dairygirl4u2c Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 (edited) it blows my mind people would rationalize not stopping them as 'the ends don't justify the means'. i don't think that principle is even applicable here, but even if it would, there must be a 'common sense' exception, ie it's only a rule of thumb. Edited May 31, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted May 31, 2009 Author Share Posted May 31, 2009 if someone thinks this situation is different than killing the handful of abortion doctors who do third trimester abortions for no good reason.... id like to hear how it's different. i genuinely dont know how it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 The poll leaves too many variables, so I can't answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I would hope I'd have the courage to go to the lions as bravely as St. Ignatius did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeresaBenedicta Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Sorry. Ends don't justify the means. It is better to suffer evil than to do it. One [i]could[/i] defend themselves with deadly force, morally, using the principle of double effect, if all other criteria of jus in bello is met... As for me, I hope I would have the strength to suffer the martyrdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 That situation could be like a saint factory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 1, 2009 Author Share Posted June 1, 2009 maybe i should have said 'there's a decent liklihood change could occur by killing them' at least if you only disagree with me about the liklihood, it's merely a question of fact. we could still agree in theory, that it's okay to kill them to save other people's lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TeresaBenedicta Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 [quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1879568' date='May 31 2009, 09:23 PM']maybe i should have said 'there's a decent liklihood change could occur by killing them' at least if you only disagree with me about the liklihood, it's merely a question of fact. we could still agree in theory, that it's okay to kill them to save other people's lives.[/quote] Likelihood of success is [i]one[/i] factor in determining the moral permissability of actions, but it's not the only one. Regardless, as a Catholic, I would still rather suffer martyrdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KnightofChrist Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Catechism #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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1337 k4th0l1x0r Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 This reminds me of that plot to kill Hitler. Not that the conspirators were interested in ending the Holocaust, but they would have been in a position to do something about it. Let's consider the abortion situation. 1. Abortion is legal in this country. 2. Making abortion illegal would require either a constitutional amendment or a RvW reversal. 3. Our current president and many legislators support abortion rights. 4. Many abortion providers exist and more will become available. The first item is a fact that needs to be changed. The second item illustrates the completely legal and unambiguously moral method of changing the fact. Unfortunately, it does not look like it will happen anytime soon. The third item shows who is keeping the second item from happening. The fourth item shows who carries out the legal action defined by the first item. A coup attempt or murder of political figures would be abhorrent in this country. It would pretty much undermine all the liberty that we have right now and has been worked hard for over many centuries of American history. Also, there is no guarantee the replacements would be better, and quite possibly could be worse. The Hitler situation was much different in that power was concentrated within a narrow group who amassed that power through recent (then) constitutional changes. Plus, those who were in on the plot would have been able to step in. I could not support a coup under any circumstances. Murdering abortion providers is akin to killing concentration camp guards. There are many more that will carry out the holocaust and only mass murder of the guards would do anything about it. Notice that relatively few Germans were executed post WW2, mainly those at the top. Most concentration camp guards did not face the noose. As someone illustrated earlier, any attempt to violently respond to oppression must have certain conditions met. In this country, I do not believe we have met all conditions for this in the case of abortion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lil Red Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 [quote name='1337 k4th0l1x0r' post='1879780' date='May 31 2009, 08:16 PM']Murdering abortion providers is akin to killing concentration camp guards. There are many more that will carry out the holocaust and only mass murder of the guards would do anything about it. Notice that relatively few Germans were executed post WW2, mainly those at the top. Most concentration camp guards did not face the noose.[/quote] +J.M.J.+ actually there are fewer and fewer doctors willing to step up and perform abortions, partly because of the risks (i.e. protests, assault) involved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TotusTuusMaria Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 No, I would not. This reminds me of Pope John Paul II. When priests and jewish friends of his were being imprisoned and murdered he did not join the minority resistence which blew up vehicles and shot random officers, having no real effect on the problem at hand other then just slowing them down, aggervating them, and giving them more silly reasons to persecute as they did. He did something different. I imagine I would do something different as well. I do it now in the matter of abortion. I sidewalk counsel, help and participate in prayer vigils outside the clinics, take part in grassroot outreach and education efforts, and am active in local and state politics when it comes to these particular matters... and national when the opprotunity arises. You can only conquer evil with good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thessalonian Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 If someone was being killed and I could stop it I would. ie. defending an individual. On that basis I would say yes to the question. But I would not kill someone who I knew was involved in the killing if there was no immediate, emmenent threat of someone dying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted June 2, 2009 Share Posted June 2, 2009 "holocaust." Proofread, for the love of Chuck Norris's mustache. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dairygirl4u2c Posted June 3, 2009 Author Share Posted June 3, 2009 (edited) just to note, i am referring to later term abortion providers who do elective ish abortions only. i am not referring to something that would require all abortion be banned, or roe v. wade even overturned. [quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1879580' date='May 31 2009, 08:36 PM']Catechism #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.[/quote] so, just argue that this fits with late term abortion murderers? it seems like even using these stanards, it's at least debatable. (more like, it's obvious what should be done.... ie, armed resistence -"impossible that any foreseeable solution is gonna occur', genearlly yes i dont see change,, let alone for the folks who are dying right now. -political solutions aren't doing much of anything. per other redress etc. let alone for the folks who are dying right now. -worse disorders, probably not. just jail time, at worse. -well founded hope? the liklihood isn't in our favor anytime soon. and not to mention those who are dying now. in all those, why in the world would you defer to letting people die? stating the standard only makes me see it as even more clearly. those who want to rationlize sin of doing nothing, do so. just like with hitler etc. hitler should have been shot. (im not sure when exactly his assassination attempt was, but. i suppose it might change things at certain times.) since when did we start making rationalizations to the obvious? hitler = what's occurring with dr. tiller. folks will one day look back at us with disgust, and it's deserved. ('why didn't they do anything in germany, with hitler??' -- if you've never thought about this being said about us, in the future, start now) you're all delusional. and make me angry. (and really pissed off, when i let it get to me. Edited June 3, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c 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