The Right-to-Life doesn't include

[goout]

Cirdan_XII:

is this not the Cane vs Abel argument, I am not my brother’s keeper, and all that.

Of course I am responsible for a death that I am able to avert but chose not to.

Murder does not become less abhorrent because I don’t know the victim, or do but dislike him.

It sure does go back to Cane and Abel and “Am I my brother’s keeper?”, as well as the Parable of the Good Samaritan, as well as the whole “Seamless Garment” or “Consistent Life Ethic” approach to social justice.

I don’t want to derail the thread, since the original topic isn’t about how opposition to abortion fits in within the whole of Catholic social teaching; HOWEVER, it is quite obvious to me that Christian charity calls us to heights beyond black and white obligations.

Isn’t this obvious in the story of the rich man who has kept all the commandment since his youth? And then when Jesus asks something difficult of him (to sell all his possessions to give to the poor) he walks away sad.

So, if we wanted to incorporate the “insights from Revelation” in the analysis of the Violinist Argument, we might ask: Does Jesus expect a different response to the violinist scenario from non-Christians than from his followers?

No.
Christ expects the same response from every human being. Christ expects the fully human response, not the response of intellect separated from human reality.
And when we look at Christ, we see an incarnate human reality, not an idea. In Christianity we do not have the “god of the philosophers” we have the fully human and fully participating Christ.

And what Christ requests of the rich young man is commitment, not mere beautiful ideas and intellectually titillating questions. The rich young man insists on his questions, and Christ confronts him with answers.
“give me your whole life”.
If a proposition looks black and and white, and smells black and white, and quacks black and white, it’s probably black and white. And when you refer to this question pejoratively as “black and white” you ought to consider that “grey” freuquently becomes radical indifference that hurts people.

The seamless garment of life and consistent life ethic only make sense if one understands the L word, and that is Life or Living. Without committing to the full value of human life the rest is only speculation, and Christ is not “he who was speculated”, Christ is the Incarnate Son of God.

 

[godisgood77]

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Well…let’s examine this… Did the woman in question give her consent to having sexual intercourse with a man? If so, she has granted her permission.

Let’s take another situation that is relevant … A man and woman get together and have a baby. They then split up. The woman takes the man to court in order to get child support payments. The man does not want to pay, but the court rightfully forces him to pay.

There is a parallel in these two examples… A woman gets pregnant, and can shirk her responsibility by getting a legal abortion. A man, on the other hand, can not legally shirk his responsibility - thank-goodness.

So maybe ask your friend, their opinion about whether or not it is okay for a baby to live off the fruits of a man’s labor without that man’s consent…

 

[Ana_v]

Christ expects the same response from every human being. Christ expects the fully human response, not the response of intellect separated from human reality.
And when we look at Christ, we see an incarnate human reality, not an idea. In Christianity we do not have the “god of the philosophers” we have the fully human and fully participating Christ.

Yes and no, in regards to your statement about what Christ expects from us. Yes in the sense that that’s what he came for, to restore us to the fully human life, in communion with God and neighbor,.

But no in the sense that Christians are, in fact, held to a higher standard than non Christians.

If you disagree with this, then let me ask you: Does Christ expect non- Catholics to go to Mass every Sunday? Do they have a Mass obligation? If they do then the Church is in trouble for not sharing this expectation with Christ her Bridegroom. The moral commandments are given to the human race. The canon law and the precepts of the Church are for Catholics.

What about the evangelical counsels? Who do they bind all persons in the same way as “thou shalt not murder”?

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The reason I even posed the question about whether Christ expects a different response to the Violinist from the Christian than from the non-Christian, is because on this very thread (if you skim through it again) you will see that people have expressed different views on whether you would be obliged to keep the violinist alive if it meant your body was being used as the means, without your consent.

Would Jesus say, “If you wish to be perfect, remain connected to the Violinist.”

Or would he merely say “You may not murder the Violinist”?

As to your comment about the God of the philosophers…

The difference between ethics and moral theology is Divine Revelation.

The study of ethics, or moral philosophy, proceeds from the use of reason and relies entirely on the authority of reason, without the aid of Revelation.

Moral theology, by contrast, has Divine Revelation as it’s foundation, and proceeds from the use of reason informed by Revelation.

You wouldn’t expect an atheist to take the moral theology approach in analyzing the violinist argument.

You may expect a Christian to do so.

But for the purposes of Christian-Atheist debates, it is better to begin with common ground, which is ethics. That’s why I didn’t bring God into the discussion in my original posts. Because I had been addressing an atheist. Here on CAF, there are Catholics.

 

[Jimbo]

And this is the reason that I avoid pro life arguments. I’m honestly out of my depth with all this. I read a ton, and 'baby = person" seems blindingly obvious to me, but I get easily confused by arguments like these and am really poor at them. I suspect I’d do more harm than good.