Satire! Woot!

[Baptist Renegade]

Instead of just imprisonment and forced labor, what if slavery meant that the disabled slaves or those reaching the age of, say 40, slaves would be shot, or burned in a furnace, or gassed. (Something like this would be a necessary element to equate the institution of slavery to the abortion industry).

Would would you say Turner or Brown had gone too far?

You may argue that they did what they felt they needed to do but they did so outside of the umbrella of a lawful government therefore acted unlawfully and were subject to the penalties of the temporal government to which they were subject. We say the very same thing regarding Dietrich Bonnhoffer today, right? Most Evangelical Christians see Bonnhoffer as a hero as many say the same of Nat Turner and John Brown but one may also argue that each of these violated the biblical principles of Romans 13 so the next question to ask is whether God sees these actions to be heroic or sinful?

We speak of Roeder but how about the actions of Paul Jennings Hill who famously told the jurists in his trial to "Mix my blood with the blood of the unborn?" His actions were very deliberate in the killing of an abortionist and his body guard and after he accomplished this, he set his shotgun on the ground and waited for law enforcement authorities to come and arrest him. He did what he felt he needed to do but also acknowledged that there were rightful penalties for his actions. Ask yourself whether his actions helped or hindered the Pro-Life cause. I would have to argue the latter as the abortion rights people were able to portray peaceful anti-abortion protesters as ruthless vigilantes and actually emboldened these baby murderers! What do you think would've happened if many other anti-abortionists followed the examples of Roeder and Hill? I believe that our government as well as the general populace would see anti-abortionists as "Domestic Terrorists" and subject to arrest and imprisonment!

Here in Texas during the Civil War, the "Hill Country Germans" were pro-union, anti-slavery and openly objected to being conscripted to fight for the Confederacy. Martial law was declared and many were persecuted and imprisoned. A group men made plans to flee into Mexico, and join up with the Union forces which were then in New Orleans. They were overtaken at the Nueces River and after a short battle, they were all rounded up and executed on the spot. How should we regard this group of men: as heroes or as traitors? It depends upon whether you are a Unionist or a Confederate right? What is clear though is that they made their choice and committed themselves to it.

 

[Ekklesian]

You may argue that they did what they felt they needed to do but they did so outside of the umbrella of a lawful government therefore acted unlawfully and were subject to the penalties of the temporal government to which they were subject.

I'm not arguing that. I was asking what you would think of the actions of Brown and Turner if slavery were a systematic execution.

 

[Ekklesian]

What if, instead of murdering abortionists, Roeder was defending America from killer robots from the future? Would you see his act any differently?

(I can arbitrarily move the goalposts, too, if that's what you like.)

You're saying that abortion isn't an American holocaust?

 

[Ekklesian]

For the record, I haven't expressed my opionion about Roeder and his actions. Don't presume I think he was justified.

 

[Ekklesian]

We say the very same thing regarding Dietrich Bonnhoffer today, right? Most Evangelical Christians see Bonnhoffer as a hero as many say the same of Nat Turner and John Brown but one may also argue that each of these violated the biblical principles of Romans 13 so the next question to ask is whether God sees these actions to be heroic or sinful?

You've touched on a number issues.

I'm not read up on Bonnhoffer. I just have the general knowledge that he was a nonviolent yet vocal opponent of Nazism and their genocide and was executed under trumped up charges.

But it's interesting that you bring him up. What about the average German citizen, condemned in the court of public opinion for not mounting an insurrection, though undeniably futile and suicidal, against the Nazis and their death camps?

What of Moses' slaying of the Egyptian that was abusing the Hebrew? I'm certain no one here justifies it, but few condemn the act. He was 'passionate for his people.'

 

[Ekklesian]

Anyway, I think the conversation has progressed far enough to establish the fact that few, if any, despite their rhetoric, have the same opinion of the personhood of the born and the personhood unborn.

The violence of slavery and abortion are not the same things. They're not even close. Slavery is brought into the argument by prolifers, because of the arguments made by proabortionists against the personhood of the unborn. Slaves weren't persons before the law either. But that argument is a two-edged sword.

Why would one feel inclined to intervene with deadly force if necessary in the urgent circumstance of a child who is being severely abused when it's outside the womb, but not when it's inside the womb, and they know it's being carried by the mother to be killed?

Because at heart, one entertains differing notions of the level of personhood of the unborn and the born.

That's what I'm getting at.

This post is not to be construed as an argument to start kidnapping women on their way to Planned Parenthood. I'm just establishing the fact most of us, if not all, do not look at the born and the unborn as equal persons.