Is this justified killing? The right to defend life.

[Blue Tick]

Here's a scenario. Two pagans conceive a child and want to have an abortion. Wife is unrepentant husband becomes a believer and repents of his sin before the Lord. Child is growing in the womb mother is still convinced she wants an abortion. Father adamantly opposes. Despite the father's convictions mother schedules and leaves to have an abortion. Father arrives at the "clinic" before mother does. He shoots and kills the doctor who was supposed to murder his child. Father doesn't run confesses he shot the doctor who was going to murder his unborn child. Further confesses his motive was to protect the life of his unborn child.

How is this scenario different then one intervening to prevent premeditated murder? Or how does this differ from one witnessing an attempt to rape or murder and not doing anything to prevent it.

Is this lawful protection of the innocent? Can the argument be made that the father was protecting his child and not those of any future slaughter? The father specifically argues the act of killing was done in self defense to protect his child from murder. How is this vigilantism?

 

[Andres]

Nope. Shooting the doc is not justified. It's murder.

 

[Montanablue]

I'm not sure hypotheticals are helpful here. As someone who has worked a great deal in the world of pro-life politics and crisis pregnancy centers, this scenario is highly unrealistic.

But regardless, Andres is correct. This has been discussed before, at length, and if you do a search, you should find a couple of threads that hammer this out.

 

[au5t1n]

If I recall, Rev. Buchanan had some interesting thoughts on this. You might want to use the Advanced Search to search his posts for "vigilantism."

 

[Blue Tick]

Nope. Shooting the doc is not justified. It's murder.

Why is it still murder if he doesn't run, confesses his motive, and argues that his son/daughter's life was endangered at the hands of a killer. Plus he's the head of his house which gives him lawful authority to protect his family, i.e., his unborn child. The case is different then the standard blanket rights of the innocent. When people like Paul Hill and Scott Roeder take the law into their hands to protect the seed of the wicked their not walking in lawful authority. Does the father have the authority to protect his family? The point here (hypothetical situation) is a believer who's child is endanger of dying at the hands of an executioner. The father's motive is not to preserve the seed of the wicked but rather to preserve the life of his family (unborn child).

 

[Willem van Oranje]

I'm not sure hypotheticals are helpful here. As someone who has worked a great deal in the world of pro-life politics and crisis pregnancy centers, this scenario is highly unrealistic.

But regardless, Andres is correct. This has been discussed before, at length, and if you do a search, you should find a couple of threads that hammer this out.

How exactly? Is it uncommon that a pregnant woman undergoes an abortion without the consent of the father? Seems like this would be quite common in today's environment.

 

[Scottish Lass]

How exactly? Is it uncommon that a pregnant woman undergoes an abortion without the consent of the father? Seems like this would be quite common in today's environment.

I think she means the shooting the doctor part is unrealistic. And frankly, the father is often the one initiating the pressure for an abortion. Yes, there are men that that don't feel that way, but they are in the minority (count them at the next pro-life rally--they'll number roughly 10% of the women there who regret their abortion).

 

[Montanablue]

I'm not sure hypotheticals are helpful here. As someone who has worked a great deal in the world of pro-life politics and crisis pregnancy centers, this scenario is highly unrealistic.

But regardless, Andres is correct. This has been discussed before, at length, and if you do a search, you should find a couple of threads that hammer this out.

How exactly? Is it uncommon that a pregnant woman undergoes an abortion without the consent of the father? Seems like this would be quite common in today's environment.

Not at all. Women who have abortions generally (note that I'm saying generally and not always. There are obviously exceptions to this) do so for 2 reasons:

1. No support from her family to have the child/encouragement of her family to abort the child.
2. No support from husband/boyfriend to have the child/encouragement of husband/boyfriend to support the child.

Contrary to popular conservative belief, women do not want to have abortions. They may fear having a child, they be very unhappy about the circumstances in which the conception happened, but an abortion is rarely what they want to do. Most women who have the support of their family or the child's father will absolutely have the baby. In fact, in my 3 years of working at a crisis pregnancy center, I never once saw a woman who had the support of either the family or the father have an abortion. On the other hand, it was not unusual at all to see women bullied into having one by their parents or the child's father. In the area I was in (small college town with lots of women from rural/conservative areas), being pregnant out of wedlock would be such as shame to the family, that the family just wanted the baby to go away. Added to that, many men simply didn't want the responsibility of having to pay for a child and not being so attached to the baby (its not growing inside them) they were able to be more callous/detached.

Again, I'm speaking generally and based on my own experience here. I'm not saying that there's not a woman out there who would be determined to kill her child against the wishes of her family and the child's father. But I've never encountered one. Usually a woman who has the support of the child's father is overjoyed. (not about the pregnancy, but about the support)

Also, I don't mean this to be an attack on men, although it might come off that way. I've also seen a lot of men who really stepped up to the plate and supported both their child and their child's mother.

---------- Post added at 07:55 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:54 AM ----------

How exactly? Is it uncommon that a pregnant woman undergoes an abortion without the consent of the father? Seems like this would be quite common in today's environment.

