Morality of Killing in the case of Abortionists

[Prodigal_Son]

In all honesty I am undecided. Yes your baby is definitely a person. And congratulations, my niece just had a beautiful baby boy yesterday morning, I consider him a person as well.

Congrats!

Once a baby has been born I believe it is defiantly a person but so does the law so that’s nothing unusual. My thinking tends to be based on developmental level. No one will ever convince me that a 24 hr old embryo is a person in any true sense of the word. Now once that embryo becomes a fetus and has developed a nervous system, a brain, a beating heart, that’s a different story.

By far, the majority of aborted babies in this country have a nervous system, a brain, and a beating heart. Those things all develop by six weeks or so, when women often don’t even know that they’re pregnant. So from where I’m sitting, you should be pro-life. You’re welcome to be pro-life, even if you don’t think that personhood starts at conception. Being pro-life means that you oppose the current legality of abortion on demand throughout a pregnancy, not that you necessarily oppose anything that might be called an abortion. I believe – and it sounds like you agree – that the pro-life movement should be a bigger tent.

All this hair splitting about the law and how eminent the murder is and whether the mother will just go somewhere else is really just a distraction from the what I believe is the real truth. Pro-life people do not really believe that that embryo has the same moral value as a born person, if they did they would break any law there was to save it. It’s the old argument about whether a person would save the toddler or the canister full of embryos from the fire. Everyone knows which they would chose, even the ones who won’t answer the question.

Um, embryos can’t survive outside a womb, so it’s an idle question. But if you adjusted it correctly, I would save the embryos (unless the toddler was my child).

You overgeneralize when you say that pro-life people don’t really believe, because they aren’t breaking laws. For one thing, many pro-life people are concerned with saving souls as much as bodies, and they aren’t convinced that killing abortionists is a way to save souls. But for another thing, people are illogical, whether they be pro-choice or pro-life. It took me a long while to come to a position on this that is, I believe, logical – and you’ll notice it is not the majority view. I think stopping abortion justifies an intifada, a massive effort of physical (though non-violent) resistance.

To hold such an unpopular view takes a good amount of chutspah, as well as some amount of logical thinking. Why? Because our culture indoctrinates us, even if we hold countercultural views.

If pro-lifers were willing to admit that a fertilized egg isn’t really a person, perhaps pro-choice people would be willing to admit that a fetus more then 3 or 4 weeks old is a person.

Which would mean that 95-98% of the surgical abortions in this country would be illegal.

 

[BellsMom]

You overgeneralize when you say that pro-life people don’t really believe, because they aren’t breaking laws.

Yes, you’re right I do tend to over generalize when thinking about things like this.

Which would mean that 95-98% of the surgical abortions in this country would be illegal.

Yes I think this would be an excellent step forward for every woman and family.

I do have to disagree with you though. My acceptance of abortive drugs or procedures for pregnancies less then a month or so along would have me thrown out of any pro-life group that I’ve ever heard of.

 

[Morwenna]

No one will ever convince me that a 24 hr old embryo is a person in any true sense of the word. Now once that embryo becomes a fetus and has developed a nervous system, a brain, a beating heart, that’s a different story.

My acceptance of abortive drugs or procedures for pregnancies **less then a month or so along **would have me thrown out of any pro-life group that I’ve ever heard of.

http://prolifeacrossamerica.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/2013JDidYouKnow-1.jpg

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I do have to disagree with you though. My acceptance of abortive drugs or procedures for pregnancies less then a month or so along would have me thrown out of any pro-life group that I’ve ever heard of.

Because it is such an arbitrary line you are drawing. 1 month is ok but 6 weeks is not? Why? Is it based on a heartbeat? Development? It is not consistent with logic. What would be consistent is that if something has it’s own human DNA then it is human. IN shich case at conception when you have a full and different human cell that grows and develops then you have life. More specifically human life. I will never understand the logic of a certain “time” in the womb is ok but another is not. It just lacks logic!

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Because it is such an arbitrary line you are drawing. 1 month is ok but 6 weeks is not? Why? Is it based on a heartbeat? Development? It is not consistent with logic. What would be consistent is that if something has it’s own human DNA then it is human. IN shich case at conception when you have a full and different human cell that grows and develops then you have life. More specifically human life. I will never understand the logic of a certain “time” in the womb is ok but another is not. It just lacks logic!

