Taking Out

[dairygirl4u2c]

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--language--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.

Edited August 28, 2008 by homeschoolmom

[T-Bone _]

1. It's illegal.
2. The justices are not combatants, they're civilians, so any sort of "Just War Doctrine" wouldn't apply.

[dairygirl4u2c]

that it's illegal isn't a reason. the revolutionary war was illegal, but we did it anyway. many just wars are illegal but you do it anyway.

the second reason is a formidable reason.
i don't see it in the just war criteria, what you mention though about combatants [url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_War[/url]
it has an intuitive appeal to it, i suppose. though i disagree with it and think there's an intuitive argument against it too.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/"]http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/[/url]
the most recent assassination attempt

[Adrestia]

You have already answered your own question. If it's not worth doing now, it's just not worth doing. If a "selfish [mod]edit--language-hsm[/mod]" were to find it worthwhile, then maybe it would be debatable.

[dairygirl4u2c]

[url="http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/"]http://edition.cnn.com/2006/LAW/11/17/court.cookies/[/url]
the most recent assassination attempt

[Justin86]

The only problem with assassination is we have no guarantee that the person replacing the Justice would be pro-life, and therefore we don't have a reasonable chance of winning such a war.

That Justices are technically "non-combatants" isn't an issue because they are the ones responsible for the law. Under this defintion Hitler was technically a noncombatant during WWII.

[RandomProddy]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1479809' date='Mar 19 2008, 04:55 AM']that it's illegal isn't a reason. the revolutionary war was illegal, but we did it anyway. many just wars are illegal but you do it anyway.[/quote]

Sin should not be excused

[quote name='Justin86' post='1479904' date='Mar 19 2008, 10:07 AM']That Justices are technically "non-combatants" isn't an issue because they are the ones responsible for the law. Under this defintion Hitler was technically a noncombatant during WWII.[/quote]

False, he was commander-in-chief. Civilian judges (i.e. those not involved in courts martial) have no military role, political leaders do.

Edited March 19, 2008 by RandomProddy

[Justin86]

[quote name='RandomProddy' post='1479913' date='Mar 19 2008, 07:50 PM']False, he was commander-in-chief. Civilian judges (i.e. those not involved in courts martial) have no military role, political leaders do.[/quote]
Our president is also Commander-in-Chief and he is considered a civilian. One does not have to be military to be thought of as Commander-in-Chief.

What is you reference that Hitler even claimed the title, by the way(no, the American Constitution is NOT a legitimate source.)?

[catholicinsd]

[quote name='Justin86' post='1479904' date='Mar 19 2008, 05:07 AM']The only problem with assassination is we have no guarantee that the person replacing the Justice would be pro-life, and therefore we don't have a reasonable chance of winning such a war.[/quote]

Just forget that's it is morally wrong- a mortal sin. It's just that we don't know who would replace the murdered people is a bad thing.

[Justin86]

[quote name='catholicinsd' post='1480019' date='Mar 20 2008, 12:26 AM']Just forget that's it is morally wrong- a mortal sin. It's just that we don't know who would replace the murdered people is a bad thing.[/quote]
Since legalized abortion is a form a genocide your logic doesn't stand to reason unless you're morally against taking out Hitler as well, or a pacifist.

[Aloysius]

well, as it is, Hitler's crime directly involved his use of the military. He had the military round people up and slaughter them.

The modern crime of abortion does not involve the use of the military; it does not suffice to say 'they are not military' and say they are 'non-combatants'.... were a just war to be waged against the abortion holocaust, combatants would be defined as those who are engaging in the slaughtering of unborn children and those in charge that keep it going.

and I think a reasonable argument could be made that:
pro-choice supreme court justices:abortion clinics::Hitler:concentration camps

a reasonable argument, mind you, but not a concrete one.

just because it is illegal does not mean it is sinful. God's law supersedes man's law, and any law which perpetuates the murder of babies is a law which needs to be overturned, even if it be by bloody war or revolution.

the real moral question is not "is it illegal or not", because the second anyone considered it was a just war there would be no question of following the laws that prohibited that war, it'd be a just war. the question is whether it'd be considered a just war.

All that said, I am not sure that at this stage I could legitimately label justices on a court with the same brush as Hitler. Imagine if Hitler had created a law which permitted Jews to kill themselves or kill each other... ie made it legal for a Jew to kill another Jew... if he had done that rather than send out people to exterminate them, it might've been a different story on whether or not an assassination of Hitler would've been part of a justified war (minus all the questions of invading Poland and the rest of Europe)... the justices did not send out an army of abortion doctors to forcibly take babies from mothers and kill them, they caused a law which allowed mothers to voluntarily go to a doctor who would voluntarily murder the baby. it's a democratized holocaust rather than Hitler's tyrannical holocaust... so simply assassinating the justices might not be justifiable.

it's the paradox of a democratized holocaust that really wrangles us as to how/if a just war could ever properly fight against it. a tyrannical holocaust is easy to know how to fight, cut off the head and the snake will die... but it seems that the democratized holocaust can only be defeated through peaceful democracy... so sadly ineffective when you think about all the evil that is being perpetuated.

[Justin86]

Al,

Legalized abortion is not a democratic law in the United States. It is imposed on us by the courts. Being that Hitler was elected by the popular vote of the German people his Holocaust was actually more democratic then ours. I also fail to see what democracy has to do with just war theory. I don't remember seeing that in Augustine's ideas.

[Justin86]

Oh, and one more thing: Hitler actually did legalize abortion as an option, for Jews only.

Edited March 19, 2008 by Justin86

[Aloysius]

what I mean by calling it "democratic" (in the more theoretical, not political sense) is that the law does not directly murder people... the law allows for people to murder each other.

Hitler was the head of the army, and he ordered the army to go out and slaughter people.
The Supreme Court is not the head of an army of abortion doctors, all it did was make it legal for the abortion doctors to do the slaughtering... the connection is less direct, they cannot be considered in the same position in relation to the abortion holocaust as Hitler could have been in relation to the Jewish holocaust.

the blame rests from the grass-roots upwards to the Supreme Court. It may not be a majority-based law, but it's a grass-roots murder operation. From the bottom down, from the individual mother who decides to kill her baby up to the doctor who offers it up to the top...

this is why I say it has to be defeated with real pure and peaceful democracy, with the people and their elected representatives actually making the laws that stop abortion (and Congress could do that with the We the People Act). It's not that Roe v. Wade is a democratic-majority written law by any means, it's that the action of slaughtering the babies is run democratically whereas the action of the Jewish holocaust was run by a clear-cut military structure.

[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