San Francisco Approves Gun, Military Recruiting Ban

[vern_humphrey]

Philip P:

No, I’d like you to think a bit deeper about why abortion is immoral.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being’s right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80 "The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child’s rights."81

Note the highlighted word, “innocent.”

On the other hand, the Church says:

**2263 **The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not.”

Philip P:

I maintain there is a deep connection between the acceptance of abortion, the acceptance of torture, the acceptance of the death penalty, and the embrace of guns in this country.

I maintain there is a deep connection between the acceptance of abortion and the acceptance of what are generally called “liberal” ideas. Even some Catholics will use all sorts of sophistry to justify supporting pro-abortion politicians, and will use things like “gun control” among those justifications.
Philip P:

The gun debate is really more about culture than crime (since gun laws make little difference either way on crime rates). Abortion is relevant to debates on American culture. I’m interested - why do you believe abortion is immoral?

Because I believe that the inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

I do want to use that angle. It’s the one I think most relevant. Note, though, that I’m not arguing causality (i.e. abortions cause gun violence, or vice versa). Rather, I’m arguing that both gun violence and abortion are consequences of the same source - namely, a dehumanizing culture.

I would expect that in countries with high rates of abortion, you find many dehumanizing elements within the culture. Europe’s stats seem to support this. Overall, it has a higher rate than the US (which is 22.9/thousand). Breaking it down, though, we find this is mostly due to high rates in Eastern Europe (90/thousand). Given the long experience of dehumanizing Soviet domination, we should perhaps not be surprised. In Western Europe, by contrast, the overall rate is **lower **than the US, by a lot, at 11/thousand.

(link: guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html. Note that these are 1996 figures)

Now, if someone can find stats on gun laws in these regions, let’s put that up alongside these and see what happens. Remember, we’re not arguing casuality, but congruence.

But you’re missing the big picture: there’s has been a gun culture all over the western world long before abortions. You can’t compare the two, no matter on what level you try to.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

I do want to use that angle. It’s the one I think most relevant. Note, though, that I’m not arguing causality (i.e. abortions cause gun violence, or vice versa). Rather, I’m arguing that both gun violence and abortion are consequences of the same source - namely, a dehumanizing culture.

I would expect that in countries with high rates of abortion, you find many dehumanizing elements within the culture. Europe’s stats seem to support this. Overall, it has a higher rate than the US (which is 22.9/thousand). Breaking it down, though, we find this is mostly due to high rates in Eastern Europe (90/thousand). Given the long experience of dehumanizing Soviet domination, we should perhaps not be surprised. In Western Europe, by contrast, the overall rate is **lower **than the US, by a lot, at 11/thousand.

(link: guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/25s3099.html. Note that these are 1996 figures)

Now, if someone can find stats on gun laws in these regions, let’s put that up alongside these and see what happens. Remember, we’re not arguing casuality, but congruence.

According to your website, Europe is the highest with 48 abortions per thousand.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

But you’re missing the big picture: there’s has been a gun culture all over the western world long before abortions. You can’t compare the two, no matter on what level you try to.

For those who truly **want **to believe, little things like that are inconsequential.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

 

[Philip_P]

wabrams:

According to your website, Europe is the highest with 48 abortions per thousand.

Look closer. Overall it is highest. When you take out Eastern Europe, it is among the lowest. “Europe” is a large and varied collection of countries, cultures, and regions.

 

[Philip_P]

wabrams:

But you’re missing the big picture: there’s has been a gun culture all over the western world long before abortions. You can’t compare the two, no matter on what level you try to.

Imagine that, no golden past. There were dehumanizing attitudes in the past. Dehumanizing attitudes exist today. Widespread abortion is an indicator of this.

So long as we persist in seeing it as a partisan issue (i.e. abortion is liberals fault, gun violence is conservatives fault), we’ll never solve the problem. Real results require stepping across the partisan line.

 

[Philip_P]

vern humphrey:

Because I believe that the inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

If it’s only innocence that counts, there’s nothing wrong with abortion. It may even be a duty. I’m not comfortable with that conclusion, are you?

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

Look closer. Overall it is highest. When you take out Eastern Europe, it is among the lowest. “Europe” is a large and varied collection of countries, cultures, and regions.

Alot like the US.

 

[wabrams]

Philip P:

Imagine that, no golden past. There were dehumanizing attitudes in the past. Dehumanizing attitudes exist today. Widespread abortion is an indicator of this.

So long as we persist in seeing it as a partisan issue (i.e. abortion is liberals fault, gun violence is conservatives fault), we’ll never solve the problem. Real results require stepping across the partisan line.

The only evidence we need to know it exists is to look in the mirror; as long as man is here there will be that issue.

It will always be a partisan issue: the ones that don’t want guns available have are the same ones that have the relativist attitude.

 

[st.jerome]

vern humphrey:

And you’re accusing me of something I have not done.

I suggest you have a very prejudiced view of the people on this echo who support the right to self-defense.

You put self-defense, violence, and guns into the same pot and stirred. I just pointed out that you could discuss self-defense without even mentioning violence and guns. Is that really so wrong? By the way, violence and guns are not of particular help to anyone who wants to live a quiet, blameless life.

 

[vern_humphrey]

st.jerome:

You put self-defense, violence, and guns into the same pot and stirred. I just pointed out that you could discuss self-defense without even mentioning violence and guns.

