Legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion, please help refute

[maryh10000]

To Candide:

Do you think it’s okay to buy and sell animals?
Human beings?

Just wondering where or if you draw the line for the rights of people vs animals.

 

[fhansen]

Please help refute the following legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion:

A 7 year old absolutely does have the same legal right to life as an adult.

 

[Candide_West]

It might help to define our terms:

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/inalienable

An inalienable is one that cannot be sold or transferred to someone else. Sometimes people make a distinction between inalienable and unalienable. They both refer to something that cannot be sold or transferred, but unalienable has in the past (and maybe still?) referred to something that couldn’t be sold or transferred by anyone, even the owner, and inalienable has meant something that couldn’t be sold or transferred without the consent of the owner.

Either way, the American legal system, at least, has always recognized that the unalienable rights of life and liberty could be forfeited under certain circumstances.

I’m not arguing anything at the moment. It’s just that it seems to me like some of you are talking about absolute rights and some of you are talking about in- or un- alienable rights.

Hi Mary,

Good call. The definition I end to use for an inalienable in the context of rights is “cannot be given away or taken away”. In other words someone has the right simply by virtue of being human (or from Tonyrey’s point of view I guess, simply by being alive).

My reason for interest in this is that if humans have an inalienable right to life then this would seem to mean abortion, capital punishment and war (unless 100% defensive) amongst other things must always be immoral no matter what the circumstances.

Welcome to the forum by the way, and thanks for writing.

 

[Candide_West]

To Candide:

Do you think it’s okay to buy and sell animals?*

Yes.

Human beings?

No.

Just wondering where or if you draw the line for the rights of people vs animals.

I suspect there may be a spot of confusion here, it’s TR who is arguing that all living things have an inalienable right to life. Not me.*

To be clear I’m unconvinced that the term “rights” can be meaningfully applied to animals. Does a plant have a “right” not to be eaten by a herbivore? Does a herbivore have a “right” to not be eaten by a carnivore? Does a carnivore have a “right” not to be killed by bacteria? How can such “rights” (if they exist) be enforced?*

As far as I can see we can only really apply the term “rights” within species which understand terms like “rights” and “duties”, and indeed “morality”.

I’m open to views on this one if you have any thoughts?

 

[GEddie]

Yes.

No.

I suspect there may be a spot of confusion here, it’s TR who is arguing that all living things have an inalienable right to life. Not me.*

To be clear I’m unconvinced that the term “rights” can be meaningfully applied to animals. Does a plant have a “right” not to be eaten by a herbivore? Does a herbivore have a “right” to not be eaten by a carnivore? Does a carnivore have a “right” not to be killed by bacteria? How can such “rights” (if they exist) be enforced?*

As far as I can see we can only really apply the term “rights” within species which understand terms like “rights” and “duties”, and indeed “morality”.

I’m open to views on this one if you have any thoughts?

On this one I agree with CW. Rights are a human construct and so it is meaningless to speak of rights pertaining to nonhumans. Nature knows nothing of rights.

ICXC NIKA

 

[maryh10000]

Hi Mary,

Good call. The definition I end to use for an inalienable in the context of rights is “cannot be given away or taken away”. In other words someone has the right simply by virtue of being human (or from Tonyrey’s point of view I guess, simply by being alive).

My reason for interest in this is that if humans have an inalienable right to life then this would seem to mean abortion, capital punishment and war (unless 100% defensive) amongst other things must always be immoral no matter what the circumstances.

Well, that’s pretty close to the Catholic position.

Capital punishment is only allowable when there is no other reasonable way to keep the rest of society safe from a criminal. The last two popes have said that this condition doesn’t obtain in the developed world (at least in the developed world - I don’t remember exactly) so it isn’t moral. It certainly isn’t moral in the US.

As for a just war, the conditions are: [quoting http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine]

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

So basically, a just war is “self defense” on a national scale. BTW, Pope John Paul II interpreted this to mean the American war on Iraq was not a just war.

