"Just War" and Abortion, please:

[WatchfulPilgrim]

In considering the genocide of abortion, I am curious what the CC’s position would be if there were an uprising in our country or in the world against abortion.

I’ll admit I haven’t studied the “Just War” theory much, and I myself am non-resistent. I do wonder though if there will one day be an uprising against abortion advocates, enablers, and practitioners. Especially in light of the proposed Freedom of Choice Act.

Peace~

 

[Justin_A]

I think the CC along with the just war doctrine would support an “uprising” against abortion since the doctrine is partially based off of the CC, although it would be a very sad day when we would have to resort to violence.

As for the just war doctrine, here is a link:http://www.ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Thank you, Justin. I’ll check that out. I know the CC doesn’t condone acts of violence against abortion advocates, but I was just thinking of the possibility that there will be a day when women are forced to have abortions for population control for instance. Not that our present situation isn’t already pretty bad.

 

[IrishJoe]

I think the CC along with the just war doctrine would support an “uprising” against abortion since the doctrine is partially based off of the CC, although it would be a very sad day when we would have to resort to violence.

peoples taxes already have to pay. I personally would think that destroying a facility that facilitaed abortions would be morally justified as long as it was empty (say at night). History has shown us that the evil and rich will do what they want until stopped by force wiht the possible exception of St Valdimir.

 

[RobHom]

I do believe that the “Just War” issue is somewhat limited to hostilities/war between two sovereign nations…such as what occurred during WWII.

I cannot see how a “Just War” issue could be applied to a legal enterprise, regardless how abhorrent it is, as it still has the protection of the law on its side.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I do believe that the “Just War” issue is somewhat limited to hostilities/war between two sovereign nations…such as what occurred during WWII.

I cannot see how a “Just War” issue could be applied to a legal enterprise, regardless how abhorrent it is, as it still has the protection of the law on its side.

What if what the law is protecting is anti-Christ, or just plain anti-life?

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I love the last sentence on the EWTN link:

we should work as if everything depended upon our efforts, and pray as if everything depended upon God.

 

[IrishJoe]

I cannot see how a “Just War” issue could be applied to a legal enterprise, regardless how abhorrent it is, as it still has the protection of the law on its side.

if the law says that jews are to be identified by the star of david and to be shot on sight it doesnt make it right or it shouldnt protect those who murder jews

 

[Justin_A]

One of the ten commandments (Gods laws) says " Do not commit adultery".
Sex before marriage is committing adultery against your future husband or wife, meaning it is morally wrong. This is one of two reasons abortion is wrong, because a lot of abortions are done on un weds. The second reason, is that we are destroying what God gave us.
And even if you do marry the person, sex is a life long commitment to your spouse. It is a giving of yourself totally and unconditionally. Abortion outside marriage says I am not committed yet and may never be. Abortion inside of marriage says I will give myself to you in every way but one. Is that unconditional?

We belong to God, so are we really free to do anything with Gods property?

 

[IrishJoe]

abortion is not wrong because it ‘allows people to be sexually immora’ its wrong because it kills a baby. simple as.

 

[Justin_A]

The second reason, is that we are destroying what God gave us.
:

Meaning the baby. However, I thought that since the topic on actualy killing a “baby” was so debated, that I would give other reasons for it being wrong. Not everybody sees it as killing a baby, and these are reasons that have been expressed by thoelogians and verios books.

I do agree that the long and short of it is that you are killing a baby by engageing in abortion.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

Meaning the baby. However, I thought that since the topic on actualy killing a “baby” was so debated, that I would give other reasons for it being wrong. Not everybody sees it as killing a baby, and these are reasons that have been expressed by thoelogians and verios books.

I do agree that the long and short of it is that you are killing a baby by engageing in abortion.

