Dr Greg Bahnsen - Hot Potatoes: Abortion (Part 3)

Our subject matter for this conference, these two evenings we've been together this week is hot potato issues, issues that are very controversial, open to a lot of debate and give and take and so forth in our culture. And I have wanted to convince you that the word of God is like a oven mitten and that we're able to handle these hot potato issues because God has given us sure direction and advice on how to deal with. With those things that the world is befuddled by and causes so much trouble among men. But God grants us not only peace, but also justice in the process of answering them, because he shows us in his holy word what he would have us to do about such things as welfare and warfare. We've looked at that. The question of whether homosexuals have civil rights, if it is a civil right to be a homosexual, or whether there ought to be laws against it. And then the first thing that we're going to deal with tonight is really a hot potato issue, one that draws a lot of emotional response, a lot of animosity in our culture over the question of violence at abortion clinics. As you know, we have this last year cases, five cases apparently, where abortionists, either doctors or helpers providing for abortion, have been killed in the process of trying to provide what the Supreme Court of the United States says are the privacy rights of women to secure the death of their unborn children if they choose to do that. And so I'd like tonight to take up this controversial issue, this hot potato of violence at abortion clinics and try to give a Christian response to it. I don't believe that when I get done, it's going to be any less controversial. Some of the things I have to say may create even more controversy. But it'll be good controversy, because if God grants me faithfulness to his word, it will be controversy that is generated by his holiness and not by our confusion. First of all, the question of violence at abortion clinics needs to be addressed from the standpoint of the violence that that takes place within the clinic itself. The critical and the unavoidable issue pertaining to the morality or the legality of voluntary abortion is whether the fetus is or is not a human being. And then if you've answered that question in the affirmative, the question becomes, under what circumstances any human being's right to life, that is the legal protection against killing, may be qualified or forfeited. Under what general circumstances, to speak ethically, do we say it's legitimate to abridge a human being's right to life? What if I were to suggest to you that when the victim is unaware of the violence, then it is legitimate. Would many of you be inclined to say, oh, yeah, that's right. It's not right to kill a human being unless you do it in such a way that they're not aware of what's coming. But of course, if they're not aware, or maybe you slip something into their dinner and they go to sleep that night and just very nicely pass out and never wake up, since they're not aware that that's what's happened to them, then it's not murder. I doubt that many of us would be inclined to think that way, but often when I debate abortion with people, I'll be told, well, the fetus is not aware of what's happening to it. I said, don't you see? The issue here is whether that's a human being. If it's a human being, whether the fetus is aware of it or not really is irrelevant to whether this is murder. And in our country, sadly, it's been enshrined in judicial decree from the Supreme Court that it is acceptable under some circumstances, apparently, to kill human beings if you do it in private. You know, the rationale behind the decision, Roe v. Wade, was, was that a woman has a right to privacy in terms of her sexual affairs. And since she has that right, it turns out that if she terminates a pregnancy, which is somehow. I mean, this is so skewed in its reasoning, it's incredible. But since that's tied to sexual matters, being pregnant, if she terminates the pregnancy, that has to be part of the privacy she has in terms of her sexual affairs. But then again, apply that across the board. Would we say that murder is wrong unless you do it in private? You know, it's like, if I were to go out here on the street tonight and shoot you, that would be, of course, a horrible thing. But if I invite you into my home and no one's around, and then I take out a gun and shoot you in private, then of course it's not murder. These are the sorts of questions we have to ask, if anybody has to ask. This is not just a Christian prejudice here, but you have to ask the question, what is the status of the fetus? If a fetus is a human being, then the question becomes, under what circumstances any human being's right to life may be qualified or forfeited if the status of the fetus is that of a human being, and if there is no cogent consideration for qualifying its human right to life, no consideration which would be relevant to abortion, then voluntary abortion must be viewed as homicide. Indeed, I would argue it must be viewed particularly as a brutal form of taking an innocent human life. I want you to imagine such techniques as are used for killing the unborn human being baby, if that's