Bombing an abortion clinic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roxygirl1488
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
LDNCatholic said:
That said I’m surprised that property could take precedent over life.
Click to expand...
We can not commit an evil for a good outcome. You are distorting this. No where has it been said that property takes precedent over life. The abortions that would have been done at this clinic will most likely be done elsewhere. No one can prove that the destruction of one clinic would stop all the abortions that would have taken place there.

Also there is the fact that innocent people may be hurt in such a bombing.
Would this also extend to the abortionists tools? Could the destruction of their equipment (through direct means rather than explosives or something that would possibly result in human injury) ever be justified?
Click to expand...
Criminal activity can never be justified.

What is so hard to understand about the Church Teaching “One may never do evil so that good may result from it”?
 
ByzCath said:
Criminal activity can never be justified.

What is so hard to understand about the Church Teaching “One may never do evil so that good may result from it”?
Click to expand...
Nothing at all.

I was just not clear whether or not destruction of personal property was classed as evil in all cases.

Now I am, thank you Brother.
 
LDNCatholic said:
Nothing at all.

I was just not clear whether or not destruction of personal property was classed as evil in all cases.

Now I am, thank you Brother.
Click to expand...
Sorry for being short with you.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (bold emphasis added);
**2409 **Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.

The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation.​
 
Roxygirl1488 said:
Ok, first of all, I am NOT thinking of bombing one! So lets just make that clear! I was just wondering if it is wrong for someone to blow up a clinic if there was no people inside? If there was a complete gurantee no one would be hurt. Would that be justifiable in the eyes of God? Blowing up a clinic so that they can’t abort babies there. I know they can always rebuild or re-open another one down the road. Is it justifiable though? Like some wars are justifiable when ingredious evil is taking place? Also is a revolution against the pro-choice movement justifiable? I recently heard there are actually more pro-lifers than pro-choicers, so how than exactly…is abortion legal? Wouldn’t there be such an uprising against this that it would start a revolution?
Click to expand...
Yes, it would be wrong. We are obligated to be obedient to the lawmakers. It is not legal to blow up buildings. And there is never a guarantee that no one would be hurt.
 
ByzCath said:
Sorry for being short with you.

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church (bold emphasis added);
**2409 **Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment: thus, deliberate retention of goods lent or of objects lost; business fraud; paying unjust wages; forcing up prices by taking advantage of the ignorance or hardship of another.

The following are also morally illicit: speculation in which one contrives to manipulate the price of goods artificially in order to gain an advantage to the detriment of others; corruption in which one influences the judgment of those who must make decisions according to law; appropriation and use for private purposes of the common goods of an enterprise; work poorly done; tax evasion; forgery of checks and invoices; excessive expenses and waste. Willfully damaging private or public property is contrary to the moral law and requires reparation.​
Click to expand...
I understand willingfully damaging private property contrary to moral law. I see what your saying now that in cases like bombing an abortion clinic (assuming no one gets hurt) it is wrong. Are there exceptions though? What are they? We bombed buildings during World War ll. Was that licit? Who makes the decision, obviously no individual is allowed to make that decision…is the goverment the one who decides what is just war? Do you go to war against something only if there is some possibility you could win? I think I am understanding what your saying, but I just need things clarified a little better. Is destruction of public property in all cases morally illicit? Are there some cases (which you have clarified are not bombing clinics) that are morally licit, what are they? Who determines if its morally licit, the Church or the Goverment, or both?
 
I see that I am late to this discussion and my point above has already been well made. Sorry about the repetition.
 
Will someone PLEASE answer the poster’s question about just wars? Was the bombing of Hiroshima, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, morally licit?

What would make bombing a city where many innocent people are harmed or killed in hopes of taking out a murderous dictator, morally acceptable, while me personally going out and killing a man I know to be a serial killer (who got off on a technicality and will continue his killing spree) is morally unacceptable? Obviously, it has nothing to do with lives saved, or with innocents harmed in the process, so what is it? Is one licit just because the government says it is? This can’t be right.

So what is considered a “just war”, and can one ever be waged by an individual?
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Will someone PLEASE answer the poster’s question about just wars? Was the bombing of Hiroshima, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, morally licit?

