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

[Chris258]

According to the moral theology of Catholics (and most non-Catholic Christians), we are morally obligated to impede an imminent murder (whether by removing the victim or physically restraining the murderer).

E.g. if a Catholic becomes aware that a mother is about to put her young child through euthanasia because the child is suffering, the Catholic is morally obligated to impede this, even by forcefully removing the child if necessary. The mother has a right to care for her child as she sees fit, insofar as she is not intending an infraction of natural law. But as she is now attempting to break natural law by having her child killed, we would be obligated to protect this child from her, even if that means forcefully removing the child until the danger is gone. If you disagree with this notion, please justify according to Catholic moral theology why we are not morally obligated to impede this imminent action or why it is morally permissible to refrain from impeding this action.

If it is the case that we are morally obligated to impede imminent murders, euthanasia, etc, then why exactly are we (presumably) not morally obligated to impede abortions? You can try to reason with a murderer and convince him not to complete his intention, but if he refuses your advice, your moral obligation still has not been fulfilled. You would still have to subvert the murderer’s intention against his will somehow. Likewise, the mother who is intending to have her child put through euthanasia might be “impeded” by reasoning with her, but if she does not listen, we would still be morally obligated to impede this imminent murder, since the child’s life is higher than the mother’s right to care for her child as she sees fit. A mother’s right to “care” for a child does not extend to deciding to have that child killed.

A. Why is it not morally permissible to physically restrain a woman who is fully intent on getting an abortion?
B. If you think it is morally permissible to do so, why are we not morally obligated to do so?
C. If you think we are morally obligated to do so, why do US Christians in general see this as an objectionable course of action?

 

[manualman]

I’ve pondered this before too.

I think the issue here is that there often IS no effective way of forcefully preventing an abortion that does not involve an even worse offense.

What you put forward is sometimes the argument of those who murder abortionists. But it fails to meet the objective of catholic ‘just war’ theory because it cannot reasonably be expected to save any real numbers of lives AND it could actually increase the harm by distracting the public’s attention away from grasping the true nature of what abortion is in favor of the public spectacle of a “pro-life murderer.” As such, violence is a particularly ineffective means of public moral persuasion!

It’s obviously not practical to imprison a woman who declares intent to get an abortion. The sensible way to achieve that is to enact legal restrictions against those who PRACTICE the procedure, which until Roe was by all accounts a reasonably effective means of restraint (Hollywood movies notwithstanding!)

 

[Nec5]

Because the citizenry long ago exchanged the truth for the lie or however that old quote goes.

 

[Chris258]

I think the issue here is that there often IS no effective way of forcefully preventing an abortion that does not involve an even worse offense.

What you put forward is sometimes the argument of those who murder abortionists. But it fails to meet the objective of catholic ‘just war’ theory because it cannot reasonably be expected to save any real numbers of lives AND it could actually increase the harm by distracting the public’s attention away from grasping the true nature of what abortion is in favor of the public spectacle of a “pro-life murderer.” As such, violence is a particularly ineffective means of public moral persuasion!

The issue of bombing abortion clinics or murdering abortionists is an interesting side-issue that we can continue discussing. I was, however, mostly concerned with just the individual’s obligations to prevent infractions of the moral law. Naturally if I tied and gagged a woman who was about to have an abortion done, it’s going to attract a lot of attention. But if what I’m intending is the forceful prevention of a murder, then I could reasonably say “Damn the laws and public opinion! As long as I’m alive, I’m going to hinder this murder from happening!”, no?

I was not addressing the kind of vigilante justice of killing abortionists as much as obligation on the individual to impede a murder, a moral infraction to which Catholics seem to reasonably compare abortion.

It’s obviously not practical to imprison a woman who declares intent to get an abortion. The sensible way to achieve that is to enact legal restrictions against those who PRACTICE the procedure, which until Roe was by all accounts a reasonably effective means of restraint (Hollywood movies notwithstanding!)

It is likely true that the effects of Christians forcefully restraining women from getting abortions would have a terrible effect on our public relations with society at large. But if the secular society provides no institutional means by which we can combat this injustice (i.e. I can’t call the police on the woman or the abortionist because they won’t do anything), and I am faced with an imminent “murder” (i.e. abortion) which is admittedly a bold-faced infraction of natural law, should I really care what kind of reaction the public is going to have if I try to personally impede it?

 

[lynx]

The issue of bombing abortion clinics or murdering abortionists is an interesting side-issue that we can continue discussing. I was, however, mostly concerned with just the individual’s obligations to prevent infractions of the moral law. Naturally if I tied and gagged a woman who was about to have an abortion done, it’s going to attract a lot of attention. But if what I’m intending is the forceful prevention of a murder, then I could reasonably say “Damn the laws and public opinion! As long as I’m alive, I’m going to hinder this murder from happening!”, no?