what you determine that it is. Consider those techniques if they were used outside of an abortion clinic. Imagine killing a two year old by such a method that his or her body is torn limb from limb or assaulted in such a way that it just burns the flesh right off their body. No one would deny that that's murder. And on top of it, no one in their right mind would deny that it's a particularly brutal way to kill a human being. And so I'm arguing tonight that abortion clinic violence must be seen first and foremost as the homicide, the brutal form of homicide that is taking place within the abortion clinic. On and on. There are no cases which comport with the legalization of abortion. There are no cases which comport with the legalization of abortion that would qualify the right to life of any other human being or the unborn child. Morally speaking, voluntary abortion, I say, ought to be outlawed and outlawed as murder in one of its most aggravated forms. It's aggravated by the fact that in this case it's the taking of a human life that is deliberate, not accidental. It's aggravated by the fact that it's done with conspiratorial aid. It's not just that I get angry with somebody in a bar and happen to take him out because I'm so angry, but I've gotten together with another human being or set of human beings so that we can work together to take the life of this person. And thirdly, it's aggravated by the fact that it's homicide against the most defenseless of human beings, deliberate, conspiratorial, and against the defenseless. And the Bible is so strong on this point that I'm making tonight that even accidental violence which causes an abortion calls for the death penalty. You might follow this in your bibles. In Exodus 21, beginning at the 22nd verse, Exodus 21:22 and if men strive together and hurt a woman with child so that her fruit departs, and yet no harm follows, he shall surely be fined according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him, and he shall pay, as the judges determine. But if any harm follows, then thou shalt give life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burning for burning, wound for wound, stripe for stripe. By the way, this is the longest exposition of the lex talionis in the Bible, you know, illustration after illustration, to drive home the point that it's the pete proportionate punishment. And if what has been forfeited in this accidental abortion, mind you, is a life, what is to be given up by the person who's responsible for that is life. And so I realize this is. I hope this is a crowd that's not going to be throwing things at me for saying this, but it's not politically correct, it's not popular. But I think the Christian answer to abortion violence is to say there ought to be laws on the book that call for the execution of abortionists. The Bible is so strong on the point of the protection of the unborn's human life that even the accidental violence which causes an abortion would call for the death penalty. Now, to argue against this, that abortion should be a matter of individual conscience. This is what we hear all the time, would be like telling a group that seeks to protect the lives of Koreans that whether we kill Koreans should be a matter of individual conscience. Would any of you be seriously affected by that argument? Somebody says, no, it's a matter of individual conscience whether you kill Koreans. If you're interested in protecting the lives of Koreans, you say, no, it's not a matter of individual conscience. Appeals to living in a pluralistic society are simply and morally irrelevant at this particular point. Being in a pluralistic society, having it be a matter of individual conscience has nothing to do with the public protection of law. In the nature of the case, a conviction about someone's right to life, whether you're a Korean or a fetus, dictates imposing this view on others who may disagree. And I hope that those of you who are believers here tonight are going to have the courage to stand up against this rhetorical violence that says you want to impose your view on others. You know, when people tell me that what I usually say now, I don't want to negotiate about it, I want to say, you're absolutely right. I want to impose my view on orders on others. Pardon me, you must, when it comes to life, be willing to say, I don't care what your opinion is, you're not going to kill that person, whether it's a Norwegian or. Or a Korean or an unborn baby. And by imposing my view on others, I want to make clear real quickly, of course, that I'm referring to imposing by means of law and penalty. I think it ought to be enshrined in law that individuals, no matter what their race, no matter what their age have the protection of life. And I believe that the penalty is what we call the imposition. We're telling people, if you don't respect this law, you will have the sanction of, of punishment and particularly the death penalty imposed on you. You're imposing your view, guess what? At the time of the war between the states, regardless of your view of that historical period and the ins and outs politically, the fact is that Americans decided to impose their view about slaves and their human status on others. So here in America, we've