Do we dare call abortion and euthanasia what it is?

[Missian_Alyssa]

Matthew 7:21-23

21 “Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ 23 Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’

Matthew 25:40-46

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’

45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’

46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

40.1 John 4:20
Whoever claims to love God yet hates a brother or sister is a liar. For whoever does not love their brother and sister, whom they have seen, cannot love God, whom they have not seen.

 

[Missian_Alyssa]

Do we dare to say those who practice abortion and euthanasia are throwing away people whom they do not love? whom are harmless? whom may be somehow defective?
whom are the least of these?

This thread is not to inflame. It is for the purpose of discussing the above text as applied to abortion and euthanasia and the fact that people are throwing away other people.

 

[SuperLuigi]

Do we dare to say those who practice abortion and euthanasia are throwing away people whom they do not love? whom are harmless? whom may be somehow defective?
whom are the least of these?

This thread is not to inflame. It is for the purpose of discussing the above text as applied to abortion and euthanasia and the fact that people are** throwing away** other people.

Well, that is quite literally the case in some cases. Aborted fetuses in dumpsters. I wonder if the same has happened to a euthanized person with no family at least once.

 

[z_0101]

What is the point of this thread?

OP is quite literally preaching to the Choir for most of those that participate on this site, and despite any claim in the second post, is only going to incite others into a rage as the most common response by those that cannot defend a position is anger and we already have way too much of that here already.

 

[PatrickCruzan]

We can’t even define half the words necessary to define the acts you’re suggesting.

So, no, probably not.

 

[edwest2]

Abortion is the willing killing of a human life.

Euthanasia is the willful killing of a human life.

The Church has declared both as intrinsically evil. Back in 1973, we understood that about both, so I don’t understand the question.

Peace,
Ed

 

[PatrickCruzan]

Agreed, but we still need to define:

a)willfull
b)human
c)life

The first is a bit easier, in that an action is undertaken whilst being aware of the potential outcomes directly associated with that action.

The second two, though, perhaps not so much. Some weird areas start to appear when concrete distinctions start to get applied to these things. On the other hand, without some firm truths, we get relativism, which doesn’t get us anywhere.

For the definition of ‘Human’ we’ve got to talk about how we distinguish Humans from non-humans, and how those distinctions would impact a number of scenarios, past and future. We can use genetics, which says that humans and ‘neanderthals’ were closely related and (more recently suggested) may have interbred, but this leads to a couple of big issues: 1) how can one species be completely unique and yet still closely related to another species, and 2) a traditional tenet of species distinctions is that different species cannot interbreed and produce offspring capable of procreation, which would be challenged if humans and certain non-human species were capable of passing on genetic traits (via the mechanism of sexual reproduction).

We could even take the catechetical viewpoint (No. 356) that (I’ll paraphrase this one) humans are the only creature able to know God. So intrinsic to our created, fully-human nature is the ability to know God. Even this has some tricky consequences. Are those of us (which might be all of us) who carry genes from Neanderthals the descendants of unspeakable acts of bestiality? Where does this leave beings who are genetically human but suffer from some defect (either by birth or by accident or by disease) which renders them incapable of knowing God? Where does this leave infants? We deal with both of those categories of people on the basis of potentiality, that under an as-yet-unknown set of circumstances in the future that they could be able to know God. The catch there is that we should probably then deal with everyone by the notion that they might, under and as-yet-unknown set of circumstances in the future become mass murderers.

I’m not even aware of a section of the Catechism that says “life is xxx and not yyy.”

From there, it only gets worse. We’re not even very good at defining death much less life. It has to be done, though, otherwise we’d have piles of bodies stacked up and someone saying “Yeah, but they’re not dead-dead yet, so we can’t dispose of them.” So how do we define it? Brain death? Cardiac death? Spiritual death? Fingernail death? Potential death? If medical science has taught us anything, its that the definition of death never stays the same for very long. If a doctor declares someone dead today because their brain function has ceased and their hear has stopped beating, and tomorrow a breakthrough procedure is announced that would have fixed whatever it was that caused that sort of death, is the doctor who declared the patient dead then a murderer because he didn’t accept the potential for life?

Lines have obviously got to be drawn on these things somewhere, but then the problem becomes: who decides? Its warm and fuzzy to treat it like the famous quip about obscenity, that it can’t be defined but it is known when seen. Problem is, like many things, opinions change over time, and one mans obscenity is another’s art, or whatever.

I’m not disagreeing here. I’m a pro-life, pro-traditional marriage, fairly conservative Catholic. I like science, math, and reason. I don’t like blanket statements or stories being told with clear omission of facts. I agree with the teachings of the church, where there are such teachings to be found. I just think its important to point out that there are some pretty big holes in those teachings, which rely on a lot of preconceptions which may not always be accurate.

 

[edwest2]

1. Either you want to abort or not. At the moment of conception, a human life begins. Yes, it can be spontaneously expelled or miscarried but usually, neither are on purpose. They just happen. Neanderthals were obviously entirely human. We carry Neanderthal DNA. Examine the cranial structures of the different human races alive today - there are differences. Pygmies are going to be naturally smaller. There are two birds alive today that look almost identical but cannot interbreed. That is the defining barrier for species. Souls cannot be identified by science.

Euthanasia is very simple. The person wants to die but the healer - a doctor - should never do it.

1. Some like to split hairs, but when conception occurs, a human life begins (and a soul is also created. The only debate within the Church is when ensoulment occurs, but what is settled is that the embryo must be treated as a human being and is inviolable). Embryologists will back that one up. A unique human being with genes from both parents.

An elderly or ill person with no hope of recovery in the present should not be killed. The death definition is clearly defined and understood, at least according to the Church.

Unless you can propose better definitions, people, right now, are making decisions based on the information we have. Making any of it vague is not helping.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Yause]

Do we dare to say those who practice abortion and euthanasia are throwing away people whom they do not love? whom are harmless? whom may be somehow defective?
whom are the least of these?

This thread is not to inflame. It is for the purpose of discussing the above text as applied to abortion and euthanasia and the fact that people are throwing away other people.

1. For this to work, one must first accept the truth of the bible.
2. Generally, abortion proponents insist that the unborn aren’t alive, despite ample evidence to the contrary. In cultures where life is acknowledged, abortion is still justified as a tragic act of mercy (for both mother and child, the latter doomed to be unwanted, unloved, neglected, or financially deprived if allowed to live).
3. Proponents of euthanasia argue that with consent, it’s an act of mercy (thus a form of loving your brother or sister).

We can make a strong argument for cases in which the terminally ill are bumped off without consent (yes, it has happened for cost savings with the justification that the victims were going to die soon enough anyway). However, these stories already generate much outrage, even in the most secular societies.