Does just war doctrine justify using violence to stop abortions?

[thistle]

Well, what in your opinion, would be a just cause for going to war?

Neither we nor the Church determine what is defined as a just war. That is determined by the government of a country.
The reason countries go to war with each other has no relevance to an individual person committing murder (i.e. killing an abortion doctor).

 

[Prodigal_Son]

If I dodge the question…are you going to call me a murderer and advocate for a coordinated attack on me?

Killing an abortionist is wrong: so says the Church; cardinal o’connor; Priests for Life.

Please. Don’t. Dodge. That. Statement.

Or do you think your vigilantism is morally correct and they are all wrong? You can’t both be correct (they are; you aren’t; and this grows more disgraceful by the post).

You dodged the question. Your position is inconsistent, unless you think it’s wrong for me to kill a man who attempts to kill my daughter. Sorry, but it’s just inconsistent.

As for the bishops and priests you mention, do any of them say that killing an abortionist in the attempt to prevent an abortion is intrinsically wrong? Or do they just recommend against it, or say that it is wrong given our current circumstances? (I agree with those last points – I don’t think it is a good idea.)

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The reason countries go to war with each other has no relevance to an individual person committing murder (i.e. killing an abortion doctor).

Murder, by definition, is intrinsically wrong. Killing a person who is attempting to kill an innocent is NOT intrinsically wrong. Ergo, killing an abortionist who is about to perform an abortion is not murder.

 

[PolarGuy]

Prodigal, you’re the one who is claiming that murdering an abortionist is not morally wrong.

There’s nothing inconsistent about my position - but if that’s the worst said about me, what do I care? I’ve been called worse.

YOUR position?

Vigilantism. Monstrous. Barbaric. Condemned by every notable world religion, and the Catholic authorities I quote. And, at its heart, it can be distilled to “person X can be killed because I subjectively say so.”

 

[PolarGuy]

Prodigal, if in Catholic theology the State isn’t allowed to apply the death penalty (where there has been a trial and a determination of guilt), why are you allowed to apply it by killing an abortionist without benefit of a trial?

Don’t bother answering. I’m disgusted enough as it is.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

PolarGuy,

Please read the Catechism:

Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

This clearly gives me the right to incapacitate an abortionist who is attempting to KILL A PERSON. It also, arguably, gives me the right to kill him.

That doesn’t mean it tells me it is wise to kill him. It isn’t wise. Please realize that I’m not arguing with you about that. I’m arguing about a finer point: whether the action is intrinsically wrong.

There’s nothing inconsistent about my position - but if that’s the worst said about me, what do I care? I’ve been called worse.

You hold: (1) it is morally permissible to kill in order to defend a baby, (2) a fetus is a baby, and (3) it is morally impermissible to kill in order to defend a fetus.

Or which of the three above do you reject?

If you admit your position is inconsistent, then I’m happy to leave you with your inconsistent beliefs. But if you want to rationally evaluate them, you’ll have to resolve the inconsistency.

Vigilantism. Monstrous. Barbaric. Condemned by every notable world religion, and the Catholic authorities I quote.

Rhetoric, not logic. And, as I said, a vigilante is someone who punishes. We’re not discussing punishment.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Prodigal, if in Catholic theology the State isn’t allowed to apply the death penalty (where there has been a trial and a determination of guilt), why are you allowed to apply it by killing an abortionist without benefit of a trial?

Don’t bother answering. I’m disgusted enough as it is.

It’s morally permissible to kill an abortionist BEFORE the abortion is committed, IF the killing will save an infant’s life. It’s not morally permissible to kill an abortionist after the abortion.

(The question is academic, though, because in America, some other abortionist will be willing to step in and do the abortion, so killing will never – sadly – save the infant’s life.)

 

[PolarGuy]

Your “logic”'doesn’t work in part because there comes a point working backwards when you have no right to decide if the abortionist is really going to commit an abortion - particularly since you’ve now decided that you can kill him before he aborts.

Can you kill him as he walks to work? As he graduates from medical school and announces his intent to do abortions?

You are very quickly turning into the person who walks up to George Tiller at a shopping mall and shoots him (and candidly I find this debate a waste of time as I will not further debate someone who would advocate murder). And yes, doing so is morally impermissible; monstrous; and cold blooded murder; and my position is the Church’s position: because if it was not, you would see this sort of behavior done and condoned by the church when it was.

Use your head, for God’s sake: would a Catholic cardinal say what cardinal O’connor said if the church thought it permissible to do what you are advocating?

Why not admit that your position is out of line with Church teaching?

 

[cena]

grave matter- check

violence must be last resort- debateable. Legal abortions may one day be overturned, but many of the unborn will die in the meantime.

prospects of success - also debateable.

violence can not produce greater evil than it is eliminating- debateable.

I’m curious as to what you all think.

As many have said just war does not apply to individuals. Things like the death penalty (like if there is no other way to defend society) and just war are rights given to the state not to individuals. Please do not support violence towards the abortion industry. Support legally closing down clinics, not terrorism.

