is there EVER a justification for killing children?

by zen nudist 29 Replies latest watchtower bible

• 

  czarofmischief

  A child soldier will probably be killed, justifiably so, in combat - after all, these boys are young teenagers and even younger - and they bear arms and watch rapes and commit arson, and are recruited to serve as suicide bombers and landmine removers.

  If a kid bearing a rifle came running at me, I'd do my damndest to pick him off.

  But that's an extreme case, one that removes the "innocent civilian" nature of children that is inherent to their makeup. But that's the only one I can think of - self-defense in combat.

  CZAR
• 

  logansrun

  If I had to choose between killing one child to save ten from certain death, I'd kill the child.

  Pure utilitarianism.

  B.
• 

  blondie

  I assume you would do that even if it were your own child you had to kill, Logansrun?

  I can't say I would know for sure what I would do.

  Blondie
• 

  logansrun

  Oooh, tough one Blondie. From a logical mindset, yes....but from the heart....who knows.

  Bradley
• 

  Faraon

  Well, If you promise Jehovah you will murder your daughter in burned offering if you win a battle, you must do so.

  After all, women are mere property of a man.
• 

  czarofmischief

  My own child? Betraying me by trying to kill me?

  Death is too good for him... He's GROUNDED!

  CZAR
• 

  peacefulpete

  It is precisely the question of whether a blastocyst or fetus has the rights of a child that determines whether abortion is murder or not. A child's right to life and love are agreed by both sides of the issue. It is unfortunate that prolife proponents can not see that this is the case. The insistance that prochoice advocates are murderers of babies is merely inflammatory moralizing that ignores the issues while condemning their opponents as monsters.

  To answer the initial question of whether targeting children is legitamate warfare, I think we all agree the answer is all too clear. The psuedo history of the OT was not written to invoke feelings of moral uprightness but national identity and superiority. I take comfort in knowing that much of the OT never happened.
• 

  bebu

  It is precisely the question of whether a blastocyst or fetus has the rights of a child that determines whether abortion is murder or not.

  Actually, pro-lifers would argue that the real question is whether the blastocyst or fetus IS a child. If it IS a child, then it has the rights of a child. Science has already answered this question. A few pro-lifers say that there is NEVER any justification for abortion, ever... and yet I can think of a few exceptions I could allow, because I do see there might be exceptions in other tragic circumstances involving 'born' children. ...There is a rule... and then, there are exceptions because of another, higher rule. It is the higher rule that I find initriguing and a bit wiley to pin down. Perhaps it wasn't meant to be pinned down in a law?

  Most people agree that there really is a difference between murder (unjustifiable, unauthorized) taking of a human life, and killing, which does not address motives or morality. But who is defining the justifications/authorizations for the life to be taken? Who is defining the morality--the current congress or latest Gallup Poll? Is the definition arrived at democratically? The UN Commission on Human Rights? On this board alone, I've seen a lot of "consensus" that begins to break down when the details are discussed (this is not a terrible thing, though, in itself). It's sticky. I'm not trying to say my views are any better than another's.

  Here's a new example. Most people here would also wish the complete "annihilation" of the WTS, with the GB and all the other leaders sued to the nines, and perhaps put in prison. Yet--what about the families? Think about the upheaval this would cause financially and emotionally and spiritually to LOTS of children... What if fathers go to jail or go bankrupt? (Please assume that this will happen for my argument here.) Should we give up on the goal if we will also be punishing children for the sins of their fathers? ...Is even a minor upset to them allowable? ...Are we at heart any better than the WT, who seem to thrive on the destruction of "outsiders", or would that be an unfair comparison? Is this matter more complicated than my nice summary? What am I leaving out about the WT? A person who is not familiar with the true nature of the WT cannot judge this situation the same way you or I would. Very likely, a non-JW might believe the protests of clean-cut Bible-carrying about being persecuted by vindictive and hateful people, "those evil apostates!" It would be easy to do if balancing info weren't easily available.

  I know that you will give good answers and point out my mistakes, because all these issues are complicated. My analogies aren't always ideal. My cookie cutter only cuts a few cookies out of a bit of rolled dough; there is almost always quite a bit of dough left still to work with.

  But it's all something to think about.

  bebu
• 

  peacefulpete

  But it's all something to think about.

  here we agree

  pro-lifers would argue that the real question is whether the blastocyst or fetus IS a child. If it IS a child, then it has the rights of a child. Science has already answered this question.

  here we disagree
• 

  Yerusalyim

  It was said in this thread:

  If such child-killing would happen today, imagine the shock, the outcry over it. And most if not all religions would also join in to express outrage. And yet, as zen points out, there they are - two scriptures that show that killing children is justified in God's sight.

  If only that were true, we have Palestinians and other Jihadists killing old men, women, and children, and even people on this board have tried to defend this act because "it's the only means of resistance they have."

  What would the outcry be if Israel were paying the terror bombers that blew up the family compound in Saudi Arabia, and then supporting their families afterward?