got quite a grand tradition of imposing our views when it comes to human life. And it seems to me we ought to apply that to the unborn as much as to black slaves or to Norwegians or Koreans or anybody else. And so it all comes down to the status of the fetus. And in God's word, as you can tell, the status of the fetus is such that it has protections that go beyond those that you or I may enjoy. Because if you were to accidentally do something which violence took away my life in the law of God, you would not be subject to the death penalty for it. You realize that ordinarily accidental violence that takes away a life doesn't call for the death penalty just because it was accidental. But in the case of a fetus, if it's an accident, you know it's an accident. The two men fighting didn't intend to hurt this woman, but that accident brings about the death of the fetus. In that case, it's life for life, limb for limb, wound for wound, and, and down the line. And so the status of the fetus as a human being would indicate that it has a right to life. But in God's word, it has more than an ordinary right to life. It has special protections. Scripture everywhere refers to those in the womb in the same way as those who have been born and who live outside the womb. Throughout the Bible, God is portrayed as intimately concerned with commanding and protecting and blessing the giving of birth. The emphasis on the generation of seed is part not only of the cultural mandate, but of the evangelical mandate in the Bible. There are many laws in the Bible that pertain to the birth process and to sexual relations. And we know from what is revealed in Genesis 9 and any number of other places that no life may be taken arbitrarily according to the word of God, because human beings are made in the image of God. It is a great offense against the Almighty when human beings are killed. And only God therefore has the prerogative to suspend the right to life. Or to qualify the protection of law for any person that is a human being. Most of the arguments that are given by people against the immorality and the murderous character of abortion are subject to severe criticisms. And my guess is this audience has read enough and has heard enough about abortion that I don't need to pursue all of this. But you might want to note that the arguments that are used in favor of abortion or against the right to life of a fetus, some of them simply don't show the necessity of abortion. That is, they don't get to the conclusion. They don't go far enough to prove the conclusion. Some of them go so far as to justify more than abortion. They would justify infanticide as well. Some fail to see that the proposed consideration has to be weighed against the death of an innocent child and the sanctity of life. That is, they may bring up a legitimate concern, the quality of life or health or what have you, but that has to be weighed against something that's far more important. Some rest on ambiguity and vagueness in their terms. Some fail to see the contrast between the possibility of harm, say, to a mother and the certainty of death for the child that's being killed. Often there's overestimates of the frequency of the incidence of the condition that's supposed to justify abortion in some cases, and many are just plainly and embarrassingly unfamiliar with the facts of medical science. And so I don't know of any good arguments we have to consider tonight in the common literature that would take away what I've said about abortion being murder. The only credible. The only credible consideration that I've ever encountered on this matter is the notion that the fetus might have its life taken away in defense of the mother. If the life of the fetus itself is a threat to the mother's life, then people have argued that in self defense it's all right for the mother to abort the unborn child. And it's not our interest, and not my interest anyway tonight to get into the ins and outs of that particular issue. I'm going to address it briefly, but I'm not going to go into that at great length because I want to get on to the next part of my lecture which has to do with another kind of violence pertaining to abortion. But should we say that it is a matter of self defense for a woman to abort the child whose life is contrary to her continued living? The self defense, the argument from self defense, both in Western history and ethics as well as in the Bible, it turns out is predicated on the assaulting of one person by another. That is, there must be the intention to. And the pursuit of an assailant against another person. And it's always been argued in Western history, Christian history anyway, that the person who is assaulted has the right of self defense. But nobody can credibly claim that the fetus intends to kill its mother. No one can credibly claim that. That the fetus is engaging in an assault against its mother. In which case the plea of self defense in the case of abortion is really inapplicable and a matter of rationalizing now as to debate and logic or ethical reasoning. What I'm saying here is we must be very careful not to engage in false analogies. You know, we think of self defense and we have clear cases of self defense. And then we apply