Interesting discussion in my moral theology class

[terillmorris]

My professor in class said that given the traditional teaching of moral theologians that killing abortion doctors in intrinsically acceptable, but extrinsically unacceptable. He said that if abortion is murder (which it is) then killing the abortion doctor is saving the innocent life of the baby. This would be no different, according to him, than if someone had a gun to an innocent person’s head, and was threatening to shoot him, one would be justified in shooting the individual (with the gun in his hand) to defend the innocent life. In this regard, he said that killing the doctor would be intrinsically acceptable.

He went on to say that one could argue that shooting the doctor would be extrinsically unacceptable because it gives “fuel” for the pro-abortion movement. He concluded that in and of itself, that shooting a doctor is acceptable. This sort of surprised me, but he kinda made sense once I listened to him.
He did say he isnt advocating kiling doctors. Anyway, any thoughts?

 

[Benedictus]

Anyway, any thoughts?

St. Thomas Aquinas would disagree (Summa Theologiae, II-II, 64, 3):

Augustine says (De Civ. Dei i) [Can. Quicumque percutit, caus. xxiii, qu. 8: ‘A man who, without exercising public authority, kills an evil-doer, shall be judged guilty of murder, and all the more, since he has dared to usurp a power which God has not given him.’

I answer that, As stated above (2), it is lawful to kill an evildoer in so far as it is directed to the welfare of the whole community, so that it belongs to him alone who has charge of the community’s welfare. Thus it belongs to a physician to cut off a decayed limb, when he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body. Now the care of the common good is entrusted to persons of rank having public authority: wherefore they alone, and not private individuals, can lawfully put evildoers to death.

What he seems to be saying is that private individuals don’t have the authority to execute evildoers (hence vigilantes are immoral). This would seem to be different that killing someone to help a person who is immediate danger from the evildoer.
[/quote]

 

[terillmorris]

St. Thomas Aquinas would disagree (Summa Theologiae, II-II, 64, 3):

What he seems to be saying is that private individuals don’t have the authority to execute evildoers (hence vigilantes are immoral). This would seem to be different that killing someone to help a person who is immediate danger from the evildoer.

Wait you didnt adress the issue–Augustine is saying that one cant (as you stated above) kill an evildoer on your own without legitimate authority. This is quite different than the person who is in immediate danger. The unborn baby is certainly in immediate danger, and the doctor walking into the clinic is going to kill him/her.

 

[Hastrman]

Wait you didnt adress the issue–Augustine is saying that one cant (as you stated above) kill an evildoer on your own without legitimate authority. This is quite different than the person who is in immediate danger. The unborn baby is certainly in immediate danger, and the doctor walking into the clinic is going to kill him/her.

I’d argue, you have no way of knowing that. He might be doing paperwork for the next six hours.

Now if you stop him in the operating room, that’s different.

 

[terillmorris]

I’d argue, you have no way of knowing that. He might be doing paperwork for the next six hours.

Now if you stop him in the operating room, that’s different.

I dont think you can argue that way. I mean let’s look at the example mentioned earlier: Let’s say a person has a gun to an innocent person’s head, and is threatening to shoot.–well, technically we dont know for absolute certain that he will shoot–he could be bluffing—but it is reasonable to assume he very well may shoot, and one would be justified in taking the gunman out in defense of the innocent life—I mean if the abortion doctor is on his way into the clinic I think it is pretty reasonable why he is going in—does anyone know for certain what he is gonna do? well does anyone know for certain that the gunman will shoot? I just dont think the argument against because one isnt “absolutley sure” doesnt cut the mustard.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Your teacher is in error a rather significant error both in the analogy and the concept of defending innocent life. The doctor is a doctor far from a predator. Justified killing is based on imminent danger which the doctor does not pose. The error is in the confusion of “potential” killer which includes all of us verses actual danger which occurs when one of us intends or attempts to kill the innocent. The person with a gun is imminent danger.

I am curious what your teacher thinks is fitting for the woman requesting the abortion? ( maybe a metal?)

 

[terillmorris]

Your teacher is in error a rather significant error both in the analogy and the concept of defending innocent life. The doctor is a doctor far from a predator. Justified killing is based on imminent danger which the doctor does not pose. The error is in the confusion of “potential” killer which includes all of us verses actual danger which occurs when one of us intends or attempts to kill the innocent. The person with a gun is imminent danger.

I am curious what your teacher thinks is fitting for the woman requesting the abortion? ( maybe a metal?)

