Late Term Abortion Provider

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Lil Red' post='1879379' date='May 31 2009, 05:25 PM']+J.M.J.+
even if he is killing 60000+ children a year?[/quote]

Even if he is killing 60000+ children a year.

Does his death stop a lot of other deaths? Yes.

But it doesn't justify the action. Killing is wrong, except in cases of self-defense. Perhaps an argument could be made that the murderer was defending others... but he still does not meet requirements of right authority-- who is he to choose to take this doctor's life? Nor was the doctor in the very act of performing a late term abortion, which means there was not an immediate threat.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' post='1879387' date='May 31 2009, 05:30 PM']As we have mentioned previously of course, we cal objectively call this a wrong action and grave matter, but we can't say that it was a mortal sin.
I know that's not what you said, but I wanted to clarify. [/quote]

The action is objectively and always immoral.

Whether or not the killer is morally culpable is a different question, a much more complex question, which I leave to the hands of God.

[Resurrexi]

We must remember that it is also permissible to kill to defend the life of another.

If a person were in the process of murdering another, it would be permissible to use lethal force to prevent the murder if lethal force were necessary.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1879401' date='May 31 2009, 03:34 PM']The action is objectively and always immoral.

Whether or not the killer is morally culpable is a different question, a much more complex question, which I leave to the hands of God.[/quote]

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1879412' date='May 31 2009, 05:38 PM']We must remember that it is also permissible to kill to defend the life of another.

If a person were in the process of murdering another, it would be permissible to use lethal force to prevent the murder if lethal force were necessary.[/quote]

Right. "Other or self-defense." The intention would be to stop the wrong action, currently being done, with the least amount of force possible (which is sometimes lethal force). The death of the original offender is a side consequence accepted.

[Resurrexi]

In my opinion, I don't think we should be scrupulous about using lethal force in self-defense or defense of others. If someone has a knife and is about to stab your friend and you have a gun, you only have a few seconds.Aim for the abdomen, where you have an actual chance of shooting him and thus saving your friend. That is, unless your Atticus, the deadliest shot in Maycomb, in which case, you could probably just shoot him in the arm or leg.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Resurrexi

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='Resurrexi' post='1879425' date='May 31 2009, 05:44 PM']In my opinion, I don't think we should be scrupulous about using lethal force in self-defense or defense of others. If someone has a knife and is about to stab your friend and you have a gun, you only have a few seconds.Aim for the abdomen, where you have an actual chance of shooting him and thus saving your friend.[/quote]

I agree. But, in other situations, when there is the opportunity to stop the wrong action without the use of the lethal force, we should take it.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='TeresaBenedicta' post='1879431' date='May 31 2009, 04:47 PM']I agree. But, in other situations, when there is the opportunity to stop the wrong action without the use of the lethal force, we should take it.[/quote]

This is true.

[Maggyie]

I can't believe that people would defend the murder of this abortionist. Of course it's unjustifiable. That is morality 101.

[Resurrexi]

I'm pretty sure DairyGirl is the only one who has done so thus far... and as we all know, she didn't pay attention in Christian Morality class in high school

[dairygirl4u2c]

i question the morality of anyone who disagrees with me. perhaps they are genuine, but it seems to me just rationalizations, cause they're too cowardly to do what is right. it's all just theories to them. the same reason you see so many in the pews, but not out on the streets doing God's work. it's all a game, an all a good theory. i say it's real life, and he deserved to die.
(not to overbrush for those who genuniely disagree

it would be just, as far as 'just war' to engage in war about this.

resurrexi and everyone else was just wrong to say the reason we shouldn't fight a war, is ends-mean.
im not sayin this just using my standards of morality, but the conventional wisdom standards used here by many. ends means isn't applicable, and it's more like just war.

the real reason we don't fight, is cause it's doubtful we'd win etc.

i suppose it's a reasonable arguent, to say this murder of that doctor is not advancing anything. in order to make it meaninfgul then, there would have to be a coalition, that kills anyone who performs late term 'elective' (even if really elective but in the name of theurputic), is going to be be killed.

perhaps i should also consider just taking them and imprisoning them. im not sure thatd be as effective etc. though there's much to ponder here.

even if it didn't have a deterrent effect on other doctors though, i wouldnt be surprised if lives have been saved by his murder. he's one of literally a handful who do the types he does. and he sounds almost bent on doing it for trivial reasons late in the terms. i doubt it'd veven work that 'oh, just another person will do the abortion' cause most are not bent on abusing the right the government has given.
so in this sense, even if no deterrent effect, id bet lives have been saved.

i stand by my statements.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1879565' date='May 31 2009, 09:17 PM']it would be just, as far as 'just war' to engage in war about this.

resurrexi and everyone else was just wrong to say the reason we shouldn't fight a war, is ends-mean.
im not sayin this just using my standards of morality, but the conventional wisdom standards used here by many. ends means isn't applicable, and it's more like just war.[/quote]

I invite you to argue how this fulfills the Just War criteria. And you've made a contradiction in what you've just said. The fact that the ends do not justify the means is at the heart of the Just War theory.