it to a murky case where a woman's life is threatened by the continued life of the fetus. We say, well, it's just in her self defense then to kill the child. But it's not really as to law or to philosophy. It's not conceptually parallel at all. That's a false analogy because the element of aggression and assault is missing. I'm only pointing this out because in a few minutes we're going to come back to false analogy and it's going to be important to start why we as Christians are called upon by God to think clearly if we're going to think righteously. If the taking of the life of a fetus cannot be likened to an assailant bringing assault against somebody. In the self defense plea, people might say, well, nevertheless, if the child lives, the mother dies and therefore it's all right for the mother to. To kill the child. And I want to give you a parallel situation, see how you would reason with respect to this. I want you to imagine that there's only enough medicine in the world for Dr. Bonson or for Mike to stay alive. We both have some very rare disease, but there's not enough medicine for both of us to live on that medicine. And it turns out that Mike owns the medicine and Mike will not share it with me. Here we have a genuine case where the continued existence of one human being, in my case Mike, poses a life threat to me because I cannot survive or I can only survive if Mike does not. And that medicine is then forfeited to me to save my life. Now, let's say that I. I'm sorry, Mike. Let's say that I go ahead and I kill him, okay? And then the police come and arrest me and I go to court and I have to present my defense and I offer as my defense. I was just defending myself because Mike's continued existence was a threat to my life. He had the medicine, I didn't. And so I had to do it. I'm just going to ask you straight out, do you think that any court, I mean, we're getting pretty weird in our country, but even now, would any court say, oh, yeah, well, that's self defense, so sure, you have the right to kill somebody that owns the medicine that you need to save your life. That would not be considered self defense. And therefore, I don't think that even the very rare and bizarre case that is offered by abortion advocates that the life of the mother is threatened by the fetus sometimes is sufficient to change the principle that I've taught tonight that abortion is murder and it calls for the death penalty according to God's word. The unmitigated prohibition of God is this. Exodus 23:7. Do not kill the innocent or the righteous, for I will not acquit the guilty. Therefore, the innocent fetus must never, under any circumstances, even the threatened life of the mother, be killed by an induced involuntary abortion. My concern is with the great deal of murder that's going on at abortion clinics in our country now. January 3, 1995, that issue of USA Today had an article with a headline entitled in Abortion battle, toll mounts, where the word toll here was used in the sense of death toll in abortion battle, the death toll mounts. I say, yeah, we've known about that for a long time. But of course you read the article. They're not talking about the death of innocent babies. Abortion advocates are indignant. Indeed, they are alarmed that five abortion doctors or helpers have been killed and hundreds others have been threatened in the abortion battle. The death toll is mounting for the doctors who are killing these babies. And I find this emotive demagoguery, this shrill rhetoric to be hypocrisy and moral shortsightedness of the most asinine and deplorable character. To read a newspaper article about violence and the death toll rising at abortion clinics and find out that the person's concern is for five doctors and not the millions of babies that are being killed is just a lack of proportion and ethics. That, I don't know, it's just incredible. That would be akin to German Nazis being outraged that five guards at Hitler's extermination camps for Jews had been killed by the inmates. Can't you just see the indignation in the German papers, right? Five guards were killed by these Jews, you say, yes, and you're in the process of killing, killing millions of Jews. And that's what I think we have in our country. If you find that outrageous that you might have had a situation similar to that in Nazi Germany, how can you not be indignant about what's happening in this country? We dare talk about violence at abortion clinics. And what we mean is the poor doctors who are getting rich on killing children are dying. Violence against abortionists indeed rising. But it is nothing in comparison to the violence openly practiced by abortionists. One can't help but think here of Jesus words about moats and logs in people's eyes, can we? When people start getting indignant about five abortionists, you know, being murdered and they don't recognize the thousands, millions of babies that are being slaughtered, one might think you should get the log out of your eye before you go looking for the speck in someone else's. Since 1973, in this country, the death toll for unborn Babies is not five, it's 30 million. We make Hitler look like a piker when it comes to murder in this country. So I hope that it's clear to you from