I dont understand your point. How can you say the doctor walking into the abortion clinic doesnt pose an imminent danger to the baby. That is what abortion clinics have going on inside them. Abortions!!! Doctors walking into a clinic are going to do their job–perform the abortion.
The topic of the woman did come up–The teacher said that obvious you wouldnt be justified in killing the mother because the end would result in the baby and the mother dieing, thus this would not defend an innocent life. Killing the doctor on his way into the clinic would stop the abortion, and probably stop any abortions at that clinic for the day at the very least.

 

[Harmony1988]

What would Jesus do?

 

[Ender]

He did say he isnt advocating killing doctors.

I don’t understand this statement except as a way of protecting himself from prosecution if one of his students accepted his arguments and killed an abortionist. If he truly believes what he is saying then why would he not advocate killing abortionists?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I dont understand your point. How can you say the doctor walking into the abortion clinic doesnt pose an imminent danger to the baby. That is what abortion clinics have going on inside them. Abortions!!! Doctors walking into a clinic are going to do their job–perform the abortion.
The topic of the woman did come up–The teacher said that obvious you wouldnt be justified in killing the mother because the end would result in the baby and the mother dieing, thus this would not defend an innocent life. Killing the doctor on his way into the clinic would stop the abortion, and probably stop any abortions at that clinic for the day at the very least.

Again this is terribly flawed logic

1. Rare if any are “Abortion Clinics” these exist more in zestful imagination than factual existence. Abortions can be done and are done in many types of medical facilities. Additionally many are now done by pill at no medical facility 2) The doctor does not desire the abortion and the mother would not be pregnant with the same child after the abortion 3) Killing a doctor does not stop an abortion it simply delays the action. Which should be a hint that the wrong action is being done

 

[terillmorris]

Again this is terribly flawed logic

1. Rare if any are “Abortion Clinics” these exist more in zestful imagination than factual existence. Abortions can be done and are done in many types of medical facilities. Additionally many are now done by pill at no medical facility 2) The doctor does not desire the abortion and the mother would not be pregnant with the same child after the abortion 3) Killing a doctor does not stop an abortion it simply delays the action. Which should be a hint that the wrong action is being done

I dont agree (again I am not advocating killing doctor’s-see my original post) —wait let me make it simplier–If you could identify a Doctor on his way to perform an abortion would you be justified in “taking him out”—?? we can go from there once you answer the question.

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I dont agree (again I am not advocating killing doctor’s-see my original post) —wait let me make it simplier–If you could identify a Doctor on his way to perform an abortion would you be justified in “taking him out”—?? we can go from there once you answer the question.

Any and all Doctors could be on their way to an abortion which is of great importance (pharmacists too). Even if I were standing in an operating room being setup for an abortion, what should I do? How about I burn down the building? or destroy the room? that should delay the abortion for what 3-14 days? If this wise teacher comes over and kills the only doctor present that also delays the abortion 3-14 days. What has been accomplished?

 

[sawman]

My best freind and I once had an ongoing discussion about this very topic for about a year on and off.I agree that the moral delema had us on the verge of a major abortion clinic rampage.You see we thought that if abortionists were guilty of murdering the innocent then some that knew of this would be obligated to put a stop to it.Well after a lot of discussion and prayer,I felt that Our lord was showing me that to kill in His name would in this circumstance be using the tactics of the enemy.Murder is satan’s weapon not God’s.Under our culture and circumstances the killing of abortionists without due process was immoral.Our duty was to encourage in all things within our sphere of influence the changeing of hearts.Do our best to bring our culture into repentance and right relationship to God.So, we did’nt go through with our plans for murder and mayhem.Thanks be to God.

 

[terillmorris]

Any and all Doctors could be on their way to an abortion which is of great importance (pharmacists too). Even if I were standing in an operating room being setup for an abortion, what should I do? How about I burn down the building? or destroy the room? that should delay the abortion for what 3-14 days? If this wise teacher comes over and kills the only doctor present that also delays the abortion 3-14 days. What has been accomplished?

Ok but wouldnt that be a good thing (and wouldnt you be justified in your stopping the abortion at that moment) ?? It would be good if you stopped the abortion—I mean 3-14 days is a long time in a certain sense—hearts could change, people could reconsider, the woman could reconsider given her circumstances—
You dodnt really answer the question—IF you could identify an abortion Docotor going into a “clinic,” to perform an abortion, would you be justified in taking him out–?

