The Ultimate Sacrifice/Cure for Abortion?

[Q the Ninja]

How many of you here can [i]honestly[/i] say that you've done all in your power to help these children (non-violently)?

[Tink]

Well, maybe this sounds silly, but I think I have. I've stood in 8 degree weather every Wenesday for the past several months saying a rosary for the aborted children in front of the abortion clinic, donated what I am able to pro-life causes, and defended God's sacred gift of life wherever I possibly could. The only thing I'm yet to do is attend the March for life, which will be coming up!! Yay!

I'm sure that doesn't sound like much, but it's all I can really do at 15 years of age.

Edited January 1, 2005 by Tink

[bookwyrm]

Ditto, Tink.
BTW, the March for Life rocks my socks! I went last year with my youth group. My teachers were ticked because I missed a bunch of midterm exams, but it was worth it!

Edited January 1, 2005 by bookwyrm

[voiciblanche]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Dec 31 2004, 06:24 PM'] How many of you here can [i]honestly[/i] say that you've done all in your power to help these children (non-violently)? [/quote]
Not me... and I'd be really, really interested to hear someone who has.

[Q the Ninja]

Exactly.

[Q the Ninja]

I propose adoption as part of the solution. My parents have adopted numerous times. Many families out there wish to adopt.

[cathqat]

[quote]I can think of 45,000,000 babies who will never see the beatific vision[/quote]

Out of curiosity, on what are you basing your conclusion that they will "never see the beatific vision"? Do you really believe they are going to Hell?

Regarding this "war" business, as I wrote on the other thread:

Charles E. Rice's book [i]The Winning Side: Questions on Living the Culture of Life[/i] covers the "just war against abortion" question.

Personally, I agree with the U.S. Bishops' statement in [i]Confronting a Culture of Violence[/i]:

[quote]Increasingly, our society looks to violent measures to deal with some of our most difficult social problems -- millions of abortions to address problem pregnancies, advocacy of euthanasia and assisted suicide to cope with the burdens of age and illness, and increased reliance on the death penalty to deal with crime. We are tragically turning to violence in the search for quick and easy answers to complex human problems. A society which destroys its children, abandons its old and relies on vengeance fails fundamental moral tests. Violence is not the solution; it is the most clear sign of our failures. We are losing our respect for human life. How do we teach the young to curb their violence when we embrace it as the solution to social problems?

We cannot teach that killing is wrong by killing. We have reached the point in one very visible case where a jury has urged the execution of the person who murdered the physician who was destroying unborn children. This cycle of violence diminishes all of us -- especially our children. For our part, we oppose both the violence of abortion and the use of violence to oppose abortion. We are clear in our total repudiation of any effort to advocate or carry out murder in the name of the pro-life cause. Such acts cannot be justified. They deny the fundamental value of each human life, and do irreparable harm to genuine pro-life witness. Just as clearly, a nation destroying more than one and a half million unborn children every year contributes to the pervasive culture of violence in our nation. We must affirm and protect all life, especially the most vulnerable in our midst.[/quote]

In [i]Living the Gospel of Life[/i], the bishops also wrote:

[quote]Our witness to respect for life shines most brightly when we demand respect for each and every human life, including those who fail to show that respect for others. The antidote to violence is love, not more violence.[/quote]

Likewise, Pope John Paul II has said on many occasions:

[quote]NO to death! ...NO to selfishness! ...NO to war! War is not always inevitable. It is always a defeat for humanity. (January 2003)[/quote]

[quote]Peace is always possible! But there must always be cooperation to uproot from cultures and lives the seeds of bitterness and misunderstanding, the will to prevail over one's neighbor, the arrogance of self interest and disdain for the other's identity.... Conflict is never inevitable! ...Violence begets violence. War must always be considered a defeat: a defeat of reason and of humanity. May men soon make a spiritual and cultural leap forward to outlaw war! Yes, never again war! (September 2004)[/quote]

[quote]Without conversion of the heart there is no peace! Peace is only achieved through love! Right now we are all asked to work and pray so that war disappears from the horizon of humanity. (March 2003)[/quote]

[quote]Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society.... On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and to return to the ways of peace.... Violence only delays the day of justice. Violence destroys the work of justice.... Do not listen to voices which speak the language of hatred, revenge, retaliation. Do not follow any leaders who train you in the ways of inflicting death. Love life, respect life, in yourself and in others. Give yourself to the service of life, not the work of death. Violence is the enemy of justice. Only peace can lead the way to true justice.... The true courage lies in working for peace. (September 1979)[/quote]

I side with the Pope and the bishops on this.

