Can someone help explain why abortion is much worse than the Iraqi War?

[LotusCarsLtd]

On Election Day, right after Obama was confirmed as having won the election, I got into a heated debate with a friend over why abortion is worse than the Iraqi War.

I tried arguing that abortion is the intentional killing of innocent human life and that it was legalized murder, to which my friend (I cannot remember correctly) argued that the Iraqi War was no different. He also stated, I think, that the Iraqi War was more pressing an issue.

I was soundly cut-down because, in my lack of knowledge on the deeper theological/philosophical reasons on why abortion was wrong, I was unable to counter his argument that the Iraqi War was more pressing an issue than abortion.

Could someone explain why abortion is worse than the Iraqi War, from both a theological and secular perspective (and keeping in mind any and all civilian losses because of the war)?

Pax Tecum.

 

[katy]

I am sure others can be more detailed, but for a start, the whole purpose of an abortion is to kill an innocent; that is not true of the Iraqi war. If the person is into numbers, there are about 3,000 children per day killed by abortion in the USA alone. That by far outnumbers the unintended casualties of the Iraqi war.

 

[RobbyS]

On Election Day, right after Obama was confirmed as having won the election, I got into a heated debate with a friend over why abortion is worse than the Iraqi War.

I tried arguing that abortion is the intentional killing of innocent human life and that it was legalized murder, to which my friend (I cannot remember correctly) argued that the Iraqi War was no different. He also stated, I think, that the Iraqi War was more pressing an issue.

I was soundly cut-down because, in my lack of knowledge on the deeper theological/philosophical reasons on why abortion was wrong, I was unable to counter his argument that the Iraqi War was more pressing an issue than abortion.

Could someone explain why abortion is worse than the Iraqi War, from both a theological and secular perspective (and keeping in mind any and all civilian losses because of the war)?

Pax Tecum.

While he wasn’t looking, the war ended, so the issue is not pressing. While he wasn’t listening, the pope, and the late pope were telling him, why abortion is worse than war. If I kill someone in war, I probably do so to keep him from killing me or my friends. If my government goes to war, it is to keep others from doing direct or indirect injury to me.

If I and my wife, on the other hand, have an abortion, it is probably for a lesser cause and in the process it kills someone who has absolutely no intention or capability of doing harm. Furthermore, Each act of killing in a war is doing for the common good.
Pro-abortionists may claim that what they are doing is for the common good, but they have a harder case to make, because the child is of no immediate threat to the killer. If it is a threat to the common good, then it a threat that cannot materialize for some time. It is a kind of “preventative warfare” and I know that a brutal man like Saddam Hussein is much more an obvious and immediate threat than a small being in a woman’s womb who will not be able to lift his hand against another for many, many years.

 

[upbeatjonm]

I am sure others can be more detailed, but for a start, the whole purpose of an abortion is to kill an innocent; that is not true of the Iraqi war. If the person is into numbers, there are about 3,000 children per day killed by abortion in the USA alone. That by far outnumbers the unintended casualties of the Iraqi war.

Katy, I think you are right on with what you said. One is intentional killing (abortion), while the Iraqi war had good intentions, such as saving the Iraqi people and their neighbors from Sadam Hussein, who was capable of killing so many people. Everyone, inlcuding the Clinton administration was convinced he had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam was defying the cease-fire agreement from the first gulf war. The intent was to try to keep him from killing others. War is terrible, and should always be a last resort, and be used to prevent even worse things from happening. Thank God that certain wars took place, or we would all be under the tyranny of things like slavery (eliminated through the Civil War), Nazism (ended by WWII), Soviet Communism (the cold war), etc. The evil is done by those which seek to destroy and cotrol others, such as Hitler, Stalin, Sadam Hussein, etc. Other countries of good will, such as the US and its allies, try to stop these bullies and dictators from taking over. It’s usually not pretty, and some innocents get killed by accident. Abortion is intentional killing.

Anyway, that’s my $.02.

