Would you support military action in the US to end abortion?

[estesbob]

I’d like to see your sources. I can’t find any calls from the Pope for violent rebellion in Eastern Europe, or support from the Pope for any of the revolts that took place. I have found evidence for the Vatican funding demonstrations against the Communist regimes- but that is a whole different ball game.

pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/teach/leadership/pope/
I can’t find anything about him supporting the violent Hungarian rebellion that ended in a disastrous mass slaughter for the Polish people.

I can’t find anything about the papacy supporting violent rebellions in the 20th century. They may have failed to denounce them, but they failed to support them too, so the lack of denunciation is meaningless.

Unless you can show that they supported violent revolutions in Eastern Europe, you don’t have a case. Supporting non-violent protests or workers’ strikes is bloodless and is a different matter. Jesus and the Early Church were strongly involved in protests against the injustice perpetrated by authorities. But they rejected bloody rebellion, even when they had the most cause to perpetrate it.

And about your earlier comment that I appear to be backtracking by saying the Pope can authorize rebellion, I’ll respond that I didn’t mention the papacy’s authority to remove a national leader on God’s behalf because it’s been so rarely done and is not a very relevant exception to this debate. It was not pertinent to the issue of the American Revolution that we were discussing. It’s also not very relevant to the topic we were debating, the morality of us civilians rebelling against the government. The morality of the Pope authorizing a rebellion didn’t relate. Also, the Just War Doctrine says that “duly constituted public authorities” are the only ones that can declare war. The Pope is such an authority. So in more than one way, he wasn’t a logical part of our debate.

Public authorities, according to the teaching of the Early Church, are God’s representatives. Therefore we should obey them as we would obey God, up to the point where they command us to do something that God forbids. After that point, we should no longer obey, but should allow ourselves to suffer the consequences. That was their teaching.

The reason the Pope is an exception is that he is the Vicar of Christ, Christ’s representative on Earth, so if he declares that a public authority is no longer a representative of Christ, then why should we any longer obey the person? It is no longer necessary. The person no longer fulfills the function of being a type of Christ.

But only Christ’s own highest representative on Earth has the authority to make that call. That’s why the Just War Doctrine condemns rebellion, and that’s why you find statements condemning rebellion by Peter, Paul and Jesus in the Scripture, and a triumphant refusal to rebel in the Early Church in spite of incredible persecution, a hundred thousand times worse than anything the Americans endured at British hands before the Revolutionary War, and worse than the troubles experienced by any of the rebelling oppressed of the 20th century. They refused to rebel. And God gave them a spiritual victory over the entire Roman Empire for their faith.

Rebellion is not part of the Catholic Church’s heritage, Tradition or Scripture- it is part of the Enlightenment and Reformation’s heritage and teachings, it and all its justifications.

You said rebellion is. Allways wrong and. Is never supported by the church. Now you claim you meant “violent rebellion” the cathechism says there are circumstanes where violent rebellion is acceptable. Basically the blanket assertilons you have made about the Church and rebellion are not correct no matter how you try and spin it

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I said on post 126, my very first post in this thread, "If I believed in the right to rebel, that humans have the right to overthrow the representatives of God that he has established over them when they abuse their power, then I would believe we were morally obligated to use military action to end abortion.

“Ending abortion through force in the US would be rebellion and thus counter to the Tradition and Scripture of the Church.”

That has always been part of the context of my posts here.

I’ve never said that peaceful demonstration or a workers’ strike is rebellion. Check any of my posts. Instead I’ve talked about the “Just War Doctrine” and the use of the military or law enforcement.

Now, even if you had been right that I was shifting ground in my arguments, which I have now proven I have not been, that would do nothing to refute the arguments I’ve presented. Your most recent post is purely a personal attack directed against me as an individual and it does nothing to refute any of my points.

I’ve already explained why I didn’t mention the possibility of the Pope permitting violent rebellion in an earlier post. You have just repeated your accusation that I was shifting ground without addressing my response to that accusation, so I won’t repeat myself on that one here.

But stop making personal attacks, for pity’s sake! Whether I’m a sneaky person shifting ground or am actually honest, trying to prove I’m shifting ground does nothing for either of us and refutes none of my arguments. All it does is distract from my points. It’s like throwing a firework to get people to look in the other direction. Respond to the arguments! That’s a much better use of time than is trying to find a successful way to condemn me as an individual. Personal attacks are pointless.

 

[Verisimilitude]

… try and spin it

Why nitpick? All you do is laser in on an obscure point because of syntax and never answer a question relevant to the OP or the direct question. He asked for a source to support your position- provide it and educate if you are able. If you can’t, have the integrity to say so.

