an innocent victim. In essence, the death of the attacker was not a means of self-defense, but was rather a side-effect. The defender did not “wrestle to kill”, though he could foresee grave harm to the attacker due to his self-defense.
One may very well imagine other forms of self-defense which lead to grave harm without self-defense being the “result” of that grave harm.</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">The case of defense with a high caliber handgun loaded with hollow point bullets (bullets designed for lethality), is specified as an <I>objectively</I> different case. According to the double-effect criteria, it violates not the first criteria (firing a bullet is a neutral act), nor necessarily the second criteria (one’s will may be to defend one’s own life), nor the fourth criteria (the lethal wounding of an assailant is proportionate to saving one’s life, and may be the only option), but rather the third criteria – the lethal wounding of the assailant is not an indirect side-effect of one’s defense, but the <I>direct means</I> of one’s defense. One’s self-defense, in the specified case of a high caliber handgun loaded with hollow point bullets, <I>does</I> “occur as a result of
the evil effect.” The case of a handgun with hollow point bullets clarifies if we imagine more extreme cases – a civilian armed with a machine gun, or a bazooka, or (to enter science fiction) a death ray. There is clearly a line that cannot be crossed, which Saint Aquinas details to us: “if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful” (CCC 2264). In moderate defense, lethality is a side-effect rather than a means of one’s defense. It is the difference between lethally wounding an aggressor <I>in the process</I> of defense (wrestling) and lethally wounding an aggressor <I>as the process</I> of defense (death ray). The crucial distinction that both Augustine and Aquinas make between soldier and civilian is here most apparent – a soldier intentionally kills <I>to</I> defend the common good (using extreme violence), whereas the civilian unintentionally kills <I>while</I> defending life (using
moderated violence). Just as modern weapons have forced the Church to look at war in an “entirely new way”, perhaps modern weapons should force us to look at personal self-defense in an entirely new way as well.</SPAN></DIV>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><U><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'">Further Resources</SPAN></U><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'"></SPAN></DIV>
<UL type=disc>
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'"><A href="http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7" target=_blank rel=nofollow><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">Saint Aquinas, “Whether it is lawful to kill a man in self-defense?”</SPAN></A> </SPAN></LI>
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'"><A href="http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/double-effect/" target=_blank rel=nofollow><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">Stanford Encyclopedia entry on Double-Effect</SPAN></A> </SPAN></LI>
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'"><A href="http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,322588,00.html" target=_blank rel=nofollow><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">“Beyond the Rubber Bullet,” Time Magazine</SPAN></A> </SPAN></LI>
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'"><A href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunshot_wounds" target=_blank rel=nofollow><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">Ballistic Trauma, Wikipedia</SPAN></A> </SPAN></LI>
<LI class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt; LINE-HEIGHT: normal"><SPAN lang=EN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Times New Roman', 'serif'"><A href="http://www.catholicpeacemaking.com/" target=_blank rel=nofollow><SPAN style="COLOR: blue">Catholic Peacemaking</SPAN></A> </SPAN></LI></UL></H2>
<DIV class=entry><BR> </DIV></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000bf><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms">
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf>Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.</FONT></EM></DIV></FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000bf><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms">Ps 42:1</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf size=1></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf size=1></FONT></EM> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Stephen Korsman <skorsman@theotokos.co.za><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Art Kelly <arthurkelly@yahoo.com>; Apologetics Group <apologetics@gathman.org>; Jim Murphy <jmurf80@bellsouth.net>; Ward Collins <wcollins@netins.net>; Michele Allen <arochaallen@juno.com>; Colleen Parro <rnclife@swbell.net><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Tuesday, June 2, 2009 7:25:13 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Apologetics] Re: Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller<BR></FONT><BR>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>We had a similar situation in South Africa, at least according to stories that go around - people someone's aunt knows. Someone had their house broken into, they were attacked, and managed to subdue the intruder. He told them that he would get out of jail fairly quickly, and he'd come back and kill them for what they've done to him. The man shot him dead to protect his family. The police considered this to be self defence and did not press charges. Such threats do need to be taken seriously.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I have a problem with the idea that you cannot morally intend the death of someone to defend your life. Surely if lethal force is required to achieve that defence, it is morally justified? Perhaps the death can be argued to be an unintended effect of the degree of force required, and perhaps shooting someone in the head in self defence if they're tied up and making threats to come back in the future could be argued this way: "I intend shooting you in the head in order to hit a part of your brain that will disable you in such a way that you'll be unable to carry out those future threats; any death is not my direct intention." Moral theologians seem to like arguments of that sort, and will carry on to philosophise about being aware of the chances of your intention working. But when it comes down to practice, theory behind the desk of a moral theologian (who may or may not agree with his colleagues in the
