H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
who declares it legal or illegal?..The Government?
- Status
H
HickmanJosh
Guest
We must value every sing human life, even thouse who do not value life. Would it not be better to restrain and imprison the practitioner instead of killing him?
Also we need to realize that even if we do imprison or persecute abortion doctors it will not mean the end of abortion but serve to justify the pro-choice notion that pro-lifers are anti-choice. In order for a war to be justified the actions taken must be lasting, simply eliminating an abortion doctor or the whole group will not have lasting positive consequences because in all likelihood abortion would continue with other doctors taking their place.
Conversion is our best weapon of choice. Science, common since are our allies and death is our enemy. If abortion must end we must eliminate not only the laws that legalize it but also the lie that convinces the world it is ok, only when that happens can the unborn truly be safe
Anyways im i may be wrong but simply blowing up the gas chambers wouldn’t have ended the Holocaust it would only serve to delay the inevitable destruction of human lives, even if you killed the doctor about to kill the unborn child what is to stop the woman from going to another doctor?
Only through Love can we fight the evil.
just some thoughts i guess, i didn’t read any other posts except the op. so sorry if i somehow have the same responses or ideas of another poster.
A
Adeodatus
Guest
You’ve basically got it, I think.
See, if the legal government of the United States of America decreed abortion to be murder, and rounded up (even retroactively… that’s a separate argument about jurisprudence but I think that, like in the case of the Nuremberg trials and other such situations, crimes against humanity cannot be shielded by mere legality and so justice can be retroactively applied) all the abortion doctors, nurses, clinic workers, etc. and charged them with premeditated child murder for hire, that would be completely just. And it would be completely just even if the legal government of the USA sentenced them all to death.
However, private citizens have no such power over life and death. Sure, you can protect your home from invaders and whatnot, but you cannot mete out justice to other citizens. That’s vigilantism at best (still a grave felony!), and at worst an act of outright revolution and insurrection. In general, we Catholics are not revolutionaries; we’re counter-revolutionaries actually. Hey, we didn’t even try to overthrow the Romans.
Now, there are conditions under which organized revolution (our country was founded by this, once upon a time) can be justified according to the Just War doctrine. A good 20th Century example is the Spanish Civil War, in which the Nationalists arose to defend the Church from complete extermination by the Reds. However, that was a case in which there was virtually no other practical recourse.
If all Roman Catholics actually voted like Roman Catholics, abortion would be illegal in this country. We have plenty of recourse left. There are enough voting Catholics, especially when you toss in all the pro-life Protestants and others, to overturn abortionism on every level. It is our sin which keeps it going.
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
Yes, which is why we need to make the government make it illegal…
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
In that case than the government shouldn’t have a say in regards to the death penalty…until then it is better to change one’s heart than to enforce rules upon them
V
Vince1022
Guest
Yes, of course.
That does not answer the question I asked you. Can you please try again? Thank you.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Catholics are not scared.
Catholics do not necessarily define an embryo as a human being, rather the teaching is that it is human life. That’s sufficient.
Your negative perceptions of Catholic fears notwithstanding.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Vince,
I am trying to keep our “debate” on a non-personal tone, so please do not take this as some personal attack on you (or anyone else on this forum).
But, I must say:
As someone pointed out earlier, abortion would be illegal in this country if Catholics had voted against candidates or legislation in support of abortion - they didn’t. I submit that under Section 73 of Evangelium Vitae, they “broke their Church’s dogmatic teaching”, and, I contend, Canon law, by supplying the means necessary (votes) to enact legislation that permits abortion to flourish in our country.
Lastly, I simply cannot buy the argument, “well, if we would have bombed Auschwitz, the Nazis would have just killed the Jews at another camp”, or “if we killed or imprisoned one abortionist, the women would just go to another one”.
Using that logic, why defend yourself in a war as we did in Japan? My God - our firebombing of major cities in Japan (NOT EVEN COUNTING THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS) virtually drove Japanese citizens to living in almost caveman-like conditions. YET THEY DID NOT STOP!
