OK to Break the Law to fight Abortion, or not?

[mlchance]

In all my time of counseling womn who were thinkng about or had had an abortion i only ran across one who did it by her choice alone-and she was profoundly sad about it.

Precisely my point. I had the great pleasure of getting to talk to Dr. Colbert, who heads the Galveston-Houston Archdiocese’s Respect Life Office. She emphasized with all seriousness that in all her time counseling women who’d gotten abortion that she’d never counseled a single woman who hadn’t somehow been coerced into the abortion by a second party (i.e., family, boyfriend, Planned Parenthood “counselor”, et cetera).

– Mark L. Chance.

 

[Island_Oak]

…she’d never counseled a single woman who hadn’t somehow been coerced into the abortion by a second party (i.e., family, boyfriend, Planned Parenthood “counselor”, et cetera).

– Mark L. Chance.

Perhaps we are at an impass over terminology. What do you mean by “coerce?” They all had guns held to their heads? Were bound and gagged? Were threatened with violence? Or are you claiming they were such sweet, frail, little things they couldn’t possibly withstand the pressure to have sex, much less the ‘pressure’ to have an abortion? I know there are egregious situations in which abuse is in play or minors or other incompetents are involved. But that in no way accounts for the majority of elective abortions.

I can deal with someone who had an abortion and is unconflicted about it because they do not believe that abortion is equivalent to murder. (don’t have to agree–but at least they’re consistent). What I can’t swallow is a woman who knows it’s wrong, has guilt, conflict and angst and then places the blame for HER decision at someone else’s feet. Frankly, you degrade the very women you seek to defend by making them sound so incompetent–they are women, not children after all. Women who knew the possibility of getting pregnant and still got naked in bed with someone. Women who knew that the act of abortion terminated a pregnancy, and consented to one anyway.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Then perhaps you’d like to answer in terms of that authentic Catholic teaching regarding whether bombing farmers in their fields for the sake of a just war is morally acceptable. And, if it is, how using various expeditious means to thwart the operation of abortion clinics is not.

It is not morally acceptable to deliberately kill non-combatants, either as a means or an end.

Tantum Ergo is correct, “it is true that sometimes it is lawful to tolerate a lesser moral evil in order to avoid a greater evil or in order to promote a greater good," it is never lawful, even for the gravest reasons, to do evil that good may come of it.” (Paul VI*, Humanae Vitae*, 14).

St. Paul: “And not rather (as we are slandered and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil that there may come good?” (Rom 3:8)

 

[Sailboat]

Island Oak, I see that you worked at Planned Parenthood once. Was that before you were Catholic or at a differnet stage of your life when you were at a different place spiritually?

 

[Island_Oak]

Sounds like one of those no-win, argumentative questions that always draw an objection from opposing counsel… “Sir, when did you stop beating your wife…cheating on your taxes…contributing to the communists…?” Suffice it to say, it is no longer a cause or organization I support.

 

[estesbob]

Perhaps we are at an impass over terminology. What do you mean by “coerce?” They all had guns held to their heads? Were bound and gagged? Were threatened with violence? Or are you claiming they were such sweet, frail, little things they couldn’t possibly withstand the pressure to have sex, much less the ‘pressure’ to have an abortion? I know there are egregious situations in which abuse is in play or minors or other incompetents are involved. But that in no way accounts for the majority of elective abortions.

I did run into quite a few who were threatened with violence. usually it was more subtle-threats to leave them or throw them out of the house. For those in High school the culture was often enough to do it. A girl who had an abortion was considered a courageous woman exercising her rights. A girl who placed the child for adoption was considered a slut. So they basically faced the choice between abortion or ostracism.

The women you talked may have said their abortion were no problem but many, many of them ended up in our Post Abortion support groups-many times years and years later.

 

[Island_Oak]

The women you talked may have said their abortion were no problem but many, many of them ended up in our Post Abortion support groups-many times years and years later.

And I’ve encountered girls who chose abortion so they could fit into their prom dress.

I take this turn to support groups not as proof of coercion, but of maturity and acceptance of the responsibility for a poor choice made–and the natural consequences flowing therefrom–including a sense of failure, guilt and remorse.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

To my mind, “breaking the law” is wrong, UNLESS the law itself is wrong.

To your mind, to my mind, and to the mind of the Catholic Church!

I’m wondering the point of this thread. Is it just to argue or to better understand Catholic moral theology?

Catholic moral theology does not allow the breaking of just laws as a means to an end.

There is a principle of double effect that can be applied here, but the principle has conditions that must be met.

Principle of Double effect. Given the fulfillment of four conditions–all four–an action with at least one good effect and with one or more evil effects may legitimately be performed. The conditions are:

1. the action itself must be morally good or at least morally indifferent,
2. the good effect must not be obtained through the evil effect,
3. the evil effect must not be intended, but rather only tolerated; 4) There must be a sufficiently serious reason to justify allowing the evil effect.