Edited January 1, 2005 by cathqat

[Tink]

[quote name='voiciblanche' date='Dec 31 2004, 11:31 PM'] Not me... and I'd be really, really interested to hear someone who has. [/quote]
Um, well bookwyrm and I just admitted to it.


And March for Life will be awesome! Maybe I'll see you there!

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]We do when we're waging a just war.[/quote]
Not when that Just War is revolutionary in nature.


[quote]
Does this still happen today? I believe that Bush has tried to cut at least much of the funding.
[/quote]

Bush has cut the direct funding but not the indirect funding, public hospitals are still required to offer abortion services.

[quote]

I'm looking at the big picture. How many people would end up in this war? Most of the US. Probably Canada, too. How many will die? Too many. Plus, there are other ways, as I'll mention again in a minute[/quote]

No really your not, the big picture is the one that takes into account Justice for the entire world, not just those who happen to be born who happen to be in our little corner of it. but leets take a worst case senerio and say that the US and Canada where both embroiled in a long bloody civil war the realistic fatalities in such a war would be very unlikely to go above 2 or 3 million and that is a long and bloody war, or in other words less than or equal to, the amount of babies aborted in 2 years.

[quote]Why don't we do other things than war?[/quote]


We have they have been and still are only marginally effective, or not effective at all.

[quote]Yes, but what was the percentage of the entire population at the time?
[/quote]

about 1.9 percent, comparatively we murder about .6 percent of our population every year through abortion, and we have been doing so for 30 years.

[quote]
So because we haven't done all we can now, we should resort to violence right away?
[/quote]

That is as Ithcus likes to say, begging the question. Your question assumes that we have not done all that can be done, and further assumes that 32 years is right away. That sir is a logical fallascy of the most basic order, it is exactly what is being debated here.

[quote]I would like to hear an example of a legitimate government from you.[/quote]


Would you like an historical example or the qualities that make one legitimate perhaps I should give you both.

Historical examples-- The Holy Roman Empire under the Rulership of the Hapsburgs, the Austrian Hungarian Empire under the same House. The Government of France up until the French Revolution and only intermeitantly since then. The Government of England before about 1530. The Government of Aragon and Navarre.

In order to be legitimate a government must conform to the Divine will, in that it cannot
A. legislate acts which are in direct contradiction to the well being of it's subjects
B legislate acts which seperate the Church from the state
C legislate acts which are in direct contradiction with the Reveled truths of God and promote or codify heresy
D deny that all authority comes from God and try to justify its use of Power as coming from "the people" or from a book or anything else.
E make war on God, His Holy Name, His Honor, or His Chrurch
F. Not legislate acts which are outside the Authority of the State, or legislate acts arbitrarly
G be ruled by an excommunicate


On the contrary a legit government [i]must [/i]
A defend the well being of all of its subjects without prejudice
B Submit to the Church, in matters over which the Church has dominion
C Accept that as all authority comes from God the use of Power by the State must be limited to those things which are within the States rights, ie. the State must accept its limitations
D defend the Holy Name of God, His Honor, and His Church

[voiciblanche]

[quote]Um, well bookwyrm and I just admitted to it.[/quote]

I don't mean to offend you, but there's [i]so[/i] much more that can be done. I mean, I'm younger than fifteen and I can still think of thousands and thousands of things that just I myself could do. I mean, if I did the things I do now much, much more, that would make a difference. If I spent time with girls my own age that are looking into abortion, that would make a difference. What if I gave up everything I have for poverty? That's like a million birds with one stone, and I [i]could[/i] do it. Even things I can't do until I'm an adult, I don't know if I'd do them all... there's so much to be done that isn't being done, and if I thought I was doing all I could now, there'd be more to be done. I guarantee it.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]Out of curiosity, on what are you basing your conclusion that they will "never see the beatific vision"? Do you really believe they are going to Hell?
[/quote]


I am basing this on Church Doctrine-- We have an entire thread on this, i'll find it agian. But suffice it to say they do not see the Beatific vision.

[url="http://phorum.phatmass.com/index.php?showtopic=25918"]here[/url] is that thread.

[quote]Violence is a lie, for it goes against the truth of our faith, the truth of our humanity, the life, the freedom of human beings. Violence is a crime against humanity, for it destroys the very fabric of society.... On my knees I beg you to turn away from the paths of violence and to return to the ways of peace.... Violence only delays the day of justice. Violence destroys the work of justice.... Do not listen to voices which speak the language of hatred, revenge, retaliation. Do not follow any leaders who train you in the ways of inflicting death. Love life, respect life, in yourself and in others. Give yourself to the service of life, not the work of death. Violence is the enemy of justice. Only peace can lead the way to true justice.... The true courage lies in working for peace. (September 1979)[/quote]

This can be interpreted in two ways the way you are interprateing it, which is that all violence is wrong, but we know that that is not correct, more than that is Heresy to say that it is so, the Church has repoeatedly infallably called for the use of Violence, no it cannot be seen in that way. This statement must either be rejected as out of keeping with Church Tradition or it must be understood in light of the 2000 years of Tradition and assume that the Peace it speaks of is Christ Peace and not Mans Peace ( which Christ came not to bring.) Working for the Pax Christi sometimes requires violence, that is the Tradition of the Church, That is the Ruleing of numerous Ecumenical Councils, That is the truth.

