The Holocaust, War, Justifiable Homicide, and War

  • Thread starter Thread starter Salvatore123
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Salvatore123 said:
As an orthodox Catholic who also happens to have a bachelor’s and master’s degree with “heavy doses” of logic, in addition to a law degree (I mention this not to brag - it is simply for information/background on me for the reader of this thread), I have always wondered about the logic of the following scenarios, and to date, I have yet to find ONE priest who can LOGICALLY find fault with my logic.

Caveat: I am NOT advocating killing abortionist, nor bombing abortion clinics, nor committing any type of violence in any way. I posted this ONLY to get the views of others.

Situation A: During WWII, our strategic bombing surveys showed early on proof of the concentration camps, and our intelligence supported the surveys that people were being by the hundreds of thousands at these camps.

Solution: As we were at war, an in an attempt to at least slow down the horrific murders being committed at the concentration camps, I submit that no reasonable person would be able to fault a commando team sent in to blow up the gas and burn chambers, which would have obviously resulted in killing many enemy guards, and possibly some prisoners pressed into service by the Nazis. At that time, no one questioned that our entrance and fight in WWII met the conditions for a “just war”. Thus, I do not believe it would have been sinful for the Allies to have destroyed the death camps, and in the process, kill guards who would have tried to prevent the destruction of those camps. Why? Because such commandos were on a mission to prevent (or at least slow down) the destruction of an entire race.

Situation B: During the war with Japan, the Americans bombed Iwo Jima for weeks before landing on the beaches and engaging in horrific fighting that resulted in tremendous casualties for both sides. Iwo (and other islands in the Pacific) served a strategic purpose in that it enabled (once captured) our planes to fuel and fly shorter distances for their bombing runs over Japan. Shorter distances meant the use of less fuel, and that enabled us to load our bombers with more bombs.

Situation C: I walk in from work and see an intruder in my home who has tied up my family and appears he is about to kill one of my family members. My entrance into my home happens to take me near a cabinet where I hide a loaded gun for self protection. I retrieve the gun, point it at the intruder, tell him to stop, but he instead moves as though he is going to kill one of my family members quicker than before he heard me yell stop. I then shoot him and he is killed. By all accounts, that would be justifiable homicide.

Situation D: Given the above examples, and considering the Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at the moment of conception, why do we say it is permissible to kill to prevent others from killing (if that is the only way), to protect our homeland during war, and to prevent death to a family member, yet we say it is NOT permissible to kill an abortion doctor who is walking into a clinic to perform abortions as he does every day?

From a logician’s view, it seems to me that we find it more reprehensible to kill another if that other person is about to kill someone that we can see, touch, feel, love, as opposed to an embryo that cannot be seen with the naked eye, that we cannot really touch or feel or love. Yet, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS said that “life is life”, from the moment of conception until natural death, and that the intentional taking of that life is murder, unless “justified” by the examples I gave above.

Can someone please tell me why it would be okay for me to shoot someone who was about to hit my child with an axe, but I am told it would NOT be okay for me to shoot someone who is about to insert a vacuum device inside of a woman’s uterus for the purpose of killing her unborn child?
Click to expand...
Well,first of all,this is an old argument.one that is designed to neutralize pro-(innocent) lifers!.Stretching out your argument,what of playrights and song writers who plug pro-drug songs,or whores who spread diseases while they smile and take your money…what of the military-industrial complex who sends our untrained national guard to go to foreign countries to stand on a street corner as targets for 12 year old muslim terrorists…on and on. First all doctors who perform abortions are to have their licenses taken away. Mothers to be who had their developing baby killed should do community service for a year…in this crazy world the sinners are on the outside of the cages and we honest folks inside!.Frank Sinatras mother used to run abortions from her home in the 1930s,for his reward,ole blue eyes earned a mysterious 4-f designation,did not serve and made millions singing love songs to teens while others fought and died to give him that freedom…its a mad mad mad world…and Rep.Charley Rangal is accepting money to help pay for his many law infractions…remember on Cheers,only the coach was a decent fellow and he had to be shown that he also was a kook who got hit in the head as a player so thats why he had values…happy new year and join us at DC on the 22nd…brrrr always cold down there.
 