I'm a little confused as to what "morality" you're hold to. It's certainly not Catholic morality.

[dairygirl4u2c]

yes i was one who voted yes.
whoever voted along with me, should aknowledge it. id like to symbolically shake your hand. (and it'd be nice to hear his or her reasons etc

[dairygirl4u2c]

"The fact that the ends do not justify the means is at the heart of the Just War theory."

as much as catholics etc dont like to admit it, 'just war' is an exception to the 'ends mean' paradigm. even if the criteria are met for winning, it's really just an exception. how would you say it's not? well, at least compared to what's occurring here it's an exception. if just war can exist, so can killing certain abortion doctors, if it achieves the purpose of reducing murders generally.
(i can see as reasonable someone saying that 'killing the innocent' is justifying the means, and fighting bad guys, is not-- to oversimplify. my point being, i can see a way to justify 'ends means never works' in certain systems, but not to the extent as is being argued here by most in this thread. this is killing bad guys and saving lives.

there are decent number of christians who are consequentialists ('proportionalistis' is better ) rather than deontologists.... many who are 'common sensical' about 'ends means'. i could provide examples.

most people just fall into, 'ive never thought about this, that sounds like a good aesthetic theory and that must mean im called to do it as a chrsitian, not to ever do the ends means thing, and it's conventional wisdom, so i'll do that'. when push comes to shove, most would torture a terrorist if he said he knew where the bomb was. most would murder to save the innocent. and it's not just cause it's them acting by impulse etc, but cause it's the right thing to do.
i didnt come to defying conventional wisdom by accident, it was a reasoned decision on my part.

Edited June 1, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1879575' date='May 31 2009, 09:28 PM']"The fact that the ends do not justify the means is at the heart of the Just War theory."

as much as catholics etc dont like to admit it, 'just war' is an exception to the 'ends mean' paradigm. even if the criteria are met for winning, it's really just an exception. how would you say it's not?

there are decent number of christians who are consequentialists ('proportionalistis' is better term) rather than deontologists.... many who are 'common sensical' about 'ends means'. i could provide examples.

most people just fall into, 'ive never thought about this, that sounds like a good aesthetic theory and that must mean im called to do it as a chrsitian, not to ever do the ends means thing, and it's conventional wisdom, so i'll do that'. when push comes to shove, most would torture a terrorist if he said he knew where the bomb was. most would murder to save the innocent. and it's not just cause it's them acting by impulse etc, but cause it's the right thing to do.
i didnt come to defying conventional wisdom by accident, it was a reasoned decision on my part.[/quote]

As this is a debate forum, I invite you again to make a philosophical argument.

I am well versed in the Just War theory, its history, and the variations on it. If you are going to invoke Just War principles here, I would like to see you argue how the criteria is fulfilled.

[dairygirl4u2c]

even if just war is not per se being fulfilled, the 'kill certain abortion doctors' theory is more similar to 'just war' than it is 'ends means restrictions'
that's why i ask you to tell me how just war isnt' really just a techincality based upon tradition, to 'ends means'.

nevertheless, i think just war fits here.

[quote]Just cause
The reason for going to war needs to be just and cannot therefore be solely for recapturing things taken or punishing people who have done wrong; innocent life must be in imminent danger and intervention must be to protect life. A contemporary view of just cause was expressed in 1993 when the US Catholic Conference said: "Force may be used only to correct a grave, public evil, i.e., aggression or massive violation of the basic human rights of whole populations."

Comparative justice
While there may be rights and wrongs on all sides of a conflict, to override the presumption against the use of force, the injustice suffered by one party must significantly outweigh that suffered by the other. Some theorists such as Brian Orend omit this term, seeing it as fertile ground for exploitation by bellicose regimes.

Legitimate authority
Only duly constituted public authorities may wage war.

Right intention
Force may be used only in a truly just cause and solely for that purpose—correcting a suffered wrong is considered a right intention, while material gain or maintaining economies is not.

Probability of success
Arms may not be used in a futile cause or in a case where disproportionate measures are required to achieve success;

Last resort
Force may be used only after all peaceful and viable alternatives have been seriously tried and exhausted or are clearly not practical. It may be clear that the other side is using negotiations as a delaying tactic and will not make meaningful concessions.