I understand your point, but I think you’re missing something. Bell(name removed by moderator) seems willing to support a huge portion of the pro-life platform, and you’re saying, “You’re illogical, so you don’t belong.” If the anti-slavery movement had worked that way, it would have never succeeded. All successful political fights are fought with a “big tent” that allows people with differing standards and motivations in.

I think there should be one non-negotiable in the current pro-life movement: opposition against Roe vs. Wade. Once we win that fight, then we can talk about the details, like whether any logical line can be drawn between a 2-month old and a 2-week old embryo/fetus.

Let’s welcome Bell(name removed by moderator) in, not keep her out.

 

[mikekle]

Are you talking about killing as the sentence imposed after a juridical process or are you talking about gunning a person down with no trial?

I don’t believe that the latter is in any way justifiable.

As for the former, the Catechism teaches us:

2267 The traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude, presupposing full ascertainment of the identity and responsibility of the offender, recourse to the death penalty, when this is the only practicable way to defend the lives of human beings effectively against the aggressor. "If, instead, bloodless means are sufficient to defend against the aggressor and to protect the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

If all the conditions listed above are met, then killing an abortionist, after a conviction, could be licit.

But in this particular case, the courts would side with the abortionists, or otherwise saying, it is legal and ok to kill the unborn.

I think God would justify a type of ‘war’ with abortionists, I think that is a very justified cause, simply holding up protest signs and voting has not produced any positive results, so the question is, will Christians have what it takes to stop this or let it continue?

Sure God has the power to act, just like he did during the holocaust, but he did not, and instead the allied forces did. Although I do find it a bit strange he does not act regarding abortionists, and letting it go as far as it has, but if he has not acted yet, chances are, he will not act at all, instead, he probable wants us to act, as we are supposed to do, but the problem is, most people today are too worried about mans laws and how they would be viewed in the community if they did such a thing. This is nothing more than Satan whispering in their ears in my opinion.

 

[mikekle]

Another thing I do not understand is how society seems to justify abortion, but in cases where someone kills a baby that has been born, people are outraged and want the killer locked up for life, this doesnt make any sense, how can the difference of just a few months make that much difference in their eyes?

Plus if its the mother that kills her kid, it is that much worse, versus some masked intruder, this is the same exact thing that is happening every day in clinics across the country. Are people just too dumb to see this or…?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I understand your point, but I think you’re missing something. Bell(name removed by moderator) seems willing to support a huge portion of the pro-life platform, and you’re saying, “You’re illogical, so you don’t belong.” If the anti-slavery movement had worked that way, it would have never succeeded. All successful political fights are fought with a “big tent” that allows people with differing standards and motivations in.

I think there should be one non-negotiable in the current pro-life movement: opposition against Roe vs. Wade. Once we win that fight, then we can talk about the details, like whether any logical line can be drawn between a 2-month old and a 2-week old embryo/fetus.

Let’s welcome Bell(name removed by moderator) in, not keep her out.

Anyone is welcome. I was pointing out the lack of logic in such a way of thinking. The fact that she is not for the murder of a baby at 7 months but thinks that 1 month is ok lacks all logic and sense. This is what I was pointing out about making such an issue that there are “sides” that are trying to win people. Either you are against murdering babies or you are not. There is no room for making an age in womb or out of womb to arbitrarily draw a line and say this is a human worth defending and this is not. While “numbers” of people on the right side is a good thing we need to make sure we do not lose our own holiness by making sure everyone feels welcome.
In short, if we had a community and we decided who to let into our community and we decided that no one should be murdered because of race, and someone wanted to become a member of that community and said “I am against murdering all other races EXCEPT the Dutch. By my logic the Dutch are not even human so they do not get the same protection as a human.” Would you honestly say “This person belongs in a community that defines itself by being against racism?”

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I understand your point, but I think you’re missing something. Bell(name removed by moderator) seems willing to support a huge portion of the pro-life platform, and you’re saying, “You’re illogical, so you don’t belong.” If the anti-slavery movement had worked that way, it would have never succeeded. All successful political fights are fought with a “big tent” that allows people with differing standards and motivations in.

I think there should be one non-negotiable in the current pro-life movement: opposition against Roe vs. Wade. Once we win that fight, then we can talk about the details, like whether any logical line can be drawn between a 2-month old and a 2-week old embryo/fetus.

