Justify killing a child.

[asdjrocky]

Go ahead. Tell me how the killing of children, in any situation is justified.

I'm open to all arguments. I'm listening.

[whatchamacallit]

1. They are all "Al Qeada Kids", didn't you know? (n/t)

[FreakinDJ]

2. What are Hitler Youth

[tekisui]

4. Are they victims or targets?

I say victims.

[FreakinDJ]

6. both possibly

but no one "Chooses" to shoot a child

[tekisui]

9. If someone drops a bomb on a population known to have children,

they have certainly made that choice.

[malaise]

17. +1 but they have a great euphemism for it

'collateral damage' - one of the most fucked up phrases on the planet.
sp

[FreakinDJ]

76. I'm waiting for a more conclusive report

before passing judgment

Some things in the original story struck me as being out of context or factually incorrect.

But by all measure the "story" as originally reported strikes an emotional response

[seeinfweggos]

119. me too. but if the handcuffed in a room business is true

there had better be some fucking court martialing (if that is a word.)

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[FreakinDJ]

38. Merely Black and White - no grey area

[asdjrocky]

45. Funny, if we didn't do the things we do,

so you could enjoy the life you have, those might be happy smiling children.

Scary pictures will not make me say it's okay to kill kids. What kind of person are you?

[FreakinDJ]

49. Those pictures were of Palestinian Children

Lots of sick fucks hide behind children - Claiming they are "Right and Just"

[asdjrocky]

53. I know who the children are.

I'm very good friends with a Palestinian family who has been ripped apart by the American backed Israel aggression.

Tell me, are you posting that here in hopes of hijacking this thread? Maybe pushing it to the dungeon?

[FreakinDJ]

62. You started this Flame Bait - not me

And your trying ask me if I am trying to Hi-jack your thread

You enlisted as much emotional responce as your title could muster and your asking me if I am trying to subvert your intentions

So is their paticular nationality and race of kids I am supposed to be concerned about?

[asdjrocky]

69. Saying killing children is wrong is flame bait?

[FreakinDJ]

86. You disagree it envokes an Emotional Response?

of course it does as it should



Shit - I moved my boys up to the mountains because I was worried about gangs

Here in the photos we have people who use them to wage war. Telling a pubesent boy he'll receive 70 virgins as a eternal gift for his suicide.

Should the emotional/moral response be any less? What happened to the basic parental instinct to protect these children.

We would do more damage to the Taliban and Al Quiada by building schools and health clinics over there

[mmonk]

92. This is Afghanistan.

[FreakinDJ]

94. Are the children no less precious

[mmonk]

99. You have inserted a different situation.

I have to assume you are making an assertion based on it. An assertion with no reports of children with bombs attached to their bodies. It's always shoved in people's faces by those that do the guilt by association to justify killing.

[FreakinDJ]

113. Are the children any less DEAD - For you they don't count ????

I'm sure they don't count to you because you can't use them for your agenda

Just like the SICK FUCKS who use children for WAR - you are using these poor dead children for a political purpose

[mmonk]

117. No, you are. I only entered this thread because of what you were doing.

I said you have included a different situation. If the soldiers, contractors, or whomever they were had them in custody and some handcuffed, the threat was removed. Thus killing them was gratuitous whether they were involved or not, which hasn't even been established. It's why your insertion of Palestinian children is unrelated and does not justify another action unrelated.

[fascisthunter]

188. were the kids that died recently wearing bombs?

[tekisui]

3. One of the most pathetic things I have read on DU is

the apologists for killing children.

Brainwashed 6 year olds are victims, not enemies. Defense of killing children is disgusting.

[asdjrocky]

7. It makes you sad.

Kind of rips a hole in you, don't it?

[Odin2005]

15. They said WHAT!?!

:wow:

[tekisui]

20. There are a handful running around claiming that

the kids were in training or trained terrorists, and as such are legitimate targets.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[tekisui]

41. Dupe.

[tekisui]

42. As am I. But, you know what? I am not the Taliban.

We are not the Taliban. We are the United States. We shouldn't be slinging the slop that the Taliban does. We have no place killing children or any other innocent people.

The Taliban are not my country or my leader. I have no connection to them. I do however, as a voting US citizen have a real connection to our acts of war. And, those acts disgust and disturb me.

[Electric Monk]

31. You said WHAT!?!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=7383748&mesg_id=7385765

[varelse]

158. Have a look at the responses

I never EVER thought I'd see that here.

[Warpy]

149. While I agree with that under most circumstances

If a six year old is running at your buddies with a grenade with the pin pulled, you're going to want to stop him and your tool is your rifle.

