V
VetA
Guest
i shall not feed the troll
- Status
T
tjm190
Guest
As one who frequently trolls, I resent that false accusation- unless it’s aimed elsewhere. Then I’m neutral.
B
bnbkaine
Guest
Marc-
I appreciate the fact that you stand behind the Church’s teachings regardless of not recognizing why the Church teaches it.
I can only put myself in the situation. I would never choose my life over the life of the child I was carrying. In the “gun to the head” situation, substitute yourself for one of the kids. I would completely do whatever I could to keep my child alive. If I die in the process, then fine. To perform an abortion because “one or both will die” leaves no room for God to intervene. It is His will that we are supposed to be following all the time- not just when it is convenient. Nor can we amend His teachings because we believe we may know better.
I appreciate the fact that you stand behind the Church’s teachings regardless of not recognizing why the Church teaches it.
I can only put myself in the situation. I would never choose my life over the life of the child I was carrying. In the “gun to the head” situation, substitute yourself for one of the kids. I would completely do whatever I could to keep my child alive. If I die in the process, then fine. To perform an abortion because “one or both will die” leaves no room for God to intervene. It is His will that we are supposed to be following all the time- not just when it is convenient. Nor can we amend His teachings because we believe we may know better.
V
VetA
Guest
nope i indeed do think you are attempting to troll
T
tjm190
Guest
Perhaps I should state why I believe the comparison is accurate-
In both scenarios we can A- Kill one person to save another B- Nothing. Should we choose path A, in both cases, we take direct action that results in the death of one person (either an abortion or rerouting a train into a brick wall) that would have died anyway (child birth or an explosion of biblical proportions). We are, in effect, guilty of murder and have saved another person.
Should we choose, B, two people die. We are not directly responsible for either death.
Being directly responsible for a death that would occur regardless seems a low price to pay to save a life.
If I’m misunderstanding the scenario at hand, then it should be painfully obvious above an I’m sorry ><
In both scenarios we can A- Kill one person to save another B- Nothing. Should we choose path A, in both cases, we take direct action that results in the death of one person (either an abortion or rerouting a train into a brick wall) that would have died anyway (child birth or an explosion of biblical proportions). We are, in effect, guilty of murder and have saved another person.
Should we choose, B, two people die. We are not directly responsible for either death.
Being directly responsible for a death that would occur regardless seems a low price to pay to save a life.
If I’m misunderstanding the scenario at hand, then it should be painfully obvious above an I’m sorry ><
J
jmcrae
Guest
There is the factor of the Eternal, that seems to be getting lost, here.
If you are directly responsible for someone’s death, you will go to Hell for eternity. If someone dies because of an unfortunate confluence of circumstances over which you can have no control, then it’s God’s problem, and He will cause the interested parties to go to Heaven for eternity.
If both the mother and the child die of natural causes, they are in God’s hands, and will most likely go to Heaven together.
If the mother chooses to directly kill her child in order to save her own life, the child will most likely go to Heaven, but the mother will most likely go to Hell. The fact that she lives another few years on earth before doing so won’t mean very much, in the face of eternity.
PS: The answer to the train problem is, “Do nothing” because the children on the second track know the train schedule, and they have an alarm clock set - they will remove themselves from the track before the train arrives, and no one will be harmed. If the train switches tracks, the child on the other side will be killed, because he also knows about the train schedule, which means he won’t be expecting there to be a train on that track, and he would be killed if the train switched tracks.
T
tjm190
Guest
This doesn’t get us anywhere- I was question the idea that the actions taken in this case were mortally sinful. You scenario assumes that it is.
J
jmcrae
Guest
Of course it is. There is never a good enough reason to kill an innocent person. Ever.
T
tjm190
Guest
So had the US government had the opportunity to shoot down one of the planes on 9/11 prior to it striking it’s target (killing the innocents on board), you would have recommended they not do so?
R
rms001
Guest
From memory as a child I recall it was once said that the Church can justify killing only in self defense, or where an act of evil is committed to prevent the consequence of a greater evil occurring.
So in certain unique circumstances the Church will condone killing !!!
Now please understand I am only paraphrasing from distant memory and I do not want to be understood that I am quoting verbatim.
Maybe this is an error of misinterpretation on my behalf and I would appreciate it if someone could clarify whether indeed this is the case.
God Bless.
Rob.
So in certain unique circumstances the Church will condone killing !!!
Now please understand I am only paraphrasing from distant memory and I do not want to be understood that I am quoting verbatim.
Maybe this is an error of misinterpretation on my behalf and I would appreciate it if someone could clarify whether indeed this is the case.
God Bless.
Rob.
R
rms001
Guest
By the way my aforementioned post does not in any way shape or form apply to the act of abortion.
Only in times of war or when one’s life is directly threatened.
Rob.
Only in times of war or when one’s life is directly threatened.
Rob.
J
Jermosh
Guest
The act will always be evil, now if its a moral evil is a different story. The only thing that is changing is culpability into the act.
P
Ponyguy
Guest
I don’t believe the Church would ever “condone” killing of any sort, regardless of circumstance. She will regretfully “tolerate” killing in a time of war or self-defense, though.
[installs tractor tread tires and exits slippery thread]
Regards,
Ponyguy
C
catharina
Guest
ding ding ding!!!
You are correct!
(I’m so tired of giving corrections.)
Thanks for coming through.
J
jmcrae
Guest
I can’t help but notice that no one ever gave such an order.
C
catharina
Guest
Amen.
T
tjm190
Guest
The order to shoot the planes down? There’ve been more then a few documentaries on this, and there was a big question on how high high you had to go to get the authority to shoot down a plane full of innocent people. Also there was the fact that by the time it was known that it was a suicide attack, there was insufficient time to deploy.
But the question still stands- would it have been immoral to shoot down one of those planes, saving hundreds/thousands but killing others who were all but doomed regardless?
E
estesbob
Guest
Its a tough teaching. As with some of the other techaings of the Church i have a hard time understaning the reasoning behind it BUT as a Catholic I accept them. I dont think you are going to get a good answer to your question-we just have to trust that the Christ will, as always, keep his Church from error
J
jmcrae
Guest
Yes, it would. Why would that even be a question? Would you be willing to give an order that makes you the murderer of a planeload of innocent people? I’d slash my wrists before I’d ever do anything like that.
T
tjm190
Guest
Then we’re going to have to agree to disagree- even if I thought it was wrong, I’d ‘slash my wrists’ before I let my conscience get a few thousand people killed.
- Status