Abortion Discussion

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

Well firstly, you don't accept that abortion is killing a person. And of course, the State only accepts that it is killing a person to a very specific degree ie the destruction of unborn life, which means that it is possible to allow someone to leave the state without the intent to engage in that killing interfering with that killing. In the case of marrying children against their will the State asserts the right to prosecute people who traffic children for the purpose of exploitation (though it doesn't expressly prevent them from travelling to do so), and in the case of FGM the State (whilst again not explicitly preventing travelling to do so) asserts the right to prosecute those who commit a sexual offence (such as fgm), if the act is an offense both in Ireland and the State in which it occurs.
But you know all this, since it has been discussed on the thread already. What you're really asking is why doesn't Ireland extend it's anti-abortion laws to a logically absurd degree so that they become absurd. The answer, of course, is still because that would be absurd.

The point (as I understand it) is that it is absurd to have a blanket ban on elective abortion (presumably to protect the life of the foetus) but remain blasé about exporting the same foetus to be killed.

You claiming that it would be absurd to have a consistent legal approach to protecting the foetus does not counter the argument.

obplayer

swampgas wrote: »

The point (as I understand it) is that it is absurd to have a blanket ban on elective abortion (presumably to protect the life of the foetus) but remain blasé about exporting the same foetus to be killed.

You claiming that it would be absurd to have a consistent legal approach to protecting the foetus does not counter the argument.

The real answer is that very large numbers of religious fundamentalists would love to see travelling for the purpose of an abortion outlawed but they know that such a law, stating it's position honestly, would never pass and would expose their hopes and aims for what they are.

swampgas

obplayer wrote: »

The real answer is that very large numbers of religious fundamentalists would love to see travelling for the purpose of an abortion outlawed but they know that such a law, stating it's position honestly, would never pass and would expose their hopes and aims for what they are.

Agreed. But at the same time, the situation for those women unable to travel is that they now live in state where these religious fundamentalists are calling the shots when it comes to abortion.

obplayer

swampgas wrote: »

Agreed. But at the same time, the situation for those women unable to travel is that they now live in state where these religious fundamentalists are calling the shots when it comes to abortion.

Yep. That's what we need to change.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

The point (as I understand it) is that it is absurd to have a blanket ban on elective abortion (presumably to protect the life of the foetus) but remain blasé about exporting the same foetus to be killed.

I don't think anyone has actually determined that there is someone being blasé about exporting a foetus to be killed; there are plenty of opinions on the subject which have been aired on the thread, but I don't recall anyone being blasé about it? I think it's likely that most people who support a ban on elective abortion would support such a ban in any country, but they're capable of understanding that the only country they can effect such a ban in, is their own.

swampgas wrote: »

You claiming that it would be absurd to have a consistent legal approach to protecting the foetus does not counter the argument.

No, I'm saying the current legal approach is consistent with the majority of criminal law; Ireland does not assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. And if we were to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction for the destruction of unborn life it would be inconsistent with the areas where we currently assert extraterritorial jurisdiction because those are supported by international agreements and legislation, which do not exist for the crime of the destruction of unborn life.
It would be absurd to demand Ireland extend it's legislation to an unpracticable degree simply to point out that the legislation is then absurd...

obplayer wrote: »

The real answer is that very large numbers of religious fundamentalists would love to see travelling for the purpose of an abortion outlawed but they know that such a law, stating it's position honestly, would never pass and would expose their hopes and aims for what they are.

I'm sure that if there were very large numbers of religious fundamentalists who wanted such a thing they'd be campaigning vigorously for it. A feature of religious fundamentalists tends to be that they're quite happy to expose their hopes and aims.

swampgas wrote: »

Agreed. But at the same time, the situation for those women unable to travel is that they now live in state where these religious fundamentalists are calling the shots when it comes to abortion.

That's interesting... how is that religious fundamentalists are in a position to be calling the shots when ti comes to abortion, but they're not in a position to be calling the shots when it comes to travel?

obplayer

For those who believe a foetus is a human being, what do you make of this video?

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

For those who believe a foetus is a human being, what do you make of this video?

It doesn't mention anything about a foetus being a human being?