 

[Candide_West]

Well, that’s pretty close to the Catholic position.

Capital punishment is only allowable when there is no other reasonable way to keep the rest of society safe from a criminal. The last two popes have said that this condition doesn’t obtain in the developed world (at least in the developed world - I don’t remember exactly) so it isn’t moral. It certainly isn’t moral in the US.

As for a just war, the conditions are: [quoting http://www.catholic.com/documents/just-war-doctrine]

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

So basically, a just war is “self defense” on a national scale. BTW, Pope John Paul II interpreted this to mean the American war on Iraq was not a just war.

Ok, that all seems pretty consistent then. Out of interest do you know if the crusades are considered to be “just wars”? From looking at the above criteria I struggle to see how they could be.*

In any case, all of this still hinges on there actually being an “inalienable right to life”. As yet I have never encountered a justification that such a thing even exists. Until I can justify whether it does or does not, the repercussions of it are rather moot.*

 

[fhansen]

Ok, that all seems pretty consistent then. Out of interest do you know if the crusades are considered to be “just wars”? From looking at the above criteria I struggle to see how they could be.*

In any case, all of this still hinges on there actually being an “inalienable right to life”. As yet I have never encountered a justification that such a thing even exists. Until I can justify whether it does or does not, the repercussions of it are rather moot.*

Laws against murder are based on the recognition of such a right.

 

[maryh10000]

From the Catholic perspective, the human inalienable right to life derives because we are made in the image of God and the other animals are not.

I’m not sure how or if you can get to that view from another direction. Perhaps you might say that the human right to life derives from the fact that we, as opposed to all other animals, understand terms like “rights” and “duties” and “morality.”

By the way, I’m not convinced by your argument that murder is wrong because it falls in the category of “things I wouldn’t want to have done to me.” The Golden Rule is a good rule of thumb, but it is still too subjective as a basis for morality.

For example, let’s say I’m suffering from clinical depression. Then murder is something that I might actually want for myself. In fact, I could extend that thought to justify killing myself and my children as well. There has to be some more objective guideline to determine when someone’s feelings are not correct.

To be clear I’m unconvinced that the term “rights” can be meaningfully applied to animals. Does a plant have a “right” not to be eaten by a herbivore? Does a herbivore have a “right” to not be eaten by a carnivore? Does a carnivore have a “right” not to be killed by bacteria? How can such “rights” (if they exist) be enforced?*

As far as I can see we can only really apply the term “rights” within species which understand terms like “rights” and “duties”, and indeed “morality”.

 

[Candide_West]

Laws against murder are based on the recognition of such a right.

I’m afraid that doesn’t really make much sense. Just take a look at America, murder is illegal, but the law clearly does not recognise an inalienable right to life as capital punishment is employed (clearly it couldn’t be if the law recognised an inalienable right to life).

 

[Candide_West]

From the Catholic perspective, the human inalienable right to life derives because we are made in the image of God and the other animals are not.

Well, I guess therein lies the question. How does it derive from your beliefs?*

I’m perfectly happy to take a justification which starts with the assumption “the christian god exists”. Obviously if that’s the case I won’t be able to share in the conclusion, as I don’t agree with that assumption, but at least I’d understand the theist justification which would be a big positive step.*

Even better from my point of view would be a justification which works even without Christian beliefs. But if your justification only works from a Christian perspective then it is of course still valid.*

*I’m not sure how or if you can get to that view from another direction. Perhaps you might say that the human right to life derives from the fact that we, as opposed to all other animals, understand terms like “rights” and “duties” and “morality.”

I agree those are prerequisites to having rights but aren’t not in themselves a justification for an inalienable right to life as far as I can see.*

By the way, I’m not convinced by your argument that murder is wrong because it falls in the category of “things I wouldn’t want to have done to me.” The Golden Rule is a good rule of thumb, but it is still too subjective as a basis for morality.

