[Apologetics] Re: Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller

Mon Jun 1 23:50:38 EDT 2009

Thanks, Dianne.

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.

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.

Living in a high-crime urban area, I have wondered what would happen if I were attacked.  

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?  

Like the pharmacist, I believe I'd probably kill an attacker.  The only death I am not prepared to explain is my own.

As Dianne pointed out, premeditated killing is different from UN-premeditated killing, especially in self defense.

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?

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.

Accordingly, the act of killing Tiller may be indirectly responsible for the deaths of many unborn children.

The greater good could have been achieved by leaving Tiller alone.

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.

Art
--- On Mon, 6/1/09, Dianne Dawson <rcdianne at yahoo.com> wrote:

From: Dianne Dawson <rcdianne at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [Apologetics] Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller
To: "Stephen Korsman" <skorsman at theotokos.co.za>, "Apologetics Group" <apologetics at gathman.org>
Date: Monday, June 1, 2009, 7:27 PM

Stephen,

You pose some very interesting scenarios.  This is the way I understand it from various priests and theologians:

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 intentionally 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 intent is defense - not murder.  Yes, a soldier is not responsible for killing an enemy because he doesn't premeditatively kill.

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.

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.

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.

To deliberately, with malice and aforethought, stalk and kill someone - that is immoral.

Dianne

Like a deer that longs for running waters so my soul longs for you, O God.
Ps 42:1

From: Stephen Korsman <skorsman at theotokos.co.za>
To: Apologetics Group <apologetics at gathman.org>
Sent: Monday, June 1, 2009 3:43:07 PM
Subject: Re: [Apologetics] Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller

Hi

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.

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?

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.

If a sniper took out a soldier just before that soldier could kill an innocent woman, is that okay?

If a sniper had taken out Hitler before he could do the damage he did, would that have been okay?

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?

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"?

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?

Bye,
Stephen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Art Kelly 
To: Apologetics Group ; Michele Allen ; Colleen Parro ; Father Pavone ; Darby Fitzpatrick ; Jim Murphy ; Ward Collins ; info at lifeissues.org ; daveandrusko at gmail.com 
Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 1:09 AM
Subject: [Apologetics] Thoughts on the killing of Dr. George Tiller

"All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."  (Gospel of St. Matthew 26:52, KJV)

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.)

As shocking as this killing was, it was even more so that it occurred at a church, where Tiller was serving as an usher.  

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?

The church is the Reformation Lutheran Church in Wichita, Kansas, which is part of the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America (ELCA).

I went to their website and found this statement:  "Our jobs do not define us."

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.

As a member of the Reformation Lutheran Church, what was Tiller's theology?  

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?  

Was he able to compartmentalize his religious beliefs from his occupation? 

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?

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.)

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.

How can that be reconciled with ANY form of Christianity?

Art

_______________________________________________
Apologetics mailing list
Apologetics at gathman.org
http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

_______________________________________________
Apologetics mailing list
Apologetics at gathman.org
http://bmsi.com/mailman/listinfo/apologetics

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://gathman.org/pipermail/apologetics/attachments/20090601/cd5c9a83/attachment.html>