I was not addressing the kind of vigilante justice of killing abortionists as much as obligation on the individual to impede a murder, a moral infraction to which Catholics seem to reasonably compare abortion.

It is likely true that the effects of Christians forcefully restraining women from getting abortions would have a terrible effect on our public relations with society at large. But if the secular society provides no institutional means by which we can combat this injustice (i.e. I can’t call the police on the woman or the abortionist because they won’t do anything), and I am faced with an imminent “murder” (i.e. abortion) which is admittedly a bold-faced infraction of natural law, should I really care what kind of reaction the public is going to have if I try to personally impede it?

According to some moral standards you might be justified in killing these individuals who would abort an unborn. Is killing a doctor who would kill your child a crime? Is it self defense to protect an unborn? I think this begs the question of how important that unborn life is to you in comparison to, say, a ten year old?

 

[Chris258]

According to some moral standards you might be justified in killing these individuals who would abort an unborn. Is killing a doctor who would kill your child a crime? Is it self defense to protect an unborn? I think this begs the question of how important that unborn life is to you in comparison to, say, a ten year old?

Sorry if I didn’t completely understand your post. I’ll just try to give my thoughts on your individual question.

Catholic moral theology, as far as I understand it, notes that the use of lethal force is possibly a legitimate act if the end of such force is the preservation of one’s own life or the life of a victim. I would think that if someone told the doctor to cease his intent, the doctor would stop. But if he is fully intent on killing your 10-year-old child, then you would have an obligation to do something about it, i.e. it is not morally permissible for you to just yell “Stop!” and then let him go about the business of killing your child. I would think the person in question could manage to get out of the situation by running with the child, or maybe even immobilizing him somehow. But yes, if in extreme necessity, the person could legitimately end up killing the doctor if there was no other way to get out of that situation.

My question is why Christians don’t feel a similar kind of moral obligation when the child is a fetus instead of a 10-year-old. According to Catholic moral theology, there is no difference between them as far as moral personhood goes.

I hesitate to claim generally how Christians feel about the notion of using such means to restrain a woman from getting an abortion or stopping a doctor from performing it. Some Christians might feel that it is permissible but don’t really feel a positive moral obligation to do it. Some might think such a course of action is straight-up morally impermissible (this stance would confuse me the most coming from a Christian who is behind traditional moral theology). I’ve been unable to find a reasonable argument for this discrepancy between our moral obligations in reaction to an imminent murder and our moral obligations in reaction to an imminent abortion, so my best guess right now is that Christians are being wusses and not carrying out their moral theology to its logical conclusions.

 

[manualman]

I think it would help you to read up on catholic “just war” principles. Just war is NOT just about making sure the other side is a ‘bad guy’ and then everything is fine.

I’m not an expert myself, but as I recall it is only a just war if

1. The aggressor clearly intends violence, oppression and killing.
2. There is a resonable chance of success in defending against them.
3. The violence and death of innocents resulting from the defence is not greater than would occur if the defence were NOT mounted.

I think your idea fails on both number 2 and 3 above. You personally imprisoning some pregnant woman is likely to fail (i.e., she’ll eventually escape and get the abortion anyways - this is NINE months we’re talking!) and the outcome of your attempt at restraint will probably be that the general public will be more appalled by YOU than by the abortion, thus causing a setback to the REAL moral cause of public persuasion about the evil of abortion.

This may seem like weaseling out, but consider recent church history: Nazis and Communists. Today lots of armchair historians criticize the Church for not being more vigorous about defeating the Nazis, but it’s rare that such criticism comes from anybody old enough to have lived through it! The fact was that you could only say so much negative about Hitler before he’d crack down, a lesson the Netherlands bishops learned the hard way and saw the bulk of their clergy and people shipped off to death camps.

Or consider the example of slavery and abolitionists. John Brown is considered a hero by some today, but his methods of attempting to free the slaves were NOT helpful to the abolitionist cause and may have played a role in fossilizing opinions on both sides which eventually lead to war over the issue. (He tried to use violence to end slavery and certainly met the first just war criteria, but badly failed the other two)

100 years ago, you might have been able to pass a law that would place a woman with the stated desire to abort in restrained custody to prevent her killing the child. In a society where people recognized abortion for what it is, that could be effective. Today when everybody has intentional ignorance about the real nature of abortion it would backfire badly.

