The Holocaust, War, Justifiable Homicide, and War

[Salvatore123]

Resevoir,

You may find this hard to believe, but during voir dire in state court, a questionnaire is sent out where one question SPECIFICALLY asks for one’s religious affiliation. Of course, the jury venire does not have to answer such questions - but they are present.

In my first jury trial (only a year out of law school), I wanted as many protestant evangelicals as possible on my jury, and the least number of Catholics. Although some may be “repulsed” by this (and even my clients wondered why, considering how orthodox I am in my Catholic faith), I had a “method behind the madness”: protestants, on a whole (based on jury studies) tend to award less money for general damages than catholics.

I thought $25,000 was a reasonable amount for the plaintiff’s claimed injuries (we thought he was faking/malingering). He asked for $1.5 million. The jury returned a verdict for $17,500.

The jury foreman was Southern Baptist (my wfie’s former religion before converting to Catholicism).

P.S. - You also need to realize that I am from and practice in Louisiana, with most of my practice in state rather than federal court (althought I am admitted to practice before all Louisiana federal district courts, US 5th, and the US Supreme Court). Given our “civilian nature” of our law, most of our laws are rooted in the Catholic faith, having developed in overwhelmingly Catholic countries more than 200+ years ago (Spain and France).

So what may seem suprising or “ignorant” on my part to you, is simply unfamiliarity with MY jurisdiction on the part of those who are not from it.

BTW - you never answered my question about what country, if they had so chosen to act, would have relied on to attack the US before our Civil War, using the premise that they wanted to overturn our Constitution and caselaw on it, supporting slavery.

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

Resevoir,

You may find this hard to believe, but during voir dire in state court, a questionnaire is sent out where one question SPECIFICALLY asks for one’s religious affiliation. Of course, the jury venire does not have to answer such questions - but they are present.

No, I believe you, your mileage definitely differs. Is that a general questionnaire?

In my first jury trial (only a year out of law school),…

My first, which I lost (but later won on a motion for JNOV) featured an earthquake during the jury polling, which emptied the building, and which I believed was a divine comment on the proceedings.

That napoleonic code stuff is alien to me.

BTW - you never answered my question about what country, if they had so chosen to act, would have relied on to attack the US before our Civil War, using the premise that they wanted to overturn our Constitution and caselaw on it, supporting slavery.

I’m not sure what you’re asking. The British West Africa Squadron was interdicting slave ships (including US flagged ships) until 1860, with some assistance from the USN from the 1820s onward. No country had any interest in doing anything more.

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law in America. I didn’t deny that, in some statements on natural law, God is the source of civil liberties. I said that some formulations do not rely on the Divine, and gave you several examples, such as UN treaties.

But for your information, the DoI is important because it asserts that the rights of man do not originate in a government, or in the king, but are independent of those sources. If the king granted rights, the king could take them away. It is really unimportant whether the rights come from God or implied from Humanity itself.

And what is really important is that the first amendment bars the government from looking to the CofE/Episcopal or your Church as an authoritative source for what rights are. Something you should be thankful for, because if any religion was going to be established in the early USA, it wouldn’t be RC.

Natural law is a dangerous business, given the habit of the USSC to “find” new rights that the government must not intrude on or must underwrite.

 

[Salvatore123]

Resevoir,

You said: “Natural law is a dangerous business, given the habit of the USSC to “find” new rights that the government must not intrude on or must underwrite.”

Heck - I am still trying to get over “'penumbras” . . .

P.S. - You said: “But for your information, the DoI is important because it asserts that the rights of man do not originate in a government, or in the king, but are independent of those sources. If the king granted rights, the king could take them away. It is really unimportant whether the rights come from God or implied from Humanity itself.”

This is really the only statement with which I disagree. I do not fathom rights simply coming from “humanity”.

And I think that what you said is perfectly illustrated by what happened between Henry VIII and the Catholic Church.

And what we have been discussing fits in perfectly with John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and his proposition: do kings derive their rights by those they govern or do they derive their rights from a divinity? I think a great many kings and queens truly believed that their right to govern as sovereign was, in fact, bestowed upon them by God. Natural law is discussed quite a bit in this masterpiece of political theory.

