Morality of Killing in the case of Abortionists

[Prodigal_Son]

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…

She said “nothing anyone ever says will change my mind,” but you will note – even after making that comment – she is trying to justify her view. People says things like that all the time in disagreements, even if they come around to agreeing in the end.

My question for you: Do you believe that people can honestly believe that some types of abortion are morally permissible? I know they can. They are deceived, yes, but many of them are honest (certainly not all of them).

I have been wrong before, even about very important things. Since I honestly believed these things, it was not helpful when people accused me of being disingenuous. I feel like you are accusing Bell(name removed by moderator) of being disingenuous. And I understand the accusation, because the truth seems so obvious to someone who knows it. But you cannot convert someone by accusing them of being disingenuous. If they aren’t disingenuous, they will write you off. If they are disingenuous, they need to come to realize this for themselves, and they need to choose to be humble.

Sorry to talk your ear off! And I really don’t mean to be emphasizing a difference here; I just feel pretty strongly about this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

She said “nothing anyone ever says will change my mind,” but you will note – even after making that comment – she is trying to justify her view. People says things like that all the time in disagreements, even if they come around to agreeing in the end.

My question for you: Do you believe that people can honestly believe that some types of abortion are morally permissible? I know they can. They are deceived, yes, but many of them are honest (certainly not all of them).

I have been wrong before, even about very important things. Since I honestly believed these things, it was not helpful when people accused me of being disingenuous. I feel like you are accusing Bell(name removed by moderator) of being disingenuous. And I understand the accusation, because the truth seems so obvious to someone who knows it. But you cannot convert someone by accusing them of being disingenuous. If they aren’t disingenuous, they will write you off. If they are disingenuous, they need to come to realize this for themselves, and they need to choose to be humble.

Sorry to talk your ear off! And I really don’t mean to be emphasizing a difference here; I just feel pretty strongly about this.

It boils down to two absolutely different views on the situation. You speak to the status quo, measured words and trying to be a church of nice. I speak to a strait talk approach.

Just remember the old Navy saying that a drop of oil can spoil all of the drinking water. So, I find it important to make sure that our tent is not compromising.

But good luck, perhaps you will convert her. If you do, try to do it before the next election.

Tell me, when I pointed out that her argument was illogical. That a baby is a baby no matter what and that her arbitrary line makes no sense. You thought we should not say those things. So, if not on a Catholic board, on a pro life thread. Then where?

 

[Prodigal_Son]

Tell me, when I pointed out that her argument was illogical. That a baby is a baby no matter what and that her arbitrary line makes no sense. You thought we should not say those things. So, if not on a Catholic board, on a pro life thread. Then where?

I have been saying the same things to her. I don’t have a problem with challenging a person to defend their beliefs. I just think it is important to point out what is admirable in the person’s beliefs, as well. When someone is willing to be reasonable in a discussion, I like to point that out.

In argumentation, inflexibility in myself breeds inflexibility in my opponent. It’s not that I need to compromise the truth; it’s that I need to show that I am willing to really listen. If I don’t listen, how can I expect anyone to listen to me?

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I have been saying the same things to her. I don’t have a problem with challenging a person to defend their beliefs. I just think it is important to point out what is admirable in the person’s beliefs, as well. When someone is willing to be reasonable in a discussion, I like to point that out.

In argumentation, inflexibility in myself breeds inflexibility in my opponent. It’s not that I need to compromise the truth; it’s that I need to show that I am willing to really listen. If I don’t listen, how can I expect anyone to listen to me?

That is funny because you seem to be quite intent on arguing with me. If you want to coddle someone who says 2+2=4 but I will never accept that 1+1=2. And you want to praise them for stubborn false logic and pride. Well, that is the way you see fit to “win”.

What I am telling you is that in my opinion, measured words and fear of hurting feelings is what lead to where we are now.
I spoke the truth and you have defended the person who agrees with murdering babies because that person does not want to murder certain babies. You are making the argument that that person deserves to be congratulated on not agreeing with murder of SOME babies. When this discussion started, all I merely did was point out the illogical position of a pro abortion person. You have spent the better part of 2 days telling me that calm, sweet dialogue is the way to go. You have replied time and time again, unwilling to concede your position. But yet you tell me that in your opinion I was too harsh. Do you not see the hypocrisy of your own position? All this effort, all these words, all this debate, and the person who needs to be convinced of something that is a moral imperative to their own soul and the soul of others is the actual person who agrees with murder.

I stand by my analogy of Jews.

