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

[Ender]

josephdavid:

So one death is not as important as multiple? Can you show that to me in CCC and Scripture?
…
The point is that all unatural deaths are important and unjust.

I wonder if you have given any thought to the implications of these two statements.

Last December, a woman shot and killed a man who had opened fire on the New Life mega church in Colorado Springs. According to the pastor “She probably saved over 100 lives.” However, according to you, since all unnatural deaths carry the same weight, her action was just as immoral as that of the men who sawed the head off of Daniel Pearl and filmed it. Moreover, (again, according to you) since the number of killed doesn’t matter, her killing of one person was just as reprehensible as Hitler’s killing of six million, or Stalin’s killing of 12 million, or even Mao’s killing of, what … 60 million?

Most of us don’t find it difficult to distinguish between her action and those of the other butchers I mentioned and if you think the Church has any difficulty with that distinction then you really haven’t understood much of what she’s been teaching.

Ender

 

[Kathrin]

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

I can’t vote in the US , and here in Switzerland this isn’t such an issue when it comes to voting…

Anyway, not saying one is worse than the other, I would really say both are wrong. Both are founded somehow on the presumption that a human life is not all that important… be that an unborn child (e.g. the finances of the family are more important) or a war victim (e.g. the political convictions of the warring party are more important).

While every single person, the unborn child AND the civilian war victim, yes even the un-civilian war-victim, the soldier of the other country (who knows their personal story???) is PRECIOUS LIFE.

Kathrin

 

[bookgirl32]

BTW…my example was dumb .

I LOVE it when people can be honest about themselves!!! It’s so great that showing humility can also be extremely humorous!

 

[ForwardProgress]

I wonder if you have given any thought to the implications of these two statements.

Last December, a woman shot and killed a man who had opened fire on the New Life mega church in Colorado Springs. According to the pastor “She probably saved over 100 lives.” However, according to you, since all unnatural deaths carry the same weight, her action was just as immoral as that of the men who sawed the head off of Daniel Pearl and filmed it. Moreover, (again, according to you) since the number of killed doesn’t matter, her killing of one person was just as reprehensible as Hitler’s killing of six million, or Stalin’s killing of 12 million, or even Mao’s killing of, what … 60 million?

Most of us don’t find it difficult to distinguish between her action and those of the other butchers I mentioned and if you think the Church has any difficulty with that distinction then you really haven’t understood much of what she’s been teaching.

Ender

They both are equally immorral, but the circumstances of the self defense mitigate any sinfulness that would be imputed to the actor.

It’s also like saying fornication is of the same evil as rape. They both are grave sins that will kill your soul. Dead is dead! Fornication, however, may have mitigating circumstances that don’t impute the guilt of mortal sin on one’s soul. Rape may have that too, but that would be in very very very rare cases of extreme mental problems due to the gravity of that sin.

But killing is killing. The only thing that makes it sinful or not is the circumstances.

 

[Ender]

They both are equally immorral, but the circumstances of the self defense mitigate any sinfulness that would be imputed to the actor.

I am somewhat surprised that you continue to believe this to be true given that the Church has expressly said otherwise. Since the Church defines killing in self defense (if unavoidable) as just, on what basis do you claim that it is immoral?

But killing is killing. The only thing that makes it sinful or not is the circumstances.

Like your statement above, this is contrary to what the Catholic church teaches, nor am I aware of any other church that teaches this. This seems to be nothing more than your personal interpretation of scripture - which is not a very compelling argument.

Ender

 

[josephdavid]

I am somewhat surprised that you continue to believe this to be true given that the Church has expressly said otherwise. Since the Church defines killing in self defense (if unavoidable) as just, on what basis do you claim that it is immoral?

Like your statement above, this is contrary to what the Catholic church teaches, nor am I aware of any other church that teaches this. This seems to be nothing more than your personal interpretation of scripture - which is not a very compelling argument.

Ender

So are we to understand that the Catholic Church believes some lives are expendable over others?

 

[Ender]

So are we to understand that the Catholic Church believes some lives are expendable over others?

This is not a reasonable interpretation of what I said. There is simply no question about some lives being “expendable over others”; you’re looking at the issue from the wrong end. It is not about the worth of the life being lost, it is about the sinfulness of the act that caused the death. All lives may be equally precious on God’s eyes but the Church teaches that not all killing is morally equal and that in some cases killing is not sinful. If you’re not a Catholic and feel entitled to believe whatever you want then I could understand how you might hold a different belief but there is simply no way a Catholic can claim that all killing is sinful given that the Church has expressly said otherwise.

Ender

 

[Margarite]

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

No, that is not true. A child is completely incapable of defending themselves, and they are much more innocent than the adult because they have committed less sin. It is much more disgusting and our human nature naturally is more frustrated by the murder of a child than the murder of an adult. God gave us our human nature, the natural law, whatever you want to call it and this human nature dislikes the murder of a child more than that of a man, thus God dislikes the murder of a child more than a man.