Let’s welcome Bell(name removed by moderator) in, not keep her out.

I wanted to address some of the first part of your post as well.

This is the main reason we are losing some of these battles. The abortion battle and the marriage battle. We think it is about numbers. That if only one more person joins our way of thinking it will stop. Yet here we are killing babies by the millions and it is not decreasing but increasing. We are arguing over what it means to be married. We are harping on a court decision decades ago and somehow think that if it were overturned then abortions would stop.

You are wrong.
Here is the proof. The people pushing gay marriage are small in number. Their camp will throw out numbers like 10 percent of the populations is gay. (It is smaller than that but lets give them 10 percent.) That 10 percent refused to compromise their position. They do not want a bigger tent if it means they have to temper their rhetoric. So they attack, threaten, and go on the offensive. They are winning. 90 percent of this country will not want to marry a person of the same sex. (Is that a big enough tent for you) and we lose.

Abortion. 50 percent (men) will never even have the choice. Not to mention all the other women who are against it. A giant majority, a huge tent, yet we lose.

Your anti slavery point makes no sense either. Victory over slavery was not a “big tent victory” It was won on the blood of thousands of citizens of this country. Shooting, stabbing, and killing each other in bloody fields.

In fact, I cannot think of a single political issue that was won because a side compromised the truth enough to make their tent bigger.

How can you not see that this idea of being gentle and meek and patient is playing right into the murderer’s hands?
Perhaps some of the blood of babies is on our hands for treating this like a debate in debate class, trying to win people to our side, and not a massacre of millions.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I wanted to address some of the first part of your post as well.

This is the main reason we are losing some of these battles. The abortion battle and the marriage battle. We think it is about numbers. That if only one more person joins our way of thinking it will stop. Yet here we are killing babies by the millions and it is not decreasing but increasing. We are arguing over what it means to be married. We are harping on a court decision decades ago and somehow think that if it were overturned then abortions would stop.

Abortions *would *drop in huge numbers if Roe versus Wade were reversed. Of course, I’m not saying that’s the only relevant goal. And remember, I’m the one advocating for an intifada here, so it’s not like I’m only thinking about numbers.

But think about it this way: in WWII, suppose someone thought that the Nazis were wrong, but had different reasons for opposing the Nazis than you had. Surely you could welcome them under your tent, no?

You are wrong.
Here is the proof. The people pushing gay marriage are small in number. Their camp will throw out numbers like 10 percent of the populations is gay. (It is smaller than that but lets give them 10 percent.) That 10 percent refused to compromise their position.

Sorry, this is just completely inaccurate. The population pushing gay marriage is HUGE, and only a fraction of these people are gay. I work on a college campus, and there is a huge amount of peer pressure among students and staff to support gay marriage.

But 20 years ago, the population supporting gay marriage was small (and most gays didn’t support gay marriage then). So maybe that’s your point?

How did gay marriage advocates win? They did not "refuse to compromise their position. They staked out somewhat logical positions about the completely secular nature of modern marriage, and indoctrinated cultural elites with their positions. These cultural elites educated the children and the media, and their views trickled down. We won’t win the abortion issue that way, although I do think we need to find a way to win over the media.

But where did you see me advocating compromise, by the way? Is it compromise to fight to free the slaves in Virginia, if that has public support, and then attempt to free the slaves in Maryland later?

They do not want a bigger tent if it means they have to temper their rhetoric. So they attack, threaten, and go on the offensive. They are winning. 90 percent of this country will not want to marry a person of the same sex. (Is that a big enough tent for you) and we lose.

Over 50% of this nation supports gay marriage. They’re obviously not in the anti-gay marriage tent.

Abortion. 50 percent (men) will never even have the choice. Not to mention all the other women who are against it. A giant majority, a huge tent, yet we lose.

Most men won’t say boo about abortion, even if they oppose it. Feminists have taken our tongues.

In fact, I cannot think of a single political issue that was won because a side compromised the truth enough to make their tent bigger.

Once again, no one is compromising the truth here. It’s a matter of two people joining together for a common aim, even if they don’t agree about everything.

How can you not see that this idea of being gentle and meek and patient is playing right into the murderer’s hands?
Perhaps some of the blood of babies is on our hands for treating this like a debate in debate class, trying to win people to our side, and not a massacre of millions.

