Roe vs. Wade based on a lie

[KarenNC]

No, no, no. My minor premise is quite easy to see. The only way that I can think that some one would deny it is that they are lying to themselves. Are you honest with yourself?

Yes, I am quite honest with myself, thank you. I am asking a question about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If the Church teaches that every instance of ending life is murder, irrespective of circumstances or motivation, then, yes, your premise would hold true.

If it does not, before one can make the statement “Abortion is murder” which includes the implied argument that “every instance of abortion is murder,” one would need to show that there are no circumstances or motivations under which abortion is used that might meet the criteria of the ending of a life that is not considered to be murder. If such circumstances or motivations exist, then the most one could say is that “abortion is (sometimes, frequently, usually, often, except in the case of …) murder.” The result would then be that those instances of abortion which meet the definition of murder should be illegal rather than a blanket statement that " (All) abortion should be illegal."

Simple blanket statements make good sound bites and bumper stickers, but don’t usually address the complex issues that occur in life.

 

[East_and_West]

Yes, I am quite honest with myself, thank you. I am asking a question about the teachings of the Catholic Church.

If the Church teaches that every instance of ending life is murder, irrespective of circumstances or motivation, then, yes, your premise would hold true.

If it does not, before one can make the statement “Abortion is murder” which includes the implied argument that “every instance of abortion is murder,” one would need to show that there are no circumstances or motivations under which abortion is used that might meet the criteria of the ending of a life that is not considered to be murder. If such circumstances or motivations exist, then the most one could say is that “abortion is (sometimes, frequently, usually, often, except in the case of …) murder.” The result would then be that those instances of abortion which meet the definition of murder should be illegal rather than a blanket statement that " (All) abortion should be illegal."

Simple blanket statements make good sound bites and bumper stickers, but don’t usually address the complex issues that occur in life.

You are very articulate and for this reason I assume (which is alway very dangersous ) that you are an educated person. I am also educated and very greatful for the following reason. G.K. Chesteron once said that “Without education we run the terrible risk of taking educated people seriously.” Thankfully I am educated and, thus, do not run the risk of takin any of the nonsense you have stated so far seriously. First all, let us address the “potential” life nonsense. No serious scientist would ever deny that a fetus, embryo, zygote, is anything but alive. If fulfills every requirement and definition of a living being. So let us not play the silly “potential life” game. Furthermore, this living being is of the species Homo Sapien. Thus it is a human. Lets us not play the “it is not a human person game”. Even If this argument did not hold, I ask you, when is the magic moment, after conception, that a person becomes a person? There is no rational answer to this question. Only conception can stand out as the reasonable moment of the endowment of person-hood. Finally, you think that abortion may not always be murder. Let me share with a basic principle of ethics. ONE MAY NEVER DO EVIL TO BRING ABOUT A GOOD. Purposely targeting an innocent and defenseless human being for death is murder and murder of the worst kind. Thus, no matter the intentions, Abortion is evil and should never be pursued as viable option.

 

[Apryl]

HOLY COW!!! I cannot believe that this discussion has gone on this long! People, lets do a little exercise in logic.
Try and stay with me on this one. I know for some on this thread it may be difficult to follow.
Major premisis: Murder should be illegal.

Minor premisis: Abortion is murder.

and now for the conclusion… drum roll please…

Therfore Aborition should be illegal. Q.E.D.

I understand that some people had trouble in geometery classe in high school and thus logic and proofs are a challenge for you. But goodness gracious people. This is an easyone.

I don’t think it’s that simple, probably because I don’t think that was the subject of this thread.

This thread, imo, was not about should abortion be legal. I don’t think many would agree with that stance and be on a board such as this

The whole point of the thread, as I read it, was that RvW was based upon a lie.

Carry on

 

[Bennie_P]

I don’t think it’s that simple, probably because I don’t think that was the subject of this thread.

This thread, imo, was not about should abortion be legal. I don’t think many would agree with that stance and be on a board such as this

The whole point of the thread, as I read it, was that RvW was based upon a lie.

Carry on

And it got derailed by someone trying to expand that lie by intellectualizing it into a act of compassion. .

[sign]
Beware lest any man cheat you by philosophy and vain deceit: according to the tradition of men according to the elements of the world and not according to Christ.****

Col 2:8[/sign]****

 

[Apryl]

And it got derailed by someone trying to expand that lie by intellectualizing it into a act of compassion. .

I do think we had a pretty good discussion on this.

What has it been? Less than a week? And already it’s up to 10 pages? And there has been some very good discussion on the subject.

I like to think that someone’s eyes could be opened by peeping in on a real discussion.

I wonder if they still allow kids to do debates in school on the subject of abortion. I wonder, when that happens, how many of the teachers have ever encouraged any thought other than ‘Abortion is the WAY TO GO, and if a woman is smart, she won’t ever have a child she didn’t plan’.

There are far too many people working with our kids, and have worked with our kids, that are perpetuating the lies because, let’s face, it, America was sold a bill of goods… and now, we gotta try to save face.

