Thanks, I read some of it but not all although it looks an interesting website and will be useful for research. Mother Teresa said abortion was a war within the womb and God told me that the Just War Theory could be applied to it.
God is not like you or me or the guy who lives up the street. God does not tell me and you and the guy up the street one thing and the rest of the Church another. God is the same.God told me that the Just War Theory could be applied to it.
Mother Theresa said abortion was a war within the womb, she never said pregnancy was a war within the womb.Thanks, I read some of it but not all although it looks an interesting website and will be useful for research. Mother Teresa said abortion was a war within the womb and God told me that the Just War Theory could be applied to it.
I think you may have misheard God.It is common to jump to the wrong conclusions when mulling over a theory. Perhpaps you could actually study the church teaching on Just War Theory. There are two different lines of teaching here. With Indirect Abortion you are looking at the Principal of Double Effect. You will want to research that also.Thanks, I read some of it but not all although it looks an interesting website and will be useful for research. Mother Teresa said abortion was a war within the womb and God told me that the Just War Theory could be applied to it.
You cannot lose your free will. If you refused to murder the baby in that scenario, and the madman did destroy the world, the sin would be only his. You would not be responsible for preventing a morally wrong act by committing another.But, I acted in compliance with the mad man’s sin of murdering everyone. That’s what I’m saying, my free-will was taken. I was forced to act as the inaction is itself an action.
Cannot loose freewill? So, someone who is raped still commits the sin of pre (or extra) marital sex? Possibly in my scenario I do not loose me free will, but it most certainly can be lost. Please be careful about totalitarian statements they are often incorrect.You cannot lose your free will. If you refused to murder the baby in that scenario, and the madman did destroy the world, the sin would be only his. You would not be responsible for preventing a morally wrong act by committing another.
I tried but could not find a statistic to back up your claim that only 0.01% of pregnancies are from rape or incest (i.e. not the woman’s invitation). Do you have an unbiased (not a pro-life or pro-choice site) to back this up?Mother Theresa said abortion was a war within the womb, she never said pregnancy was a war within the womb.
How can you make a war analogy? In 99.9% of all pregnancies the woman invited the child into her womb through her actions. It’s like trying to use just war doctrine to justify killing your house guests b/c they overstay their welcome, can’t be done.
God Bless
Guttmacher is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. They would have the most access to women who have abortions in the US, makes sense they would collect data.I tried but could not find a statistic to back up your claim that only 0.01% of pregnancies are from rape or incest (i.e. not the woman’s invitation). Do you have an unbiased (not a pro-life or pro-choice site) to back this up?
The point is we are not proportionalists. The ends do not justify the means. We do not do evil even for a perceived greater good.So if basically letting the world end wouldn;t be as bad as killing one baby? So in other words killing billions of people isn;t as bad as killing one?
So, if 1% of abortions are from rape, much less than 1% of total preganancies must be from rape. I assume rape victims are far more likely to seek abortions than women in general.Guttmacher is the research arm of Planned Parenthood. They would have the most access to women who have abortions in the US, makes sense they would collect data.
Here are their statistics, they show 1% for rape. Not sure where the poster got their stats, 1% rape is what I hear in the pro-life word:
guttmacher.org/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
Yes. The mother who aborts her child is waging war. You can’t use just war theory to defend that. The mother is launching an unprovoked “war”.This is a quote from Mother Teresa:
“But I feel that the greatest destroyer of peace today is abortion, because it is a war against the child - a direct killing of the innocent child - murder by the mother herself.”
Please do not leave the Church. You can talk with a priest and ask him to explain it. I am no expert I am only attempting to restate Church teaching.I would like you to either state that your last sentence it your own personal belief, or I would like you to point me to conclusive Church doctrine which states this. This is a matter of the utmost importance because if the Catholic Church actually teaches that then I must leave the Church.
