Abortion: Whatever works

  • Thread starter Thread starter seekerz
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

seekerz

Guest
This is going to be worded as carefully as possible so as not to cause offense or seem accusatory because that is definitely not my intention.

It’s just something I believe this is something worth pondering, so that our efforts to end abortion remain on track. Well, with a deep breath, here goes:

Sometimes, in reading through threads on the pro-life fight some appear to be saying that whatever works, to save even one life is justified. To paraphrase: “If X can save even one life then X should be done” regardless of any reservations expressed. Let it be understood here that X is not meant to cover illegal acts, but controversial ones such as indiscriminate use of graphic images and the recently discussed “aborted baby in a casket” ceremony.

My question is, does the idea of a tactic being justifed if it saves lives, spring from the concept that saving even one life pleases God? Or is its justification based solely on the value of the life being saved?

To be very clear: we all know that abortion offends God, so in trying to stop it,are we saying that God is pleased with us saving the babies regardless of method or is the focus solely on stopping violence to the fetus, without much thought to whether the tactic itself might be pleasing to God ?

Further, where does the rest of humanity figure into this. Specifically, in trying to please God and save babies, does the effect of our tactics on other people matter at all and if so how much?
 
seekerz said:
My question is, does the idea of a tactic being justifed if it saves lives, spring from the concept that saving even one life pleases God? Or is its justification based solely on the value of the life being saved?
Click to expand...
The same moral criteria applies to all acts. One must have a good end **and **good means. One cannot “justify” using immoral means to procure a good end. That is a fundamental principle.

Now, whether any *specific *method of saving a child is moral or not, that method would have to be evaluated on its merits against objective moral criteria.
 
But that’s exactly the problem, the ‘criteria’ I see increasingly being used are:

-does it work to save lives, even one
-has it been proven to offend anybody
-does it make people realize the horror of abortion
-will it shock people into making the right decisions

…and so on

What are the objective moral criteria to be used for specific methods and why can’t Catholics seem to all agree (if indeed the criteria are objective)?
 
I find it interesting that those who most vocally oppose what they call the slaughter of innocents are so willing to use the aforementioned innocents as stage props. I think desecration of a corpse or such blatant exploitation of the deceased as is often committed by some in the pro-life movement would quite reasonably fall under immoral and objectionable means to a desirable end.
 
Well honestly, We watch porngraghy in rated R movies, we see people shot and mutilated and all sorts of sick stuff at movies thats fake and we want to see it. Heck we pay to see it! A good price too! But we see someone show an aborted baby and oh gosh your sick and its so horrible and we exploit them. But it is the reality of it, that is an abortion, its not a movie and you should understand that its real and not some work of a hollywood makeup studio to sway opinoin… In this world of information and mass media, we are all wanting to know the truth, but yet we willfully hide ourselves from it if it doesnt fit are idea of what it should be. The reality of it is that there are dead, aborted, babies, rotting in dumpsters behind abortion clinics. Its the TRUTH.
 
No one’s denying the truth of abortion. The question is: are all tactics justified simply by the fact that they may be effective?

I know I’m gonna get eaten alive for this, but sometimes it’s seems like we’re placing concern for the creature before concern with the Creator.

We should be hearing people asking, does this method glorify God; not is this method showing the truth of what’s happening to babies?
 
I’m not sure what your problem is with these methods of raising people’s awareness of the horrors of abortion. Nobody seems to object to the fact that government agencies show graphic images of people with shockingly disfiguring diseases to try to discourage people from smoking. Or that they show graphic pictures of car accidents and their victims to encourage people to drive safely. And both these campaigns save lives more indirectly than an anti-abortion campaign does.

Of course we have to consider any possible harmful effects of the anti-abortion images, eg you wouldn’t show them to a group of young children. But other than that, what’s the worst possible effect they could have? To horrify people and make their stomachs turn? Is that worse than killing people? I don’t think there’s any doubt that such campaigns surely save some lives.

In a perfect world, everyone would always be nice to each other and we’d never need to rebuke anyone or give them a shock to dissuade them from harming others. But people do sin and harm others and we are our brothers’ keepers. Sometimes we even have to fight against someone who attacks innocent people. Sometimes we even have to kill or wage a just war to defend the innocent. This too is glorifying God. And in this case shocking and nauseating people to dissuade them from promoting/supporting/procuring abortion may well be glorifying God.
 
Petergee said:
I’m not sure what your problem is with these methods of raising people’s awareness of the horrors of abortion. Nobody seems to object to the fact that government agencies show graphic images of people with shockingly disfiguring diseases to try to discourage people from smoking. Or that they show graphic pictures of car accidents and their victims to encourage people to drive safely. And both these campaigns save lives more indirectly than an anti-abortion campaign does.

