Morality of Killing in the case of Abortionists

[Mount_Carmel]

mikekle - If God wants to knock off an abortionist I’m sure He will have no trouble doing it Himself; He afterall has the power and authority. He alos tells me it is wrong for me to kill, and rationality combined with my human fallibility ‘tells’ me it is dangerous to take it upon myself to play vigilante cum ‘angel of death’.

ps. The mental institutions of this world contain numbers of folks who felt God had guilded them to do things. Some of them, even over in the States were deemed ‘sane’ enough to face judicial execution for their actions.

 

[SeanOlynn]

mikekle - If God wants to knock off an abortionist I’m sure He will have no trouble doing it Himself; He afterall has the power and authority. …

What god is capable of is irrelevant here, the question was: is it morally acceptable to kill an abortionist? Such an act could be carried out for two reasons a: two defend the lives of the unborn b: as a form of temporal punishment. The moral acceptability of reason a has already been established in this thread. A strong argument can also be made that the perpetrators of abortion are also deserving of the temporal punishment of death, given the uniquely evil nature of the sin involved. |There is no doubt as to the guilt and identity of the perpetrators; when a state fails to deliver justice and allows and aids the committing of evil acts it loses its moral authority, it is logical that others will step in and attempt to restore justice.

He alos tells me it is wrong for me to kill,

Did He now? I thought this all stemmed from your own protestant style personal interpretation of scripture.

 

[mikekle]

What god is capable of is irrelevant here, the question was: is it morally acceptable to kill an abortionist? Such an act could be carried out for two reasons a: two defend the lives of the unborn b: as a form of temporal punishment. The moral acceptability of reason a has already been established in this thread. A strong argument can also be made that the perpetrators of abortion are also deserving of the temporal punishment of death, given the uniquely evil nature of the sin involved. |There is no doubt as to the guilt and identity of the perpetrators; when a state fails to deliver justice and allows and aids the committing of evil acts it loses its moral authority, it is logical that others will step in and attempt to restore justice.

Did He now? I thought this all stemmed from your own protestant style personal interpretation of scripture.

I agree, and Id even go as far to say todays christians/ catholics MAY actually be guilty of a sin for NOT going out and killing these abortion doctors. To know about such a thing going on and do nothing more than voting politicians in and out of office for their particular views, is probably not too pleasing in Gods eyes.

Things like this are not always Gods responsibility, in the OT, God instructs his followers to go out and do his work, and in many cases, it involved killing, so simply stating God would deal with them if he wished, is not really an answer.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What god is capable of is irrelevant here, the question was: is it morally acceptable to kill an abortionist? Such an act could be carried out for two reasons a: two defend the lives of the unborn b: as a form of temporal punishment. The moral acceptability of reason a has already been established in this thread.

Has it? I think we may have established that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with option A. But option A is subject to many circumstantial objections, including the objection that killing abortionists would destroy the public trust that the pro-life movement has spent decades building.

I think killing abortionists in THIS environment would be wrong. But I do think the pro-life movement needs to wage some guerilla warfare against abortion clinics – think Palestinian intifada type stuff.

 

[SeanOlynn]

What god is capable of is irrelevant here, the question was: is it morally acceptable to kill an abortionist? Such an act could be carried out for two reasons a: to defend the lives of the unborn b: as a form of temporal punishment. The moral acceptability of reason a has already been established in this thread. A strong argument can also be made that the perpetrators of abortion are also deserving of the temporal punishment of death, given the uniquely evil nature of the sin involved. |There is no doubt as to the guilt and identity of the perpetrators; when a state fails to deliver justice and allows and aids the committing of evil acts it loses its moral authority, it is logical that others will step in and attempt to restore justice.

Did He now? I thought this all stemmed from your own protestant style personal interpretation of scripture.

 

[SeanOlynn]

But option A is subject to many circumstantial objections, including the objection that killing abortionists would destroy the public trust that the pro-life movement has spent decades building

You aren’t making a moral argument here; how people may react to an action doesn’t determine its morality, neither do possible practical implications for the pro life movement.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I think killing abortionists in THIS environment would be wrong. But I do think the pro-life movement needs to wage some guerilla warfare against abortion clinics – think Palestinian intifada type stuff.

What about not casting the first stone and all that?

Do you remember how Jesus rebuked Peter for cutting off the Roman’s ear?