Think of the soldier who has to shoot a child as a victim, too, because even when it's justified as above, it's going to haunt him for the rest of his life. The adult who put the grenade into the child's hand is the guilty party here and he's a psychopath who will sleep like a baby.

This sort of horror is why I want this country out of the empire business, I want the Pentagon budget chopped 10% per year until it's in line with the rest of the world, I want foreign bases closed in favor of reciprocal agreements with host countries to use staging areas. I want war seen as what it is, a human disaster, a moral collapse, diplomatic failure, and financial ruin instead of as a spectator sport for macho swaggerers swigging beer in their La-Z-Boys.

I hate war because sometimes it does justify killing a child, or a young woman, or an old man, or anyone else. The only way to end it is to stop paying for it.

[lastliberalintexas]

177. Amen Warpy.

:(

[11 Bravo]

191. Warpy nails it.

If a 14 year old girl is running toward my evac bird, carrying a satchel charge, yeah I would much rather draw down on the mother-fucker who put her in that position, but that's not in the cards; so she's going to catch one right in her ten ring.

[lunatica]

8. Cause if you don't kill em they grow up to be adults

and you'd have to kill them anyway

That comes from by circular file under the Ffft bird category. The Ffft bird flies at every increasing speed and ever diminishing circles till it disappears up its own ass hole. This explains the diminishing Republican party.

[patrice]

25. The majority of the reason that "you'd have to kill them anyway" IS that you are killing them in the

first place. That school of thought is almost completely self-referential, as you observed, lunatica, circular, a fucking black-hole of megalomania.

[etherealtruth]

10. There is NO justification for killing children! n/t

[PerpetuallyDazed]

184. ...unless they're out to kill more children

I'm thinking of the Darfur children soldiers. I would do it, to save other children.

[etherealtruth]

192. You are correct

[bluestateguy]

11. First we need to know what the definition of a child is

Then we can start to untangle this.

[asdjrocky]

13. What is a child?

You really don't know?

[proud2BlibKansan]

43. Big debate in another thread

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7381479#7384532

[bluestateguy]

64. It's something that needs to be unpacked before we can have that debate

nt

[Name removed]

85. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

171. There are lots of different definitions it helps to be specific. It's okay if you don't know.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sharesunited]

14. A justification would be superiority given to a woman's dominion over her body.

One value weighed against another.

[asdjrocky]

18. I'm talking about living breathing children.

You know, the ones everyone says we should cherish.

[patrice]

33. That's not a justification. It's a corelation. Surely you do not suggest 2 wrongs make a right.

[sharesunited]

61. What was the second wrong? Roe treats it as a balancing of interests.

Unborn life as weighed against personal dominion of the mother.

In any event, the OP has now made clear that his challenge is premised on "already born" children.

[patrice]

73. Pardon, I thought we were getting, "If abortion is okay. Killing children in foreign countries is ok

If we are going to talk about it as "unborn life/an unborn nation weighed against the personal dominion of the mother/children with or without guns", then Roe v. Wade finds for the children.

[patrice]

39. AND at least in re abortion, the woman takes the moral consequences of her act onto her own

eternal soul, while in war, as in Capital Punishment, that reality is perverted by individuals who delegate it to others, thus perpetuating the crimes that lead to War and Capital Punishment.

[patrice]

52. We're also talking about people being in OTHER PEOPLE'S countries here.

At least abortion is limited to the woman and her family, at least women can calculate with some certainty the concrete benefit accrued from ending a pregnancy before the third trimester.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

134. Not necessarily true

[Robb]

16. I'll bite.

Kid has gun pointed at my kid, I'd kill him dead. Proud of it? Hell, no. But I wouldn't hesitate for a minute.

Interestingly, I have, in answering honestly, actually bolstered what is probably your argument. For this is what we're seeing on the ground out there, really.

Only we're the other kid.

[rrneck]

19. I got nothin' nt

[independentpiney]

21. How about if they are pointing an AK-47 or rpg-7 at you?

I think it might be justified then, but if you'd prefer martyrdom go for it.

[asdjrocky]

22. If a child is pointing a gun at me,

I have to ask myself, who put it in his/her hands?

[independentpiney]

26. and before you figured that out, you would be dead

and it wouldn't have made any difference who put it in his/her hands. would it?

[asdjrocky]

32. I can think and defend myself at the same time.

How many kids have pointed guns at you?

