Morality of Killing in the case of Abortionists

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I really hope no one here is advocating the killing of abortion doctors. If so, we really are the crazies the media loves to call us.

 

[BlueEyedLady]

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.

That’s not double effect, that’s utilitarianism and it’s incompatible with Catholicism.

Double effect is doing something that is a moral good, or at least neutral that has an unintended consequence that would normally be considered immoral if done for that purpose.

 

[triumphguy]

I really hope no one here is advocating the killing of abortion doctors. If so, we really are the crazies the media loves to call us.

And believe it or not this forum gets read by the “opposition.”

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That’s not double effect, that’s utilitarianism and it’s incompatible with Catholicism.

Double effect is doing something that is a moral good, or at least neutral that has an unintended consequence that would normally be considered immoral if done for that purpose.

The moral good is saving a baby’s life, by killing her murderer. I thought that was clear.

If this was really the *only *way to save a baby, that is the only case when the question arises. However, if we Christians don’t think that this could be a real moral dilemma, then we are lying when we say that we think fetuses are real persons, with all the rights that implies. If they are real persons, then we should be serious about stopping their murderers. Once again, what would you make of a situation where it was high schoolers who were being rounded up and killed?

The pro-choice side uses various tactics to make pro-lifers look like hypocrites. This is one of them. If evil people were bound and determined to kill all the high schoolers in a five-mile radius, you can be sure that I would not sit by idly and say that “Vengeance belongs to God.” This is about protection, not vengeance.

In the abortion battle, the conditions for a just war are met. Meanwhile, we sit around lobbying for mandatory ultrasounds – as if adding regulations to concentration camps were the solution. Why? Because we don’t, by and large, really believe that these fetuses are worth the fight.

Can anyone explain to me why they aren’t?

NOTE: this post is, in some sense, a devil’s advocate post. I don’t think we should wage literal war on abortionists. But I do think that we are far too casual about this issue. We could concretely win this issue, in the public sphere, if we were prepared to be called fools and crazies, because we really believe that all life is worth protecting even at a cost to ourselves!

 

[Kamaduck]

I really hope no one here is advocating the killing of abortion doctors. If so, we really are the crazies the media loves to call us.

And believe it or not this forum gets read by the “opposition.”

Everyone so far has insisted that killing abortion doctors is a terrible idea, either because it is morally wrong (I think it is), or because it will harm the pro-life cause and ultimately do more harm than good (which it will). Some people are convinced of the latter, but not the former, so we’re discussing whether it’s intrinsically immoral. Nobody is actually advocating for killing abortion doctors. That would just make us look crazy and evil, give the pro-choice side another martyr, and cause people to accuse us of hypocrisy.

I think the poster who said that you won’t actually save any babies is correct. If you kill abortion doctors, it’ll ultimately convince people to join the pro-choice side. You won’t stop babies from being killed; you probably won’t save a single baby. The abortionist will be dead, and the mother will more than likely just visit another clinic. Also, you will go to prison and not be able to help the pro-life movement. Absolutely nothing good is being accomplished, so I don’t think we can say it falls under double effect.

 

[Viki63]

Their sins [of abortionists] cry out to heaven for vengeance, as do the sins of women who have sought out abortions. As do my sins.

It is true that abortion is a sin. But I want to point out that most of the women I have met in the crisis pregnancy center who are looking for abortions, are victims themselves. Either they have been lied to by Planned Parenthood and their ilk, and don’t believe their baby is more than a “blob of tissue”, or they are being coerced into having an abortion, either by boyfriends who threaten to leave or beat them, or by parents who threaten to kick them out.
A 14 year old girl called us crying from an abortion clinic, begging us to help her save her baby, that her mother was forcing her to abort. There was nothing we could do but tell her to look the abortionist in the eye and tell him she refused. We did not hear from her again.

My opinion is that abortion is the ultimate rape. It is a violation of a woman’s being and destruction of her child, and once she realizes what has been done, it can result in great psychological harm.
Many women are as much victims as the fetus is.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

It is true that abortion is a sin. But I want to point out that most of the women I have met in the crisis pregnancy center who are looking for abortions, are victims themselves. Either they have been lied to by Planned Parenthood and their ilk, and don’t believe their baby is more than a “blob of tissue”, or they are being coerced into having an abortion, either by boyfriends who threaten to leave or beat them, or by parents who threaten to kick them out.
A 14 year old girl called us crying from an abortion clinic, begging us to help her save her baby, that her mother was forcing her to abort. There was nothing we could do but tell her to look the abortionist in the eye and tell him she refused. We did not hear from her again.

