1. Abortion Violates Just War Criteria and the Laws of War – miscellaneous ideas
Conditions for a just war - from Mark Latkovic article
(1) Legitimate authority must declare war, not private citizens or groups
(2) The cause must be just ("namely that those who are attacked, should be
attacked because they deserve it on account of some fault")
(3) The war must be waged with a right intention ("so that they intend the
advancement of good, or the avoidance of evil," as Thomas says), which excludes
acts of war done out of vengeance, hatred, and other like motives.[11] This third
condition would also encompass the moral quality of one's ends or objectives in
fighting a war. These too must be morally good.
Of these three conditions, it is the second one, "just cause" which determines
whether "grounds for war" exist. According to Finnis, the tradition essentially
reduced the reasons for going to war to two: "self-defense, and the rectification
(punitive or compensatory/restitutionary) of a wrong."
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, following recent tradition, adds four other
conditions of a more prudential nature for a war to be morally justified
(4) The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations
must be lasting, grave, and certain
(5) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical
or ineffective, that is, war must be waged as a last resort
(6) There must be serious prospects of success
(7) The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be
eliminated
It is only after all of these conditions are met, Weigel argues, that "the second set
of just-war criteria," that is, "the 'jus in bello' or 'war-conduct law,'" is engaged
'proportionality,' which requires the use of no more force than necessary to
vindicate the just cause
'discrimination,' or what we today call 'non-combatant immunity.'
From my 1986 war speech (http://www.cul.detmich.com/alwar.html):
[1996 note - I did not include in this talk most of the other Just War

2. criteria and am not sure if I was aware of all of them at the time.
Some others are also clearly violated by abortion in all or most cases.
These include the requirements for Just Cause and Last Resort since
killing of the unborn is typically done for less than compelling
reasons. Much the same could be said for the requirements for
Comparative Justice and Right Intention. Comparative Justice states
that wars should only be fought when the rights and values involved are
so great that they justify killing. This is typically not the case
with abortion. Right Intention states that wars must only be fought
for legitimate intentions and that pursuit of peace and reconciliation
must continue during the conflict while avoiding unnecessarily
destructive acts or imposing unreasonable conditions. Again, these
principles are routinely violated in the war on the unborn. The
requirement for Competent Authority states that war must be declared by
those with responsibility for public order, not by private groups or
individuals. We have trivialized this in abortion by permitting minors
and other individuals who are frequently under great stress and often
largely or totally ignorant of the nature of the act to make life and
death decisions. There is no other situation where such decisions are
treated so casually by society (consider military actions, capital
punishment, police use of deadly force, etc., all of which are subject
to review or appeal). Even the Just War requirement for Probability of
Success could be violated by abortion given what we now know about the
negative after effects of abortion on women.]
Excerpt from later in the speech to local Christian peace activists:
And so, I again pose a rhetorical question. Why do we hate our
unborn children with such intensity? Why are we willing to withhold or
suspend every principle of humane, compassionate, lawful and civilized
behavior when it comes to them? Principles routinely applied in dealing
with the worst of criminals and enemies that would destroy us. Why do
we not give the benefit of the doubt? Why do we not presume personhood?
Why do we allow the most excruciatingly painful methods of execution?
Why do we permit the execution for any reason or no reason? And the
conclusion that I come to in answer to those questions is that the
unborn, if unwanted, confront us with an insoluble problem except by
the use of violence. They cannot be negotiated with, they cannot be
deterred, they cannot be appeased, they cannot be threatened,
embargoed, held hostage, imprisoned or in any way stayed from being
born except by the violence of abortion. For life cannot be stopped
except by death and so we justify this violence to preserve our power.
At the heart of the matter is the issue of control, of power. The
feminists maybe are right after all . . . I tried to look at this as a

3. conservative/liberal type of issue and I think that both conservatives
and liberals seek control in their own way. I've also heard it described,
this preoccupation with power, as a male thought and action pattern.
This compelling need to conquer, subjugate, control others. One thing
I'm pretty sure it isn't, this need for power, is it is not a Christian preoccupation.
Letter to the Editor after 1991 Persian Gulf War
Events leading up to the recent war acquainted or
reacquainted many people with the so-called "just war" principles.
Through it all, America's other war, the war on the unborn,
raged on unabated. It has been a war that routinely trashes
every "just war" principle, especially proportionality, immunity
of noncombatants and last resort. It has consisted exclusively
of pre-emptive and literally surgical first strikes against the
totally innocent and helpless. It has employed poison weapons
and live dismemberment of the unarmed target population in
contravention of the laws of war and every international
standard of behavior for the treatment of prisoners.
Where is the outcry from those who claim to be concerned
with the morality of killing?
Mass faxed letter to the editor from August 1995:
ETHICAL STANDARDS NUKED IN THE WAR ON PRENATAL CHILDREN
by Al Lemmo
The recent fiftieth anniversaries of the atomic bombings prompted
debates about the ethics and laws of warfare. Meanwhile, America's
war on prenatal children raged on unabated, routinely trashing nearly
every one of these same laws and ethical principles.
The war on the unborn has consisted exclusively of literally
surgical first strikes against the totally innocent and helpless,
intended to preempt the recognition and protections normally accorded
at birth. Rather than honor the immunity of non-combatants, it has
deliberately targeted them. It has employed poisonous weapons,
refusal of quarter and live dismemberment of the unarmed target
population, even subjecting them to experimentation, in contravention

4. of the laws of war and all international standards for the treatment
of prisoners.
It has violated "Just War" principles, including the requirements
for just cause, last resort, proportionality and competent authority
by placing the decision for a death-dealing act, grotesquely
disproportionate to the ends usually sought, in the hands of the
frequently ill-informed, distraught and underage. Its rationalization
on the basis of so-called hard cases has reduced the vast majority
of those slaughtered to collateral damage at rates that would be
morally horrendous if practiced by the military.
What is it about unborn babies that suspends every ethical
consideration? Does the lack of any non-violent alternative for
retaining control provide a license for all manner of barbarism?
Or is it that once the mental process of devaluing the lives of
others -- born or unborn, of any race, creed or color -- has gone
far enough, they cease to exist in our minds as human beings such
that virtually anything can be done to them?
What have we become that we avert our eyes as nearly one in every
three of our children is destroyed? Are we adults fearful of this
imbalance of power between unborn babies and their avowed foes?
Or do we secretly wish to retain this potential power to destroy
any unwelcome intruders in our own lives, regardless of ethical
principles?
Where is the moral imperative to intercede on behalf of the
helpless innocent? Why has the propaganda campaign been so effective
that many now think and speak in the euphemisms ("pro-choice,"
"pregnancy termination," "reproductive freedom," etc.) and oxymorons
("safe abortion," "abortion rights") of the language of denial?
How much more violence to life, truth, language, values, law,
government, medicine, ethics and the principles of human rights
can our society withstand?
But conscience and nature are not easily overcome. Like the
flyers who delivered the bombs, the women who have delivered their
unborn babies to the killing centers have suffered unforeseen
fallout, experiencing a range of emotional and physical problems
from guilt and depression to sterility and breast cancer.
Yet the war planners continue to resist providing even the most
basic safeguards -- such as information about human development,
life-affirming alternatives and potential hazards. They are
rightly fearful that piercing their veil of ignorance will render
their proxies unwilling to continue the carnage.