True enough, that’s why I don’t pick an individual and base morality on what that person thinks but instead what (virtually) everyone thinks. Select any individuals off the street at random and offer them the opportunity to be murdered and see what kinda response you get. I strongly suspect you’ll be out there for months without a single (genuine) positive result.*

That’s where the golden rule actually fails “I want to be murdered so it’s ok for me to murder others”. My approach doesn’t fail here because it’s not based on what I would have done to me, but what people in general would have done to them.*

*For example, let’s say I’m suffering from clinical depression. Then murder is something that I might actually want for myself. In fact, I could extend that thought to justify killing myself and my children as well. There has to be some more objective guideline to determine when someone’s feelings are not correct.

Yes indeed the practicably objective basis in my approach comes from the preferences which (virtually) all humans share. Ie we don’t like suffering, it is unpleasant thing to experience by definition. So “suffering” is a practicably objective concept.*

 

[jochoa]

1.) “Is an inalienable right to life justified, if so how?”

Hello again, my friend! It is nice to see you back. To answer the question:
There is a difference between an inalienable right and an inalienable life, and therefore a subjective basis to an inalienable right to life, which is dependent on the authority/government which grants the right.
There is one life/being which is inalienable, all others are granted an inalienable right to life. The one life/being which is inalienable is the Holy Trinity, or the Universally Greatest Being of the Universe.
To gain a working understanding of one concept of the Holy Trinity, please consider the following:
The universally greatest being of society is where the person of the governing head sets the Truly Loving commandments. Then the governed body of persons, including the head person, freely subject themselves to the same laws. Then the will of the body of persons, including the head person, perfectly proceeds from the commandments, as set by the head person, and the body of persons. To simply state this: The Father is the person of the Spirit of God (has the exact image of Jesus Christ). The Son is the person of the body of God that came down from heaven and subjected himself to the laws of existence in this world, therefore He has a human mind, a godly body, a human and godly will, and has a human spirit, which in His mind and will developed and grew to become at one with the Truly Loving Nature. The instance His mind and human will were at one with the nature of His Body, His Spirit revealed the Holy Spirit. But in order to reveal the Holy Spirit of Unity in the Truly Loving Nature to free-willed beings, a free-willed human must become at one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ to demonstrate to the free world the limitless joy, unbreakable peace, and amazing beauty of being one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ!

2.) Could you please present these “objective criteria for determining whether killing is justified”?

It is perfectly justified to kill any spirit or mindset which is not productive to growth and development of the self or the society. For example: Not to long ago, I failed to believe in God. I was a doubter. My mind was set that God didn’t exist. Over time and great struggles, I had to kill that mindset and the spirit of doubting, in order to allow the mindset of the faith of knowing and the spirit of proving to become my new method of processing information and interacting with God and others.

3.) Do you believe that even when you’ve killed a creature it still has an inalienable right to life? If it is not lost in the killing process then could you explain how a dead creature retains its “inalienable” right to life please?

Whether or not the creature has an inalienable right to life depends on its purpose. If it is purposeful, then yes it has an inalienable right to life. If it is purposeless, then no it does not have an inalienable right to life. A dead creature recognizes its inalienable right to life during Resurrection.

4.) Is it an official catholic view or your personal belief that all living things have an inalienable right to life?

My personal belief, which I believe to be aligned with Catholicism, is that all purposeful creations have an inalienable right to life.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I am very glad you have returned for I have been missing your excellent and challenging questions. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

May your day be filled with the peace and happiness! I hope vacation was enjoyable!

