Just so no one gets a wrong judgment on me, I am no extremist when it comes to seeking to do evil, only when seeking to love God and neighbor. Therefore, I post this sensitive question in hopes of getting a better understanding of moral theology, particularly civil law. I posted a similar question in the past and cannot find it as it might have been removed from the forum.
I am starting from the premise that the Church thought it just to kill Osama Bin Laden or others like him who were unable to be captured in order to prevent a greater evil. Please correct me if I am wrong for starting from the premise. This is just a guess.
**Since it may have been morally just to kill Osama Bin Laden why wouldn’t it be morally just to forcefully remove doctors from their practices and if they don’t comply, kill them? ** Obviously this is an extreme measure, but so was that of Osama Bin Laden, and this seems even more serious since more lives have and are being lost due to abortion doctors every single day. The abortion doctors actively murder children inside the womb and Osama Bin Laden seemed to actively seek to murder people outside the womb. I think I’ve heard it may be based on how the Church defines civil law. Noting the USA used civil law to protect many from being killed by Osama Bin Laden by killing him. The same cannot be said for the protection of the unborn children, but the polar opposite allowing for the murder of the unborn children.
It is interesting how the Presidents quote below seems to fit with my question.
“Justice has been done,” the president told the nation. He identified bin Laden as the leader of a global terrorist network “which had openly declared war on the United States and was committed to killing innocents in our country and around the globe. And so we went to war against al Qaeda to protect our citizens, our friends and our allies.”
I look forward to hearing how the Church teaches on such a situation. Thank you for your thoughts in advance!
God Bless You,