Have a great afternoon, and keep praying for the INNOCENT unborn, and the education of America.

 

[KarenNC]

**First all, let us address the “potential” life nonsense. No serious scientist would ever deny that a fetus, embryo, zygote, is anything but alive. If fulfills every requirement and definition of a living being. So let us not play the silly “potential life” game. **

By potential, I refer to the fact that many pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage or stillbirth) after a point at which most abortions are performed.
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE0DC1439F934A15754C0A96E948260

I admit that I phrased it badly. To be more precise, I should have phrased it as “human life potentially capable of living outside the womb.”

Furthermore, this living being is of the species Homo Sapien. Thus it is a human. Lets us not play the “it is not a human person game”.

I’m not. I specifically asked about the Church’s teaching about whether there are ever circumstances or motivations under which the ending of a human life is not considered murder and morally forbidden.

** ONE MAY NEVER DO EVIL TO BRING ABOUT A GOOD. Purposely targeting an innocent and defenseless human being for death is murder and murder of the worst kind. Thus, no matter the intentions, Abortion is evil and should never be pursued as viable option.**

I ask this in light of the fact that the Church has a “just war” teaching ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

“While one may desire, and employ, physical force for the sake of correction, restraint of evil and restoring justice, even if it entails injury and death, one may never desire it for its own sake.”

If the primary motivation of an abortion is to save the life or health of the mother, even if it entails injury and death of the non-viable child (ie, early birth is not possible, which would be a morally preferable option if available), does this still constitute what the Church deems as “murder”?

 

[East_and_West]

**First all, let us address the “potential” life nonsense. No serious scientist would ever deny that a fetus, embryo, zygote, is anything but alive. If fulfills every requirement and definition of a living being. So let us not play the silly “potential life” game. **

By potential, I refer to the fact that many pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage or stillbirth) after a point at which most abortions are performed.
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE0DC1439F934A15754C0A96E948260

I admit that I phrased it badly. To be more precise, I should have phrased it as “human life potentially capable of living outside the womb.”

Furthermore, this living being is of the species Homo Sapien. Thus it is a human. Lets us not play the “it is not a human person game”.

I’m not. I specifically asked about the Church’s teaching about whether there are ever circumstances or motivations under which the ending of a human life is not considered murder and morally forbidden.

** ONE MAY NEVER DO EVIL TO BRING ABOUT A GOOD. Purposely targeting an innocent and defenseless human being for death is murder and murder of the worst kind. Thus, no matter the intentions, Abortion is evil and should never be pursued as viable option.**

I ask this in light of the fact that the Church has a “just war” teaching ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

“While one may desire, and employ, physical force for the sake of correction, restraint of evil and restoring justice, even if it entails injury and death, one may never desire it for its own sake.”

If the primary motivation of an abortion is to save the life or health of the mother, even if it entails injury and death of the non-viable child (ie, early birth is not possible, which would be a morally preferable option if available), does this still constitute what the Church deems as “murder”?

Just war is not evil and thus it is not an evil for the sake of good. In fact, a just war is virtuous. It is the rightful defense of one’s family, friends, and homeland. Abortion, on the other hand, is the willfull and purposeful targeting of the most innocent and defenseless for death. Even if the mother’s health is at risk, we should be striving to save both the mother and the child because neither is more important than the other. Both are human beings. Both deserve care.

 

[Bennie_P]

If the primary motivation of an abortion is to save the life or health of the mother, even if it entails injury and death of the non-viable child (ie, early birth is not possible, which would be a morally preferable option if available), does this still constitute what the Church deems as “murder”?

Your trying to expand that lie of Roe Vs Wade by intellectualizing legalized abortion as an act of compassion and yet from 'Ask an Apologist" right here at CAF we find…
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307&highlight=Abortion+allowed

**

Abortion

** is always evil - it intends to directly kill a child. It is never allowed even to save the life of the mother. The Church clearly teaches that “One may never do evil so that good may result from it” (Catechism, 1789).

However, in the case you describe, the mother’s malfunctioning organ (fallopian tube, or a portion of it), may be morally removed to eliminate the risk to the mother. The intent here is to remove an organ that is about to rupture (no different than if a tumor was there). To not do so would be life threatening to the mother. It is unfortunate that the threat happens to be caused by an abnormal pregnancy. If the child dies his or her death is not directly intended but is tolerated as an unintended consequence. (In the future it might be possible to implant such a child into the uterus. Until such time, however, the procedure is still moral.)

When is there any other time abortion will save the life of the mother? or her health?
The child is still a living being even when it is non-viable, but that is the reason she has need of a mother. viablilty should never be a factor, but the life of the mother can be.
The Church is not as unconcerned as the pro-abortionist like to paint her.

There is no other justification of the deaths of over 48 million based on the Roe Vs. Wade lie. All other justifications are justifying murder, no, genecide.