P.S.S. - you said: “I’m not sure what you’re asking. The British West Africa Squadron was interdicting slave ships (including US flagged ships) until 1860, with some assistance from the USN from the 1820s onward. No country had any interest in doing anything more.”

That is my point and what prompted my question: suppose Great Britain or France or any other European country, really disagreed with the Dred Scott decision and decided “enough is enough - slavery in the US must end and must end now”.

My question to you (or anyone else reading this thread) is: What “law” would a country have relied on to invade the US, a sovereign country, and, through the use of force, attempt to outlaw slavery PRIOR to the Missouri Compromise (and any other laws that were passed in an attempt to avert our Civil War)?

 

[Reservoir_Dog]

… I do not fathom rights simply coming from “humanity”.

I point out again that political thinkers have articulated sources of human rights that do not emanate from God. I don’t see this as particularly hostile to religion so much as a statement that government cannot take away rights if government is not the source of rights.

…

.
And what we have been discussing fits in perfectly with John Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and his proposition: do kings derive their rights by those they govern or do they derive their rights from a divinity? I think a great many kings and queens truly believed that their right to govern as sovereign was, in fact, bestowed upon them by God. Natural law is discussed quite a bit in this masterpiece of political theory.

I think they believed it and were ready to defend these divine rights against popular uprisings. Personally I don’t think it matters so much the actual source of rights so long as it is neither God nor government.

P.S.S. - you said: “I’m not sure what you’re asking. The British West Africa Squadron was interdicting slave ships (including US flagged ships) until 1860, with some assistance from the USN from the 1820s onward. No country had any interest in doing anything more.”

…
My question to you (or anyone else reading this thread) is: What “law” would a country have relied on to invade the US, a sovereign country, and, through the use of force, attempt to outlaw slavery PRIOR to the Missouri Compromise (and any other laws that were passed in an attempt to avert our Civil War)?

Political justification is whatever gloss you put ex post facto on whoever wins. It hardly matters what reasons are given or what law is appealed to. That is just an observation of fact, I don’t say this is moral or ethical. In fact, I think the political leaders of the protestant reformation and catholic counter-reformation are roasting in hell for the carnage of the thirty years war. I refer to men like Maximilian I, Frederick V, Wallenstein, the Habsburgs, Gustavus Adolphus et al.

 

[Vince1022]

: How in the world can you say that killing a person is “instrincally wrong” if the death was caused by someone who had absolutely no idea that his act might kill someone AND did not even know his act DID kill someone?

Isn’t this exactly the case with abortion? Someone performing an abortion who has no idea that a person is killed? That’s why I can say in this example killing a person is intrinsically wrong, because taking an innocent human life is intrinsically wrong.

I may misunderstand your response. If so, sorry, and please clarify. Thanks.

What if a volcano errupted and lava killed a bystander? Are you going to suggest that the volcano was acting immorally? As a volcano is not alive, does not possess a soul, and cannot “act” with volition, then a volcano cannot be judged to be moral or immoral.

Well, how is that different from a person who does something such as dumping out garbage (as in my hypothetical) and a person is struck in the head and killed by the garbage, because that person failed to heed warning signs to not go near the chute?

Sorry, it just doesn’t work to compare people and volcanoes as moral agents.

The death of ALL people are morally neutral if one cannot assign a cause of death attributed to someone who acted contrary to God’s law. Only people can act morally or immorally. When I refer to “death” or “killing of a person” (both of which can be caused by nature or other people) in a vacuum, it is impossible to say that the killing or death is anything BUT neutral, if we do not know the intent of the person acting and the circumstances of the death.

Again, where, in the case of abortion, does the Catholic Church teach that the intent of the person acting or the circumstances are required to determine such an act is wrong?

Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that abortion is always wrong, regardless of intent or circumstances?

 

[Vince1022]

If, as the Church does, define a human being, as a fertilized egg, then the intentional destruction of that fertilized egg is abortion.

The Church’s teaching on abortion does not rely on the Church defining a human being as a fertilized egg.