I think **Lief Erikson **has drawn some inaccurate conclusions with respect to church and just civil authority on the complete opposite spectrum of your inaccurate assumptions of unjust civil authority and our personal responsibility as US Citizen acting in accordance with the Church and our just civil law; but as I understand his intention is to oppose all violence in a theoretical (same as the OP) sense that doesn’t meet his definition of the Just War, while yours is to justify it without defining the Just War criteria in a actual world wide war on terror among other things; but not abortion…

You could admit abortion is not as dominant as terrorists in Iraq to you as it is with me but if it is, your position is untenable as you said to me, you can’t have it both ways. You berate me for not answering your loaded ‘yes or no’ question with a yes or no because you apply a different and wrong meaning to simple words trying to frame a response for some reason to fit your world view. Your misuse and misconception of just law and unjust law, the use and responsibility of the military and personal responsibility is a testament to either a lack of knowledge or comprehension. If I am wrong please answer these two direct questions relevant to the OP. It would be appreciated if each response begins with yes or no if you care to elaborate further.

Is abortion legal?

if the war is unjust then everyone who fights in it is a war criminal.

Have all conflicts since WWII met the Just War criteria?

 

[Lief_Erikson]

Why nitpick? All you do is laser in on an obscure point because of syntax and never answer a question relevant to the OP or the direct question. He asked for a source to support your position- provide it and educate if you are able. If you can’t, have the integrity to say so.

I think **Lief Erikson **has drawn some inaccurate conclusions with respect to church and just civil authority on the complete opposite spectrum of your inaccurate assumptions of unjust civil authority and our personal responsibility as US Citizen acting in accordance with the Church and our just civil law; but as I understand his intention is to oppose all violence in a theoretical (same as the OP) sense that doesn’t meet his definition of the Just War, while yours is to justify it without defining the Just War criteria in a actual world wide war on terror among other things; but not abortion…

I’d just like to nitpick really quickly on one thing . . . I haven’t referenced “my” definition of Just War- I directly quoted from the Just War Doctrine. “Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war,” is a direct quote.

That’s all .

 

[fishstick]

What a waste of space! 10 pages that could have been avoided if verisimilitude had only not attempted to tie his argument up in a nice pink bow (gigantic metaphor).

Why didn’t you just answer Vd’s question? “Are you equating accidental death to that of an innocent unborn child?”

It doesn’t matter that the answer puts you in his box, if you’d have just satisfied him you could have moved on and things could have progressed. Conceding “yes” would not refute your argument at all. If Vd could have continued things would have gotten much more interesting. However, he prevented this as well, as it seems a few of you guys don’t get the concept of abductive reasoning:

Vd, Veris assumed all of that information about you due to an analysis of the logical progression of your argument. Just as I assumed you came into this from the get go thinking “abortionist=evil bad bad” and “war in iraq=justified”.

Let’s clear some things up, and excuse me if I’m getting some assumptions wrong on either of you. Just want to move this forward so we can all take something from it, as usually things here don’t end with much agreement.

Now, Veris is saying that the american decision to enter into a war in iraq was not justified by law, and is thus illegal. Just as abortion is illegal in the united states. He is also saying that the killing of innocent people there is just as bad as the killing of innocent children here.

The first argument I think VD was trying to present against this is that it is accidental killing versus intentional killing. Veris pointed out that this is an oversimplification, Not all accidents are the same, the death of civilians should be fully blamed on the bad decisions of the bush administration and thusly they should be tried for it, or the troops at the very least withdrawn.

Oh, and just to clarify (I assume veris didn’t think he needed to because he assumed you all would immediately pick up on the satire) he does not wish the troops to come here and slaughter abortionists. He is simply saying that if you are pro life then your philosophical views should also make you Anti-iraq

Correct me if I’m wrong, and if I’m not, can we start again from here? So the actual learning from the debate can occur?

 

[Verisimilitude]

What a waste of space! 10 pages that could have been avoided if verisimilitude had only not attempted to tie his argument up in a nice pink bow (gigantic metaphor).

Glory and trumpets, there is intelligent life out there! How about a blue bow?

Why didn’t you just answer Vd’s question? “Are you equating accidental death to that of an innocent unborn child (murdered by abortion)?”

If asked as you just did the answer is a simple, ‘no’. They didn’t ask/infer it that way and 10 pages is enough of a diversion not to go over it again.

Correct me if I’m wrong, and if I’m not, can we start again from here? So the actual learning from the debate can occur?

Close enough for me.

I asked my wife, who cares not for such debates this poll question and she surprised me by saying matter of factly she though force should be used to stop abortion. She said killing is killing be it by war or abortion. She said it was hypocritical for those who say no to force stopping abortions and yes to war in Iraq. When I asked about the difference between a just war and and unjust war she thought it useless to debate it further.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I’d just like to nitpick really quickly on one thing . . . I haven’t referenced “my” definition of Just War- I directly quoted from the Just War Doctrine. “Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war,” is a direct quote.

That’s all .

Fair enough. How does this strike you?

WHO DECIDES?

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.

Finally, the Catechism identifies those who have the burden of evaluating the conditions for whether a particular war is just: “those who have responsibility for the common good.” In modern nation-states, this means the government.