As a hypothetical argument, do you REALLY believe it is sound military doctrine to “not bomb one factory” because the enemy is simply going to make the same weapons at another factory? Good grief! You have to start somewhere . . . The US actually had Jews BEGGING us to bomb the concentration camps to stop the Holocaust, but for reasons not yet made public, Roosevelt and Marshall specifically declined to do so. And please don’t say, “well, we would have been killing innocent people by bombing the camps”. Oh really? So it was better that those people were experimented upon and then GASSED TO DEATH as opposed to being killed by a bomb meant to end the experimentation and slaughter at any given camp?
This reminds me of one of the North Vietnamese generals during the Vietnam War who said: “we may lose 1 million for every 1,000 of your men killed; but in the end, you will end the killing of 1,000 of your men sooner than we end the loss of 1 million of our men”.
He was correct: the government simply concluded that our losses, which were relatively light compared to the enemy losses, were no longer “worth it”.
Note: one must keep in mind that we now have 5 Catholics on the US Supreme Court. Don’t think that Scalia’s vote against Roe v. Wade is AGAINST abortion - it was and is not. His vote against it is based on “state’s rights” and “federalism”, that is, a STATE should be deciding such issues - NOT the federal government. So even under Scalia’s view, abortion would still be legal if a state voted to permit it.
P.S. And I often wonder: do people today realize that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al., our “founding fathers”, were considered terrorists and would have been hung had we lost the American Revolution? We consider them heroes, but we won. How long will we allow unborn children’s brains to be sucked out with a vacuum before we say enough is enough? The Founding Fathers said that unfair taxation and an un-representative government were the primary reasons for STARTING A WAR.
Does the murder of millions of unborn children strike anyone here as a little more “important” than taxes and fair representation?
I am trying to keep our “debate” on a non-personal tone, so please do not take this as some personal attack on you (or anyone else on this forum).
But, I must say:
- Do you REALLY believe there is a distinction between “human life” and a “human being”? If so, could you please explain to this “obviously dense” person (ME) the distinction?
- Repeatedly, people continue to bring up a “state’s right to regular criminal behavior” versus vigilante justice. I do NOT condone vigilante justice. I do, however, seek an answer (to which no one has seen fit to answer, for whatever reason) to my earlier remark about it being ENTIRELY LEGAL in Nazi Germany to do what they did to Jews. The laws against the jews began in Nuremberg and were “finalized” at the Wansee Conference. Thus, under German law, the Nazis acted legally.
As someone pointed out earlier, abortion would be illegal in this country if Catholics had voted against candidates or legislation in support of abortion - they didn’t. I submit that under Section 73 of Evangelium Vitae, they “broke their Church’s dogmatic teaching”, and, I contend, Canon law, by supplying the means necessary (votes) to enact legislation that permits abortion to flourish in our country.
Lastly, I simply cannot buy the argument, “well, if we would have bombed Auschwitz, the Nazis would have just killed the Jews at another camp”, or “if we killed or imprisoned one abortionist, the women would just go to another one”.
Using that logic, why defend yourself in a war as we did in Japan? My God - our firebombing of major cities in Japan (NOT EVEN COUNTING THE ATOMIC BOMBINGS) virtually drove Japanese citizens to living in almost caveman-like conditions. YET THEY DID NOT STOP!
As a hypothetical argument, do you REALLY believe it is sound military doctrine to “not bomb one factory” because the enemy is simply going to make the same weapons at another factory? Good grief! You have to start somewhere . . . The US actually had Jews BEGGING us to bomb the concentration camps to stop the Holocaust, but for reasons not yet made public, Roosevelt and Marshall specifically declined to do so. And please don’t say, “well, we would have been killing innocent people by bombing the camps”. Oh really? So it was better that those people were experimented upon and then GASSED TO DEATH as opposed to being killed by a bomb meant to end the experimentation and slaughter at any given camp?
This reminds me of one of the North Vietnamese generals during the Vietnam War who said: “we may lose 1 million for every 1,000 of your men killed; but in the end, you will end the killing of 1,000 of your men sooner than we end the loss of 1 million of our men”.
He was correct: the government simply concluded that our losses, which were relatively light compared to the enemy losses, were no longer “worth it”.
Note: one must keep in mind that we now have 5 Catholics on the US Supreme Court. Don’t think that Scalia’s vote against Roe v. Wade is AGAINST abortion - it was and is not. His vote against it is based on “state’s rights” and “federalism”, that is, a STATE should be deciding such issues - NOT the federal government. So even under Scalia’s view, abortion would still be legal if a state voted to permit it.
