Just a question...

[Warrenton]

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?

That is right. Depending on the circumstances of the abortion, it may or may not be known whether the fetus is alive at the time of the abortion. If it cannot be proved that the fetus is alive, then it is not murder. All killings are not murder, is the gist of what I’m saying.

Obviously, if you have have eividence that the fetus was moving of its own accord when aborted, that would be proof that it was viable.

Your hypothetical about shooting someone lying on the ground is a good example. From a standpoint of proof, to be convicted of murder it would have to be established that the person was in fact alive when you shot him.

This highlights the distinction between your next question and abortion:

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?

It is not relevant whether the person will survive or not. What is relevant is whether the person is alive or not when the act is taken.

In the case of the unborn, it is not only difficult to prove that they would ever draw breath, but also what their status is at the time of abortion.

Sometimes, as you noted, we have that proof. Then, the killing is very close to murder.

The reason abortion is like murder, is because we don’t know and can’t know whether the fetus is alive or will ever be alive at the time the killing occurs. The person assumes his or her full personhood at birth, that is why we baptize babies at or shortly after birth, not at conception.

 

[Warrenton]

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.

I don’t know if we can reasonably assume this. If we say that life begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes an ovum, what percentage of fertilized eggs survive to birth?

There has always been a distinction between what we presume regarding the unborn and the born. Once someone is born, they are fully members of the community. As I posted above, the truth of this is reflected in the rite of baptism - it only happens after people are born.

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?

I think you have misunderstood my position, or perhaps I failed to state it correctly. I do not believe it is immoral per se to use force to prevent abortions.

It only becomes immoral because the Church has instructed us not to do so.

I presume, like you, that the instruction is based on a pragmatic weighing of the benefits and problems that would result if Catholics began to break the civil law and prevent abortions by force.

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.

No, because opposing something does not require opposing it by force.

The Church revognizes the right of the state to legislate, even to legislate morally wrong laws. Once the state acts, a whole new set of considerations arise in resisting the law by force. This has always been the teaching of the Church. A good historical example is the games at the coliseum in Rome. The Church always decried them. But it did not instruct the people to resist by force, because it knew the power of the state would descend on the people if that happened, resulting in civil discord and suffering. Eventually, a monk took it upon himself to attempt to halt the games. A massive riot ensued in which many were killed.

The state may only be opposed by force when the survival of the Church (that means all of us) is at stake and there is no other way to prevent the evil. Personally, I think a good case could be made for the justification of forcible opposition to abortion: it is the self-destruction of the future of nation and the Church, by their very members. But the Church has directed otherwise. In view of the way she evaluates moral decisions, it must be based on the pragmatic weighing I described.

 

[fakename]

“The state may only be opposed by force when the survival of the Church (that means all of us) is at stake and there is no other way to prevent the evil. Personally, I think a good case could be made for the justification of forcible opposition to abortion: it is the self-destruction of the future of nation and the Church, by their very members. But the Church has directed otherwise. In view of the way she evaluates moral decisions, it must be based on the pragmatic weighing I described.”

(1) I thought that there were more times when a gov. can be opposed. For instance, if there is no other way to end a tyranny?

(2) in accord with the above, but also on history I had no idea that civil disturbance was so much worse than abortion, that it would serve as a good reason not to end the latter evil even by force. Especially when it is conceded that civil disturbances may be aroused to end a tyranny, for all the more so can it be aroused to stop a worse evil like mass baby killing. How is this wrong?

(3) Historically, if states have survived mass deaths (like the USSR under Stalin), then surly it can survive the violent end of abortion. So I’m just saying that I’m surprised that the Church is concerned about the possibility of civil disturbances hindering the state, when the Great Patriotic War and stalin’s purges were not enough to unhinge russia. Why should the Church worry?

 

[chipeto]

If it cannot be proved that the fetus is alive, then it is not murder.

I could not possibly disagree with you more. If I murder someone, then I murdered her, regardless of whether or not any human being is able to prove that I did it.

Obviously, if you have have eividence that the fetus was moving of its own accord when aborted, that would be proof that it was viable.

I don’t know why you mention viability. What difference does viability make?

Your hypothetical about shooting someone lying on the ground is a good example. From a standpoint of proof, to be convicted of murder it would have to be established that the person was in fact alive when you shot him.

But why the focus on a hypothetical legal case? If I killed him, then I killed him, regardless of whether or not any human being is able to prove it.

In the case of the unborn, it is not only difficult to prove that they would ever draw breath, but also what their status is at the time of abortion.

Sometimes, as you noted, we have that proof. Then, the killing is very close to murder.