Proportionality
The anticipated benefits of waging a war must be proportionate to its expected evils or harms. This principle is also known as the principle of macro-proportionality, so as to distinguish it from the jus in bello principle of proportionality[/quote]

as far as authority goes, as some have pointed out, that's kind of up for grabs. if some priests say it's okay does that count? im sure you'd find some who'd say it's okay. what im getting at, is if that critiera isn't defined better, anyone who seems credible etc, is sufficient autohrity. we're a people of rising up from the grass to fight war (eg the revolution

as far as liklihood of success. that ones less clear. i think his killing has saved lives, even if they weren't 'immediate threats' as with self defense concepts. hopefully there's been a deterrent effect. if we were more consistent with killing under the right situations, there'd probably be a deterrent effect. most people are humane and wopnt do trivial reason late terms. eventually, those handful who do, will be dead, or won't.
-i mean, it's always thoretically possible he would have quit and not killed again. if you argue that sort of thing, or tell yourself that sort of thing, you're only fooling yourself. if he's giving all the signs of continuing late terms for trivial reasons.... he's next to certain gonna do it again. and in common sense world, that's all that matters.
let's not be ostrichses with our heads in the sand of rationalization.

last resort. i also admit is harder to say is clear. perhaps we could just kidnap etc. there's much to ponder here as i said. i think it'd have to be murder, to run home the message and ensure he doesnt do it again. i admit id have to consider this one the most, i think. and,ya know, ultimatly, it is a last resort to thos who will be murdered next week by a sketchy doctor. so this one is perhaps not as tough as i initially thought.

the other critierai seem pretty obvious.

i think ive argued all these points in my last threads well enough though, that's why i made the points i did. i was implicity referring to just war ideals.

i admit it isn't clear cut. but it think it's at least debatable, unlike many indicate here.

i know if catholic halocaust, or christians etc were being killed, people would not sit idly by and do nothing. it's in the womb, it's behind closed doors to eople the world doesnt know yet, so it's easy to ignore. that's all that's really transpiring here. (except for the few genuines who disagree with me. but even most of them are only geninue cause they were told that's what they're suppose to think... (but a minor exeption, for the truly truly genuine

i dont think those who disagree with me do a very good job making the argument. it's usually 'that's bad, it just is, that's all i know, and that's that.' course, i am a bit bias about it.

as a actually pretty big clarification though, i am only so adament about this guy, cause of his late term for any reason mindset. i dont think kiling random abortionst A is going to accomplish a whole lot.

Edited June 1, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1879587' date='May 31 2009, 09:44 PM']even if just war is not per se being fulfilled, the 'kill certain abortion doctors' theory is more similar to 'just war' than it is 'ends means restrictions'
that's why i ask you to tell me how just war isnt' really just a techincality based upon tradition, to 'ends means'.[/quote]

I don't understand what you're asking here.

[quote]as far as authority goes, as some have pointed out, that's kind of up for grabs. if some priests say it's okay does that count? im sure you'd find some who'd say it's okay. what im getting at, is if that critiera isn't defined better, anyone who seems credible etc, is sufficient autohrity. we're a people of rising up from the grass to fight war (eg the revolution[/quote]

Right authority. The government has the authority to put people to death and to wage war. And no, 'if some priests say it's okay' does not make for right authority.

[quote]as far as liklihood of success. that ones less clear. i think his killing has saved lives, even if they weren't 'immediate threats' as with self defense concepts. hopefully there's been a deterrent effect. if we were more consistent with killing under the right situations, there'd probably be a deterrent effect. most people are humane and wopnt do trivial reason late terms. eventually, those handful who do, will be dead, or won't.[/quote]

Likelihood of success seems to be fulfilled. There was little question as to whether or not the doctor would killed when shot by the killer.

[quote]last resort. i also admit is harder to say is clear. perhaps we could just kidnap etc. there's much to ponder here as i said. i think it'd have to be murder, to run home the message and ensure he doesnt do it again. i admit id have to consider this one the most, i think.[/quote]

Definitely not last resort. There are other ways to go about solving these problems without resorting to murder.

[quote]the other critierai seem pretty obvious.[/quote]

I don't think so. Let's go over the ones you missed.

Right intention.
This criteria is not fulfilled. The intention is to kill the doctor. There is no way to argue that he did not intend the death of that doctor. Intention to kill is wrong intention. Perhaps it is argued that the killer has the intention of 'stopping abortions' and protecting the lives of the innocent. That is his overall intention, and I find that admirable. HOWEVER, when we dissect the actions he took, we see that it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to not intend the death of the doctor. (IE, you can't invoke double effect in this scenario).