Raskolnikov, you said:

“I don’t think serial killers can be accurately compared with abortionists for several reasons. They are similar in so far as they both kill other human beings. However, serial killers are aware that what they are doing is wrong and illegal; doctors who perform abortions know that doing so is legal and they do not think it is immoral, because they don’t believe that they killing human bings. Serial killers are usually sociapaths, and cannot (as far as modern medicine can tell) be changed; abortionists are simply mistaken, horrible mistaken, but still have consciences, however logically errant they are. Also, serial killers don’t think they are engaged in a culture war against people trying to attack their rights; if the state, or a vigilante kills a serial killer, other serial killers don’t turn them into a martyr for the serial killer cause. Every act of violence against an abortionist, however, rallies supporters of abortion and is a huge step back for the pro-life cause.”

I disagree for several reasons:
  1. Serial killers, AS SOCIOPATHS, have a “built in” defense of “I do not know the difference between right and wrong”, which has been a bedrock defense for crimes for centuries. We simply do not punish people who have lost touch with reality.
  2. Abortionists, as well as the politicians who enact legislation that allow them to function, can hardly claim that they “don’t know what they are doing is wrong”. If they grew up in a society where abortion was TAUGHT as being a “good thing” and that there is NOTHING wrong with it, then we are presented with a scenario similar to natives found living on an isolated island who act in ways we would consider sinful, but who don’t know any better because they have never been taught any other way.
But people such as Pelosi and the Kennedys do NOT have the “luxury” of saying “I don’t know that abortion is wrong”. They, as “Catholics”, were taught that abortion is wrong from the time they learned to read and write. As Cardinal Arinze said during a question and answer session he held in America several years ago: “You do not need to ask a Cardinal if voting for a candidate who will enact laws that permit the murder of millions of unborn children - you can ask any 7 seven year old child and he or she will tell you that is wrong.”

In the end, I sincerely wish that someone would explain to me the difference, THEOLOGICALLY, ETHICALLY, and MORALLY, between (I will “throw away” the war examples and focus on what I believe is an “apple to apple” comparison) killing a person who is about to kill one of my family members and killing an abortionist who is about to insert a vacuum tube into a woman to destroy the unborn child.
 
Salvatore123 said:
But people such as Pelosi and the Kennedys do NOT have the “luxury” of saying “I don’t know that abortion is wrong”. They, as “Catholics”, were taught that abortion is wrong from the time they learned to read and write. As Cardinal Arinze said during a question and answer session he held in America several years ago: “You do not need to ask a Cardinal if voting for a candidate who will enact laws that permit the murder of millions of unborn children - you can ask any 7 seven year old child and he or she will tell you that is wrong.”
Click to expand...
That they were taught that abortion is wrong does not necessarily mean that, deep down, they believe it is. In fact, they would likely tell you that it was their teachers who were wrong. People sincerely abandon the teachings of their upbringing all the time. Sometimes they abandon Catholic or Christian teaching for an alternative; some times they abandon some other kind of upbringing and adopt Catholicism. Or, many like Peolosi and Kennedy would probably say (or have said) that they ‘personally’ think abortion is wrong, but they don’t want to ‘impose’ their morality on anyone else. They’re not ignoring their consciences; in fact, they have a deep rooted misunderstanding about what kind of action abortion is; it is not an imposition of Catholic morality on humanity in the sense that outlawing eating meat on Fridays would be; it is the proper imposition of a basic human right and an essentially universally agreed moral principle (“thou shalt not kill”) necessary for the proper functioning of society on everyone.

It is because of this misunderstanding, I think, that pro-choice people have no awareness of that what they are supporting is wrong; in fact, many, perhaps most think it is their opponents who are morally wrong. Some are even quite proud of their position on the issue.
 
Raskolnikov,

I am responding, NOT to debate you on the point, but simply to point out something:

Given your response below, it seems that every Catholic who rejects SOME dogma of the Catholic faith will always claim what you describe. Some things to ponder:

Do you believe that a person raised Catholic from birth to adulthood who was taught as much of our faith as possible, can legitimately claim:
  1. It is okay to be married to two people at the same time?
  2. That transubstantiation does not REALLY occur?
  3. That, although in mortal sin, one does not HAVE to go to confession for forgiveness - one may simply ask God?
You see what I am getting at . . . at what point do people (before meeting God) have to be held accountable for what they believe?

