Sunday, January 27, 2008

Are There Faults In My Reasoning VS. Abortionists

My very Catholic son has concluded, without offering logical opposition, that my train-of-reasoning as given below is faulty. If you can detect some fault in my assumptions or reasoning, please so notify me. (IF YOU ARE NOT A COWARD, PLEASE PROVIDE YOUR E-MAIL ADDRESS SO THAT I MIGHT PRIVATELY DEAL WITH YOUR POSITIONS!)

1. Natural Law allows each person to use deadly force as a defense against deadly attacks by others.
2. The teachings of most Christian Churches follow that prescription.
3. This is reflected in most, but not all, civil codes.
4. Natural Law may require us to use necessary force, including deadly force, to stop such attacks on the innocent.
5. Unborn babies are persons and are innocent.
6. Natural Law has authority and takes precedence over such civil laws as those allowing abortion (For purposes other than to save the life of a mother).
7. "The State" and civil law protects abortionists and, therefore, forfeits its authority (Under Natural Law) over anyone who stops or attempts to stop abortionists from their illicit actions by "public protests" or even the use of deadly force.
8. Less than deadly means of stopping such abortionists have failed to protect the innocent, unborn, babies from death-by-abortion.
9. Therefore, it is justifiable to use deadly force to prevent abortion by killing, as a necessary evil, those who perform such crimes.
10. The killing of abortionists is not "Murder" as prohibited by the Fifth Commandment; But, is the execution of justice "by the sword" as condoned, and sometimes required, by the teachings of the Church.
11. Therefore, jurors (In our legal system) or "Assessors" (In other systems) who sit on cases of persons who so kill abortionists must find them "Not Guilty", without regard to the civil law or instructions of the Courts, as a matter of upholding Natural Law.

3 comments:

Anonymous said...

1. Natural Law allows each person to use deadly force as a defense against deadly attacks by others.
* In Natural Law as defined by Thomas Aquinas, yes, and one must preserve one's own life no matter what.. This is number 1 on the priority list. It also disallows suicide for any reason. It does allow entering dangerous situations as long as there is a chance of survival.
2. The teachings of most Christian Churches follow that prescription.
* True but irrelevant.
3. This is reflected in most, but not all, civil codes.
* Also irrelevant
4. Natural Law may require us to use necessary force, including deadly force, to stop such attacks on the innocent.
* Thomism priority number 2 specifically says those innocents for which we are personally responsible, not our next door neighbors. Our next door neighbors are responsible for their own children and as part of a much lower priority we must act Harmoniously, so if our neighbor requests aid we must help them to stay alive and their children. If they don't request aid or are strongly adverse to aid we must not interfere. Though this can be overridden by the civil law. If the civil law says we must protect them, then we must. The civil law is the Natural Law at the level of Harmoniousness.
5. Unborn babies are persons and are innocent.
* Persons are not defined by legality but by ensoulment. Animals don't have souls, we need not protect them. A fetus may be a soul on conception and must be defended by their parents, to the death.
6. Natural Law has authority and takes precedence over such civil laws as those allowing abortion (For purposes other than to save the life of a mother)
* Natural Law is nonrevealed Divine Law. Of course it takes precedence over any civil law. But as stated above, we can only interfere with our neighbors conduct of life at the level of Harmony and at that level the civil law is the Natural Law.
7. "The State" and civil law protects abortionists and, therefore, forfeits its authority (Under Natural Law) over anyone who stops or attempts to stop abortionists from their illicit actions by "public protests" or even the use of deadly force.
* Civil law being Natural Law being Divine Law, at the level of Harmoniousness means that the civil law has the right to allow and protect abortion.
8. Less than deadly means of stopping such abortionists have failed to protect the innocent, unborn, babies from death-by-abortion.
* Only too true.
9. Therefore, it is justifiable to use deadly force to prevent abortion by killing, as a necessary evil, those who perform such crimes.
* Only if requested by the parents or mandated by the civil authority according to Harmoniousness, which is quite far down the priority list. If neither requested (implied or actual) nor mandated, it is an act of Inharmoniousness and is absolutely forbidden.
10. The killing of abortionists is not "Murder" as prohibited by the Fifth Commandment; But, is the execution of justice "by the sword" as condoned, and sometimes required, by the teachings of the Church.
* Being unrequested by either the parents or the civil authority it is absolutely forbidden by Harmoniousness, it is then an act of Perverse Murder.
11. Therefore, jurors (In our legal system) or "Assessors" (In other systems) who sit on cases of persons who so kill abortionists much find them "Not Guilty", without regard to the civil law or instructions of the Courts, as a matter of upholding Natural Law.
* Therefore, jurors, etc, must uphold Natural Law at it's civil level and hang the Murderer high. Or perhaps stoning, which can be quite slow and painful should be the method of execution.

To nutshell it.

Does Natural Law as defined by Thomas Aquinas allow us to defend with deadly force the helpless with whom we have no immediate social relationship in despite of those who do have an immediate social relationship with those helpless?
The answer is no.

Though signed in as anonymous, Mr. Pawlak has my email address and may respond as he wishes.

Anonymous said...

Hi James,

Can't use violence in this situation. Two reasons to begin with:
1) in a sense to respond violently would be taking on the role of police or militia -- but it is not morally within an individual's or group's authority to instigate a violent action as a pre-meditated response to injustice. Such a response in a sense is a "declaration of war" which response is legitimately decided only by government authority.
2) the benefits of a violent response (ie saving a life or lives) are dubious in that:

a)an abortion might not be being perpetrated at the moment of a violent response, and
b)anyone planning an abortion could go elsewhere to obtain it, rendering the violent act futile.

Moreover, any realized benefit of violent action would be far outweighed by the consequences, eg to the political cause of the pro-life movement and to any future violent response capability due to increased security.

But at the end of the day, the gut level feeling is that violence just is not morally right in this situation, regardless of the arguments of cowardess and of logical inconsistency that are used to taunt pro-lifers. These arguments are only temptations goading the conscientious into self-defeating and immoral actions.



That said, I disagree though with the Harmonious argument in this regard -- if my neighbor is being beaten by her boyfriend, I will use force to stop it if there is no other way. Because 1)violence would actually work in that instance, and 2)the benefits of force in that instance would far outweigh the detriments of force.

And finally:
"* Civil law being Natural Law being Divine Law, at the level of Harmoniousness means that the civil law has the right to allow and protect abortion." -- NOT so. Civil law never has the right or authority to contradict divine or natural law, and should be disobeyed when it does contradict them.

John14:15 said...

James, I didn't post anonymously, but it signed it so.