an open question for the board re : abortion

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

The unintended killing of the unborn child was incidental and by definition wouldnt be the same as an elective abortion. It's analogous to collateral damage during the commission of a just war, which has it's own strict definition.

All that and a bod too.

If we could act with perfect knowledge and perfect power so much the better but I think there is only 1 god.

Not only is the killing of the child unintended if we neglected to act and the jihadist killed numerous people we would be guilty of intentionally not acting to preserve innocent life.

[mamacags]

Shoot her in the knee.  What is so difficult about that?

[debk]

ah, I see.  so the unfortunate killing of children is no different than killing the unborn.  as cold as that sounds, i believe you have it.

The only one with any "responsibility of fault" in either situation ....is the mother. NO one else.

In the case of an abortion....the mother is the one who ultimately makes the decision to end the pregnancy. At any time...she can stop it...up until the doctor starts the procedure.

In the case of jihadist....she is the one who has the belief that it is right to put herself...AND HER UNBORN CHILD....in harm's way.

Whether or not either mother believes she is doing the right thing....she is still the one who made the decision to either put herself ...or allow herself to be put....into a situation that will kill her baby.

Either way...it is a culturally acceptable situation. A mother lives in a country that allows abortion. A mother lives in a country that her religion "dictates" the situation.

Ultimately....it is between the mother and her God.

[asdf2231]

Honestly?

Shit happens and God has a balance scale that he holds you on when you finally stand before him that takes into account what you did, what you DIDN'T do, and what you didn't KNOW when you did what you did.

God balances sin against the rightious acts that follow you till the end of your days.

[Chris_]

if a jihadist chick is pregnant, and we (or anyone else) blow her away, what is our moral status?

I have been chewing on that one for about 20 minutes.

It is the same as hiding behind children.  The bad is on the part of the enemy.  The decision to take arms against us, knowing you are or will get pregnant, is the same as bringing your child into battle with you.

[Chris_]

Shoot her in the knee.  What is so difficult about that?

Predators aren't that accurate.

[Chris_]

I agree with this by Dutch:

If the bitch is fighting against me, then she dies. You see, WE, life is simple. They try to kill us, we kill them. It doesn't matter who, or what, they are. The die. That way, we don't.

And this by Debk:

In the case of jihadist....she is the one who has the belief that it is right to put herself...AND HER UNBORN CHILD....in harm's way. Whether or not either mother believes she is doing the right thing....she is still the one who made the decision to either put herself ...or allow herself to be put....into a situation that will kill her baby.

I couldn't have said it better. If the baby dies it's blood is on the mother's hands for putting herself and her unborn child in that position to start with. And if she's shooting in one of our soldier's general direction, then she makes herself a legitmate target. I'm sure for those who have been there, it's easier to say than do when it come to not feeling guilt or carrying it with you. But rest assured, it is the mother's guilt to carry and face on the final judgement day. Not yours.

[Chris_]

the baby inside her didn't have a say, and that is the whole point.

The pregnant woman made the choice to place her unborn chilld at risk.  She is responsible for its life or death.

[franksolich]

I have to agree with both Schadenfreude and dutch508, thinking it's the matter of "intent," which determines the issue.

Someone killing a pregnant jihadist to save his own life, or the lives of others (including Americans in the homeland), is not meaning to terminate an innocent life.

Someone on the other hand who goes out for a recreational abortion--because an infant might cramp the lifestyle or whatnot--is fully meaning to terminate an innocent life.

[Splashdown]

I might get slammed for this, but I think the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

This is the section talking about "love your neighbor as yourself..."

The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. "The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one's own life; and the killing of the aggressor. . . . The one is intended, the other is not."

link

There is death of innocents in all wars. I think the killing of a pregnant jihadist, while causing the death of one innocent, would save the lives of untold others.

This is coming from a man who has never had to point a weapon at another human being. And I am in awe of those among us who choose military service.

