Does just war doctrine justify using violence to stop abortions?

[thistle]

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.

It is not morally permissible to murder the doctor to prevent an abortion!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is not morally permissible to murder the doctor to prevent an abortion!

That’s a restatement of #3. You are saying that #1, #2, and #3 are all correct, so far as I can tell. But all three can’t be correct, because they contradict one another.

Which do you reject?

 

[thistle]

That’s a restatement of #3. You are saying that #1, #2, and #3 are all correct, so far as I can tell. But all three can’t be correct, because they contradict one another.

Which do you reject?

You are trying to mislead people by the way you word the question. Please at least have some integrity!!
If someone comes into my home and tries to kill my baby I can defend it by use of lethal force if necessary.
However, that is totally different from marching into an abortion clinic to kill the doctor to prevent an abortion.

The former is self defence while the latter is MURDER.

If you really believe that the Church allows you to go and kill an abortion doctor then you need a long talk with your priest!!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You are trying to mislead people by the way you word the question. Please at least have some integrity!!

My goodness, when did I do something lacking in integrity? Yikes! How am I trying to mislead people?

Thistle, please understand: I have a genuine moral conviction. You also have a genuine moral conviction. I am making an argument for my position, which involves asking you a question. Unless you can answer the question, you hold three moral claims that are inconsistent.

There is nothing dishonest or misleading about any of this. I think you ought to apologize for making that accusation against me.

If someone comes into my home and tries to kill my baby I can defend it by use of lethal force if necessary.
However, that is totally different from marching into an abortion clinic to kill the doctor to prevent an abortion.

I don’t understand how the two situations are different, at least not in principle. The baby, in each case, has the same right to life. In the political environment we live in, however, it is impossible to defend that baby’s right to life – even killing the abortionist would not save its life. So, in this political environment, it is a bad idea to kill abortionists.

If you really believe that the Church allows you to go and kill an abortion doctor then you need a long talk with your priest!!

I am pretty sure my priest would see it the same way I do. In fact, I’m guessing most moral theologians would agree that there is NEVER anything intrinsically wrong with killing a person who is about to kill another person.

 

[jtauke]

What you’re suggesting is basically domestic terrorism. That’s how you end on a watch-list.

smh

 

[jtauke]

My goodness, when did I do something lacking in integrity? Yikes! How am I trying to mislead people?

Thistle, please understand: I have a genuine moral conviction. You also have a genuine moral conviction. I am making an argument for my position, which involves asking you a question. Unless you can answer the question, you hold three moral claims that are inconsistent.

There is nothing dishonest or misleading about any of this. I think you ought to apologize for making that accusation against me.

I don’t understand how the two situations are different, at least not in principle. The baby, in each case, has the same right to life. In the political environment we live in, however, it is impossible to defend that baby’s right to life – even killing the abortionist would not save its life. So, in this political environment, it is a bad idea to kill abortionists.

I am pretty sure my priest would see it the same way I do. In fact, I’m guessing most moral theologians would agree that there is NEVER anything intrinsically wrong with killing a person who is about to kill another person.

There’s a name for this. 1st degree murder.

It would be a premeditated act with intent to kill. 25 to life.

Abortion is a horrible thing, but it’s the law currently. You can’t justify murder in cold-blood because you think otherwise.

Good grief…

 

[Prodigal_Son]

There’s a name for this. 1st degree murder.

It would be a premeditated act with intent to kill. 25 to life.

Abortion is a horrible thing, but it’s the law currently. You can’t justify murder in cold-blood because you think otherwise.

Good grief…

Are fetuses people? Is killing in an attempt to save an innocent victim murder? (You wouldn’t say so, if you were defending YOUR child’s life.)

 

[jtauke]

Are fetuses people? Is killing in an attempt to save an innocent victim murder? (You wouldn’t say so, if you were defending YOUR child’s life.)

It sounds crass but that’s not really relevant to this debate.

What matters is the following:

1.) The doctor is not breaking the law.
2.) The woman in question is not breaking the law.
3.) Under currently law a fetus is not considered a person.
4.) Therefore the premeditated murder of the doctor cannot be considered self-defense in this instance.

The ease with which some people rationalize violence is insane. Where does it end? Do you kill just the doctors? Do you kill the nurses? Do you kill the receptionist?

If you want to make a positive change, spend less time thinking about murder and more time working on overturning the law that you disagree with.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It sounds crass but that’s not really relevant to this debate.

What matters is the following:

1.) The doctor is not breaking the law.
2.) The woman in question is not breaking the law.
3.) Under currently law a fetus is not considered a person.
4.) Therefore the premeditated murder of the doctor cannot be considered self-defense in this instance.

The ease with which some people rationalize violence is insane. Where does it end? Do you kill just the doctors? Do you kill the nurses? Do you kill the receptionist?

