P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Exactly.
- Status
M
markomalley
Guest
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?Would it be morally acceptable to kill someone who murders the unborn on a daily bases?
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.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
My version of the Bible is the one that has a story about a guy who was prepared to kill his child because God asked him to do it.
And about 1000 pages later, when Jesus was on the cross, he didn’t command his apostles to strike down the Roman soldiers and save him.
Some things are part of the plan. You have to trust God, even if it doesn’t always make sense at the time, or even afterwards.
Plead with the abortion doctor if you like, hold back his hand, but don’t take his life.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
Absolutely, so we must work through the political system to change the law. And if the law cannot be changed we can maybe secede and create our own state with just laws, or go and live in one if one exists. But we cannot unilaterally kill to prevent a sin.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
The soldiers were threatening Jesus, and He had a right to turn the other cheek. If the soldiers had been threatening an innocent baby, I do not think Jesus would have “turned the other cheek” by offering a second baby for the soldiers to kill. And I see nothing in the Bible that says otherwise.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
But that is your own personal theology. Not exactly magisterial. That is in everyones version but it is that you are interpreting it to apply to a certain situation. Where I struggle is the obvious different answer the Church and most people give when one would be defending the life of a 2 month old about to be murdered. If that was happening millions of times a day. Thousands of times in your vicinity. Abortion gets a different answer because it is unseen, easily categorized as a political “side” to be on. A war of hearts and minds… etc.
If you gave that same answer about a “real live” visible baby, you would be labeled a coward. If you applied the same theology to slavery, you would be a racist. The Church does not define the morality of the subject the same way you do.
You might want to notice and take into account not only the 2 events in the Bible you described but also what is in between the 1000 pages you glossed over. And a few pages after the Cross it is important to note that Jesus gives the power to His Church to bind and loose.
Nobody was preparing to fight at the foot of the cross. Before the Cross, Jesus told Peter to put away his sword. He did not tell him to never use it again.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Absolutely! To say that Jesus wants us to sacrifice these babies at the foot of the cross is exactly what the other poster’s theology leads to.
M
mikekle
Guest
Using that argument, one could also say the 10 commandments are also null and void as they were given in the old testament.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Who is teaching this? Where did you get that idea? It is false. The New covenant is to be laid over the old. It is a “Fulfillment” of the Old. Not a replacement! Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.
One of the biggest problems with people’s theology today is that they do not understand the relationship between he old and new. They have no understanding of salvation history because they have discounted most of that history as being a cute story that no longer applies to our relationship with God. Big mistake! And not understanding of God or his Church and his people.
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
Okay, so in your teaching, is it forbidden to wear clothes of mixed cloth and is it forbidden to eat shellfish?
C
Cirdan_XII
Guest
An angel appeared to Joseph and said, Herod is planning to kill lots of babies, so go and hide in Egypt. He didn’t say go get some friends and sharpen your swords and put up a fight and slit the throats of Herod and his men and poison their water supply and set fire to their crops. He didn’t even say, give word to the other parents so they can hide their babies too.
Time and time again, the New Testament teaches about countering violence with peace, not violence with violence. About not casting the first stone, about not being too eager to judge.
I cannot think of a single passage in the New Testament where Jesus instructed anybody to use violence against other people for any cause, no matter how just. Throwing over the tables of the money lenders was not violence against people, it was against inanimate things.
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
Of course not. Not only is that not the issue but it shows a complete lack of understanding of our Christian faith and roots. I would suggest you study some theologians or perhaps find a good Bible Study program.
You are missing a basic understanding of how the old law and new covenant relate to each other. It is impossible to truly understand our faith without a complete knowledge of the two and how they compliment each other and why some things APPEAR to have been changed.
But I fail to see how your shelfish point has anything to do with the subject at hand. Again, the Law was not ended by Christ but only fulfilled. Christianity has not nor ever will teach that one MUST take the pacifist position you advocate.
Do you have the freedom to cower as someone kills your child? Yes.
But don’t confuse your opinion or decision as theological doctrine, Not only is it not in agreement with the Church but I would submit it would be against Christ to do so.
B
BellsMom
Guest
This is the answer to why its wrong to kill an abortionist. Fetuses are not persons. Even pro-life people don’t believe they are. No one finds out a person is a serial killer about to commit another murder and prays for god to stop them.
R
Regular_Atheist
Guest
It would be fine if the media held a pro-life bias, but sadly it doesn’t.
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
Pro-lifers: read the above post carefully. It is extremely important.
Bell(name removed by moderator),
I appreciate your contribution. Why, I wonder, do you say that fetuses are not people? I have a 10-month-old infant – is she a person? What about a premature baby who was just born – is he a person? What standard do *you *use in determining whether some living organism is a person or not?
Blessings,
Prodigal
H
Hoosier_Daddy
Guest
???
Pro life people do not believe that a baby is a baby in the womb!?
You must have a different definition of person that I do.
S
SeanOlynn
Guest
Look, all these arguments about personhood and cognitive function are red herrings that also lead you to conclusions it’s ok to kill infants, anaesthetised patients etc. Anything you have to offer will be destroyed here -not just for religious reasons, using science will be sufficient. You: have been lied to; didn’t understand the arguments; think it’s ok to kill innocent humans; or you are a liar. A human being begins at conception, that’s the most important fact here.
B
BellsMom
Guest
Yes that’s all good and well but when it comes down to it, pro-life people don’t believe that a fetus has the same moral value as a born toddler, child, adult, etc. Otherwise, they would never sit on a sidewalk praying while mass murder is going on a few hundred feet away, whether it’s “legal” or not.
As to my personal beliefs on the person-hood of a fetus, I’m undecided.
B
BellsMom
Guest
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.
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.
But this is really a side issue to the OP’s question on killing an abortionist. Anyone informed in the Catholic religion understands that there are always cases where it’s okay to kill. War, self defense, defense of others I believe. So the question becomes, if you would shoot a person getting ready to kill a 1 month old infant with a knife, why not shoot an abortionist about to kill a 1 month old fetus with a scalpel?
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.
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. Instead of the argument around abortion being “all or nothing” depending on what side you believe in, there could be some compromise which I think would be good.
Flame away fellow posters!
J
jmcrae
Guest
The best, and ultimately the most effective thing we can do is pray and work for their conversion.
- Status