F
fakename
Guest
Why can’t one forcefully stop an abortion to save a baby as one would stop a murder from happening?
- Status
D
davidv
Guest
One cannot do evil to stop another evil - This is a basic principle of morality.
Unless the force can be determined to not be an evil it would not be allowed on this basis.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That doesn’t really answer the question as to how “stopping a murder” and “stopping an abortion” differ with respect to the degree of force that can be used. Why are the actions of “stopping and abortion” considered evil, while very similar actions in “stopping a murder” are not?
W
Warrenton
Guest
This is correct as far as it goes, but it does not really inform.
Abortion is prohibited as an extention of the prohibition against murder. This does not mean it is identical to murder. It is not, because we often do not know for certain whether the fetus is alive at the precise moment of the abortion, nor do we know whether the fetus would have survived to infancy.
Additionally, the killing is expressly authorized by the state. Therefore, to rescue the fetus would require breaking the law. Using force or arms (deadly or otherwise) to prevent the abortion therefore would not be legally justified, and would constitute a crime.
The Church, in her teaching capacity, has instructed the faithful to refrain from using force or arms to prevent abortions. This teaching is probably situational: the Church has determined that greater success in stopping abortion will result through non-forcible means. The Church, in gauging the situation, is free to evaluate the effect on the Church as a body - is free to ask what effects would result if she preached armed resistance to a policy of the state. She has determined that in the case of abortion, the evils resulting to the Church and her members in society are outweighed by the lives she could potentially save.
Conceptually, however, it is no more evil to forcibly prevent abortion than it is to forcibly prevent an assault or murder.
The obligation to protect the innocent occupies the same moral plane as refraining from doing evil.
B
Bookcat
Guest
Part of the answer of why such does not happen is:
In the case of “illegal” murder – it will actually stop the murder (if one is able to stop it actually that is).
Where as in the case of “legal” murder via abortion…another person will likely just carry out the evil act a little later…
T
The_Wizard
Guest
First, the state does not recognize the unborn child (DO NOT USE FETUS as you then are playing by the Pro Death peolpe’s rules) as a person and thus your act would be considered unwarrented violence against someone doing nothing illegal.
Killing of the Jews by Germany was also legal under German law at the time. So are you saying rescueing Jews by killing their guards “would not be legally justified, and would constitute a crime.”
How do we determine if the force used is evil or not evil? Is it not by the outcome? Bombing Pearl Habor - EVIL. Bombing Tokyo - NOT EVIL.
Killing of the Jews by Germany was also legal under German law at the time. So are you saying rescueing Jews by killing their guards “would not be legally justified, and would constitute a crime.”
How do we determine if the force used is evil or not evil? Is it not by the outcome? Bombing Pearl Habor - EVIL. Bombing Tokyo - NOT EVIL.
F
fred_conty
Guest
It would depend on circumstances. Taking a life I would think would not be allowed.
If the person could be contained with limited violence, then I believe it would be allowed.
We were taught a principle in high school called the twofold effect. Which means that two things result from one action, one good and one bad. But the bad that results is not directly intended but is only done to bring about a good result. This may be done only when there is no other way to bring about this good, and allowed only in serious cases, where the good brought about must be equal or greater than the evil. The results of good and bad must happen at the same time, or the good effect must happen before the bad effect.
Someone on a different thread gave a similiar question. If someone is hanging on a high ledge, and someone else is holding on to that person, and the only way to save the first party is to force the second party off the first, would this be allowed. The answer is affirmative because of this twofold effect.
Maybe you can figure out the answer to the OP’s question using this principle.
Just a thought.
T
theblindlead
Guest
the state DOES recognize an unborn child as a person. In the case of lacy vs. peterson the court charge the man with the killing of 2 innocent human lives and not just he mothers. this sets precedent that all unborn child are “citizens” the real problem is that every time this argument is brought to court they interpret the liberties of the mother as a trump card over the life of the child. it is supposed to go life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness but for some reason in this case it has gone liberty and then life.
just to clarify
B
Bookcat
Guest
W
Warrenton
Guest
We are talking about the interplay between civil law and moral law, so I will use the vocabulary of the civil law.
Whether the civil law protects conduct has nothing to do with whether the conduct is moral in the eyes of the Church. But, once a state makes something legal, the state has interests that the Church can consider.
I am not certain whether Nazi Germany gave common citizens license to kill any Jew they happened across. However, clearly the Nazis did kill Jews under circumstances that were simple murder. It was illegal under Nazi law to kill guards in order to rescue Jews, but not immoral because the moral law recognizes the right to use force to protect the innocent.