You are right on those points, but the primary reason it is wrong is b/c it’s taking a life. I don’t mean to criticize you, but rather than trying to find other reasons for it to be wrong (which there surely are) it might be best to try to find other ways to explain that it is taking a life. At the very least, and from a secular viewpoint, everyone should be able to agree that no one on earth has the authority to decide when exactly life begins. So abortion at any time after conception is potentially killing a life. That alone should cancel out any other possible reason for taking the risk of killing via abortion. If you were driving along in your car, and you saw what looked like an animal in the middle of the road, you wouldn’t assume it isn’t an animal and try to hit it. You would assume the worst and try to avoid it. That is the approach these pro-“choice”-ers need to take in discovering that it is wrong. But regardless, abortion is all about selfishness, and you can justify just about anything these days in the name of fast-food indulgence. If something is bothering you, just get rid of it: marriage, baby, whatever… If they don’t have a problem with snuffing out a potential life, I doubt they care much that they’ve committed adultery. But we could certainly avoid some abortions by encouraging abstainance in the first place. Better than Planned Parenthood giving sex ed. talks at the local high schools and passing out condoms which are going to do nothing if they break, if one of them doesn’t feel like using it, or they don’t have one on hand. Let’s teach them self controll for a change. Teach them that sex outside of marriage is degrading b/c you are letting yourself be used like a play thing. Everything in our culture today wreaks of selfishness, excess, & lack of self-control. We’ve got a lot to teach our youth if we will ever see a reversal in the culture of death.

 

[Justin_A]

I realy don’t mind a little criticism, at 17 I still have alot to learn. And I totaly agree with what you’ve said. People either just don’t care, or don’t know, and nothing will change untill those facts change. In the future I will try to find a different way to attack a certain topic, insted of trying to find a way around it.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I realy don’t mind a little criticism, at 17 I still have alot to learn. And I totaly agree with what you’ve said. People either just don’t care, or don’t know, and nothing will change untill those facts change. In the future I will try to find a different way to attack a certain topic, insted of trying to find a way around it.

You’re doing well, Justin! At 39 I still have a way to go too We’re all in a process, and humility is an awesome virtue

Never be afraid to defend the truth. You may be the only one they hear it from.

 

[RobHom]

What if what the law is protecting is anti-Christ, or just plain anti-life?

I don’t think you understood what I meant.

A "legal enterprise"is one that has the protection of law as based in the US Constitution. Therefore, any action taken against the entity is against the laws of the US. That being said, if there were laws that protected the “anti-Christ” or were “just plain anti-life” they would have to be attacked on the basis of law. The approach would have to be that the laws are “unconstitutional” and have them struck down.

A “just war” is a war with a rather narrow definition. It does not include internal insurrection or popular up-risings for one cause or the other.

From here: newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

**The possessor of the right of war

The right of war lies solely with the sovereign authority of the State. As it flows from the efficacious character of other rights in peril, the coercive right must belong to the possessor, or to the natural guardian, of those rights. The rights in question may be directly corporate rights of the State, or which, of course, the State is itself the possessor, and of which there is no natural guardian but the sovereign authority of the State; or directly the rights of subordinate parts of the State or even of its individual citizens, and of these the sovereign authority is the natural guardian against foreign aggression. The sovereign authority is the guardian, because there is no higher power on earth to which appeal may be made; and, moreover, in the case of the individual citizen, the protection of his rights against foreign aggression will ordinarily become indirectly a matter of the good of the Commonwealth. It is clear that the right of war cannot become a prerogative of any subordinate power in the state, or of a section, a city, or an individual, for the several reasons: that none such can have the right to imperil the good of all the state (as happens in war) except the juridical guardian of the common good of all: that subordinate parts of the state, as well as the individual citizen, having the supreme authority of the state to which to make appeal, are not in the case of necessity required for the exercise of coercion; finally, that any such right in hands other than those of the sovereign power would upset the pace and order of the whole state. How sovereign authority in matter of war reverts back to the people as a whole in certain circumstances belongs for explanation to the question of revolution. With the supreme powerlies also the judicial authority to determine when war is necessary, and what is the necessary and proportionate measure of damage it may therein inflict: there is no other natural tribunal to which recourse may be had, and without this judicial faculty the right of war would be vain.**

 

[RobHom]

if the law says that jews are to be identified by the star of david and to be shot on sight it doesnt make it right or it shouldnt protect those who murder jews

While what you say is true, and I agree with your premise, it is out of the frame of what I was referring to.

I was speaking in the terms of the US and its Constitutional guarantees of rights. I cannot see where it would be possible that something as you mention would ever happen in this country. Yes, currently abortion is legal in the US, however, due to the complexities of the laws involved in Roe Vs Wade…its not all that simple. We cannot compare the two issues as they are not alike.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

I don’t think you understood what I meant.