I’m not talking about being gentle and meek. Bell(name removed by moderator) has said that she thinks we should defend innocent people with our lives, and she has also said that she thinks most aborted fetuses in the country are innocent people. It sounds to me like both she and I are very much interested in pushing this issue *hard *in order to save lives.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

Abortions *would *drop in huge numbers if Roe versus Wade were reversed. Of course, I’m not saying that’s the only relevant goal. And remember, I’m the one advocating for an intifada here, so it’s not like I’m only thinking about numbers.

But think about it this way: in WWII, suppose someone thought that the Nazis were wrong, but had different reasons for opposing the Nazis than you had. Surely you could welcome them under your tent, no?

Sorry, this is just completely inaccurate. The population pushing gay marriage is HUGE, and only a fraction of these people are gay. I work on a college campus, and there is a huge amount of peer pressure among students and staff to support gay marriage.

But 20 years ago, the population supporting gay marriage was small (and most gays didn’t support gay marriage then). So maybe that’s your point?

How did gay marriage advocates win? They did not "refuse to compromise their position. They staked out somewhat logical positions about the completely secular nature of modern marriage, and indoctrinated cultural elites with their positions. These cultural elites educated the children and the media, and their views trickled down. We won’t win the abortion issue that way, although I do think we need to find a way to win over the media.

But where did you see me advocating compromise, by the way? Is it compromise to fight to free the slaves in Virginia, if that has public support, and then attempt to free the slaves in Maryland later?

Over 50% of this nation supports gay marriage. They’re obviously not in the anti-gay marriage tent.

Most men won’t say boo about abortion, even if they oppose it. Feminists have taken our tongues.

Once again, no one is compromising the truth here. It’s a matter of two people joining together for a common aim, even if they don’t agree about everything.

I’m not talking about being gentle and meek. Bell(name removed by moderator) has said that she thinks we should defend innocent people with our lives, and she has also said that she thinks most aborted fetuses in the country are innocent people. It sounds to me like both she and I are very much interested in pushing this issue *hard *in order to save lives.

PS:
I think we agree on most things. But all I did was point out the absolute fallacy of another poster’s logic and you said not to pile on. I’m sorry but we MUST speak the truth, even if it can offend. Let’s take your example of the nazis. And lets say another poster wanted to join the anti Nazi side. Of course they are welcome! But let’s say that person was agasint the nazi’s but was horribly anti semetic. And I said, "Hey, don’t talk about Jews that way, they are people too and deserve your respect. The person was against the Nazis but hated Jews. I would speak up, educate, and speak the truth. You just stepped in and said “hey wait, we should be glad this person is in our camp”

All I did was question a logic that leads to murder. And you told me to basically lay off.

And you wonder why Roe Vs Wade will never be overturned?

First off RvW will NEVER be overturned. Not in this country, not with the system we have. And even if it were, the states that murder the most babies would keep on murdering babies.

 

[BellsMom]

I don’t find my position based on development is arbitrary or illogical.

When I start at the exact moment of conception I can say that I do not believe this is a person. I won’t debate this as nothing anyone says will change my mind. I will never consider an embryo to be a person.

So the logical question is, moving forward in development, when do I believe that changes? As I said earlier, when the fetus has begun to develop traits associated with a human person like brain tissue, a nervous system and a beating heart.

I understand that you disagree with my position but I don’t think arbitrary or illogical is a fair description. If I were to say a fetus becomes a person exactly 42 days and 3 hours after conception because “I say so”, that would be arbitrary and illogical.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

All I did was question a logic that leads to murder. And you told me to basically lay off.

Here’s how I saw the situation…

A person who is relatively undecided about her political position on abortion seemed open to vocally and adamantly opposing 95% of the abortions in this country. You responded to her in the following way:

Because it is such an arbitrary line you are drawing. 1 month is ok but 6 weeks is not? Why? Is it based on a heartbeat? Development? It is not consistent with logic. What would be consistent is that if something has it’s own human DNA then it is human. IN shich case at conception when you have a full and different human cell that grows and develops then you have life. More specifically human life. I will never understand the logic of a certain “time” in the womb is ok but another is not. It just lacks logic!

This struck me as overly combative, given the situation. I’d much rather let a person into the group, and then have gentle conversations in order for her to clarify whether the distinctions she is making are logical.