What is the action you’d like to evaluate? Burning the abortion clinic?

Let’s see…

The action itself is the destruction of another person’s property. It is difficult to imagine that the action itself can be considered morally good are at least indifferent. Thus, it seems condition 1 fails.

What is the good effect? End to abortion? That may be your intention, but the effect does not follow from the action. So, in this instance, the good effect is not even produced, let alone produced as a result of the evil effect. Perhaps you have merely delayed some abortion. You’ve destroyed a building and risked innocent lives only to bring about a re-schedule for the abortionists.

Did you intend the evil effect? Certainly. Thus condition #3 fails.

Is there sufficient reason to burn down a building, thereby risking damage to other property unrelated the sin of aboriton and risking other lives, unrelated to the sin of abortion? I can’t see how, since the evil that is intended will have no consequence on the number of abortions conducted in this the world. They will just abort somewhere else.

In the final analysis, such an evil act does bring about a good effect. It is in itself little more than an irrational act of terrorism.

I recommend we apply the principles of ethics in determining the answer to the question. These principles are not simply Catholic, but are also taught in secular ethics courses in college.

 

[estesbob]

And I’ve encountered girls who chose abortion so they could fit into their prom dress.

I take this sentiment not as proof of coercion, but of maturity and acceptance of the responsibility for a poor choice made–and the natural consequences flowing therefrom–including a sense of failure, guilt and remorse.

One of the saddest one i ran into was the a high school senior who aborted because the NERDS in school were teasing her about her weight. I wonder, 15 years later, how she looks back on that. I pray for her a lot. There is no doubt in my mind that someday(if not already) she will wake up to the horror of what she did.

 

[Island_Oak]

… I pray for her a lot. There is no doubt in my mind that someday(if not already) she will wake up to the horror of what she did.

Ahhh…beautiful consensus. I pray for these women–known and unknown–often, as well. Despite the hard line I take with regard to accepting responsibility for exercising the choice, I am profoundly encouraged by the generous support the Church offers these women and many ministries that support them and help them move through their grief and despair. She is both gentle and generous in offering assurances of hope, forgiveness and new beginings.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

It is perfectly possible to oppose it by means which are not only legal, but ( what is even more important) are also moral - therefore, it is completely wrong to resort immoral or illegal ones. If we could not oppose it without breaking the law by virtue of opposing it, that would be a different moral situation. But we are not in that situation; it is possibly to act against abortion, without breaking the law.​

It may be worth emphasising that what is legal is not always moral; just as what is moral is not all of it enacted into law. They are two separate and fluctuating categories which to some extent overlap.

As to the examples given: driving, and using a computer, are both too remote from enabling, causing, or performing an abortion, to be appropriate means of avoiding abortions. Both activities are legal, & neither is directly immoral - at worst, they can be proximate occasions of sin. And it is not always sinful, though it is always dangerous, to go into a situation in which one will be in a proximate occasion of sin. Cars & computers belonging to those who provide abortions can be used for morally neutral or morally good purposes, so it would be wrong to destroy or damage them.

Short answer to each of the three questions:

• No
• No
• No
  Hope that helps ##

I think this is starting to provide necessary distinctions, and I would also like to add another one crucial to this discussion:

Although one may never do evil that good may come of it, breaking the law is not absolutely and categorically evil. In cases of necessity even a just law may be broken licitly. For example, driving through a residential neighborhood you see someone who seems to be drowning but you find the street does not have any legal parking available. Rather than having to drive around to find a space before you can try to save a life, it’s perfectly acceptable in that case to park the car (as safely and prudently as can be done in the circumstances) and rush to help.

Just because situations exist in which one may legitimately break the law, though (and thus not be doing evil for the sake of good), that doesn’t mean the door is thrown wide open. As Michael pointed out, there is a difference between harrassing an abortionist and actually preventing him from murdering a child, and there are also legal means available to fight the evil. So one would have to identify specific cases in which one a) could immediately prevent evil - not just proximately and b) no legal avenues existed or could be employed in the necessary amount of time.

 

[Steadfast_love]

Sailboat,

I want to hear more. I think the arson and murder angle is played out but I am still interested in your original question about sabotage. Mind If I rephrase your question?

The nuns from the Musical The Sound of Music sabotaged Nazi cars to enable the charming Von Trapp family to escape. This is almost universaly viewed as a good act.

Question 1:
Was it licit for the Sound of Music Nuns to sabotage the Nazi-mobile to save the Von Trapps?

Question 2:
Would it be licit for the Sound of Music Nuns to sabotage the DrunkDriver-mobile to save the lives of innocent drivers?

Question 3:
Would it be licit for the Sound of Music Nuns to sabotage the Abortion-mobile to save the unborn?

If your answers don’t match, isn’t that because you don’t realy value the lives of the unborn as much as the you value the lives of the charming Von Trapp family, and your own innocent car driving self?

