If Christians believe abortion is virtually morally equivalent to murder, why do we react to them differently in the US?

[Rence]

Alright then. Glad we’re getting somewhere.

So exactly on what basis would we rebuke a man who, say, physically restrained his wife because he knew she was about to procure an abortion and he had exhausted all non-physical means of convincing her to avert her course?

Or would you say we wouldn’t have any moral basis to rebuke him for his action?

You can’t force someone to adhere to Catholic rules and laws. That’s God’s arena. He gave us all free will. By taking away her free will, he is putting himself in the place of God, and that’s not a place any smart God-fearing person would want to be. Again, that’s committing an evil, in order to stop another evil. Both actions are evil. Both actions are reprehensible. One is not “better” than the other. It is on this basis that we would rebuke the man who physically restrained his wife (physically held her against her will and rendered her helpless against him).

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Alright then. Glad we’re getting somewhere.

So exactly on what basis would we rebuke a man who, say, physically restrained his wife because he knew she was about to procure an abortion and he had exhausted all non-physical means of convincing her to avert her course?

Or would you say we wouldn’t have any moral basis to rebuke him for his action?

I will say neither as this is not what I am discussing.

You stated that we are morally obligated to stop an abortion. I disagree with that.

I have other comments for this but I will refrain from bringing them up as the only issue I am dealing with here is your claim that we are morally obligated.

 

[Chris258]

I will say neither as this is not what I am discussing.

Well that’s curious.

ByzCath:

You stated that we are morally obligated to stop an abortion. I disagree with that.

I have other comments for this but I will refrain from bringing them up as the only issue I am dealing with here is your claim that we are morally obligated.

If you had read the thread, you would have seen that I agree that there may be legitimate arguments from moral theology questioning a moral obligation to impede an imminent abortion.

That wasn’t the main point of contention between us, however. Not only did you claim that we have no moral obligation to impede imminent abortions, you claimed that we have no moral obligation to impede any sort of imminent murder. That is the main thing I have disputed with you.

If you want to return to that, very well. I would still like to know your answer to those questions I posed above, if you really think such actions per se are morally permissible.

This is the basic argument for why we are at times morally obligated to impede a murder:

1. Being witness to an imminent murder, a person has a choice of action or inaction.
2. The choice of action presents legitimate moral options for curtailing this evil.
3. Simple inaction is a deliberate refusal to curtail this evil.
4. We commit a grievous sin of omission if we refuse to prevent an imminent evil when we have legitimate and viable means to do so.
5. Therefore, simple inaction in the face of this preventable, imminent evil is sinful and out of the question for a Christian.
6. Therefore, action is the obligatory choice that avoids this grave sin of omission.

Further,

1. Sometimes, violent means (physical restraint, etc) are the only legitimate and viable course of action to prevent the imminent evil.
2. If action is obligatory in such a case, by necessity such means would be obligatory, not per se but by the elimination of all other legitimate and viable means to prevent the evil.

Again, if you want a real example, I give you one wherein a father has the choice of impeding a man who is strangling his child. Do you at least agree that he has a moral obligation to take action to protect the child?

If not, what is it about there sometimes being a moral obligation to impede murder that you dispute?

 

[Chris258]

I’ve already taken the time to answer you. I’m sorry that you don’t like the answer

This is not a matter of me liking or not liking your answers. By all means, I would gladly accept an argument that soundly explains the moral differentiation between abortion and other deliberate murder. This major discrepancy is something that can easily be used to discredit Catholic moral theology wholesale, and I am hoping there is some sound explanation to answer this opportunity.

I reject your admirable attempts to explain this discrepancy not because I don’t like them, but because they are ultimately unsound.

 

[Rence]

This is not a matter of me liking or not liking your answers. By all means, I would gladly accept an argument that soundly explains the moral differentiation between abortion and other deliberate murder. This major discrepancy is something that can easily be used to discredit Catholic moral theology wholesale, and I am hoping there is some sound explanation to answer this opportunity.