Peregrinus

I'm with Absalom. Why would you think this clip is even remotely relevant to the question of whether a foetus is a human being? There is one passing reference to abortion and the humanity of the foetus, and the (strikingly glib and stupid) response to that makes no challenge at all to the notion of the humanity of the foetus.

To be honest, my immediate response to this video is "the person who wrote the caption that appears on top is astonishingly rude, narrow-minded and idiotic". And I'm pro-choice.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

I'm with Absalom. Why would you think this clip is even remotely relevant to the question of whether a foetus is a human being? There is one passing reference to abortion and the humanity of the foetus, and the (strikingly glib and stupid) response to that makes no challenge at all to the notion of the humanity of the foetus.

To be honest, my immediate response to this video is "the person who wrote the caption that appears on top is astonishingly rude, narrow-minded and idiotic". And I'm pro-choice.

So what does she say that is inaccurate in terms of what the religious person she addresses believes? Whether it is rude or not.
And in answer to your very easily answered question "of whether a foetus is a human being? ". If it is then in that case an abortion sends it straight to heaven if you believe what the religious person she is addressing believes. Give me an answer based in reason and logic why that is not so and I will listen.

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

So what does she say that is inaccurate in terms of what the religious person she addresses believes? Whether it is rude or not.

What does she say that's relevant to a foetus being a human being?

obplayer wrote: »

And in answer to your very easily answered question "of whether a foetus is a human being? ". It is then in that case an abortion sends it straight to heaven if you believe what the religious person she is addressing believes. Give me an answer based in reason and logic why that is not so and I will listen.

Peregrinus didn't ask whether a foetus is a human being.. he asked why would you think this clip is even remotely relevant to the question of whether a foetus is a human being. Why would you think this clip is even remotely relevant to the question of whether a foetus is a human being?

Peregrinus

obplayer wrote: »

So what does she say that is inaccurate in terms of what the religious person she addresses believes?

Well, he says, in an aside, that he believes aborted foetuses are in heaven, to which she responds that then we must surely be doing them a favour by sending them there.

If what she says were true, the corollary would be that Christians must think that the murderers of innocent children are doing them a favour (and, for that matter, that the murderers of innocent or virtuous adults are doing them a favour too). Notoriously, Christians do not think either of these things. Reflecting on this should cause her to question how well she has understood the Christian position that she is purporting to set out and comment on, but she is either too stupid to realise this, or too arrogant to contemplate the possibility that she might have failed to grasp someone else's position. Or, possibly, both. Either way, not a good look.

She claims at the end of the clip that her beliefs are evidence-based, but her beliefs about Christian thinking on this issue seem to me to be formed and held in the teeth of easily-available evidence.

obplayer wrote: »

And in answer to your very easily answered question "of whether a foetus is a human being? ".

(A), that's not my question. And, (b), I haven't suggested that it is easily answered.

obplayer wrote: »

It is then in that case an abortion sends it straight to heaven if you believe what the religious person she is addressing believes. Give me an answer based in reason and logic why that is not so and I will listen.

Well, if you want reason and logic:

1. He says he believes that an aborted foetus goes to heaven.

2. Therefore, if you believe what he believes, you believe an aborted foetus goes straight to heaven. Duh.

3. But he does not say that he believes abortion thereby does the foetus a favour; that's her conclusion. That is notoriously not a position which Christians hold, as already pointed out, and if she is so ignorant as not to know this that is a poor reflection on her, and on whoever chose her as spokesperson for this discussion.

4. On the other hand, if she does know that, her position is basically a dishonest one. That's no better, really, is it?

5. There is an implicit assumption in her argument, which is that in the Christian view going straight to heaven is the best thing that can possibly happen to anyone. But this belief of hers is not only untrue and is not only unsupported by any evidence; it is abundantly contradicted by easily-available evidence; Christians do not hold the view that she assumes they do, that going immediately to heaven is the best thing that can happen someone. She probably should be slow to start her peroration by manifesting this belief of hers, and end it by claiming that her own beliefs are evidence-based because she is not an idiot. Her beliefs are not evidence-based and idiocy is, frankly, a more charitable explanation of her position than most of the alternatives.

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

I don't think anyone has actually determined that there is someone being blasé about exporting a foetus to be killed; there are plenty of opinions on the subject which have been aired on the thread, but I don't recall anyone being blasé about it? I think it's likely that most people who support a ban on elective abortion would support such a ban in any country, but they're capable of understanding that the only country they can effect such a ban in, is their own.

