dairygirl4u2c Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 So what about the just wars? And we aren't allowed to defend ourselve when in mortal danger? Last time I checked (I could be wrong) we were allowed to do this by the Catholic Church! And my question explicity again is this. How can we allow just wars etc but not stand up for the babies vicim of abortion? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 Maybe we shouldn't use a bad means when there is a better means ie voting to stop abortion. But it still doesn't answer why the means are justified in other situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) THere is a difference between a personal aggression and the legitimate actions of the state. Edited February 9, 2004 by cmotherofpirl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) And just so that it's clear what pro-choice people argue here is a clarification of one of my quotes: All you did was insist that someone could think Joe Blow is not human and were putting in my mouth that I was okay with that. That's not what I was IMPLYING, and the fact that you think that's what I was IMPLYING is the reason the pro-life movement is getting nowhere. I was arguing FREEDOM above life because of the *understandable* (since the baby has no arms, legs, heart, brain) uncertainty, and the only reason I came back was by the logic of the Pope who said that the woman is only TRULY free when she realizes the baby is fully human and fully has the rights of humanity. If you're still not sure what my Joe Blow and freedom stuff is about you should ask cuz that's what most pro-choice people who are personally against it insist on. Edited February 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 Okay, what about self-defense? That's personal aggression. Unless the Church means since you defended in haste it's okay? I may be wrong on the defense thing. But are you implying that it would be wrong to save, again say, black people if people started killing them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Aggression and self -defense are too different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) How are they different? If you say because one is in haste so okay, is it okay to think right now that if someone attacks me, I will fully and rationally attack this person? Or are you implying that it would be wrong to save by force, again say, black people if people started killing them? Also, what gives the state the right to not follow the ends justifying mean spectrum? Edited February 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalscout Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) I have re-convert to the pro-life movement (the ones personally AND socially against it) since a woman is only truly free (as the Pope himself's argument has shown me) when she realizes the baby inside of her is fully entitled to humanity's natural rights. http://www.phatmass.com/phorum/index.php?s...opic=6891&st=60 I am still open minded. Open minded enough to leave the pro-life movement and open-minded to come back again. (and yes perhaps even so open-minded that my brains have fallen out) but I have more questions. I am wondering why we don't attack abortion doctors? It's been said that that's breaking the 10 commandments, but how is this different than having a just war? And if someone were killing say blacks, wouldn't we be obliged to stop them? Can we say the dispute is understandable enough to allow it to happen because of democratic means but not understandable enough to actively allow it to happen? What's the deal? I wonder if the Pope has spoken on this issue speicifically about abortion doctor killing. I also wonder why we aren't more adament about fighting for the people who have their plugs pulled but maybe that's another post. Let me preface this by saying I am Pro-Life(concerning abortion) and Anti-Capital Punishment. I think you have to look at intent. Lets take someone like a schoolyard mass murderer and the abortion doctor. Some would argue there is no difference. The difference between someone who walks into a school with an Uzi and opens fire on children and the abortion doctor is intent to kill. The schoolyard killer intends on taking innocent life. The abortion doctor thinks he/she is removing tissue. I am giving the abortion doctors the benefit of the doubt. I do not want to believe they would actually take lives if they believed they were. If they do believe it is a human life then they are just as guilty or worse. Killing the guy with the Uzi will be defending the innocent against the evil intent of someone else. Killing the abortion doctor will be like killing a stupid person. The doctor's real crime is ignorance. Of cousre that ignorance is slaughtering innocent lives. They need to see the Truth. Edited February 9, 2004 by socalscout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 That's a really thoughful post socal, thanks. But now that I see that point, I'm starting to second guess my re-conversion to the pro-life. The reaon I came back is because of the women did not have true freedom, having freedom be the basis of my argument. But since we should keep enforcing our morals on others to a minimum when it's understandable they dissent, aren't we stopping their free will? And isn't their free will their God given freedom even if they aren't really free? (since they would insist that they are) Since we can't show them the truth, their only crime is ignorance of the truth, and we are denying them their free will. Or else why don't we enforce all of our morals such as church attendance and contraception on everyone else? If we insist that it isn't understandable they dissent, shouldn't we hold true to that in these other matters as well? Are we allowed to say we hold to the Church's teaching personally, but legally we should keep our moral enforcing to a minimum in this case and not abortion? Is it because it is less of a crime and so can be tolerated? We need to consider free will, cuz while the person isn't really free, isn't free