So that’s where I’m coming from.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

I don’t find my position based on development is arbitrary or illogical.

When I start at the exact moment of conception I can say that I do not believe this is a person. I won’t debate this as nothing anyone says will change my mind. I will never consider an embryo to be a person.

Technically, a 7-8 week old gestational age baby is an embryo, so I think you’re contradicting yourself. You said earlier that a 1+ month embryo was a person. But I think by “embryo”, now, you mean a very young embryo, say, the first four weeks.

So the logical question is, moving forward in development, when do I believe that changes? As I said earlier, when the fetus has begun to develop traits associated with a human person like brain tissue, a nervous system and a beating heart.

Why do *these *characteristics matter? If you don’t explain why these particular characteristics matter, then you would be drawing an arbitrary line. But perhaps you have some good reason for picking these particular characteristics?

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t find my position based on development is arbitrary or illogical.

When I start at the exact moment of conception I can say that I do not believe this is a person. I won’t debate this as nothing anyone says will change my mind. I will never consider an embryo to be a person.

Even though it is a living creature that contains all of the DNA of a human being?

 

[BellsMom]

Technically, a 7-8 week old gestational age baby is an embryo, so I think you’re contradicting yourself. You said earlier that a 1+ month embryo was a person. But I think by “embryo”, now, you mean a very young embryo, say, the first four weeks.

I’m sorry you’re right. I’m not using the technically correct medical term for describing the developmental stages. I would be more accurate to say that until those traits begin to develop I don’t believe its a person.

As to why I chose those traits, I can only say that just because something has human cells and human DNA, we don’t automatically say its a human being or person. Persons are the end of the prenatal developmental process. Persons have brains. They have beating hearts, at least for a while, they have body organs that respond to a nervous system, although sometimes incorrectly. Zygotes, I think that’s the correct scientific term , have none of these traits. Yes, some will eventually if left in the mothers womb but not at the stage where I am accepting of abortion.

 

[SeanOlynn]

I can only say that just because something has human cells and human DNA, we don’t automatically say its a human being or person. .

Who are these we of whom you speak?

Persons have brains. They have beating hearts, at least for a while, they have body organs that respond to a nervous system,

So do many other animals, these aren’t uniquely human traits.

 

[SeanOlynn]

Who are the we of whom you speak?

So do many other animals, these aren’t uniquely human traits.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

As to why I chose those traits, I can only say that just because something has human cells and human DNA, we don’t automatically say its a human being or person. Persons are the end of the prenatal developmental process. Persons have brains. They have beating hearts, at least for a while, they have body organs that respond to a nervous system, although sometimes incorrectly. Zygotes, I think that’s the correct scientific term , have none of these traits. Yes, some will eventually if left in the mothers womb but not at the stage where I am accepting of abortion.

What makes you you? Is it the fact that you have a brain and a beating heart, or is it your personal dignity and your genetic signature (your DNA)? It seems to me that merely having a human brain or having a heart does not determine anything interesting about a person. Everything interesting and unique about a person is there – in latency – as soon the egg is fertilized.

If we simply leave that fertilized egg alone, it will have a very interesting and unique future – a human future, a personal future. The things that make that future personal are not brains and hearts; they are the genetic materials by which brains and hearts are shaped. And the zygote has these materials.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

When I start at the exact moment of conception I can say that I do not believe this is a person. I won’t debate this as nothing anyone says will change my mind. I will never consider an embryo to be a person.

OK Prodigal son. Show me how it is done. Here is the person in the tent. Now this “pro life person” states this. No matter what the evidence or logic. They refuse.

So in an analogy here we have someone who is against the Nazi party and the extermination of reformed Jews. But orthodox Jews are not even human and can be killed.

You accused me of being harsh by speaking pro life truth. You said I was combative for pointing out that murdering a one month old baby in the womb is ok but 6 weeks is wrong.
Yet, here is the combative language. A person that says I will never believe the Truth no matter what. And you can’t make me but let me in your tent!

But go ahead, show me how Bells mom not only should be coddled but can help to change the muder of the unborn.
Remember you cannot do it by telling her she is wrong, correcting her, or speaking uncomfortable truth to her as that is what you admonished me for.

Here we are debating within our own community while blood has been spilled while we type this…