When (if ever) is it ok to kill a human?

[bilop]

2265 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. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

The part that I find most interesting about this is the DUTY of self defense.

The CCC clearly states that if you have resposibility for others you have the DUTY of self-defense which in many cases may involve killing.

The next line is less clear, but he reference to the common good and stopping an unjust agressor would seem to me to require that you MUST kill an attacker threatening death or grievous harm, even if only you are at risk. You would not be free to allow this person to continue their threat to society by allowing your own death.

Any thoughts on that?

God Bless

 

[fix]

I see all this distinction of HOW the child is removed. Face it, the child is still removed, resulting in it’s death. this is an abortion how ever it’s accomplished. Any arguing that it isn’t is just dancing around the facts with twists in terminology. Just like saying abortion isn’t murder or that an unborn fetus isn’t a baby.

Not at all. The intent and means matter greatly. Do you deny that when we each act the intention and how we act matter?

What about killing a robber in your house who was about to kill your kids? Is the guy somehow less dead cause you killed him in defense of your kids or in defense of yourself?

Is the end result all that matters?

 

[melensdad]

The next line is less clear, but he reference to the common good and stopping an unjust agressor would seem to me to require that you MUST kill an attacker threatening death or grievous harm, even if only you are at risk. You would not be free to allow this person to continue their threat to society by allowing your own death.

Well I don’t think that you MUST kill an attacker, but you MAY do so if that is your best option. Other options may be available to you such as capture and holding him until the police arrive, at which point the legal system takes over and prevents him (at least in theory) from harming society. Certainly that is not always possible.

• If you can hold someone at bay with a gun until help arrives then it may not be resonable to kill the attacker.
• Some attacks may only be stopped by killing the attacker.
• Then again, you may be able to break off the attack and flee with the person being attacked so that both of your are safe . . . the downside is you are allowing the attacker to go free and continue his attacks at will, still, under some circumstances, it may be the only reasonable choice (if you are unarmed and weaker than the attacker).

So it may reasonably be considered a situational decision as to what is the right choice.

Syele:

What about killing a robber in your house who was about to kill your kids? Is the guy somehow less dead cause you killed him in defense of your kids or in defense of yourself?

The CCC clearly allows for you to stop an attacker by killing him if that is what is needed to stop the attacker from killing you or those in your care. The key is that you are protecting innocent life. A murderer/potential murderer is not an innocent life, but the people he is about to kill would be considered innocent. You are duty bound to defend the innocent (including yourself).

There is a clear division between protecting innocent life and murder, so the 6th Commandment does not apply to self defense unless you use it as your excuse to commit murder!

 

[bilop]

Well I don’t think that you MUST kill an attacker, but you MAY do so if that is your best option. Other options may be available to you such as capture and holding him until the police arrive, at which point the legal system takes over and prevents him (at least in theory) from harming society. Certainly that is not always possible.

• If you can hold someone at bay with a gun until help arrives then it may not be resonable to kill the attacker.
• Some attacks may only be stopped by killing the attacker.
• Then again, you may be able to break off the attack and flee with the person being attacked so that both of your are safe . . . the downside is you are allowing the attacker to go free and continue his attacks at will, still, under some circumstances, it may be the only reasonable choice (if you are unarmed and weaker than the attacker).

So it may reasonably be considered a situational decision as to what is the right choice.

Yes, I meant when killing the attacker was the only way to stop the attack. Clearly, if you can hold him for police you must.
I was interested in the idea that you have a duty to stop the attacker, even if it necessitates killing him.

In gun control threads, some anti-gun posters have said they would rather let an attacker kill them, rather than kill in self-defense. The quotations from the CCC seem to indicate this is not a moral option, b/c you are allowing the attacker to remain a threat to others (if he kills you, he will likely kill again).

God Bless

 

[boppaid]

An important part of Catholic Theology is about intention. When someone is threatening your family, your intention isn’t murder, it is to protect them. With an ectopian pregnancy, when the tube is removed, your intention is to save a life - the death of the fetus is a very unfortunate result, however, it is not an abortion. You are implying that any time an unborn child dies that it is an abortion, which is simply untrue. If during a surgery, the doctor purposely went in and directly killed the child, that is an abortion. Removal of the tube that results in the death of the child, not an abortion.