will the true freedom God gave us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thicke Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 dairygirl4u2c, here is the just war doctrine from Catholic Answers: The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time: 1) the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; 2) all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; 3) there must be serious prospects of success; 4) the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition. These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine. The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good. Even if the just war doctrine applied here, which it doesn't because it is not a war between two nation, states, governments, etc, the following items would prevent the use of just war doctrine in the fight against abortion. We have not exhausted all our options as referenced by item #2. The murder of abortion doctors has not slowed the pace of abortion in this country yet, so item number 3 would not be justified. It is also questionable if item number 4 would be justified. So, all we have is one (#1) out of four. In order to have a just war, you have to have all four.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) Cuz I'm getting back into isn't free will above life itself? I know what free will without life, but what is life without free will? And since the said life is in question, shouldn't the free will dictate as far as society goes? I'm considering retracting my last post about abortion, but I'm not sure! If it's understandable that abortionists don't concieve as the baby as entailing natural rights (big if I know), and if we start imposing all our other morals on everyone, contraception, no civil unions etc, aren't we preventing free will?? Thanx thicke! Another thoughful post. I agree that they aren't really the same. But then are implying that if the government started up slavery again, and started killing them in the process on the side, that we could not do anything about it? Edited February 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
p0lar_bear Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 dairygirl, I know a lot of people with this same question, so you are not alone. Not to sound cold, but moral considerations aside, killing abortion doctors is just ineffective. Bombing clinics and killing abortion doctors reinforces the image of pro-lifers as "anti-abortion extremists," which does not further the cause. While such actions may prevent some abortions or frighten some women away, they do not provide a real solution. Changing laws and, more importantly, changing hearts can bring a true end to this horror. Fighting abortion is not just about saving lives, but respecting life and teaching others to do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 Why do you think free will to do what you want in life is the most important value in existance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted February 9, 2004 Author Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) I hold free will above our lives because it is our livlihood. If God didn't want us to have free will, he wouldn't have gave it to us. And since the baby's life is "resonably" in question, we should not impose on her free wil,l one might think. I guess people can not agree if they want, I suppose they can use contraceptives etc, but as a society we won't allow it. So in a way we're not really opposing free will. But does that mean we'd have to vote against laws that allowing contraception and and church attendance and stuff?? I suppose in a way you should have to do all this for your religion, but I guess that means that you shouldn't be surprised if that means no one will want to vote for you or want you in politics either. Edited February 9, 2004 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
socalscout Posted February 9, 2004 Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) That's a really thoughful post socal, thanks. But now that I see that point, I'm starting to second guess my re-conversion to the pro-life. The reaon I came back is because of the women did not have true freedom, having freedom be the basis of my argument. But since we should keep enforcing our morals on others to a minimum when it's understandable they dissent, aren't we stopping their free will? And isn't their free will their God given freedom even if they aren't really free? (since they would insist that they are) Since we can't show them the truth, their only crime is ignorance of the truth, and we are denying them their free will. Or else why don't we enforce all of our morals such as church attendance and contraception on everyone else? If we insist that it isn't understandable they dissent, shouldn't we hold true to that in these other matters as well? Are we allowed to say we hold to the Church's teaching personally, but legally we should keep our moral enforcing to a minimum in this case and not abortion? Is it because it is less of a crime and so can be tolerated? We need to consider free will, cuz while the person isn't really free, isn't free will the true freedom God gave us? Yeah your arguement on freewill holds true for most but the abortion issue is different. The first question that must be answered is: Is this an unborn human life that began at conception with all personhood applied to he/she? If you answer "No" then we cannot go on. If it is "Yes" then the next question is: Do you believe it is ok to kill that unborn life? A "No" to that would make you pro-life regardless of free will. It does not justify killing the doctors or persecuting the pregnant women. It justifies your position that abortion should be illegal. The ingorance of the woman and doctor is irrelevant. It is the law that needs to be attacked. We are talking about two lives that share the same flesh now. Both carry equal value and neither is expendable regardless of FreeWill. Take Care. Edited February 9, 2004 by socalscout Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now