Morality Question

[Soler]

And then the question becomes whether or not vigilante justice is permissible

I suppose it can be in certain circumstances…


(In practice, though, it’s usually a bad idea, which I also said about the OP’s original proposition)

Of course, vigilante “executions” would never be permissible.

—Soler.

 

[Don_Hepler]

As said above, the building itself does not sin.

It is a sin for a Christian to destroy the property of others, no matter what.

Christ did not go about burning down Herod’s palace (he killed babies and John the Baptist). Christ didn’t advocate burning down brothels, the houses of scribes and pharisees, the barracks of Roman soldiers (who killed people), etc.

And anyway, if an abortion clinic is burned down or bombed a new one could be set up within days and government security would be set up to ward off those who try to get their way by terror tactics.

I believe Christ would advocate prayer, fasting, dialogue, appeals to the heart and perhaps even peaceful protest.

I think Christ would take a catnine tails and start driving the doctors out of the building, he wouldn’t be hiding behind you with a limp wrist, doing the goody goody… think when you think by doing nothing ye are justified. If the money changes angered Jesus, What do you think he feels of murdering doctors??? It’s called sacrificing babies to their pagan Gods. And we just let them do it. How easily you are lead to embrace corruption. by hiding behind what you think the word of God is, If you think you can do nothing, and reap a reward in heaven you know not the God whom you worship.

 

[Greg27]

I suppose putting aside the moral question, what you are doing is likely to be a criminal act and if the value of the property you destroy is very considerable, I imagine you would be up for very serious criminal charges. Pleading defence of innocent life or prevention of murder unfortunately is unlikely to sway a judge who in the Anglo-American system of laws, is obliged to apply the law to the fact situation at hand; pleading that a law is unjust on itself is not a defence in the Western system of civil law. A judge is only likely to tell you with firmness that your religious beliefs, regardless of what they are, do not give you the right to violate the rights of other private citizens; if such behaviour were allowed or condoned by the courts, the result would be anarchy. Acting out of necessity is only a defence in a very narrow range of circumstances, and usually only applies to saving your own life or the lives of other human beings out of the womb.

Abortion is understandably a highly sensitive moral issue, particularly because many people believe abortion is itself a henious form of homicide. Even so, it is permitted by the law and society is not universal in agreement or assent in whether or not it should be permitted or in what circumstances it should be permitted, or even the act itself is right or wrong. But because it is contentious, it does not give people on either side of the debate the right to show contempt for existing law by committing serious criminal acts, whether they are destroying property, harassing individuals or even murdering those who take part in abortions. We all have a duty to uphold and respect the law and the rights we all have under the law, including the freedoms of other citizens. If others do not agree with us or act as we do, that doesn’t mean we have the right to disregard their private property rights, the protection the law affords their life, and also their right to freedom subject to the restraints needed for the common good. Again while acknowledging that some people regard abortion as seriously evil, someone who takes the law into their own hands is only likely to get themselves thrown into prison, and pleading their ethical or religious beliefs is unlikely to mitigate their punishment. The proper way to change the law or society then is through the democratic process.

If you feel abortion should be banned, then you have to change law through the democratic process non-violently. The law does not condone or support violence to achieve moral aims, and the courts leave law-making in response to social or ethical considerations up to the relevant democratically-elected legislature in Western systems of government. Write to your local politican, but don’t destroy property and trample on the rights of other citizens.

 

[Don_Hepler]

I suppose putting aside the moral question, what you are doing is likely to be a criminal act and if the value of the property you destroy is very considerable, I imagine you would be up for very serious criminal charges. Pleading defence of innocent life or prevention of murder unfortunately is unlikely to sway a judge who in the Anglo-American system of laws, is obliged to apply the law to the fact situation at hand; pleading that a law is unjust on itself is not a defence in the Western system of civil law. A judge is only likely to tell you with firmness that your religious beliefs, regardless of what they are, do not give you the right to violate the rights of other private citizens; if such behaviour were allowed or condoned by the courts, the result would be anarchy. Acting out of necessity is only a defence in a very narrow range of circumstances, and usually only applies to saving your own life or the lives of other human beings out of the womb.