***“Intrinsic evil”: it is not licit to do evil that good may come of it ***(cf. Rom 3:8)
Reason attests that there are objects of the human act which are by their nature “incapable of being ordered” to God, because they radically contradict the good of the person made in his image. These are the acts which, in the Church’s moral tradition, have been termed “intrinsically evil” (intrinsece malum): they are such *always and per se, *in other words, on account of their very object, and quite apart from the ulterior intentions of the one acting and the circumstances. Consequently, without in the least denying the influence on morality exercised by circumstances and especially by intentions, the Church teaches that “there exist acts which per se and in themselves, independently of circumstances, are always seriously wrong by reason of their object”.131 The Second Vatican Council itself, in discussing the respect due to the human person, gives a number of examples of such acts: "Whatever is hostile to life itself, such as any kind of homicide, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and voluntary suicide…
So, in the absurd example I used if the person is coerced then they are not culpable. I was intending that if the person willingly went along as if they reasoned it was good to murder to save others then such reasoning was not moral.The doctrine of the object as a source of morality represents an authentic explicitation of the Biblical morality of the Covenant and of the commandments, of charity and of the virtues. The moral quality of human acting is dependent on this fidelity to the commandments, as an expression of obedience and of love. For this reason — we repeat — the opinion must be rejected as erroneous which maintains that it is impossible to qualify as morally evil according to its species the deliberate choice of certain kinds of behaviour or specific acts, without taking into account the intention for which the choice was made or the totality of the foreseeable consequences of that act for all persons concerned. Without the *rational determination of the morality of human acting *as stated above, it would be impossible to affirm the existence of an "objective moral order…
Double effect does not allow one to commit an intrinsic evil.I read the entire section from my Catechism and I would think that the principle of double effect applies here. The intention is to save all of humanity. Until someone with teaching faculties sees fit to correct me, this is the belief I will hold.
And, unless I am ever put into such a situation it doesn’t really matter anyway. This was a case where I agreed with the posters intent but found the words used to express it objectionable.
You would not have been cooperating with evil. That is like saying defending yourself and dealing a lethal blow to the unjust attacker is making you guilty for his death. The fact is the unjust attacker is guilty for his death by his actions.But, I acted in compliance with the mad man’s sin of murdering everyone.
No, the inaction would be chosen by you. You reasoned that it would be wrong to murder and you chose correctly.That’s what I’m saying, my free-will was taken. I was forced to act as the inaction is itself an action.
Ummm…No. I had it out of the blue. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.And whoaaaaa! Isn’t pre-eclampsia preventable???
God does not contradict His Church. And, just war theory involves an unjust aggressor. The baby is not an unjust aggressor.Thanks, I read some of it but not all although it looks an interesting website and will be useful for research. Mother Teresa said abortion was a war within the womb and God told me that the Just War Theory could be applied to it.
Anyone who gets in a snit and threatens to ‘leave the Church’ because of what the Church teaches was never really in the Church to begin with.Please do not leave the Church. You can talk with a priest and ask him to explain it. I am no expert I am only attempting to restate Church teaching.
Please see here:
So, in the absurd example I used if the person is coerced then they are not culpable. I was intending that if the person willingly went along as if they reasoned it was good to murder to save others then such reasoning was not moral.
Please re-read my post at post number 10. I had included a link to testimony by a prolife doctor.In this thread on the preeclampsia.org forum, there is someone who said she needed an abortion to save her life:
preeclampsia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22161&SearchTerms=abortion
Also, these posts are from a blogger who said an abortion was the only way to save her life when she had severe preeclampsia (warning: she uses vulgar language and is hostile to pro-lifers. But it does sound like abortion was her only option):
uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2007/04/health_vs_life_.html
uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2008/03/speaking-to-the.html
I am very confused and torn about this, because I’ve always been very pro-life. I’d like to hear people’s thoughts on these posts.
Ummm…No. I had it out of the blue. I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
I am very confused about this myself. PBA, which is what she said she had, involves going through induced labor, which is precisely what she said they were trying to avoid. The doctors have to enlarge the cervix, sufficiently to be able to put their instruments is so as to grab the baby’s foot and bring the baby around in the correct (feet-first) position.In this thread on the preeclampsia.org forum, there is someone who said she needed an abortion to save her life:
preeclampsia.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=22161&SearchTerms=abortion
Also, these posts are from a blogger who said an abortion was the only way to save her life when she had severe preeclampsia (warning: she uses vulgar language and is hostile to pro-lifers. But it does sound like abortion was her only option):
uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2007/04/health_vs_life_.html
uppercasewoman.com/wastedbirthcontrol/2008/03/speaking-to-the.html
I am very confused and torn about this, because I’ve always been very pro-life. I’d like to hear people’s thoughts on these posts.