Morality of Killing in the case of Abortionists

[Lost_Sheep]

OK, here’s a comparison. Would it be alright to kill a person who worked at the Nazi concentration camps, if my goal was to save the prisoners from being killed? It seems like it would.

So what the difference between them and abortionists?

Unfortunately, the law tends to treat post-birth people differently than it does pre-birth people. While it might be justifiable to kill a concentration camp worker who presents an imminent danger to a prisoner, I doubt you could use the same argument to kill an abortionist. At least not in court.

Further, it would be hard to make a case in favor of killing in self-defense for something a person “might do” as opposed to something they are “about to do.”

 

[SamH]

OK, I just looked it up in the Catechism and it says that killing in self-defense falls under the principle of double effect, and is only justified if the person’s intention was to save their own life, and killed the aggressor as an unintended consequence. This makes sense to me.

Killing an abortionist in a non-emergency situation seems like it would not fit with this. The murderer’s intention was to commit murder.

So shoot him in the middle of an abortion?

 

[SamH]

Unfortunately, the law tends to treat post-birth people differently than it does pre-birth people. While it might be justifiable to kill a concentration camp worker who presents an imminent

Actually I’ve seen several cases where “post birth” children are treated with less “worth” than say a 20 year old.

cjonline.com/news/2013-03-29/father-placed-probation-infants-2007-death

In the link a 31 year old man admitted to beating a 7 month old child to death and only received probation.

 

[triumphguy]

While reading up on the Church’s position on capital punishment, I wondered about this myself. Since capital punishment is considered just in cases where killing the person is the only means by which you can guarantee that they won’t continue taking lives, it seems to make sense that killing an abortionist would fall under this category. The more I thought about it, though, the same logic could then also apply to politicians who are adamant in their support of abortion. This then puts one on a slippery slope whereby you can potentially justify the murder of anyone who is pro-abortion. The speed at which this devolved into an exercise in relativism was fairly rapid. That brought me back to my original conclusion, which is that murder is never justified. It actually helped nudge my overall opinion on capital punishment.

No individual can abrogate to themselves the right to execute capital punishment.

That “right” belongs to the State.

 

[triumphguy]

No individual can abrogate to themselves the right to execute capital punishment.

That “right” belongs to the State.

Woops should be arogate

abrogate means the opposite.

 

[triumphguy]

So shoot him in the middle of an abortion?

Look I can sympathize with the feeling of anger, helplessness, desire to do something categorical in defence of the unborn,

but we can’t just take up guns and start shooting abortionists (presumably you were being heavily ironic) .

The only way we are going to win this battle is through changing hearts and minds.

And you can’t change hearts and minds by going to war with guns.

The S.A.S. (Special Air Service) learned that to win real wars on the ground you have to change “hearts and minds” and “hearts and minds” campaigns became one of the most effective strategic weapons of the worlds most elite fighting force.

eg.,

dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2027061/How-British-heroes-entered-SAS-legend-fighting-400-bloodthirsty-fanatics-bullets.html

britains-smallwars.com/Desert_song/Hearts.htm

To win the hearts and minds of the pro-aborts we have to not just prove that we are right, but show how they (the pro-abortionists) will “win.”

Now I believe that people are pro-abortion NOT because they want to kill babies, but because they want OTHER “benefits.”

What are the “benefits” for women that the pro-aborts want when they fight for the right to abortion?

We need to be clear about what they want, and then show how they will achieve these more effectively by being anti-abortion.

Therefore we need to understand their arguments - not to accept them, but to find ways to help them achieve the same “results” with different means.

 

[tafan]

OK, here’s a comparison. Would it be alright to kill a person who worked at the Nazi concentration camps, if my goal was to save the prisoners from being killed? It seems like it would.

So what the difference between them and abortionists?

I’m not sure. I think it is a very bad *strategy *to kill abortionists. And I think it is understandable that many abortionists think they are not doing anything wrong, so we ought to be disposed to convince them, not to exterminate them. But otherwise, I think you cannot advocate for killing the Nazis – who may have thought their actions were justifiable too – without implying that killing abortionists would not be intrinsically wrong.

In our culture, however, it is wrong, because of the circumstances of our society.