And, if you want to compare the unborn child with the soldier, both of whom are innocent of any mortal sins. The soldier, chose to risk his life, the soldier can defend himself, the soldier is capable of reasonable thought, and the soldier has had years of opportunity to be baptized. The unborn child does not chose to come into existence, the unborn child does not have any way of defending himself, the unborn child has not reached the age of reason thus he has committed no sin of his own, and the unborn child has not received the opportunity to be baptized.

A soldier signs up for his job as an adult knowing that he may be sent into war, and he may die as a result of his job. The unborn baby…well, you are smart, fill in the blank.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

No, that is not true. A child is completely incapable of defending themselves, and they are much more innocent than the adult because they have committed less sin. It is much more disgusting and our human nature naturally is more frustrated by the murder of a child than the murder of an adult. God gave us our human nature, the natural law, whatever you want to call it and this human nature dislikes the murder of a child more than that of a man, thus God dislikes the murder of a child more than a man.

And, if you want to compare the unborn child with the soldier, both of whom are innocent of any mortal sins. The soldier, chose to risk his life, the soldier can defend himself, the soldier is capable of reasonable thought, and the soldier has had years of opportunity to be baptized. The unborn child does not chose to come into existence, the unborn child does not have any way of defending himself, the unborn child has not reached the age of reason thus he has committed no sin of his own, and the unborn child has not received the opportunity to be baptized.

A soldier signs up for his job as an adult knowing that he may be sent into war, and he may die as a result of his job. The unborn baby…well, you are smart, fill in the blank.

Wow…so you weren’t asking for the reasons I thought you were. Most people who ask that question are usually trying to make the argument that an adult is more important than an unborn child. I’ve seen the argument made several times.

I have no problem with your reasoning, and we are in agreement. “You are smart,” just read my posts on the subject of abortion.

I was speaking simply of the intrinsic value of a human being as having the same value. I wasn’t differentiating between the innocence of a child (since they haven’t reached the age of reason) versus the innocence of an adult. Your point is very valid.

 

[josephdavid]

Wow…so you weren’t asking for the reasons I thought you were. Most people who ask that question are usually trying to make the argument that an adult is more important than an unborn child. I’ve seen the argument made several times.

I have no problem with your reasoning, and we are in agreement. “You are smart,” just read my posts on the subject of abortion.

I was speaking simply of the intrinsic value of a human being as having the same value. I wasn’t differentiating between the innocence of a child (since they haven’t reached the age of reason) versus the innocence of an adult. Your point is very valid.

According to Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Bernadin, if one is to be truly pro-life one must have a consistent ethic towards life from womb to tomb.

A consistent ethic of life is based on the need to ensure that the sacredness of human life, which is the ultimate source of human dignity, will be defended and fostered from womb to tomb, from the genetic laboratory to the cancer ward, from the ghetto to the prison. Cardinal Bernadin

 

[josephdavid]

usccb.org/sdwp/international/cns-1-ra.shtml

 

[RobertLGarrett]

According to Pope John Paul II and Cardinal Bernadin, if one is to be truly pro-life one must have a consistent ethic towards life from womb to tomb.

A consistent ethic of life is based on the need to ensure that the sacredness of human life, which is the ultimate source of human dignity, will be defended and fostered from womb to tomb, from the genetic laboratory to the cancer ward, from the ghetto to the prison. Cardinal Bernadin

I do have a “consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb.” As I’ve stated many times, all life has equal intrinsic value. However, the gravity/sinfulness of the cause of someone’s death does change based on the innocence and/or situation of that person. I believe this is consistent with Church teaching.

For example - compare the killing of an innocent child to the killing of that killer by the child’s father who discovers the crime being committed or to the death penalty meted out to the killer of that child by society. While I am against “killing” and recognize the intrinsic value of all three of those humans, I believe it is licit to say that the killing of the innocent child is a much graver sin, than the death penalty, which is a graver sin than the killing by the father in attempted defense of his child (which is not even sinful…if I understand my Catechism correctly).

Now…prove me wrong.

 

[josephdavid]

I do have a “consistent ethic of life from womb to tomb.” As I’ve stated many times, all life has equal intrinsic value. However, the gravity/sinfulness of the cause of someone’s death does change based on the innocence and/or situation of that person. I believe this is consistent with Church teaching, but please show me if I’m wrong.

For example - compare the killing of an innocent child to the killing of that killer by the child’s father who discovers the crime being committed or to the death penalty meted out to the killer of that child by society. While I am against “killing” and recognize the intrinsic value of all three of those humans, I believe it is licit to say that the killing of the innocent child is a much graver sin, than the death penalty, which is a graver sin than the killing by the father in attempted defense of his child.

In regards to killing outside of self defense, there is no indication which life is great but ALL life is greater.
Now…prove me wrong.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

In regards to killing outside of self defense, there is no indication which life is great but ALL life is greater.