The reason abortion is like murder, is because we don’t know and can’t know whether the fetus is alive or will ever be alive at the time the killing occurs. The person assumes his or her full personhood at birth, that is why we baptize babies at or shortly after birth, not at conception.

This is not what the Church teaches.

CCC 2270

Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.

CCC 2274

Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

Why can’t one forcefully stop an abortion to save a baby as one would stop a murder from happening?

How would you do that, practically speaking? Storm into the clinic and restrain the doctor? Kidnap the woman on the table? Block the doors of the clinic so that no one can get in?

The early abortion protesters like Operation Rescue tried techniques like chaining themselves to the procedure tables, or the doors of the clinic. It didn’t work. Even if they caused disruption for one day, they went to jail and the next day, the clinic was back doing business as usual.

This type of murder, like it or not, is presently legal. Stopping it from happening physically is trespassing and could be assault if you tried to restrain any of the participants. That’s not the way to change hearts and minds about abortion.

I invite you to participate in 40 Days for Life. Through prayerful presence and fasting, we ARE changing hearts and minds, and babies are being saved as a result.

www.40daysforlife.com

 

[Jaypeeto4]

This type of murder, like it or not, is presently legal. Stopping it from happening physically is trespassing and could be assault if you tried to restrain any of the participants. That’s not the way to change hearts and minds about abortion.

Let’s put ourselves in Nazi Germany in the 1940s, when millions of Jews and Catholics and other innocents were being gassed to death.

This type of murder, like it or not, was presently legal.
Stopping it from happening physically would have been trespassing and could be assault if you tried to restrain any of the gestapo and guard participants.
That’s not the way to change hearts and minds about the Holocaust.

I admire those of Operation Rescue. Laws forbidding the blocking of abortion clinic entrances are laws which, according to the magisterium, are EVIL and therefore
have no morally binding force. I am not encouraging anyone to break the Law,
but it would certainly be no SIN to do so in these situations. Illegal, yes.
Immoral? Absolutely not. A sin? Definitely not.
The same as it would have been no sin for the German citizenry, had they had the means to do so, to storm the concentration camps, and free all those innocent Jews, priests, nuns, and others who were being killed there. One could even argue that the Germans had the MORAL obligation to have done that very thing.
The Allies obviously felt that they did, because when they liberated the camps, they gathered the people of the neighboring towns and FORCED THEM to walk through the camps and observe the stacks of dead bodies, the emaciated women and children, etc., whose suffering and deaths they had been ignoring. There are newsreel films of the Allies doing this very thing to the German citizens, in order to greatly shame them.

 

[Warrenton]

I thought that there were more times when a gov. can be opposed. For instance, if there is no other way to end a tyranny?

The Catholic teaching is a bit more restrictive than that.

(2) Especially when it is conceded that civil disturbances may be aroused to end a tyranny, for all the more so can it be aroused to stop a worse evil like mass baby killing. How is this wrong?

I can’t concede that Catholics have a blank check to revolt from tryrannies. They do not.

(3) Historically, if states have survived mass deaths (like the USSR under Stalin), then surly it can survive the violent end of abortion. So I’m just saying that I’m surprised that the Church is concerned about the possibility of civil disturbances hindering the state, when the Great Patriotic War and stalin’s purges were not enough to unhinge russia. Why should the Church worry?

This seems like mixing apples and oranges, but perhaps I just don’t understand where you are going. The USSR’s purges were morally equivilent to our governments’ permission of mass abortion. The Church certainly did not approve of Stalin’s purges.

The Church is not concerned about hindering the state, but in unleashing civil discord which has a bad tendency to widen and spread harm among the people. Especially since there clearly are not enough Catholics to change the policy, the result would likely be the punishment or destruction of the Church itself. The Church is not morally bound to encourage violent action that will result in her own destruction.

 

[Warrenton]

I could not possibly disagree with you more. If I murder someone, then I murdered her, regardless of whether or not any human being is able to prove that I did it.

 

[Bezant]

Why can’t one forcefully stop an abortion to save a baby as one would stop a murder from happening?

One doesn’t have to stop either forcefully. One can stop a murder by calling the police.

 

[thistle]

Why can’t one forcefully stop an abortion to save a baby as one would stop a murder from happening?

How would you actually do this?

Kill the doctor and the nurses?
Kill the mother and consequently the unborn child you wish to save?

 

[GEddie]

One doesn’t have to stop either forcefully. One can stop a murder by calling the police.

They might not get there in time. If the villian has a gun on his victim, or a loop around his neck, etc, saving life might depend on your physical involvement.

Whereas, one cannot practically stop a woman from
aborting. If the clinic were destroyed, she could go to another one, etc. You’d have to kidnap her for nine months, and that’s not practical, besides being against the law.