I reject your admirable attempts to explain this discrepancy not because I don’t like them, but because they are ultimately unsound.

Apparently, you are in the minority

 

[wcknight]

I think your original premise is a bit off. Most Catholics obviously do not think that abortion is “virtually morally equivalent to murder”. Some radical Christians may think that, so they try to take the law into their own hands and murder abortion doctors.

Although we do think that life begins at conception and we believe that abortion is gravely wrong, quite obviously few equate it to murder. IF we did then we should be calling for severe criminal punishments for both the potential mothers and their abortion doctors.

Maybe that is what it would take to stop or slow down abortions. But no one that I know of has asked for harse penalties.

 

[Chris258]

I think your original premise is a bit off. Most Catholics obviously do not think that abortion is “virtually morally equivalent to murder”. Some radical Christians may think that, so they try to take the law into their own hands and murder abortion doctors.

Although we do think that life begins at conception and we believe that abortion is gravely wrong, quite obviously few equate it to murder.

Then by all means, please explain what morally differentiates them. That would soundly explain the discrepancy between the moral options available to an individual in the face of an imminent murder vs. the moral options available to an individual in the face of an imminent abortion.

Abortion is a morally grave offense because it is the deliberate and unjust termination of a person’s life by another individual.

Murder is a morally grave offense because it is the deliberate and unjust termination of a person’s life by another individual.

I hope we agree so far. Now please explain exactly what morally differentiates them.

wcknight:

IF we did then we should be calling for severe criminal punishments for both the potential mothers and their abortion doctors.

Maybe that is what it would take to stop or slow down abortions. But no one that I know of has asked for harse penalties.

One very common rebuttal against Catholic condemnation of abortion hinges on just this: that Catholics, to be consistent, would have to call for criminal penalties similar to murder if it were criminalized. The idea is to get the Catholic to back off condemning abortion as an intrinsically moral evil because the Catholic is presumably not willing to call for such punishments. So clearly, there are plenty of Catholics out there who are equating it morally with murder.

But what exactly is the answer to this rebuttal? The Catholic must either explain clearly what the moral differentiation between murder and abortion is, or he must admit that similar criminal punishments are called for if it were criminalized.

If you are not willing to do the latter, then you must do the former.

 

[Rence]

Then by all means, please explain what morally differentiates them. That would soundly explain the discrepancy between the moral options available to an individual in the face of an imminent murder vs. the moral options available to an individual in the face of an imminent abortion.

Abortion is a morally grave offense because it is the deliberate and unjust termination of a person’s life by another individual.

Murder is a morally grave offense because it is the deliberate and unjust termination of a person’s life by another individual.

I hope we agree so far. Now please explain exactly what morally differentiates them.

“Murder” by definition is the illegal killing of another person, not just the killing of another person. Abortion is a morally grave offense in the eyes of the Church, but it’s still a legal procedure. Yeah, I know, you don’t want “it’s legal” as an excuse, but the fact is, it protects the women who seek abortions, as well as the caregivers who provide them. Without this protection, they would be at the mercy of the law. So what differentiates them is that the man who is trying to slit a woman’s throat is NOT protected by the law, and another party can, and is expected, to help her if possible. A woman getting an abortion is protected by the law, and if someone tries to physically stop her, THEY would be the ones arrested, not her, and not her doctor.

 

[Chris258]

“Murder” by definition is the illegal killing of another person, not just the killing of another person. Abortion is a morally grave offense in the eyes of the Church, but it’s still a legal procedure. Yeah, I know, you don’t want “it’s legal” as an excuse, but the fact is, it protects the women who seek abortions, as well as the caregivers who provide them. Without this protection, they would be at the mercy of the law. So what differentiates them is that the man who is trying to slit a woman’s throat is NOT protected by the law, and another party can, and is expected, to help her if possible. A woman getting an abortion is protected by the law, and if someone tries to physically stop her, THEY would be the ones arrested, not her, and not her doctor.