We determine what is evil by a logical process. We ask if the act to be prevented is evil. If it is, in the case of abortion, we then ask by what means we may prevent it. Because abortion is a killing, force is justified to prevent it. Then we must ask if it is prudent to use force. This is where we must consider the state, because the state has authorized killing by abortion. We must ask whether it is prudent to use force in preventing abortion, knowing that this will also be an attack against the power of the state? The Church has decided, and actually spoken to the issue, saying that it is not prudent to use force to stop abortion.
Actually, both evil. Slaughtering non combatants to their government to defeat is not moral.
F
fakename
Guest
I’m not sure how using violence to stop abortions would be imprudent though.
It seems the stronger argument that if everyone was allowed to stop abortion, then abortion would end rather quickly. Just like if everyone was allowed to stop murder or correct the sinner, these would become easier and not harder to do.
It seems the stronger argument that if everyone was allowed to stop abortion, then abortion would end rather quickly. Just like if everyone was allowed to stop murder or correct the sinner, these would become easier and not harder to do.
G
GEddie
Guest
With regard to PH and Tokyo: Aggression is wrong; carrying on an ongoing war may or may not be wrong. PH was an act of aggression because it was an attack on a country that was then at peace wrt the attacker. The Doolittle raid (or Hiroshima FTM) were not aggression, because the nations were at war.
ICXC NIKA
ICXC NIKA
G
GEddie
Guest
To forcibly stop, as opposed to just delaying an abortion, requires forcible restraint of the woman for the duration of her pregnancy. This is a violation of state-enforced protection against unlawful restraint, a law that is good in itself.
Whereas stopping murder simply requires blocking the lethal force being used. This is not in itself illegal and certainly not wrong.
ICXC NIKA
Whereas stopping murder simply requires blocking the lethal force being used. This is not in itself illegal and certainly not wrong.
ICXC NIKA
D
davidv
Guest
Sin is the height of imprudence. Therefore it is imprudent to sin to stop abortion.
C
chipeto
Guest
I don’t understand this.
Maybe I just don’t understand what you are saying, but this puzzles me. If the child is not alive, then it certainly can’t be murder, because there is no one to murder. Some children who have been aborted have actually been moving at the time, which is a pretty good indication of life. Would it not be murder for me to shoot someone lying on the ground because I don’t know if he is dead or just unconscious?
I don’t see what that has to do with it. I don’t know that a newborn child, or anyone for that matter, will survive another day, but the wanton killing of such would still be murder, yes?
B
Bookcat
Guest
It would not stop it…
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
We can reasonably assume that most fetuses being aborted are alive. And the assessment of it’s chances to survive to infancy are irrelevant. Otherwise we would not be opposed to euthanasia when the outlook appears bleak.
it sounds like you are trying to defend the position that it is wrong to use force to oppose a legal evil. To this point the wizard brought up an excellent example of using force to prevent Jews from murder by the Nazis. To this your response was that it was moral to use force to protect the innocent from a legal evil. So what does that realization say about the morality of using force to prevent abortions?
That may be the pragmatic reason for the teaching, but where is the moral basis for such a consideration? If the Church were to make decisions based on what would benefit the Church as an institution instead of what has been revealed by God, then she would have dropped opposition to birth control and married priests long ago.
F
fakename
Guest
"That may be the pragmatic reason for the teaching, but where is the moral basis for such a consideration? If the Church were to make decisions based on what would benefit the Church as an institution instead of what has been revealed by God, then she would have dropped opposition to birth control and married priests long ago. "
This is what I’m asking too.
This is what I’m asking too.
G
GEddie
Guest
The Church adopted priestly celibacy as a discipline, not as a commandment from God. There have been, and in some situations still are, married Catholic priests.
The Church is free to revert to the older practice of a married priesthood, but chooses not to because the present practice, in Western culture, is an advantage to it’s mission.
ICXC NIKA.
F
fakename
Guest
"The Church adopted priestly celibacy as a discipline, not as a commandment from God. There have been, and in some situations still are, married Catholic priests.
The Church is free to revert to the older practice of a married priesthood, but chooses not to because the present practice, in Western culture, is an advantage to it’s mission.
ICXC NIKA."
I meant, I’m wondering what moral consideration allows the Church to tell us not to forcibly stop abortions.
The Church is free to revert to the older practice of a married priesthood, but chooses not to because the present practice, in Western culture, is an advantage to it’s mission.
ICXC NIKA."
I meant, I’m wondering what moral consideration allows the Church to tell us not to forcibly stop abortions.
- Status