In addition, given what you say: If Pelosi SINCERELY believes that abortion on demand at any time is permissible, would it be wrong for her bishop to ban her from communion?

You said: “Or, many like Peolosi and Kennedy would probably say (or have said) that they ‘personally’ think abortion is wrong, but they don’t want to ‘impose’ their morality on anyone else. They’re not ignoring their consciences; in fact, they have a deep rooted misunderstanding about what kind of action abortion is; it is not an imposition of Catholic morality on humanity in the sense that outlawing eating meat on Fridays would be; it is the proper imposition of a basic human right and an essentially universally agreed moral principle (“thou shalt not kill”) necessary for the proper functioning of society on everyone.”

In the question and answer session I mentioned regarding Cardinal Arinze (it is on Youtube), he was asked about this “I don’t want to impose my beliefs on you” position, and he (in my opinion) rightly answered (and I am paraphrasing, but not by much): “Well what happens if someone wants to walk into the Senate with a gun and shoot everyone in sight? I, personally, am against you doing that, but who am I to try to impose my belief that you should not kill everyone in sight?”

Although humorous when he said it, the Cardinal made a valid point.

Even though you seem to “validate” the contention that some politicians don’t want to impose “their views” on particular issues, and so actively try to prevent laws on the subject. But isn’t their active prevention doing exactly what they say they don’t want to do . . . impose their views on others?
 
What exactly so you mean by “legitimately?” Certainly, people raised thoroughly Catholic can and have, in their adulthood, abandoned Church teaching on abortion; as well as on other matters; people raised and educated as Catholics have gone on to become murderers or bank robbers. I’m not saying they can ‘legitimately’ be Catholics after having abandoned vital Church teaching. I suppose what I was getting at was that we may just as well treat them as non-Catholics. They, like someone was not raised Catholic and was never taught that abortion was wrong, sincerely believe that it isn’t wrong. Would one, for example, consider a Catholic who stops believing transubstantiation and because a Protestant “worse” than someone who was born a Protestant and never believed in it? I’m not positing an answer to this question, just noting that it is a question to be dealth with.

Are you contrasting those who ‘don’t know any better’ because they were not educated and raised in Catholicism with those who ‘converted’ away from upbringing? Just trying to clarify.

As far as the bishop denying communion is concerned, I suppose the logical conclusion by thought process as elaborated above, which would regard a Pelosi as essentially being a willful “convert” to “bad Catholicism”, rather than as someone who is wholly aware that they are wrong but are supporting the wrongdoing for anyway, would be that it could be argued that the bishop could deny them communion just as he would deny communion to a Catholic who converted to Protestantism; the only difference is, the “Pelosi-type,” unlike the Protestant, is unaware (or refuses to accept) that she has “converted.”

Generally, though, I haven’t really formed much of an opinion on the issue of revoking communion for pro-choice politicians. This is just the type of argument I think could be validly made.” Of course, we might encounter some ambiguities when we start differentiating between “bad Catholics” and “no-longer-Catholics.”

I definitely don’t dispute the Cardinal’s point. I was just speculating what I suspect is the opinion of pro-choicers who play the “legislating morality” card. In a free, democratic society, there are areas in which we don’t impose our beliefs. We don’t make Jews and Muslims go to mass on Sunday, we don’t outlaw taking the Lord’s name in vain.