 

[Candide_West]

Hey jochoa, good to hear from you again.*

Hello again, my friend! It is nice to see you back. To answer the question:
There is a difference between an inalienable right and an inalienable life, and therefore a subjective basis to an inalienable right to life, which is dependent on the authority/government which grants the right.*
There is one life/being which is inalienable, all others are granted an inalienable right to life. The one life/being which is inalienable is the Holy Trinity, or the Universally Greatest Being of the Universe.
To gain a working understanding of one concept of the Holy Trinity, please consider the following:
The universally greatest being of society is where the person of the governing head sets the Truly Loving commandments. Then the governed body of persons, including the head person, freely subject themselves to the same laws. Then the will of the body of persons, including the head person, perfectly proceeds from the commandments, as set by the head person, and the body of persons. To simply state this: The Father is the person of the Spirit of God (has the exact image of Jesus Christ). The Son is the person of the body of God that came down from heaven and subjected himself to the laws of existence in this world, therefore He has a human mind, a godly body, a human and godly will, and has a human spirit, which in His mind and will developed and grew to become at one with the Truly Loving Nature. The instance His mind and human will were at one with the nature of His Body, His Spirit revealed the Holy Spirit. But in order to reveal the Holy Spirit of Unity in the Truly Loving Nature to free-willed beings, a free-willed human must become at one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ to demonstrate to the free world the limitless joy, unbreakable peace, and amazing beauty of being one with the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ!

Well, that’s all fair enough if that’s what you believe. Obviously it doesn’t answer the question though.*

*It is perfectly justified to kill any spirit or mindset which is not productive to growth and development of the self or the society. For example: Not to long ago, I failed to believe in God. I was a doubter. My mind was set that God didn’t exist. Over time and great struggles, I had to kill that mindset and the spirit of doubting, in order to allow the mindset of the faith of knowing and the spirit of proving to become my new method of processing information and interacting with God and others.

We are talking about killing living creatures here. Not the rather more esoteric “killing” of ideas. As far as I know nobody has suggested that ideas or any other non-living things have an inalienable right to existence. That would be waaaaay off topic.

*Whether or not the creature has an inalienable right to life depends on its purpose. If it is purposeful, then yes it has an inalienable right to life. If it is purposeless, then no it does not have an inalienable right to life. A dead creature recognizes its inalienable right to life during Resurrection.

How can you tell if a creature is “purposeful”? For that matter, what do you mean by the term “purposeful” in this context?*

*My personal belief, which I believe to be aligned with Catholicism, is that all purposeful creations have an inalienable right to life.

So what creatures are “purposeful”?

*Thank you very much for your time and consideration. I am very glad you have returned for I have been missing your excellent and challenging questions. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.

May your day be filled with the peace and happiness! I hope vacation was enjoyable!

Thanks, the holiday was epic. Cambodia is beautiful.

 

[maryh10000]

I’m afraid that doesn’t really make much sense. Just take a look at America, murder is illegal, but the law clearly does not recognise an inalienable right to life as capital punishment is employed (clearly it couldn’t be if the law recognised an inalienable right to life).

You’re confusing your terms. An inalienable right in law just means that the right to life cannot be bought or sold, even by the person who has that right. It’s perfectly possible to forfeit that right. In a similar way, the right to liberty is also something that cannot be bought or sold, even by the individual themself, but it doesn’t negate the possibility that somewhat could forfeit that right by their actions and end up in prison. So in the legal sense capital punishment is not at all in contradiction to an inalienable right to life.

I understand that you (and others) are using the term “inalienable right” in a broader sense - to mean something like ‘absolute’, and I’m perfectly willing to use that sense in my arguments in general. But when you quote the law in the United States, I think we need to use the legal definition and not the more general use of the term.

 

[jochoa]

Well, that’s all fair enough if that’s what you believe. Obviously it doesn’t answer the question though.

Thank you very much my friend for your time and considerations! You present excellent questions, which are helping me grow tremendously. Please note: These are not beliefs, they are Universal Truths. Please continue to ask all the questions you need answered in order to help yourself become aware of the truth, for it is when you accept these Universal Truths as the Catholic Faith that you and I can start doing our part to change the world! Also, please analyze the concept and share harsh criticisms as to where you find the reasoning to be illogical, for I directly shared with you how it is proven that the Holy Trinity has an Inalienable Life.

