Taking Out

[Socrates]

[quote name='BeenaBobba' post='1480456' date='Mar 19 2008, 09:47 PM']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.[/quote]
Umm . . . I think he was being sarcastic in that post there.

[BeenaBobba]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1480469' date='Mar 20 2008, 12:03 AM']Umm . . . I think he was being sarcastic in that post there.[/quote]

Ha! I was gonna say!

[SanctitasDeo]

[quote]Umm . . . I think he was being sarcastic in that post there.[/quote]

Thank you.

[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.[/quote]

Also: thank you. You saved me having to type all of that.

I think that starting to assassinate people in power because of their immoral beliefs is not only a really stupid idea (whether it is immoral or not), but it also undermines the foundation of democracy. There is no democracy if you just kill the people with whom you disagree.

At some point, rebellion is justified. This is true. And abortion is a terrible, terrible thing. But, I think, ultimately, a civil war over the issue (which is the can of worms being opened here--worms being slippery, even if they only begin with carefully picking whom you are justified to kill) would do more damage to lives, property, and faith than anyone needs. It wouldn't even ultimately help the aborted.

[catholicinsd]

This thread is giving a bad name to pro-lifers everywhere.

[Aloysius]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1480392' date='Mar 19 2008, 09:59 PM']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?[/quote]
no, I would not agree with that. The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means. The ends do not justify the means.

you must analyze the actual means for whether it is good or not, and my conclusion was that the means was in itself not acceptable because the justices cannot be justifiably pinned with the direct culpable involvement that someone like Hitler would've been pinned with. they have rendered our government unjust such that a revolution against our government would be justified if there was a chance that it could succeed, but they themselves have not done something that renders them deserving of an assassination.

if there was a revolution against the government, and those justices decided to join the fight in defense of the government, then they'd be combatants in a just war. but as it stands, they have done nothing culpably which would cause them to be deserving of assassination.

like I said before: revolution isn't justified because we could not succeed in it without creating greater evil... assassination isn't justified because there is no one with the culpability of a mass murderer like Hitler was except maybe the doctors themselves, and there is no effective way of stopping the doctors that won't cause more harm than good... that's what I call the paradox of a democratized holocaust.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1480233' date='Mar 19 2008, 06:07 PM']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.[/quote]
There is no argument Dairy, the ends do NOT justify the means. I don't need another argument because for Catholics that IS the bottom line. We don't commit murder to get our own way, so assassination is ruled out.

[faithfulrock3r]

The Chatechism explicitly states that the ends do not justify the means. A just war is not an evil means. Murdering a supreme court justics is an evil means.

[Norseman82]

I see no problem in taking out a justice to Red Lobster or Outback Steakhouse for Easter dinner.