Does just war doctrine justify using violence to stop abortions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter N0X3x
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
N

N0X3x

Guest
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.
 
The just war doctrine applies to the actions of governments in waging legitimate war. It is not applicable to the actions of individuals acting on their own outside of the law. Other moral principles may apply but not this one.
 
Corki said:
The just war doctrine applies to the actions of governments in waging legitimate war. It is not applicable to the actions of individuals acting on their own outside of the law. Other moral principles may apply but not this one.
Click to expand...
Right. Just war doctrine does not apply at all in this case.

For evidence of this, just look at the fact that no bishop anywhere has ever said that just war doctrine would apply in these cases. If it were even in the realm of possible Catholic thought, we should be able to find some bishop somewhere making such a claim.
 
The just war doctrine only applies to states, not individuals.

The Church has consistently taught that the faithful may not take the law into their own hands and resort to killing, even in a grave case such as abortion.
 
Corki said:
The just war doctrine applies to the actions of governments in waging legitimate war. It is not applicable to the actions of individuals acting on their own outside of the law. Other moral principles may apply but not this one.
Click to expand...
What moral principles (if they have a name) apply to just violence within a state or among individuals? I have heard, for example, that it is just and in some cases, even required, to defend yourself or those under your protection from attackers with violence.

Furthermore, I fail to see a meaningful difference between the two. Surely, the just war doctrine applies to revolutionaries who seek to overthrow a tyrannical government?

If any war is just, it seems this kind would be.
 
Joe_5859 said:
Right. Just war doctrine does not apply at all in this case.

For evidence of this, just look at the fact that no bishop anywhere has ever said that just war doctrine would apply in these cases. If it were even in the realm of possible Catholic thought, we should be able to find some bishop somewhere making such a claim.
Click to expand...
would we?

I’ve heard that freedom of speech does not extend to advocating for the overthrow of the united states government. I’m not sure if that extends to all forms of violent resistance against american policies or not, but if it does, the Bishop’s who would advocate for that position would have their hands tied.
 
N0X3x said:
would we?

I’ve heard that freedom of speech does not extend to advocating for the overthrow of the united states government. I’m not sure if that extends to all forms of violent resistance against american policies or not, but if it does, the Bishop’s who would advocate for that position would have their hands tied.
Click to expand...
But I’m not just talking about U.S. bishops. No bishop anywhere in the world has advocated such a thing.

Further, since when have bishops taken the lead on professing Catholic teaching from what the government does? There’s a long line of saints and martyrs who have stood up for Catholic teaching in the face of resistance from the government of the day. If it were at all true, there would be at least one bishop in the world with the courage to say so.
 
N0X3x said:
What moral principles (if they have a name) apply to just violence within a state or among individuals? I have heard, for example, that it is just and in some cases, even required, to defend yourself or those under your protection from attackers with violence.

Furthermore, I fail to see a meaningful difference between the two. Surely, the just war doctrine applies to revolutionaries who seek to overthrow a tyrannical government?

If any war is just, it seems this kind would be.
Click to expand...
You just answered your own question. If, by way of example, a woman was being coerced into an abortion (which is roughly a third of all abortions in the US) and she fought back, she would be morally justified in her violent actions against the abortionist. The same thing might apply to the child’s father if he fought to save his own child’s life. This would be under the principle of self defense but not the principle of just war.

There are some other principles that might be applied but they would need some far-fetched scenarios. The point is that a principle as to how a nation should morally make decisions can’t be extrapolated to justify individual actions.
 
Nothing justifies use of violence to end abortions.

NOTHING.

Put it out of your mind. It is not going to happen; it is not going to be condoned by the Church; (mis)using Church doctrine to justify it will not happen either.

John Cardinal O’Connor, the former archbishop of the New York Archdiocese, said once, “if anyone ever wants to use violence to kill an abortionist, let him kill me instead.”
 
N0X3x said:
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.
Click to expand...
I have been in discussions on CAF on this very topic in the past, and IMO, I believe God would be OK with some type of ‘war’ to stop abortion, if you look at the numbers alone, abortion has FAR surpassed what Hitler did, and most people will generally agree killing and violence to stop the Nazis from taking over the world was justified, and probably the best thing to do…I think the same thing is true of abortion in our days.

However, the sad fact is, during the time frame in which these ‘wars’ happen, those on the ‘right’ side are usually the most hated at THAT TIME, it takes many years, decades for some to be recognized as heroes, another example, look at all the american patriots and the crimes and violence they committed, at that time, they were hated, thought of as criminals, troublemakers, but today, we celebrate all they did for the greater good, but the funny thing…if they were alive today and were doing the same things (even with the greater good in mind), they would be arrested and called domestic terrorists by many people…??