But there are other impositions which we do make. Murder , assault, theft and rape, for example. If there are (and there probably are a few) people who think that murder, assault, theft, or rape is okay, Christians (and everyone else, for that matter) would still impose their belief that murder, assault, theft, and rape are wrong on the small minority. Some people would say these issues are different from mass attendance or profanity because they are matters of ‘public morality’ rather than ‘private morality’ or because these actions violate intrinsic rights. Either way, as I observe it at least, the main difference is, those of us who are pro-life say abortion belongs in the latter category (something to be outlawed as a matter of public morality to protect a person’s intrinsic rights) while pro-choice people say it is matter private morality. I suppose, one might respond to this position by saying that beating up one’s wife or kids was once an issue of “private morality,” and the government saw no need to step in and tell the husband/father how to treat his family; however, since society expanded our protection of rights to include wives and children from possible violations of their husbands and father, one could argue that it should now be expanded to protect unborn children from the potential rights violations of their mothers. Not really relevant to the current discussion, but just a thought on how pro-lifers could reshape the debate with the pro-choice side.
 
Raskolnikov said:
What exactly do you mean by “legitimately?” Certainly, people raised thoroughly Catholic can and have, in their adulthood, abandoned Church teaching on abortion; as well as on other matters; people raised and educated as Catholics have gone on to become murderers or bank robbers. I’m not saying they can ‘legitimately’ be Catholics after having abandoned vital Church teaching. I suppose what I was getting at was that we may just as well treat them as non-Catholics. They, like someone was not raised Catholic and was never taught that abortion was wrong, sincerely believe that it isn’t wrong. Would one, for example, consider a Catholic who stops believing transubstantiation and because a Protestant “worse” than someone who was born a Protestant and never believed in it? I’m not positing an answer to this question, just noting that it is a question to be dealth with.

Are you contrasting those who ‘don’t know any better’ because they were not educated and raised in Catholicism with those who ‘converted’ away from upbringing? Just trying to clarify.

As far as the bishop denying communion is concerned, I suppose the logical conclusion by thought process as elaborated above, which would regard a Pelosi as essentially being a willful “convert” to “bad Catholicism”, rather than as someone who is wholly aware that they are wrong but are supporting the wrongdoing for anyway, would be that it could be argued that the bishop could deny them communion just as he would deny communion to a Catholic who converted to Protestantism; the only difference is, the “Pelosi-type,” unlike the Protestant, is unaware (or refuses to accept) that she has “converted.”

Generally, though, I haven’t really formed much of an opinion on the issue of revoking communion for pro-choice politicians. This is just the type of argument I think could be validly made.” Of course, we might encounter some ambiguities when we start differentiating between “bad Catholics” and “no-longer-Catholics.”

I definitely don’t dispute the Cardinal’s point. I was just speculating what I suspect is the opinion of pro-choicers who play the “legislating morality” card. In a free, democratic society, there are areas in which we don’t impose our beliefs. We don’t make Jews and Muslims go to mass on Sunday, we don’t outlaw taking the Lord’s name in vain.

But there are other impositions which we do make. Murder , assault, theft and rape, for example. If there are (and there probably are a few) people who think that murder, assault, theft, or rape is okay, Christians (and everyone else, for that matter) would still impose their belief that murder, assault, theft, and rape are wrong on the small minority. Some people would say these issues are different from mass attendance or profanity because they are matters of ‘public morality’ rather than ‘private morality’ or because these actions violate intrinsic rights. Either way, as I observe it at least, the main difference is, those of us who are pro-life say abortion belongs in the latter category (something to be outlawed as a matter of public morality to protect a person’s intrinsic rights) while pro-choice people say it is matter private morality. I suppose, one might respond to this position by saying that beating up one’s wife or kids was once an issue of “private morality,” and the government saw no need to step in and tell the husband/father how to treat his family; however, since society expanded our protection of rights to include wives and children from possible violations of their husbands and father, one could argue that it should now be expanded to protect unborn children from the potential rights violations of their mothers. Not really relevant to the current discussion, but just a thought on how pro-lifers could reshape the debate with the pro-choice side.
Click to expand...
 
Salvatore123 said:
Raskolnikov,

I am responding, NOT to debate you on the point, but simply to point out something:

Given your response below, it seems that every Catholic who rejects SOME dogma of the Catholic faith will always claim what you describe. Some things to ponder:

Do you believe that a person raised Catholic from birth to adulthood who was taught as much of our faith as possible, can legitimately claim:
  1. It is okay to be married to two people at the same time?
  2. That transubstantiation does not REALLY occur?
  3. That, although in mortal sin, one does not HAVE to go to confession for forgiveness - one may simply ask God?
You see what I am getting at . . . at what point do people (before meeting God) have to be held accountable for what they believe?

