Abortion shootings

  • Thread starter Thread starter aquohn
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
TriumphGuy – upon reading your posts again, I think I see the confusion. You are considering the debate of whether violence against an abortionist is a valid tactic to sway our society back to being pro-life. I agree that this is not a worthwhile tactic nor a moral one.

My statement about violence against an abortionist is of a specific scenario where a baby’s life can be saved – in that case Catholic teaching is clear that lethal means may be employed in order to defend the innocent victim.

Sure, killing one abortion doctor will not save millions, but it will save that one life in the situation I’ve laid out. This is not an endorsement of killing for the sake of killing. But notice how I’ve always framed my statements within the context of defending a specific innocent person and also within the Catholic teaching about the notion of double effect.
 
surritter said:
TriumphGuy – upon reading your posts again, I think I see the confusion. You are considering the debate of whether violence against an abortionist is a valid tactic to sway our society back to being pro-life. I agree that this is not a worthwhile tactic nor a moral one.

My statement about violence against an abortionist is of a specific scenario where a baby’s life can be saved – in that case Catholic teaching is clear that lethal means may be employed in order to defend the innocent victim.

Sure, killing one abortion doctor will not save millions, but it will save that one life in the situation I’ve laid out. This is not an endorsement of killing for the sake of killing. But notice how I’ve always framed my statements within the context of defending a specific innocent person and also within the Catholic teaching about the notion of double effect.
Click to expand...
If someone had my pregnant wife strapped to a gurney and was approaching her with forceps and malicious intent I’d rip his head off.

If a stranger is choosing to have a legal abortion I have no moral right to kill the doctor.

If you are against capital punishment does that give you the right to kill the executioner?
 
Because I’d say it’s odd to consider the life of a foetus as worthy as the life of a full-grown human, who has self-awareness and what not.
 
triumphguy said:
If someone had my pregnant wife strapped to a gurney and was approaching her with forceps and malicious intent I’d rip his head off.

If a stranger is choosing to have a legal abortion I have no moral right to kill the doctor.
Click to expand...
Certainly you do!!! (If you have tried other non-lethal means first.)

Are we our brother’s keeper? (Answer = yes)

Please read Archbishop Chaput’s book Render Unto Caesar. It seems that you are willing to render everything to Caesar simply because abortion is claimed to be a legal procedure. The Church would differ with you on such a statement (see Catechism para. 1902).
 
surritter said:
Certainly you do!!! (If you have tried other non-lethal means first.)

Are we our brother’s keeper? (Answer = yes)

Please read Archbishop Chaput’s book Render Unto Caesar. It seems that you are willing to render everything to Caesar simply because abortion is claimed to be a legal procedure. The Church would differ with you on such a statement (see Catechism para. 1902).
Click to expand...
Show me specifically ANY Church teaching in writing which states that it is legitimate to shoot an abortion doctor.

Just one would do.

And not some general thing about legitimate forms of defence, but an actual, specific teaching from a bishop, or from the Vatican or from the Pope or any saint which says it’s OK to harm someone working in an abortion “clinic.”

:coffeeread:

I’ll go have a coffee while you look.

Take your time, I’ve got a big pot brewing.😛
 
triumphguy said:
Show me specifically ANY Church teaching in writing which states that it is legitimate to shoot an abortion doctor.

Just one would do.

And not some general thing about legitimate forms of defence, but an actual, specific teaching from a bishop, or from the Vatican or from the Pope or any saint which says it’s OK to harm someone working in an abortion “clinic.”
Click to expand...
I don’t get this. I’ve clearly presented Church teaching about using lethal methods – IF NECESSARY – to protect the innocent. You must not have looked in the Catechism where I directed:
Paragraph 1902 explains why the so-called laws allowing abortion are not really laws (that was a big item that your position hinged upon)
Paragraph 2263 clearly explains why lethal force used to prevent an innocent from murder is not murder itself – it’s called the principle of “double effect”

You mistakenly think that you are arguing against the killing of abortion doctors as an across-the-board tactic for advancing the pro-life cause. That is not the topic here; we are not to go around shooting up abortion mills! But please reread posts #8, 14, and 21.

I was refuting your claim that it is NEVER permissible to use lethal force against an abortionist. Clearly it can be, if the conditions given in the Catechism are fulfilled. I don’t see why you need a certified statement from a bishop or saint when the Catechism lays out the exact principles. These principles are NOT license to perform across-the-board killing of abortionists (must I repeat this again??), but if you are standing in the room with the perpetrator about to snuff out the life, you had better do what you can to save the victim.