We are talking about killing living creatures here. Not the rather more esoteric “killing” of ideas. As far as I know nobody has suggested that ideas or any other non-living things have an inalienable right to existence. That would be waaaaay off topic.

You have some amazing perspective to learn from! From your thoughts, I realize “ideas” can have an inalienable life, but creations can only have an inalienable right to life. Simply brilliant! Unfortunately, my friend, if you are unwilling to recognize the spirit within each of us, you are forced to operate under circular reasoning and will not be able to see the Truth.

How can you tell if a creature is “purposeful”? For that matter, what do you mean by the term “purposeful” in this context?*

From my interpretations, the following is the simplified standard of living in heaven: Always want to learn, perfect, and spread the means to patience, kindness, motivation, and wisdom, so that as a society and individually, we may enjoy the awesomeness of unbreakable peace, limitless happiness, and unstoppable energy. Therefore, being purposeful is helping grow the individuals and society as a team, closer to living accordingly.

So what creatures are “purposeful”?

Unfortunately, I am not wise enough to offer simple understandings to identify every single purposeful creature, for the number, nor numerous justifications, are not perceivable by me. However, I will share the following: Any creature which will simply want to learn, perfect, and spread the means to better patience, kindness, and motivation, and grow in this foundation of Truly Living by spreading peace, happiness, and energy throughout our society, I assure you that, these creatures are purposeful, and they are also Righteous!

Thanks, the holiday was epic. Cambodia is beautiful.

Excellent to hear!

Thoughts?

 

[maryh10000]

I must disagree with jochoa, unless I’m misunderstanding what they mean by “purposeful”. The following is my understanding of church teachings. I know it doesn’t answer all of Candide’s questions but I’ll get to those later, I hope.

The Catholic church does not base a creature’s right to life on whether it is purposeful or not.

Animals do not have an inalienable right to life. [look at paragraphs 2415 through 2418 of the Catechism]

The Church teaches that animals were made for humanity. We are supposed to be kind to animals and not cause them to suffer or die needlessly. Medical and scientific research is okay but does not justify any and all kinds of treatment of animals. Use of animals for food and clothing and their domestication is okay. We shouldn’t spend money on animals that should go to the relief of human misery. And “One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.”

Human beings have an inalienable right to life, which the catechism defines this way: [paragraph 2273]
“These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.”

The Catechism also states that the right of all innocent human beings to life is also absolute:
The Catechism requires [2270] “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his 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.”

While the catechism in this section does not specifically define what an “innocent human being” is, it defines specifically in other paragraphs the cases where intentional killing is not wrong:

Legitimate self-defense:
Because the person being attacked also has a right to life. But here we see part of the principle of proportionality. You can defend yourself to the point necessary to preserve your own life and no further. If that means you have to kill someone, that is acceptable. But if you have the means to protect yourself without killing the aggressor, it is wrong to kill them.

Legitimate defense of others:
“The defense of the common good requires that an unjust aggressor be rendered unable to cause harm. For this reason, those who legitimately hold authority also have the right to use arms to repel aggressors against the civil community entrusted to their responsibility.”

After that, the specific cases of capital punishment and just war are described, which match what I’ve said about them earlier *.

So everyone has an inalienable right to life whatever they do (something not conferred by but merely recognized by governments).

In addition, I interpret the catechism to say that a person also has an “absolute” right to life unless they attack the right to life of others, which others can over-ride only to the extent necessary to prevent them from harming those others.*

 

[Leegal]

Please help refute the following legal and philosophical argument for contraception and abortion:

Under the law the 7 year old child does have the same rights as an adult, but cannot yet exercise them. In legal principle, the law recognizes that rights of the children are held in trust by the parents – this is a secular law principle.

If one believes life begins at conception, then the parents have the rights of the child in trust for the unborn child.

 

[maryh10000]

Well, I guess therein lies the question. How does it derive from your beliefs?

