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

[Zooey]

**The babies are defenseless. **

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

:sad_yes:
And yes, I know that innocent people are killed in wars, but those wars are not waged for the specific purpose of killing innocents.

I have said this before, that war & abortion can only be compared when unborn babies start carrying AK-47s.
(I know, I know. But really, its true. Who is more helpless than an unborn child?)

 

[rpp]

I have said this before, that war & abortion can only be compared when unborn babies start carrying AK-47s.
(I know, I know. But really, its true. Who is more helpless than an unborn child?)

So would giving an unborn baby a 9mm Glock pistol would be okay? Just kidding.

Yes, there really is no moral equivalence between war and abortion.

 

[PJM]

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.

You were right on the point you made about Abortion being a “fre-will” personal choice.

You might also have pointed out that more completely innocent babies were murdered through Abortion in America last year ALONE than all of the mortal casualities of the Iraqi war, both sides, from it’s begaining! Over one million Abortions! About 150 MILLION murdered babies since Row vrs, Wade. And that’s not a "more pressing issue. "

Given the number of Abortions, and the COMPLETE helplessness of the babies, verses the war zone, where one COULD chose to move out of it, or could be part of the armed resistance, or one who volunteered to join the USA Military!

**Abortion baby = NO OPTIONS

War “participates” several options**

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.

Abortion is an"intrinsic evil." Meaning that in every case, every situtation and every time it is a “Grave Moral disorder” because it is murder, fully entended, free-will murder.!

A war, any war, can be “just or unjust.” The Church and logic both support this claim. So there exist a possibility that this war is just!

Not so with abortion, it can NEVER be justified! NEVER!

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.

points to be made:

There is at least a possibility of a “just war.” (is this war just? This is a seperate discussion, however I believe personally that it is.)

One can choose to be or not to be in the war zone. (Not saying it’s an easy choice, rather that it is an option.)

An innocent and completely helpless baby has NO option on avoiding being murdered!

Abortion is always cold bloodied murder.

War can result in killing as a result of attempting to liberate, make free, make right. Or one may be killed “in the line of duty.” That is “killing or being killed” for AT LEAST of a possibly just reason.

What about the cilivan casulaities? that too is a part of war. What war has existed that at least some of the “cilivians” were not clandstine elements of executing the war?

At great personal expense, is the possibility of exodus from the war zone. If one freely chooses to be at risk, then it’s a personal choice, not given to babies in the womb.

One must weigh the possibility of choices and Lack of choice, in determining the Moral Culpuability of the participants.

Hope you find this useful?

God bless you,

PJM m.c.

 

[Janet_S]

Abortion is one of the worst evils because an innocent life is killed by the person who should love and protect him the most. There are always 2 victims to abortion–the mother and the child–though there are usually many more. Abortion turns caregivers (mothers, doctors, and nurses) into killers. It’s an attack on the family and an attack on the healthcare system. No country that kills its future generation can survive.

 

[Listener]

To the person who argued that “Thou shalt not kill” means “thou shal not murder,” what’s the difference? The person killed (or murdered?) ends up dead, just the same. I would like to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where “killing” and “murderer” seem to be used interchangably.

**2268 **The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority

I did a search using the word “intrinsic.” It does not appear in connection with abortion. I don’t think there is any official Catholic teaching that calls certain evils “intrinsic.”

As a matter of fact, there is one situation where the Catholic Church allows abortion. It is when the baby is growing in the woman’s fallopian tube. It is okay to remove it because the baby has zero chance of surviving, and it will kill the woman if allowed to grow. To my mind, this kind of blows the “intrinsic evil” theory, if “intrinsic evil” means that it may never be done, no matter what.

I remember when John Kerry was running for president. A vote for John Kerry was a vote for the murder of several million unborn babies, they said.

Well, look what happened. We got a “pro-life” president, and the several million unborn babies died anyway. In addition to that, our “pro- life” president knocked off quite a few thousand people in Iraq. If John Kerry had been elected president would the Iraq War have happened? Maybe not.

If some of you can’t see why a Catholic would vote for someone like Barak Obama, you must have blinders on. Personally, I’m counting the days until Bush is out of there! I’m hoping he can’t do any more damage while he is on vacation in Texas.

 

[josephdavid]

To the person who argued that “Thou shalt not kill” means “thou shal not murder,” what’s the difference? The person killed (or murdered?) ends up dead, just the same. I would like to quote from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, where “killing” and “murderer” seem to be used interchangably.

**2268 **The fifth commandment forbids direct and intentional killing as gravely sinful. The murderer and those who cooperate voluntarily in murder commit a sin that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

Infanticide, fratricide, parricide, and the murder of a spouse are especially grave crimes by reason of the natural bonds which they break. Concern for eugenics or public health cannot justify any murder, even if commanded by public authority

I did a search using the word “intrinsic.” It does not appear in connection with abortion. I don’t think there is any official Catholic teaching that calls certain evils “intrinsic.”