same passage) is meaningless.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>I would also argue that intending to kill someone in self defence occurs in a situation where fear/anger severely compromises the ability to make judgements like those made in the offices of moral theologians, thereby reducing moral culpability. Would that make it less objectively immoral? If it is objectively immoral, certainly not. Would it be a mortal sin? If full assent is required, as I have been taught, for a sin to be a mortal sin, then perhaps not. Would it be necessary to confess this sin? I would argue that it would be necessary, if not from the mortal sin point of view, merely from the fact that it's not an unnoticed sin - it's quite clear to you what you did. The peace and grace of confession would certainly help.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>That brings me to two questions:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>How, precisely, does a soldier go about killing in a just war without committing a mortal sin? Or do soldiers have a greater chance of ending up in hell unless they aim only for the legs, never get involved in bombing, and never launch a missile? Especially if they die in battle. Is there a category of killing that can be classified as "killing in war" as Dennis mentioned, or does such a concept not exist in Christian moral law?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Second - if a person sincerely believes that foetuses are not real persons and that killing them is not immoral, do they commit a mortal sin by procuring or performing one? As I have been taught, mortal sin requires full assent (present), but also knowledge of the evil of the act (in this scenario it is absent.) Note, I am NOT arguing that it's an issue we can minimise; I'm trying to get an understanding of the degree of effect it has on the individual's soul. It's not the objective evil I am trying to debate.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>God bless,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stephen</FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A title=arthurkelly@yahoo.com href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=arthurkelly@yahoo.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:arthurkelly@yahoo.com">Art Kelly</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=apologetics@gathman.org href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=apologetics@gathman.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:apologetics@gathman.org">Apologetics Group</A> ; <A title=jmurf80@bellsouth.net href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jmurf80@bellsouth.net" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:jmurf80@bellsouth.net">Jim Murphy</A> ; <A title=wcollins@netins.net href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wcollins@netins.net" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:wcollins@netins.net">Ward Collins</A> ; <A title=arochaallen@juno.com href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=arochaallen@juno.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow ymailto="mailto:arochaallen@juno.com">Michele Allen</A> ; <A title=rnclife@swbell.net href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rnclife@swbell.net" target=_blank rel=nofollow
ymailto="mailto:rnclife@swbell.net">Colleen Parro</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Tuesday, June 02, 2009 5:50 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Apologetics] Re: Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>Thanks, Dianne.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Both you and Stephen may be interested in article that I will send you tomorrow about a pharmacist in Oklahoma who is being charge with killing an armed man trying to rob the pharmacy.<BR><BR>After wounding the robber with the first shots, the pharmacist then "finished him off." All of this was captured on video tape by the pharmacy cameras.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Living in a high-crime urban area, I have wondered what would happen if I were attacked. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I know there is a definite possibility that I might kill my attacker. Once the anger and adrenelin got going, I don't think I could just turn it off once the attacker was disabled. And who is to say that he might get back up and go after me again, perhaps more successfully? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Like the pharmacist, I believe I'd probably kill an attacker. The only death I am not prepared to explain is my own.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As Dianne pointed out, premeditated killing is different from UN-premeditated killing, especially in self defense.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But where I think Stephen may have been going with some of his questions is: How is self-defense signficantly different from killing someone (Tiller) to prevent him from killing more unborn children?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I'll let the theologians answer that question, but I do know that killing Tiller has the potential to set back the pro-life movement more than anything the pro-abortion community has done or could do. As a result of Tiller's murder, pro-abortion legislation may be passed that would not have otherwise passed and pro-life legislation may be killed that would have otherwise been enacted into law.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Accordingly, the act of killing Tiller may be indirectly responsible for the deaths of many unborn children.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The greater good could have been achieved by leaving Tiller alone.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>By the way, a military recruiter was killed today in Arkansas. Ask the liberals if the anti-war movement as a whole should be blamed for that murder.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>Art</FONT></STRONG></DIV><BR>--- On <B>Mon, 6/1/09, Dianne Dawson <I><rcdianne@yahoo.com></I></B> wrote:<BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: rgb(16,16,255) 2px solid"><BR>From: Dianne Dawson <rcdianne@yahoo.com><BR>Subject: Re: [Apologetics] Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller<BR>To: "Stephen Korsman" <skorsman@theotokos.co.za>, "Apologetics Group" <apologetics@gathman.org><BR>Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 7:27 PM<BR><BR>