No, I'm saying the current legal approach is consistent with the majority of criminal law; Ireland does not assert extraterritorial jurisdiction. And if we were to assert extraterritorial jurisdiction for the destruction of unborn life it would be inconsistent with the areas where we currently assert extraterritorial jurisdiction because those are supported by international agreements and legislation, which do not exist for the crime of the destruction of unborn life.

If the opponents of abortion are to be believed, abortion is a terrible thing because it ends a human life and is much the same as murdering an infant. In fact abortion is considered so bad that terminating a foetus with no prospect of survival, or terminating a pregnancy conceived through rape, is simply not allowed. Otherwise these types of abortion would be permitted.

If the ban on abortion is justified because it is indeed so heinous, why are we bending over backwards to accept these international agreements and legislation? Surely for something pretty much as bad as murder, we should tear up the international agreements and go it alone? Why are we dealing with other countries who are so debased and evil that they have legalised abortion?

Or is it more accurate to say that we recognise that abortion isn't actually the terrible crime the pro-life extremists would have us believe, but rather than fix the constitution to reflect that we simply outsource the problem to other countries, and to hell with women who can't travel?

It would be absurd to demand Ireland extend it's legislation to an unpracticable degree simply to point out that the legislation is then absurd...

It might be absurd in a practical sense, but it's the right thing to do from a moral perspective if we really want to continue with this fantasy that abortion is so evil that all elective abortions in this country must be prohibited.

I'm sure that if there were very large numbers of religious fundamentalists who wanted such a thing they'd be campaigning vigorously for it. A feature of religious fundamentalists tends to be that they're quite happy to expose their hopes and aims.

That's interesting... how is that religious fundamentalists are in a position to be calling the shots when ti comes to abortion, but they're not in a position to be calling the shots when it comes to travel?

Maybe because no government has had the courage to actually provide a proper referendum on abortion since the 8th amendment was voted in?

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

If the opponents of abortion are to be believed, abortion is a terrible thing because it ends a human life and is much the same as murdering an infant.

I've no doubt that some opponenents of abortion would say that; I suspect others will say slightly different things. Not a bad thing to remember that all opponents of abortion don't hold the exact same views. But, let's just stick with 'much the same as murdering an infant' for now; so according to the particular people whose opinions you're representing with this statement, not actually the same as murdering an infant.
Probably more to the point (since we were discussing the legal position), in the eyes of the State, abortion is not the same as murdering an infant.

swampgas wrote: »

In fact abortion is considered so bad that terminating a foetus with no prospect of survival, or terminating a pregnancy conceived through rape, is simply not allowed. Otherwise these types of abortion would be permitted.

Again, I suppose that depends on which particular opponents of abortion you're channeling at the moment. But in the eyes of State the destuction of an unborn life which is not threatening the life of its mother certainly isn't allowed.

swampgas wrote: »

If the ban on abortion is justified because it is indeed so heinous, why are we bending over backwards to accept these international agreements and legislation?

What if the ban on abortion is actually justified by the fact that the majority voted for it? Regardless of their opinions of the relative heinousness of any particualr abortion, no more justifaction is needed in a democracy than the will of the people, surely?

swampgas wrote: »

Surely for something pretty much as bad as murder, we should tear up the international agreements and go it alone? Why are we dealing with other countries who are so debased and evil that they have legalised abortion?

I'm guessing that some of those who say abortion is something pretty much as bad as murder, would agree we should tear up international agreements, go it alone and stop dealing with other countries who are so debased and evil that they have legalised abortion. But most people would probably realise statements like that are simply rhetorical nonsense, whether they think abortion is something pretty much as bad as murder or not.

swampgas wrote: »

Or is it more accurate to say that we recognise that abortion isn't actually the terrible crime the pro-life extremists would have us believe, but rather than fix the constitution to reflect that we simply outsource the problem to other countries, and to hell with women who can't travel?