But you ARE on the right track to wonder why people treat abortion differently than the proposed killing of a 10 year old. This is precisely why catholics can’t accept abortion even in cases of rape or incest - the child bears no guilt for the crimes of his father!

 

[FromTheAshes777]

I think it would help you to read up on catholic “just war” principles. Just war is NOT just about making sure the other side is a ‘bad guy’ and then everything is fine.

I’m not an expert myself, but as I recall it is only a just war if

1. The aggressor clearly intends violence, oppression and killing.
2. There is a resonable chance of success in defending against them.
3. The violence and death of innocents resulting from the defence is not greater than would occur if the defence were NOT mounted.

I think your idea fails on both number 2 and 3 above. You personally imprisoning some pregnant woman is likely to fail (i.e., she’ll eventually escape and get the abortion anyways - this is NINE months we’re talking!) and the outcome of your attempt at restraint will probably be that the general public will be more appalled by YOU than by the abortion, thus causing a setback to the REAL moral cause of public persuasion about the evil of abortion.

This may seem like weaseling out, but consider recent church history: Nazis and Communists. Today lots of armchair historians criticize the Church for not being more vigorous about defeating the Nazis, but it’s rare that such criticism comes from anybody old enough to have lived through it! The fact was that you could only say so much negative about Hitler before he’d crack down, a lesson the Netherlands bishops learned the hard way and saw the bulk of their clergy and people shipped off to death camps.

Or consider the example of slavery and abolitionists. John Brown is considered a hero by some today, but his methods of attempting to free the slaves were NOT helpful to the abolitionist cause and may have played a role in fossilizing opinions on both sides which eventually lead to war over the issue. (He tried to use violence to end slavery and certainly met the first just war criteria, but badly failed the other two)

100 years ago, you might have been able to pass a law that would place a woman with the stated desire to abort in restrained custody to prevent her killing the child. In a society where people recognized abortion for what it is, that could be effective. Today when everybody has intentional ignorance about the real nature of abortion it would backfire badly.

But you ARE on the right track to wonder why people treat abortion differently than the proposed killing of a 10 year old. This is precisely why catholics can’t accept abortion even in cases of rape or incest - the child bears no guilt for the crimes of his father!

Very good post, I agree.

 

[Rence]

A. Why is it not morally permissible to physically restrain a woman who is fully intent on getting an abortion?

Like it or not, abortion is legal here, and a woman has the right to obtain one. She has autonomy and rights over her own personhood and that includes reproduction. Abortion is a legal medical procedure, regardless of who doesn’t agree with it. It’s a fact. If you physically and forcibly restrain a woman who is about to get an abortion, or her doctor, you will go to jail. Plain and simple. In violating a woman’s rights in this way, you will also hurt the pro-lifers working so hard to minimize abortions.

If abortion were illegal, then you could physically remove the woman and the abortionist by calling authorities who would bust them. But it is not. It is legal.

B. If you think it is morally permissible to do so, why are we not morally obligated to do so?
C. If you think we are morally obligated to do so, why do US Christians in general see this as an objectionable course of action?

It is not morally permissible, nor are we morally obligated to, forcibly and physically restrain a woman or her doctor in an abortion setting.

 

[The_Old_Medic]

If you attempt to physically restrain a woman about to have an abortion, you can be arrested and convicted of assault, battery and if you moved this person even one foot, kidnapping.

Nothing under the laws of any state allows you to physically restrain anyone because of your beliefs. Nothing in Church law allows you to do this either.

You may attempt to reason with this person. You may pray for this person and for their unborn baby. You may NOT restrain that person in any fashion, or you ARE guilty of a crime. You WILL find yourself in jail, and no judge or jury is going to exonerate you because of your passionate belief that abortion is murder.

You also need to understand that many Christian denominations do NOT see anything wrong with abortion at all. Some Protestant churches do, most do not.

And, sadly, all too many Catholics also see nothing wrong with abortion. They believe in being “Cafeteria Catholics” accepting what they want to believe, and rejecting what they don’t want to accept.

 

[Rence]

The issue of bombing abortion clinics or murdering abortionists is an interesting side-issue that we can continue discussing. I was, however, mostly concerned with just the individual’s obligations to prevent infractions of the moral law. Naturally if I tied and gagged a woman who was about to have an abortion done, it’s going to attract a lot of attention. But if what I’m intending is the forceful prevention of a murder, then I could reasonably say “Damn the laws and public opinion! As long as I’m alive, I’m going to hinder this murder from happening!”, no?

No, because you can’t make something right by doing something evil, and tied and gagging a woman is morally reprehensible itself, and illegal. You’ll make yourself out to be a criminal, and the woman a victim.