[independentpiney]

60. You could defend yourself from a burst of automatic fire while pondering

who put the weapon in the hands of the person trying to kiil you? Wow, you are a truly amazing person.
I've only had a kid ( around 15-17) pull a gun on me once in a thwarted robbery attempt.

[jmowreader]

Ask yourself that after you shoot him

[Hello_Kitty]

98. What if the child has a bomb strapped to him/herself? eom

[anigbrowl]

180. Wrong. You have to ask yourself how you're going to stay alive in the next 5 seconds.

I am not in favor of killing children under any circumstances. On the other hand, you're not obliged to stand there and get shot just because someone who's holding you up is underage.

[patrice]

65. You're in HER country and SHE is doing what you would do if the tables were turned.

[independentpiney]

79. So that means I should just accept being killed myself?

Unless you happen to be a Buddha or something, the instinct for self-preservation is pretty strong.

[patrice]

89. You said yes to that when you FREELY assented to put yourself in that situation IN THEIR COUNTRY

And if it wasn't a truly free assent, if there were mitigating factors, it your actions are your responsibility ANYWAY, because you knew they could come to this, even if you are a War Slave, and you didn't do anything about that.

[independentpiney]

102. I haven't freely assented to put myself in anyones country

I proposed that if a 'child' is about to fire a deadly weapon at you with intent to kill, it might be a justifiable circumstance.

[patrice]

114. I am saying that when civilians, more or less freely, assent to abdicate their own autonymy, moral

and otherwise, and thus, end up in other people's countries, we cannot fault those foreigners for doing what we would do if we were invaded.

Believe me, I'm very sorry our soldiers are killed. I am very sorry so many bad choices have been made, but I cannot make any of that any better by abdicating my own moral authority, or by abdicating my own call to witness my Faith, both things that at least used to be generally desired in our culture, but apparently not so much lately if said morals and Faith are different from that which blesses A - N - Y - T - H - I - N - G the U.S. wants to do.

"You" chose this course, so live with the REAL consequences of "your" choices, not just the consequences that fit your script.

[independentpiney]

126. I agree with you, but that has nothing to do with the question that was asked

The question was whether it is ever justifiable, under any circumstances anywhere to kill a 'child'. It has nothing to do with faulting anyone for resisting occupation. I don't think the type of Faith you refer to witnessing has ever been generally desired in our culture. More a lot of Gott mit Uns in my understanding.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

150. Thank you for pointing out once again...

...that things like the Geneva conventions are subjective, and it's perfectly OK to violate them (by, for instance, turning children into soldiers) if you think the cause is just.

[TCJ70]

190. Who said that child soldier isn't american?

Child soldiers around the world have been used to kill their own countrymen and countrywomen. Are those people not justified in fighting back?

[The Midway Rebel]

67. Aye! There's the rub!

How does a "child" get his hands on a RPG?

[Orsino]

186. +1. Self-defense, or the defense of others...

...would be the only acceptable justifications--and even these get rather hazy when one is a member of an invading/occupying force, and the child in question thinks s/he's defending his/her homeland/family.

The OP staked out an incomplete position, I think. We should also be asking ourselves how/why we justify killing adults?

[Cleita]

23. It was rationalized in Viet Nam too.

The media propaganda said the Viet Cong children were murderous killers and we had to kill them first to stop them. I believe we were wrong then and we are wrong now.

[G_j]

51. yep, as in Mai Lai

that was just too much for the American public, once it was exposed.

[hfojvt]

24. first, define 'child'

the word is somewhat loaded, bringing to mind images of a mostly harmless little five or six year old.

In the real world, many 14 year olds are bigger than I am. Are they still children? Technically, yes, but what if one of the hulking thugs is attacking me? Am I allowed to defend myself? What if there's a group of them? Can I then defend myself with a gun?

Speaking of guns. Put a gun in the hands of a sixty pound ten year old boy and he is almost as lethal as any mountain lion. Back when I was a kid, I think some of my grade school classmates were hunting and killing pheasants or deer. If a twelve year old shoots at me in a war zone, am I allowed to shoot back? What if I don't know who is shooting at me and I shoot back and it turns out that a 13 year old boy was shooting at me? Does that make me some kind of monster?

Are you really listening?

[asdjrocky]

27. Sure.

Next time you're attacked by a hulking 14 year old, or a sixty pound 12 year old carrying an gun, feel free to defend yourself. I know I would.

Here's the thing, I've never been attacked by anyone fitting that description. How about you?

[berni_mccoy]

29. Israel does it all the time.

[asdjrocky]

36. Yes they do.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. And, we help them to.

[asdjrocky]

40. Yes we do.

I'm very good friends with a Palestinian family, it sickens me what we promote throughout the world.