I suppose that depends on who 'we' is, and how much we agree with pro-life extremists who would have us believe that abortion is a terrible crime. But I suspect most 'we's have nothing much against women who can't travel, and aren't so lazy that we can't fix something rather than damn them to hell. If 'we' were to look at things that way, which it doesn't seem 'we' do.

swampgas wrote: »

It might be absurd in a practical sense, but it's the right thing to do from a moral perspective if we really want to continue with this fantasy that abortion is so evil that all elective abortions in this country must be prohibited.

So you'd like us to take an absurd practical stance to demonstrate a moral position you disagree with yourself but ascribe to others? Does that not strike you as an absurd proposal?

swampgas wrote: »

Maybe because no government has had the courage to actually provide a proper referendum on abortion since the 8th amendment was voted in?

How does that work though? Religious fundamentalists are calling the shots on abortion (presumably they're who all the various governments don't have the courage to stand up to and call a referendum, so there must be quite a few) as you said, but they're not calling the shots on travel (because the governments have enough courage to stand up to them on those days, or because despite their power to cow governments they're afraid to expose their hopes and aims with regards to travel arrangements?).... I have to say, that really doesn't make a great deal of sense.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

What if the ban on abortion is actually justified by the fact that the majority voted for it?

Ridiculous argument. In that case all laws in force in any democracy throughout history are "justified".

swampgas

Absolam wrote: »

I've no doubt that some opponents of abortion would say that; I suspect others will say slightly different things. Not a bad thing to remember that all opponents of abortion don't hold the exact same views. But, let's just stick with 'much the same as murdering an infant' for now; so according to the particular people whose opinions you're representing with this statement, not actually the same as murdering an infant.

Probably more to the point (since we were discussing the legal position), in the eyes of the State, abortion is not the same as murdering an infant.
Again, I suppose that depends on which particular opponents of abortion you're channeling at the moment. But in the eyes of State the destuction of an unborn life which is not threatening the life of its mother certainly isn't allowed.

The point I'm making is that the current almost absolute ban on abortion reflects a very extreme moral viewpoint. Surely legal positions are meant to reflect the moral feelings of the people? So while we are in one sense discussing the legal position, we are also discussing why the current legal position may be correct, i.e. judged to be fair and right, or incorrect, i.e. unfair and immoral.

So rather than nit-pick at walls of each other's text, how about you tell me what moral view point you think the current legal position reflects, perhaps taking the rest of Europe into account for context? Do you think our current legal position reflects a moderate moral position, possibly reflecting a majority view, or do you believe it to be a reflection of a rather extreme pro-life morality?

K4t

If every single pregnant woman in the world, and every single woman who becomes pregnant in the future, all decide to have an abortion, then that is fine by me. It's their choice.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Ridiculous argument. In that case all laws in force in any democracy throughout history are "justified".

More an observation than an argument, and I would agree, all laws (voted for by the people) are justified by the fact that the people have decided they will have them. If you'd like it phrased even more unpalatably; might is right.

silverharp

Its as simple as people have moved on. If you found out your neighbour had murdered their child, you would be affected to your core and would want the full weight of the law brought on them. If you heard that your neighbour had an abortion you might have different levels of sympathy for them but you wouldn't in the slightest want the person to face any consequences or indeed interfere with the person before they had the abortion.
As far as I can see the issue is less about the act itself and more about holding on to conservative values or fear that its only a hop skip and a jump to introduce cloning or creating a genetically enhancd super race ,who knows.

Absolam

swampgas wrote: »

The point I'm making is that the current almost absolute ban on abortion reflects a very extreme moral viewpoint.

That might be because your own position is extreme? I'm not saying it is, only that your perspective colours how extreme you think the viewpoint is. In my opinion a very extreme moral viewpoint would be an actual absolute ban on abortion, or an absolute derogation of abortion restrictions.

swampgas wrote: »

Surely legal positions are meant to reflect the moral feelings of the people? So while we are in one sense discussing the legal position, we are also discussing why the current legal position may be correct, i.e. judged to be fair and right, or incorrect, i.e. unfair and immoral.

