When is violence justified?

[captainmike]

you are a citizen in germany in 1937. the government legalizes the killing of jews by all who wish to do so. jews begin to be killed, both by the government and by private citizens. you reasonably believe that you can save a few jewish lives, but you will have to use deadly force–against those who wish to kill the jews–to do so. are you morally justified in doing so?

 

[captainmike]

if the answer is yes, then are we morally justified in using violence to stop abortion? if not, why not? after all, six million jews died in the holocaust, whereas 50 million unborn babies have been killed here via abortion.

 

[captainmike]

fifty million people have been murdered here since 1973 and a philisophical discussion about whether violence is justified to stop it is out of bounds. nobody has any problem with saying that violence to stop the killing of jews is okay. but if someone simply asks the question of whether violence would also be justified to stop the killing of unborn children, we can’t discuss that.

why not? do we really believe that unborn children are human beings?

 

[captainmike]

forget about violence. don’t need that. how about tens of millions of catholics and other christians engaging in peaceful civil disobedience? work stoppages, blocking of transportation routes, etc., etc.

we fought a civil war to end slavery. a far worse evil is in our midst. why no peaceful civil disobedience to stop it?

 

[Newbie2]

I think it’s a legitimate question.

There are a couple of significant differences, though. The caretakers of the Jews (themselves, mainly) are not presenting them to be killed. Not that it would be right to do so, but they are being killed against their will.

In the case of abortion, we also assume that the unborn are being killed against their will, however, their “caretakers”, the pregnant women, are willingly participating in the murders.

Second, in Nazi Germany, there is absolutely no chance that the citizenry cound peacefully and in a democratic manner change the policy that is responsible for the Jew killings. That being the case, there is no other recourse but to resist and oppose by violent means.

Such is not the case with abortion. We, as a society, could easily stop (“legal” ones, anyway) abortions through peaceful means at the ballot box. I use easily in the sense that it would not take a violent overthrough of the government to accomplish it. As a practical matter…well…we’ve been advocating legally preventing abortion for years, and we’re not there yet.

 

[captainmike]

Such is not the case with abortion. We, as a society, could easily stop (“legal” ones, anyway) abortions through peaceful means at the ballot box.

that’s a good argument. it might work. but it might not. we might come to a point in the next 5-15 years when outlawing abortion comes to be seen as very unlikely. then, we might have another 50 million killings to look forward to. what then?

 

[logic_oriented]

that’s a good argument. it might work. but it might not. we might come to a point in the next 5-15 years when outlawing abortion comes to be seen as very unlikely. then, we might have another 50 million killings to look forward to. what then?

It’s already unlikely. It will certainly get less likely. If it ever becomes impossible to effect change via the voting booth, then I, as a decidedly pro-choice citizen, will be right next to you in violently opposing our government. In that situation of course, we will no longer be a democracy, and it won’t be abortion I’ll be opposing.

Until that time of impossibility comes though, use your vote.

 

[thistle]

if the answer is yes, then are we morally justified in using violence to stop abortion? if not, why not? after all, six million jews died in the holocaust, whereas 50 million unborn babies have been killed here via abortion.

If you want to start a thread about abortion you should at least have the integrity to be honest and upfront about it.
This will be my one and only participation in a thread started under deceit.

 

[Viki63]

I would direct you to the First Things Symposium on “Killing Abortionists” at this site

It states that: the overriding aim of the pro-life movement is: to instill in individuals and in society as a whole a respect for the dignity of each human life. An important corollary to this arises in light of the present societal turn to violence: the pro- life movement also exists to point the nation toward problem-solving that, in means and ends, respects every human being involved. It does this to witness to the real possibilities for peaceful and humane behavior as against a pervasive pro-choice philosophy that accepts the destruction of human life as a legitimate response to problems.

 

[captainmike]

If you want to start a thread about abortion you should at least have the integrity to be honest and upfront about it.
This will be my one and only participation in a thread started under deceit.

my point in staring the thread the way i did was to suggest that we don’t really believe what our church teaches about when live begins. if we did, the situation now would be absolutely intolerable. if 50 million adults had been randomly murdered here in the past 40 years, we wouldn’t be blabbering about “use your vote to effect change.” we’d be using all means necessary, including violence, to stop it.

 

[captainmike]

again i ask, when are we catholics going to engage in peaceful nonviolent civil disobedience? if this cause isn’t worth doing so, which cause is? 50 million people have been killed. how many more must die before we catholics stand up by the millions and say enough?