Are Abortion Clinic Snipers Hell-bound?

[Peter_Dawson]

Presumably, American soldiers in World War II who find it necessary to shoot and kill their way into a Nazi death camp, to liberate it and stop the mass-murder, are opting for the lesser of two evils, and thus doing the correct thing.

Are abortion clinic snipers who terrorize clinic abortionists and by that means save the lives of hundreds or thousands of fetal humans justified by the same moral analysis?

 

[FightingFat]

Presumably, American soldiers in World War II who find it necessary to shoot and kill their way into a Nazi death camp, to liberate it and stop the mass-murder, are opting for the lesser of two evils, and thus doing the correct thing.

Catholic moral theology teaches us that we cannot choose the lesser of two evils, Pope John Paul II clearly teaches us this in Veritatis Splendor.

Also, the Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC), sections 1691 – 2557 lay out a comprehensive review of basic morality and we can lay out some basic True principles that frequently apply in bioethical issues

1. TRUE PRINCIPLE #1: Do Good, Avoid Evil.

a) Psalm 37:27: “Turn from evil and do good, that you may inhabit the land forever.

b) Basic precept of natural law, foundation of all morality.

1. TRUE PRINCIPLE #2: We Can Never Do Evil To Bring About Good

a) “The end NEVER justifies the means”

b) Romans 3:8

c) Examples:

(1) Cannot murder an abortion provider to stop an abortion

(2) Cannot murder a terminally ill patient to relieve their suffering

 

[estesbob]

Presumably, American soldiers in World War II who find it necessary to shoot and kill their way into a Nazi death camp, to liberate it and stop the mass-murder, are opting for the lesser of two evils, and thus doing the correct thing.

Are abortion clinic snipers who terrorize clinic abortionists and by that means save the lives of hundreds or thousands of fetal humans justified by the same moral analysis?

As to whther one is hell bound of ran action none of us can say with certainty… As to whether it is moral to kill abortionists the answer is a resounding NO.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Catholic moral theology teaches us that we cannot choose the lesser of two evils, Pope John Paul II clearly teaches us this in Veritatis Splendor.

Semantics.

It is “bad” to kill. You are standing well-armed in front of a terrorist who has gleefully pressed nine buttons to destroy nine cities with hidden nuclear bombs, despite the fact that in the case of each button you said, “Pretty please, Mr. Terrorist, don’t kill those people!”

His finger is descending toward the tenth button.

You think to yourself, “Killing is bad!” Do you say “pretty please” again nicely, pray, or shoot to kill?

 

[crazzeto]

Action taken in time of war is not comparible to sniping random people at abortion clinics.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Semantics.

It is “bad” to kill. You are standing well-armed in front of a terrorist who has gleefully pressed nine buttons to destroy nine cities with hidden nuclear bombs, despite the fact that in the case of each button you said, “Pretty please, Mr. Terrorist, don’t kill those people!”

His finger is descending toward the tenth button.

You think to yourself, “Killing is bad!” Do you say “pretty please” again nicely, pray, or shoot to kill?

break his arms or shoot his kneecaps, but to kill him is to be on the same level as him.

besides the only way something like that to happen would be if it somehow suited Gods will.

 

[HickmanJosh]

Action taken in time of war is not comparible to sniping random people at abortion clinics.

so Using this logic the holocaust would not as bad as it should have been because it was done during wartime?

just saying war doesn’t change a thing when it Comes to sin.

 

[GEddie]

Presumably, American soldiers in World War II who find it necessary to shoot and kill their way into a Nazi death camp, to liberate it and stop the mass-murder, are opting for the lesser of two evils, and thus doing the correct thing.

Are abortion clinic snipers who terrorize clinic abortionists and by that means save the lives of hundreds or thousands of fetal humans justified by the same moral analysis?

Soldiers do as they are ordered, in the service of their country. They do not choose when to kill, as abortion snipers do.

The word “terrorize” is an apt one in this instance. Someone who kills, on his own initiative, to scare someone else into stopping an action he believes to be wrong (even if it is in fact wrong) is acting as a terrorist.

The civil state and its armed entities have prerogatives that average citizens do not.

ICXC NIKA

 

[JRKH]

Presumably, American soldiers in World War II who find it necessary to shoot and kill their way into a Nazi death camp, to liberate it and stop the mass-murder, are opting for the lesser of two evils, and thus doing the correct thing.

Soldiers fighting in a war are trying to end the war without getting themselves killed in the process. Their main goal is NOT stopping mass murder.
By the time American soldiers got anywhere near the Death camps the Nazi’s had fled so the killing had alread stopped.
Your analogy is flawed.

Are abortion clinic snipers who terrorize clinic abortionists and by that means save the lives of hundreds or thousands of fetal humans justified by the same moral analysis?

No they are not.

1. The killing of abortion workers will not save “hundreds of thousands of fetal humans”. At best it might save a few dozen. For the rest their deaths will only be delayed by a few days or weeks.
2. The killing of abortion workers harms the cause of the Pro-Life movement.
3. Embracing and using the tools of evil cannot destroy evil.

Peace
James

 

[GEddie]

break his arms or shoot his kneecaps, but to kill him is to be on the same level as him.

besides the only way something like that to happen would be if it somehow suited Gods will.

So every time someone has human life under threat, it is God’s will, and we should let them kill? What about protecting innocent life?