The analogy holds, but the answer is not what you imply. Kamaduck pretty much got it right in post #15, but I do think the answer is a little incomplete.

Kamaduck:

OK, I just looked it up in the Catechism and it says that killing in self-defense falls under the principle of double effect, and is only justified if the person’s intention was to save their own life, and killed the aggressor as an unintended consequence. This makes sense to me.

Killing an abortionist in a non-emergency situation seems like it would not fit with this. The murderer’s intention was to commit murder.

The reason the intent is to kill the abortionist and not to save the baby’s life is because there is absolutely no evidence that killing an abortionist would save a single baby’s life. Any mother simply has to go to a different abortionist. So the principal of double-effect fails: ie one would not be killing sole in order save another life.

I think the scenario of killing a Nazi prison camp guard would be very similar.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

The analogy holds, but the answer is not what you imply. Kamaduck pretty much got it right in post #15, but I do think the answer is a little incomplete.

The reason the intent is to kill the abortionist and not to save the baby’s life is because there is absolutely no evidence that killing an abortionist would save a single baby’s life. Any mother simply has to go to a different abortionist. So the principal of double-effect fails: ie one would not be killing sole in order save another life.

I think the scenario of killing a Nazi prison camp guard would be very similar.

I see, so we’re running into a pitfall of arguments based on consequences here – we don’t know what the consequences would be. Perhaps you kill an abortionist, which, when publicized, makes a bunch of pro-choicers become abortion doctors, and leads to more death.

But suppose one infiltrated an abortion clinic, and then - moments before he aborted a child - killed the abortionist. This is politically unwise, I think, and I’d be really pissed off at anyone that did it, but it would not be intrinsically wrong. The difficulty is that it’s not clear why that level of force would be necessary.

The important point, I think, is that we pro-lifers encounter this question without falling back on meaningless claims like “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. There are times when killing isn’t wrong, and righteous anger calls out for justice.

We need to be prudent. But we also need to seriously address the issue by our actual standards. If high school students were being systematically exterminated, you better bet people would be calling to use deadly force against their exterminators – and rightly so. I do NOT think it’s right to kill abortionists, but we should not lie to ourselves and say that we are withholding justice from abortionists because they are “not that guilty”. Their sins cry out to heaven for vengeance, as do the sins of women who have sought out abortions. As do my sins.

Justice will be served. But sometimes it’s not ours to serve out, that’s for sure.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Unfortunately, the law tends to treat post-birth people differently than it does pre-birth people. While it might be justifiable to kill a concentration camp worker who presents an imminent danger to a prisoner, I doubt you could use the same argument to kill an abortionist. At least not in court.

Further, it would be hard to make a case in favor of killing in self-defense for something a person “might do” as opposed to something they are “about to do.”

I’m not concerned with what is defensible in court. If the right action is illegal, then we ought to do it and risk getting arrested. Simple as that.

 

[triumphguy]

Strategically, killing abortionists is wrong - it “proves” to the pro-abortion crowd that anti-abortionists are fundamentalist zealots who have no place in modern society, and therefore their voice should not be heard.

 

[sw85]

Would it be morally acceptable to kill someone who murders the unborn on a daily bases?

It depends. Would you be a duly-appointed agent of the state, carrying out a lawful order to execute a convicted infanticidal criminal?

Would you be acting in self-defense while the infanticidal murderer lunged at you with a knife?

Would the infanticidal murderer happen to be an enemy soldier whom you shoot in the context of a just war?

If the answer to all of these is “no,” then so is the answer to your question.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Strategically, killing abortionists is wrong - it “proves” to the pro-abortion crowd that anti-abortionists are fundamentalist zealots who have no place in modern society, and therefore their voice should not be heard.

I definitely agree.

But the fact that this is the case shows that we have not promoted the reality of life in the womb aggressively enough. If fetuses were really considered people – and they are people! – then there would (properly) be real outrage against abortionists.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It depends. Would you be a duly-appointed agent of the state, carrying out a lawful order to execute a convicted infanticidal criminal?

Would you be acting in self-defense while the infanticidal murderer lunged at you with a knife?

Would the infanticidal murderer happen to be an enemy soldier whom you shoot in the context of a just war?

If the answer to all of these is “no,” then so is the answer to your question.