[berni_mccoy]

44. Sadly true.

[polly7]

30. There is no justification for killing a child. None. Period.

[kelly1mm]

91. What if a 17 year old attacks you with a weapon? A 12 year old? nt

[polly7]

95. I guess I'd be dead.

I lost a child, I couldn't kill one.

[patrice]

100. Where are you? What/Who caused the conflict? What is the goal? Is the goal possible/probable?

[kelly1mm]

105. The post I replied to had no reservations. It said

"There is no justification for killing a child. None. Period." So I basically asked if this included what I would call self defense. The OP said that it did as they had lost a child. Very principled stance.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

106. How about in Wash DC where you live?

[patrice]

116. Not enough information.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

131. Well at least you can't claim the "invaders" meme

We were the victims of a home invasion robbery by two young men both armed with handguns. I serious injured one and my wife shot the other shot dead. Technically they were children (16 & 17).

[patrice]

142. You were invaded; you did what you had to do. Re the larger domestic context see my post #134 below

[patrice]

101. You had a CHOICE to be there. That 12-17 year old DIDN'T!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

108. Look at a domestic context, gangs in the inner city

And then see if your logic still holds.

[kelly1mm]

112. What are you talking about? The OP and the comment I responded

to did not have any context or restrictions. They basically said 'No killing of children ever. Never.' I am curious as to why that would be the case in a self defense situation.

[polly7]

115. I will clarify my comment, if that's what you're referring to as one

of your examples. If I couldn't out-think, fight, hide from, or outsmart a child pointing a gun at me, I would probably be dead. I couldn't force myself to kill any child. It's just something I know I could never force myself to do.

[NutmegYankee]

120. Will you recognize others will disagree, and still be moral?

A father may want to see his own child grow up and choose to defend his life. Defense of your life is a natural response.

[polly7]

123. Of course it's a natural response, I just said, that having lost

my child I could never kill another ...... with parents, who would love to see him / her grow up. Pointing a gun at me??? I'd have to go to a place where children actually have guns and not the ones locked up in Dad's hunting gun-safe. That would probably be somewhere I was an intruder and children were being used as weapons. Yes, I recognize others disagree. Obviously. It doesn't change my stance that killing children is wrong. The most extreme examples have been brought up here. Not many children I know have reason to pick up a gun, so I'm finding it very hard to relate. It does bring to mind though the 12 year olds in Fallujah being locked in with all 'fighting-age' men. These children had a right to life.

[NutmegYankee]

118. Explain.

A 17 year-old killed a dozen students at columbine in 1999. Children as yound as 14 have murdered people in gang warfare or in robberies. The child obviously had a choice to be there.

[patrice]

127. Not as much of a choice as all of the supposed adults who could have done a myriad

of different things that could have lead away from those events.

I'm not saying that all of those choices, or any portion thereof, would have necessarily prevented what happened there, but at least the probabilities would have been changed at every crossroads, big and small, along the way.

And even if all of the right choices, big and small, were made and that thing still happened, at least then we could say we had no part in putting those children there (anywhere) with those guns.

I am a situational ethicist, I am not going to say "Don't shoot children with guns - ever." People who are hurting other people should be stopped. And we need to recognize how just killing them does NOTHING about people hurting people, so what's the point, unless ALL of us recognize how our own choices, big and small, MAKE things the way they are.

[NutmegYankee]

129. But a choice is only good if you know about it.

None of those students knew that if they went to school on that day they would die. Most died after having been caught by surprise.

I had a friend literally tear the index finger from a 14 year-old who held him at gun point for a robbery. He lunged for the gun and grabbed it with the strength of a man who desperately wanted to see his family again and ripped the child's finger right off due to the way he twisted the gun. The child took off running and even today he doesn't feel guilty. That gun with a finger on the trigger was just as deadly as if a 30 year-old held it.

My friend was merely walking back to his car from a mall. Hardly a situation that invites a child to point a gun at you.


There are fucked up situations that demand action, even if you never wanted it.

[patrice]

138. Oh, I'm not denying that. I just want ALL of us to think about it differently.

It is possible that will result in different behaviors that eventually will result in other different behaviors.

[NutmegYankee]

143. Understood. This 14 year-old would have been well served by someone getting them out of a gang.

A gang where he apparently learned to rob people and acquired his firearm. While the kid is in Juvenile lockup now, he is lucky to be alive.

[patrice]

146. And the "choices" we are currently processing in response to those gangs are WAY too much

after the fact in most circumstances. We are not addressing the cultural changes that will lead to better choices re gangs and abortion and wars and such.