God does not want us to go out and kill sinners. That’s not how it works.

 

[SeanOlynn]

God does not want us to go out and kill sinners. That’s not how it works.

Oh no? Maybe not all sinners (remember the stoning was for adultery); but certain sins are particularly heinous:

‘‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image’’

 

[Prodigal_Son]

What about not casting the first stone and all that?

Do you remember how Jesus rebuked Peter for cutting off the Roman’s ear?

God does not want us to go out and kill sinners. That’s not how it works.

Did you read what I wrote? I don’t advocate killing abortionists. However, I do advocate taking strong and clear measures, if necessary, to make our seriousness about saving babies’ lives known – even if these measures involve passive resistance or martyrdom.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Oh no? Maybe not all sinners (remember the stoning was for adultery); but certain sins are particularly heinous:

‘‘Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed, for God made man in His own image’’

That’s old testament stuff that has been replaced by the new covenant, a bit like wearing clothes of mixed cloth or keeping goats and sheep in the same pen or not eating shellfish. Those are not against God’s will any more either.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

You aren’t making a moral argument here; how people may react to an action doesn’t determine its morality, neither do possible practical implications for the pro life movement.

Well sure, how people respond sometimes has an effect on whether you should act a certain way. If my smoking will make my mother cut off her hand, this is a reason for me not to smoke, even if smoking isn’t otherwise morally wrong.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Did you read what I wrote? I don’t advocate killing abortionists. However, I do advocate taking strong and clear measures, if necessary, to make our seriousness about saving babies’ lives known – even if these measures involve passive resistance or martyrdom.

I am reading what you are writing and you are writing about an intifada, which is you know all blowing up innocent children on the schoolbus. Some pro-life attitude to have.

Why is it so difficult to understand that being an apologist for killing is not being pro-life. It is at best pro-some-life. Abortionsits are also pro-some-life as they don’t advocate killing everybody.

 

[Kamaduck]

I am reading what you are writing and you are writing about an intifada, which is you know all blowing up innocent children on the schoolbus. Some pro-life attitude to have.

Why is it so difficult to understand that being an apologist for killing is not being pro-life. It is at best pro-some-life. Abortionsits are also pro-some-life as they don’t advocate killing everybody.

I’m a little confused here- do you not believe in the idea of just war? I’m pretty sure that Prodigal is just saying that the abortion conflict meets the requirements for a just war. I think he’s probably right- I just think that declaring war over this would be horribly, horribly counter-productive, leading to a lot of pointless death on both sides.

I’m pretty sure Prodigal’s already acknowledged its counter-productive nature, anyway.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am reading what you are writing and you are writing about an intifada, which is you know all blowing up innocent children on the schoolbus. Some pro-life attitude to have.

Why is it so difficult to understand that being an apologist for killing is not being pro-life. It is at best pro-some-life. Abortionsits are also pro-some-life as they don’t advocate killing everybody.

Perhaps I see the misunderstanding: when I’ve read about the Palestinian intifadas, I’ve mostly read about protesting, passive resistance, refusal to move, refusal to work, throwing stones at soldiers, this type of thing. Not killing anyone, much less killing innocents! I agree that Palestinians have done such killing of innocents, but I never thought that these actions were associated with the intifadas of the 1990s. Maybe I’m just misinformed.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

I’m a little confused here- do you not believe in the idea of just war? I’m pretty sure that Prodigal is just saying that the abortion conflict meets the requirements for a just war. I think he’s probably right- I just think that declaring war over this would be horribly, horribly counter-productive, leading to a lot of pointless death on both sides.

I’m pretty sure Prodigal’s already acknowledged its counter-productive nature, anyway.

I am not sure how precisely you would define a just war. But a war is normally something fought between nations, or in the extreme between parts of a nation as in a civil war. The Geneva convention has lots of things to say about this (*), among others that an army needs to make itself recognizable by wearing a uniform or similar so as not to be confused with civilians, and should not target civilians for killings. So unless your abortionist wears a uniform or otherwise declares himself a soldier of the pro-abortion army, you cannot go into his office and kill him without that being a war crime or an act of terrorism. Even if he is a murderer or a mass murderer or even himself a war criminal or terrorist, you still cannot do that. So considering this a war does not help your cause at all in this context. It is a red herring.