I’m perfectly happy to take a justification which starts with the assumption “the christian god exists”. Obviously if that’s the case I won’t be able to share in the conclusion, as I don’t agree with that assumption, but at least I’d understand the theist justification which would be a big positive step.

I’m not quite sure I understand your question. If you are asking me how the concept that human beings are made in the image of God derives from my Christian beliefs, I would say it doesn’t derive from them, it is a core part of them.

If you are asking how I derive an inalienable right to life from my belief that God has made all human beings in his image, I’ll have to think about how to put that.

Even better from my point of view would be a justification which works even without Christian beliefs. But if your justification only works from a Christian perspective then it is of course still valid.

I’m not sure it can be done. To be honest, I’ve never even tried.

I agree those are prerequisites to having rights but aren’t not in themselves a justification for an inalienable right to life as far as I can see.

You may be right. I’ll have to think about that further.

True enough, that’s why I don’t pick an individual and base morality on what that person thinks but instead what (virtually) everyone thinks. Select any individuals off the street at random and offer them the opportunity to be murdered and see what kinda response you get. I strongly suspect you’ll be out there for months without a single (genuine) positive result.

You’re probably right about that specific case. Still, this strikes me as inadequate. How do you define what “virtually everyone” thinks? And I would venture to say that the opinion that there is no god is definitely the minority position among most people. How much of a majority would you have to have before you said “virtually everyone” believes in a god or gods, and that therefore it was immoral not to believe in a god?

It seems to me that “virtually everyone” has believed in things we consider immoral these days. And in the United States, “virtually everyone” believes some things to be perfectly okay that I believe to be immoral. Does morality change according to current opinions, like musical taste? Or is it something objective, which we simply try to learn and to understand better, like the laws of physics?

Yes indeed the practicably objective basis in my approach comes from the preferences which (virtually) all humans share. Ie we don’t like suffering, it is unpleasant thing to experience by definition. So “suffering” is a practicably objective concept.*

Well, suffering may be one of those objective measures. Once we define what suffering means to a particular individual at a particular time and place. Because it seems to me what people consider to be suffering can be highly subjective.

 

[tonyrey]

• Not at all. I included the unnecessary suffering (and death) of other forms of life as well as our own.*

Do you disagree?

As I said the above supports the idea that humans are reasonable to behave as though humans are more “valuable” than other animals. Just as (for example) apes are justified in behaving as though apes are more “valuable”.

You are switching from species to individuals without the blink of an eyelid!

This doesn’t conflict with us avoiding causing unnecessary suffering to animals, but it does justify people preventing pain to a child even if it means causing greater pain to a dog (for example).

What does that prove?

Animal behaviour is instinctive whereas we can choose to override instinct.

Broadly true, but in this specific area it must be very, very rare. There are very few people out there who have overcome their instinctive preference for members of our own species and would (for example) shoot a person to protect a dog.

You are assuming that preference is instinctive rather than rational…

However, I suspect that few other animals could overwhelm this instinct either. Although I have witnessed dogs doing this come to think of it (attacking another dog to protect a human).

Do you believe all human behaviour is instinctive rather than rational?

Do you believe all our preferences are programmed?

Well that’s always been an interesting area of discussion. But not one I think we need to get into here, we’ll probably head off down a free will tangent otherwise.

You mean that it’s not in your interest to answer the question and you prefer not to commit yourself, thereby remaining invulnerable but insubstantial!

All

• species because we have an obligation to conserve not destroy life on this planet - subject to choosing the lesser evils.

This seems somewhat problematic. Does this mean that you are a fruitarian then? I think I’m right in saying that’s the only form of diet which doesn’t involve killing any plants or animals.
In any case this would only appear to expand the justification required. Although I fear that if correct it also makes the behaviour of the vast majority of the population reprehensible…

Your argument is deteriorating when it descends to quibbling…

1. We did not create life

True. Assuming you are talking about life in general as opposed to specific individual lives.*

Which specific individual lives have we created?