I think we need to begin with recognizing how choosing to be polite with a waitress, for example, DOES ultimately affect whether gangs become viable or not.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

133. You do not have enough information to make that assumption

[patrice]

147. In the domestic context, I am saying that the choices of an adult are, or should be, qualitatively

different from those of younger people. They probably actually aren't, though, according to the Cognitive-Developmental Psychologist Jean Piaget, though he also agrees that they should be.

[PerpetuallyDazed]

185. Is there justification for killing anyone?

[thecrow]

34. One word

Dubya

[Sebastian Doyle]

55. Well, if you're gonna bring time travel into this....

It would be better to go back before he was born, and kill Prescott Bush as a child.

No Hitler
No Poppy
No Bin Laden
No Chimpy
No sell out to China by Prescott Jr.
No Bush Crime Family domination of the right wing political system (and Supreme Court)

if killing Prescott Bush as a child would have prevented all of that, I would say that was justified. But until a working time machine exists, it is of course pure speculation.

[jmowreader]

77. Go back a little further

Kill the war profiteer Samuel Bush. He started it.

[winyanstaz]

141. Well maybe if his mom had had a choice back in that time......

the world would have been spared a lot of Bushes.
Millions more might be alive..
Millions more might be living in peace.
Because women could regulate their own child bearing..the world might not be over populated and we could have been in paradise by now.
All for want of abortion rights.

[jmowreader]

155. Samuel Bush's mom was rich. Find a new idea.

In society, they used to say certain women would be "vacationing alone in the Tropics this year." That was the nice way of saying "she's pregnant and doesn't want to be because maternity evening gowns are few and far between, so she's going somewhere abortion is legal to solve her problem."

Would Mrs. Bush have wanted to solve the problem of her demon spawn attempting to take over the world by vacationing alone in the Tropics that year, she would have done so.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

35. Cuz the tykes are about to invade Toledo and force your mama to wear a burqa.

At least that's the justification for our war against them.

[slackmaster]

46. Only in self-defense

Just as is the case with adults.

[LooseWilly]

47. It's fun !!

Hell, killing children is exactly as justifiable as killing adults if you ask me.

Either stop with the killing, or just go ahead and kill 'em all... but spare me the notion that children are somehow more sacred than adults. I'm not buying it.

Even the argument of innocent vs. guilty can get pretty murky, when you get deep into it. As a taxpayer who helps fund the US Government which fields the US military which is used in wars of occupation (not to mention fielding mercenary thugs like Blackwater/Xe)- am I really innocent? Or, am I perhaps a viable target for the "other side"? Think about it once more now, but in the context of Sherman's "March to the Sea" through Georgia during the Civil War. And one more time, now in context of Hiroshima.

[asdjrocky]

48. Both of the battles you mentioned there at the end were both proven

unnecessary by history.

And yeah, kids are different, they are sacred.

[LooseWilly]

156. Both proven unnecessary, maybe. But proven unjustified? Or merely so argued?

I could certainly argue either way. I can also argue the sacredness of children either way.

My point, really, is simple. If you're willing to "harden your heart" enough to kill people... why not just admit that you've turned yourself into a "monster" and just run with it? Killing cows and eating them- why not kill baby cows and eat veal? Killing men- why not kill women too? Killing women- why not kill children? (Or, to spelunk through some awful US History... killing Native American men- why not wipe out the whole village?)

To quote Coppola/John Milius/Conrad's Kurtz "Oh, the horror...the horror"

At what point the people doing the killing become something not-quite-human is, in my opinion, a more interesting perspective from which to examine this question. It's also a form of the question that I suspect might make people think twice before they gamble their own humanity by killing children- no matter how some lawyer like John Yoo tries to "justify" doing so legally.

[patrice]

121. OMG! You said something I agree with!!

:wow: :hi:

[Goldstein1984]

50. Sophistry aside

It's wrong to kill children.

It's wrong to defend killing children by trying to blur the definition of "children."

And if children pick up arms to help defend their people from an occupying force, then the occupying force bares the responsibility for the weapons being in the hands of the children.

I am as ashamed of what we are doing in the Middle East as I was when George Bush was Commander-in-Chief. In fact, I am more ashamed. It was easy to condemn Bush as a war monger. Since President Obama has taken command, I've been doing more research to understand why he is doing what he is doing. The more informed I become, the more ashamed I become.

[patrice]

54. +1 ~

[leftstreet]

57. +1

[asdjrocky]

58. Sometimes simple is best.

Black is Beautiful, for example. Yes We Can (the original).