the opening of my lecture that if you want to talk about violence at abortion clinics, what you ought to be talking about is the violence directed against the innocent, the harmless, the unborn. But now I've been rather clear that I think abortion is murder and clear that abortionists ought to be executed. And so someone may now say, well, then, Dr. Bonson, I guess you would be in favor of what people like Paul Hill did, right? Because what they did is they responded to what was in fact murder, and they engaged in violence against the perpetrator of murder. And as Christians, don't we have the right to do that? And shouldn't we in fact make people like that saints rather than condemning them? I might tell you that Paul Hill was one of my students. And though I never would have at the time expected this sort of thing to happen, this is not just the dry, academic, remote subject for me. It's very personal. But I'm going to argue tonight that what Paul Hill did and what others like him. This is not for Paul's sake that I lecture tonight, but what was done by Paul Hill is as much murder as what takes place inside the abortion clinic. And it's dreadful. I don't know that I've ever known anybody who's in a situation like this, but I'm going to argue that it is deliberate murder and calls for the death penalty. But that's going to call for some analysis, because it's not just Christians who have run to the defense of those who are violent against abortionists, Even the unbelieving world, among those who are willing to be, you know, a little more cautious in their reasoning and rhetoric and not just jumping in emotionally. In the unbelieving world, you find people who write and they say it seems like everybody who's been saying abortion is murder over all these years ought to be supporting Paul Hill. That is to say, I think Michael Kingsley in particular had a well known essay published a few weeks ago in which he was pushing this point that if that if people are going to say abortion is murder, then aren't you reduced to absurdity if you don't at the same time say, and what Paul Hill did is what has to be done. We have to be willing to engage in protective violence for the sake of those who are innocent and being assaulted. And so I'm going to take the rest of this evening's lecture to address this question. What should we say about violence against abortionists, abortion doctors? And you'll understand, I hope, be persuaded. But you'll understand the conclusion to which I finally come. If you make as your major premise that only God, only God may authorize the taking of another person's life, only God may authorize the taking of another person's life. And therefore we as Christians have to ask, what biblical warrant then could one have for killing an abortionist? What biblical warrant could one have for killing an abortionist? And the answer to save you some time is going to be either execution as the divinely authorized penalty for murder, or intervention to save the life to save the threatened life of the unborn baby. And so what biblical warrant might there be for killing an abortionist doctor? It's either going to be penal violence, penal violence or protective violence, penal in the sense that it's the execution God authorizes for a murderer, or it's going to be protective violence as intervention to save the threatened life of the unborn baby. Under certain circumstances, the word of God does indeed authorize penal and protective violence which would take the life of a murderer or a would be murderer. There are circumstances, according to scripture, where penal violence or protective violence would be authorized to take the life of a murderer or a would be murderer. However, those defining conditions of penal violence and protective violence do not pertain or apply. That is, they are not satisfied in the case of killing an abortionist doctor. So let me take both of the possibilities. Let's look at it as protective violence, then look at it as penal violence. Killing an abortionist is not, I believe, morally defensible as protective violence. Let me tell you some stories here for a few minutes, make it a little bit easier on you. Imagine some circumstances. I'm just going to walk you through these and maybe teach a little bit of ethics along the way. Imagine the case where I kill a tobacco company executive whose work we all know leads to the death of thousands of people who are smokers. Now, would that qualify as protective violence according to the word of God? Would it? Here's a man who's doing something which is leading to the death of people. He's doing it deliberately and he's doing it knowingly. And so now I'm going to take him out. Well, I think most of us realize that that is not protective violence in the biblical sense because it's too vague as to a specific intention to murder some individual. It's too lacking in specific intention. Moreover, it's too indirect as to the causal responsibility for the fatal outcome. That is, the fact that you have some man who owns a company that makes cigarettes and people use those cigarettes, and eventually down the line this causes death. That's way too an indirect line of causation to say, he's the murderer, therefore I can kill him. Let me