So, tossing it back into your court – please show me why the principles explained in the Catechism are somehow suspended when the discussion of protecting an innocent victim suddenly enters the medical arena. Do the white coats really impress us that much?
 
surritter said:
I don’t get this. I’ve clearly presented Church teaching about using lethal methods – IF NECESSARY – to protect the innocent. You must not have looked in the Catechism where I directed:
Paragraph 1902 explains why the so-called laws allowing abortion are not really laws (that was a big item that your position hinged upon)
Paragraph 2263 clearly explains why lethal force used to prevent an innocent from murder is not murder itself – it’s called the principle of “double effect”

You mistakenly think that you are arguing against the killing of abortion doctors as an across-the-board tactic for advancing the pro-life cause. That is not the topic here; we are not to go around shooting up abortion mills! But please reread posts #8, 14, and 21.

I was refuting your claim that it is NEVER permissible to use lethal force against an abortionist. Clearly it can be, if the conditions given in the Catechism are fulfilled. I don’t see why you need a certified statement from a bishop or saint when the Catechism lays out the exact principles. These principles are NOT license to perform across-the-board killing of abortionists (must I repeat this again??), but if you are standing in the room with the perpetrator about to snuff out the life, you had better do what you can to save the victim.

So, tossing it back into your court – please show me why the principles explained in the Catechism are somehow suspended when the discussion of protecting an innocent victim suddenly enters the medical arena. Do the white coats really impress us that much?
Click to expand...
I’m sorry, but you are wrong, and if you were right you would be able to point me to a specific teaching which states that it morally permissible to kill an abortion worker.

BTW how are you going to be pro-life while committing violence?
 
triumphguy said:
I’m sorry, but you are wrong, and if you were right you would be able to point me to a specific teaching which states that it morally permissible to kill an abortion worker.
Click to expand...
Well, I’ve walked you through the Catechism, so do some thinking about it, rather than demanding a verbatim quote.
(BTW, which saint said that we can never use lethal force to defend an innocent life from murder?)

You’ve already stated that you would use lethal force to defend your family. But you change your view when it comes to being in the abortion room. There are two reasons you’ve given for your view:
– you are not related to the person being murdered by the abortion
– abortion is legal in the civil code

I’ve shown why those are not valid reasons for a Christian to suspend our moral obligation to protect the innocent, if we are standing right there in the abortion room, and if we so choose to step in.

Maybe think and pray about it some more. This is certainly a difficult topic, and made even worse by those who have twisted the Church’s teaching to attempt to justify wholesale bombings. I was careful to explain why the topic at hand is different from that.
 
Well I’ll give you a direct and specific quote:
U. S. Bishops’ Pastoral (Nov. 1994): Confronting a Culture of Violence
We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. We have reached the point in one very visible case where a jury has urged the execution of the person who murdered the physician who was destroying unborn children. This cycle of violence diminishes all of us -especially our children. For our part, we oppose both the violence of abortion and the use of violence to oppose abortion. We are clear in our total repudiation of any effort to advocate or carry out murder in the name of the pro-life cause. Such acts cannot be justified. They deny the fundamental value of each human life, and do irreparable harm to genuine pro- life witness. Just as clearly, a nation destroying more than one and a half million unborn children every year contributes to the pervasive culture of violence in our nation. We must affirm and protect all life, especially the most vulnerable in our midst. priestsforlife.org/magisterium/cultureofviolence.htm
Click to expand...
Here’s a good article on this specific question:

priestsforlife.org/articles/noviolence.html

Here’s a quote:
It can be very tempting to absorb an evil act into a good motive or result. If I could save the whole world from being blown up by killing one baby, would I be morally justified to kill the baby? No. It is never justified. The morality of an act is not determined solely by its consequences. Consequences deal with what I bring about “on the outside”, what changes I introduce in the world. But the action also determines me morally. The question I need to consider is not only, “What will my action accomplish?”, but “What will I become by choosing it?” If I kill a baby to save the world, I have become a murderer.
Click to expand...
In the same way, if I kill an abortionist to stop an abortion I become a murderer, therefore the Church can never teach or imply that it is morally permissible to kill an abortion worker to stop an abortion.

It is a very different situation than a just war, or self defence.
 
Those quotes don’t apply to the situation presented in this thread. Notice that the bishops state that:
“For our part, we oppose both the violence of abortion and the use of violence to oppose abortion.”
And that’s what I’ve said all along: We cannot use violence as a means of opposing abortion. (Recall the numerous times I stated that??)
The situation I was addressing is a SPECIFIC abortion where you are present in the room, and whether it is moral to use force to prevent a murder.
The bishops are not addressing that, of course.