But when you are removing the tube, you are ending the life of the fetus DIRECTLY, just as much as you would be if you simply removed the fetus. YA doctor is not removing the tube because the tube is harmflul to the mother…he is removing the tube because the FETUS INSIDE THE TUBE will burst the tube. He needs to remove the fetus. Taking the tube with it does not mkae it any better morally than not taking the tube.

That said, I agree with removing the fetus in an etopic pregnancy, as the fetus has no chance of survival. I do not agree w/ removing the entire tube, though, because it is not necessary, and directly causes the death of the fetus anyway, therefore you are destroying the tube purely for semantics.

 

[rpp]

In discussing the morality of treating ectopic pregnancies, there are a couple of important points that I have not seen mentioned.

An ectopic pregnancy is 100% fatal, a guranteed death sentence for both the mother and the child.

There is currently only one treatment that I am aware of available for an ectopic pregnancy, the surgical removal of the fetus and the portion of the fallopian tube around it.

When discussing the morality, one cannot ignore the fact that the both mother and baby are in equal peril. Failure to treat will always and without exception result in the death of both.

Is it immoral to use medical techniques to save a life? Perhaps.

Is removing a baby, which is a consequence not the purpose of the treatment, a baby who will die in process of killing his mother and immoral act? No.

 

[fix]

But when you are removing the tube, you are ending the life of the fetus DIRECTLY

Not directly, but indirectly.

 

[Syele]

Wow you guys covered alot while I w away, I will attempt to answer everyone but I may miss some.

Texas , Florida, Louisiana, Oregon, West Virginia, to name a few. At one time even a US president practiced "no duty to retreat, …

I was mainly wanting to know the Catholic viewpoint on the mater rather than government laws.

One important to this discussion is what is your idea of sin?

True, this is important if we are to discuss sin in general. I posted wanting to know the Catholic viewpoint, where I already understand mine. Mine is more simple than the Catholic view where there is venial sin and mortal sin… I believe ANYTHING that would grieve God is just sin. Breaking God’s law in any way is sin and needs to be repented of. There is no worse or better sin than any other sin. Theres only one sin leading to hell… the *refusal *to repent. This could make a whole new thread, so I won’t go in more detail.

2269 The fifth commandment forbids doing anything with the intention of indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The moral law prohibits exposing someone to mortal danger without grave reason, as well as refusing assistance to a person in danger.

What if the intention is to save someone else and it also happens to indirectly kill someone else?

 

[Syele]

I was referring to the Original Poster’s phrasing of the question. But to answer your question as to* “what is the stance of the Church,”* here is the full text from the CCC regarding legitimate defense:Legitimate defense

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."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.662265 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. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.

2266 The efforts of the state to curb the spread of behavior harmful to people’s rights and to the basic rules of civil society correspond to the requirement of safeguarding the common good. Legitimate public authority has the right and duty to inflict punishment proportionate to the gravity of the offense. Punishment has the primary aim of redressing the disorder introduced by the offense. When it is willingly accepted by the guilty party, it assumes the value of expiation. Punishment then, in addition to defending public order and protecting people’s safety, has a medicinal purpose: as far as possible, it must contribute to the correction of the guilty party.67

2267 Assuming that the guilty party’s identity and responsibility have been fully determined, the traditional teaching of the Church does not exclude recourse to the death penalty, if this is the only possible way of effectively defending human lives against the unjust aggressor.

If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.

Today, in fact, as a consequence of the possibilities which the state has for effectively preventing crime, by rendering one who has committed an offense incapable of doing harm - without definitely taking away from him the possibility of redeeming himself - the cases in which the execution of the offender is an absolute necessity "are very rare, if not practically nonexistent."68​

While it does not explicitly state that retreat is required, it does infer that you should only use the force necessary to repel or provide safety. You are absolved if you kill your attacker. Further down, when talking of capital punishment, which is a form of defense, it clearly states that alternate means must be employed. Consequently, it is probably safe to intuit that you should reasonably avoid (retreat) to the point that you are forced to take some other action, obviously there is a practial application here and some are not capable of running/retreating while others are able to do so. Some are cornered and must fight, some are physically fit and others are not, so various means of legitimate self defense are clearly allowed. Perhaps you interpret it differently.

