Taking Out

[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.

[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.