In addition, given what you say: If Pelosi SINCERELY believes that abortion on demand at any time is permissible, would it be wrong for her bishop to ban her from communion?

You said: “Or, many like Peolosi and Kennedy would probably say (or have said) that they ‘personally’ think abortion is wrong, but they don’t want to ‘impose’ their morality on anyone else. They’re not ignoring their consciences; in fact, they have a deep rooted misunderstanding about what kind of action abortion is; it is not an imposition of Catholic morality on humanity in the sense that outlawing eating meat on Fridays would be; it is the proper imposition of a basic human right and an essentially universally agreed moral principle (“thou shalt not kill”) necessary for the proper functioning of society on everyone.”

In the question and answer session I mentioned regarding Cardinal Arinze (it is on Youtube), he was asked about this “I don’t want to impose my beliefs on you” position, and he (in my opinion) rightly answered (and I am paraphrasing, but not by much): “Well what happens if someone wants to walk into the Senate with a gun and shoot everyone in sight? I, personally, am against you doing that, but who am I to try to impose my belief that you should not kill everyone in sight?”

Although humorous when he said it, the Cardinal made a valid point.

Even though you seem to “validate” the contention that some politicians don’t want to impose “their views” on particular issues, and so actively try to prevent laws on the subject. But isn’t their active prevention doing exactly what they say they don’t want to do . . . impose their views on others?
Click to expand...
As your original post seemed to indicate, you are conflating a number of moral issues as if they are equivalent. Abortion is not the same as the Holocaust, neither is the same as war.

So…what again is your real question?
 
Vince,

Theologically speaking, if, as the Catholic Church does, we consider that ALL people are deserving of life and may be protected from harm with a proportional defense, then preventing an abortionist from killing an unborn child at the moment he is about to do so is, I submit, no different than preventing an intruder who is about to bury a pick-axe into the head of one of my family members during a robbery.

IF anyone says they are different, FROM A THEOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, then they are fooling themselves and are simply not willing to take the “heat” that goes along with saying that life begins at the moment of conception and deserves the same protection as does a grown child.

To frame the question simple and remove any doubt based on different “scenarios” that one might pose in order to evade answering my question, I suppose this is the ultimate question:

How is killing an abortionist who is about to insert a vacuum inside of a woman’s uterus any different from killing an intruder in my home who is about to kill one of my family members with an axe, IF THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT BOTH IS TO KILL THEM?

I submit that you will not find any reasonable person, given my hypo and the strict limitations I set forth in it, that would deny one the right to kill another who is about to kill my family member. Now why is an abortion treated differently?

This is not rocket engineering - either we afford the same protection to unborn children or we do not (theologically speaking - not from a legal standpoint in America).
 
Salvatore123 said:
Vince,

Theologically speaking, if, as the Catholic Church does, we consider that ALL people are deserving of life and may be protected from harm with a proportional defense, then preventing an abortionist from killing an unborn child at the moment he is about to do so is, I submit, no different than preventing an intruder who is about to bury a pick-axe into the head of one of my family members during a robbery.

IF anyone says they are different, FROM A THEOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, then they are fooling themselves and are simply not willing to take the “heat” that goes along with saying that life begins at the moment of conception and deserves the same protection as does a grown child.

To frame the question simple and remove any doubt based on different “scenarios” that one might pose in order to evade answering my question, I suppose this is the ultimate question:

How is killing an abortionist who is about to insert a vacuum inside of a woman’s uterus any different from killing an intruder in my home who is about to kill one of my family members with an axe, IF THE ONLY WAY TO PREVENT BOTH IS TO KILL THEM?

I submit that you will not find any reasonable person, given my hypo and the strict limitations I set forth in it, that would deny one the right to kill another who is about to kill my family member. Now why is an abortion treated differently?

This is not rocket engineering - either we afford the same protection to unborn children or we do not (theologically speaking - not from a legal standpoint in America).
Click to expand...
This argument may be fine for Catholics (or other Christians who agree with Catholic teaching in this area).