What would make bombing a city where many innocent people are harmed or killed in hopes of taking out a murderous dictator, morally acceptable, while me personally going out and killing a man I know to be a serial killer (who got off on a technicality and will continue his killing spree) is morally unacceptable? Obviously, it has nothing to do with lives saved, or with innocents harmed in the process, so what is it? Is one licit just because the government says it is? This can’t be right.

So what is considered a “just war”, and can one ever be waged by an individual?
Click to expand...
What is Just War?
ewtn.com/expert/expertfaqframe.asp?source=/vexperts/conference.htm

Excerpts from entry at link are below. I bolded items that I think are especially relevant to this discussion.

"…In this regard Just War doctrine gives certain conditions for the legitimate exercise of force, all of which must be met:

"1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

3. there must be serious prospects of success;
  1. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition" …
    …
    …In the end it is not enough to wage war to achieve justice without treating the underlying causes. “Injustice, excessive economic or social inequalities, envy, distrust, and pride raging among men and nations constantly threaten peace and cause wars. Everything done to overcome these disorders contributes to building up peace and avoiding war” [CCC 2317]. The Church has no illusions that true justice and peace can be attained before the Coming of the Lord. It is the duty of men of good will to work towards it, nonetheless. In the words of the spiritual dictum, we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God. [CCC 2309].
 
Thoughtfulone said:
Will someone PLEASE answer the poster’s question about just wars? Was the bombing of Hiroshima, which killed hundreds of thousands of people, morally licit?

What would make bombing a city where many innocent people are harmed or killed in hopes of taking out a murderous dictator, morally acceptable, while me personally going out and killing a man I know to be a serial killer (who got off on a technicality and will continue his killing spree) is morally unacceptable? Obviously, it has nothing to do with lives saved, or with innocents harmed in the process, so what is it? Is one licit just because the government says it is? This can’t be right.

So what is considered a “just war”, and can one ever be waged by an individual?
Click to expand...
The reason I have refrained from answering is the answer is easy to find as with a lot of questions here. Look to the Catechism and other easily referenced material from the Church. But here goes.

The Church gets the final say in the determination of a just war. The critera is listed in the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
2309 The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:
  • the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
  • all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
  • there must be serious prospects of success;
  • the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modem means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.
These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the “just war” doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.
As you can see here, it is first determined by the Government at war as they have “responsibility for the common good” first but the Church can then speak as they also have such responsibility. As Pope John Paul II did with the war in Iraq, he said it was not a “just war”.

Also the determintion of a “just war” is not infallible.

There is no way that I can see for an individual to wage a “war” let alone a “just war”.

Hope this helps.
 
Roxygirl1488 said:
I Don’t think you are understanding what I am saying. I am saying, suppose no one gets hurt. The only thing destroyed is the clinic, no one is inside. We are talking about a place that potentially could not only be killing babies by systematically ripping them apart in the womb, but also killing them if they are born alive and escape the doctors abortion procedure. Is it wrong, to bomb a clinic, to destroy a clinic…if no one gets hurt?
Click to expand...
People get hurt in other ways besides physically.

Destruction of private property hurts the owner of the property, which probably isn’t the abortion clinic.

It hurts the taxpayers who pay the fire department to respond to the call of the explosion.

It hurts the taxpayers who have to pay the police to investigate the crime.

It hurts the taxpayers when the person who committed the crime is caught, and must be jailed for a long period of time.

We don’t live in a vacuum Our actions effect everyone, negatively or positively, depending on whether your act is evil or good.

Jim
 
Roxygirl1488 said:
I Don’t think you are understanding what I am saying. I am saying, suppose no one gets hurt. t?
Click to expand...
irrelevant, and no way to insure this anyhow
the act in and of itself is immoral
it is never moral to do definite evil so a possible good may come about
the harm to the pro-life cause alone, without any other factors, make this immoral
 
This:
1789 Some rules apply in every case:
  • One may never do evil so that good may result from it
Click to expand...
Otherwise, sounds like domestic terrorism to me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top