Taking Out

[Justin86]

So according to you just war can only be applied if the government is directly ordering the killing of babies? Doesn't sound right to me. A genocide is a genocide it doesn't matter if the government is directly ordering it or not. Where in just war theory does it say they have to?

The Nazi Party in Germany had grassroot support, and it still does today. The Supreme Court could just as easily decide the "We the People Act" is "unconstitutional" as they did state laws against abortion in '73. It's not like there's anyone who can stop them. This whole "theoretical democracy" vs "political democracy" idea is nothing more than word plays really.

[Aloysius]

no, it's two clear different uses of the word. if you say some thing's democratic, you might just mean it's dispersed amongst the people, or you might mean it follows the range of political theories that give the masses of people a vote in government.

a revolution to overthrow this government because it is allowing the murder of children is one thing, and that would be perfectly moral if we could muster up the power to do so without causing a greater evil.

targeting the supreme court justices in the government is quite another. those justices are not the Hitlers, they're not killing people, they're allowing people to kill each other. that is why the government has forfeited its moral claim to authority over us, because it has failed to protect the right to life... and as a result it would be perfectly moral to muster a revolution to overthrow them. to systematically target supreme court justices with assassination attempts? I just don't see that as justifiable

and stop with the "show me where that is in just war theory" garbage. St. Augustine is not the end-all-be-all on these questions, and we must apply the full range of our intellects informed by Catholic principals of justice and culpability to question as to whether or not a specific action is moral. could we even call this type of assassination a war? we could call a revolution a war, but a targeted assasination? for that, I simply ask: does the individual have direct blood on his hands, does he threaten human lives in a way that it would be best to defend them by killing him? I have laid out my reasons for answering "no" to those questions when asking myself about pro-choice justices. an abortion doctor has blood on his hands, but I ask myself "would killing him really protect any lives?" and find the answer is 'no'...which is why I consider this the paradox of a democratic holocaust... too many killers to have any positive effect by killing them, and there is no head of the snake which can be morally chopped off by targeted violence... the only way would be either by a full out democratic revolution... ie a popular revolution... to overthrow the government, or by peaceful democratic means.

the We the People Act would strip the federal courts of any authority on the issue of abortion, taking it back to the states. The Federal Court would not be able to declare it unconstitutional, because it would not be a law under the jurisdiction of the federal court because the federal court's jurisdiction would be redefined by it.

[dairygirl4u2c]

when the SC makes a decision, they are putting a burden on the people to change the constitution. say, the people have 70% support for being pro-life. to get the support to change the constitution, they need 75%. now, when the USSC says abortion is legal, that 30% minority has the upperhand.

i think it's reasonable that they think they are merely interpreting the law, but only up to a point... given that the ocnstitution is silent on this stuff, and privacy rights and how things have been done in the US and history in general are all cosiderations... and we can't expect the man made law to be practically senseful (think of all the legal contradictions and absurdities that the laws weren't suppore to be etc).
but at a certain point, i don't see how you wouldn't call it judicial law making to think that the court could autohrize a baby to be killed five seconds before leaving the mom and five seconds after leaving. the consitution shouldn't have to specify that much, even if they decided as a practical matter the earlier stuff could be regulated. to say otherwise is to expect an endless amount of detail of the constittuion, and hte making of an encyclopedia out of what's suppose to be a general descriptive overview constitution.
doe v. bolton was very bad law, for second and third triemster babaies who are not a threat to the mother other than a mere inconvience. whoever wrote that andor supported its consequence should be exectued if they are on the court, and simply refusing to follow the decision proves not possible.

Edited March 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1479770' date='Mar 19 2008, 12:26 AM']so why doesn't anyone do it?
if we can declare war and kill people, why can't we declare war and kill a justice?
if we're experiencing a holocaust, why wait until the voting process leads us to replacing them?
it seems they are the only way we're going to make progress in that field.

why can't someone declare themself an adequate authority and take them out? the authority bit referring to the just war theory that you must have adequate authority. does it require a bishop to consent to it, and why? the pope was against iraq but bihops trumped him.
and as for reasoable chane of victory, it seems quite plausible that this would expedite the situation. more likely than note, even. perhaps, the dems would take it as a sign to drag their feet in nominations, but maybe not. and in the right congress, probably not. we've never needed a high likihood difference before.

if i lived to be 100, i'll have nothing left to lose, and i'll seriously consider doing it myself if nothing changes by then. yes, i'm a selfish [mod]edit--hsm[/mod] for not doing it now. but at least i admit it.

it might lead to other's shooting prolife ones, but maybe not. it's worth a shot. no pun intended.[/quote]
Basic catholic principle: the end does not justify the means.

[dairygirl4u2c]

ends means argument is what i think it has to come down to for catholics.
i think people really need reexamine that. i think i've got many catholics to say that that is only a rule of thumb. eg lying to save a life is okay, stealign in a rich economy when you are strapped and have to feed yourself and kids if last resort they'd do. etc so if that's the case, you have to actually debate each issue instead of avoiding debate by stating end means principle.

but, beyond all that theory on that subject.... using that ends means argument doesn't work as a way to avoid the argument, cause it could just as well be a just war argument. which theory/category does something like this fall into, and why?
cause obviously the people killed in a just war isn't justifiying the means.

