V
VanitasVanitatum
Guest
Police snipers and far right groups aren’t popular either.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
Q
QContinuum
Guest
Do you have the ability to read the minds of every pregnant woman or girl? If not, a war is pointless. Who will you shoot? Abortionists? Reproductive endocrinologists? What about OR physicians that are called into remove the incomplete miscarriage with a D&C where’s there still a fetal heartbeat? You gonna shoot them, too? Are you bombing hospitals that perform abortions as well as the abortion clinics? What about reproductive clinics where thousands of embryos are frozen?
Are you also targeting other Americans who support abortion or believe it should be legal? Are you killing them along with the political leaders and judges that also support it? Are you shooting people who have paid for abortions, or driven someone to get one?
You’ll also need to also go after every pharmacy, hospital, or clinic that carries Mifepristone and misoprostol, or other medications that can induce a miscarriage. These drugs are used as part of RU-46, but they are also legitimately used for other conditions like stomach ulcers. Are you going to train your soldiers to vet each person who comes in and administer pregnancy tests to all women and teen girls to make sure they aren’t using it for induced abortions?
If you are somehow successful in establishing tight regulatory control over every single substance that can kill a developing embryo, now you have to lock down the borders so tightly, as well as airports, so women don’t drive up to Canada or fly there to get a weekend abortion. You also have to somehow stop the flow of illegal drugs that pours into the U.S as well, because with RU-46 banned along with other alternatives, it will then go on the black market. You’ll also need to be willing to shoot at ships or boats that might be taking women out to the abortion ship that sails international waters, just to offer abortions for women in such authoritarian, locked down countries.
Finally, how willing are you to shoot and kill women and teen girls who have attempted or are going to attempt to induce abortion? Are you going to put suicide watches on the ones who’ve been raped or have had traumatic events that led to their pregnancies and have been trapped into assuring the reproductive success of their rapists/ abusers?
To make war means you have a viable target (no pun intended). Since abortion is more frequently accomplished these days by “medicinal” abortions, the abortionist is the woman taking the pill.
What I’m curious to know is at what point in history has any society been completely free of abortion? Especially those societies where even infanticide was accepted?? I understand and agree with the effort to regulate it and try to reduce it as much as possible. But inducing a war will almost assuredly drive up the demand for it, as families are disrupted, income is lost, people’s lives are destroyed, and pregnant women and girls find themselves at loose ends.
ETA: I forgot to ask are you also targeting businesses that have donated to PP or other pro-abortion agencies? Taking them all out would destroy the economy faster than coronavirus.
Are you also targeting other Americans who support abortion or believe it should be legal? Are you killing them along with the political leaders and judges that also support it? Are you shooting people who have paid for abortions, or driven someone to get one?
You’ll also need to also go after every pharmacy, hospital, or clinic that carries Mifepristone and misoprostol, or other medications that can induce a miscarriage. These drugs are used as part of RU-46, but they are also legitimately used for other conditions like stomach ulcers. Are you going to train your soldiers to vet each person who comes in and administer pregnancy tests to all women and teen girls to make sure they aren’t using it for induced abortions?
If you are somehow successful in establishing tight regulatory control over every single substance that can kill a developing embryo, now you have to lock down the borders so tightly, as well as airports, so women don’t drive up to Canada or fly there to get a weekend abortion. You also have to somehow stop the flow of illegal drugs that pours into the U.S as well, because with RU-46 banned along with other alternatives, it will then go on the black market. You’ll also need to be willing to shoot at ships or boats that might be taking women out to the abortion ship that sails international waters, just to offer abortions for women in such authoritarian, locked down countries.
Finally, how willing are you to shoot and kill women and teen girls who have attempted or are going to attempt to induce abortion? Are you going to put suicide watches on the ones who’ve been raped or have had traumatic events that led to their pregnancies and have been trapped into assuring the reproductive success of their rapists/ abusers?
To make war means you have a viable target (no pun intended). Since abortion is more frequently accomplished these days by “medicinal” abortions, the abortionist is the woman taking the pill.
What I’m curious to know is at what point in history has any society been completely free of abortion? Especially those societies where even infanticide was accepted?? I understand and agree with the effort to regulate it and try to reduce it as much as possible. But inducing a war will almost assuredly drive up the demand for it, as families are disrupted, income is lost, people’s lives are destroyed, and pregnant women and girls find themselves at loose ends.
ETA: I forgot to ask are you also targeting businesses that have donated to PP or other pro-abortion agencies? Taking them all out would destroy the economy faster than coronavirus.
Last edited:
P
Paddy1989
Guest
The defense by the Police was welcomed by the general public compared to the actions by these far left thugsBut there’s the rub: if the only reason such a war would be unjust is because it’s not realistically winnable, then it becomes just as soon as a viable means of winning the war emerges.
P
Paddy1989
Guest
But there’s the rub: if the only reason such a war would be unjust is because it’s not realistically winnable, then it becomes just as soon as a viable means of winning the war emerges.
The only way for it to be winnable is if the people who support abortion to then become a minority. In that case we can merely use peaceful and democratic means to make it illegal therefore I don’t see how it would ever be justified in a democratic society.But there’s the rub: if the only reason such a war would be unjust is because it’s not realistically winnable, then it becomes just as soon as a viable means of winning the war emerges.
