Catholic definition of "murder"?

[BlueSapphire]

Actually, the opposite is true. When atheists point out the atrocities committed by God, they do not argue for an objective “law”. The law is the codified and enforced set of rules. When looking at the atrocities in the Bible the atheists point out the inconsistency of the believers who condemn human atrocities and glorifying God’s atrocities.

You confuse human being with human tissue. The fetus becomes human being when it starts its independent existence, in other words: at birth. Up until that point it is a parasite, which takes resources from the woman’s body.

You confuse the fried chicken with an omlette. Both are “made” of the same DNA, and yet we properly differentiate them. The fertilized egg is not a chicken. A fertilized human egg is not a human being.

Since the law against abortion is not universal, to declare all abortions “murders” is just a lingusitic play to demonize those who engage in it.

A baby is still dependant on the mother for it’s survival after birth, therefore it’s not independant!!!

 

[Spock]

A baby is still dependant on the mother for it’s survival after birth, therefore it’s not independant!!!

I was sure this nonsense will come up. It always does. The dependence is a fundamentally different KIND in the case of a caretaker - who can be anyone! - not even necessarily a woman to provide the food and care. The dependence on the woman who carries that “baby” to term is a different kind. The two bodies are interconnected via the umbilical cord. The fetus cannot even breathe on its own. It is completely dependent on the woman.

 

[Santi2]

Thanks. I had a good laugh when I read this. Not because there is a disagreement with what you said.

But a funny thing came to my mind. I imagined that we are having a conversation about a “red ball”. You insisted that we are talking about the same thing, except the Catholic understanding of “red” and the Catholic understanding of “ball” are completely and fundamentally different from the secular understanding. Of course, you just summarized the basic problem. Simple, everyday words, which have a different “meaning” in a Catholic environment. That is the reason that these dialogs tend to break down.

You’re welcome. That dialogues tend to break down must be because the Catholic position on moral issues is not viewed with a Catholic eye. Using your “red ball” analogy to unlawful and human being in a Catholic context:-

We see red. Just red. Not brick red, scarlet red, coral red, carmine red and other variations of red.

The ball would still be a ball whether it is bouncing, tattered, deflated or any other state or material.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I was sure this nonsense will come up. It always does. The dependence is a fundamentally different KIND in the case of a caretaker - who can be anyone! - not even necessarily a woman to provide the food and care. The dependence on the woman who carries that “baby” to term is a different kind. The two bodies are interconnected via the umbilical cord. The fetus cannot even breathe on its own. It is completely dependent on the woman.

Since we have already exposed your use of the word “parasite” to contradict the actual definition of the word, I wonder how you might explain using a word like “parasite” meant to play on peoples revulsion, in order to promote the murder of children? Isn’t this entire thread about your dislike of the word “murder” because you believed it demonizes the murderers of defenseless babies?

How are your choice of words any different than the ones you condemn in this very thread?

 

[davidv]

I was sure this nonsense will come up. It always does. The dependence is a fundamentally different KIND in the case of a caretaker - who can be anyone! - not even necessarily a woman to provide the food and care. The dependence on the woman who carries that “baby” to term is a different kind. The two bodies are interconnected via the umbilical cord. The fetus cannot even breathe on its own. It is completely dependent on the woman.

How is it nonsense?

The dictionary define dependent as

relying on someone or something else for aid, support, etc.

Why does the method of dependency matter?

 

[estesbob]

I was sure this nonsense will come up. It always does. The dependence is a fundamentally different KIND in the case of a caretaker - who can be anyone! - not even necessarily a woman to provide the food and care. The dependence on the woman who carries that “baby” to term is a different kind. The two bodies are interconnected via the umbilical cord. The fetus cannot even breathe on its own. It is completely dependent on the woman.

So is your contention that anytime somebody is solely dependent upon other it is okay for that person to kill them?

 

[Spock]

So is your contention that anytime somebody is solely dependent upon other it is okay for that person to kill them?

There is no obligation to provide bodily resources to keep someone alive. Not even a renewable bodily resource as blood. No one has the legal right to invade your body without your permission and use your body for their benefit. To refuse your bodily resource is not “murder” it is not even “killing”. It is a “foreseen but unintended consequence” or refusing someone else to take possession of your body. Simple.

 

[Spock]

Why does the method of dependency matter?

Because you are the sole proprietor of your body, and as such you can refuse to donate your bodily resources (which is a very specific type of dependency) to anyone, even if that refusal would lead to their death.

 

[davidv]

Because you are the sole proprietor of your body, and as such you can refuse to donate your bodily resources (which is a very specific type of dependency) to anyone, even if that refusal would lead to their death.

I thought we we discussing the dependent. How is this relevant?