So physical means are pretty much out, besides putting Catholics at odds with the civil society.

ICXC NIKA.

 

[Infiltrator]

One can. They would however also have to accept the punishment for doing it. As Catholics we are called to follow the letter of the law where it does not interfere with Gods law. Even if you do the right thing, you may get punished for it. Think of the Christians and the Lions.

Why can’t one forcefully stop an abortion to save a baby as one would stop a murder from happening?

 

[timeandeternity]

That is right. Depending on the circumstances of the abortion, it may or may not be known whether the fetus is alive at the time of the abortion. If it cannot be proved that the fetus is alive, then it is not murder. All killings are not murder, is the gist of what I’m saying.

This is simply not correct, logically or morally. According to Catholic morality, if there is *any *doubt whether or not something is a sin, one *must *act as if it is. If there is *any *doubt whether or not the fetus is alive, one *must *act as if it were. Only if you were to clearly establish that the fetus had died, could you remove the baby from the womb. Check out this article by Jimmy Akin; it really clarifies this issue: jimmyakin.typepad.com/defensor_fidei/2006/12/assessing_morta.html

Obviously, if you have have eividence that the fetus was moving of its own accord when aborted, that would be proof that it was viable.

Viability has nothing whatsoever to do with humanity or personhood. Whether or not the fetus was “viable” (which is a very slippery term with a changeable timeline) does not have a bearing on the fact that it is a distinct human life, albeit in a very early stage of physical development.

Your hypothetical about shooting someone lying on the ground is a good example. From a standpoint of proof, to be convicted of murder it would have to be established that the person was in fact alive when you shot him.

No. It would only have to be established that you were not sure whether the person had died or not. Again, see my top reply and Jimmy Akin’s article.

In the case of the unborn, it is not only difficult to prove that they would ever draw breath, but also what their status is at the time of abortion.

Drawing breath has NOTHING to do with whether this is a human life. If it is a fertilized egg, if it has its distinct 46 chromosomes, it is a human. Period.

Sometimes, as you noted, we have that proof. Then, the killing is very close to murder.

You are making a distinction that does not exist. To “kill” is by definition to take the life of another. That is also the definition of murder.

The reason abortion is like murder, is because we don’t know and can’t know whether the fetus is alive or will ever be alive at the time the killing occurs. The person assumes his or her full personhood at birth, that is why we baptize babies at or shortly after birth, not at conception.

The reason we baptize babies at birth is because it is *impossible *to baptize them before they’re born, due to their being in utero. It’s not because they attain full personhood at that point. A person attains full personhood when they become a person–at conception. From the point of there being a new set of human DNA present, it is simply a matter of physical development. Birth is simply a change of location.

 

[chipeto]

chipeto;8586382:

Your statement presupposes its own proof, though. Obviously if you murdered someone, the person was murdered.
…
I mention viability because virtually ever law code does, as does all of human behavior. As I mentioned, it’s just a given that actual birth confers full membership into society. That is why we only baptize, confirm, marry and ordain people who are already born.

Viability, moreover, affects whether we fully appreciate the nature of what we are doing. One presumes that there are many more abortions than murders because parents do not know for certain that the fetus will be viable, do not know whether it will be born quick or still, do not know at the precise moment of the abortion whether it is alive or dead.
None of these doubts are present in the ordinary murder of one born person by another.
But, the degree of certainty is always a factor in guilt: it is why we punish an assassin differently than a someone who kills someone else in a drunken fight.

…
Because laws, moral or civil, are a function of proof, not subjective knowledge. If you have sufficient knowledge to convict yourself of a greater crime, so be it. I’m not claiming you can’t.
I think that we probably disagree on too many basic matters to have a meaningful debate. The sentence I have underlined above is case in point: I am very surprised that anyone would argue that the distinction is about certainty, rather than intent. Oh, well.

Your citations are inapposite. I did not say that fetus does not have personhood. I said it’s personhood is distinct. The rituals of the Church bear out the assertion. If they were the same as born persons in every respect, they would be babtized at conception or as soon as possible thereafter.

You said, and I quote: “The person assumes his or her full personhood at birth”. To me, it is quite clear that the CCC citations I give directly contradict this.

 

[timeandeternity]

I don’t know if we can reasonably assume this. If we say that life begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes an ovum, what percentage of fertilized eggs survive to birth?

This is the same thing as saying, “If we say that life begins at the moment a sperm fertilizes an ovum, what percentage of these human fertilized eggs make it to their third year of life?” A fertilized egg is a human being. A person. Not a sort-of-human without full personhood.