I don’t think the Church does teach such. Do you know where the Church does? Appreciate any reference.

The point is, a fertilized egg is human life.

 

[Vince1022]

:

This section clearly states that people, in certain circumstances, may, in the legitimate defense of persons (that is, justifiable homicide) or societies (that is, just war), are not MURDERING anyone, because they are not intending to necessarily kill anyone. They act with the intent of protecting - killing is a “by product” of that act. Thus, it is permissible to kill people in certain limited circumstances.

No. In these circumstances, they are definitely intending to kill someone. Unless you’re suggesting that a soldier in war (just or not) is not intending to kill?

The point is, in these hypothetically morally justifiable situations, this intent is morally licit (though not obligatory).

This is basic Catholic moral theology.

 

[Vince1022]

:
I think the burden is now ON YOU to tell me the difference between a “human person” a “human being” and “human life”.

As far as I know, a homosapien who is alive is a human being, a human person, and an example of human life.

I am still waiting PATIENTLY (although mine is waning) for your explanation as to how these three phrases are different.

I really don’t get why you are so hung up on abortion being immoral because it kills a “human life” but you do not think it is the same as killing a “human being”.

Sorry to frustrate you. Really.

I am simply asking where the Church teaches these distinctions.

Specifically, with abortion. Does the Church teach abortion is wrong because it kills a human person? If so, where? If not, what’s the difference between human life/person/being?

Thanks.

 

[Salvatore123]

Vince, you said:

1. “Isn’t this exactly the case with abortion? Someone performing an abortion who has no idea that a person is killed? That’s why I can say in this example killing a person is intrinsically wrong, because taking an innocent human life is intrinsically wrong.”

No, Vince, it is NOT the same thing as with abortion. How in the world can you compare a man hunting who shoots at a deer, misses, and HAS NO IDEA that his bullet traveled further and killed another hunter?

Vince, the ONLY way for your “thesis” to hold any weight is for both the abortionist and the woman to truly believe that the unborn child is NOT a human being. In that case, they MIGHT be able to make the argument that they did not realize what they were doing was wrong. But that goes to their CULPABILITY for sin - NOT whether what they did was wrong. ALL abortions are wrong - period. And you need to stop inserting the word “innocent” into the discussion regarding abortions because it has no meaning.

Do you know any “guilty” unborn children?

Besides, you have now changed the hypotheticals. I have NEVER said that taking innocent life is okay - NEVER.

But you seem to forget the operative modifier: “INNOCENT”.

Are you REALLY going to equate a man who is about to murder my family (and thus not “innocent”) with an unborn child? Are you REALLY telling me that I cannot shoot a man to protect myself from being hit in the head with an axe (if a gun is my only available weapon for self defense), because I would be doing the same thing as an abortonist in killing an unborn child?

I am not trying to insult you, but this is starting to border on the absurd . . .

1. Vince, you said: “Again, where, in the case of abortion, does the Catholic Church teach that the intent of the person acting or the circumstances are required to determine such an act is wrong? Doesn’t the Catholic Church teach that abortion is always wrong, regardless of intent or circumstances?”

Yes, Vince - the Catholic Church teaches that abortion is always wrong.

But you are dumping together ALL types of killing of human beings with abortions, and that is simply not correct or proper.

In the case of an ectopic pregnancy (where a fertilized egg implants itself inside of the fallopian tube; left to grow, it will kill the woman, and then the child, if it survives and grows long enough). In such a case, a doctor is permitted to remove the fallopian tube where the fertilized egg has implanted in order to save the woman’s life. Removing it will result in the unborn child being killed, but if his intent was to save the woman and NOT kill the child (with the death of the child simply being something unavoidable and that would have occurred, regardless of whether he performed the operation), then that operation would be permitted. This falls under the “double effect” teaching of the Catholic Church.

1. Finally, Vince, you said: “Sorry to frustrate you. Really. I am simply asking where the Church teaches these distinctions. Specifically, with abortion. Does the Church teach abortion is wrong because it kills a human person? If so, where? If not, what’s the difference between human life/person/being? Thanks.”