<DIV id=yiv934132973>
<STYLE type=text/css>#yiv1301151871 #yiv934132973 DIV {
MARGIN:0px;}
</STYLE>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif">
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Stephen,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>You pose some very interesting scenarios. This is the way I understand it from various priests and theologians:</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>If you inadvertantly kill someone in defense of yourself or another then it is not immoral. In an emergency you certainly are not going to have time to think thing out. However, if you have the time to discern then you are morally obligated not to <U>intentionally</U> kill someone. Like I said, sometimes you don't have time to think about what you are doing and sometimes you have no choice. Either way, your <U>intent</U> is defense - not murder. Yes, a soldier is not responsible for killing an enemy because he doesn't premeditatively kill.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Let's take a terminal cancer patient. The patient is not obligated to endure excrutiating pain just to avoid the possibility of death that comes from high dosages. Neither is the doctor obligated to withhold pain relieving medication. The INTENT is to relieve pain - NOT cause death. However, at the end of the disease it takes a great deal of medication to control the pain and that dosage may be the cause of the patient's death. Neither the doctor nor the patient would have any culpability in the death.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What about a woman who is pregnant and is diagnosed with cancer. Is she required to refuse chemotherapy because that treatment might terminate the pregnancy? No. Because it is not her INTENT to kill her baby.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Then there's the mother who is having problems during labor. The husband is told by the doctor that he can either save the mother or the baby but not both. Again, there is no intent on anyone's part to deliberately cause the death of either mom or baby. It is simply an unavoidable result.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>To deliberately, with malice and aforethought, stalk and kill someone - that is immoral.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Dianne<BR> </DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000bf><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms">
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf>Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.</FONT></EM></DIV></FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT color=#0000bf><EM><FONT face="comic sans ms">Ps 42:1</FONT></EM></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf size=1></FONT></EM> </DIV>
<DIV><EM><FONT face="Comic Sans MS" color=#0000bf size=1></FONT></EM> </DIV></DIV></DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: arial, helvetica, sans-serif"><BR>
<DIV style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt; FONT-FAMILY: times new roman, new york, times, serif"><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>
<HR SIZE=1>
<B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">From:</SPAN></B> Stephen Korsman <skorsman@theotokos.co.za><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Apologetics Group <apologetics@gathman.org><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Monday, June 1, 2009 3:43:07 PM<BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> Re: [Apologetics] Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller<BR></FONT><BR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Hi</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Before I start out, I want to say that I am opposed to the killing of abortionists. I believe the death sentence is okay under certain circumstances, but can't imagine when it would be better than more humane methods. However, seeing our country's prisons, and the gangs there, it's a breeding ground for something worse than what goes in. And the same applies to the USA, if Prison Break is anything to go by.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What I need an answer to is this: when is killing in the defence of another person's life immoral, and when it is not immoral?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If someone walks up to you with a knife and is about to stab you, and you whack them on the head with a brick and they die, that's fine. A similar defence of someone else is fine too. Unfortunate, but not immoral.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If a sniper took out a soldier just before that soldier could kill an innocent woman, is that okay?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If a sniper had taken out Hitler before he could do the damage he did, would that have been okay?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>When can a 20 year old soldier morally kill another 20 year old soldier, assuming we have a valid scenario of a just war? Does the "military" status of the killed soldier who was forcibly conscripted by his government make it okay to kill him? Does he have less of a right to life than a civilian?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Two soldiers on opposite sides in a just war shoot at the same time and both die. Which one goes to hell? Or were they just "following orders"?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>If someone is arming a nuclear missile, is it okay to shoot him dead before he can press the button? Is it okay to bomb his building? Is it okay to leak nerve gas into his building? Is it okay to activate a lethal device around his neck that was designed to enable his death should he do something wrong?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Bye,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Stephen</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial"><B>From:</B> <A title=arthurkelly@yahoo.com href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=arthurkelly@yahoo.