 

[DrPiano]

**First all, let us address the “potential” life nonsense. No serious scientist would ever deny that a fetus, embryo, zygote, is anything but alive. If fulfills every requirement and definition of a living being. So let us not play the silly “potential life” game. **

By potential, I refer to the fact that many pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion (miscarriage or stillbirth) after a point at which most abortions are performed.
query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=940DE0DC1439F934A15754C0A96E948260

I admit that I phrased it badly. To be more precise, I should have phrased it as “human life potentially capable of living outside the womb.”

Furthermore, this living being is of the species Homo Sapien. Thus it is a human. Lets us not play the “it is not a human person game”.

I’m not. I specifically asked about the Church’s teaching about whether there are ever circumstances or motivations under which the ending of a human life is not considered murder and morally forbidden.

** ONE MAY NEVER DO EVIL TO BRING ABOUT A GOOD. Purposely targeting an innocent and defenseless human being for death is murder and murder of the worst kind. Thus, no matter the intentions, Abortion is evil and should never be pursued as viable option.**

I ask this in light of the fact that the Church has a “just war” teaching ewtn.com/expert/answers/just_war.htm

“While one may desire, and employ, physical force for the sake of correction, restraint of evil and restoring justice, even if it entails injury and death, one may never desire it for its own sake.”

If the primary motivation of an abortion is to save the life or health of the mother, even if it entails injury and death of the non-viable child (ie, early birth is not possible, which would be a morally preferable option if available), does this still constitute what the Church deems as “murder”?

Karen,

As I understand the Church’s teachings (my understanding may not be fully complete), procedures that are not intended to kill the unborn child but unfortunately result in the death or dismemberment of the innocent child are licit. Abortion is not, however, because the intent of abortion is to kill the child. That is its sole purpose.

If, however, the mother had uterine cancer and the uterus was removed (to save the mother’s life), the surgical procedure, although resulting in the death of the unborn child, would not be intended to cause that result and would therefore be morally acceptable. Similarly, although most chemotherapies are teratogens and usually would cause the fetus’ death, the use of these chemotherapies to cure cancer would be morally acceptable to save the mother’s life because their intent is to cure cancer, not cause the death of the baby.

Similarly, in the arguments surrounding euthanasia, some argue about whether it is ok for a doctor to give a terminally ill patient high doses of pain killers for the pain (say morphine for example), even if those doses of those drugs may cause a shortening of that person’s lifespan. The drugs are not intended to cause death - they are intended to reduce the pain. Earlier death is an unfortunate side effect.

Some reading that I found helpful on this issue includes:
catholic.com/thisrock/2001/0102fea2.asp :

“What if the mother’s life is endangered?”
Every effort is to be made to save both mother and child. If there is one of those incredibly rare cases where the choice is between losing the baby or losing the mother and the baby, obviously the moral thing to do is to save the life of the mother. The death of the baby in such a medical procedure is not a desired result but one of the effects of an act designed to save the mother’s life.
If this seems like hair-splitting, it is because it is such an unusual moral dilemma (you can formulate unusual dilemmas in any moral area) that requires us to think more deeply about cause and effect than we normally do.

and catholic.com/thisrock/2006/0609uan.asp :

The principle of double effect applies: (1) Your intention is to perform a good—to save the mother’s life by removing her cancerous uterus. The evil effect of causing the death of the baby is not desired. It is a very sad and unfortunate result of the good act. (2) The evil effect does not cause the good result. You are removing a diseased organ that is killing the mother, not performing an abortion. The baby will die during or shortly after the operation, but the purpose of the operation is not to kill the child. (3) Two very grave matters must be weighed against each other. Saving one person is better than allowing both to die through inaction, even though it means the death of one.

I hope that helps you better understand the catholic position.

 

[maryj]

My mother was 44 years old when I was born (I am now 45). In her mid term she was diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctors suggested that she start treatment immediately, even though treatment may very well have ended up terminating the pregnancy(that would be me!) My mother and father never once considered starting treatment until I was born safely(did I mention that they also had 10 other children at home). Many a rosary was prayed in those months. I for one am grateful that my parents chose to leave it in God’s hands as apposed to the doctors hands. I was born on St. Josephs day. Remember him, he took the holy family by night and fled into the desert to protect them from death at the hands of King Herod who was having newborn children slaughtered. Yup I’m glad they chose life.

 

[DrPiano]

My mother was 44 years old when I was born (I am now 45). In her mid term she was diagnosed with breast cancer. The doctors suggested that she start treatment immediately, even though treatment may very well have ended up terminating the pregnancy(that would be me!) My mother and father never once considered starting treatment until I was born safely(did I mention that they also had 10 other children at home). Many a rosary was prayed in those months. I for one am grateful that my parents chose to leave it in God’s hands as apposed to the doctors hands. I was born on St. Josephs day. Remember him, he took the holy family by night and fled into the desert to protect them from death at the hands of King Herod who was having newborn children slaughtered. Yup I’m glad they chose life.

I am so happy they chose life too.

 

[ChristianWAB]

I can think of a scarce few acts more morally repugnant than rape, but one of them is MURDER.

Two wrongs have never made a right and they sure as heck don’t make abortion right.