I thought we were discussing why the State isn't going to 'do anything' to Tara, which got parlayed into why doesn't the State pass absurd extraterritorial legislation, which in turn became you parodying people who are opposed to abortion to show how silly they would be if they were like that?
Anyway, I suppose legal positions are certainly meant to reflect the will of the people, so if the people feel the law is unfair and immoral they can change it. No government has the courage to stand up to a majority (well, when there's an election in sight, anyway). Or at least, a government that doesn't have the courage to stand up to a minority of religious fundamentalists can't possibly have the courage to stand up to a majority of anything, can they?

swampgas wrote: »

So rather than nit-pick at walls of each other's text, how about you tell me what moral view point you think the current legal position reflects, perhaps taking the rest of Europe into account for context? Do you think our current legal position reflects a moderate moral position, possibly reflecting a majority view, or do you believe it to be a reflection of a rather extreme pro-life morality?

I think our current constitution reflects a strongly (but not extremely) conservative position on abortion in the context of worldwide views, and a very strongly conservative position in the context of European views. I think it is sufficiently close to a majority view that proposed alternatives haven't been able to gain enough traction with the electorate to make a government feel a referendum would be in their best interests.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

More an observation than an argument, and I would agree, all laws (voted for by the people) are justified by the fact that the people have decided they will have them. If you'd like it phrased even more unpalatably; might is right.

Sure, but nobody has ever argued otherwise so you're not really making any point at all.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Sure, but nobody has ever argued otherwise so you're not really making any point at all.

In fairness, you're the one who said it was a ridiculous argument, I only said it wasn't an argument. Nor was it me who was trying to make a point, it was Swampgas.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

In fairness, you're the one who said it was a ridiculous argument, I only said it wasn't an argument. Nor was it me who was trying to make a point, it was Swampgas.

Then, in fairness, you were making neither a point nor argument.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Then, in fairness, you were making neither a point nor argument.

You could tell that just from my saying it wasn't an argument, and it wasn't me trying to make a point? Well spotted.

Dan_Solo

Absolam wrote: »

You could tell that just from my saying it wasn't an argument, and it wasn't me trying to make a point? Well spotted.

Bears poop in the woods. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Absolam

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Bears poop in the woods. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Well, it certainly establishes your bona fides if nothing else

Nodin

Bit mad this

"Indiana woman convicted of using abortion drugs to terminate her pregnancy, and of child neglect for putting still-born baby in a dumpster after the birth"
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/feb/04/purvi-patel-found-guilty-feticide-unborn-childs-death

recedite

I travelled to the US a few years ago, and while there I paid a few dollars to shoot up a gun range with an Uzi sub-machine gun, and a Colt 45 magnum. It made my day, punk.


Totally illegal weapons in this jurisdiction of course, but nobody attempted to prosecute me when I returned.....obviously.

States do not generally attempt to prosecute their own citizens when they engage in activities abroad that are legal in the other country.

As FGM was mentioned, here is the Irish law regarding travel for FGM.
It can be seen that it is an offence for an Irish resident to arrange the removal of a child abroad for the purposes of FGM. But it is not an offence for an Irish person to perform the actual FGM surgery abroad, if it is legal in the country where it occurs.

A person is guilty of an offence if the person does or attempts to do an act of female genital mutilation in a place other than the State, but only if it is done or attempted to be done—
(a) on board an Irish ship within the meaning of section 9 of
the Mercantile Marine Act 1955,
(b) on an aircraft registered in the State, or
(c) by a person who is a citizen of Ireland or is ordinarily
resident in the State, and would constitute an offence in
the place in which it is done.

It might seem hypocritical, but its all a matter of jurisdiction. The only part of the foreign FGM that can be prosecuted is the "arranging" part that took place in Ireland. And that is getting perilously close to prosecuting a "thoughtcrime". The actual "removal" offence that could be prosecuted here is akin to kidnapping or holding someone against their will, because it is assumed that a minor cannot give proper consent to FGM, and therefore cannot consent to the travel. The FGM itself is not the offence.

This law stops people travelling to nearby countries with their kids for cheap "back street" FGMs. Otherwise the "pro-choice" (for want of a better expression) FGM proponents could set up an arrangement whereby people took girls from Ireland to the UK for illegal FGM, and vice versa from UK to Ireland, and it would be difficult to prosecute either in their home country without going through extradition proceedings.
And it may, in theory, protect girls from getting FGM while on a long haul holiday to their grandparents, provided that the FGM was discovered soon afterwards.
And I suppose it trumpets Ireland's position against FGM to the rest of the world.