They go on:
“We are clear in our total repudiation of any effort to advocate or carry out murder in the name of the pro-life cause.”
And again, I agree. If you kill an abortionist in the name of the pro-life cause, that is different than standing there with the sole purpose of deflecting the attacker, with the possible double effect that the attacker may die. Please, please read up on the principle of double effect.

You state that “In the same way, if I kill an abortionist to stop an abortion I become a murderer.” Not necessarily – and that is where you are getting the two confused. So, to reiterate: you may use lethal force to stop the murder, without willfully intended the death of the abortionist.

You are speaking of cases where the intended effect is to kill the abortionist. I am speaking of cases where the unintended effect is the death of the abortionist.

Can you at least see the difference there?
 
OK - so you are in the room.

Did you enter the room with the sole purpose of stopping an abortion? Or did Scotty bean you in there without your prior knowledge?

Because morally that could make a difference.
 
Now we’re getting somewhere.
I would say that in either situation, if your sole aim is to prevent a murder from occurring, it doesn’t matter how you got into the room. You may use lethal force, if necessary, even if the unintended side effect is the death of the would-be murderer.
 
And, TriumphGuy, I should add – it is moral if there is evidence that the mother will not simply stroll out of there and seek another abortionist. Because when we use lethal force, it should be tempered with proportionate means (certainly met here) and prudence about how realistic and sustainable the outcome will be.

But again, none of this translates to a blanket statement that we are never permitted to inflict harm upon the abortionist.
And since it bears repeating ad nauseum, none of this is justification for going around shooting abortionists or bombing an abortion mill. Totally different discussion, and one where you and I are in agreement.
 
aquohn said:
why is it wrong to shoot a doctor about to perform an abortion when it would not be wrong to shoot a contract killer hired by a child’s mother to kill a child?
Click to expand...
Because non-lethal force would almost always be successful.
aquohn said:
Why is it wrong to bomb and abortion clinic when it is not wrong to bomb Auschwitz (assuming both are empty when you bomb them)?
Click to expand...
It isn’t.
 
surritter said:
TriumphGuy – upon reading your posts again, I think I see the confusion. You are considering the debate of whether violence against an abortionist is a valid tactic to sway our society back to being pro-life. I agree that this is not a worthwhile tactic nor a moral one.

My statement about violence against an abortionist is of a specific scenario where a baby’s life can be saved – in that case Catholic teaching is clear that lethal means may be employed in order to defend the innocent victim.

Sure, killing one abortion doctor will not save millions, but it will save that one life in the situation I’ve laid out. This is not an endorsement of killing for the sake of killing. But notice how I’ve always framed my statements within the context of defending a specific innocent person and also within the Catholic teaching about the notion of double effect.
Click to expand...
Says who that it will save even that one life? The mother will surely move on to the next abortion clinic, or worse still simply take poisons or use implements on herself to induce abortion.
 
This question has bothered me in the past.
True, if we really believe abortion is murder, we should be trying to stop them.
However, I owe an obligation to my family as well, to be there for my children to provide for and raise them.
And as previous posters noted, shooting an abortionist would not permanently stop the abortion, because the mother herself may be complicit in the plan.
And it would probably do more harm than good, to the pro-life cause. We can doubtless do more good by working to change the laws, by sidewalk counseling, or by working in a pregnancy counseling center.
 
LilyM said:
Says who that it will save even that one life? The mother will surely move on to the next abortion clinic, or worse still simply take poisons or use implements on herself to induce abortion.
Click to expand...
Most abortions are done by taking a pill that induces the abortions.

I can’t think of anything less Christian than trying to justify the killing of another person.
 
This thread has been dormant for a considerable period. With rare exceptions, reviving threads after a protracted period of inactivity is discouraged because:
Code: 
the issues that spurred them are often no longer "hot" or current topics, explaining why thread activity ceased originally.
posters originally involved in the discussion are sometimes no longer active on the forum and, therefore, unavailable to reply to comments added to the thread.
Our experience suggests that, when a topic merits revival, it is best accomplished by initiating a new thread that draws on recent events and can be posted to contemporaneously. This eliminates the baggage of folks being frustrated by asking and not receiving responses to issues raised in early posts (because the new poster didn’t notice that the post he was responding to was made a long time ago).

Posters are very welcome to open a new thread on the subject or any other topic, as well as to actively participate in the myriad active threads in the fora.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top