 

[cena]

It’s morally permissible to kill an abortionist BEFORE the abortion is committed, IF the killing will save an infant’s life. It’s not morally permissible to kill an abortionist after the abortion.

(The question is academic, though, because in America, some other abortionist will be willing to step in and do the abortion, so killing will never – sadly – save the infant’s life.)

I was reading a Catholic book that talked about self defense and it said it had to be during the attack not before or after it. Advocating for killing abortionists just makes the pro life movement look hypocritical

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Can you kill him as he walks to work? As he graduates from medical school and announces his intent to do abortions?

No, and no. You can incapacitate him, using whatever force necessary (but no more!), when he poses an *immediate threat *to an innocent.

It’s the exact same principle we use to apply to ALL situations in which innocents are in danger.

You are very quickly turning into the person who walks up to George Tiller at a shopping mall and shoots him.

Of course I’m not. I have said (1) I think killing abortionists is unwise, (2) it doesn’t apply to the American situation, and (3) it could only conceivably be done given an immediate threat. That is nothing like the Tiller situation.

Use your head, for God’s sake: would a Catholic cardinal say what cardinal O’connor said if the church thought it permissible to do what you are advocating?

I have disagreed with many things said by many cardinals, especially on obscure points of moral theology. So also the cardinals have disagreed with each other on such points. A red hat does not imply infallibility.

 

[PolarGuy]

Don’t go say that because you think something is “unwise” you’re off the hook morally: you have condoned attacking abortionists as morally allowable. You have done so in direct contravention of everything the Catholic Church teaches.

You’re free to disagree with cardinal o’connor, just as George Tiller’s murderer did.
He was wrong and so are you.

However, what you don’t seem to want to admit is that, if you recounting morally licit acts,
O’connor and the Church would agree with you.

As I said, I have no intention of debating people who advocate terrorism; vigilantism; attacks on abortionists, etc., who then hide behind “I only meant incapacitate, not murder!” Terrorism is terrorism, and you’re not just defending it; you’re advocating it.

You ought to be ashamed. I’ll pray for you.

 

[PolarGuy]

And BTW - you DID say it was morally allowable to kill abortionists. No walking that back now…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

PolarGuy,

I said it was not *intrinsically wrong *to kill an abortionist who was about to commit a murder. That’s what I said. Please check the transcript.

Now let me rewind to where you dodged another important question:

You hold: (1) it is morally permissible to kill in order to defend a baby, (2) a fetus is a baby, and (3) it is morally impermissible to kill in order to defend a fetus.

Correct? Or which premise do you reject?

If you don’t answer the question, then sorry, we’re done here. We can’t investigate the truth unless we play by the rules.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Would it be morally OK to kill a person who was forcing my wife to drink a toxin that would kill our (in-utero) baby – if this were the only way to stop the person?

 

[tskrobacz]

“Eye for an eye” is about punishment, not defense of the innocent. If a killer is attempting to kill my son or daughter, you’d better bet I’d be willing to kill them.

The child in the mother’s womb is dependent on his or her mother’s moral actions to successfully enter the world. If the mother chooses to disobey the 10 commandments (Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not have false God’s before me) then it is her sin.

The false God’s are power, pleasure, honor and wealth. In the case of abortion the mother is exerting her own power to terminate the pregnancy for her own convenience (pleasure).

Is it your place to prevent a sinner from sinning when you too are a sinner? It’s my experience that God has a wonderful way of using our sins to call us to Him…Pray for the mother and pray for God’s counsel that your own actions (for a given situation) may be guided by and in accordance with His will (not yours).

 

[thistle]

Murder, by definition, is intrinsically wrong. Killing a person who is attempting to kill an innocent is NOT intrinsically wrong. Ergo, killing an abortionist who is about to perform an abortion is not murder.

Going into an abortion clinic and killing the doctor is very much MURDER.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Going into an abortion clinic and killing the doctor is very much MURDER.

Which one of the following premises do you reject, thistle?

(1) It is morally permissible to kill in order to defend a baby, (2) a fetus is a baby, and (3) it is morally impermissible to kill in order to defend a fetus.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The child in the mother’s womb is dependent on his or her mother’s moral actions to successfully enter the world. If the mother chooses to disobey the 10 commandments (Thou shall not kill, Thou shall not have false God’s before me) then it is her sin.

The false God’s are power, pleasure, honor and wealth. In the case of abortion the mother is exerting her own power to terminate the pregnancy for her own convenience (pleasure).

Is it your place to prevent a sinner from sinning when you too are a sinner? It’s my experience that God has a wonderful way of using our sins to call us to Him…Pray for the mother and pray for God’s counsel that your own actions (for a given situation) may be guided by and in accordance with His will (not yours).

The same argument would – if valid – prove that I should not rescue a 1-year-old from a murderously abusive parent.

I have every reason to prevent a sinner from sinning, if their sin KILLS someone.

 

[estesbob]

No.