There has always been a distinction between what we presume regarding the unborn and the born. Once someone is born, they are fully members of the community. As I posted above, the truth of this is reflected in the rite of baptism - it only happens after people are born.

The only people who make a distinction between the unborn and the born are those who are pro-abortion. The Catholic Church most certainly does not. And, like I said before, the reason we do not baptize children before they are born is because it is simply impossible to do so. We would if we could.

It only becomes immoral because the Church has instructed us not to do so.

I don’t think the Church has said it is immoral, just that there are much better ways of preventing abortion.

 

[chipeto]

You are making a distinction that does not exist. To “kill” is by definition to take the life of another. That is also the definition of murder.

I agree with everything you say, and thank you for saying it better than I did, except for the above, where I must nitpick. It is possible to kill legitimately in defense, or to kill unintentionally. Neither would be murder.

 

[GEddie]

If drawing breath were the criterion of being human, then paralysis victims who use respirators would not be human.

And it is never ok to “shoot someone lying on the ground.”. If they are alive, that would be murder, while if they were not, it would be defacing a dead body, which is a crime, though a minor one.

Conversely, it is wrong to abort, but removing a deceased fetus from the womb is not abortion. Doctors can, in fact, determine whether the fetus is alive or not, via fetal heartbeat and other means; and if there is no fetal life, there is not wrong to commit.

God Bless and ICXC NIKA

 

[timeandeternity]

I mention viability because virtually ever law code does, as does all of human behavior. As I mentioned, it’s just a given that actual birth confers full membership into society. That is why we only baptize, confirm, marry and ordain people who are already born.

The law mentions viability in this case because the law attempts to justify the murder of unborn children. In fact, the law has gone so far in some cases as to say that viability doesn’t even have any bearing on whether it is justifiable to kill the unborn. And, again, I’ve already answered the latter portion of this quote.

Viability, moreover, affects whether we fully appreciate the nature of what we are doing.

Viability has NOTHING to do with the fact that you are most likely taking a human life.

One presumes that there are many more abortions than murders because parents do not know for certain that the fetus will be viable, do not know whether it will be born quick or still, do not know at the precise moment of the abortion whether it is alive or dead. None of these doubts are present in the ordinary murder of one born person by another.

No, one does NOT presume this! You presume that you are carrying a child and that that child is probably alive, because in the vast majority of cases he/she is. You absolutely cannot go in for an abortion saying, “Well, the baby might die right before the doctor rips him apart and pulls him out of my uterus–so, on the premise that the baby might be dead, it’s acceptable for me to take the chance that the doctor could be dismembering a live baby rather than a dead one.” Also, it doesn’t matter whether the child might be stillborn–if he/she is alive right now, there is no excuse for abortion. That’s like saying, “My old grandmother could die soon, so I might as well have the doctor take her off life support right now.” This is euthanasia, or “assisted suicide.” And why do you clearly make the point of saying “born” person? There is no difference between a born and unborn person except size, location, and stage in physical development. In fact, these are factors that are variables among born people as well.

But, the degree of certainty is always a factor in guilt: it is why we punish an assassin differently than a someone who kills someone else in a drunken fight.

This really doesn’t have anything to do with your argument; it’s a completely different situation.

Your citations are inapposite. I did not say that fetus does not have personhood. I said it’s personhood is distinct.

What is this supposed to mean? Personhood = humanity. The fetus is fully human, therefore its personhood is complete.

 

[fakename]

"This seems like mixing apples and oranges, but perhaps I just don’t understand where you are going. The USSR’s purges were morally equivilent to our governments’ permission of mass abortion. The Church certainly did not approve of Stalin’s purges.

The Church is not concerned about hindering the state, but in unleashing civil discord which has a bad tendency to widen and spread harm among the people. Especially since there clearly are not enough Catholics to change the policy, the result would likely be the punishment or destruction of the Church itself. The Church is not morally bound to encourage violent action that will result in her own destruction."

What I meant was that if the Church is worried about civil disturbances which endanger the very good of the state, then it shouldn’t be concerned with anti-abortion violence since the violence done by stalin wasn’t even enough to destroy russia.

But my next question: so the Church doesn’t want us to forcefully stop abortions because it believes that it will be destroyed?

To Warrenton: “The Catholic teaching is a bit more restrictive than that.”

I’ve never heard of it being more restrictive. What is the teaching then?

 

[timeandeternity]

But my next question: so the Church doesn’t want us to forcefully stop abortions because it believes that it will be destroyed?

As far as I am aware, the Church simply acknowledges that there are more effective ways to actually stop abortion. I think the Church promotes these methods in favor of force, but doesn’t strictly forbid the use of force.