If you want to make a positive change, spend less time thinking about murder and more time working on overturning the law that you disagree with.

I 100% agree that killing an abortionist is, legally, murder. But the law does not determine morality. “An unjust law is no law at all.” - Augustine

As for “where do you draw the line”, Catholic teaching already has clear lines. You cannot kill to defend an innocent unless the innocent is in IMMINENT DANGER from the person you kill. Nurses & receptionists don’t count. Although it would certainly be justifiable to sabotage clinics, so as to make their jobs more difficult.

 

[jtauke]

This is the same dumb arguments people make when trying to justify bombing a clinic.

You don’t change the law by breaking the law. And you sure as hell don’t do it by committing murder.

Honestly you’re walking the same line as Islamic extremists do in the justification of violence. If your justified in murdering because someone broke a Catholic teaching, would they not be justified in taking the lives of people that break tenants of their faith?

Why would you want to continue the cycle of violence? What’s the endgame? Change the law through fear, destruction, and murder? It’s disgusting.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Honestly you’re walking the same line as Islamic extremists do in the justification of violence. If your justified in murdering because someone broke a Catholic teaching, would they not be justified in taking the lives of people that break tenants of their faith?

Of course not. My faith is true. Theirs isn’t.

The same argument could be made to a slave in the American South: “If you’re justified in escaping because slavery goes against Catholic teaching, then why aren’t temperance advocates justified in stealing people’s alcohol, since alcohol is against their religion?”

Simple answer: slavery IS actually wrong, and drinking alcohol ISN’T actually wrong.

Jtauke, I know you’re not a relativist, but your argument seems to appeal to relativism.

 

[jtauke]

Of course not. My faith is true. Theirs isn’t.

The same argument could be made to a slave in the American South: “If you’re justified in escaping because slavery goes against Catholic teaching, then why aren’t temperance advocates justified in stealing people’s alcohol, since alcohol is against their religion?”

Simple answer: slavery IS actually wrong, and drinking alcohol ISN’T actually wrong.

Jtauke, I know you’re not a relativist, but your argument seems to appeal to relativism.

The fact is simple, you’re not justified in taking the actions suggested.

If you feel that you are, by all means, show your resolve. I’ll watch you on the nightly news when they put away a domestic terrorist for 20+ years or execute them.

 

[thistle]

My goodness, when did I do something lacking in integrity? Yikes! How am I trying to mislead people?

Thistle, please understand: I have a genuine moral conviction. You also have a genuine moral conviction. I am making an argument for my position, which involves asking you a question. Unless you can answer the question, you hold three moral claims that are inconsistent.

There is nothing dishonest or misleading about any of this. I think you ought to apologize for making that accusation against me.

I don’t understand how the two situations are different, at least not in principle. The baby, in each case, has the same right to life. In the political environment we live in, however, it is impossible to defend that baby’s right to life – even killing the abortionist would not save its life. So, in this political environment, it is a bad idea to kill abortionists.

I am pretty sure my priest would see it the same way I do. In fact, I’m guessing most moral theologians would agree that there is NEVER anything intrinsically wrong with killing a person who is about to kill another person.

You are completely wrong. Going into an abortion clinic and killing the doctor is MURDER.

 

[tskrobacz]

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.

Then you’d better be off to the Middle east. You’d best get about preventing ISIS from killing people…and, hurry. Where does your violence end?

 

[SonOfMan]

The problem is that violence would discredit the Pro-Life movement, and give the pro-abortionists and opportunity to paint all pro-lifers as violent fanatics and religious zealots, in the same vein as Islamic terrorists.

All the hard work the Church and it’s supporters have done to promote a culture of life and win over public opinion in the world-the last time I checked the majority of Americans identify as “pro-life”-would be undermined and undone.

This is a long war, and it is sadly not going to be won overnight. Taking “shortcuts” by resorting to violence will destroy everything we have fought and bled for up to now. In any case it would be a bad idea to the give the anti-life movement more martyrs, as has happened with John Britton and George Tiller.

Most people who are pro life are pro war and pro death penalty. Doesnt that contradict what being pro life is all about?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

By my count, zero people in this thread have decided to respond to my arguments.

We’ve gone ad hominem, folks. I think we can do better than that. Sigh.

 

[tskrobacz]

By my count, zero people in this thread have decided to respond to my arguments.

We’ve gone ad hominem, folks. I think we can do better than that. Sigh.

Because you say so, it must be true?

 

[mikekle]

What you’re suggesting is basically domestic terrorism. That’s how you end on a watch-list.

smh

Historically, the exact same thing could be said of the many US patriots we celebrate every year, and we refer to them as ‘heroes’… why dont people consider them domestic terrorists?

If Christopher Columbus was alive today and did what he did…he would absolutely HATED by everyone, there are many others that fit into this category too.