I was not addressing the kind of vigilante justice of killing abortionists as much as obligation on the individual to impede a murder, a moral infraction to which Catholics seem to reasonably compare abortion.

Tying and gagging a woman is the same kind of vigilate justice as killing a doctor who performs abortions.

It is likely true that the effects of Christians forcefully restraining women from getting abortions would have a terrible effect on our public relations with society at large. But if the secular society provides no institutional means by which we can combat this injustice (i.e. I can’t call the police on the woman or the abortionist because they won’t do anything), and I am faced with an imminent “murder” (i.e. abortion) which is admittedly a bold-faced infraction of natural law, should I really care what kind of reaction the public is going to have if I try to personally impede it?

Secular society provides not institutional means by which you can combat abortion because secular society supports the woman’s right to choose. And until that changes, yes, you should care what kind of reaction the public is going to have if you personally impede it, unless of course, you want to go go jail. And you can do that if you like, but it won’t make a martyr for you in the eyes of secular society, or pro-lifers or the Church. It will make you a criminal.

 

[manualman]

Take it easy guys, the tone here is clearly academic. He’s trying to sort out on principle WHY more drastic action isn’t acceptable.

I think my slavery/abolitionist example is actually my best explanation. Some hindsight historians consider John Brown a hero, but the people of the day generally considered him a nutjob lunatic. Even his admirers should admit that his actions weren’t helpful in convincing the public of the evils of slavery.

 

[Lainey63]

I think abortion is too well engrained in our society and has been for several years. The time for that argument has passed a very long time ago. I was 10 when abortion was legalized and I remember my mother and her best friend talking about it…they were horrified. I went to Catholic school at the time and I don’t ever recall any big outcry from religious sectors until Operation Rescue was formed in the 80’s…and the reason for operation rescue and why it was so popular was because of that very argument.

Prior to Operation Rescue it was difficult to find a catholic priest to say a Mass with a church full of prolifers unless it was at the Cathedral for the March for Life. Even today priests do not like to talk about abortion. We call it the conspiracy of silence-sorry I got off on a rant.

Today it is my opinion that the way to get the message across is to appeal to the mother’s heart…if you say an unborn child has dignity & respect you must also give that same dignity & respect to mom. You only have a few minutes in front of the clinic but realize others are observing our behavior…and the baby you may be saving may not happen in front of that clinic…but years down the road when someone who was young or someone passing by watched and listened how Prolifers behaved and attempted to help another…our message is judged by our behavior towards others.

 

[Chris258]

Lol! No, guys, I’m not planning on going out to an abortion clinic to kidnap one of the doctors or women there.

I’m not really seeing how the appeals to our societal milieu really addresses the principle of the discrepancy. If our society were to decide in 200 years to decriminalize and remove all penalties currently attached to a husband’s killing his wife because of infidelity (and practically all non-institutional social stigma attached to this action had dissipated), we on-lookers would still be morally obligated to protect her or immobilize her husband if he is fully intent on murdering her.

And no appeal to the social makeup of the day – whether that means you’re going to be imprisoned for impeding the husband or that the society will think you and all Christians are nutjobs – could possibly refute this for a Christian who holds to traditional moral theology. I don’t see how the negative effects these actions will have on the Anti-Murderous-Husband or Pro-Wife movements really enter into the question of whether or not the individual is morally permitted (or morally obligated) to take such action.

Now for abortion, the only contra-moral-obligation argument I’m kinda following is the simple observation that attempting to personally imprison a woman for nine months would be extremely difficult with a high chance of failure, especially given that the rest of society is gonna be after you like crazy. If you were faced with a similar situation with your everyday person-with-intent-of-murder, you might be forced to kill the person to protect the victim. Obviously such a course of action wouldn’t work so well if you’re trying to protect the fetus of the mother intent on getting an abortion. So you’re kinda out of luck when it comes to viable and dependable options.

I think perhaps I should restrict my inquiry to whether such actions touching abortion are simply morally permissible, leaving alone for the moment any question of moral obligation. On what basis would we say that such an action is strictly morally impermissible if the intent of the agent is the prevention of the murder of a human being using unfortunate but necessary means?

It does not work to say that the action of physically restraining the woman is morally reprehensible thus you cannot do it, because we are quite free to do that if it were a normal murderer-intent we were talking about. Indeed, we would be free to restrain the typical murderer-intent regardless of any contextual social factors. And the woman is intent on the destruction of her fetus, is she not? Why is the woman different from any other person intent on murdering an innocent? And why is it not morally permissible for me to take similar measures in protecting the child from her?