P.S. And I often wonder: do people today realize that men such as Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Franklin, et al., our “founding fathers”, were considered terrorists and would have been hung had we lost the American Revolution? We consider them heroes, but we won. How long will we allow unborn children’s brains to be sucked out with a vacuum before we say enough is enough? The Founding Fathers said that unfair taxation and an un-representative government were the primary reasons for STARTING A WAR.
Does the murder of millions of unborn children strike anyone here as a little more “important” than taxes and fair representation?
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Note: someone mentioned earlier that “homicide” is always illegal and that killing someone to protect oneself or another or in a just war is not homicide.
That is not legally correct.
Homicide, by definition, is morally neutral: it is the killing of a human being. No more, no less.
Homicide that is NOT justified is called “murder”, and is thus, illegal.
Homicide that IS justified (outside of the confines of a war environment) is called “justifiable homicide”.
That is not legally correct.
Homicide, by definition, is morally neutral: it is the killing of a human being. No more, no less.
Homicide that is NOT justified is called “murder”, and is thus, illegal.
Homicide that IS justified (outside of the confines of a war environment) is called “justifiable homicide”.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Yes. I think the Catholic Church recognizes this too.
Depends on what you mean by “human being.” The Catholic Church, when teaching on abortion, does not really get into the details about what makes a “human person” or a “human being.” That’s a philosophical question. My point is that the Church does not teach abortion is wrong because a human person is killed, but because innocent human life is destroyed (regardless of whether such human life is considered a human person or not). Pro-abortionists do not consider the embryo (et. al.) a human person; and so, it seems, based on that philosophical understanding (at least in part), are ok with abortion. The Catholic Church does not go so far to teach that, necessarily, an embryo (or blastocyst, etc.) is a human “person” and so, even, perhaps, a human “being.”
The point is, for Catholics, it’s human life. And that’s why abortion is wrong.
Where has anyone brought up the state’s right to regular criminal behavior? Really? Sorry, I really have no idea what that means. The Catholic Church would certainly not recognize any State’s right to criminal behavior (regular or not). Thanks for any clarification.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Depends on whose definition one uses. The 10 commandments seem to indicate homicide is by definition wrong, not morally neutral. Or do you read the 10 commandments to indicate homicide is morally neutral? Thanks.
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Vince,
As in another thread, you pick and choose, especially with posts by me, as to what YOU deem to be debatable. If you don’t like me or what I post, fine - I end the discussion with this post.
I suggest a “just war” and “justifiable homicide” will fall under the same category of “allowances”.
This was specifically raised as an issue, and George W. Bush cited the Catholic position in signing an executive order prohibiting the use of embryonic stem cell research from NEW embryonic stem cells where the embryos had already been destroyed by previous research. He permitted the use of stem cell research on existing, destroyed embryos, but NOT new embryos.
If you could not tell, from the context of my post and the entire paragraph that I inserted a typo of “regular” instead of “regulate”, well, then I guess we all need to stop posting until every word in our posts is 100% correct from grammatic, spelling, and syntax standpoints.
P.S.: 5. The word homicide does not appear in the bible - ANY bible that I have seen. Homicide is a secular word that means killing of a person, and is derived from two latin words “homo” (meaning man) and “cide” (meaning kill).
Thus defined, homicide IS morally and ethically neutral, unless you contend that ALL killing of men, regardless of WHY they were killed or how they were killed, even by accident.
As in another thread, you pick and choose, especially with posts by me, as to what YOU deem to be debatable. If you don’t like me or what I post, fine - I end the discussion with this post.
- As far as the 10 Commandments, biblical archaeologists and theologians now recognize that the prohibition against killing properly reads “You shall not commit murder”. If it was read as an outright prohibition against kill any human being under any circumstances, then mankind would never have a right to defend himself.
I suggest a “just war” and “justifiable homicide” will fall under the same category of “allowances”.
- You talk about a “human person”. Vince, that is redundant. Do you know any NON-human persons? Persons is a synonym for people, and the only people I know of on Earth are human beings. I teach legal writing, and what you are arguing is akin to people referring to their wills as “last will and testament”. That is redundant - a will IS a testament, and vice versa. The same logic applies to “human person”.