Governments are privy to information gathered by intelligence services and other means that the general public does not possess. Because the public is not in possession of this information, the public is not in as advantaged a position to determine whether the conditions are met. As a result, the public must in significant measure be prepared to trust its leaders to make the right decision.

There may not be a guarantee that the government will do so, but, except in the case of fundamentally evil regimes, it is more likely that the government would arrive at an appropriate course of action than would the general public.

This is not to say that the public has no voice in such matters. Particularly in democracies, it does. The public elects its leaders and, through public debate, helps guide its leaders’ decisions. Nevertheless, the general public does not bear ultimate responsibility for the decision to go to war. That belongs “to the prudential judgment” of its political leaders. They must evaluate the situation and make their best judgment whether the conditions for just war have been fulfilled.

If, as I think the government has made the wrong decisions (not by simple mistakes) regarding war the past 60 years and that these decisions are contrary to the common good, just as I believe Roe was illigetimately decided and made unjust law this past 40 years, and abortion is obviously against the common good it suggests we have a duty to correct it does it not? If voting the lesser evil seems futile and a Congress that refuses to act in accordance with the majority of the public to end abortion legally then what do you suggest be done? If you hold America and its law is illigimate by nature of its rebellious birth, how do you suggest we correct the error/injustice?

 

[bobzills]

How? Bomb abortion clinics? Send Marines in to arrest the doctors? .

Simply impose the death penalty or life in prison for those who are guilty of murdering an innocent child?
Catholkic women are aborting at a rate greater than women in the population at large in the USA. In the USA 24% of the population is Catholic, whereas, according to the statistic I have read, of all the abortions p;erformed in the USA 27% are performed by Catholic women.

 

[vz71]

Glory and trumpets, there is intelligent life out there! How about a blue bow?

How about no bow at all?
The argument being attempted does not fit.
Abortion is in no way comparitive to the war in Iraq.
An attempt to compare the two is wrong.

If asked as you just did the answer is a simple, ‘no’. They didn’t ask/infer it that way and 10 pages is enough of a diversion not to go over it again.

Post #26.
And many times after that.
And each time asked, it was a simple yes or no.
This has been a waste.

Particularly wasteful if the answer is really ‘no.’
After all, there is little debate left to be had if there is no comparison drawn.
After all, if abortion is not equated to the accidental deaths, it has to be equated to the deliberate deaths.
But I hardly believe the innocent unborn can be compared to terrorists.
Or we could simply say the deaths in Iraq do not compare to abortion at all…avoid all of the unfortunate implications.

 

[Verisimilitude]

How about no bow at all?

Is abortion legal?

 

[vz71]

Is abortion legal?

Before I answer that, I have to look at the personal insults and attacks that were directed at me for polite answers I provided to questions that were posed to me.

I grow weary of the insults, I will not answer.

Meanwhile, there are pages and pages of posts that are chock full of questions the author of this thread refuses to answer.

I believe this debate is ended.
A free exchange of information is simply not possible within the environment created by the author of the thread.

 

[Verisimilitude]

I will not answer.

Very telling. See ya.

 

[vz71]

Can we now call this thread ended?

(I would love it if a moderator here saw fit to close it.)

 

[Verisimilitude]

Can we now call this thread ended?

(I would love it if a moderator here saw fit to close it.)

I bet you would. You are free to pick up your toys and go home as you said you were going to.

If you want to respond to this answer with a yes or no: is abortion legal? If not…don’t respond at all.

 

[larsegarots]

Anyone care to inform the people on this board of when life begins:

Pro-Life people, 'splain somethin…
iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5510282#post5510282

 

[estesbob]

Anyone care to inform the people on this board of when life begins:

Pro-Life people, 'splain somethin…
iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=5510282#post5510282

The question in the thread you linked us to was why should abortion be restricted other than for moral or religious reasons.

Kind of a silly question because I could say the same thing about murder, rape, theft, battery, etc,etc,etc Other than moral or religious reasons why would any of these be restricted?

 

[larsegarots]

The question in the thread you linked us to was why should abortion be restricted other than for moral or religious reasons.

Kind of a silly question because I could say the same thing about murder, rape, theft, battery, etc,etc,etc Other than moral or religious reasons why would any of these be restricted?

To be technical, the question only asks why it should be restricted other than religious reasons. I think they are trying to determine moral reasons that are non-religuous.

 

[sanctamaria17]

You can’t use the military against your OWN civilians! I’m pretty sure we call that treason…

Seriously, make it illegal and have our own police take care of that. Why do we need to become a police state?

 

[estesbob]

I would support militray action to end this thread!

 

[Lief_Erikson]

I would support militray action to end this thread!

Lol.

I personally have found a very interesting discussion in this thread, though. Perhaps less so of late- I don’t know. I haven’t been reading here much since people stopped responding to my posts .