Vince, I never said the Church DOES make a distinction between a “human being” a “human person” and a “human life”. YOU HAVE - REPEATEDLY!!!

Really - I give up. I, along with another person, have answered your questions yet you repeatedly refuse to accept them and say the Catholic Church does not teach such and such, yet you give no reference or support for your contention.

How about YOU tell everyone what is the difference between a “human being”, a “human person”, and a “human life”?

I would really like to hear, based on Catholic teaching/theology, the difference between those three categories.

You have repeatedly said I am wrong, and that they are different. Well - tell me how they are different.

This is take vertabim from the Cathechism: “2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the human person has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.”

Now are you really going to argue that the above quoted passage from the Catechism has NOT used, interchangeably, the words “human life” and “human person” as meaning the exact same thing???

You asked for a source, Vince, and I not only gave you one (from the Catechism), but I gave you one that deals with abortion.

I don’t know what else to do.

 

[Salvatore123]

Vince - just for you. Perhaps the following sections, taken VERBATIM from the Cathechism, will convince you that “human being”, “human person”, and “human life” all mean the same thing:

“2270 **Human life **must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a **human being **must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

“2295 Research or experimentation on the **human being **cannot legitimate acts that are in themselves contrary to the dignity of persons and to the moral law. The subjects’ potential consent does not justify such acts. Experimentation on **human beings **is not morally legitimate if it exposes the subject’s life or physical and psychological integrity to disproportionate or avoidable risks. Experimentation on human beings does not conform to the dignity of the person if it takes place without the informed consent of the subject or those who legitimately speak for him.”

“2270 **Human life **must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a **human being **must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

“2319 Every human life, from the moment of conception until death, is sacred because the **human person **has been willed for its own sake in the image and likeness of the living and holy God.”

Now Vince, YOU tell ME that the Cathechism, in just the few passages I cited above (there are many, many more), does not use, interchangeably, “human being”, “human person”, and “human life”.

 

[Vince1022]

Vince, the ONLY way for your “thesis” to hold any weight is for both the abortionist and the woman to truly believe that the unborn child is NOT a human being.

This is exactly the situation we confront today.

In that case, they MIGHT be able to make the argument that they did not realize what they were doing was wrong. But that goes to their CULPABILITY for sin - NOT whether what they did was wrong. ALL abortions are wrong - period. And you need to stop inserting the word “innocent” into the discussion regarding abortions because it has no meaning.

I never said abortion was not wrong. Period.

 

[Vince1022]

Vince - just for you. Perhaps the following sections, taken VERBATIM from the Cathechism, will convince you that “human being”, “human person”, and “human life” all mean the same thing:

“2270 **Human life **must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a **human being **must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.”

Great reference.

Note, it does not equate “human life” (the first sentence) with a human being or human person (second sentence). That’s my point.

 

[Salvatore123]

Vince,

As with another thread, I give up. I said it there, and I will say it with this one: if Jesus Christ himself came down and told you something, I am convinced you would find fault with something he said . . .

I tell you what - how about you get back to me when you can tell me from a Catholic theological perspective the difference between a “human being” a “human person” and a “human life”.

I have cited more than a dozen instances where all three words are used interchangeably. I think it is time for YOU to point to ME some authority that supports your position that those three phrases do not mean the same thing.

I am tired of just being told “they are different”, and then you walk away, self-satisfied, and yet you provide not ONE bit of proof where the Church distinguishes between these phrases.

 

[chosen_people]

This is exactly the situation we confront today.

I never said abortion was not wrong. Period.

A man accidentally drops his loaded gun. It is picked up by a two and a half year old toddler who aims the gun at a 28 year old pregnant woman, a wife and mother to 4 small children.There is a police officer nearby. If the police officer does nothing, the toddler will shoot the woman who will die. If the police officer interferes he will save the life of the woman but the toddler holding the gun will be killed. Whose life is more precious? That of the wife and mother or that of the toddler? Is the toddler more deserving of death because he is causing the danger or less deserving because he is unaware of his actions? If the policeman shoots the toddler is he guilty of murder? If he chooses not to shoot the toddler has he not become an active participant in the murder of the woman?