Jon

 

[CatsAndDogs]

Could someone explain why abortion is worse than the Iraqi War, …?

No.

Not to one who thinks that abortion is “superfluous cell removal”.

That would be the equivalent of explaining why brushing one’s gums (with the “abrasive” removal of some gum tissue) is worse than shooting one’s grandmother.

If abortion is not seen as abject premeditated murder of utterly innocent human life, then there is no comparing war, just, unjust or quasi-just, with it.

The first question to ask of someone arguing that something is “more evil” than abortion is what abortion means to them.

If they don’t have the correct understanding of what abortion is, then don’t even bother comparing it to “elsewhat” (war, capital punishment, auto-accidents, disease/death from poverty, etc) and concentrate SOLELY on making them understand what abortion actually is.

Otherwise, you’re not arguing about the same thing, and nothing whatsoever can come of your attempt at convincing them.

:shamrock2:

 

[pamnbam]

While he wasn’t looking, the war ended, so the issue is not pressing. While he wasn’t listening, the pope, and the late pope were telling him, why abortion is worse than war. If I kill someone in war, I probably do so to keep him from killing me or my friends. If my government goes to war, it is to keep others from doing direct or indirect injury to me.

If I and my wife, on the other hand, have an abortion, it is probably for a lesser cause and in the process it kills someone who has absolutely no intention or capability of doing harm. Furthermore, Each act of killing in a war is doing for the common good.
Pro-abortionists may claim that what they are doing is for the common good, but they have a harder case to make, because the child is of no immediate threat to the killer. If it is a threat to the common good, then it a threat that cannot materialize for some time. It is a kind of “preventative warfare” and I know that a brutal man like Saddam Hussein is much more an obvious and immediate threat than a small being in a woman’s womb who will not be able to lift his hand against another for many, many years.

Wow, very well said! This is probably the best explanation I’ve heard! :clapping:

 

[mark_a]

Could someone explain why abortion is worse than the Iraqi War, from both a theological and secular perspective (and keeping in mind any and all civilian losses because of the war)?

I think I heard the word “proportionality” used to describe why abortion is more wrong than the war in Iraq.

According to Catholic teaching, abortion is always (intrinsically) evil.

War is not necessarily evil. Although some certain war(s) may be evil.

If the person you are talking to is not Catholic or is an ill-informed Catholic, these points will most likely fall on deaf ears.

 

[ForwardProgress]

Killing a human is always intrinsically evil. There is no time ever that killing is a good thing. Innocent or guilty, killing is evil. Grave matter.

But then you have to look at the circumstances…killing in self defense is still evil, but the guilt is mitigated, just like in a just war.

Killing is never a good thing, nor justifiable. But circumstances mitigate.

No different than masturbation.

 

[catharina]

LotusCarsLtd, This might help in your understanding.1. Actions taken in war can, might and often will hurt the innocent even though hurting the innocent is not a primary intention.2. The surgical and chemical interventions used in the abortion process are intended ALWAYS to hurt the innocent, to destroy them, to kill them, to annihilate them. Hope the distinction is obvious.Bless you for asking for help in this matter.

 

[bpcatholic]

I think I heard the word “proportionality” used to describe why abortion is more wrong than the war in Iraq.

According to Catholic teaching, abortion is always (intrinsically) evil.

War is not necessarily evil. Although some certain war(s) may be evil.

If the person you are talking to is not Catholic or is an ill-informed Catholic, these points will most likely fall on deaf ears.

I think mark a says it well. Not all wars are evil, but all abortions are evil. There is nothing that the child could have possibly done to deserve to be killed.

 

[Ender]

Killing a human is always intrinsically evil. There is no time ever that killing is a good thing. Innocent or guilty, killing is evil. Grave matter.

But then you have to look at the circumstances…killing in self defense is still evil, but the guilt is mitigated, just like in a just war.

Killing is never a good thing, nor justifiable. But circumstances mitigate.