If someone said on these boards that they thought antisemitism and the extermination of Reformed Jews was horrible but the Orthodox Jews could be killed no problem and I said that it was wrong, illogical, and downright evil to think that way. And you came on and said “Gee, Hoosier, the person should get some credit, they don’t want to kill ALL Jews.” The conversation would be silly. It would also be fruitless.
Personally, I cannot justify so much effort into arguing for the sake of pride with you.
I pray that someday those of us on the Pro life side can argue with the same zeal and effort for the right to live of the innocent.
Until then I guess we can argue about making sure we do not offend those who support murder, so as to win them over to us with hugs and candy.

All I did was speak the truth. You have pushed and scolded me for not petting someone when I did it. Again, no wonder we lose this battle. That is not how the other side is playing, they are using far bigger and more effective weapons. If you feel that the weapon of logic, holiness, and righteousness needs to be tempered with the nutrition of praise, then that is fine for you. We would probably disagree on many many other issues as well. But it is your way, your opinion. I said nothing to you about it until you caused me to defend my post in which I said nothing wrong. So while you have your way that you have stated for some reason you feel strongly about I have mine, and I do not appreciate being scolded for something so fundamental as the Truth. You argue that your way is better, you preach about listening and praising but you do not practice it here.

And worst of all we did this in front of the kids (Bells mom) We argued, fought, and attacked, using analogies, pride, and debating skills. She slid quietly off to her room, Knowing that the big bad disciplinarian dad (me) had been neutralized by coddling mom (you) (I’m sorry I made you the mom…it just fit the analogy.) When parents do this in front of children they lose effectiveness, well so does the pro life “side”
But I guess we can go on, praying, “voting” being the “silent majority” meekly waiting for some mythical end to this holocaust. Because it has worked so well so far.

A majority of Catholics voted for the most pro death president I have ever seen and you would probably say, well, we should praise them for voting.

That is just Catholics, we have lost the battle within our own faith, not to mention society as a whole. Can you maybe see where I see your argument for the status quo and for “niceness” loses it’s credibility. 50 years of it and millions of babies dead. A society that aborts more now than when we started our campaign of “nice” I did not even overthrow any tables, I did not even chase money changers out with a whip. All I said was, in our tent, that kind of logic and thinking is not correct.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

That is funny because you seem to be quite intent on arguing with me. If you want to coddle someone who says 2+2=4 but I will never accept that 1+1=2. And you want to praise them for stubborn false logic and pride. Well, that is the way you see fit to “win”.

What I am telling you is that in my opinion, measured words and fear of hurting feelings is what lead to where we are now.
I spoke the truth and you have defended the person who agrees with murdering babies because that person does not want to murder certain babies. You are making the argument that that person deserves to be congratulated on not agreeing with murder of SOME babies. When this discussion started, all I merely did was point out the illogical position of a pro abortion person. You have spent the better part of 2 days telling me that calm, sweet dialogue is the way to go. You have replied time and time again, unwilling to concede your position. But yet you tell me that in your opinion I was too harsh. Do you not see the hypocrisy of your own position?

No, I don’t. I am listening to both you and Bell(name removed by moderator). I understand your position, and why you disagree with me. I am trying to understand Bell(name removed by moderator)'s position. I disagree with both your positions. I am trying to persuade both of you to change your positions. I do not believe I have been rude to either of you.

If someone said on these boards that they thought antisemitism and the extermination of Reformed Jews was horrible but the Orthodox Jews could be killed no problem and I said that it was wrong, illogical, and downright evil to think that way. And you came on and said “Gee, Hoosier, the person should get some credit, they don’t want to kill ALL Jews.” The conversation would be silly. It would also be fruitless.

But the society isn’t inundated with anti-Jewish rhetoric, so the analogy doesn’t work. It takes a lot of courage for a pro-choice person in this society to change her position. We need to commend any steps that suggest such courage.

Personally, I cannot justify so much effort into arguing for the sake of pride with you.

I am not arguing for the sake of pride. I believe that you are one of the most insightful and intelligent people I’ve seen on these forums, and I think you are nevertheless in error, when it comes to the issue of evangelization. It is Christian tradition that we attempt to correct those who are in error.

All I did was speak the truth. You have pushed and scolded me for not petting someone when I did it.

I have done no such thing. I had an intellectual criticism, and I have been open to your defenses against my criticism.

But I guess we can go on, praying, “voting” being the “silent majority” meekly waiting for some mythical end to this holocaust. Because it has worked so well so far.

Jesus commanded us to be meek. Meekness is not the opposite of strength; it is strength under control.

I think we should push HARD to change the abortion status quo. But we must be smart about how we do this.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No, I don’t. I am listening to both you and Bell(name removed by moderator). I understand your position, and why you disagree with me. I am trying to understand Bell(name removed by moderator)'s position. I disagree with both your positions. I am trying to persuade both of you to change your positions. I do not believe I have been rude to either of you.