Of course we have to consider any possible harmful effects of the anti-abortion images, eg you wouldn’t show them to a group of young children. But other than that, what’s the worst possible effect they could have? To horrify people and make their stomachs turn? Is that worse than killing people? I don’t think there’s any doubt that such campaigns surely save some lives.
Click to expand...
But are our standards of decency those of the secular crowd or are they perhaps a tad higher?
 
seekerz said:
But are our standards of decency those of the secular crowd or are they perhaps a tad higher?
Click to expand...
Higher, I hope. I hope a Christian would not show people horrifying/nauseating images just to satisfy their perverted cravings to be grossed out by more and more horrifying images as they grow more and more blase, and to make a profit. But to show images of aborted fetuses (indecent, but much less so than what you can see in the cinema every day or even on TV) in order to save lives, is surely a higher standard.
 
So am I correct in understanding you to say that the noble end (saving lives) is what justifies the means (grossing people out)?

If not, I apologize for misunderstanding.

If yes, then please explain how that lines up against Church teachings.
 
I’m pretty sure “grossing people out” in that way is at most a venial sin. Millions of innocent children are being killed. If anyone is not "grossed out’ by that fact, they should be. You are correct that where we have a choice, we may never choose to do something evil in the hope that good may come of it. But your question was, “IF grossing people out saves at least one life, should it be done?”. In other words you are positing a choice between a lesser evil (grossing people out) and a greater evil (one or more murders of innocents). In that case we should choose the lesser evil.

If someone was threatening to jump, throw his child, off a building, do you think it would be immoral for someone to show him photos of the splattered bodies of people who had fallen from geat heights, if it was thought that would dissuade him?
 
But is it simply a choice between a greater and a lesser evil or are there alternative methods which are not evil at all?

Where does God fit into all of this? We know that all sin (venial or otherwise) offends Him. So is it reasonable to say, “Okay Lord, I know you might be offended by this, but right now saving babies is more important?” :confused:
 
"I’m pretty sure “grossing people out” in that way is at most a venial sin. Millions of innocent children are being killed. If anyone is not “grossed out’ by that fact, they should be.”

We shouldn’t be trying to gross people out. Getting grossed out should just be an involuntary reaction of people realizing a horror they have allowed to go on. Our job is to present that reality in an honest and revealing way. But the reality is gross, and there may be no way around that. And in no way should even a venial sin be committed by us for any cause, because Jesus showed us that ALL can and should be accomplished sinlessly.

The main thing we should be striving for is not jarring a few individuals to change their minds, but main-stream acceptance and support. We need to do what we can to avoid being described as radical, and instead look like people who love and care. Right now, pro-choice is in control because they have the image of loving and caring about women, and of protecting their freedom.

The simple fact is, this country was founded on the mantra that all humanity has the right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” I think what we need to do is let them know that these are listed from highest to lowest priority, and that abortion is the destruction of our greatest priority–life–for the petty pursuit of happiness. And what are we really happy about, anyway? Killing someone who needed us so we could go to a movie, or keep a selfish boyfriend from leaving?? Empty pleasures compared to hugging a baby who hugs you back. And we need to show that in no way is the end of abortion an infringement on liberty because this one liberty destroys the life and every single liberty of another human.
 
Good OP.

What about lying about the effects of abortion to help end abortion? Would God be pleased?

I can’t think of anything specific, but for example manufacturing “credible” research results that says abortion causes 76% of biological fathers to commit suicide once they’ve learned that their baby was aborted.

Silly example, I know…can’t think of anything better right now.
 
seekerz said:
But is it simply a choice between a greater and a lesser evil or are there alternative methods which are not evil at all?

Where does God fit into all of this? We know that all sin (venial or otherwise) offends Him. So is it reasonable to say, “Okay Lord, I know you might be offended by this, but right now saving babies is more important?” :confused:
Click to expand...
There is nothing evil about showing graphic images. The fact that somebody might be offended is not sufficient grounds to ban anything. I am offended by Barney but that doesn’t mean he has to taken off the air
 
seekerz said:
To paraphrase: “If X can save even one life then X should be done” regardless of any reservations expressed. Let it be understood here that X is meant to cover…indiscriminate use of graphic images and the recently discussed “aborted baby in a casket” ceremony.

…Are we saying that God is pleased with us saving the babies regardless of method or is the focus solely on stopping violence to the fetus, without much thought to whether the tactic itself might be pleasing to God ?

Further, where does the rest of humanity figure into this. Specifically, in trying to please God and save babies, does the effect of our tactics on other people matter at all and if so how much?
Click to expand...
seekerz said:
So am I correct in understanding you to say that the noble end is what justifies the means (grossing people out)?
Click to expand...
Allow me to answer your questions with a combination of other questions and declarative sentences.
You are concerned that the tactics used by pro-lifers are occasionally offensive to God. I say that you are doing well to be concerned. A bad means can never be used to achieve a good end (you can probably find that in the Catechism, or somewhere with the Principle of Double Effect).
So, our next question is what is a “bad means”? I disagree with the idea that grossing people out or making them uncomfortable is inherently sinful. Jesus made plenty of people uncomfortable: cleansing the Temple, the rich young man, John 6. So, an opinion around here about the aborted baby in the casket was that it was too much because it was disrespectful to the baby to be paraded around, (quite possibly sinful too), and also, they were really preaching to the choir. I don’t know about pictures, they might not be disrespectful to the baby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top