- You said: "The Catholic Church does not go so far to teach that, necessarily, an embryo (or blastocyst, etc.) is a human “person” and so, even, perhaps, a human “being.”
This was specifically raised as an issue, and George W. Bush cited the Catholic position in signing an executive order prohibiting the use of embryonic stem cell research from NEW embryonic stem cells where the embryos had already been destroyed by previous research. He permitted the use of stem cell research on existing, destroyed embryos, but NOT new embryos.
- Finally, I apologize for not being 100% accurate in EVERY WORD I TYPE.
If you could not tell, from the context of my post and the entire paragraph that I inserted a typo of “regular” instead of “regulate”, well, then I guess we all need to stop posting until every word in our posts is 100% correct from grammatic, spelling, and syntax standpoints.
P.S.: 5. The word homicide does not appear in the bible - ANY bible that I have seen. Homicide is a secular word that means killing of a person, and is derived from two latin words “homo” (meaning man) and “cide” (meaning kill).
Thus defined, homicide IS morally and ethically neutral, unless you contend that ALL killing of men, regardless of WHY they were killed or how they were killed, even by accident.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Thanks. Ok, so biblical archaeologists and theologians (some) define it that way. Ok, so does that mean all Catholics are bound to define it that way? No.
I am not familiar with the training and guidance of Swiss Papal Guards. Care to share any reference to support your claim? I’m just interested in learning more about what the Church teaches, and would like to know what the Church teaches the Swiss Papal Guards. It would be helpful and instructive. Thank you.
Ok, no problem. But does the Catholic Church consider the two “under the same category?” I don’t think so…but if you could clarify that would help.
No it’s not redundant. The Church teaches certain things based on the “human person” and certain things based on “human life” (regardless of the philosophical distinction of what constitutes “personhood” or when “personhood” exists).
Abortion is wrong because it destroys innocent human life. Whether or not such lhuman life is a “person” is beside the point.
When teaching on abortion, the Church does not teach a difference between a human person and a human being. Not sure where you got that idea, but anyway…If you are going to really take the position that the Church teaches, on the issue of abortion, a difference between a “human being” and a “person”, then please elaborate, as I am dying to hear THAT distinction . . .
The Church teaches against abortion because it destroys an innocent human life. The Church does not require that anyone agree that such human life is a person, or whatever. Such may or may not be true, the moral teaching of the Church does not require agreement on that.
Ok, then please share official Catholic Church teaching to support your claim. I said that human life begins from conception, regardless of whether one considers such life a “person.” I completely agree with the Catholic Church teaching on abortion. Again, if I am wrong, please correct me. Thank you.
V
Vince1022
Guest
I disagree that the killing of a person is morally neutral.
Do you think the Catholic Church teaches this? Where?
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Vince,
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you keep referring to with almost every answer to my assertions, states in just ONE paragraph (there are many, many more):
“1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.”
It should be clear to ANYONE reading the above section that “human being” and “human person” are interchangeable, that is, THEY MEAN AND REFER TO THE SAME THING.
As I have argued and shown YOU a clear example of where the Church thinks of the wording as synonymous, I respectfully request that YOU show ME where I am wrong and you are correct in that a “human being” and a “human person” are NOT the same thing under Catholic teaching/theology.
Vince, are you going to tell me that I acted immorally if I shot at a deer, missed the deer, and without realizing it, the bullet continued to travel and hit a man further down in the woods? Are you going to tell me that, as I work at a construction site, throwing bricks, concrete, and other trash from an upper floor, down a shoot designed to funnel trash into a bin, that I acted immorally if some idiot happens along, disregards the signs that tell bystanders to keep away, and decides to look up into the shoot as a huge piece of concrete strikes his head and kills him?
How can I have acted immorally when I had NO desire to kill anyone and did not even know I HAD killed anyone?
Vince - this is basic philosophy/theology/ethics. If you are going to argue with me about something so basic, I respectfully decline as I don’t have the time or inclination to discuss something that is taught at a high school level and certainly at a freshman level in college.