As long as you continue to appeal to legality to explain the moral differentiation of them, your answers are unsatisfactory, as you yourself admitted that Catholic moral theology rejects the notion that civil law can make or break the kind of individual moral rights we are talking about. Thus you admit that a nation’s decriminalizing a husband killing his wife because of infidelity no more bestows the moral permissibility to do so than decriminalizing the ending of an unborn’s life bestows the moral permissibility to do so.

All you are saying is one is illegal, the other isn’t. This explains nothing about why they are morally differentiated according to moral theology.

 

[Rence]

As long as you continue to appeal to legality to explain the moral differentiation of them, your answers are unsatisfactory, as you yourself admitted that Catholic moral theology rejects the notion that civil law can make or break the kind of individual moral rights we are talking about.

I’m not the one who said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God”. Someone far greater than I said that

Thus you admit that a nation’s decriminalizing a husband killing his wive because of infidelity no more bestows the moral permissibility to do so than decriminalizing the ending of an unborn’s life bestows the moral permissibility to do so.

I did? when did I admit that? Though I don’t remember saying it before, I’ll say it now. It’s morally reprehensible for a man to try and kill his adulterous wife. And it’s morally reprehensible for somoene to try and physically restrain a woman against her will if the man thinks she’s going to have an abortion. The principle is the same.

All you are saying is one is illegal, the other isn’t. This explains nothing about why they are morally differentiated according to moral theology.

You keep asking why we aren’t morally compelled to physically restrain a woman from getting an abortion. And you’ve been answered several times by me, and by others. It’s because you can’t do evil to try and prevent another evil. That’s straight out of the CCC. I didn’t make it up. And then you keep asking why it’s permissible to stop a man from trying to slit a woman’s throat but it’s not permissible to physically restrain a woman trying to get an abortion. And you’ve been asnwered several times by me, and by others. It’s because you can’t do evil to try and prevent another evil. That’s straight out of the CCC. I didn’t make it up.

 

[Chris258]

I’m not the one who said, “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, and give to God what belongs to God”. Someone far greater than I said that

Don’t recall exactly where he laid out that the prerogative to criminalize legitimate moral means to impede an imminent evil is something that belongs to Caesar. Caesar’s law does not establish moral rights. God’s law does this.

Rence:

And then you keep asking why it’s permissible to stop a man from trying to slit a woman’s throat but it’s not permissible to physically restrain a woman trying to get an abortion. And you’ve been asnwered several times by me, and by others. It’s because you can’t do evil to try and prevent another evil. That’s straight out of the CCC. I didn’t make it up.

Ok, so…

Even though I’m doing the exact same physical restraint in both, I’m not using evil means in the first situation, but I am using evil means in the second?

Care to explain that one again?

 

[Rence]

Don’t recall exactly where he laid out that the prerogative to criminalize legitimate moral means to impede an imminent evil is something that belongs to Caesar. Caesar’s law does not establish moral rights. God’s law does this.

Ok, so…

Even though I’m doing the exact same physical restraint in both, I’m not using evil means in the first situation, but I am using evil means in the second?

Care to explain that one again?

That is correct. It’s not evil, but good, to protect a woman against someone who is trying to cut her throat. However, It would be evil to physically restrain a woman from exercising her rights.

I’ve already explained that If someone is present when a man is attempting to cut the throat of his wife, it is expected that the bystander wold restrain the criminal until help arrives if he can do so. Another person restraining him until help arrives would be a hero. However, a woman attempting to procure an abortion is within her rights to do so, and therefore a bystander has no right to try and stop her and would be a criminal. It would be morally reprehensible to physically restrain her from exercising her rights of autonomy and the right to consent, and that would make him a criminal, and she would be his victim. The Church does not advocate or call Catholics to become criminals by breaking the law. It considers such actions immoral.

 

[Chris258]

That is correct. It’s not evil, but good, to protect a woman against someone who is trying to cut her throat. However, It would be evil to physically restrain a woman from exercising her rights.