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Art Kelly</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=apologetics@gathman.org href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=apologetics@gathman.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Apologetics Group</A> ; <A title=arochaallen@juno.com href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=arochaallen@juno.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Michele Allen</A> ; <A title=rnclife@swbell.net href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=rnclife@swbell.net" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Colleen Parro</A> ; <A title=mail@priestsforlife.org href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=mail@priestsforlife.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Father Pavone</A> ; <A title=darbyfitzpatrick@att.net href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=darbyfitzpatrick@att.net" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Darby Fitzpatrick</A> ; <A title=jmurf80@bellsouth.net href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=jmurf80@bellsouth.net" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Jim Murphy</A> ; <A
title=wcollins@netins.net href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=wcollins@netins.net" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Ward Collins</A> ; <A title=info@lifeissues.org href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=info@lifeissues.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow>info@lifeissues.org</A> ; <A title=daveandrusko@gmail.com href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=daveandrusko@gmail.com" target=_blank rel=nofollow>daveandrusko@gmail.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, June 01, 2009 1:09 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> [Apologetics] Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 border=0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=top>
<DIV>"All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword." (Gospel of St. Matthew 26:52, KJV)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Tiller was one of the very few doctors who practiced late-term abortions. As horrible as Tiller's actions were, it is unthinkable for a pro-life person to engage in murder. How could someone be so self-contradictory? (As this is written, a suspect is in custody, but his identity has not been released.)</DIV>
<DIV><BR>As shocking as this killing was, it was even more so that it occurred at a church, where Tiller was serving as an usher. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>What was the church, I wondered. What kind of church would want someone like Tiller as a member, much less allow him to serve as an usher?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The church is the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas, which is part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>I went to their website and found this statement: "Our jobs do not define us."</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is likely that statement was written with Tiller in mind. Certainly our jobs are NOT the ONLY thing that defines us. But how we live our lives in EVERYTHING we do--including our job--does, in fact, define us.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As a member of the Reformation Lutheran Church, what was Tiller's theology? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Did he believe that he was "saved" because he made a one-time altar call that accepted Jesus as his Lord and personal savior? Or did he believe that his charitable works for the poor would "earn" his right to heaven, despite his continual killing of unborn children? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Was he able to compartmentalize his religious beliefs from his occupation? </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>And what about the Reformation Lutheran Church? Did they "look the other way" and pretend that what Tiller did during the week did not matter on Sunday morning? Or did this church embrace abortions, including late-term abortions, as a positive good?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It is likely the abortion supporters will try to blame all pro-lifers for this killing, probably with the help of a large portion of the news media. To counteract that, we should all speak out against the killing of anyone. (I oppose the death penalty under almost all circumstances.)</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>But while strongly deploring this murder, I think we can publicly ask the Reformation Lutheran Church and the ELCA what Tiller was doing there serving as an usher. He had NOT repented of his sins. Tiller was going full speed ahead in performing unlimited abortions on demand up to the moment of birth.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>How can that be reconciled with ANY form of Christianity?</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT color=#0000ff size=3>Art</FONT></STRONG></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<DIV>
<HR>
<DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Apologetics mailing list<BR>Apologetics@gathman.org<BR>http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics<BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV><BR>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>_______________________________________________<BR>Apologetics mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Apologetics@gathman.org" target=_blank rel=nofollow>Apologetics@gathman.org</A><BR><A href="http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics" target=_blank rel=nofollow>http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><BR>
<DIV>
<HR>
<DIV></DIV>_______________________________________________<BR>Apologetics mailing list<BR>Apologetics@gathman.org<BR>http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></DIV><BR></DIV><BR>-----Inline Attachment Follows-----<BR><BR>
<DIV class=plainMail>_______________________________________________<BR>Apologetics mailing list<BR><A href="http://us.mc05g.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=Apologetics@gathman.org" ymailto="mailto:Apologetics@gathman.org">Apologetics@gathman.org</A><BR><A href="http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics" target=_blank>http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics</A><BR></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></td></tr></table><br>