A theoretical question about infanticide

[bar Jonah]

Twenty years from now, America is run by a thoroughly corrupt government. (Yes, more so than today.) The merits of this possibility are not up for debate - for the sake of argument, just assume that it happened by whatever contrived means.

Young children are being rounded up and taken to camps in remote areas of the country. They are being gassed, shot or otherwise murdered by official decree, for the sake of population control.

A neighbour knocks at your door and tells you that he and a group of heavily-armed friends are going to travel to one of these camps and try to rescue as many children as they can, and deliver them to safety in South America. He asks you to join them.

This would mean putting your life at serious risk for the sake of these children. Would you do it?

[Ryokan]

Well, my child would be grown at that point, and "population control" is garbage, at least for the next couple generations life times, so I guess I'd be morally obligated too. I would want someone to rescue my son.

[bar Jonah]

Well, my child would be grown at that point, and "population control" is garbage, at least for the next couple generations life times, so I guess I'd be morally obligated too. I would want someone to rescue my son.

So, you would advocate illegal vigilanteism in this case?

And... did I just hear you infer that when the world does reach a point where population is a problem... that you would advocate these policies of killing children for population control? (If I heard you wrong, I apologize. Just asking for clarification.)


Btw, it should be exceedingly obvious that this thread is an intentional parody of another in this forum. I'm making no illusions about that.

[WinAce]

Would you do it?

This would largely depend on whether I thought the mission had a decent chance of success. If I thought it was suicide, for example, more good could be accomplished by convincing them to use their resources--still toward the end of saving innocent kids--in other ways.

But the goal of saving them from the camp, if achievable, would be admirable, yes. As a side note, I don't think many people should really comment on what "they'd do" then, as a real-world situation like that changes some dynamics from the context of a thought experiment, but I hope I'd have the courage to do it.

[bar Jonah]

This would largely depend on whether I thought the mission had a decent chance of success. If I thought it was suicide, for example, more good could be accomplished by convincing them to use their resources--still toward the end of saving innocent kids--in other ways.

But the goal of saving them from the camp, if achievable, would be admirable, yes. As a side note, I don't think many people should really comment on what "they'd do" then, as a real-world situation like that changes some dynamics from the context of a thought experiment, but I hope I'd have the courage to do it.

Again, so you would advocate illegal vigilanteism in this case?

I'm not taking a position at this point. I'm simply raising a challenging question. And this is most certainly for Christians to respond to.

[Ryokan]

So, you would advocate illegal vigilanteism in this case?

When a state is gassing its own citizens without having committed any crime or due process on camp levels, a illegal vigilante becomes a legitimate revolutionary and freedom fighter.

And... did I just hear you infer that when the world does reach a point where population is a problem... that you would advocate these policies of killing children for population control? (If I heard you wrong, I apologize. Just asking for clarification.)

I was just commenting on the sillyness of pop. control. But no, we can't kill people even for pop. control purposes?

Btw, it should be exceedingly obvious that this thread is an intentional parody of another in this forum. I'm making no illusions about that.

Yeah, but I am too late to really get involved in that one, and its a trap for Christians, which I am not.

[The Laughing Man]

Young children are being rounded up and taken to camps in remote areas of the country. They are being gassed, shot or otherwise murdered by official decree, for the sake of population control.

Change it to the more realistic and likely "for the sake of 'reproductive choice.'"

[bar Jonah]

Change it to the more realistic and likely "for the sake of 'reproductive choice.'"

Nevertheless, can you please answer the question directly? Not trying to be snappy; I'm sincerely interested in a reply, particularly from someone like yourself. Thanks!

[Ryokan]

Change it to the more realistic and likely "for the sake of 'reproductive choice.'"

The difference being the individuals involved bring their own children for the slaughter. Its different in alot of ways. And as long as us conservatives don't overreach, it shouldn't be legal in most states much longer.

[bar Jonah]

The difference being the individuals involved bring their own children for the slaughter. Its different in alot of ways. And as long as us conservatives don't overreach, it shouldn't be legal in most states much longer.

Alright, add to the OP's hypothetical the additional fact that parents bring their children to these camps.

Now, what is one's position? Vigilante? And if so, versus only the institutions or also the parents, as well?

I really would like Christians to respond to this thread.

[The Laughing Man]

Nevertheless, can you please answer the question directly? Not trying to be snappy; I'm sincerely interested in a reply, particularly from someone like yourself. Thanks!

Fine. My answer is yes, I would - even if it appeared to be a suicide mission - if all other possibilities were exhausted and there were absolutely no other choice.

And to anticipate this question directed towards me:

so you would advocate illegal vigilanteism in this case?

Against an evil, murderous regime? You bet your butt I would! Remember, Jesus defied the man-made laws of the Pharisees because those laws were wrong, unjust and - most importantly - against God's law. Obeying God's law always comes before obeying man's law.

[Ryokan]

Alright, add to the OP's hypothetical the additional fact that parents bring their children to these camps.

Now, what is one's position? Vigilante? And if so, versus only the institutions or also the parents, as well?

I really would like Christians to respond to this thread.

In this case, the state is neglegent in its task of protecting its citizens, but isn't actually killing them, but aiding and abetting. So, it depedns on whether or not their are democratic institution that would allow change in place. If so, then I wouldn't. if not, I'd join them.
I dislike moral hypotheticals, though. i will know the right thing when I am in the situation.

[bar Jonah]

Fine. My answer is yes, I would - even if it appeared to be a suicide mission - if all other possibilities were exhausted and there were absolutely no other choice.

And to anticipate this question directed towards me:

Against an evil, murderous regime? You bet your butt I would! Remember, Jesus defied the man-made laws of the Pharisees because those laws were wrong, unjust and - most importantly - against God's law. Obeying God's law always comes before obeying man's law.

Who said all other possibilities are exhausted?

Can you not still try to work within the governmental system? I didn't say it was a dictatorship. I at least inferred this is still America, and that had simply become corrupt. Can you not vote and peacefully demonstrate and disseminate information, etc.? Or perhaps even choose non-violent civil disobedience? Or maybe take it as far as crippling vandalism of these facilities, without aiming to harm anyone? There are numerous levels to which one can take this... starting with working within the existing laws, trying to change the system from within.

All of which I posit as possible choices, not suggesting any of them. As I said, I never told you all other options are exhausted. So, being aware of that, is your answer still the same? (And all of the above goes for everyone, of course.)

[Ryokan]

Who said all other possibilities are exhausted?

Can you not still try to work within the governmental system? I didn't say it was a dictatorship. I at least inferred this is still America, and that had simply become corrupt. Can you not vote and peacefully demonstrate and disseminate information, etc.? Or perhaps even choose non-violent civil disobedience? Or maybe take it as far as crippling vandalism of these facilities, without aiming to harm anyone? There are numerous levels to which one can take this... starting with working within the existing laws, trying to change the system from within.

All of which I posit as possible choices, not suggesting any of them. As I said, I never told you all other options are exhausted. So, being aware of that, is your answer still the same? (And all of the above goes for everyone, of course.)

I really can't say. i think that seeing children slaughter would make it impossible for me to work within the system, regarless of what I felt was the moral action.

[WinAce]

Again, so you would advocate illegal vigilanteism in this case?

Yes. I recognize the authority of no government that would make illegal vigilanteeism necessary in the first place. As far as I'm concerned, it has relinquished the moral high ground of being justified in any of the laws it passes, and rules by threat of violence, alone.