But the society isn’t inundated with anti-Jewish rhetoric, so the analogy doesn’t work. It takes a lot of courage for a pro-choice person in this society to change her position. We need to commend any steps that suggest such courage.

I am not arguing for the sake of pride. I believe that you are one of the most insightful and intelligent people I’ve seen on these forums, and I think you are nevertheless in error, when it comes to the issue of evangelization. It is Christian tradition that we attempt to correct those who are in error.

I have done no such thing. I had an intellectual criticism, and I have been open to your defenses against my criticism.

Jesus commanded us to be meek. Meekness is not the opposite of strength; it is strength under control.

I think we should push HARD to change the abortion status quo. But we must be smart about how we do this.

ok. For me this conversation is fruitless. Thank you.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

ok. For me this conversation is fruitless. Thank you.

God bless you, and I apologize for any offense I have caused.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

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.

The essence of your message seems to be that I’m wrong because I’m wrong and that you’re right because you’re right, and I respect your right to think that, even if I disagree.

As Jesus walked the Earth, there were a lot of innocents being killed, every day. The Romans may have gone into history as having been the authors of an inspiring legal system, one to which our modern legal system owes many concepts. But at the same time, Roman society was cruel and unjust and rife with nepotism, embezzlment and corruption. Roman officialdom was a fleapit of moral values and a lot of people were being sentenced and put to death on a daily basis for no good reason, especially in a backward colony far from the splendors and control of Rome as indeed the Holy Land was at that time.

But did Jesus ever speak up about that? Did he ever go to somebody else’s trial or crucifixion and attempt to save them? Did he ever ask his followers to do something about it? Did he advovate killing corrupt judges and exceutioners? No, his teaching was the complete opposite of that. Yet you are telling me that Jesus loves it if you take your gun and shoot people dead without even giving them a trial. With all respect, I think yours is the very selective reading of scriptures, not mine.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

The essence of your message seems to be that I’m wrong because I’m wrong and that you’re right because you’re right, and I respect your right to think that, even if I disagree.

As Jesus walked the Earth, there were a lot of innocents being killed, every day. The Romans may have gone into history as having been the authors of an inspiring legal system, one to which our modern legal system owes many concepts. But at the same time, Roman society was cruel and unjust and rife with nepotism, embezzlment and corruption. Roman officialdom was a fleapit of moral values and a lot of people were being sentenced and put to death on a daily basis for no good reason, especially in a backward colony far from the splendors and control of Rome as indeed the Holy Land was at that time.

But did Jesus ever speak up about that? Did he ever go to somebody else’s trial or crucifixion and attempt to save them? Did he ever ask his followers to do something about it? Did he advovate killing corrupt judges and exceutioners? No, his teaching was the complete opposite of that. Yet you are telling me that Jesus loves it if you take your gun and shoot people dead without even giving them a trial. With all respect, I think yours is the very selective reading of scriptures, not mine.

No, yours is a reading of the scriptures without background, without history, and without an understanding of the relationship between God and his People.
Just so I understand.

But did Jesus ever speak up about that? Did he ever go to somebody else’s trial or crucifixion and attempt to save them? Did he ever ask his followers to do something about it?

Now you are arguing that it is anti Christian to speak up about abortion because Jesus did not.
The problem with your argument and other arguments on this thread is that to defend them you have to bend the laws of logic.
If your argument is that the purpose of Christ was to be 33 years of an example for us and we should never go beyond that example then we have d different understanding of who Christ was. We also have a different understanding of what the Church is. Because the Church herself has always disagreed with your position. The Church has allowed and encouraged the defense of the innocent using force. Jesus gave the Church this authority. Not only that but it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Has the Church said to kill abortionists? No. Has it even said you could? No. But using the principals of theology that the Church applies to when you can use force, we can see that this is not something She has tackled yet.
Your theology lends itself to pacifism. And that is a perfectly legitimate position. You do however take too much liberty when you teach that it is Gods position. It is not.

“Saint Michael the Archangel defend us in battle…”

 

[Cirdan_XII]

No, yours is a reading of the scriptures without background, without history, and without an understanding of the relationship between God and his People.
Just so I understand.

Now you are arguing that it is anti Christian to speak up about abortion because Jesus did not.
The problem with your argument and other arguments on this thread is that to defend them you have to bend the laws of logic.
If your argument is that the purpose of Christ was to be 33 years of an example for us and we should never go beyond that example then we have d different understanding of who Christ was. We also have a different understanding of what the Church is. Because the Church herself has always disagreed with your position. The Church has allowed and encouraged the defense of the innocent using force. Jesus gave the Church this authority. Not only that but it was inspired by the Holy Spirit.