Another example, Christopher Columbus, we have a day to celebrate him, but if alive today and did what he did, he would be HATED and be in prison.

Something to think about though.
 
Bishops and the Holy See never overtly condoned the armed resistance in the Cristero Wars, but it happened nevertheless, and produced many martyrs and saints.

Just sayin’
 
I think this is a good question.

My answer: I think SOME sort of violent action is certainly justified, in the following sort of scenario…
  1. Political attempts to stop a certain abortion clinic have failed.
  2. The violent action is the minimal amount of violence necessary to save some unborn child. Since killing wouldn’t be necessary to stop an abortion (in most cases), killing is not justified.
  3. We calculate that violence NOW will lead to peace LATER.
This last point is the one that is doubtful, given the situation in America. Most young people in America think abortion is wrong. They may be CONFUSED about the notion of “freedom of choice”, but they oppose abortion. Their energy could be harnessed toward the abolition of abortion, and that is a much better strategy than violence, given our current political situation.

(Think Intifada, with the Palestinians. If they hadn’t been violent, they would have been more successful – even though their violence may have been sometimes otherwise justified.)
 
Joe_5859 said:
But I’m not just talking about U.S. bishops. No bishop anywhere in the world has advocated such a thing.

Further, since when have bishops taken the lead on professing Catholic teaching from what the government does? There’s a long line of saints and martyrs who have stood up for Catholic teaching in the face of resistance from the government of the day. If it were at all true, there would be at least one bishop in the world with the courage to say so.
Click to expand...
I don’t think so. For it would entail express disobedience toward the consistent policy of the Magesterium on abortion. But one might privately disagree with the Magesterium on this issue without having a public duty to oppose the Magesterium.
 
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.
 
N0X3x said:
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.
Click to expand...
Absolutely NOT! It does not apply to individuals.
 
thistle said:
Absolutely NOT! It does not apply to individuals.
Click to expand...
It is not “Just War” in particular that would apply in the case of defense against abortion. It would simply fall under the general doctrine on lawful defense of innocent human life.

However, Johann du Toit’s arguments against violence are compelling and worthy of belief.
 
Johann_du_Toit said:
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.
Click to expand...
What would the world be like if back in the early 1940s, we just allowed Hitler to continue doing what he wanted and did not resort to actual war, (killing) to put a stop to it, using the excuse that we should try prayer, diplomatic solutions, and NEVER resort to violence?

Hitler would have laughed and run rupshot over the entire world. The same could be said about the American Revolution, what if the US colonies decided to NOT fight in the literal sense? Evil at this level is never going to just give in, they will fight tooth and nail, to the death, trying to protect all that is evil

I think alot of people just think if this type of tactic is used in an attempt to stop the killing, it will just end once we get rid of all the abortion clinics/doctors, etc. You can bet the US Govt will step in and send in troops!!! It WOULD BE a literal war eventually, but I do believe God would not let this effort fail…if you look at the reasons for why a particular war is justified or not, in this case, it definitely would be, and furthermore, it MAY be sinful if we refuse to do this…that is scary to think about!

Dont get me wrong Im not a violent person, I dont even kill bugs, and I really wonder if I could even kill a person if it came down to it (even if my life was in danger).
 
The old “what if it was Hitler?!?” doesn’t work.

Why not? Because it’s NOT Hitler we’re talking about.

Further, just war doctrine applies to nations - not to people.

As to “lawful defense of the innocent,” if only it were that simple: THIS IS A VERY SLIPPERY SLOPE, FOLKS - THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BELIEVING VIOLENCE IS LAWFUL TO END ABORTION, AND PULLING THE TRIGGER TO SHOOT GEORGE TILLER.

Worse, IMHO the only comments worse than those depicting Catholics as radicals are those that depict Catholics as violent.
 
Elizium23 said:
It is not “Just War” in particular that would apply in the case of defense against abortion. It would simply fall under the general doctrine on lawful defense of innocent human life.

However, Johann du Toit’s arguments against violence are compelling and worthy of belief.
Click to expand...
If anyone were to go into an abortion clinic and injure or kill a doctor to prevent an abortion that would not only be a criminal act it would be a sin of sin matter, absolutely against Church teachings.
Such an act does not come under just war doctrine or defence of human life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top