Note: For the purposes of this question The Sound of Music Nuns DO NOT conduct low precision bombing raids, employ weapons of mass destruction, accidentaly kill firemen or cause trafic accidents. They only steal the starters on cars and trucks.

 

[calchiquita]

Is it ok to break the law to keep a clinic open?

I am referring first to the lack of accountablility in abortion clinics. There is very often not true “informed consent” - (how many women/girls who ask if it is a baby are told no).

Second, not every clinic has emergency personnel in case of problems. And those with problems are not always transported to the closest ER but taken to hospitals where a friend works so that it does not go on record as a botched abortion.

I know it wasn’t the posted question.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Much as I love the Sound of Music, this scenario is what you get when you deal with the “hollywoodization” of a story.

There were no ‘nazi-sabotaging’ nuns in the REAL Von Trapp story. The entire situation with the sabotage was part of a screenplay.

Unfortunately for us as Catholics, when people are exposed to FICTIONALIZED examples of “Catholics” who act in morally ambigous or morally wrong ways, they tend to think that REAL Catholics act that way because they are “allowed” to, or SUPPOSED to. I mean, isn’t the “help” those dear sweet nuns gave the Von Trapps MUCH more “Christian” than just, oh, say, praying? A bunch of nuns just ‘praying’ isn’t NEARLY as effective ‘witness’ as battery stealing nuns (pardon my sarcasm).

 

[T1Catholic]

The same was said about slavery the firts 350 years of our country’s existence.

I knew somebody would bring that up. The world was a completely different place back then compared to today. Back then, homosexuality, sex before marriage, women working outside the home and all kinds of other things would never have been tolerated. Our society today is one based on personal rights and I just can’t see a massive change in mindset. I wish it would change, but I don’t think it’s being realistic. I heard on Catholic radio once someone said we would probably have more success changing hearts than changing laws. How to change hearts is the challenge though.

 

[estesbob]

I knew somebody would bring that up. The world was a completely different place back then compared to today. Back then, homosexuality, sex before marriage, women working outside the home and all kinds of other things would never have been tolerated. Our society today is one based on personal rights and I just can’t see a massive change in mindset. I wish it would change, but I don’t think it’s being realistic. I heard on Catholic radio once someone said we would probably have more success changing hearts than changing laws. How to change hearts is the challenge though.

Over a half million Americans died to “change” the hearts on slavery. Thus far 40 plus million chidren have died in the name of "choice’. I am working hard with milionsof others to end the abomination enshrined in law by Roe V Wade. Lets stop the killing and worry about changing hearts later.

 

[estesbob]

Sailboat,

I want to hear more. I think the arson and murder angle is played out but I am still interested in your original question about sabotage. Mind If I rephrase your question?

The nuns from the Musical The Sound of Music sabotaged Nazi cars to enable the charming Von Trapp family to escape. This is almost universaly viewed as a good act.

Question 1:
Was it licit for the Sound of Music Nuns to sabotage the Nazi-mobile to save the Von Trapps?

Question 2:
Would it be licit for the Sound of Music Nuns to sabotage the DrunkDriver-mobile to save the lives of innocent drivers?

Question 3:
Would it be licit for the Sound of Music Nuns to sabotage the Abortion-mobile to save the unborn?

If your answers don’t match, isn’t that because you don’t realy value the lives of the unborn as much as the you value the lives of the charming Von Trapp family, and your own innocent car driving self?

Note: For the purposes of this question The Sound of Music Nuns DO NOT conduct low precision bombing raids, employ weapons of mass destruction, accidentaly kill firemen or cause trafic accidents. They only steal the starters on cars and trucks.

would it have bee licit if the nuns had waited until the car was occupied and then blown it into little bits? besided i seem to recall the nun who did expressng the need to confess…

 

[Sailboat]

It seems as if the forces of darkess are stronger than us alot of the time. All I see around me is depravity. On TV, in the supermarket checkout, our culture is saturated with sex and violence. Have you read the titles of the articles on the magazines at the supermarket lately? The women’s magazines all talk about 101 ways to have better sex, right there in front of my children’s eyes. It’s sick.

 

[Julianna]

Also, restoring a sense of shame and bringing peer pressure can help.

What is your theory on this idea?

1. How to restore a sense of shame?
2. How would bringing peer pressure help?

 

[estesbob]

What is your theory on this idea?

1. How to restore a sense of shame?
2. How would bringing peer pressure help?

We start by revealing what the “choice” they are talking about that really entails. One thing the CPCs have started doing that helps a lot is offering free 3d ultrasounds. The overwhlelming number of women who see an ultrasound of their unborn child choose life. Abortion mills fight ultrasound tooth and nail. They even fight laws that require them show any ultrasound they do to the Mother prior to the abortion.

We need to chip away at the culture, especially found in high school and college, that claims abortion is noble and adoption is abandoning ones child. you would not believe the number of young women who head to the abortion mill thinking "I could never let someone else raise MY child.

The people on the front lines of this battle are those who work in the CPCs