If you (and the terrorist) are within the blast zone and would be killed, and you have the gun, you would then be acting in self-defense and that would be OK; should you otherwise let many others be killed just because you, yourself are not in danger?

Shooting at his limbs to disable him would be ideal. Unfortunately it might not stop him. While you were reaiming he could use his other hand, or his head or a foot to trigger the blast.

I respect what you are getting at, but it seems not at all consonant with the value of life to allow soimething like this to happen because “it is somehow God’s will.” I doubt very much the Church teaches that.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[FightingFat]

Semantics.

It is “bad” to kill. You are standing well-armed in front of a terrorist who has gleefully pressed nine buttons to destroy nine cities with hidden nuclear bombs, despite the fact that in the case of each button you said, “Pretty please, Mr. Terrorist, don’t kill those people!”

His finger is descending toward the tenth button.

You think to yourself, “Killing is bad!” Do you say “pretty please” again nicely, pray, or shoot to kill?

Mr. Dawson, I would suggest you are confused about morality. The sources of morality are three fold and in stopping said terrorist you would need to consider what the act would be? Would you be acting to kill the terrorist or to stop him from exploding the bomb?

 

[HickmanJosh]

So every time someone has human life under threat, it is God’s will, and we should let them kill? What about protecting innocent life?

is it not somewhat contradictory for someone who is pro-life to cause death? In pursuit of protecting the innocent then by all means protect them, but still our best weopon is prayer.

If you (and the terrorist) are within the blast zone and would be killed, and you have the gun, you would then be acting in self-defense and that would be OK; should you otherwise let many others be killed just because you, yourself are not in danger?

If it is probable that the terrorist could be stopped and thousands saved then it only makes sense to stop him by any means.

Shooting at his limbs to disable him would be ideal. Unfortunately it might not stop him. While you were reaiming he could use his other hand, or his head or a foot to trigger the blast.

True but if the assailant was unaccustomed to pain than the shock might overwhelm him long enough to get the triggering device away from him. Or shooting him fatally might cause a muscle spasm detonating the bomb anyway.

I respect what you are getting at, but it seems not at all consonant with the value of life to allow soimething like this to happen because “it is somehow God’s will.” I doubt very much the Church teaches that.

ICXC NIKA.

I am not saying God wills people to die directly. satan does that, but satan can do no more than he is permitted to. Nobody can really guess why the Holocaust happened or why communism was allowed to exist but somehow these evils work into Gods plan. Even so they are evils and we must combat them as best we can.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

As to whther one is hell bound of ran action none of us can say with certainty… As to whether it is moral to kill abortionists the answer is a resounding NO.

So, you would say that it was immoral for American soldiers to kill Nazis valiantly defending the death camp mass murder process?

That’s the real question.

Distinguish, if you can!

Because you condemn abortion clinic snipers who shoot abortion clinic mass murdering doctors, are you condemning American soldiers who shoot mass murdering Nazis?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Action taken in time of war is not comparible to sniping random people at abortion clinics.

Why not? Ask the fetus who survives HIS opinion, after he grows up.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

break his arms or shoot his kneecaps, but to kill him is to be on the same level as him.

besides the only way something like that to happen would be if it somehow suited Gods will.

Oh, my heavens! You are so wrong!

In my opinion, it is gravely, gravely sinful to not kill the terrorist immediately.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

GTG. “I’ll be back!”

 

[glenconnor]

We cannot fall into the trap of compounding one evil with another. Abortion snipers are committing a premeditated act of murder in violation of the sixth commandment. That pre-meditation makes all the difference in my opinion. A solider in combat, or someone confronted with a decision that could save or take many other lives, is not commiting an act of premeditated murder. God alone is the Judge, we cannot take that power into our own hands without severe peril to our immortal souls. Of course, the snipers could repent sincerely, and forgiven through the Grace of God, but again…that’s for Him to decide.

 

[Havard]

Not to mention that the ‘defense of others’ rationale requires the threat to be immediate and proportionate. You can’t shoot a terrorist when he’s eating his cheerios at home.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Soldiers fighting in a war are trying to end the war without getting themselves killed in the process. Their main goal is NOT stopping mass murder.
By the time American soldiers got anywhere near the Death camps the Nazi’s had fled so the killing had alread stopped.
Your analogy is flawed.

I don’t care about their “main goal.” I don’t care about whether Nazis were so scared they ran and saved you from answering the question.

Assume that the brigade dispatched to the camp was sent to stop the mass murder. Assume that the Nazis did not run, but instead dug-in and sent a message to the Americans that they would only shoot if the Americans tried to stop them from killing Jews with Xyclon-B and then turning them into smoke.

Would it have been moral for the Americans to shoot the Nazis, to stop the extermination of Jews?

 

[Peter_Dawson]

Abortion snipers are committing a premeditated act of murder in violation of the sixth commandment. That pre-meditation makes all the difference in my opinion. A solider in combat, or someone confronted with a decision that could save or take many other lives, is not commiting an act of premeditated murder.

Okay. A pro-life police officer walks into a home, and sees that an abortion doctor is about to insert the clippers into the womb. Next to the operation is a court-appointed armed guard, ready to shoot to kill anyone who tries to stop the baby’s murder.

A perfectly innocent baby is about to die, at the hands of the law and the parents.

Should the pro-life officer shoot the guard and then injure the doctor, to save the baby’s life?

I’m not advocating this. But I think that the concept needs discussing – not tip-toeing-around.