give you another situation. How about killing a soldier who is involved in what you deem to be an unjust war, where you know the soldier will kill by specific command and intention combatants in the opposing army. Let's imagine that you don't believe that the war in Vietnam was a just war. I'll tell you right off hand, I don't believe for a moment that it was so. Now, if I hold this belief, and I know that these soldiers are getting ready to pack up and to go over there and to kill people in an unjust war. Then what if I kill one of them? Would that count as protective violence, trying to spare the innocent? Well, in the first place, this defense would not be admissible in court because, again, there's no specific threat to an intended victim. There's no way to establish that I'm protecting some particular victim. When you say, well, you're protecting the opposing army, that seems just a bit vague, doesn't it, as a motive? Moreover, it doesn't seem credible that your particular action of killing the soldier in the airport before he leaves, killing one soldier, could be seriously intended to accomplish the stated general goal of protecting all the individuals, the innocent individuals in the Opposing army. I mean, you're not going to make a credible case out of that. I'll kill him so that all those soldiers over there will be safe from our murderous, unjust war. I just want you to imagine a situation like that. Now, if he were to pull out a gun and before he walks out of the bar, shoot him, would it be considered at law. Would it be considered in terms of Christian morality, protective violence as a defense against the murder of this man? After all, he has threatened to kill Chinese immigrants, Seems to be known for having done so. And in this case, there's a particular individual he's going out to kill. But of course, that is considered before the fact, isn't it? It's violence before the fact. It's too anticipatory, if you will, to count as engaging in the defense of that person that was going to be murdered. Let me make another observation about cases of protective violence. In legitimate cases of protective violence, the violent measures are taken, one at the time of two, the particular assault on an individual, and this is the point you want to get in your notes and is justified, or those measures are justified only to the extent necessary to accomplish the protection. Only to the extent necessary to accomplish the protection. Lethal violence is not always required to save a victim from assault. And in such cases, lesser measures alone are morally justified. I still remember a couple years ago, I guess maybe three years ago, I was out on a walk in my neighborhood, and I happened to come around a corner and I found a couple of youngsters, probably 12 years old, fighting, and two. Two kids were beating up on another kid. And it's the Christian thing to do. I was going to put an end to that, all right? And so what I did is I took out my Magnum and I blew away those brats. What do you think? So I'm taking to court for killing these children. I say, hey, wait, I was just protecting the life of this kid. They were beaten up. You know very well that no one accepted they could say, yes, you had the right to engage in violence. You might even have to hit one of those brats. But you didn't have to kill them to do that. And you'll find out if someone breaks onto your property and you end up killing that person, you better be able to show that you knew that there was a threat to your life. Because if you cannot, the state. In fact, I think just about any state in this country will consider you to have used excessive force in your defense. And I think that's appropriate, by the way. I think people Think that's just bleeding heart liberalism, but it's not. God does authorize us to use violence, but never more violence than appears reasonably appears reasonably to be necessary. That isn't to say we're always right and sometimes we may think the threat is bigger than it turned out to be. The person only had a plastic gun. But then under the circumstances, I didn't know it was only a plastic gun. So I realized that it isn't always a match up of what the level of violence should have been. Appropriately but reasonably, if you could stop an assailant short of killing him, that's the only thing you're morally justified in doing. Moreover, with any violence inflicted in the name of protecting a victim, there must also be a reasonable expectation that the victim can be protected by from the intended harm in this way. There must be a reasonable expectation that the victim can be protected from that intended harm in this way. Let me give you an example. Let's imagine that at a distance, I see a victim tied up and short fused dynamite ignited next to him. And I don't have the time to run across the field and to throw the dynamite away and save his life. Okay. See, all of these are dramatic and overdrawn pictures, but that's what you need to clarify moral principles here. So imagine I'm at a distance from this victim. I can see that he's been tied up, that the dynamite's been ignited, but I have a scoped rifle and I can kill the assailant as he runs away. I can't save the person who's going to get blown to