This is not correct but I suspect that some form of this thinking is what your friend had in mind when he claimed that the war was worse than abortion. The morality of an action is determined by the inherent nature of the act itself and the intention behind it, and killing is not intrinsically evil. As others have pointed out, an abortion always entails the intentional killing of the innocent and while war claims the lives of the innocent as well, those lives are not intentionally taken (by our side at least). It is the intent in this case that determines the morality of the action.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not.”

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life.

Even if one makes no moral distinction between killing in war and killing the unborn, abortion is still the greater evil simply because of the number of deaths involved. How is the war more immediate than abortion? The number of children who die today via abortion will exceed the death toll of combatants and civilians in Iraq in … what, the last several months? Stalin was right about this: the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of a million is merely a statistic.

Ender

 

[Donna_P]

Dear LotuscarsLtd,

May God be with you!

I’ve been debating abortion minded people for a long time and even I don’t have all of the answers. What I do have are sites that help with research on the subject.

One of my favorite sites is www.deathroe.com where they had this to say about war and abortion…(go to the bottom of the page when you are in the site and see Pro-life answer to pro-abortion questions)

How can people call themselves pro-life and support every war that comes along? It is simply a lie to imply that pro-lifers always support our government’s decision to go to war. There are tens of millions of pro-lifers in America and when war is contemplated they always express many opinions on both sides of the issue. In fact, in recent years some of the most powerful arguments against America’s involvement in war have come from people with unassailable pro-life credentials.

Also, while the decision to go to war is carried out in public with often heated debate, with abortion there is no discussion. If for any reason whatsoever, or no reason whatsoever, the mother unilaterally decides to kill her baby, no one – not even the child’s father – can intervene. If abortion apologists want to make an analogy between war and abortion, then let’s require the same standards for having an abortion that we require for going to war. Until we do that, the analogy is a fraud. Right now, the only legitimate comparison is the fact that, every day, more people are killed in the womb than on every battlefield in the world.

Another site with a font of information is www.abortionfacts.com

**War kills too. What about that? **
If there is a clear-cut justified war, it would be a war of self-defense. Let’s list the differences.

War

• Self Defense
• Not wanted - unplanned
• Done by the State
• Against another nation
  Abortion
• Aggression
• Wanted and planned
• by a private citizen
• against a private individual
  I hope this helps!!!

Merry Christmas and Happy New year!!!

 

[ForwardProgress]

This is not correct but I suspect that some form of this thinking is what your friend had in mind when he claimed that the war was worse than abortion. The morality of an action is determined by the inherent nature of the act itself and the intention behind it, and killing is not intrinsically evil. As others have pointed out, an abortion always entails the intentional killing of the innocent and while war claims the lives of the innocent as well, those lives are not intentionally taken (by our side at least). It is the intent in this case that determines the morality of the action.

2263 The legitimate defense of persons and societies is not an exception to the prohibition against the murder of the innocent that constitutes intentional killing. “The act of self-defense can have a double effect: the preservation of one’s own life; and the killing of the aggressor… the one is intended, the other is not.”

2265 Legitimate defense can be not only a right but a grave duty for someone responsible for another’s life.

Even if one makes no moral distinction between killing in war and killing the unborn, abortion is still the greater evil simply because of the number of deaths involved. How is the war more immediate than abortion? The number of children who die today via abortion will exceed the death toll of combatants and civilians in Iraq in … what, the last several months? Stalin was right about this: the death of one person is a tragedy; the death of a million is merely a statistic.

Ender

Intent doesn’t matter when it concerns grave matter…it’s matter, knowledge, and full consent that determine sinfulness. The act of killing is grave no matter what. Mitigating circumstances, such as self defense, mitigate the sinfulness of the killing, but intent doesn’t matter.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

IE, I fornicate, but my intention is to show love to my friend and not for base pleasure or to offend God. Does that ‘good intention’ mitigate sinfulness? No Way! Fornication is always evil and I would think that there are very few circumstances that it isn’t sinful. But my intentions were good…

See? It’s the circumstances, not the intention.