My opinion is that abortion is the ultimate rape. It is a violation of a woman’s being and destruction of her child, and once she realizes what has been done, it can result in great psychological harm.
Many women are as much victims as the fetus is.

I definitely agree. And many people who work at abortion clinics have all kinds of mitigating circumstances, too. It’s not unlike the situation with prostitution, where one can understand the choices that people make, considering their own personal traumas.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Everyone so far has insisted that killing abortion doctors is a terrible idea, either because it is morally wrong (I think it is), or because it will harm the pro-life cause and ultimately do more harm than good (which it will). Some people are convinced of the latter, but not the former, so we’re discussing whether it’s intrinsically immoral. Nobody is actually advocating for killing abortion doctors.

That would just make us look crazy and evil, give the pro-choice side another martyr, and cause people to accuse us of hypocrisy.

Not quite sure I agree with this part. What’s hypocritical about it? I think the hypocrisy comes in where people say that fetuses are persons with rights, and then the same people don’t think that there are *any *circumstances in which we should protect fetuses at the risk of our lives.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Put it this way: I would never advocate the killing of abortionist doctors however if one were to meet an untimely death I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it either.

Or as Mark Twain never said, “I’ve never wished a man dead, but I have read some obituaries with great pleasure.”

:twocents:

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Everyone so far has insisted that killing abortion doctors is a terrible idea, either because it is morally wrong (I think it is), or because it will harm the pro-life cause and ultimately do more harm than good (which it will). Some people are convinced of the latter, but not the former, so we’re discussing whether it’s intrinsically immoral. Nobody is actually advocating for killing abortion doctors. That would just make us look crazy and evil, give the pro-choice side another martyr, and cause people to accuse us of hypocrisy.

I think the poster who said that you won’t actually save any babies is correct. If you kill abortion doctors, it’ll ultimately convince people to join the pro-choice side. You won’t stop babies from being killed; you probably won’t save a single baby. The abortionist will be dead, and the mother will more than likely just visit another clinic. Also, you will go to prison and not be able to help the pro-life movement. Absolutely nothing good is being accomplished, so I don’t think we can say it falls under double effect.

Kamaduck, you know I appreciate you and your many interesting, wonderful posts.

however: The act of aborting a baby should never be described as pro-CHOICE.

It is, and always will be, pro-ABORTION.

Thanks.

 

[styrgwillidar]

But what of their souls?

We as Catholics should be more concerned with the eternal fate of our brethren (both those who are currently acting morally, as well as those who aren’t) then the relatively short term of earthly existence. Christ said there would be more rejoicing over a sinner returning to God than over a just man remaining so.

Our efforts, in considering the question might be-- how do we best promote uniting the most souls with God?

If we kill the abortionist, assuming he is aware that he is committing evil acts, it’s the same as capital punishment. We have reduced that persons’ opportunity/ability to truly repent from their actions and return to the community. (A consideration might be, like capital punishment, a judgement call on whether it will promote a greater respect for justice and life. Or, especially where abortion is legal, actually harden folks hearts in supporting it?)

Is there a difference based on whether the victims soul may be at risk? That it is legitimate to defend with potentially lethal force against a killer who may be depriving his victims of the opportunity to repent themselves if their souls are at risk? While the unborn’s souls can not be said to be at risk in this way? I don’t know, just a thought.

 

[Kamaduck]

Kamaduck, you know I appreciate you and your many interesting, wonderful posts.

however: The act of aborting a baby should never be described as pro-CHOICE.

It is, and always will be, pro-ABORTION.

Thanks.

Oops! I agree; I think the vocabulary from some of the feminist sites I visit rubs off on me. I know they’re not really advocating for ‘choice’. Thanks for pointing that out.

Not quite sure I agree with this part. What’s hypocritical about it? I think the hypocrisy comes in where people say that fetuses are persons with rights, and then the same people don’t think that there are *any *circumstances in which we should protect fetuses at the risk of our lives.

It’s certainly hypocritical from their perspective. We would claim to be pro-life, yet we’d be going around killing people. I know there’s a difference between killing an innocent baby and a person who is killing innocent babies, but all they’ll see is crazy people.

I certainly don’t think it’s a bad idea to protect fetuses with our lives if need be; for instance, a woman who refuses to abort her child even at serious risk to herself is heroic. The problem is that that isn’t the situation we’re discussing. If we start killing abortion doctors in the current climate, the effect will not be that we go to prison while the fetuses live. On the contrary. Because people will see us as violent, dangerous hypocrites, the pro-abortion side will gain traction. This will cause more children to die. That’s why it’s wrong; nothing good is accomplished and we’d simply be causing more death.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Not quite sure I agree with this part. What’s hypocritical about it? I think the hypocrisy comes in where people say that fetuses are persons with rights, and then the same people don’t think that there are *any *circumstances in which we should protect fetuses at the risk of our lives.