Just action, linked directly with right intention. Killing is objectively wrong. The action we are debating is the murder of the abortion doctor.

And there is no immediate threat.

Proportionality? Yeah, I think we have proportionality fulfilled.

Seems like not all of the criteria are fulfilled. You yourself even said there were a few criteria that were debatable. Unless all of the criteria for [i]jus in bello[/i] is fulfilled, the action cannot be considered just. Miss even one criterion, and the action is impermissible morally.

[quote]i know if catholic halocaust, or christians etc were being killed, people would not sit idly by and do nothing. it's in the womb, it's behind closed doors to eople the world doesnt know yet, so it's easy to ignore. that's all that's really transpiring here. (except for the few genuines who disagree with me. but even most of them are only geninue cause they were told that's what they're suppose to think... (but a minor exeption, for the truly truly genuine[/quote]

You're making a very broad generalization here and I don't think it's fair for you to make such assumptions about those who disagree with you.

[TeresaBenedicta]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1879587' date='May 31 2009, 09:44 PM']i dont think those who disagree with me do a very good job making the argument. it's usually 'that's bad, it just is, that's all i know, and that's that.' course, i am a bit bias about it.[/quote]

I don't think anybody in this thread has said that. In fact, I've seen more philosophical arguments made by those who oppose you than by your own hand.

[quote]as a actually pretty big clarification though, i am only so adament about this guy, cause of his late term for any reason mindset. i dont think kiling random abortionst A is going to accomplish a whole lot.[/quote]

Don't you think this is a bit contradictory to your whole line of reasoning? What's the difference between a late term abortionist and the typical abortionist? You're the one who has brought up the analogy of a holocaust of Catholics, claiming there is no difference between that and abortion.

At least be consistent. If it's okay to kill this guy, then it should be okay to kill any abortionist.

[dairygirl4u2c]

so what's your solution to authority and who's sufficient authority? the govern is often the bad guy. and, pointing out that the government could do it, is only one example of authority. the standard isn't 'government' or any one standard.

what's your 'last resort' solution, then? kidnapping?
if you say the political process, as if often said, you're succombing to appeasement. it's like saying 'we didn't have to fight hitler. we could have did the political process'. it's a rationalization, hard core. i dot see how you've shown it's any different. next week a baby was going to die, for no good reason, late term.

[quote]This criteria is not fulfilled. The intention is to kill the doctor. There is no way to argue that he did not intend the death of that doctor. Intention to kill is wrong intention. Perhaps it is argued that the killer has the intention of 'stopping abortions' and protecting the lives of the innocent. That is his overall intention, and I find that admirable. HOWEVER, when we dissect the actions he took, we see that it was IMPOSSIBLE for him to not intend the death of the doctor. (IE, you can't invoke double effect in this scenario).[/quote]

im not sure ya gotta hve double effect here, if ya dont with just war. or, if it's met there, it's just as met here. i dont see the distinction.
when you kill in just war, you intend the death of others, to save lives or an ultimate cause. that's exactly what happened here. it oesn't look like yhou've shown a difference, but digressed to an unrelated (or at least, not applicable to make a distinction) topic about double effects.

i do concede that just war contemplates imminent danger and death etc, but so does this stutiatoin of abortion. i concede cause just war etc, doesn't mean proportionalism as whole is okay. but it does fix this and the problem of torturing the guy who knows where the bomb is that's about to explode.


as far as abortionists generally and consistency.
do we disagree about the liklihood of success, is high and significant with this guy, than it is with all abortion doctors? cause i concede it doesn't work with abortionist generally cause there's too many, another will do it etc. i dont think that's the case with this doctor. eventually we'll make progress in this rare case. it appears you just told me to be consistent without any reasoning to distinguish what i've argued.
namely more specifically, i said "most people are humane and wopnt do trivial reason late terms. eventually, those handful who do, will be dead, or won't. "

you do make the point, legit, about no truly truly immediacy. it's not immediate, as if japan is dropping a bomb. if they wre going to do it next week, though, im sure all would sayu it's immediate. the only way you could distinguish, is to say you don't know he'll do it again, etc. but, ive stated that we're just plaing games if we think that, cause he's been doin it so long, and wont stop in any time soon aparently. so it's immediate as anything else that would work, and not distingishable in any other sense that im aware of.

Edited June 1, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

thre's only three centers across the country who do those sorts of procedures. there's only a handful of people willing to them too, late term. of those, even less will do them for trivial reasons.

Edited June 1, 2009 by dairygirl4u2c