Has the Church said to kill abortionists? No. Has it even said you could? No. But using the principals of theology that the Church applies to when you can use force, we can see that this is not something She has tackled yet.
Your theology lends itself to pacifism. And that is a perfectly legitimate position. You do however take too much liberty when you teach that it is Gods position. It is not.

“Saint Michael the Archangel defend us in battle…”

My position has nothing to do with pacifism. The Church has at times permitted people to go to war over various just issues. But those were wars, as in wars between states. The Church is not a libertarian organisation. It recognises the legitimacy of the state and that citizens have duties towards that state and that these duties, besides paying tayes and respecting the state’s laws, can include serving in the army and going to war for that state. It is the “give unto Caesar” argument. However if you shoot the abortionist who lives across the road from you in peacetime and out of the blue, you are not acting within the legitimacy of a state-ordered military campaign. I am not aware of the Church having ever encouraged or provided a basis for citizens killing fellow citizens under peacetime conditions, or sought to morally justify a lynch-mob mentality.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

My position has nothing to do with pacifism. The Church has at times permitted people to go to war over various just issues. But those were wars, as in wars between states. The Church is not a libertarian organisation. It recognises the legitimacy of the state and that citizens have duties towards that state and that these duties, besides paying tayes and respecting the state’s laws, can include serving in the army and going to war for that state. It is the “give unto Caesar” argument. However if you shoot the abortionist who lives across the road from you in peacetime and out of the blue, you are not acting within the legitimacy of a state-ordered military campaign. I am not aware of the Church having ever encouraged or provided a basis for citizens killing fellow citizens under peacetime conditions, or sought to morally justify a lynch-mob mentality.

Of course not. And I agree with this entire post. It, however, is not what you said earlier.
I would also point out that the Church does not just apply what you said to wars in general but also in personal defense and protection.

 

[Prodigal_Son]

My position has nothing to do with pacifism. The Church has at times permitted people to go to war over various just issues. But those were wars, as in wars between states. The Church is not a libertarian organisation. It recognises the legitimacy of the state and that citizens have duties towards that state and that these duties, besides paying tayes and respecting the state’s laws, can include serving in the army and going to war for that state.

Yes, but not every state is legitimate. Early Christians deliberately did not fight for the Roman army, at great risk to their own welfare. Nor did they respect all Roman laws, some of which they broke deliberately. If we were to follow their lead about the issue of abortion, we would show ourselves willing to die in order to save babies in danger of abortion.

More early Church history, since it’s fun: early Christians not only spoke out against the Roman practice of exposing infants; they also picked up the babies from the places of exposure and took care of them. This suggests another way we could make an impact: if we made clear to every woman considering abortion that there was a loving family willing to take her child.

 

[Cirdan_XII]

Yes, but not every state is legitimate. Early Christians deliberately did not fight for the Roman army, at great risk to their own welfare. Nor did they respect all Roman laws, some of which they broke deliberately. If we were to follow their lead about the issue of abortion, we would show ourselves willing to die in order to save babies in danger of abortion.

More early Church history, since it’s fun: early Christians not only spoke out against the Roman practice of exposing infants; they also picked up the babies from the places of exposure and took care of them. This suggests another way we could make an impact: if we made clear to every woman considering abortion that there was a loving family willing to take her child.

But they did not seek to kill the people who exposed the babies.

The absence of a legitimate state does not mean that every man is a state unto himself.

 

[mikekle]

If we were to follow their lead about the issue of abortion, we would show ourselves willing to die in order to save babies in danger of abortion.

.

This is probably what every good catholic/christian person SHOULD be doing today, but in my opinion, most people that are call themselves catholics/christians are not willing to go that far, as it would impact their own lives too much, impact their jobs, how they are viewed in the community, etc. Im not saying Im any different, but I think its a bit hypocritical to call ones self a good catholic/christian person, but not willing to do certain things, because it would impact their own lives too much, is absurd and in Gods eyes, likely would be considered ‘lukewarm’.

I think the catholic/christian religions in modern times should realize that SOMETIMES, it may be necessary to do things that would put ones life, or quality of life in danger of changing, and may sometimes clash with mans laws, but would be for the greater good.

I wonder how many churches and parishes around the country would be willing to do this and follow Gods laws to the ‘tee’, even if it meant doing somethings against mans laws, ANY parish that did this would probably have to face the cities in which they are located about telling their flocks to go out and do these kinds of things, and many cities would probably try to shut them down or file charges against that parish, but really, should any parish or faith be worried about such trivial things, when they know what they are doing is Gods will and for the greater good?

I think many parishes and faiths in todays world are too concerned with being good ‘neighbors’ in their particular communities, and would follow mans law, even if it clashed with their beliefs and what Gods will is.