I’ve already explained that If someone is present when a man is attempting to cut the throat of his wife, it is expected that the bystander wold restrain the criminal until help arrives if he can do so. Another person restraining him until help arrives would be a hero. However, a woman attempting to procure an abortion is within her rights to do so, and therefore a bystander has no right to try and stop her and would be a criminal. It would be morally reprehensible to physically restrain her from exercising her rights of autonomy and the right to consent, and that would make him a criminal, and she would be his victim. The Church does not advocate or call Catholics to become criminals by breaking the law. It considers such actions immoral.

Well there’s the real point of contention. What you say here simply doesn’t wash with Catholic moral theology. A woman has no moral right to unjustly terminate the person within her (i.e. abortion), legal or no. You might think she has such a right because the state has protected it, but moral theology admits no such thing.

And I have already said I have left the question of moral obligation alone, so there’s not an issue of the Church calling people to do these actions. The Church doesn’t even ‘call’ or demand a Christian to use force to defend himself against an unjust aggressor: only that this is morally permissible. The question of defending others from unjust threats to their lives, however, may or may not invoke moral obligation. But this is only a side-issue for you and me.

Moral theology clearly states that a woman has no moral right to unjustly terminate the human person within her. She may be placing her autonomy as a good end, but so long as she is using the termination of an innocent life as an instrumental means toward this, moral theology utterly rejects that she has the moral right to perform this action. You can reject that teaching if you like, but the discrepancy continues to exist for those that accept the validity of this statement from moral theology.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Well that’s curious.

Not curious at all. You keep sidetracking with questions that are not consistent with the base question. The base question as asked is are we morally obligated to intervene to defend the life of a second party.

I have answered “No” to that question and you have so far failed to show otherwise. You keep digging down and specifing the case of intervention trying to get a positive answer but I say the answer is always “No”.

If the answer was “Yes” then we would also be morally obligated to act in self-defence for ourselves and we know that this is not the case. Otherwise there are a lot of martyrs out there who could not be considered Saints as they chose to be martyered rather then acting in their own defense. Christ also did not act in self-defense.

Now if you wish to give up this discussion and start a new one I am willing to see what your new question will be and entertain a discussion of it.

 

[Rence]

Well there’s the real point of contention. What you say here simply doesn’t wash with Catholic moral theology. A woman has no moral right to unjustly terminate the person within her (i.e. abortion), legal or no. You might think she has such a right because the state has protected it, but moral theology admits no such thing.

You are right about that. I never said you weren’t right about that. However, the above is according to Church rules and laws, and sorry to say, but the Catholic Church doesn’t govern the whole world. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on how you look at it, the Church only has power over those who give it to them. But you STILL, according to the Church, cannot combat an evil with another evil. And you cannot be in communion with the Church and physically restrain a woman from having an abortion, even if what she is doing is abominable. You still are not allowed to do it according to Church teaching. Catholics are not called to do this, nor is it morally permissible.

And I have already said I have left the question of moral obligation alone, so there’s not an issue of the Church calling people to do these actions. The Church doesn’t even ‘call’ or demand a Christian to use force to defend himself against an unjust aggressor: only that this is morally permissible. The question of defending others from unjust threats to their lives, however, may or may not invoke moral obligation. But this is only a side-issue for you and me.

Then why do you keep asking me it is not morally permissible to physically restrain a woman from having an abortion? I thought this is what it was all about

Moral theology clearly states that a woman has no moral right to unjustly terminate the human person within her. She may be placing her autonomy as a good end, but so long as she is using the termination of an innocent life as an instrumental means toward this, moral theology utterly rejects that she has the moral right to perform this action. You can reject that teaching if you like, but the discrepancy continues to exist for those that accept the validity of this statement from moral theology.