As a matter of fact, there is one situation where the Catholic Church allows abortion. It is when the baby is growing in the woman’s fallopian tube. It is okay to remove it because the baby has zero chance of surviving, and it will kill the woman if allowed to grow. To my mind, this kind of blows the “intrinsic evil” theory, if “intrinsic evil” means that it may never be done, no matter what.

I remember when John Kerry was running for president. A vote for John Kerry was a vote for the murder of several million unborn babies, they said.

Well, look what happened. We got a “pro-life” president, and the several million unborn babies died anyway. In addition to that, our “pro- life” president knocked off quite a few thousand people in Iraq. If John Kerry had been elected president would the Iraq War have happened? Maybe not.

If some of you can’t see why a Catholic would vote for someone like Barak Obama, you must have blinders on. Personally, I’m counting the days until Bush is out of there! I’m hoping he can’t do any more damage while he is on vacation in Texas.

So invading a country under false pretenses which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands innocent victims is ok and not as important as the death of a child in the womb?

Condoning torture whichin some cases may have resulted in deaths is ok and not as important as the death of a in the womb?

 

[RobbyS]

So invading a country under false pretenses which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands innocent victims is ok and not as important as the death of a child in the womb?

Condoning torture whichin some cases may have resulted in deaths is ok and not as important as the death of a in the womb?

If it were just the killing of a single child. Your objection does not survive even a pragmatic test: More children are killed each day than died owing to terrorist attacks on 9/11, and almost as many soldiers who died in combat during the worst year since the war started. Even take at face value the claims of deaths in Iraq woing to war, more children are aborted each six months.

Plus let us ask what callousness have developed as we have grow used to this violence, with its message that unborn child
have no intrinsic worth. We therefore feel free to treat them as we will, both for good and ill. They in fact are nothing more than what we feel them to be. Sort of like the way we treat our enemies in a war. They are not “of us.” They are “them.” So kill or cure acording to …what standard?

What we have done is to sunder the most intimate human relationship of all. that of mother and child. We treat them as unrelated entities, with the unwanted child thought of as a kind of parasite.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

I’m afraid I will have to dissect your post…

So invading a country under false pretenses…

Your judgment - disputed by others

josephdavid:

…which resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands innocent victims…

This happens in every war, and the innocents weren’t intended targets.

josephdavid:

is ok…

If the war was under false pretenses and/or innocents were purposefully targeted, no…it would not be okay. If the war is just (as some believe) and efforts were made to avoid innocent deaths, then it is a tragedy but licit.

josephdavid:

…and not as important as the death of a child in the womb?

Interesting that you compare multiple deaths to a single death of a child in a womb. First of all, all life has equal dignity, but not all “killing” is of equal gravity. The purposeful death of an innocent child in the womb is a graver sin than the unintended death of an innocent person during a war. Second, comparing the 10s of thousands to millions of aborted children? I would say that abortion is “much worse.”

josephdavid:

Condoning torture whichin some cases may have resulted in deaths…

“May have” shows that you don’t really know and are just trying to make it out as worse. The question of the definition of torture may be a mitigating factor, as well. I’m not clear on that one.

josephdavid:

…is ok

Nope. Torture is sinful.

josephdavid:

and not as important as the death of a in the womb?

Again, comparing “deaths” by torture to “the death of a child” in the womb is an unfair comparison. If we were talking about a single death by torture versus a single death of an innocent child in the womb, I would say they are nearly equivalent. (I only say “nearly” because I think the innocence of the victim is in question.) However, if you compare the relatively very small number “tortured” by the allies in the Iraq War compared to the huge number of aborted children, torture pales in comparison.

 

[josephdavid]

If it were just the killing of a single child. Your objection does not survive even a pragmatic test: More children are killed each day than died owing to terrorist attacks on 9/11, and almost as many soldiers who died in combat during the worst year since the war started. Even take at face value the claims of deaths in Iraq woing to war, more children are aborted each six months.

Plus let us ask what callousness have developed as we have grow used to this violence, with its message that unborn child
have no intrinsic worth. We therefore feel free to treat them as we will, both for good and ill. They in fact are nothing more than what we feel them to be. Sort of like the way we treat our enemies in a war. They are not “of us.” They are “them.” So kill or cure acording to …what standard?

What we have done is to sunder the most intimate human relationship of all. that of mother and child. We treat them as unrelated entities, with the unwanted child thought of as a kind of parasite.

Yes of course especially in natural death. However we are not talking about natural death. We are talking about death as the result of others.

Although I agree with you on some of the context of your post however can you show me where one group of life is more important than another? I mean in realation to CCC, Scripture or Catholic Social Teaching.