My intention from the start was to know the stance of the Catholic Church. Sorry to be unclear and thanks for your answer to it.

 

[Syele]

“The end justifies the means” is a strawman argument. Means and end are inseparable.

From the Catechism:

As I pointed out above, “the end justifies the means” is a strawman argument. Means and end are inseparable.

From the Catechism:

The Church does not make individual proclamations. It teaches standards – which must then be applied to individual situations. The onus is on those who make the decisions to apply the standards honestly.

I never claimed the end justifies the means. I’m not at all sure what point you are making by saying it’s a strawman.

Not at all. The intent and means matter greatly. Do you deny that when we each act the intention and how we act matter?

Is the end result all that matters?

Of course I don’t deny that intention and how we act matter. much more than the end result matters. I think you missed reading all I posted and therefore missed my points entirely.

But when you are removing the tube, you are ending the life of the fetus DIRECTLY, just as much as you would be if you simply removed the fetus. YA doctor is not removing the tube because the tube is harmflul to the mother…he is removing the tube because the FETUS INSIDE THE TUBE will burst the tube. He needs to remove the fetus. Taking the tube with it does not mkae it any better morally than not taking the tube.

That said, I agree with removing the fetus in an etopic pregnancy, as the fetus has no chance of survival. I do not agree w/ removing the entire tube, though, because it is not necessary, and directly causes the death of the fetus anyway, therefore you are destroying the tube purely for semantics.

I agree with this, it is how I was trying to explain it as well.

 

[Syele]

Not directly, but indirectly.

Directly Aborting an unborn child = dismembering, Suction (typical abortion techniques that injure the baby till it dies) These require a person to directly kill the child.

indirectly = removing the baby (whole) too early and therefore the child dies because it is not yet able to live outside the womb. This way you do not DIRECTLY kill the child.

If I tell my child not drink any milk, I don’t care if she drinks it from a cup or straight from the milk carton. Either way, she still drank it. I wouldn’t be mad at her if someone else gave her the milk with a lid and told her it was orange juice… it wasn’t her intention to disobey. If she got the milk out and drank it herself,
then her intention was to disobey. This isn’t so hard to grasp if you substitute other situations.

God says don’t kill people. Someone attacks you, you intend to get them to stop attacking you and the person ends up dead. You have an ectopic pregnancy, you intend to save the mother but the child dies. In neither case did you intend to kill people.

 

[FLCathMom]

Directly Aborting an unborn child = dismembering, Suction (typical abortion techniques that injure the baby till it dies) These require a person to directly kill the child.

indirectly = removing the baby (whole) too early and therefore the child dies because it is not yet able to live outside the womb. This way you do not DIRECTLY kill the child.

Yes, but we are not allowed to indirectly kill people either. The CCC 2269 says we are forbidden from indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The full quote is in a previous post.

 

[Syele]

Yes, but we are not allowed to indirectly kill people either. The CCC 2269 says we are forbidden from indirectly bringing about a person’s death. The full quote is in a previous post.

then why would it be ok to indirectly kill an unborn child that is inside a portion of a fallopian tube?

 

[FLCathMom]

then why would it be ok to indirectly kill an unborn child that is inside a portion of a fallopian tube?

I don’t know.

I’m not sure what the official stance of the Church is on this issue. I know there have been statements from members of the Church, but I don’t know of any official pronouncements. I hope someone else can help me out on this, because it is something I am trying to understand. Should this be on another thread?

 

[vern_humphrey]

then why would it be ok to indirectly kill an unborn child that is inside a portion of a fallopian tube?

It is not “ok to indirectly kill an unborn child that is inside a portion of a fallopian tube” and no one says it is. A tubal ectopic pregnancy can leave us faced with a situation where both mother and child will die. With the current state of medicine, it is impossible to save the child, but the mother can be saved.