By your standards, I could not kill a person who was trying to murder my wife.

 

[tafan]

I see, so we’re running into a pitfall of arguments based on consequences here – we don’t know what the consequences would be. Perhaps you kill an abortionist, which, when publicized, makes a bunch of pro-choicers become abortion doctors, and leads to more death.

But suppose one infiltrated an abortion clinic, and then - moments before he aborted a child - killed the abortionist. This is politically unwise, I think, and I’d be really pissed off at anyone that did it, but it would not be intrinsically wrong. The difficulty is that it’s not clear why that level of force would be necessary.

The important point, I think, is that we pro-lifers encounter this question without falling back on meaningless claims like “Two wrongs don’t make a right”. There are times when killing isn’t wrong, and righteous anger calls out for justice.

We need to be prudent. But we also need to seriously address the issue by our actual standards. If high school students were being systematically exterminated, you better bet people would be calling to use deadly force against their exterminators – and rightly so. I do NOT think it’s right to kill abortionists, but we should not lie to ourselves and say that we are withholding justice from abortionists because they are “not that guilty”. Their sins cry out to heaven for vengeance, as do the sins of women who have sought out abortions. As do my sins.

Justice will be served. But sometimes it’s not ours to serve out, that’s for sure.

It is not a pitfall if arguments based on consequences. The principal of double effect is quite clear. You are saving a life by a very unfortunate means. So the question arises, are you actually saving a baby? Even in your extreme example, it is highly unlikely.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is not a pitfall if arguments based on consequences. The principal of double effect is quite clear. You are saving a life by a very unfortunate means. So the question arises, are you actually saving a baby? Even in your extreme example, it is highly unlikely.

I’m not sure I follow. If “doctors” went to work every day and killed high school students, I think it would be OK to kill these doctors, even if there were other doctors who – at other “clinics” – would be perfectly willing to kill the same students. I would be preventing the students from losing their lives at that clinic, on that day. Then we could find the next clinic the students were sent to, and kill those “doctors” too.

I don’t see the moral problem with this. Innocent lives deserve to be defended. The principle of double effect simply tells us that we must make sure the harms we inflict are proportionally smaller than the benefits we enact.

Mind you, I think we should do anything short of killing the doctors, first: imprison, incapacitate, etc. But if our only option is to killing, killing would be permissible.

(Note: I am not talking about abortion doctors here. I do not advocate killing abortion doctors in the current climate.)

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I’m not concerned with what is defensible in court. If the right action is illegal, then we ought to do it and risk getting arrested. Simple as that.

Go right ahead. Have a nice stay in jail. However I believe I can be more effective fighting abortion on the outside.

 

[triumphguy]

I definitely agree.

But the fact that this is the case shows that we have not promoted the reality of life in the womb aggressively enough. If fetuses were really considered people – and they are people! – then there would (properly) be real outrage against abortionists.

I agree.

I always contend that we don’t even have to change the Law, we have to change peoples’ minds about the REALITY of the life in the womb.

“Hearts and minds” - as I was saying above.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Go right ahead. Have a nice stay in jail. However I believe I can be more effective fighting abortion on the outside.

As I’ve said, I don’t think killing abortionists would be good or helpful in our current society. But I do think that there are circumstances where we should ignore our nation’s laws, if these laws cut against justice.

 

[SamH]

By your standards, I could not kill a person who was trying to murder my wife.

Does she know that?

 

[chevalier]

OK, here’s a comparison. Would it be alright to kill a person who worked at the Nazi concentration camps, if my goal was to save the prisoners from being killed? It seems like it would.

So what the difference between them and abortionists?

State of war for the Nazi thing, at least if you were a soldier, resistance member, intelligence agent etc.

As for the abortionist, I believe that in an emergency coercive situation (abortion against the woman’s will), it would qualify as defence of another, but even the secular law believes that, unless when it is that secular law which mandates an abortion against the woman’s will.

But, a lot of the issue here is with the law and order. I’m not convinced of the abstract immorality of applying non-lethal coercion of person or destruction of property against abortionists and their clinics in order to prevent abortion. (Other than getting no success that way but rather harming the pro-life cause instead.)

This said, vengeance belongs to God, and punishment belongs to God and to earthly authorities.