The Ultimate Sacrifice/Cure for Abortion?

[Theoketos]

Also

At my Undergraduate College (Benedictine College) We shut down the Abortion Clinic in Kansas City, by Consistantly having about 100 people there every Friday and Saturday.

I know that Tomas Aquinas in CA did the Same.

[Q the Ninja]

There was a clinic shut down somewhere in Texas.

[Theoketos]

I have an honest question:

How involved are those wishing war in the current pro-life movement?

[Kilroy the Ninja]

This is truly wonderful - please believe me when I say that.


But, we need to do more. More of these activities, more protesting, more destroying the Culture of Death. More prayer.

I shall have to continue this thread later as I have obligations to attend to now.

Well, Q the Ninja. May your time here at Phatmass be spiritually profitable to you.

[Q the Ninja]

Thank you.

[Theoketos]

Yes More is good!

[save ferris 101]

[quote name='Kilroy the Ninja' date='Dec 31 2004, 01:30 PM'] Wow. You're right. I even know exactly what you're thinking right now.

Get real.

Of course it's a generalization about why everyone won't go to war over this right now. Duh.

I'm discussing most everyone. Ever PC-Patti knows you have to be [i]general[/i] when discussing more than a few people at a time.


But I was very specific about the [i]analogy[/i] of going to war over less than 4000 murdered in a day.


And I don't believe the word Coward was anywhere in my post. That's [i]your[/i] word. Is that how you feel? That the general public is comprised of cowards? [/quote]
No, that's how I think [i]you[/i] feel. There are many things, like Q the Ninja has mentioned, that you can do, besides go out and start killing people. And my point was that it was the wrong generalization. Maybe people actually still have faith that you can get something done in the world, or at least in our country, without having to kill people for it. That instead of killing people, you can convince them, or at least make other people not listen to them.

[Tink]

wow Ninja, that's a beautiful story!

We have a ring of people who visit the abortion clinic, which just happens to be next door to a Women's Care Center, to pray the rosary in front of the property.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Dec 31 2004, 06:27 AM'] If you're a New Natural Law theorist, that's fine, but you'll have to declare yourself as such.

Otherwise, please be careful. The Revisionists are similar to you.

Intention does not change the type of act at all, according to St. Thomas Aquinas. Murder is intentionally killing an innocent person. Well, in this case the person is technically innocent. Killing is only justified by proportionate reasoning (such as in war) [I hate using proportionate because it errs so close to Proportionalism], and in this case there is not proportionate reasoning. There is not a remote enough material cooperation in evil. It is formal. You do not need to kill the people who support abortion, there's no reason! You have to be careful when you say so.

An act can be evil if the object of the exterior act of the will is evil, the object of the interior act of the will is evil, the end is evil, or one last one (I forget). In this case, there is a huge lack of due order (evil) in the object of the exterior act of the will. Doesn't matter what your intent is anymore, you've committed an evil act. You may not have much or any culpability (probably will), but the act is evil. There is no way to rationalize this. It becomes murder, and intent does not matter to the objective act. [/quote]
Q the ninga you are already inconsistant you say that intention has no bearing on the type of act at all and then you define murder through the use of intention. who is technecly innocent the people conspireing to kill the babuy or the bay itself-- I will assume you mean the baby. THe baqby is in a building full of people who murder babies if that building is destroyed with the intent ( which I am sorry is increadibly realivent to natural law as an evil effect cannot be directly intended in order for double effect to come into play) of destroying the building and removeing the combatant from thos who would kill the innocent then that is an " accident to the act" the act itself is not evil and the intent is not to kill the unborn inside but to save the countless unborn who will die in said place at the hands of said people. There is no formal participation in evil here.

There is no disorder in the exterior act of will to say there is is to say that there is no such things " accidents" during war. It is not murder and you'll have to put forth a much better arguement of proof that it is,you see we have been through this before a lot and your are simple incorrect in your analysis-- unless you are arguing that it is only so on the grounds that it is simply not to that stage yet which is a differant aarguement entirely than the idea that this act is objectively murder.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote name='Q the Ninja' date='Dec 31 2004, 06:33 AM'] It's not remote enough. End of story. [/quote]
[quote]It's not remote enough. End of story.