I never said that wasn’t a teaching of the Church. I know very well what the Church teaches. I’m glad you’ve changed your direction from wanting to know why it’s not morally permissible to physically restraining women, to acknowledging Church teaching. But again, the Church doesn’t rule the world. And Church laws are different from civil laws. Catholics are bound to obey Church laws. But the Church has no way to enforce Church rules and laws on those who don’t choose to obey the Church’s laws. It’s a fact, and that’s all I was saying. And the fact is, as long as the civil authorities give women the legal right to have abortions, there is no moral or ethical or legal way to physically stop her from exercising those rights. It’s better to focus on changing the law rather than breaking it yourself

 

[wcknight]

I think it is apparent that the Church does not equate abortion with murder, otherwise the Church would be urging its members to interfere with abortions with equal force that it does with a potential murder.

The Church has never condoned attacking or killing abortionists or potential mothers who are about to have an abortion even when one knows that an abortion is about to take place.

However, the Church has always sacntioned defense of human life in other cases such as murder or genocide. This is not to say that abortion is not gravely wrong and evil, but they are quite obviously treated differently.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

If you take legality out of the picture, then a woman attempting an illegal abortion whether through self-harm or through an illegal abortionist you would have to punish both the woman and the ‘doctor’ in the case as you would if a Husband paid a hitman to murder his wife.

And apparently holding that standard causes the secular world to view you and your religion as a savage backwards enitity.

Now if you put the fact that it is legal to perform an abortion that means that State law would arrest you for restraining a woman, but not for stopping a stabbing from occurring. This basically means you’ve let the State decide your morals for you; in which case if you see someone slitting a woman’s throat you should just not report it and look the other way…because that is exactly what your doing when it comes to abortion.

 

[wcknight]

If…
Now if you put the fact that it is legal to perform an abortion that means that State law would arrest you for restraining a woman, but not for stopping a stabbing from occurring. This basically means you’ve let the State decide your morals for you; in which case if you see someone slitting a woman’s throat you should just not report it and look the other way…because that is exactly what your doing when it comes to abortion.

I seriously doubt anyone truly believes that, not even you. Because IF you did you should be attacking every abortion clinic and abortion doctor that you know or hear about.

IF anyone knows of someone about to slit someone’s else throat and fails to act to prevent it then they would be responsible for allowing a heinous crime to happen. Since the Church does NOT advocate for violence against abortionists, it too does not hold that act on par with a physical assault or murder.

 

[Flavius_Aetius]

I seriously doubt anyone truly believes that, not even you. Because IF you did you should be attacking every abortion clinic and abortion doctor that you know or hear about.

IF anyone knows of someone about to slit someone’s else throat and fails to act to prevent it then they would be responsible for allowing a heinous crime to happen. Since the Church does NOT advocate for violence against abortionists, it too does not hold that act on par with a physical assault or murder.

But the Church would not condemn you if you picked up a gun and shot down an armed truck filled with say Klansmen who clearly had the intention of entering say a black neighborhood to cause death. So what is the difference morally to my example and the fact that people know that a ‘doctor’ kills dozens of human lives under protection of law!?, the only thing I could even possibly comprehend is that when push comes to shove maybe the Church does NOT view a human embryo as the same as born human.

 

[wcknight]

But the Church would not condemn you if you picked up a gun and shot down an armed truck filled with say Klansmen who clearly had the intention of entering say a black neighborhood to cause death. So what is the difference morally to my example and the fact that people know that a ‘doctor’ kills dozens of human lives under protection of law!?, the only thing I could even possibly comprehend is that when push comes to shove maybe the Church does NOT view a human embryo as the same as born human.

Yes, I think it is clear that the Church does NOT in fact equate abortion with murder because its reaction to each event is entirely opposite.

We know the Church would say that you have committed a very serious sin if you were to bomb an abortion clinic or kill an abortionist. But if you were to stop someone from attacking and killing another person, the Church would probably commend you for stoping a terrible crime.

I suppose it would be like comparing different mortal sins. Murder, adultery and assaults are treated much more seriously than missing mass or speeding or stealing large sums from the poor. They may all get you to condemned if unconfessed or serious time in Purgatory, but the degree of punishement or restitution needed for each is probably very different for the more radical offenses.