Abortion is understandably a highly sensitive moral issue, particularly because many people believe abortion is itself a henious form of homicide. Even so, it is permitted by the law and society is not universal in agreement or assent in whether or not it should be permitted or in what circumstances it should be permitted, or even the act itself is right or wrong. But because it is contentious, it does not give people on either side of the debate the right to show contempt for existing law by committing serious criminal acts, whether they are destroying property, harassing individuals or even murdering those who take part in abortions. We all have a duty to uphold and respect the law and the rights we all have under the law, including the freedoms of other citizens. If others do not agree with us or act as we do, that doesn’t mean we have the right to disregard their private property rights, the protection the law affords their life, and also their right to freedom subject to the restraints needed for the common good. Again while acknowledging that some people regard abortion as seriously evil, someone who takes the law into their own hands is only likely to get themselves thrown into prison, and pleading their ethical or religious beliefs is unlikely to mitigate their punishment. The proper way to change the law or society then is through the democratic process.

If you feel abortion should be banned, then you have to change law through the democratic process non-violently. The law does not condone or support violence to achieve moral aims, and the courts leave law-making in response to social or ethical considerations up to the relevant democratically-elected legislature in Western systems of government. Write to your local politican, but don’t destroy property and trample on the rights of other citizens.

I am not really trying to contend with the Law of today, but 2000, years ago and look what we have become…I think one has to say, what would Christ do.He is the same yesterday, today, forever… what applies then should apply today. History repeats it’s self.I say we are as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah, It’s time for a cleansing.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

I’d like to thank everyone who posted and encourage more dialogue. I personally see that doing such an act would be futile to change the minds of those who would support such things would only be driven deeper into their own sides trench with more fanaticism. Not to mention is a bad reputation to the pro-life movement which already gets bad hype from the media.

As for what would Christ do? I still cannot find an answer.

I mean to put it in ancient terms; suppose the Romans aloud a cult in Jerusalem that practiced the sacrifice of human children. Now the way I see things is that Jesus threw out the money changers and merchants from the Temple because its a symbol of the Jewish faith. Not sure if he’d go out of the way and remove pagan priests from the city itself. Though something tells me he would…

 

[sherimarie]

There is no sin in the act, the property rights are forfiet because of the danger the preborn are in.
They would indeed build back bigger and better however wether or not it would save lives is an indisputable yes.Any time the abortion is delayed it gives the woman more time to think about what she is about to do and that always works in favor of the baby. I could probably dig up stats if i needed to prove that.

 

[Greg27]

“I am not really trying to contend with the Law of today, but 2000, years ago and look what we have become…I think one has to say, what would Christ do.He is the same yesterday, today, forever… what applies then should apply today. History repeats it’s self.I say we are as wicked as Sodom and Gomorrah, It’s time for a cleansing.”

Perhaps some may feel that way, but people with these views also forget that in a democratic society, there are lots of ways to put forward your views without trampling on the rights of others. Pro-life Catholics and Christians have many roads open to them to both try to ensure individuals not undertake abortions in the first place (i.e. by providing supportive counselling, social services or adoption to pregnant mothers) as well as the many roads open to influence the decisions of lawmakers. Violence is an extreme option and as with other extreme options, can only ever be justified in the most extreme situations and even then in a very narrow and limited range of circumstances.

 

[Langdell]

I’d like to thank everyone who posted and encourage more dialogue. I personally see that doing such an act would be futile to change the minds of those who would support such things would only be driven deeper into their own sides trench with more fanaticism. Not to mention is a bad reputation to the pro-life movement which already gets bad hype from the media.

As for what would Christ do? I still cannot find an answer.

I mean to put it in ancient terms; suppose the Romans aloud a cult in Jerusalem that practiced the sacrifice of human children. Now the way I see things is that Jesus threw out the money changers and merchants from the Temple because its a symbol of the Jewish faith. Not sure if he’d go out of the way and remove pagan priests from the city itself. Though something tells me he would…

One thing to consider is that the Romans did practice slavery. It’s hard to imagine that Jesus didn’t come across slaves during his ministry. Yet we have no evidence that he did anything about the practice, much less break the law in order to combat it.

.

 

[Don_Hepler]

One thing to consider is that the Romans did practice slavery. It’s hard to imagine that Jesus didn’t come across slaves during his ministry. Yet we have no evidence that he did anything about the practice, much less break the law in order to combat it.

.

Yes but he did brake the law when he claimed himself a king, which was treason to the Romans…just a thought don’t lose your sleep over it.