Now the policeman in our story is a doctor, the woman is pregnant with the “toddler” and the “toddler” will kill the woman unless the doctor terminates the pregnancy. We have equal and conflicting rights and interests. Both the woman and the toddler have an equal right to life. The doctor is committed to saving lives but the doctor’s decision will lead to the death of one and life for the other. We may come to a conclusion that it is preferable for the policeman to take a particular action over the alternative one. However, does it therefore follow that the preferred action is more moral than the alternative or that the alternative is “wrong”?

Simplistic absolutes like “all abortion is wrong in all cases” or 'lying is always wrong", simply ignore the complexity and ramifications of different situations. So in Judaism, which doesn’t view a non viable fetus as having the same rights of a conscious aware mother and wife, even though Judaism opposes abortion, Jewish law would save the mother’s life. In Judaism, in which lying is a sin, the concept of pikuach nefesh, the sanctity of life, demands that someone lie if by not telling the lie you endanger someone’s life.

 

[Vince1022]

Vince,

As with another thread, I give up. I said it there, and I will say it with this one: if Jesus Christ himself came down and told you something, I am convinced you would find fault with something he said . . .

I tell you what - how about you get back to me when you can tell me from a Catholic theological perspective the difference between a “human being” a “human person” and a “human life”.

I have cited more than a dozen instances where all three words are used interchangeably. I think it is time for YOU to point to ME some authority that supports your position that those three phrases do not mean the same thing.

I am tired of just being told “they are different”, and then you walk away, self-satisfied, and yet you provide not ONE bit of proof where the Church distinguishes between these phrases.

The Church’s teaching on abortion is based on the destruction of a human life. It does not depend on the philosophical distinction of when “personhood” exists.

 

[Vince1022]

Simplistic absolutes like “all abortion is wrong in all cases” or 'lying is always wrong", simply ignore the complexity and ramifications of different situations. So in Judaism, which doesn’t view a non viable fetus as having the same rights of a conscious aware mother and wife, even though Judaism opposes abortion, Jewish law would save the mother’s life. In Judaism, in which lying is a sin, the concept of pikuach nefesh, the sanctity of life, demands that someone lie if by not telling the lie you endanger someone’s life.

Not according to Catholic teaching (whether one agrees or disagrees with it). Abortion is always wrong, meaning it’s never a good action in and of itself. The Catholic Church considers this intrinsically evil.

The Church does not teach that lying is always wrong.

 

[Salvatore123]

chosen people,

I happen to personally believe that ALL scenarios have absolutely correct answers and have perfect solutions. I sincerely believe that every issue is black and white, with no grey.

I just happen to also acknowledge that man is not capable of having such omniscience. But that doesn’t mean God doesn’t.

There ARE “right” answers to EVERY scenario you can construct - we, as humans, may simply not have the capacity to discover the answer.

But God knows it

 

[silentstar]

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).

here are some thoughts, they are worth what you pay for them -

You are assuming that you hold authority over the woman in the same way that a man Biblically is given authority over the household (which is interpreted differently by different couples ), and the woman is responsible for caring for the home and the children and both the husband and wife parent the children and care for each other.

There is Biblical justification for “a man’s home is his castle” which can be used or abused, and also for a mother’s relationship of responsibility in the home (ex. Proverbs about a woman of valor being above rubies). However I do not think there is Biblical justification for a stranger to intervene as ‘defense’ when an adult woman has an abortion.

there is the commandment against killing but that has been violated from the dawn of time to now, unfortunately. I’m talking about justification for viewing violent intervention in an abortion as self-defense. The difference is that the woman is presumably not a member of your family.

 

[Salvatore123]

Silentstar,

Assume you were a member of the French Underground during WWII and you saw a two-man Nazi patrol about to shoot 5 Jewish children they had just rounded up in the public square.

Are you saying that if you were armed, you would not have been justified in sniping those two Nazis before they shot 5 innocent children, simply because you didn’t know the shooters or those about to be shot?