Or am I to also assume a child out the womb is expendable and not as vital as the one in the womb? I ask then, why defend the life in the womb only to support the destruction of others in the womb.

 

[josephdavid]

I’m afraid I will have to dissect your post…
Your judgment - disputed by others
This happens in every war, and the innocents weren’t intended targets.
If the war was under false pretenses and/or innocents were purposefully targeted, no…it would not be okay. If the war is just (as some believe) and efforts were made to avoid innocent deaths, then it is a tragedy but licit.

Interesting that you compare multiple deaths to a single death of a child in a womb. First of all, all life has equal dignity, but not all “killing” is of equal gravity. The purposeful death of an innocent child in the womb is a graver sin than the unintended death of an innocent person during a war. Second, comparing the 10s of thousands to millions of aborted children? I would say that abortion is “much worse.”

“May have” shows that you don’t really know and are just trying to make it out as worse. The question of the definition of torture may be a mitigating factor, as well. I’m not clear on that one.
Nope. Torture is sinful.

Again, comparing “deaths” by torture to “the death of a child” in the womb is an unfair comparison. If we were talking about a single death by torture versus a single death of an innocent child in the womb, I would say they are nearly equivalent. (I only say “nearly” because I think the innocence of the victim is in question.) However, if you compare the relatively very small number “tortured” by the allies in the Iraq War compared to the huge number of aborted children, torture pales in comparison.

So one death is not as important as multiple? Can you show that to me in CCC and Scripture?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

So one death is not as important as multiple? Can you show that to me in CCC and Scripture?

Nope…can you show the reverse in the CCC and Scripture (i.e. that one death is more important than multiple deaths)?

EDIT ADD…oh…other than the death of Our Lord on the cross.

 

[josephdavid]

Nope…can you show the reverse in the CCC and Scripture (i.e. that one death is more important than multiple deaths)?

Gee, I wish there was a Vegas spread to place bets you would come back to that.

Here are some examples:

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed.

They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator".

The Gospel of Life, #3
John Paul II, 1995

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Gee, I wish there was a Vegas spread to place bets you would come back to that.

Here are some examples:

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

2260 The covenant between God and mankind is interwoven with reminders of God’s gift of human life and man’s murderous violence:

For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning. . . . Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed; for God made man in his own image.59

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or willful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed.

They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practice them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonor to the Creator".

The Gospel of Life, #3
John Paul II, 1995

We are in complete agreement on that. However, it doesn’t answer the challenge. I already stated that “all life has equal dignity.” Do you or don’t you have something that shows “that one death is more important than multiple deaths?”

btw…what were the odds that you would actually answer the challenge?

 

[josephdavid]

We are in complete agreement on that. However, it doesn’t answer the challenge. I already stated that “all life has equal dignity.” Do you or don’t you have something that shows “that one death is more important than multiple deaths?”

btw…what were the odds that you would actually answer the challenge?

The point is that all unatural deaths are important and unjust.

I have given points to defend that and you refuse to answer the request posed upon you. You only decided to reverse that.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

The point is that all unatural deaths are important and unjust.

I have given points to defend that and you refuse to answer the request posed upon you. You only decided to reverse that.

That isn’t the point. When considering the greater evil - war or abortion - the number of deaths are relevant. While all of the innocent lives are equivalent, the scale makes a huge difference.

If I had a choice to save my own life or let 10,000 people die, how should I choose? All of the lives are equivalent, correct?

You didn’t refute anything…

 

[RobertLGarrett]

That isn’t the point. When considering the greater evil - war or abortion - the number of deaths are relevant. While all of the innocent lives are equivalent, the scale makes a huge difference.

If I had a choice to save my own life or let 10,000 people die, how should I choose? All of the lives are equivalent, correct?

You didn’t refute anything…

BTW…my example was dumb (I was rushing out the door). A better question would be purely hypothetical - if I was forced at gunpoint with a choice of pulling one of two levers - lever one = 1 person killed, lever two = 10,000 people killed, and I had to pull one of them, which one should I pull? All lives are of equal dignity…

Numbers do matter when you are talking about deaths due to evil. We need to be equally concerned about all, but an evil like abortion - clear cut killing of innocents - is not anywhere near equivalent to the evil of war, which is sometimes justified.

 

[Margarite]

Can you explain why it is worse to kill a child than a man?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Can you explain why it is worse to kill a child than a man?

All things being the same (i.e. both innocent) it’s equal…not worse.

 

[Kathrin]

Just spontaneously, I would say, both abortion and war are wrong, why do we have to say which one is wronger?

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Just spontaneously, I would say, both abortion and war are wrong, why do we have to say which one is wronger?

People who prefer to vote pro-choice want to make that declaration to assuage the guilt of their vote.