But are you saving a life?

If maybe you shoot the abortionist with his tools in his hands seconds before murdering a baby, then you have maybe saved that baby. Maybe the mother will go and seek out another abortionist, but maybe she will have another think.

But to shoot an abortionist just because he is an abortionist is killing a guy who works for a gun manufacturer just because he makes guns. Killing him does not save one life but it is an unnecessary act of hate and violence.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The big problem is that while ‘we’ percieve abortionists as involved in something abhorrent and murderous, such people mostly don’t …

I don’t see that it matters how they perceive their own actions.

I bet the guards in concentration camps thought they were killing vermin and doing society a great service. But does their own mistaken perception make their actions any less wrong? In many parts of this world, and for much of history, killing was / is actually considered to be okay. Think about cannibals, about human sacrifices, about the death penalty even. So its not just violents and freaks whose moral compass goes wrong, but entire cultures - as indeed is happening to ours today if the pro-choicers get their way in asserting that a woman’s right to choose is stronger tha the moral principle forbidding murder. So this just shows that progress towards greater civilisation is not an irreversible trend but that we must be wary of all attempts to erode what past generations have achieved.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

But are you saving a life?

If maybe you shoot the abortionist with his tools in his hands seconds before murdering a baby, then you have maybe saved that baby. Maybe the mother will go and seek out another abortionist, but maybe she will have another think.

But to shoot an abortionist just because he is an abortionist is killing a guy who works for a gun manufacturer just because he makes guns. Killing him does not save one life but it is an unnecessary act of hate and violence.

You’re missing my point, though. I have not said we should kill abortionists. I have been saying that there is nothing *intrinsically *wrong with killing an abortionist. That doesn’t even mean it should be legal.

But many of the responses on this thread are knee-jerk reactions: “People will think we’re nuts, so let’s clarify that we wouldn’t kill law-abiding citizens!” But these law-abiding citizens are murderers. If this thread were called “Morality in the case of Mass Murderers”, do you think people’s replies would be quite so calm?

 

[Cirdan_XII]

You’re missing my point, though. I have not said we should kill abortionists. I have been saying that there is nothing *intrinsically *wrong with killing an abortionist. That doesn’t even mean it should be legal.

But many of the responses on this thread are knee-jerk reactions: “People will think we’re nuts, so let’s clarify that we wouldn’t kill law-abiding citizens!” But these law-abiding citizens are murderers. If this thread were called “Morality in the case of Mass Murderers”, do you think people’s replies would be quite so calm?

So just to check we’re still on the same page here …

Killing murderers

There are different contexts in killing murderers. You can kill a murderer after he has comotted a murder, maybe as a punishment or to serve justice. Or you can kill a supposed murderer before they murder, so saving the life of the potential victim.

In the former case, you don’t actually save anybody’s life. You just add an additional murder in the hoppe that two wrongs might make a right. It is pretty futile.

In the second case, you are only saving a life if another will not immediately take the place of the one who has fallen. Otherwise again it is an additional victim.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

In the former case, you don’t actually save anybody’s life. You just add an additional murder in the hoppe that two wrongs might make a right. It is pretty futile.

I don’t think we should kill murderers out of revenge, so this is not my point.

In the second case, you are only saving a life if another will not immediately take the place of the one who has fallen. Otherwise again it is an additional victim.

The murderer of the innocent is a VICTIM? Really?

Would you not be willing to kill a person who was about to kill your daughter, if this were the only way to save your daughter’s life? I don’t care if more people will come around and try to kill her. You should stay and stop them, too.

I’m not saying this is the only way to stop abortionists. But if it were the only way, then we should do it – supposing we really believe that fetuses are people.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

The murderer of the innocent is a VICTIM? Really?

At least if somebody is on death row, he gets a chance to say confession before the end, and can get his last annointment. Even the world’s most evil mass murderer has that right and maybe he will make it to Heaven despite what he has done, for only God knows all ends and his forgiveness is infinite.

Killing somebody out of the blue denies them that right and that opportunity. It is bad enough that people get killed in accidents etc. Why add insult to injury?

Before his conversion on the Road to Damascus, Paul persecuted Christians. He was an evil wicked snivelling wretch who sought and took joy in the suffering of others down to their deaths. But if you would have killed him back then, you wold have deprived Christianity of one of its greatest sources of inspiration.