So, comparing this to abortion travel; the foetus is not protected from this "removal" or kidnapping type offence. That was the sovereign decision of the people in a referendum.
And logically, the foetus is inseparable from the pregnant woman anyway, so the idea of taking it, against its will, out of this jurisdiction, cannot apply in anything like the same way as it would with the removal of a child. It goes wherever the woman goes, and that's it. The woman herself has a right to travel wherever she likes.
If something happens to the foetus abroad, and whatever happens is legal abroad, Irish law has no jurisdiction.

obplayer

Peregrinus wrote: »

Well, he says, in an aside, that he believes aborted foetuses are in heaven, to which she responds that then we must surely be doing them a favour by sending them there.

If what she says were true, the corollary would be that Christians must think that the murderers of innocent children are doing them a favour (and, for that matter, that the murderers of innocent or virtuous adults are doing them a favour too). Notoriously, Christians do not think either of these things. Reflecting on this should cause her to question how well she has understood the Christian position that she is purporting to set out and comment on, but she is either too stupid to realise this, or too arrogant to contemplate the possibility that she might have failed to grasp someone else's position. Or, possibly, both. Either way, not a good look.

She claims at the end of the clip that her beliefs are evidence-based, but her beliefs about Christian thinking on this issue seem to me to be formed and held in the teeth of easily-available evidence.


(A), that's not my question. And, (b), I haven't suggested that it is easily answered.


Well, if you want reason and logic:

1. He says he believes that an aborted foetus goes to heaven.

2. Therefore, if you believe what he believes, you believe an aborted foetus goes straight to heaven. Duh.

3. But he does not say that he believes abortion thereby does the foetus a favour; that's her conclusion. That is notoriously not a position which Christians hold, as already pointed out, and if she is so ignorant as not to know this that is a poor reflection on her, and on whoever chose her as spokesperson for this discussion.

4. On the other hand, if she does know that, her position is basically a dishonest one. That's no better, really, is it?

5. There is an implicit assumption in her argument, which is that in the Christian view going straight to heaven is the best thing that can possibly happen to anyone. But this belief of hers is not only untrue and is not only unsupported by any evidence; it is abundantly contradicted by easily-available evidence; Christians do not hold the view that she assumes they do, that going immediately to heaven is the best thing that can happen someone. She probably should be slow to start her peroration by manifesting this belief of hers, and end it by claiming that her own beliefs are evidence-based because she is not an idiot. Her beliefs are not evidence-based and idiocy is, frankly, a more charitable explanation of her position than most of the alternatives.

All you have proven is that Christians are even more confused in their thinking than we had already supposed. If heaven is so wonderful then they should be delighted to be going there. If they are not delighted, and are indeed demonstrably reluctant for both themselves and others then clearly they do not really believe this nonsense. At least suicide bombers are consistent in their madness.

lazygal

obplayer wrote: »

All you have proven is that Christians are even more confused in their thinking than we had already supposed. If heaven is so wonderful then they should be delighted to be going there. If they are not delighted, and are indeed demonstrably reluctant for both themselves and others then clearly they do no really believe this nonsense. At least suicide bombers are consistent in their madness.

Yep as a kid I didn't understand why if heaven was the better place I was told it was and we'd be there forever, why was everyone so reluctant to get there. Why bother getting cancer treatment if it is.just prolonging your trip to eternity?

Absolam

obplayer wrote: »

All you have proven is that Christians are even more confused in their thinking than we had already supposed. If heaven is so wonderful then they should be delighted to be going there. If they are not delighted, and are indeed demonstrably reluctant for both themselves and others then clearly they do not really believe this nonsense. At least suicide bombers are consistent in their madness.

And all that proves is that you're not taking the time to understand the Christian position either; you're drawing a conclusion from the existence of heaven in Christian theology which you find confusing and attributing that confusion to Christian thinking rather than your own (lack of) understanding.
The (very very very) short version of the theological answer is that Heaven is a reward for living our lives as virtuously as God wishes us to. There are obviously plenty of nuances and variations on that theme depending on the particular flavour of Christianity and historical period you choose to review, but in short despatching someone to their heavenly reward before God has decided to take them is likely not to be a virtuous act (again, depending on the flavour and historical period). You could probably figure out that much yourself from about sixty seconds googling, but spend an hour or two and you'll find a whole body of information on the subject.