 

[Listener]

God gave us the commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” so I see no difference in the two. If killing an unborn child was worse than killing a person who was already born, then abortion would have to be more evil than infanticide. I don’t think that’s the case.

It is also true that if a mother and unborn child are both dying, equal effort must be made to save them BOTH.

Many innocent people are killed in a war, including unborn children, since some of the women killed in wars are pregnant at the time.

While there may be such a thing as a “just” war, I would get a little nervous about calling a particular war “just,” since two popes were against it. It kind of makes me think that the popes must have considered this war “unjust,” which turns it into a serious moral problem.

It is also true that presidents have the power to start or stop wars, but they have no power to tell women to have abortions.

It is wrong to kill another human being. Period.

 

[rpp]

Intent doesn’t matter when it concerns grave matter…it’s matter, knowledge, and full consent that determine sinfulness. The act of killing is grave no matter what. Mitigating circumstances, such as self defense, mitigate the sinfulness of the killing, but intent doesn’t matter.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

IE, I fornicate, but my intention is to show love to my friend and not for base pleasure or to offend God. Does that ‘good intention’ mitigate sinfulness? No Way! Fornication is always evil and I would think that there are very few circumstances that it isn’t sinful. But my intentions were good…

See? It’s the circumstances, not the intention.

Your example if poor because the intention was also intrinsically evil. Intent is most certainly a component in determining the gravity or sinfulness of a particular action.

In addition, your assertion that killing is intrinsically evil is also incorrect. Killing in self defense is not sinful, certainly no gravely so. In addition, the Church teaches that killing the enemy in a just is not sinful nor is the state-sponsored execution of a person convicted of very crimes. Furthermore, an accidental killing, while tragic, is not a grave (assuming that the killer was not acting recklessly). These are examples when killing, either accidental or intentional is not evil, but rather morally neutral, and perhaps even morally good.

Here is an example. A person breaks into my home late and night and threatens me and my family with physical violence. I have a number of choices.

1. 
   *]Do nothing out of fear of injury and allow the perpetrator do do whatever he wants, inflicting whatever harm he desires.
   *]Do nothing with the hope that by being non-defensive that the situation will not escalate. (This choice does not exclude the other below.)
   *]Defend myself and my family using non-lethal means (e.g. bare-handed), which will put me in grave risk and perhaps escalate violence.
   *]Defend myself and my family with potentially lethal means (e.g. a handgun), with the *intent *of getting the invader to either leave and gain physical control of him until police arrive.
   *]Defend myself and my family with lethal means and the intent of physically disabling or killing the invader because he had the nerve to break into my house and, as a consequence, instead of an ambulance, the police call the medical examiner to the scene.
   Option 1 is immoral as it is an act of cowardice. Self-defense is a moral imperitive. If my family suffers or is killed, I share some of the moral responsibility in their injuries or death.
   
   Option 2 is moral and sensible. Nor does it exclude the other options.
   
   The remaining options assume that the situation has escalated to violence.
   
   Option 3 is unwise unless you are exceptionally good at unarmed combat. Most people are not.
   
   Option 4 is the most sensible means to defuse a situation. Lethal force will only be used if absolutely necessary. It is likely that the situation will defuse. Even if lethal force is required, because the intent was to avoid it, it is not a gravely sinful act and would be either morally neutral or potentially morally god.
   
   Option 5 is immoral and gravely sinful. It is an expression of wrath and vengeance. While the police may look at the result and determine that lethal force was required, that does not mean that the action was morally justified. The only difference between Option 4 and 5 is intent.
   
   How does this relate to abortion? We can see here that what makes the act of taking a life sinful is either to do nothing while the life is taken or to intentionally take the life of an person when there is no justifiable reason; and the justification comes from the actions of the both people involved. In a home invasion, or a war, self-defense and the defense of other, being a moral imperative, may permit, or even require the taking of a human life based solely on the actions of the person threatening harm and who and what is being protected. Mere existence is never a justification of terminating a human life. That is the case in abortion, abortion is more morally reprehensible because the life being taken is utterly innocent and the intent is based only the the fact that the child exists.
   