I think she means the shooting the doctor part is unrealistic. And frankly, the father is often the one initiating the pressure for an abortion. Yes, there are men that that don't feel that way, but they are in the minority (count them at the next pro-life rally--they'll number roughly 10% of the women there who regret their abortion).

Oops, cross posted. Yes, both are unrealistic.

 

[au5t1n]

An ordinary citizen cannot punish; he can only protect. Killing by a non-magistrate is only ever permissible inasmuch as it is absolutely necessary to protect life. The man in your example killed the doctor to punish him. He was not merely protecting. Why? Because he did not exercise all his other options that did not involve killing the doctor. Why didn't he smash the equipment? Knock the doctor unconscious? Block his wife from entering the room? Quarantine the doctor in a room? Physically prevent the procedure from taking place in some way? Frankly, if the man went straight to the clinic and shot the doctor, he was not protecting his child -- he was usurping the magistrate's authority and executing the criminal.

 

[Blue Tick]

Someone has responded to my post via PM:

I think this gets to the point of John's question, viz. Does the father have a moral obligation under God to defend his unborn child, which, if he did not obey, would consitute a sin against God, and therefore, does he have an obligation to disobey the civil ordinance which would restrict him from being obedient to God's law? I think, yes, it is such a moral obligation.

Of course, there's a false dichotomy set up here. The father's only option is not murdering the Abortion doctor. Of course the father has a moral obligation under God to defend his unborn child, but it's by exhausting every lawful means in doing so. This is a married couple. Has the father even sought out legal options? Has the father called the clinic with an intent to sue? I have no idea what the options are for a married woman to have an abortion apart from some kind of input from the husband, unless she does illegally. It is not okay for a man to take the law into his own hands, but to do what is right with the lawful means God has provided and trust the Lord with the consequences.

Ok, so the father exhausts all the lawful means available and the State has ruled in favor of the abortion doctor and his wife. The State says he has no rights and the abortion can proceed.

 

[Blue Tick]

An ordinary citizen cannot punish; he can only protect. Killing by a non-magistrate is only ever permissible inasmuch as it is absolutely necessary to protect life. The man in your example killed the doctor to punish him. He was not merely protecting. Why? Because he did not exercise all his other options that did not involve killing the doctor. Why didn't he smash the equipment? Knock the doctor unconscious? Block his wife from entering the room? Quarantine the doctor in a room? Physically prevent the procedure from taking place in some way? Frankly, if the man went straight to the clinic and shot the doctor, he was not protecting his child -- he was usurping the magistrate's authority and executing the criminal.

Austin,

You make a good point. Definitely something to consider. However, what if the father walks on in the act of the abortion? In the same sense as if a husband came home and found his wife about to be raped and his children about to be murdered. Would one really seek to hinder or harm the perpetrator? I don't mean to be graphic just trying to work this through.

 

[au5t1n]

It's certainly a difficult question.

 

[earl40]

Shall we do evil that good may come? It's not justified for him to do this in that, unfortunately, the state has sanctioned infanticide, whereas it has not sanctioned their more narrow definition of "murder," etc. What is needed are some godly people to vote for godly representatives who will begin to ignore court rulings that are contrary to actual legislated measures, since, in fact, court rulings are not supposed to be legislation of law, but the upholding of laws already made by Congress. It is God's minister who should be putting down the Abortion doctor and decrying poor rulings of the unelected judicial leaders who have deemed themselves lawmakers. It is only proper for Christians to break the law when said law causes them directly to violate God's Law.

What about the elliptical idea of Thou shall not murder in that one shall do what is ones power to preserve life.

Also I really don't the situation is all that "out there".

 

[Montanablue]

In the hypothetical scenario, I suppose. Rest assured, "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord. I will repay."

I think this is a situation in which the wrath of God is actually extremely comforting to us rather than offensive (as it tends to be for westerners)

 

[earl40]

It's certainly a difficult question.

I agree because I am afraid I know what I might do, right or wrong.

 

[TimV]

There isn't a death penalty in the Bible for abortion unless the kid is viable, so in that case it would be murder and you should get the death penalty. Obviously people have different takes on that, but at the end of the day no one would deny that an woman caught in adultery was spared if she was pregnant.

 

[earl40]

There isn't a death penalty in the Bible for abortion unless the kid is viable, so in that case it would be murder and you should get the death penalty. Obviously people have different takes on that, but at the end of the day no one would deny that an woman caught in adultery was spared if she was pregnant.

Was she spared if she missed her cycle by one day or 4 months?

 

[TimV]

Tamar is the only example, and it was three months and there's not a hint in Scripture than anyone cared.

Besides, the question is punishment. Can you shoot a man in a public place (after the sun has risen) for stealing?

Careful that you don't lay a burden on someone reading this that you would feel responsible for.

 

[earl40]

Tamar is the only example, and it was three months and there's not a hint in Scripture than anyone cared.

Besides, the question is punishment. Can you shoot a man in a public place (after the sun has risen) for stealing?

Careful that you don't lay a burden on someone reading this that you would feel responsible for.