The death of the child is inevatible. The intent is to save one of two doomed people, while sadly recognizing we cannot save both. And neither can we leave both to die.

 

[jmcrae]

The part that I find most interesting about this is the DUTY of self defense.

The CCC clearly states that if you have resposibility for others you have the DUTY of self-defense which in many cases may involve killing.

The next line is less clear, but he reference to the common good and stopping an unjust agressor would seem to me to require that you MUST kill an attacker threatening death or grievous harm, even if only you are at risk. You would not be free to allow this person to continue their threat to society by allowing your own death.

Any thoughts on that?

God Bless

I understand it to mean that if we have the ability to defend innocent life (including our own) when it is immanently at risk, then we have the duty to do so.

Self-defense requires that we render the attacker harmless for a long enough period to escape. There are times when this means that we must kill him. If the opportunity is there, of course we must try less lethal means first, but this option is not always available - there are times when you can talk your way out of a situation, times when a forceful blow to the head or kneecaps will do the job, and times when you have to use lethal force right away.

In most English-speaking countries, if you had killed someone after he had been rendered harmless, you would have been charged with murder, whereas if he was still a threat to you at the time that you killed him (and killing him was not an over-reaction to the situation - either other things had been tried first, OR the threat was too severe to try anything else first) you would be considered innocent on the basis of self-defense.

 

[steveandersen]

“When (if ever) is it ok to kill a human?”

Syele,
It is never “OK” to kill a human.
BUT
As indicated above, circumstances may affect whether or not you are culpable for a death.

 

[Steve40]

An important part of Catholic Theology is about intention. When someone is threatening your family, your intention isn’t murder, it is to protect them. With an ectopian pregnancy, when the tube is removed, your intention is to save a life - the death of the fetus is a very unfortunate result, however, it is not an abortion. You are implying that any time an unborn child dies that it is an abortion, which is simply untrue. If during a surgery, the doctor purposely went in and directly killed the child, that is an abortion. Removal of the tube that results in the death of the child, not an abortion.

Maybe we should start thinking of a child transplant in these cases. I hate inVitro ferilization because it curses God and humanity but maybe the technology of implantation could be put to good use. Not that the technology is there yet, but if it were I would be all for it.

On defense, God gives us and civil authority the authority to go to war either on foreigh soil or within our home if needed.

 

[Syele]

“When (if ever) is it ok to kill a human?”

Syele,
It is never “OK” to kill a human.
BUT
As indicated above, circumstances may affect whether or not you are culpable for a death.

Of course this is what I meant. Culpable just isn’t a word I normally use. I never meant when is is good to kill, but when are you not liable.

 

[fix]

Directly Aborting an unborn child = dismembering, Suction (typical abortion techniques that injure the baby till it dies) These require a person to directly kill the child.

Yes, direct abortion is always wrong.

indirectly = removing the baby (whole) too early and therefore the child dies because it is not yet able to live outside the womb. This way you do not DIRECTLY kill the child.

Nope. By indirect abortion I mean the unintended consequence of the death of the child. No one is directly killing the child. The doctor is treating a pathologic condition and the baby dies as an unintended consequence.

If I tell my child not drink any milk, I don’t care if she drinks it from a cup or straight from the milk carton. Either way, she still drank it.

Right, you said do not drink milk and the child intended to drink it and did drink it. That is not analogous.

I wouldn’t be mad at her if someone else gave her the milk with a lid and told her it was orange juice…

Right, that would be disingenuous. Again, no analogy.

it wasn’t her intention to disobey. If she got the milk out and drank it herself,
then her intention was to disobey. This isn’t so hard to grasp if you substitute other situations.

But, there is no analogy. With ectopic pregnancy the intention is to cure disease and save both lives. That one dies is not the intent or means of the act.

God says don’t kill people. Someone attacks you, you intend to get them to stop attacking you and the person ends up dead. You have an ectopic pregnancy, you intend to save the mother but the child dies. In neither case did you intend to kill people.

In neither case does one intend to directly kill anyone. In self defense the attacker is guilty for losing his own life by his actions. With ectopic pregnancy the bay dies as a result of treating pathology. There is no intention to kill the baby.