   On the other hand, in the case of ectopic pregnancies, where the mother’s life is clearly in imminent and certain peril, it is morally justifiable to remove the section of the fallopian tube where the child is because the *intent *is to save the mother’s life and there is no alternative. The gravely unfortunate secondary effect of the baby dying is an unintended and undesirable, but necessary consequence. Thus is is not gravely sinful in this situation.
   
   Intent is at the very heart of what is sinful.

 

[kms123]

**The babies are defenseless. **

Those people involved in a war, who obviously were not aborted, can defend themselves.

 

[ForwardProgress]

Obviously, killing in self defense or in a war because you have no other choice is not sinful. But killing is still grave matter and intrinsically evil. It’s just that you have mitigating circumstances. You are still intending to kill someone in a war, but the guilt of the sin imputed to you is mitigated by the circumstances.

This is where intent doesn’t matter. You intend to kill a combatant. You intend to do an evil act (kill), but sinfulness is mitigated (to save your life). This is how all of Catholic moral theology works.

You can have a good intention and it still be mortally sinful as well due to circumstances. I intend to perform the marriage act with my wife to show love (good intention), but I’m going to contracept it so I don’t have kids (circumstances make it an evil act, and sinful).

 

[Lee_M]

God gave us the commandment, “Thou Shalt Not Kill,” so I see no difference in the two. If killing an unborn child was worse than killing a person who was already born, then abortion would have to be more evil than infanticide. I don’t think that’s the case.

It is also true that if a mother and unborn child are both dying, equal effort must be made to save them BOTH.

Many innocent people are killed in a war, including unborn children, since some of the women killed in wars are pregnant at the time.

While there may be such a thing as a “just” war, I would get a little nervous about calling a particular war “just,” since two popes were against it. It kind of makes me think that the popes must have considered this war “unjust,” which turns it into a serious moral problem.

It is also true that presidents have the power to start or stop wars, but they have no power to tell women to have abortions.

It is wrong to kill another human being. Period.

Thou Shall Not Kill is an English Translation. The more correct translation is Thou Shall Not Murder. It is not wrong to kill another human being in self defense. The catechism even states that we should defend innocent life even if it means killing an aggressor.

 

[Lee_M]

**The babies are defenseless. **

Those people involved in a war, who obviously were not aborted, can defend themselves.

While I’ll agree there can be just wars, people cannot always defend themselves. A good example is when Isreal bombed a Mosque that was involved with Hamas, an innocent family lost 5 people due to the blast hitting their home. So no, not everyone can defend themselves in a war.

 

[Ender]

Obviously, killing in self defense or in a war because you have no other choice is not sinful. But killing is still grave matter and intrinsically evil. It’s just that you have mitigating circumstances. You are still intending to kill someone in a war, but the guilt of the sin imputed to you is mitigated by the circumstances.

If something is intrinsically evil then there is no circumstance where it may be done; it is a sin in every instance. This is the case with abortion but it is not the case with all killing. The Church expressly permits killing in just wars, self defense, and the executions of criminals (at least in theory). These acts are not sinful; there is nothing to mitigate.

This is where intent doesn’t matter. You intend to kill a combatant. You intend to do an evil act (kill), but sinfulness is mitigated (to save your life).

Intent does not change the nature of the act which is why acts that are inherently evil are not permitted regardless of ones intent, but for acts that are not inherently evil then it is the intent that determines the morality of the action. Circumstances mitigate ones accountability but they do not affect the morality of the action.

You can have a good intention and it still be mortally sinful as well due to circumstances.

Not exactly.

1750 The object, the intention, and the circumstances make up the “sources,” or constitutive elements, of the morality of human acts.

1754 Circumstances of themselves cannot change the moral quality of acts themselves; they can make neither good nor right an action that is in itself evil.

Ender