Its not all defensible, but tends to be what happens in the real world.As far as the killing an abortionist on the way to work scenario, that’s a whole different moral calculus than an immediate self-defense scenario, which is why it’s a lot easier to condemn.
It’s by no means a misapplication. CCC 2265 even says: “Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for one who is responsible for the lives of others. The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.”The Church’s reluctant allowance in one circumstance (self-defense) should not be misapplied in another circumstance (defense of another).
The reason I started this thread is because I watched a video in which a man interviewed people at the March for Life and posed these exact scenarios to the marchers as a way to illustrate that a born child and an unborn child aren’t truly equal in value. The marcher’s attempts to respond were, shall we say, less than satisfying. Like deer caught in headlights. Looking in the comments section this seemed to succeed in swaying many undecided people to the pro-choice side. So this is a matter of evangelization.I’m a Benedictine and we tend to be realists. It makes far more sense to me to question why abortion happens in the first place, and work on the root social causes, and to evangelize. This is what will save innocent lives, not mental gymnastics about improbable scenarios,
First try to eliminate the threat by other means. Separate them. Put something between them. As the CCC says, and you quoted, “The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” Why do you leap right to lethal force?Is your argument that even situation #1 involving defense of the toddler wouldn’t necessarily justify lethal force?
Because in such cases where the only feasible way to render the aggressor unable to cause harm is to apply force that can or does kill said aggressor, the Church does not consider the protector to be guilty of sin.First try to eliminate the threat by other means. Separate them. Put something between them. As the CCC says, and you quoted, “The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm.” Why do you leap right to lethal force?
I mean, I would hope you might take action the moment the man’s intentions were clear (say, when he aims the gun), and not wait until after he kills someone.And how do you know the man is about to murder the child? If a man walked into my church with a gun, I think I would wait until he fired a shot, and then I would kill him while praying for his salvation. How does that work in your moral calculus?
You are telling me what you would do.I mean, I would hope you might take action the moment the man’s intentions were clear (say, when he aims the gun), and not wait until after he kills someone.
Sure. Obviously if you think you can incapacitate him without killing him, that would be ideal. But if all you had at your disposal was a gun and a few seconds to act, fatally shooting him would not be a sin.I would look for options. How about if I take the gun from him? Or knock him out?
Interesting. I guess it shows a few things:The reason I started this thread is because I watched a video in which a man interviewed people at the March for Life and posed these exact scenarios to the marchers as a way to illustrate that a born child and an unborn child aren’t truly equal in value. The marcher’s attempts to respond were, shall we say, less than satisfying. Like deer caught in headlights. Looking in the comments section this seemed to succeed in swaying many undecided people to the pro-choice side. So this is a matter of evangelization.
That depends on my intention.fatally shooting him would not be a sin
Right. We’re on the same page. Now for the analogy. A man is about to shoot up not a church, but a room full of artificial wombs carrying fetuses at the earliest stages of development. Your only course of action capable of stopping him is to fatally shoot him, and you do so with charity for him. Sin or no sin?If I kill him with charity for him, probably no sin.
There’s no real need to get into a hair-splitting ethical debate to prove that born and unborn children are of equal value. Simply ask the person who thinks they are not of equal value, whether the embryo has the DNA of a unique human individual at the moment of conception, or at some other moment in gestation, or after birth.The reason I started this thread is because I watched a video in which a man interviewed people at the March for Life and posed these exact scenarios to the marchers as a way to illustrate that a born child and an unborn child aren’t truly equal in value.
Yes, that’s a great argument. But science in and of itself has nothing to say on the moral value of things. Many pro-choice people agree with the above and even concede that unborn children have some moral value by virtue of being of the human species, but they disagree that this value is the same as born children or adults.The scientific answer is quite clear: the DNA of a unique human individual exists from a few moments after sperm and egg fuse.
It is NOT legitimate to do this. This is your own perverted interpretation of defense of others. If you are inside the abortion room of an abortion clinic then you have gone looking for trouble. Your act would be premeditated.I have thought about this before. If you see an abortionist about to perform an abortion then it is legitimate to use force to stop him, including lethal force.
This was my answer to it as well. You can’t prevent a woman from killing her baby unless you take her hostage and prevent her from going into a clinic. Or in worse cases, physically restrain her from eating something toxic to the baby. That in itself with land you in a cozy little prison cell.I think the issue is effectiveness. Directly intervening like that won’t save the baby (the woman will just hire someone else to murder her child), and will take the life of that doctor. When there are things like state sanctioned murder where the process is legal (and even more nauseatingly, celebrated) there are multiple factors in play. A more apt comparison is someone about to be shot by an SS guard in a death camp. Rushing the guard won’t save that person, will get you killed, and others in the process. By harming the prolife cause in public opinion, more harm is done than good.