Remember that the Church condemns even suicide. Some may argue, surely the taking of your own life is your own concern, and cannot be compared with taking someone else’s? But there is an aspect to killing that goes beyond the mere robbing of someone else’s life. It is attempting to tinker withe the plan that God has for every individual.

Would you not be willing to kill a person who was about to kill your daughter, if this were the only way to save your daughter’s life? I don’t care if more people will come around and try to kill her. You should stay and stop them, too.

I don’t think I would be willing to, but might do it as last resort in self defence, and only if my daughter was in actual acute danger. Just knowing that a person will probably at some point kill another person is not such an acute threat. By that logic you ought to kill all soldiers. You ought to kill the president if he is thinking of starting a war. You ought to kill governors who sign death penalties. We ought to break into prisons to free prisoners on death row. Where do you stop? Where does our responsibility for saving life stop?

I’m not saying this is the only way to stop abortionists. But if it were the only way, then we should do it – supposing we really believe that fetuses are people.

God told us not to kill. He told us as individuals. I think that instruction is quite clear. He did not give us Asimov-like instructions to interfer with others and prevent them from killing, and if necessary kill to achieve that goal, any more than he told us to interfere with our fellow humans and prevent them from coveting our neighbour’s donkey. The commandments are for us on a personal level, not a license to interfere in the affirs of others.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

At least if somebody is on death row, he gets a chance to say confession before the end, and can get his last annointment. Even the world’s most evil mass murderer has that right and maybe he will make it to Heaven despite what he has done, for only God knows all ends and his forgiveness is infinite.

Killing somebody out of the blue denies them that right and that opportunity. It is bad enough that people get killed in accidents etc. Why add insult to injury?

Before his conversion on the Road to Damascus, Paul persecuted Christians. He was an evil wicked snivelling wretch who sought and took joy in the suffering of others down to their deaths. But if you would have killed him back then, you wold have deprived Christianity of one of its greatest sources of inspiration.

Remember that the Church condemns even suicide. Some may argue, surely the taking of your own life is your own concern, and cannot be compared with taking someone else’s? But there is an aspect to killing that goes beyond the mere robbing of someone else’s life. It is attempting to tinker withe the plan that God has for every individual.

With all due respect, your theology is completely off here. We do not have the power over other people’s eternal souls. We can’t send someone to hell by killing them as they are mortally sinning. God gives everyone a chance to repent, and God is not bound by time or death.

I don’t think I would be willing to, but might do it as last resort in self defence, and only if my daughter was in actual acute danger. Just knowing that a person will probably at some point kill another person is not such an acute threat. By that logic you ought to kill all soldiers. You ought to kill the president if he is thinking of starting a war. You ought to kill governors who sign death penalties. We ought to break into prisons to free prisoners on death row. Where do you stop? Where does our responsibility for saving life stop?

I don’t understand. You seem to think all killing is morally equivalent. But wartime killing is morally different from the death penalty, which is morally different from abortion, and so on. This is Catholic teaching.

I agree that an acute threat is necessary. An abortionist walking into his office is an acute threat to the babies coming into that office.

God told us not to kill.

That can’t be right, since God told all sorts of people in the Old Testament to kill, especially in cases of war. A better translation is that God told us not to “murder”, where murder is wrongful killing. So the question becomes, is this particular case of killing justified or unjustified?

 

[mikekle]

Comes down to you cannot address a wrong with another wrong. ‘Two wrongs don’t make a right.’ It may seem hard in such circumstances, BUT that is the reality.

The big problem is that while ‘we’ percieve abortionists as involved in something abhorrent and murderous, such people mostly don’t and are indeed protected in their actions [within ‘legal’ constraints] by ‘secular law’.

I no longer vote in elections because all major Parties in my country are pro-abortion as is currently legislated. I am in effect ‘morally disenfranchised’.

What about all the old testament verses that literally require people to kill others, who have been doing un-Godly acts, such as the verse that REQUIRES the killing of people that commit adultry, both the man and woman shall be put to death immediately, or the instruction to kill an entire town of people if just one of them blasphemes God?

These verses seem to contradict the "thou shalt not kill’ but maybe that commandment is saying do not kill in ANY OTHER situation, besides when the bible tells people it is justified? Ive discussed this many time before and Ive heard a few people question if true believers today are not fully obeying God as they are not going out and doing these things, but the legality of it comes up regarding mans law, I know we are supposed to respect Gods laws versus mans law, but I just cannot see churches telling people to do these kinds of things in public, in modern times or in old testament times.