A "legal enterprise"is one that has the protection of law as based in the US Constitution. Therefore, any action taken against the entity is against the laws of the US. That being said, if there were laws that protected the “anti-Christ” or were “just plain anti-life” they would have to be attacked on the basis of law. The approach would have to be that the laws are “unconstitutional” and have them struck down.

A “just war” is a war with a rather narrow definition. It does not include internal insurrection or popular up-risings for one cause or the other.

From here: newadvent.org/cathen/15546c.htm

**The possessor of the right of war

The right of war lies solely with the sovereign authority of the State. As it flows from the efficacious character of other rights in peril, the coercive right must belong to the possessor, or to the natural guardian, of those rights. The rights in question may be directly corporate rights of the State, or which, of course, the State is itself the possessor, and of which there is no natural guardian but the sovereign authority of the State; or directly the rights of subordinate parts of the State or even of its individual citizens, and of these the sovereign authority is the natural guardian against foreign aggression. The sovereign authority is the guardian, because there is no higher power on earth to which appeal may be made; and, moreover, in the case of the individual citizen, the protection of his rights against foreign aggression will ordinarily become indirectly a matter of the good of the Commonwealth. It is clear that the right of war cannot become a prerogative of any subordinate power in the state, or of a section, a city, or an individual, for the several reasons: that none such can have the right to imperil the good of all the state (as happens in war) except the juridical guardian of the common good of all: that subordinate parts of the state, as well as the individual citizen, having the supreme authority of the state to which to make appeal, are not in the case of necessity required for the exercise of coercion; finally, that any such right in hands other than those of the sovereign power would upset the pace and order of the whole state. How sovereign authority in matter of war reverts back to the people as a whole in certain circumstances belongs for explanation to the question of revolution. With the supreme powerlies also the judicial authority to determine when war is necessary, and what is the necessary and proportionate measure of damage it may therein inflict: there is no other natural tribunal to which recourse may be had, and without this judicial faculty the right of war would be vain.**

Abortion is genocide. The irony is that the “juridical guardian of the common good of all” in this case is NOT a guardian of the common good of all - it is only the guardian of the common good of some. They get to decide who is more worthy of protection.

 

[RobHom]

Abortion is genocide.

I never said it wasn’t. I just alliterated the difference between a legal item versus one that was not.

The irony is that the “juridical guardian of the common good of all” in this case is NOT a guardian of the common good of all - it is only the guardian of the common good of some. They get to decide who is more worthy of protection.

It is ironic, is it not. But who is responsible for this. It is the very people that put the decision makers in positions that they have.

 

[WatchfulPilgrim]

It is ironic, is it not. But who is responsible for this. It is the very people that put the decision makers in positions that they have.

Of course. But some of the people did not vote them in. I’m just asking “what if” that is all. God forbid it ever happens.

Thanks~

 

[RobHom]

Of course. But some of the people did not vote them in. I’m just asking “what if” that is all. God forbid it ever happens.

Thanks~

As to the original question… I think that the answer might be that it would depend on how it came about or happened. If it started out as “mass protests” well orchestrated and with enough people involved that the government took notice, and if the mass protests continued and spread nationwide coupled with a mass petition for a constitutional amendment signed by the majority of registered voters in the country, then it could come to pass.

However, in the event of an insurrection…especially one that is “armed” would be handled more than likely with counter violence, unless it was super-spontaneous and the numbers of people involved were overwhelming, and I do mean “overwhelming”.

Insurrection of an openly violent nature would draw an equal response. It would not do well to underestimate any potential response on the part of any Federal agency… I also recall reading somewhere…and here is more on it…that our outgoing POTUS signed into law a bill that gutted the Posse Comitatus Act, especially the part which prevented the use of US Troops to serve as “law enforcement” on the ground in the US. So in an armed insurrection…by the people, it would not be a safe bet to guess that our troops would refuse to follow orders from their superiors. Yes, many would…but how many, and how many would be willing to face Courts Martial under Martial Law? Serious penalties.

God forbid it would come to that…

Its not a “pretty what-if”…