 

[estesbob]

There is no obligation to provide bodily resources to keep someone alive. Not even a renewable bodily resource as blood. No one has the legal right to invade your body without your permission and use your body for their benefit. To refuse your bodily resource is not “murder” it is not even “killing”. It is a “foreseen but unintended consequence” or refusing someone else to take possession of your body. Simple.

Oh my-its been years since I heard someone advance the "child is an unwnated invader argument! I guess I should have seen it coming after you advanced the child is a parasite argument.

One of the things that is always apparent in these discussions in the lack of a basic understanding of biology by those who support abortion.

 

[GreggAlvarez]

I was sure this nonsense will come up. It always does. The dependence is a fundamentally different KIND in the case of a caretaker - who can be anyone! - not even necessarily a woman to provide the food and care. ***The dependence on the woman who carries that “baby” to term is a different kind. ***The two bodies are interconnected via the umbilical cord. The fetus cannot even breathe on its own. It is completely dependent on the woman.

You are changing definitions again. Just thought you should know your hypocritical status.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

There is no obligation to provide bodily resources to keep someone alive. Not even a renewable bodily resource as blood. No one has the legal right to invade your body without your permission and use your body for their benefit. To refuse your bodily resource is not “murder” it is not even “killing”. It is a “foreseen but unintended consequence” or refusing someone else to take possession of your body. Simple.

There absolutely is a legal obligation to provide resources to your child. Its against the law to neglect a child. Prior to babies formula, that resource was mothers milk from her body.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Because you are the sole proprietor of your body,

No, you aren’t, you didn’t make your body. You didn’t buy it. You are only borrowing it from G-d with numerous restrictions on your use of it. You are no more the sole proprietor of your body than a squatter is the legal owner of his squat.

 

[Ignatius]

I wonder what is the Catholic definition of “murder”?

Murder is the intentional killing of an innocent person. This is the universal definition of murder.

 

[tonyrey]

Oh my-its been years since I heard someone advance the "child is an unwanted invader argument! I guess I should have seen it coming after you advanced the child is a parasite argument.

One of the things that is always apparent in these discussions in the lack of a basic understanding of biology by those who support abortion.

Overlooking the fact that all advanced living organisms are “parasitic”! It is ironic that the “unwanted invader” argument is presented by a former “unwanted invader”…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Overlooking the fact that all advanced living organisms are “parasitic”! It is ironic that the “unwanted invader” argument is presented by a former “unwanted invader”…

Yeah, it takes a complete inability to recognize hypocrisy for any human to argue that babies aren’t people. That or simply an evil desire to kill babies. Either way they really can’t be taken seriously.

 

[david_friol_1]

I wonder what is the Catholic definition of “murder”? In real life murder is “the unlawful, premeditated taking of a human life”. The Catholic definition must be different, judging by the plethora of threads which declare abortions or physician assisted suicides “murders”. In those countries where these practices are legal, they cannot be considered “murders” by any stretch of the imagination, unless there is a special, Catholic definition of “murder” that I am not familiar with.

From the CCC-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.” That is pretty close to what you said so I don’t think they are so different.

I know deep down, at least I hope, that you know that that is a baby in the womb but you are blocking it out.
Peace to you Spock

 

[tonyrey]

Overlooking the fact that all advanced living organisms are “parasitic”! It is ironic that the “unwanted invader” argument is presented by a former “unwanted invader”…

When human beings regard themselves as the authors of morality they become capable of any form of atrocity. There is no longer any logical bulwark against any form of evil…

 

[warpspeedpetey]

When human beings regard themselves as the authors of morality they become capable of any form of atrocity. There is no longer any logical bulwark against any form of evil…

What confuses me is all the historical evidence we have of that very thing. In just the past century we have seen more than a 100 million slaughtered by various atheist regimes.

 

[Betterave]

Not irrelevant at all. I am saying that an egg is not a chicken - YET. It has the same DNA, and we differentiate between a hatched egg (which is a chicken) and the one which has not hatched yet.

An unhatched chick is different from a hatched chick. Both are chicks, however, i.e., chickens. So yes, still completely irrelevant.

The same DNA, and a different stage of development. That is the case with eggs-chickens and zygotes-embrios-fetuses-babies.

The same DNA and the same being.

Depending on the definition of a “being”. If the DNA is the deciding factor, then yes. But then so is a tumor.

But we all know that a tumor is not a human being, because it is not an organism; thus it is also not a parasite.

Yes. What is wrong with precision? A parasite is an alien organism, which draws nutrient from the host, and gives nothing in return.

Nothing wrong with precision. But you are obviously lacking precision: a fetus is not an alien organism. I highly doubt that you really don’t know the meaning of ‘parasite’ well enough to know that fetuses are not parasites. For your edification, from wikipedia:

Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species…

The harm and benefit in parasitic interactions concern the biological fitness of the organisms involved…

Well, I love you too, and I think that you are a hypocrite. So we are even. Sending best wishes to you!

Not quite even - you’ll need to offer some substantiation of your charge if you want to get to even.