In intrinsic value yes, but are you arguing that the killing of the innocent child is an equivalent sin to the death penalty? If so, please back up such an assertion with Church teaching.

 

[josephdavid]

In intrinsic value yes, but are you arguing that the killing of the innocent child is an equivalent sin to the death penalty? If so, please back up such an assertion with Church teaching.

Killing out of revenge, killing out of neglegence, killing out of greed, killing for the fun of it is all intrisic evil.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

usccb.org/sdwp/international/cns-1-ra.shtml

“Abortion” is not used in Cardinal Ratzinger’s statement, unless my Ctrl-F function is not working…

The question at hand is comparing war to abortion. Stating that the Iraq war is not legitimate does not mean that it is worse than, or equal to, abortion.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Killing out of revenge, killing out of neglegence, killing out of greed, killing for the fun of it is all intrisic evil.

You are ignoring my question. None of those is capital punishment of a perpetrator of evil acts.

However, I would argue that “killing out of negligence” is not always equivalent to the others…it depends on the level of negligence.

 

[josephdavid]

You are ignoring my question. None of those is capital punishment of a perpetrator of evil acts.

However, I would argue that “killing out of negligence” is not always equivalent to the others…it depends on the level of negligence.

Ok in regards to the Death Penalty:

*If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2267 *

If one accepts that respect for human life reflects the reality that God created people in his image and likeness, he said, then "the death penalty increasingly appears to be an unacceptable instrument even more than being a useless and dangerous one.“As Christians, how can we accept that someone be denied the hope of redemption?” the archbishop asked. “A man or a woman who made a mistake, who committed a crime, no matter how brutal, must have the possibility of being forgiven – while serving a tough sentence – and of living in hope.” from: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804956.htm

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n40_v33/ai_19811897

*Whatever belongs to God is sacred. Such is human life as the property of the Creator. Consequently, as the Catechism makes clear, “No one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being.” *From CCC

Innocent life does not just mean life in the womb but all innocent life. Human and ALL life is of God’s creation and thus is sacred.

 

[RobertLGarrett]

Ok in regards to the Death Penalty:

*If, however, non-lethal means are sufficient to defend and protect people’s safety from the aggressor, authority will limit itself to such means, as these are more in keeping with the concrete conditions of the common good and more in conformity with the dignity of the human person. ~ Catechism of the Catholic Church, #2267 *

If one accepts that respect for human life reflects the reality that God created people in his image and likeness, he said, then "the death penalty increasingly appears to be an unacceptable instrument even more than being a useless and dangerous one.“As Christians, how can we accept that someone be denied the hope of redemption?” the archbishop asked. “A man or a woman who made a mistake, who committed a crime, no matter how brutal, must have the possibility of being forgiven – while serving a tough sentence – and of living in hope.” from: catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0804956.htm

findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1141/is_n40_v33/ai_19811897

Whatever belongs to God is sacred. Such is human life as the property of the Creator. Consequently, as the Catechism makes clear, “No one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy* an innocent human being.” ***From CCC

Innocent life does not just mean life in the womb but all innocent life. Human and ALL life is of God’s creation and thus is sacred.

A person convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to death is hardly an “innocent human being.”

The wording of the sections you quoted answer the question clearly. Abortion is much worse than capital punishment. One is not acceptable “under any circumstance,” the other “increasingly appears to be an unacceptable instrument.” Which one sounds worse to you?

Now, take that same reasoning and apply it to war. Does the Church consider the killing of an enemy in a war a mortal sin? If not (and I can assure you that you will find she doesn’t), then it would stand to reason that abortion is much worse than the Iraq war.

 

[josephdavid]

A person convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to death is hardly an “innocent human being.”

The wording of the sections you quoted answer the question clearly. Abortion is much worse than capital punishment. One is not acceptable “under any circumstance,” the other “increasingly appears to be an unacceptable instrument.” Which one sounds worse to you?

Now, take that same reasoning and apply it to war. Does the Church consider the killing of an enemy in a war a mortal sin? If not (and I can assure you that you will find she doesn’t), then it would stand to reason that abortion is much worse than the Iraq war.

But is it self defense when he/she is killed by another well after any way to defend the victim has come to past? What if the aggressor is mentally handicapped? Still ok with the death penalty?

Killing an enemy of war is not considered because when under direct fire under combat it is self-defense ( I have been consoled by many priests about this one sad to say). However, if you start a war that is morally wrong for political, financial, etc. etc. that is sin.
To kill your enemy after he/she has surrendered and is unarmed is murder. Not only by Geneval Convention but also CCC.

I agree it is sad and disturbing the amount of innocent life in the womb is snuffed out each day, but so is the life snuffed out by human greed, political gains, hatred, etc.

I have pointed out again and again where in CCC, Scripture and Catholic Social Teacher this case. Its up to you to accept it or not. Its part of Free Will. It’s between you and your Creator.