I assume you mean something here, but I’m at a loss to find it

st.jerome:

Is that really so wrong? By the way, violence and guns are not of particular help to anyone who wants to live a quiet, blameless life.

The ability to live a quiet, blameless life is contigent on someone defending you as you do it.

 

[wabrams]

st.jerome:

You put self-defense, violence, and guns into the same pot and stirred. I just pointed out that you could discuss self-defense without even mentioning violence and guns. Is that really so wrong? By the way, violence and guns are not of particular help to anyone who wants to live a quiet, blameless life.

You need to go back and read post #185. No one on the pro-gun side has said they all go hand in hand. Guns are only violent when used for devious reasons. The same could be said of ones fists or mouth.

 

[wabrams]

vern humphrey:

For those who truly **want **to believe, little things like that are inconsequential.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif

You can almost see them with their ears covered yelling: “Lalalala I can’t here you!”

 

[st.jerome]

vern humphrey:

The ability to live a quiet, blameless life is contigent on someone defending you as you do it.

Let’s suppose that that’s true. If the unintended consequence of defense is the killing of the assailant, then, logically, it can never be intended. That’s a very pacifistic attitude which the Church adopts and should be stressed in discussions of guns and violence.

 

[vern_humphrey]

st.jerome:

Let’s suppose that that’s true. If the unintended consequence of defense is the killing of the assailant, then, logically, it can never be intended. That’s a very pacifistic attitude which the Church adopts and should be stressed in discussions of guns and violence.

You really reached for that one, didn’t you?http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

An unintended consequence is not necessarily an accident or unforseen consequence.

Now, understanding that, we can see how a surgeon could amputate a gangrenous leg – knowing it will leave his patient crippeled. Saving the patient’s life is the intended consequence. Leaving the patient crippeled is the forseen, but unintended consequence.

Next, if you know anything about self-defense, you’d see that your remarks are talking down to everyone here – we know very well the Church’s teaching on self-defense. You seem prejudiced against those on the opposite side of the issue – falsely attributing motives and ideas to them.

 

[vern_humphrey]

wabrams:

You can almost see them with their ears covered yelling: “Lalalala I can’t here you!”

That conjures up a vision of three monkies; see no logic, hear no logic, speak no logic.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon10.gif

 

[st.jerome]

vern humphrey:

Now, understanding that, we can see how a surgeon could amputate a gangrenous leg – knowing it will leave his patient crippeled. Saving the patient’s life is the intended consequence. Leaving the patient crippeled is the forseen, but unintended consequence.

Sorry, but no go. With amputation, the very nature of the operation is to remove limbs–its not only a foreseen consequence, its the very intention of the act. In short, you intend to both remove the leg and the infection. Both are intended.

In self-defense, you do not intend to both kill the assailant and save your life. Can you beat that?

 

[vern_humphrey]

st.jerome:

Sorry, but no go.

Sorry, but yes.

st.jerome:

With amputation, the very nature of the operation is to remove limbs–its not only a foreseen consequence, its the very intention of the act. In short, you intend to both remove the leg and the infection. Both are intended.

And the crippling of the patient is the forseen but unintended consequence.

st.jerome:

In self-defense, you do not intend to both kill the assailant and save your life. Can you beat that?

In self-defense, you intend to save your life. If you are forced to use deadly force, the killing of the assailent is a forseen but unintended consequence.

 

[st.jerome]

vern humphrey:

And the crippling of the patient is the forseen but unintended consequence.

In self-defense, you intend to save your life. If you are forced to use deadly force, the killing of the assailent is a forseen but unintended consequence.

I intend to remove the leg, fact, this will cripple the patient, fact, and yet I do not intend this? If that leg is past help, then your darn right I intend to cripple the patient! Its based on the notion that he’s better off crippled than dying a horrible death.

The way I understand it is, if I intend to save my life, and I’m cornered by the assailent, I can restrain or incapacitate. If something goes wrong and he dies, its not because I foresaw his death. Its because I intended to incapacitate him.

 

[vern_humphrey]

st.jerome:

I intend to remove the leg, fact, this will cripple the patient, fact, and yet I do not intend this? If that leg is past help, then your darn right I intend to cripple the patient! Its based on the notion that he’s better off crippled than dying a horrible death.

You really need to study the Catechism. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of this basic Catholic principle of morality. To help you, I include below a paragraph from the Catechism where this prinicple is active.

[2263](javascriptpenWindow(‘cr/2263.htm’) The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."65

2264 Love toward oneself remains a fundamental principle of morality. Therefore it is legitimate to insist on respect for one’s own right to life.** Someone who defends his life is not guilty of murder even if he is forced to deal his aggressor a lethal blow:**

If a man in self-defense uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repels force with moderation, his defense will be lawful. . . . Nor is it necessary for salvation that a man omit the act of moderate self-defense to avoid killing the other man, since one is bound to take more care of one’s own life than of another’s.66 (emphasis added.)

st.jerome:

The way I understand it is, if I intend to save my life, and I’m cornered by the assailent, I can restrain or incapacitate. If something goes wrong and he dies, its not because I foresaw his death. Its because I intended to incapacitate him.

Your error here is not allowing for the use of deadly force. When you have no alternative but deadly force, you use it – forseeing that it will kill your opponent, but not having his death as your desired outcome.