Why is prolife weak in preserving one's own right to life and seem to disfavor the right to bear arms?

[melensdad]

I don’t agree that the right to bear arms is a prolife issue. I think you’re trying to hijack the prolife cause to support your agenda of unrestricted right to own guns. Let me guess – guns don’t kill people, people kill people, right?

Please consider a couple things.

This is what I wrote:

. . . pro-self defense (at least modestly pro-gun)

That does not sound to me to be making any statement about UNRESTRICTED rights. It is simply a statement that affirms the Catechism of the Catholic Church’s statements that self-defense and preservation of your life are, in fact, “grave” issues.

Now please go back and take a look at the thread title, it clearly asks the relationship between Pro-Life and Guns.

If we are going to CONSISTENTLY savor and respect “life” then we have to consider preservation of our own lives, preservation of the lives of the unborn, preservation of the lives of the elderly, the infirm, and of the innocent. I understand that you do not think being pro-gun is part of being pro-life, but please understand I never suggested you join the NRA and lobby for unfettered access to arms.

I simply suggested that you had to respect the concept of being pro-self defense and suggested that would imply not banning the one type of weapon that can be used by the elderly, the handicapped, the weak, etc to equalize a situation where they might otherwise be killed. Again, go to the Catechism and look up self-defense. It is your grave duty to protect your life and the lives of your family.

 

[roymckenzie]

Vern, your point about Darfur is spot on. I glossed over Ender’s comment and didn’t respond to it, but that was clearly an error on my part.

I strongly believe we are seeing real genocide in Darfur that is government sponsored and the UN is clearly unable or unwilling to deal with the situation there. The Sudan is acting in a criminal way with what it is doing in Darfur. Any Catholic should be concerned about the situation in Darfur, Sudan and, I believe, should support some sort of military incursion into Sudan to secure the Darfur region from continued genocide. Yes, it is an impoverished nation, yes it is largely tribal clashes, yes it is largely non-Christian, yes the Sudan has told the world it is an internal matter. It is also government sponsored killing of roughly 200,000 people and we are sitting here doing nothing about it.
I was watching EWTN a couple of months ago and the Bishop of the area suggested that sending US troops in was not the answer. As I recall the Bishop did suggest that having an international watch dog group watching to insure the peace may be an answer.
As a humble former member of the United States Army Intelligence community and a student of history and the history warfare I can not imagine anything the US could do to resolve this issue other than removing all the Arab Muslims from the country. If we remove all the Arab Muslims from Sudan would that be racist or some other kind of immorality? People are caring how the world community feels about the United States imagine what they would say if we removed the Arab Muslims from the Sudan? Removing the Arab Muslims from Sudan might mean killing most of them and once the ones not killed are removed where would they go, and what is the potential that they would immediately become anti-US terrorists? Who would win if we, the United States, stepped into the fight?

 

[vern_humphrey]

I was watching EWTN a couple of months ago and the Bishop of the area suggested that sending US troops in was not the answer. As I recall the Bishop did suggest that having an international watch dog group watching to insure the peace may be an answer.

I agree that this is not a US mission. But I suspect the Bishop failed strategy, operational art and tactics in the seminary, if he thinks a UN watchdog with rubber teeth will solve the problem.

As a humble former member of the United States Army Intelligence community and a student of history and the history warfare I can not imagine anything the US could do to resolve this issue other than removing all the Arab Muslims from the country. If we remove all the Arab Muslims from Sudan would that be racist or some other kind of immorality? People are caring how the world community feels about the United States imagine what they would say if we removed the Arab Muslims from the Sudan? Removing the Arab Muslims from Sudan might mean killing most of them and once the ones not killed are removed where would they go, and what is the potential that they would immediately become anti-US terrorists? Who would win if we, the United States, stepped into the fight?

If the people of Darfur cannot defend thenselves, no one else will defend them. That’s the sad truth.

 

[melensdad]

I was watching EWTN a couple of months ago . . .

So why don’t we remove the Christians who want to flee? Oh wait, that would also be racist too!

Or why don’t we get the UN off its lazy kiester and have them send in a multi-national brigade to keep the 2 sides apart?

Vern seems to grasp things and say them better than I do, but the Bishop on EWTN is nuts if he thinks “observers” will accomplish anything.

Perhaps there is no easy answer, but is it rare that the right thing to do is also the easy thing. I do know one thing, sitting back and watching genocide is not the answer.

 

[vern_humphrey]

So why don’t we remove the Christians who want to flee? Oh wait, that would also be racist too!

1. They don’t want to go – it’s their home.
2. How would we get in and safely transport so many people out?
3. How would we maintain security for the evacuation?
4. Where would we settle them afterwards?
5. What would be the impact on Muslim-Christian relations in other Muslim-majority lands?

Or why don’t we get the UN off its lazy kiester and have them send in a multi-national brigade to keep the 2 sides apart?

I am reminded of what a German general, who commanded a NATO corps said:

I go to the Germans and tell them what to do.

I go to the British and tell them what not to do.

I go to the Americans and ask them what they are going to do.

I go to the Belgians and take tea – because no matter what I tell them, they aren’t going to do anything.

Vern seems to grasp things and say them better than I do, but the Bishop on EWTN is nuts if he thinks “observers” will accomplish anything.

My point exactly – the UN has presided over many a disaster, with “Blue Berries” standing by and wringing their hands.

Perhaps there is no easy answer, but is it rare that the right thing to do is also the easy thing. I do know one thing, sitting back and watching genocide is not the answer.

They have to defend themselves - no one else is going to defend them. We can help, but we can’t do it for them.

 

[melensdad]

They have to defend themselves

Just like the Jews in WWII had to defend themselves?

The problem is, if we value life, then we sometimes have to take a hard stand FOR life. Sometimes that might even include sending in troops to protect life.

BTW this is NOT a clear cut Muslim-Christian civil war that is going on with only Christians being killed. Some of it is tribal, some of it is religious, some of it is same religion but different sects. So lets not just pin this down to the Muslims attacking the minority Christians.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Just like the Jews in WWII had to defend themselves?

Had they had the wherewithal, the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising shows what they could have done.

As it was, no one defended them, and too few of them defended themselves.

The problem is, if we value life, then we sometimes have to take a hard stand FOR life. Sometimes that might even include sending in troops to protect life.

The problem is we assume that sending troops will protect life. I’m not sure that’s the case.

BTW this is NOT a clear cut Muslim-Christian civil war that is going on with only Christians being killed. Some of it is tribal, some of it is religious, some of it is same religion but different sects. So lets not just pin this down to the Muslims attacking the minority Christians.

I point out that the defense of Christians is a major theme on this thread, though – and I bet Muslim radicals make propaganda out of that when the shooting starts.