bits. But as his assailant runs away across that field, I'm able with my scope to pick him off. Would that be considered protective violence? Well, of course not, because I didn't protect the victim at all. Or imagine I can only kill with my scoped rifle, one of a mob, let's say four or five people that are presently throwing a man right now off a cliff. So I see again across this field, maybe it's at the brink of a cliff. And I see four or five guys getting ready to shove, I mean, right in the process of shoving a man off the cliff. And so I say, well, I have time to take one of them out. But of course, if four or five men are shoving him off the cliff, my taking one of them out isn't going to do anything to save his life. See, in cases like these, we're dealing more with retribution or retaliation than we are protective violence. And the reason for that is that there's no reasonable expectation that killing in such a case is going to actually help the person that's the victim. Now, if you've been listening sharply, knowing where I'm going, I hope it should be evident to you why we cannot accept the argument that killing an abortionist doctor is legitimate protective violence. Killing an abortionist as he heads for work is not protective violence. First, because it's anticipatory. Second, because it's in a case where the intended victim or victimization is vague. Thirdly, there's no specific intention against any particular individual. Fourthly, and this brings to a head some of what I've been saying in the first three, it's not done at the time of the danger, not done at the time of the assault. And now, getting even more important, it's not credible that this particular action can accomplish the general goal. If the general goal is to not make it possible for that child to be killed, taking one abortionist doctor out is just not going to accomplish it any more than killing a soldier at the airport is going to stop the war in Vietnam. It's not credible that this particular action can accomplish the general goal, nor is it a reasonable expectation that this action can successfully protect the intended victim from the harm intended. Why is that? Because all I've done really is make it more inconvenient for the baby to be killed. But I haven't in fact protected the baby. Moreover, this degree of violence is not required to stop a particular abortion from taking place. I don't have to kill the doctor in the parking lot to stop a particular abortion. I can do that by what, Slashing his tires at home, tying him up, any number of things, drugging him on and on and on. But killing is not the degree of violence necessary to accomplish the protection even in a particular case. And it's at this point that we should mention the absurd counter hypotheticals that are used by those who endorse abortion clinic violence. The absurd counter hypothetical. Well, what if we'll be told what if, absurdly, the government should sanction or permit parents to kill their born children? People will say, don't we then have the right to intervene? And the answer is, well, of course that's absurd. And as a counter hypothetical in debate, you should never accept doing things on that basis that you give me an example that might actually take place. But if you had that situation, what you don't realize that this is not analogous, because in the case of a born child, there is always the possibility of separating the assailant from the child. The possibility, not that it's always practical or successful or effective, but because you have the child there and the assailant here, you could intervene, take the child away, beat up the assailant, but in one way or another separate the two. Now stop and think about that. Is that analogous to a situation where the assailant is the mother who's burying the child? Now, what happens if you separate the assailant from the baby? Well, the way to do that is to commit the abortion, isn't it? And so we don't have an analogous situation. Earlier I argued against those who say abortion is legitimate in some cases by pointing out your reasoning by false analogy. And I telegraphed to you at the end of my lecture that we would have to do this again. From the other standpoint, we must understand that false analogies, fallacious reasoning don't justify anything. And yes, it is true. If we absurdly had this counter hypothetical situation where the government said parents may kill their children up to five years old, if you had the opportunity to save a born child, you should take it. The Bible allows you to do that. But that's not the same as a mother who hasn't given birth to the child, because there's no way to intervene there and to separate the two. And then finally, let's remember that you are not authorized to oppose on the assailant, the doctor or the mother, your view of the criminality of his or her action. God has not authorized you to do that. So killing an abortionist is not morally defensible as protective violence. And I can be very brief on my next point here. In reality, the killing of an abortionist doctor must be acknowledged for its true character, as after the fact, retribution that is intended to deter others from continuing in such practice. What you have here is after the