[/quote]
yes it is end of story

see i can make unsubstatiated statements too.

[Don John of Austria]

[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]


absolutly correct.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 31 2004, 02:17 PM'] Q the ninga you are already inconsistant you say that intention has no bearing on the type of act at all and then you define murder through the use of intention. [/quote]
My definition of intention as I used it is that the person intends to do the act. That really doesn't change the type of act, but if you accidentally kill someone, that's different than intentionally killing them. What you mean to do when you kill that person on purpose, however, does not change the type of act it is.

[quote]who is technecly innocent the people conspireing to kill the babuy or the bay itself-- I will assume you mean the baby. THe baqby is in a building full of people who murder babies if that building is destroyed with the intent ( which I am sorry is increadibly realivent to natural law as an evil effect cannot be directly intended in order for double effect to come into play)  of destroying the building and removeing the combatant from thos who would kill the innocent then that is an " accident to the act" the act itself is not evil and the intent is not to kill the unborn inside but to save the countless unborn who will die in said place at the hands of said people. There is no formal participation in evil here.[/quote]

If the material participation isn't as remote as possible, and I don't think it is, that's formal participation in evil. Here is a good definition of intent as I mean it.

[quote]There is no disorder in the exterior act of will to say there is is to say that there is no such things " accidents" during war. It is not murder and you'll have to put forth a much better arguement of proof that it is,you see we have been through this before  a lot and your are simple incorrect in your analysis-- unless you are arguing that it is only so on the grounds that  it is simply not to that stage yet which is a differant aarguement entirely than the idea that this act is objectively murder.[/quote]

You must keep those accidents as minimal as possible, and if you can avoid them, you must. If you don't, then you've committed an evil act.

[Q the Ninja]

[quote name='Don John of Austria' date='Dec 31 2004, 02:18 PM']
yes it is end of story

see i can make unsubstatiated statements too. [/quote]
I've backed up that claim, it is not necessary to kill everyone (yet).

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]We are not a political authority. If they're not met, then no one can do it.[/quote]We don't have to be Aluigi's post concerned when it is okay to revolt agianst political authority.
[quote]
1. The government does not kill the babies. I do not think it's right to permit it, of course, but the government does not commit the murders. That's a clarification that must be made.[/quote]

Actually it does, through social programs which pay for abortion which have been numerous in the past, and through their direct financal support of institutions which do it, whether or not Federal money is spend directly on abortion is irrelevent, the money that is given to these intitutions is indirectly spent on abortion, Further ublic Facilities are REQUIRED to offer abortion services.
[quote]
2. We haven't done all we can, and it seems it may come to an end soon. Thirty years isn't long.
[/quote]


30 years isn't long! are you smoking crack or something? I'm serious, 30 years is a huge amount of time thats why events say like the 30 years war are remembered by their length. More than that we have 45,000,000 dead it is eternity for them, we are approching the number of dead that where killed in all of world war II and that means ALL the dead military and civilian of the Entire world in the biggest war ever fought.

3. It can, but it won't.

oh your right it can and it will but I think you are correct in that the number of abortions will not go up but the other horrors of moderity will continue to get worse within 15 years we will have geneticly engineered babies, within 50 thats all we'll have.
5. People are lazy as it is, very few do as much as they can. I know, I see it all the time. I can even say this about myself.
Your right there as much as we can would be drilling a bullet in the head of every abortionist in the world ( or at least that we could reach before someone got us) very very few of use have done that.

[Don John of Austria]

[quote]They aren't doing very much, or enough. There isn't enough reason to go to war. [/quote]

I can think of 45,000,000 babies who will nbever see the beatific vision to go to war, that is a lot of reason, far more than anyother war in history.