(*) and the Geneva Convention actually says much the same as Thomistic teachings on Just War, among others that it requires a state to wage a war. Individuals cannot wage a war. So to be able to fight a Just War against a part of the people you would first have to cede from the state and declare your own state, establish the legitimacy of your state, and even then you can only attack the army of the state and their legitimate strategic targets, not civilians, even if those civilians are criminals.

 

[Kamaduck]

I am not sure how precisely you would define a just war. But a war is normally something fought between nations, or in the extreme between parts of a nation as in a civil war. The Geneva convention has lots of things to say about this, among others that an army needs to make itself recognizable by wearing a uniform or similar so as not to be confused with civilians, and should not target civilians for killings. So unless your abortionist wears a uniform or otherwise declares himself a soldier of the pro-abortion army, you cannot go into his office and kill him without that being a war crime or an act of terrorism. Even if he is a murderer or a mass murderer or even himself a war criminal or terrorist, you still cannot do that. So considering this a war does not help your cause at all in this context. It is a red herring.

Hmmm. I suppose we wouldn’t call it a war. It’d be more like a revolution.

But yeah, it would still be a terrible idea for the other reasons you listed. I don’t think anybody is saying that killing abortionists is a good idea. They’re just saying that it could be moral, in a set of circumstances other than our own, because fetuses are people and it’s permissible to kill to protect people.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I am not sure how precisely you would define a just war. But a war is normally something fought between nations, or in the extreme between parts of a nation as in a civil war. The Geneva convention has lots of things to say about this (*), among others that an army needs to make itself recognizable by wearing a uniform or similar so as not to be confused with civilians, and should not target civilians for killings. So unless your abortionist wears a uniform or otherwise declares himself a soldier of the pro-abortion army, you cannot go into his office and kill him without that being a war crime or an act of terrorism. Even if he is a murderer or a mass murderer or even himself a war criminal or terrorist, you still cannot do that. So considering this a war does not help your cause at all in this context. It is a red herring.

(*) and the Geneva Convention actually says much the same as Thomistic teachings on Just War, among others that it requires a state to wage a war. Individuals cannot wage a war. So to be able to fight a Just War against a part of the people you would first have to cede from the state and declare your own state, establish the legitimacy of your state, and even then you can only attack the army of the state and their legitimate strategic targets, not civilians, even if those civilians are criminals.

I’d put a lot more credence in Saint Thomas than in the Geneva Convention. I’m much more concerned with a war being just, rather than a war being legal. Legality is determined by man.

I think Kamaduck would be right to call it a revolution, and it would start by a large group of Americans putting forward very clear demands about abortion, and then being ready to infiltrate abortion clinics and – with their bodies, if necessary – prevent abortions from being committed. There would be no overt violence, certainly not unless we were attacked.

This might be a bad strategy, but it isn’t an intrinsic moral wrong.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

This thread really makes me think. I honestly feel that even those of us on the “pro-life” side don’t really understand the issue. And one of the things that rubbed me the wrong way on this thread was the idea that we need to measure our responses so as to woo people to “our side”
What this indicates is that it is more of an identity and political issue to most. Not a life saving issue. When we talk of votes and sides, and people being on one side or another we are taking away the real issue that boys and girls are being dissected and killed daily.
When we speak of getting a majority to people to think our way or come to our side to change things we don’t really see the reality of the horror.

Sure, of course, I don’t advocate killing another person. But what would have happened if we had waited to change peoples hearts and minds about slavery?

Which brings to mind another point that I do not understand.

As Catholics, we all have been well taught about “just war” and we all know when the death penalty is morally ok. And we all know that we can use force, even deadly, to protect ourselves and even others. Of course if someone was killing babies we could step in and forcefully stop them. Even if infanticide was legal, as Catholics we could step in and physically take a gun out of the hand of a baby killer, with force, and we would be morally ok. But not with abortion I guess. How do we explain that using the same theology?

 

[The_Serpent]

Why would you do what God forbids us to do? Rather pray and await the Hand of God in this matter! It is within his power to act.:bowdown:

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Why would you do what God forbids us to do? Rather pray and await the Hand of God in this matter! It is within his power to act.:bowdown:

God forbids me to kill a person who is killing my child? Or who is killing someone else’s child?

Sorry, which Bible are you reading? Because mine doesn’t say that.