I have given my “proof”. If you disagree, I respectfully request that you submit YOUR “church teaching” that states that ALL killing of human beings, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES, is wrong. If you cannot prove your contention, then you must, by default, acknowledge that the statement “killing of a human being, in a vacuum, is morally neutral - one needs more information to determine whether the killing was justified”, is a correct statement.
I assure you that if one reads that commandment as you do (killing is wrong - period), without qualification, then we are breaking God’s commandments everytime we cook an egg (we killed an unborn chicken, assuming it was a fertizied egg), step on a roach, pick vegetables, etc.
Nothing in that commandment says that it applies to only men, and nothing in that commandment says that there are any exceptions (according to you).
I think I have done a respectable job showing that reading that commandment is a prohibition against killing anything and anyone leads to absolutely absurd results.
I think the burden is now on YOU to show me where I am wrong.
cont’d next post
- You said in response to my assertion that “human being” and “human person” are the same thing under Catholic teaching:
The Catechism of the Catholic Church, which you keep referring to with almost every answer to my assertions, states in just ONE paragraph (there are many, many more):
“1700 The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God (article 1); it is fulfilled in his vocation to divine beatitude (article 2). It is essential to a human being freely to direct himself to this fulfillment (article 3). By his deliberate actions (article 4), the human person does, or does not, conform to the good promised by God and attested by moral conscience (article 5). Human beings make their own contribution to their interior growth; they make their whole sentient and spiritual lives into means of this growth (article 6). With the help of grace they grow in virtue (article 7), avoid sin, and if they sin they entrust themselves as did the prodigal son1 to the mercy of our Father in heaven (article 8). In this way they attain to the perfection of charity.”
It should be clear to ANYONE reading the above section that “human being” and “human person” are interchangeable, that is, THEY MEAN AND REFER TO THE SAME THING.
As I have argued and shown YOU a clear example of where the Church thinks of the wording as synonymous, I respectfully request that YOU show ME where I am wrong and you are correct in that a “human being” and a “human person” are NOT the same thing under Catholic teaching/theology.
- You said: “I disagree that the killing of a person is morally neutral. Do you think the Catholic Church teaches this? Where?”
Vince, are you going to tell me that I acted immorally if I shot at a deer, missed the deer, and without realizing it, the bullet continued to travel and hit a man further down in the woods? Are you going to tell me that, as I work at a construction site, throwing bricks, concrete, and other trash from an upper floor, down a shoot designed to funnel trash into a bin, that I acted immorally if some idiot happens along, disregards the signs that tell bystanders to keep away, and decides to look up into the shoot as a huge piece of concrete strikes his head and kills him?
How can I have acted immorally when I had NO desire to kill anyone and did not even know I HAD killed anyone?
Vince - this is basic philosophy/theology/ethics. If you are going to argue with me about something so basic, I respectfully decline as I don’t have the time or inclination to discuss something that is taught at a high school level and certainly at a freshman level in college.
I have given my “proof”. If you disagree, I respectfully request that you submit YOUR “church teaching” that states that ALL killing of human beings, REGARDLESS OF CIRCUMSTANCES, is wrong. If you cannot prove your contention, then you must, by default, acknowledge that the statement “killing of a human being, in a vacuum, is morally neutral - one needs more information to determine whether the killing was justified”, is a correct statement.
- You said regarding my statement about the commandment meaning “murder” rather than simply “kill”: “Ok, so biblical archaeologists and theologians (some) define it that way. Ok, so does that mean all Catholics are bound to define it that way? No.”
I assure you that if one reads that commandment as you do (killing is wrong - period), without qualification, then we are breaking God’s commandments everytime we cook an egg (we killed an unborn chicken, assuming it was a fertizied egg), step on a roach, pick vegetables, etc.
Nothing in that commandment says that it applies to only men, and nothing in that commandment says that there are any exceptions (according to you).
I think I have done a respectable job showing that reading that commandment is a prohibition against killing anything and anyone leads to absolutely absurd results.
I think the burden is now on YOU to show me where I am wrong.
cont’d next post
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Vince,
The following is their oath of office (translated from German, the language usually used by most Guards): “I vow to faithfully, honestly and honorably serve the reigning Pope [name of Pope] and his legitimate successors, and to dedicate myself to them with all my strength, ready to sacrifice, should it become necessary, even my own life for them. I likewise assume this promise toward the members of the Sacred College of Cardinals during the period of the Sede Vacante of the Apostolic See. Furthermore, I pledge to the Commandant and to my other superiors respect, fidelity, and obedience. I swear to abide by all the requirements attendant to the dignity of my rank.”