Edited March 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Aloysius]

dairy, the point is that we must always debate whether the means are good in and of themselves. if the means are evil, the it doesn't matter what comes out of them.

deception by mental reservation in order to save life is okay because the person does not have any moral right to the information which will cause a life to be ended; ie the means are good in and of themselves... so long as you do not deceive to people who do have the right to the information... similarly it can be justified that the means of taking food without payment in the circumstances are a good in themselves, not on the basis of the ends but on the basis of the action and the circumstances themselves.

which is why I went to great length in discussing whether or not the actual act would be a good act. the point is that you can't just do anything and everything to try to achieve some goal, you must always avoid doing anything evil even if you have some good sight in view for the ends. we would all agree it'd be a good if the courts got stacked with good pro-life judges, but when you propose some means for achieving that, we must analyze not just whether it'd succeed in getting that goal, but whether it is acceptable in and of itself.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i wouldn't necessarily disagree with that.
i was only responding to cmother, who seemed to be avoiding actual argumentation, and making a simple assertion, which she tends to do.
not sure if it's cause she has no argument... proobaly more that she doesn't want to argue but only wants to make the point.
but from what she posted, i was merely making the point back.

Edited March 19, 2008 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

Much as I utterly despise some of the Supreme Court justices and their philosophies, whacking a SCOTUS justice would not be a "just war" or anything else, but would simply be assassination and murder - and would be unlikely to do anything whatever to advance the pro-life cause.
The only thing an assassination would likely do is make a "martyr" out of the victim, and create general ill-will towards the pro-life cause, allowing the media to further paint pro-life Christians as a bunch of crazed murderous fanatics.
The political opposition in such an event would be so intense, that even a pro-life-leaning president would be unlikely to successfully appoint a pro-life replacement, and this would inspire strong defiance from the liberals.

[Justin86]

Al,

Would you agree that if by assassination we [i]could[/i] achieve pro-life victory it would be justifiable to do it? Obviously this is not the case, but hypothetically speaking would you agree with it?

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1480378' date='Mar 19 2008, 10:45 PM']The only thing an assassination would likely do is make a "martyr" out of the victim, and create general ill-will towards the pro-life cause, allowing the media to further paint pro-life Christians as a bunch of crazed murderous fanatics.

The political opposition in such an event would be so intense, that even a pro-life-leaning president would be unlikely to successfully appoint a pro-life replacement, and this would inspire strong defiance from the liberals.[/quote]

I agree. In the end, I think it'd do more harm than good to the pro-life movement.

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote]so why doesn't anyone do it?
if we can declare war and kill people, why can't we declare war and kill a justice?
if we're experiencing a holocaust, why wait until the voting process leads us to replacing them?
it seems they are the only way we're going to make progress in that field.[/quote]

If offing the justices is cool, what about offing anti-life Senators? They enable the justices. What about a President Clinton or a President Obama? They would be choosing pro-choice justices? What about the people who voted for such senators or presidents, whether they are pro-life, not, or just don't care? After all, they are advancing the cause of abortion. That lady down the street, the friendly neighbor with the pro-choice bumper sticker--they are enabling evil.

Besides, they disagree with you.

[dairygirl4u2c]

offing them though would just result in another election and prochoice person.

if you offed the justice in hte right circumstances, it might be effective. eg prolife president, and largely prolife congress.

[SanctitasDeo]

But if you killed enough pro-choice voters, then it wouldn't just result in another pro-choice senator or president.

That would surely advance the prolife cause.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='SanctitasDeo' post='1480434' date='Mar 19 2008, 11:36 PM']But if you killed enough pro-choice voters, then it wouldn't just result in another pro-choice senator or president.

That would surely advance the prolife cause.[/quote]

Yeah, but at what cost? You'd have offed half of the American population, and to do that, you'd need an incredible (read: unrealistic) amount of money, manpower, and weapons. Then, more than likely, other liberal nations around the world would get involved, and it seems that the majority of Western Europeans are pro-choice. I don't think pro-lifers would be victorious.

Plus, hypothetically speaking, if you succeeded in killing pro-choicers, you'd kill as many as you'd hope to save (if not more than that). Pro-choicers aren't necessarily bad people. They believe that they're doing what's best for women. Obviously, I disagree with them, but I do tend to think that most of them are well-intentioned, though very misguided. I feel extremely uncomfortable about the idea of killing anyone. Resorting to violence to end violence can have devastating effects for both sides in a conflict, and I'm not convinced that killing pro-choice judges, senators, etc. would do any good in the long-term. In fact, I see it doing more harm than good.

[BeenaBobba]

Also, I think that prayer and logic is stronger than the proverbial sword. I don't think it'd be justified to resort to violence when there are peaceful means to bring about change.