[voiciblanche]

[quote]No really your not,  the big picture is the one that takes into account Justice for the entire world, not just those who happen to be born who happen to be in our little corner of it.  but leets take a worst case senerio and say that the US and Canada where both embroiled  in  a long bloody civil war the realistic fatalities in such a war would be very unlikely to go above 2 or 3 million and that is a long and bloody war,  or in other words less than or equal to, the amount of babies aborted in 2 years.[/quote]

So, it's perfectly okay for us to kill as many people as we want, as long as we don't kill more than the amount of babies murdered by abortion?

[quote]Your question assumes that we have not done all that can be done[/quote]

It is [i]impossible[/i] for us to have done all that can be done. Impossible. Even if (and like I've been saying, I doubt it) one or two or five hundred people have been doing all that can be done by themselves, [i]we[/i] as a pro-life people have certainly not been doing all that can be done.


Don John, what do you suggest for us replacing our gov't with a legitimate one? Just curious.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]So, it's perfectly okay for us to kill as many people as we want, as long as we don't kill more than the amount of babies murdered by abortion?[/quote]

No it is perfectly okay to fight a war over it. I only bring up numbers becaus Q the ninga asked about them. and because it adresses the issue of propotionality.


[quote]It is impossible for us to have done all that can be done. Impossible. Even if (and like I've been saying, I doubt it) one or two or five hundred people have been doing all that can be done by themselves, we as a pro-life people have certainly not been doing all that can be done.[/quote]


I think you grossly overestimate the number of people who give a ________.


[quote]Don John, what do you suggest for us replacing our gov't with a legitimate one? Just curious.
[/quote]

I can't directly answer that question without moving from theoretical debate into abject sedition and therefore being subject to the penalties of Law. But theoretically, should something happen and this government was to no longer exist, I would support a Catholic Fuedal Monarchy as that has shown historicly to be the most stable and universally just form of government, I would also suppport a basicly distributive economic system and a general dismantling of the Capitalist system.

[save ferris 101]

[quote]it is our right under certain circumstances


QUOTE 
CCC 2243
Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.




1 met, killing babies for 30 years
2 30 years of inneffective non-violent opposition while the death tole rose
3 can't get much worse than 4000 innocents per day
4 if we organized perhaps
5 we've been looking for a reasonable better solution for years

if they're not all met they're gettin close to met.


it would not be an evil action, you have not showed how it would be. it would be a just war to rebel against a government that has allowed mass murder for 30 years with no signs of stopping it. sure, there's some partial birth abortion legislation but the political realm utterly refuses to stop the killing. we would have every moral right to take charge where they have failed. not based on proportionalism, based on Just War Theory, based on the Catechism of the Catholic Church.
[/quote]

I have a problem with number 4. ok, how is there a wellfounded hope of success? What would be our objective. How would we reach that objective. When would we reach that objective. What type of government would be in place, if changed at all, after we reached our objective. I mean really, I don't see how it is even feasible. The American people will never allow themselves to be part of a religious country, it just won't ever happen. If we tried to take over, we would never win. Not even if we had every single Catholic in the US fight with us could we do it. And that brings up another point, I'm sure that there would be bishops and laypeople who would not support it. We could count on 75% of the Catholic population at the very most. And how do we know when we've won? Are we going to march on Washington and make the legislature pass an amendment? and then what is to keep them from repealing it when we are done? And if you intend to create a government, like I said, it would never work. And I hate to admit it, but we have separation of Church and State for a reason, and I know that it is used to keep god out of everything, but what it was origionally intended to do was to keep on religion from controlling the government, because in England, when the Anglican Church was in power, it abused it's power very much. I don't think that it would be too good. And then, like I said, if we decide to try and start our own government, we would have to try and take over the entire nation, not just a part. We would not have enough material or training to try and take on the police, the national guard, and the most well trained army in the entire world. It is not possible.

However, I have now become convinced that we should take more action in the form of more aggressive civil disobedience, including increased sit-ins, demonstrations, maybe even riots.

[Monoxide]

I always thought a Catholic Fuedal Monarchy would be excellent, however, the last line of your paragraph sounded frightingly similiar to communism. ?