 

[Orionthehunter]

I dont understand your point. How can you say the doctor walking into the abortion clinic doesnt pose an imminent danger to the baby. That is what abortion clinics have going on inside them. Abortions!!! Doctors walking into a clinic are going to do their job–perform the abortion.
The topic of the woman did come up–The teacher said that obvious you wouldnt be justified in killing the mother because the end would result in the baby and the mother dieing, thus this would not defend an innocent life. Killing the doctor on his way into the clinic would stop the abortion, and probably stop any abortions at that clinic for the day at the very least.

What is missing from the scenario presented by the teacher is he doesn’t include discussion of our manner in which we are to correct unjust laws. We are not authorized to take the law into our own hands. Because the act is legal (not moral), we are to not hold the Doctor solely responsible such that we can execute punishment or preemptive action. We are called to do what we can to change the law, pray for a conversion of hearts, and use non-lethal means to convince people to make other decisions.

His scenario that we aren’t to do it is it will arm the pro-abortionists is balderdash.

 

[terillmorris]

What is missing from the scenario presented by the teacher is he doesn’t include discussion of our manner in which we are to correct unjust laws. We are not authorized to take the law into our own hands. Because the act is legal (not moral), we are to not hold the Doctor solely responsible such that we can execute punishment or preemptive action. We are called to do what we can to change the law, pray for a conversion of hearts, and use non-lethal means to convince people to make other decisions.

His scenario that we aren’t to do it is it will arm the pro-abortionists is balderdash.

We actually did discuss this—He said that in this case–it is self evident that the law has failed—so one would be justified in defending human life (innocent human life)—example–if the u.s. government said it was ok for u.s. military officials to go around and kill black children (for no reason or because the parents wanted them killed) and you walked outside your door and a soldier had a gun to a black child’s head wouldnt you be morally justified in taking the soldier out to save the innocent child.?

 

[Newbie2]

Again this is terribly flawed logic

1. Rare if any are “Abortion Clinics” these exist more in zestful imagination than factual existence. Abortions can be done and are done in many types of medical facilities. Additionally many are now done by pill at no medical facility 2) The doctor does not desire the abortion and the mother would not be pregnant with the same child after the abortion 3) Killing a doctor does not stop an abortion it simply delays the action. Which should be a hint that the wrong action is being done

That’s probably true, but one could argue that the mom-to-be might just change her mind. Not a great argument, though.

I dont agree (again I am not advocating killing doctor’s-see my original post) —wait let me make it simplier–If you could identify a Doctor on his way to perform an abortion would you be justified in “taking him out”—?? we can go from there once you answer the question.

No. There are ways one could work to prevent abortions, picketing, etc…even something crazy like beating the doctor senseless and breaking his fingers, blinding him, etc. Similar to the “just war” or self-defense doctrine, you’d have to exhaust all other methods before commiting murder yourself, and even at that it would still be morally questionable. This deserves further explanantion on my part…but I gotta run!

 

[East_and_West]

Wait you didnt adress the issue–Augustine is saying that one cant (as you stated above) kill an evildoer on your own without legitimate authority. This is quite different than the person who is in immediate danger. The unborn baby is certainly in immediate danger, and the doctor walking into the clinic is going to kill him/her.

I agree. It appears that Augustine/Aquinas are talking about the death penalty hear. Killing abortion doctors is another issue. They are about to commit the murder and killing of such a doctor is a legitimate method of defending the unborn who are about to be killed.

 

[Joe_5859]

By this logic, wouldn’t someone also be justified in killing the mother who has brought her baby to be killed in the abortion clinic? After all, it was her decision, not the doctor’s.

Or maybe even the father or the parents of the mother who are pressuring the mother to have an abortion? After all, if they are out of the picture, then there will be no one putting pressure on the mother to abort.

Or the nurse that is handing the surgical instruments to the doctor? Without her help, the doctor could not do the abortion.

Or how about the friend that is going to drive the mother to the abortion clinic? If she has no mode of transportation, this will also delay the abortion, and she may be able to rethink things.

It seems like a very slippery slope to me.

I think this analogy of someone holding a gun to someone’s head does only work if you exact your vigilante justice in the operating room as the doctor is about to perform the abortion. If the police have located a serial killer and he is sleeping in his bed unarmed, do they go in with guns blazing in order to kill the guy? No. Because, at that moment, he poses no immediate threat to anyone, even if it is very likely that he will do so in the near future. This is not an insignificant point that can just be dismissed. It seriously undercuts the argument.

We get into very dangerous waters if we start basing moral decisions on what someone might do in the future.

 

[kevstar31]

By this logic, wouldn’t someone also be justified in killing the mother who has brought her baby to be killed in the abortion clinic? After all, it was her decision, not the doctor’s.

Then you would have killed the unborn child since it depends on the mother to survive.