[DixieBelle]

I agree with this by Dutch:

And this by Debk:
 

I couldn't have said it better. If the baby dies it's blood is on the mother's hands for putting herself and her unborn child in that position to start with. And if she's shooting in one of our soldier's general direction, then she makes herself a legitmate target. I'm sure for those who have been there, it's easier to say than do when it come to not feeling guilt or carrying it with you. But rest assured, it is the mother's guilt to carry and face on the final judgement day. Not yours.

I totally agree with this viewpoint as well.

Just as we hold the mother responsible for an abortion, she is also responsible for intentially putting herself and her unborn child in harms way.

[dutch508]

as usual, your post has left me wondering what the **** you actually think.

OK,

I got no problem killing people who are our enemies. Done it before, hope not to do it again. However, I don't try to lie to myself in justifying that any one death is better than another. All are wrong and immoral.

Someone has to take it on themselves to protect what is right, even if it means sinning in the act. I don't think that when I die God is going to say, "Hey, Dutch, that one guy you killed on 15 Nov 2003? It's ok. He was a dick.'

[debk]

OK,

I got no problem killing people who are our enemies. Done it before, hope not to do it again. However, I don't try to lie to myself in justifying that any one death is better than another. All are wrong and immoral.

Someone has to take it on themselves to protect what is right, even if it means sinning in the act. I don't think that when I die God is going to say, "Hey, Dutch, that one guy you killed on 15 Nov 2003? It's ok. He was a dick.'

That's what Purgatory is for.....attoning for your sins. Whether the sins are in your eyes, others', or God's.

[rich_t]

The killing of innocent civilians is a very unfortunate and likely outcome of war. I am sure there are better philosophers/theologians than myself that can explain it. As dutch says, kill or be killed. Killing someone in self-defense (pregnant or otherwise) is justified because you are saving your own life.

This is pretty much how I feel as well.

And yes Dutch, killing another human being can be justified.  Not only legally, but morally as well IMO.

But I understand the point I think you are trying to make.

[Jim]

the baby inside her didn't have a say, and that is the whole point.

no, the mother has chosen to abort the baby by risking her life.
doesn't matter if she starts firing at us or straps bombs to herself and hits the button.

[docstew]

everyone has forgotten what could be a salient point... the baby of a jihadist mother would probably have their mind poisoned enough to join the jihad themselves.  Not the same as being a jihadist and stepping into battle themselves, but the probability is there.

[Chris_]

OK,

I got no problem killing people who are our enemies. Done it before, hope not to do it again. However, I don't try to lie to myself in justifying that any one death is better than another. All are wrong and immoral.

Someone has to take it on themselves to protect what is right, even if it means sinning in the act. I don't think that when I die God is going to say, "Hey, Dutch, that one guy you killed on 15 Nov 2003? It's ok. He was a dick.'

Dutch, I truly believe that when you or any other combat soldier stands before the Pearly Gates, that God will thank you for having the courage to step up to the front lines when called on to confront evil head on for sake of keeping the rest of His creations safe. I truly believe that. And I also know with confidence, that if you [music fade in] ....ever look on Heaven's scenes, you will find the streets are guarded by United States Marines. 

[Chris_]

OK,

I got no problem killing people who are our enemies. Done it before, hope not to do it again. However, I don't try to lie to myself in justifying that any one death is better than another. All are wrong and immoral.

Someone has to take it on themselves to protect what is right, even if it means sinning in the act. I don't think that when I die God is going to say, "Hey, Dutch, that one guy you killed on 15 Nov 2003? It's ok. He was a dick.'

Dutch, you have already been down this road, I am sure.

There is an enemy.  He wants to kill you and kill innocents. 

God will say: "Dutch -- I know it hurt you to kill someone to protect the best Country that I put on Earth.  A Country with the heart I so wanted to put within all, but in this one it stuck.  A Country that produced you, Dutch."

The fact this bothers you speaks to your humanity and your goodness, Dutch.

I think God will have special welcome for you and those who do violence for the greater good. A specific and easily defined good.

I don't rate on that scale -- you do.