In this chapter I respond to two claims about unborn human beings: first that they have no rights because they have no interests; second that they have no rights because they are not persons.

In this chapter I extend the analysis of the previous chapter to defense against innocent threats. Once again, the norm against intending death applies, but the standards for permissible killing as a side effect are stricter than in the case of unjust threats.

In this chapter I argue that the norm against intentional killing is a moral absolute, identifying an action never to be done. On this ground, the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and other allied bombings in World War II, are shown to have been morally unjustified.

In this chapter I give a preliminary argument against suicide, based on the core argument of the book. Suicide is distinguished from permisible acceptance of death as a side effect of some other permissible action.

In western provinces inscriptions described Constantine as the son of deified Constantius I and a descendant of Maximian, his father-in-law. Dedications mapped Constantine’s expanding jurisdiction, from Gaul and Spain into Italy and North Africa, then into the Balkan provinces. In particular, cities in North Africa honored him with dedications and statues. One new title was “greatest”; but the use of the Christian chi-rho monogram was limited.

Throughout Italy cities erected dedications and statues honoring Constantine and his family. Dedications also honored the many senators and wealthy municipal notables who were patrons and benefactors for their hometowns. At Hispellum a famous inscription memorialized imperial support for the construction of a new temple honoring Constantine’s imperial dynasty.

In this chapter I trace the problem of killing in Christian thought. I then raise the question of whether any intentional killing can be justified; in the remainder of the book I argue that the answer to this question is “no”.

I turn now to questions concerning killing in war. I first rehearse Thomas Aquinas’s treatment of the conditions that must be met for a just war. Aquinas clearly differs from me in his belief that those with public authority are morally entitled to intend death as part of what is required for them to carry out their responsibilities. I argue, however, that even St Thomas is more restrictive with regard to intentional killing than are some contemporary Thomists.

In this chapter I address the problem of human suffering. After giving an account of the nature of suffering, I argue that suffering does not justify intending death. However, suffering needs to be understood within the larger story of Christ’s redemptive work.

In this Chapter I argue, contrary to Aquinas and modern day defenders, that capital punishment is unjustified killing. Capital punishment is not required by retributivism, and Aqunas’s arguments defending the practice are unconvincing.

This chapter critiques Judith Jarvis Thomson’s famous defense of abortion by addressing the question of ownership of the mother’s body. It then addresses the question of "vital conflict" cases: cases of abortion in which the mother’s life is in imminent danger.