This thread does raise some very excellent points however. Do people think that by us Catholics and Christians in general who merely appear passive to the general public in regard to abortion that we send a subliminal message to society that we really don’t think it is a human life. In other words does our passive nature normalize the justification of abortion in people’s minds and could in fact lead to many endorsing it? According to ALL Christians human beings are being exterminated yet do we act like it? I know plenty of people do act immensely for the unborn and I thank you for a that. Do you think we need to become more radical in our love? So that people see how serious it is?
Last edited:
M
meltzerboy2
Guest
At no point.
I remember the late John Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, said once as part of his homily that those who want to bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform abortions should kill him first. And he was certainly no advocate of abortion. Violence is never the solution to any of our social problems.
I remember the late John Cardinal O’Connor, Archbishop of St. Patrick’s Cathedral in New York City, said once as part of his homily that those who want to bomb abortion clinics and murder doctors who perform abortions should kill him first. And he was certainly no advocate of abortion. Violence is never the solution to any of our social problems.
Last edited:
T
TK421
Guest
I think if a state started mandating abortions on people as a form of population control and forced social engineering, it would be time to either get an independent state or to run away.
F
FiveLinden
Guest
As an unbeliever I have always been interested in the ‘just war’ theory. One of its principles is that you can’t embark on a war unless there is a reasonable prospect of success.
It would certainly be possible for (say) the United States to invade a small country and impose a complete ban on legal abortion.
But this would not eliminate abortion.
The Church advocates laws against abortion even in the absence of evidence that such laws in particular circumstances eliminate or reduce abortions.
So the question would be whether it was just to wage war simply to achieve a law change, or just to wage war to eliminate or reduce abortions.
It would certainly be possible for (say) the United States to invade a small country and impose a complete ban on legal abortion.
But this would not eliminate abortion.
The Church advocates laws against abortion even in the absence of evidence that such laws in particular circumstances eliminate or reduce abortions.
So the question would be whether it was just to wage war simply to achieve a law change, or just to wage war to eliminate or reduce abortions.
T
tafan2
Guest
Again, we would not be talking about a war, but an armed resistance to the law allowing abortion. This means that not only must there be a reasonable means of success, but that “it is impossible to reasonably foresee a better solution”. But a better solution can be forseen, indeed we have evidence of such a solution. We can change the hearts and minds of people. In 1990 we had 1.4 million abortions in the US, with a population of 250 million people. At the same rate, we should now have 1.85 million abortions, but we do not. We only have 623,000. That is a huge decrease in number of abortions. Simply put, more and more people see abortion has very undesirable.
The question is not just “could such a rebellion against the law be winnable?”, but “is there a better foreseen solution?”, Changing the hearts and minds of our people seem to be a much better solution, does it not?
The question is not just “could such a rebellion against the law be winnable?”, but “is there a better foreseen solution?”, Changing the hearts and minds of our people seem to be a much better solution, does it not?
E
Elf01
Guest
Given history, in the vast majority of cases, that has taken war. In all, it has taken civil disobedience.The question is not just “could such a rebellion against the law be winnable?”, but “is there a better foreseen solution?”, Changing the hearts and minds of our people seem to be a much better solution, does it not?
T
tafan2
Guest
You are saying to overcome a “certain, prolonged, grave violation of human rights” has historically required an armed rebellion? (I am trying to.use the church’s wording). I am not sure that is the case.
D
Dolphin
Guest
This seems like rationalizing going into planned parenthood with a gun (which has been done before and is always condemned)
Q
QContinuum
Guest
Yes. On a monstrously larger scale, and quite a few more “collateral damage.”This seems like rationalizing going into planned parenthood with a gun (which has been done before and is always condemned)
M
Mythicalbio
Guest
The interesting thing about this is that if this isn’t just (and I don’t think it is): then any revolutions/rebellions for any issues less than this is also unjust. Specifically thinking about the reasons on the declaration of Independence.
Surely all of that is less grave.
So, what is the real bar for throwing off an unjust government?
Surely all of that is less grave.
So, what is the real bar for throwing off an unjust government?
Last edited:
V
VonDerTann
Guest
Great point. I was thinking of cardinal O’Connor saying this as I was reading this thread, but you were quicker to post than I was. I was there when His Eminence said it, although in fairness he may have said it more than once.
D
Dovekin
Guest
I am not following your logic here; do you object to the state mandating or to the particular items the state might mandate. What is the difference between a state “mandating abortions” and a state “mandating pregnancies be completed”? I think you will find most pro-choice supporters will join you in opposing state mandated abortions.I think if a state started mandating abortions on people as a form of population control and forced social engineering, it would be time to either get an independent state or to run away.
How about if a state mandated no abortions? Would that be a time “to get an independent state or to run away”?
T
TK421
Guest
Almost all pro-choice people would be against state-mandated abortion but public opinion is fickle and can change drastically within a few decades, especially if they become afraid and feel the need to conform for preservation. Forced population control has already been reality in China and that alone is a large segment of the world population. It is more than a science fiction scenario.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.