The point is, in our society today, most people do not hold this view.

There is a difference between “human life” and “personhood.” This is an important consideration, morally, when evaluating such hypothetical situations.
 
Vince,

Then you answered my question. You said: “There is a difference between “human life” and “personhood.” This is an important consideration, morally, when evaluating such hypothetical situations.”

But there IS NO DIFFERENCE as you cite as far as the Catholic Church is concerned. And I agree that not everyone believes as the Catholic Church teaches.

That is my point: either we “put up or shut up”. We Catholics either say that killing an unborn child is JUST AS WRONG as killing an 8 year old kid for no reason other that to rob him.
 
In my view, killing abortionists is simply an “unsanctioned execution”, i.e. vigilante justice—that is, you could definitely make the case for executing them but that’s not the job of the private citizen. It’s only morally coherent if you’re going to assert that the entire machinery of law and order has broken down. Not only is that probably not the case (though it needs a major tune-up), you’d obviously expect anyone who disagrees with you to assert that you’re a criminal, even if you’re right and they’re wrong. Notice how nobody who whacks abortionists does seem to expect anyone to consider them a criminal? Yeah, that’s 'cause they’re not all there.
 
Salvatore123 said:
Can someone please tell me why it would be okay for me to shoot someone who was about to hit my child with an axe, but I am told it would NOT be okay for me to shoot someone who is about to insert a vacuum device inside of a woman’s uterus for the purpose of killing her unborn child?
Click to expand...
Surely the problem with the logic is that in the axe scenario you accomplish an objective, while in the abortionist scenario you would never be done. The woman (after treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder :)) can go to another abortionist, then another, then another in a different country if need be - you never achieve your objective.
 
Salvatore123 said:
As an orthodox Catholic who also happens to have a bachelor’s and master’s degree with “heavy doses” of logic, in addition to a law degree (I mention this not to brag - it is simply for information/background on me for the reader of this thread), I have always wondered about the logic of the following scenarios, and to date, I have yet to find ONE priest who can LOGICALLY find fault with my logic.

Caveat: I am NOT advocating killing abortionist, nor bombing abortion clinics, nor committing any type of violence in any way. I posted this ONLY to get the views of others.

Situation A: During WWII, our strategic bombing surveys showed early on proof of the concentration camps, and our intelligence supported the surveys that people were being by the hundreds of thousands at these camps.

Solution: As we were at war, an in an attempt to at least slow down the horrific murders being committed at the concentration camps, I submit that no reasonable person would be able to fault a commando team sent in to blow up the gas and burn chambers, which would have obviously resulted in killing many enemy guards, and possibly some prisoners pressed into service by the Nazis. At that time, no one questioned that our entrance and fight in WWII met the conditions for a “just war”. Thus, I do not believe it would have been sinful for the Allies to have destroyed the death camps, and in the process, kill guards who would have tried to prevent the destruction of those camps. Why? Because such commandos were on a mission to prevent (or at least slow down) the destruction of an entire race.

Situation B: During the war with Japan, the Americans bombed Iwo Jima for weeks before landing on the beaches and engaging in horrific fighting that resulted in tremendous casualties for both sides. Iwo (and other islands in the Pacific) served a strategic purpose in that it enabled (once captured) our planes to fuel and fly shorter distances for their bombing runs over Japan. Shorter distances meant the use of less fuel, and that enabled us to load our bombers with more bombs.

Situation C: I walk in from work and see an intruder in my home who has tied up my family and appears he is about to kill one of my family members. My entrance into my home happens to take me near a cabinet where I hide a loaded gun for self protection. I retrieve the gun, point it at the intruder, tell him to stop, but he instead moves as though he is going to kill one of my family members quicker than before he heard me yell stop. I then shoot him and he is killed. By all accounts, that would be justifiable homicide.

Situation D: Given the above examples, and considering the Catholic Church teaches that human life begins at the moment of conception, why do we say it is permissible to kill to prevent others from killing (if that is the only way), to protect our homeland during war, and to prevent death to a family member, yet we say it is NOT permissible to kill an abortion doctor who is walking into a clinic to perform abortions as he does every day?