Again, considering they were armed with swords and sicles, I respectfully request that YOU give YOUR proof that, with the above oath and with history as support, show ME that killing invaders to protect the Holy Father, if that killing is necessary, would be sinful . . . good luck.
DECLARATION ON THE PRODUCTION AND THE SCIENTIFIC AND THERAPEUTIC USE
OF HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS”, you will see (if you read it), that my statement was correct.
Vince, I respectfully submit that if you would bother to even conduct a basic search on these issues, instead of telling me “you are wrong - show me where the Church says you are right”, you would not need to post anything in response to what I have said . . .
I responded to all of your questions/statements, even though I said I was finished.
I am finished NOW . . . I don’t think this is a classroom. I am not a professor. And I am not going to do someone’s “homework” for them simply because they jump up and say “you are wrong - prove to me you are correct”.
If YOU think what I have stated is wrong, then YOU supply the proof for a change, instead of the other way around (which I have been doing since the beginning)
- You said regarding my comments about the Swiss Papal Guards: “I am not familiar with the training and guidance of Swiss Papal Guards. Care to share any reference to support your claim? I’m just interested in learning more about what the Church teaches, and would like to know what the Church teaches the Swiss Papal Guards. It would be helpful and instructive.”
The following is their oath of office (translated from German, the language usually used by most Guards): “I vow to faithfully, honestly and honorably serve the reigning Pope [name of Pope] and his legitimate successors, and to dedicate myself to them with all my strength, ready to sacrifice, should it become necessary, even my own life for them. I likewise assume this promise toward the members of the Sacred College of Cardinals during the period of the Sede Vacante of the Apostolic See. Furthermore, I pledge to the Commandant and to my other superiors respect, fidelity, and obedience. I swear to abide by all the requirements attendant to the dignity of my rank.”
Again, considering they were armed with swords and sicles, I respectfully request that YOU give YOUR proof that, with the above oath and with history as support, show ME that killing invaders to protect the Holy Father, if that killing is necessary, would be sinful . . . good luck.
- Vince, you said my statement on the Church’s teaching on embryonic stem cell research was wrong, and you said: " Ok, then please share official Catholic Church teaching to support your claim. I said that human life begins from conception, regardless of whether one considers such life a “person.” I completely agree with the Catholic Church teaching on abortion. Again, if I am wrong, please correct me."
DECLARATION ON THE PRODUCTION AND THE SCIENTIFIC AND THERAPEUTIC USE
OF HUMAN EMBRYONIC STEM CELLS”, you will see (if you read it), that my statement was correct.
Vince, I respectfully submit that if you would bother to even conduct a basic search on these issues, instead of telling me “you are wrong - show me where the Church says you are right”, you would not need to post anything in response to what I have said . . .
I responded to all of your questions/statements, even though I said I was finished.
I am finished NOW . . . I don’t think this is a classroom. I am not a professor. And I am not going to do someone’s “homework” for them simply because they jump up and say “you are wrong - prove to me you are correct”.
If YOU think what I have stated is wrong, then YOU supply the proof for a change, instead of the other way around (which I have been doing since the beginning)
S
Salvatore123
Guest
Vince - I may be many things (good and bad, which I readily and humbly acknolwedge). “Idiot” is not one of them . . .
V
Vince1022
Guest
Ok, perhaps, but regarding abortion, the ultimate criterion is human life. Not human being or person.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Yes, of course. I agree. But I still don’t see where the Catholic Church teaches that killing a person is morally neutral. Can you clarify?
In the (extreme) hypothetical act you proposed, well, ok, you may not be acting immorally, personally, but I fail to see how that means killing a person is morally neutral. Killing an innocent person is intrinsically wrong, isn’t it? Thank you.
V
Vince1022
Guest
Well, one easy example is abortion. Many people perform or cooperate with abortion without the desire to kill anyone and without the personal knowledge that they killed anyone.
Regardless, the Catholic Church defines abortion as a mortal sin.
- Status