Yes you are correct.

 

[Prufrock]

Careful that you don't lay a burden on someone reading this that you would feel responsible for.

A very good caution, Tim.

 

[earl40]

Shall we do evil that good may come? It's not justified for him to do this in that, unfortunately, the state has sanctioned infanticide, whereas it has not sanctioned their more narrow definition of "murder," etc. What is needed are some godly people to vote for godly representatives who will begin to ignore court rulings that are contrary to actual legislated measures, since, in fact, court rulings are not supposed to be legislation of law, but the upholding of laws already made by Congress. It is God's minister who should be putting down the Abortion doctor and decrying poor rulings of the unelected judicial leaders who have deemed themselves lawmakers. It is only proper for Christians to break the law when said law causes them directly to violate God's Law.

What about the elliptical idea of Thou shall not murder in that one shall do what is ones power to preserve life.

Also I really don't the situation is all that "out there".

Thou shalt not murder in that one shall do what is with one's lawful power to do to preserve life.

Would you consider it a just war if someone attacked us for allowing and committing abortions? Heaven knows I think it would have been OK for us to attack Germany for the sake of the Jewish people...I think this would be line of thought of the Islamist of a just and holy war against those of us here in the West with our materialistic thinking and selfish acts against out babies.

 

[Andres]

John, would killing the doctor even be sure to stop the abortion? Obviously this woman is intent on killing her baby, so she'll just go to another doctor. Does your man just keep killing all the abortion doctors?

 

[Willem van Oranje]

Shall we do evil that good may come? It's not justified for him to do this in that, unfortunately, the state has sanctioned infanticide, whereas it has not sanctioned their more narrow definition of "murder," etc. What is needed are some godly people to vote for godly representatives who will begin to ignore court rulings that are contrary to actual legislated measures, since, in fact, court rulings are not supposed to be legislation of law, but the upholding of laws already made by Congress. It is God's minister who should be putting down the Abortion doctor and decrying poor rulings of the unelected judicial leaders who have deemed themselves lawmakers. It is only proper for Christians to break the law when said law causes them directly to violate God's Law.

What about the elliptical idea of Thou shall not murder in that one shall do what is ones power to preserve life.

Also I really don't the situation is all that "out there".

Thou shalt not murder in that one shall do what is with one's lawful power to do to preserve life.

Would you consider it a just war if someone attacked us for allowing and committing abortions? Heaven knows I think it would have been OK for us to attack Germany for the sake of the Jewish people...I think this would be line of thought of the Islamist of a just and holy war against those of us here in the West with our materialistic thinking and selfish acts against out babies.

You're talking about a civil magistrate whose God-ordained role is to effectively wield the sword against evil-doers. Totally different question.

 

[Blue Tick]

John, would killing the doctor even be sure to stop the abortion? Obviously this woman is intent on killing her baby, so she'll just go to another doctor. Does your man just keep killing all the abortion doctors?

Good question. I can't answer to be honest.

 

[earl40]

Shall we do evil that good may come? It's not justified for him to do this in that, unfortunately, the state has sanctioned infanticide, whereas it has not sanctioned their more narrow definition of "murder," etc. What is needed are some godly people to vote for godly representatives who will begin to ignore court rulings that are contrary to actual legislated measures, since, in fact, court rulings are not supposed to be legislation of law, but the upholding of laws already made by Congress. It is God's minister who should be putting down the Abortion doctor and decrying poor rulings of the unelected judicial leaders who have deemed themselves lawmakers. It is only proper for Christians to break the law when said law causes them directly to violate God's Law.

What about the elliptical idea of Thou shall not murder in that one shall do what is ones power to preserve life.

Also I really don't the situation is all that "out there".

Thou shalt not murder in that one shall do what is with one's lawful power to do to preserve life.

Would you consider it a just war if someone attacked us for allowing and committing abortions? Heaven knows I think it would have been OK for us to attack Germany for the sake of the Jewish people...I think this would be line of thought of the Islamist of a just and holy war against those of us here in the West with our materialistic thinking and selfish acts against out babies.

You're talking about a civil magistrate whose God-ordained role is to effectively wield the sword against evil-doers. Totally different question.

No, I was asking if a COUNTRY took up arms against us for being evil.

---------- Post added at 06:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:50 PM ----------

John, would killing the doctor even be sure to stop the abortion? Obviously this woman is intent on killing her baby, so she'll just go to another doctor. Does your man just keep killing all the abortion doctors?

You assume that would happen.....I have heard the argument that one should not kill an abortion doctor on Sunday because who knows if he would have had a change of heart in church that day. AAMOF this was the line of thought with the last fella killed at the church a few months ago. I suspect as a result of that mans murder there were fewer abortions committed but of course that is pure speculation as I would suspect the mother in question in this hypothetical situation would probably give a second thought of killing her baby. Who knows for sure, but human nature sometimes is quite predictable.

 

[Willem van Oranje]

"No, I was asking if a COUNTRY took up arms against us for being evil."

I'm assuming this country would be led to war by the leadership of their government, i. e. a civil magistrate, and not by private individuals?