%between%

1. We do not have a good reason to destroy life

Certainly not to destroy all life, but surely there must be good reasons to destroy specific lives, even if only to protect other lives?

The basic principle remains intact.

1. We have an obligation to be reasonable

I’m dubious on this one, where does this obligation come from? Don’t get me wrong, I do my best to behave in a reasoned manner, but I do this because I have found it a useful tool for managing my behaviour as opposed to because I’m under some obligation to do so.

The obligation is self-imposed if you choose to be reasonable because you know that otherwise you are wasting your time - on this forum as weel as everywhere else…

In any case we still seem to be some way from reaching the conclusion of “…therefore humans have an inalienable right to life”, was this intended to be the first part of a justification?

Yes. Your delaying tactic is merely postponing the outcome!

Do you believe in unnecessary destruction?

• 

Do I believe it happens or do I believe it should happen?*

If you are asking the former then I’d say yes, although I suppose you could make an argument that destruction of one thing is just creation of others…

Do you believe in wanton destruction? Such as vandalism?

But I digress, in any case I believe it does happen but can’t see a justification for it. I suppose the challenge would lie in defining “unnecessary”.

Your delaying tactic is merely postponing the outcome!

 

[jochoa]

I must disagree with jochoa, unless I’m misunderstanding what they mean by “purposeful”. The following is my understanding of church teachings.

The Catholic church does not base a creature’s right to life on whether it is purposeful or not.

Animals do not have an inalienable right to life. [look at paragraphs 2415 through 2418 of the Catechism]

The Church teaches that animals were made for humanity. We are supposed to be kind to animals and not cause them to suffer or die needlessly. Medical and scientific research is okay but does not justify any and all kinds of treatment of animals. Use of animals for food and clothing and their domestication is okay. We shouldn’t spend money on animals that should go to the relief of human misery. And “One can love animals; one should not direct to them the affection due only to persons.”

Human beings have an inalienable right to life, which the catechism defines this way: [paragraph 2273]
“These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin.”

The Catechism also states that the right of all innocent human beings to life is also absolute:
The Catechism requires [2270] “Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his 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.”

Hello maryh10000, it is a pleasure pondering your considerations! I really appreciate your references to the Catechisms for they have helped me grow in understanding and consideration. Please note that I have very little knowledge regarding Scripture or the Catechisms and greatly appreciate any referencing. Please consider the following:

I apologize for simply equating the inviolable right to life of human beings with the right to life of animals and other living beings. This is the concept I use to arrive at my interpretation:
A right, whether inalienable, unalienable, or alienable, is subject to the will of the authority of the being to which it is granted. Therefore, when considering which living beings have an inalienable right to life, there must be consideration of the perspective of the authority. Since there is One Universal Authority (God) and several other appointed and assumed authorities (Pope, parents, older family members, teachers, bosses, police, politicians, bullies, etc.), there becomes the need to consider which authority will we consider when determining inalienability of the right. In the case of all humans, God’s Authority reigns supreme, and God has established life after death for all humans. Therefore humans have an inalienable right to life granted by God.
God appointed humans the authority over animals and other living beings. Therefore, we must ask ourselves, which living beings do we grant an inalienable right to life.

Please recognize that I am suggesting an extension to the Catechism. I am in full agreement that the right to human life is absolute, and these rights do not depend on any single human or other living creation. My extension and justification is the following: The right to human life is absolute because of the dependence on an Absolute God. In other words, if the person of God did not will the existence of human life, nor the inalienable right to life, then humans would not exist nor have the inalienable right to life.

And regarding some living creatures other than humans possessing an inalienable right to life: Since there are some animals living in Heaven (horses, lion-like, bird-like, bear-like, etc.), I believe God will not kill these animals, therefore somehow these animals possess an inalienable right to life granted by God.

Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and references! I look forward to learning more from you.

Thoughts?