fact retribution intended to deter and the persuasive power. The persuasive power of those who argue that we should be allowed to use violence against abortionists comes from the perceived justice of the abortionist dying. That's the power of the argument, and I agree with that. The abortionist ought to die. Beginning my lecture was saying it ought to be that way. But you must remember three important points as I close here. God authorizes magistrates, not citizens, to punish with the sword. It would be retributive justice to execute an abortionist doctor, but no one has the right to do that. But those powers that be that have been authorized by God to bear the sword. Secondly, the criminality of abortion is not established in civil law, even if it ought to be when it is not. You may not punish somebody for violating something that doesn't exist in civil law. And thirdly, if it did exist in civil law, that person would still, as a murderer or alleged murderer, would still be entitled to what we call due process. Consequently, the killing of an abortionist doctor in a parking lot is not penal retribution because first, God hasn't authorized the Paul Hills of this world to go about as vigilantes enforcing his law. Secondly, abortion is not criminal in this land, though it ought to be. And thirdly, even if it were, due process would have to be recognized. And so I hope that there's no question about my personal revulsion to and opposition to the practice of elective abortion. I believe that abortion is murder. I treat it as such. I strongly recommend laws that demand the death penalty for those who are guilty of causing an abortion. I am not pro choice, I am not sympathetic to it, and I am indignant to the rhetoric of the pro choice forces when they talk about violence at these clinics, when they don't even pay attention to the thousands of babies that are being slaughtered inside. But I'm also an advocate of the Christian principle of the rule of law in a society. I condemn vigilante justice in attempts to coerce others into conforming to one's ethical beliefs against their will. It's the civil state and the civil state alone that bears such a right of coercion. Only the powers that be ordained of God bear the sword. And those who take to themselves the state's police powers, without the corresponding civil and God given authority which is conferred by statutory or judicial warrant, rebel against God's providence and according to the Bible, shall receive to themselves his condemnation. Those who participate in those who recommend, those who justify abortion violence, that is violence against abortionists, despite whatever laudatory motives or courage they have, are guilty not only of sin, but of a crime that calls for the death penalty. In any civil society there will be disagreements between people over questions of ethics, whether they pertain to the ethics and conduct of individuals or of the corporate state. The tension between individuals in the state over ethical questions can be resolved either by anarchy, every man being a law unto himself, even if that means intruding on the freedom of others. Secondly, by tyranny, the strongest person or group imposes its will by force and allowing no individual freedom, or by what I've called the rule of law, where democratic procedures determine where and how the power of the state will be exercised to coerce social conformity. The formal rule of law does not guarantee substantial agreement with the law of God on every point. Of course, and in cases of discrepancy, Christians will have to think about how they will respond. But the one thing that Christians may not do, short of a just revolution, we haven't talked about what those conditions would would be. But short of a just revolution, when the state fails to enact laws that coerce others to behave in a way which Christians believe they should, we do not have the moral prerogative in our own behavior to violate otherwise just civil laws or physically coerce other people into conformity with the Christians of convictions. God's word clearly tells us so. Paul says the weapons of our warfare are not carnal. We don't use physical oppression and threats of violence to get our way. Christians are neither anarchists nor bullies. Even in cases like the hazards of smoking or an unjust war in Vietnam, which deal with the life and death of third parties, and where the police powers of a society are engaged to enforce the freedom or duty which we would condemn, life should be protected by all lawful means. But if we disagree with the state's policy of allowing smoking or intervening in Vietnam, both of which involve the loss of life, our moral option, our only moral option, is to work for the reform of our laws rather than taking the law into our own hands to enforce our viewpoint as unauthorized vigilantes. Brothers and sisters, let's not forget that as bad as America has become from the standpoint of God's law, we still have legal means to redress abortion. And it's the legal means of redressing it, and only the legal means which we are permitted by God to use. And so tonight I condemn abortion clinic violence, both the violence that takes place inside and outside the walls of the clinic. Thank you.