And to your final point- yes, Americans, all Americans wear the shame.

[Goldstein1984]

68. Thanks for you OP

It was a simple question that deserves an answer.

If the children dying in the Middle East were White and Christian, I doubt we would be killing them, even to get at our intended targets.

[NutmegYankee]

56. I'll take the challenge -

Imagine a situation like the Columbine High School massacre where a child (age 17) along with another individual shot to death several other children and adults and were determined to fight it out till the end. It may come down to a police officer or security guard having to use deadly force to save their lives and the lives of others. I see no reason that would not be justified. Even if the child was only 12, the guards or police have a duty to protect and defend the victims against an immediate threat of death.

[asdjrocky]

66. How about if they are handcuffed and unarmed?

[NutmegYankee]

71. Obviously not in that case. It's never ok, even for POWs

However, you had not specified any factors in your challenge. I cannot justify killing a bound and unarmed person, regardless of age.

[Name removed]

90. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jamastiene]

59. I cannot.

I can't believe some of the hideous shit I've read on here lately.

K&R for a good question.

I need to amend my ignore list a little more as they crawl out of the woodwork.

[Lost-in-FL]

63. Humans should not kill other humans.

Children should not carry weapons or kill other human beings.

[jmowreader]

70. I've got a perfect situation

Children who are actively trying to kill other people? Completely justifiable.

Example: Asa Coon, age 14. Shot four people in a Cleveland high school--one teacher in the back, another in the abdomen and two students superficially.

http://edition.cnn.com/2007/US/10/10/cleveland.shooting/index.html

[asdjrocky]

72. Good point.

Maybe if everyone carried a gun.

As I've said here before, next time a kid points a gun at you, let me know.

[Name removed]

75. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asdjrocky]

78. I think it's okay to defend yourself.

On a very narrowly defined personal level. I've never found myself having to defend myself from children.

[Name removed]

81. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[asdjrocky]

84. Yes. Just like if your family is starving, you can steel food.

If your family is sick, you can steel medicine. If you country is invaded, you can use whatever you have to stop the invaders.

See, it's easy to find an extreme reason to justify any act.

[Name removed]

87. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[dems_rightnow]

82. Which wasn't your question

You merely asked when it was OK. Not whether it had happened to you recently.

[dems_rightnow]

80. That's the one all right

That's about it, though.

[Name removed]

74. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ThomWV]

83. Put one that misbehaves next to me at a nice restaurant and we'll see.

[alphafemale]

88. Not under any circumstances...except perhaps

[dems_rightnow]

93. Oooh

I watched that one last night. Another good point. One may kill a child if it's proven that he's the Devil incarnate.

[Hello_Kitty]

96. Self defense. eom

[patrice]

103. Which, of course, applies to them too, because you ARE IN THEIR COUNTRY.

[Hello_Kitty]

107. I'm still not going to let them kill me. Sorry.

Besides, who says I'm in their country anyway? The OP called for a situation where killing a child is justified. Granted there aren't many but self defense (or defense of others) would fit the bill.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

111. That was not part of the OP

which was clearly flamebait in many ways

[anonymous171]

125. Pretty much the only justification out there. nt

[Octafish]

97. Exactly. There is no good reason for taking innocent life.

We must also remember that inside every innocent person -- no matter the age -- exists, at heart, a child; each of whom emobodies the potential for an infinite resource of goodness.

[asdjrocky]

109. Thank you.

Well made point.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

104. First define what you mean by child, you have danced around it so far. Also define circumstances

Killing anyone being an active threat to your survival is legitimate, regardless of their age. In such situations pondering, how they got the gun and why they chose to use it on you should wait.

Collateral damage is a more legitimate issue with gray on both sides. The mass civilian casualties of WWII would never be acceptable today. Also note one of the basic terror tactics is to create fear within the civilian populace. The various muslim and Arab terror groups have a much higher collateral damage ratio that any standing military.

If you are looking at it from a civilian perspective, also consider that 17 yo men are not the same as 7 yo boys.

Your simplistic attempt to frame the issue is not effective nor honest.

[Crabby Appleton]

128. I agree with you completely. nt

[stray cat]

110. If they have a gun and intend to kill you and are shooting at you

or would you try to pat their head and tell them to be a good boy? A child - I assume means under the age of 18 - ever been mugged by a 17 year old with a knife or gun? Also, would you prevent a "child" from violently raping a loved one?