From a logician’s view, it seems to me that we find it more reprehensible to kill another if that other person is about to kill someone that we can see, touch, feel, love, as opposed to an embryo that cannot be seen with the naked eye, that we cannot really touch or feel or love. Yet, the Catholic Church has ALWAYS said that “life is life”, from the moment of conception until natural death, and that the intentional taking of that life is murder, unless “justified” by the examples I gave above.

Can someone please tell me why it would be okay for me to shoot someone who was about to hit my child with an axe, but I am told it would NOT be okay for me to shoot someone who is about to insert a vacuum device inside of a woman’s uterus for the purpose of killing her unborn child?
Click to expand...
Situation A: In reality Jews are not a race, many of them aren’t even half semitic, they are a culture and ethnocide is still gravely immoral.
Situation B: The Japanese would not surrender, there was nothing less harmful that we could do to win.
Situation C: it isn’t “justifiable homicide” because homicide necessitates it being illegal, self defense is not illegal.
Situation D: Because he legally can do that.
Salvatore123 said:
Quite frankly, I simply want someone to explain to me (and I mean this sincerely) why we make into a villain (or, perhaps more correctly, recognize as a villain) someone like a Charles Manson, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, but we do not do the same for a “doctor” who has killed many, many more human beings than all of these men put together.

Is it that we are AFRAID to confront the real issues:
  1. Why don’t we call a doctor who performs abortions, murderers? Are we scared that would hurt our “cause”? Such silence led to the Holocaust.
  2. Why don’t our bishops and cardinals “lay down the law” and refuse Holy Communion to someone such as a Ted Kennedy or a Nancy Pelosi, who are so openly contemptuous of Catholic teaching (with Pelosi going so far as to say that BISHOPS WERE WRONG!!)?
As for you PhilipCal, who seem to be able to look into the window of my soul, instead of calling them “theses” and “strawmen”, why not SINCERELY answer the above two questions? Do you think THOSE are “strawmen”? I can tell you for certain - I am not alone among Catholics in wondering why American “Catholics” are so lax on such issues.
Click to expand...
Killing the doctor would be murder, lawfully executing serial killers is not.

murder ecessitates it being illegal, they are however a butcher of humanity

I agree, they should grow a spine
Vince1022 said:
Can you please share where the Catholic Church teaches this? Thanks.
Click to expand...
The Catholic Church doesn’t make that distinction, the burden of proof rests upon the accuser
 
Dakota (and others),

Whether you realize it or not, you are making a point I hoped would surface: “legality” is NOT the same as “morally correct”.

If it WERE the case, then we would have had no basis upon which to prosecute the Nazis after WWII. What was done to Jews by the Nazis WAS LEGAL under the Nuremberg (and subsequent) laws.

I am sure that many people thought that the first African to resist slavery in America (whoever that might have been) was “crazy” too, including some of his fellow slaves. Remember that slavery was also legal - but was it moral? Of course not.

Again: why are Catholics so scared of calling an abortionist a “mass murderer” if (1) the Catholic Church defines an embryo as a human being from the moment of conception, and (2) an abortionist routinely kills human beings by the thousands on a regular basis?

I suggest that it is because many Catholics are afraid of being labeled as “crazy” or “looney”.
 
Salvatore123 said:
Dakota (and others),

Whether you realize it or not, you are making a point I hoped would surface: “legality” is NOT the same as “morally correct”.

If it WERE the case, then we would have had no basis upon which to prosecute the Nazis after WWII. What was done to Jews by the Nazis WAS LEGAL under the Nuremberg (and subsequent) laws.

I am sure that many people thought that the first African to resist slavery in America (whoever that might have been) was “crazy” too, including some of his fellow slaves. Remember that slavery was also legal - but was it moral? Of course not.

Again: why are Catholics so scared of calling an abortionist a “mass murderer” if (1) the Catholic Church defines an embryo as a human being from the moment of conception, and (2) an abortionist routinely kills human beings by the thousands on a regular basis?

I suggest that it is because many Catholics are afraid of being labeled as “crazy” or “looney”.
Click to expand...
Abortionists are not mass murderers, but they are still butcher of humanity en masse
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top