Murder/Killing/Abortuin -Why is it wrong?

  • Thread starter Thread starter S_V7
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

S_V7

Guest
How do you explain that murder is wrong to an atheist who seems to believe the contrary? And what is the difference between murder and killing, is it ever justifiable? How do you explain death by self defense or in war?

Were having a class debate and we havn’t even gotten to abortion yet (there’s a sort of list of moral subjects and we are to rank them by severity ex: murder, prostitution, theft, gossip and state our reasons why)

I also REALLY need sources to pour over about abortion and why it’s an atrocity. Anything to help explain to non-Catholics and perhaps non-religious why abortion (murder) is wrong.

please pray for me that I may state the truth adequately, I really need some help in addressing my classmates.

Thanks and God Bbless!
 
I sometimes listen to a Protestant radio show, featuring Dr Dobson’s Focus on the Family, and last week–I heard the most poignant and exceptional argument against abortion, and really…it was for people who are not religious, like you are trying to speak with about this.

Click on this link and navigate the site until you find the ‘reaching hearts on abortion 2’ I think that is the title, and that should help you ith the common objections…it is really excellent…

oneplace.com/ministries/Focus_on_the_Family/archives.asp?bcd=2008-1-25
 
How do you explain that murder is wrong to an atheist who seems to believe the contrary?
I don’t think you can. Believing that murder is wrong is something of a base principle (we might disagree why it is wrong, but not that it is wrong).

Sorry I couldn’t be more helpful.
 
In order to claim that abortion is wrong, you will have to prove, philosophically, that murder is wrong. You will also have to distinguish murder from other forms of taking a person’s life, such as self-defense, judicial execution, just war, unjust war, etc.

DISCLAIMER: In my descriptions below, I am intentionally not making any moral comments about several of the issues I bring up. Suffice to say that I am **totally **pro-life, opposed to euthanasia and desire to conform my conscience to everything the Catholic Church teaches. Just because I do not condemn something here does not I think it is acceptable.

Murder is the unjust taking of a human life against that person’s will in a non-combat (war-time) situation. The victim being innocent of any crime the government deems justifies execution.

If a person consents to the taking of their own life by another, then it is assisted suicide.

Unlike property, human life cannot be restored once it has been taken. Thus murder is taking something that cannot be returned.

From a basic natural law / politically correct standpoint, it is murder because the person did not consent.

Additionally, it is still considered murder even if the parent of a minor child (say the parent of a 2 year old baby) consents to someone taking the life of that child. A parent cannot consent to the murder of their own child. A child is not mature enough to consent to the taking of his/her own life either. In fact, no one can consent to the murder of a child.

To connect this to abortion, you have to further prove that the fetus is a human being, separate and distinct from the mother. Some will claim that a fetus is just like any other tissue. I have even heard people compare a fetus to a tumor. The real difference is that the fetus has it’s own DNA which is different from the mother’s. Additionally, in the normal course of this, will emerge from the body to be more physically separate from the mother. This is why the egg and sperm are not people, because they cannot develop into people on their own in the natural course of things.

After birth, the baby is still not completely physically separated from the mother as the child need to nurse for a time. After that, the child still needs to be cared for for many years before it is mature enough to live separated from the parents.

Thus a fetus is a person from the moment of conception.

Summary and progression:

Murder is wrong when a person does not consent to it.

No one can give consent to the murder of a child.

A child is an immature person.

A fetus is a child.

A fetus is a person from the moment of conception.

A child cannot consent to it’s own murder.

Abortion is murder.

Murder is always wrong.

Therefore: Abortion is wrong.
 
How do you explain that murder is wrong to an atheist who seems to believe the contrary? And what is the difference between murder and killing, is it ever justifiable? How do you explain death by self defense or in war?
Start by asking if it would be OK for you to kill him/her because you disagree on religion/philosophy.

If the answer is yes, then stop. Either the moral gap between you is too large, or they are being intentionally argumentive - that is, no legitimate interest in your point of view.

If the answer is no, then point out, you agree. You both are ‘pro-life’, the only disagreement is on degree.

There are several good ways of discussing our understanding on right to life. First, you could look at the Good Samaritan, it is one of the parables in the Bible with which most people are at least vaguely familiar. Start by explaining the context, Jesus is asked a question about salvation (the questioner had motives, but we can leave that out). The simple answer was, Love God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

Then comes the question about who is my neighbor. Jesus gives an example of a man in distress. But it is important to understand the central characters in the context of Jesus’ original listeners. Tell the ‘aethiest’ to imagine being a Jewish holocaust survivor. Then imagine being severely beaten, robbed, and left for dead.

A beloved and respected Rabbi then comes by, but does nothing. Not necessarily because he has no sympathy, but because he is caught up in strict interpretation of the complicated laws in the Jewish Bible (see purity laws on contact with the dead).

Next comes a respected and loved Church elder, who also passes by. Perhaps because of the laws, perhaps because of weakness.

Finally comes a Nazi, who stops and helps…

One of the morals to the story is that all of mankind is our ‘neighbor’. So we are supposed to love everyone, not just in a vague way, but with the intensity with which we love and respect ourselves.

Further, we Catholics believe that each of us possesses a soul which is a unique creation of God, who also loves each of us infinitely.

Now combine these two, we should value other people’s hides as much as we value our own. And, if we love God with all our hearts, we should treasure and respect the other creations he loves.

Many in the secular community think that “right to life” means conception to birth. And that might be true in some Evangelical circles. But in Catholicism, we define the right to life applying to all stages and all states. In other words, we strive to love all of humankind as ourselves and give the utmost respect to each unique creation of a loving God. Look at these instructions that Pope John Paul II wrote to the lay members of the Church on this teaching:
"In effect the acknowledgment of the personal dignity of every human being demands the respect, the defence and the promotion of the rights of the human person. It is a question of inherent, universal and inviolable rights. No one, no individual, no group, no authority, no State, can change-let alone eliminate-them because such rights find their source in God himself.
The inviolability of the person which is a reflection of the absolute inviolability of God, fínds its primary and fundamental expression in the inviolability of human life. Above all, the common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights-for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family, to culture- is false and illusory if the right to life, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination.
The Church has never yielded in the face of all the violations that the right to life of every human being has received, and continues to receive, both from individuals and from those in authority. The human being is entitled to such rights, in every phase of development, from conception until natural death; and in every condition, whether healthy or sick, whole or handicapped, rich or poor. The Second Vatican Council openly proclaimed: <<All offences against life itself, such as every kind of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia and willful suicide; all violations of the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, physical and mental torture, undue psychological pressures; all offences against human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children, degrading working conditions where men are treated as mere tools for profit rather than free and responsible persons; all these and the like are certainly criminal: they poison human society; and they do more harm to those who practice them than those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator>>" - CHRISTIFIDELES LAICI, #38
When you read a reasonably decent person, secular or not, the above list, they will usually find a lot they agree with. You can build on that.
 
A society that accepts murder is a society that cannot function. Thus murder does not coincide with Natural Law.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top