[patrice]

122. Unless you kill everyone, killing just causes killing. Whatever you think you're going to do with it

eventually it doesn't work.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

124. Brings back memories of what some people said in the aftermath of the My Lai massacre

"So what if our guys killed children? They would have just grown up to be Viet Cong anyway."

Really, some of these people would feel more at home with, oh, I don't know, the Myanmar junta.

[NutmegYankee]

135. Almost any reponse on this thread has revolved around self-defense.

Situations like Columbine or a rapist/robber holding you at gun point have dominated the discussion.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

137. The OP strongly inferred there was never justification, yet clearly there is. BTDT

It was clearly flame bait, which has proven successful.

[NutmegYankee]

140. I know. He dared fellow DUers to justify it in ANY case, and it can be.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

130. They keyed my car.

[LWolf]

132. I can't. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

139. Self Defense would seem a legitimate reason.

Consider a home invasion robbery by underage gang members.

[LWolf]

144. I guess I don't really consider

"under age" gang members to be children. If they are teen-agers, I tend to think of them as young adults.

Semantics, I know.

I live in a really different world than so many of my fellow citizens.

A world in which I don't fear things like "home invasion," or assault.

I'm a firm believer in self-defense, but I don't equate defense with actual killing. I can see myself defending against an attack by a child, but not killing in order to do so.

When I lived in a neighborhood inhabited by a gang, I was never bothered. Except the time they had a showdown in front of my little cottage, complete with shotgun, which was not fired. They never actually stepped on to my property, though.

I DID have trouble with the drug dealer across the alley behind me stealing tools out of my garage; for a few weeks, the door was broken and wouldn't close. By the time I was able to pay for repairs and lock it back up, he'd been arrested and evicted.

I was glad to see the drug dealer gone, but I wouldn't have killed him for stealing my tools. And he was an adult.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

157. The OP really set this up as flame bait

He had a particular scenario in mind, but his post was made at a macro level, where his absolutist position was clearly specious

[treestar]

136. Who said it was?

who are you attacking?

[Electric Monk]

145. someone really 'mavericky'

[asdjrocky]

148. I'm not attacking anyone.

Do you feel like you're being attacked?

[treestar]

175. No

No one said any such thing. You're making it up out of the blue.

[Zynx]

151. If they point a weapon at me and I don't have a choice, then yes.

I'm sure as hell not going to take a bullet or worse just because of their age.

[miyazaki]

152. If the kid was named Damien Thorn, justified. n/t

[LostInAnomie]

153. Snore too loud or steal my last beer.

[Fla_Democrat]

172. No one is safe

in the 'steal my last beer' situation. Even ol 'Spudz MacKenzie' better keep his paws off my beer. :toast:

[seeinfweggos]

154. ok

a sixteen year-old male, twice my size, comes charging at me with a knife. i have a gun. pretty much done and justified. want some more? i can think up scenarios for the justified killing of children all day long

[varelse]

159. It cannot be done

I am appalled, however, by the shameless attempts to do so on this thread. I did not believe I would ever see such a thing on DU.

If anyone could justify killing, it would be someone who did so in self defense, and yet even soldiers who fire on armed children in self defense show remorse and grief. Some are consumed by guilt to the point of death.

I suppose the perspective is different from the comfort of a safe living room or den in an upper class suburban neighborhood. I just never imagined it could warp one's view to the point where killing kids is righteous.

[NutmegYankee]

160. It can be done. Self-defense.

A 17 year-old is murdering children and about to shoot you. It can be justified in rare cases like self-defense, which most people have stated on this thread.

Did you actually read the thread before condemning all of us?

[varelse]

164. Yes, I have read the thread

I've seen the attempts made herein to justify killing children, and I am aware that there are people (primarily soldiers or police) who are put in situations such that the only way to defend themselves and/or others is to kill an armed child who presents a direct and immediate threat.

I also know that many of those people, be they police officers, soldiers, or civilians, will remain traumatized because even self defense is not enough to justify the killing even in their own minds.

Any civilized nation should do everything it its power to prevent the killing of children, both because it is in and of itself an atrocity, and because it permanently damages those forced into situations where it is required for survival.

If our country's military forces did indeed order a group of young teenage schoolboys to be taken from their beds, handcuffed, and then shot to death, then our military leadership is responsible for an atrocity which has no possible justification. Our soldiers who were ordered to commit this atrocity, provided they themselves are not psychopaths, will suffer for the rest of their lives from the memory of this unspeakable crime. I'm holding out some hope that this story was propaganda similar to the story of babies being tossed out of incubators in the hospital in Kuwait, but if it is true, there is no excuse for the crimes committed. None.