Does the strict question of the moral permissibility of such actions come down what I mentioned before: because such actions are simply not practical or dependable in the context of a society that protects the right to abort? It would seem odd to me that practicality would affect the simple moral permissibility of such actions. I can see how these considerations would question moral obligation, though.

 

[manualman]

Actually Chris, you don’t need to go to the FUTURE to evaluate your example, but to the PAST. Until fairly recently, the public at large and even the police considered wife-beating a “private matter!” Had you burst into a typical American house 80 years ago and engaged in hand to hand combat with a man in the process of beating his wife with the intent of defending her and ended up having to kill him to achieve it, you’d have been convicted of murder and considered no better than any other murderer by most of the public. Instead of defending women, you’d possibly have hardened public opinion about “not interfering in private matters.” Just like my abolitionist example.

This stuff is trickier than it sometimes seems.

 

[Chris258]

Actually Chris, you don’t need to go to the FUTURE to evaluate your example, but to the PAST. Until fairly recently, the public at large and even the police considered wife-beating a “private matter!” Had you burst into a typical American house 80 years ago and engaged in hand to hand combat with a man in the process of beating his wife with the intent of defending her and ended up having to kill him to achieve it, you’d have been convicted of murder and considered no better than any other murderer by most of the public. Instead of defending women, you’d possibly have hardened public opinion about “not interfering in private matters.” Just like my abolitionist example.

This stuff is trickier than it sometimes seems.

That’s pretty interesting that the society would react that way. But are you saying this kind of context – notwithstanding its very complicating effects – would release a person of moral obligation to defend the woman, even with force, if the man were practically beating her to death?

Perhaps we should leave questions of moral obligation to the side for a moment, and simply focus on permissibility.

So to approach it from that angle: do you think that defending the woman from a (lethal) beating from her husband, with force if necessary, would be morally impermissible because of the societal context? I can’t see how Catholic moral theology would corroborate that.

 

[SnakeMauler]

According to the moral theology of Catholics (and most non-Catholic Christians), we are morally obligated to impede an imminent murder (whether by removing the victim or physically restraining the murderer).

E.g. if a Catholic becomes aware that a mother is about to put her young child through euthanasia because the child is suffering, the Catholic is morally obligated to impede this, even by forcefully removing the child if necessary. The mother has a right to care for her child as she sees fit, insofar as she is not intending an infraction of natural law. But as she is now attempting to break natural law by having her child killed, we would be obligated to protect this child from her, even if that means forcefully removing the child until the danger is gone. If you disagree with this notion, please justify according to Catholic moral theology why we are not morally obligated to impede this imminent action or why it is morally permissible to refrain from impeding this action.

If it is the case that we are morally obligated to impede imminent murders, euthanasia, etc, then why exactly are we (presumably) not morally obligated to impede abortions? You can try to reason with a murderer and convince him not to complete his intention, but if he refuses your advice, your moral obligation still has not been fulfilled. You would still have to subvert the murderer’s intention against his will somehow. Likewise, the mother who is intending to have her child put through euthanasia might be “impeded” by reasoning with her, but if she does not listen, we would still be morally obligated to impede this imminent murder, since the child’s life is higher than the mother’s right to care for her child as she sees fit. A mother’s right to “care” for a child does not extend to deciding to have that child killed.

A. Why is it not morally permissible to physically restrain a woman who is fully intent on getting an abortion?
B. If you think it is morally permissible to do so, why are we not morally obligated to do so?
C. If you think we are morally obligated to do so, why do US Christians in general see this as an objectionable course of action?

If I walked into a room and saw a guy giving a woman an abortion, I’d punch him in the face just as I would someone attempting a murder. I’d then rescue the baby and call it in my own.

 

[Chris258]

If I walked into a room and saw a guy giving a woman an abortion, I’d punch him in the face just as I would someone attempting a murder. I’d then rescue the baby and call it in my own.

Well that’s interesting. How exactly would you go about rescuing the baby who happens to be physiologically connected to the woman?

To be honest, this seems like something a troll would say. But I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt now that I’ve glanced at your other posts.

 

[manualman]

That’s pretty interesting that the society would react that way. But are you saying this kind of context – notwithstanding its very complicating effects – would release a person of moral obligation to defend the woman, even with force, if the man were practically beating her to death?

Not exactly. I’m saying that it is not always moral to put on the mask and cape and attempt to resolve injustice through force. You have to satisfy ALL of the just war criteria for it to be just.

 

[Nelka]

Which is more effective?

Stopping a woman from having an abortion?
Burning down a clinic of murder?
Praying?

You could always speak to the woman, she may be pressured into doing it.