[NutmegYankee]

168. The OP never mentioned the military.

If he wanted to focus on that he should have specified as such.

[varelse]

173. Correct, the OP challenged us to justify the killing of children, not the alleged war crime

in which it is reported that US soldiers murdered handcuffed children (I am still hoping this is not true).

I maintain that it isn't possible to justify the killing of children, not even to most people who have been forced by circumstances to commit it - many of whom experience depression or suicidal thoughts after the fact. I believe that any civilized nation has the responsibility to prevent the deaths of children where humanly possible. To the extent that we are aiming bombs and conducting raids in civilian areas, we are acting irresponsibly. The fact that other nations and political groups act equally criminally by training children as soldiers and putting them in harm's way in now way justifies our own nation's policies of bombing, starving, or shooting them.

The simple way to say this is that two wrongs do not make a right.

[asdjrocky]

181. Thanks, and sorry you got pulled into this.

It was an experiment, and I learned what I hoped I would not learn.

[Jamastiene]

161. Somehow, I am not surprised by the attitudes I see on this thread.

On 20th anniversary, Convention on the Rights of the Child Embraced by World but Not the US

The United States and Somalia are the only countries that have failed to ratify the Convention, which was adopted 20 years ago, on November 20, 1989.

http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/11/18/us-ratify-children-s-treaty

[varelse]

162. That's a very odd stance for us to take

what was our objection to ratifying this treaty?

[Jamastiene]

163. I am for ratifying the treaty.

I don't know why our country has not ratified it. According to the article, the Senate has been the holdup. It has been sent to them but they never put it to the vote yet, since 1989. And to be one of the last two countries to not ratify it is beyond disgusting.

[flvegan]

167. We're not exactly in good company, either.

Somalia? Really.

[G_j]

182. like not signing the landmine treaty

that effects children also.

[NutmegYankee]

170. What attitudes? And from whom?

The responses I have seen revolved around self-defense, which is also a Human right. The OP tried to make an absolute statement when in reality there are always exceptions.

[caitxrawks]

165. i suppose that all depends on your definition of a child.

The pro-lifers say life starts at conception. I'll argue that point to the death, since a fetus cannot survive outside the womb until around 21 weeks gestation.

Then there are people who separate people under 18 into children and teenagers.

I'm pro-choice of course. I think I could only have an abortion in a case of rape or something life threatening. If a kid/teenager is pointing a gun at me and intends to shoot it, you better believe I'm going to defend myself.

But just killing kids for the sake of killing kids? That's kinda disgusting.

[proteus_lives]

166. If my life or the life of others was in danger from said child, then yes.

You're framing as an absolute but it's not.

[dionysus]

169. okay. if they are trying to kill you. otherwise not so much.

what a stupid question.

[pipi_k]

174. Rhoda Penmark?

:evilfrown:

[lastliberalintexas]

176. Haven't read the thread, so I don't know if this has been mentioned

Even though I was relatively young, the MASH finale or episode before the finale stuck with me ever since. If you haven't seen it, a mother suffocates her crying infant in order to save the group from detection by soldiers. As a parent myself now, I really don't know that I could do that. But I would imagine that would be the most heart-wrenching, courageous decision any parent would have to make. And as an outsider to that parent's decision, I would see where that is justified.

Then there is also the Sophie's Choice conundrum, taking/giving the life of one child in the hopes of saving another.


These scenarios in no way justify what we're doing in our wars of occupation, however. Though they do show me I've watched way too much tv and too many films over the years...


And now that I've read the thread, I see that the OP was merely trolling in his own way. :)

[PerpetuallyDazed]

193. Good points!

I'd forgotten about that MASH episode. It was one of the most tragic depictions I've ever seen on t.v. Your point kind've "muddles up" this whole black and white narrative the OP is trying to build.

[JackDragna]

178. I'm a teacher.

Believe me, there are many sound justifications. :) J/k

[ChoppinBroccoli]

179. I Have The Solution

The Government needs to give in to all the fundies and start an all-out anti-abortion media blitz encouraging all Pro Lifers to swallow.

And do you want justification for killing a child? I can do it. Rush Limbaugh was once a child.

[smalll]

183. Yep, that Islamist terrorist who blew up that crowd in Pakistan a few days ago on purpose--

has some major explaining to do!

Sayin'! :shrug:

[RedCloud]

187. Alien predator inside and will kill all other babies for the fun of it.

Maybe I watch too much sci-fi, but you did ask for "any".

[FarLeftFist]

189. I'll wait before bashing our troops....