Unjust war vs abortion

[PilgrimToChrist]

War is doing something evil in hopes that something good will come out of it -
Which is how you described abortion …

Only if you assert that killing a person is intrinsically evil, it’s not. There are justifiable reasons to kill someone. But under no circumstances can you intentionally and directly kill a person you know to be innocent – that’s murder and murder is never justifiable.

Killing bad people (if you have the authority to do so) is not evil, it can be good because it a way of stopping them from committing more evil – it benefits the common good.

Summa:

Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good, since “a little leaven corrupteth the whole lump” (1 Corinthians 5:6).

God’s Law involves putting to death people guilty of certain crimes. Now, in individual cases, the court or other authority may have mercy on an person and stay their execution or choose life in prison (with or without the possibility of parole) instead. But the person still has committed a crime worthy of death.

If war is always evil, then God is evil, who commanded the Israelites to wage war against various nations.

 

[CollegeStinks]

Cathoichelp I suggest brushing up on your knowledge of the Catechism and militaristic foreign policy for that matter. It appears you haven’t a clue regarding war operations or basic military strategy.

I don’t know if you read this when it was first presented to you but:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

The answers are all in there.

And may I point out that in a just war, innocent causalities are not something we look past. They are regretted and mourned.

And something very important from 2309 that nobody here has yet mentioned:

“The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

So by having a political or personal opinion that any current war is unjust simply because you do not see it fitting the three main criteria, does not mean absolutely that the war is unjust. There is no lay person in this country that knows fully what is going on over there, what our true intentions in the conflict are, and what prior attempts at resolving the conflict our government leaders may have taken. You simply do not know, nor do I. And I don’t want to hear any political garbage about oil or about freedom, from either side. Reading the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal does not mean you know with certainty. The point is that the Catechism makes it clear that it is for our military and government leaders to decide whether or not the prospect of war is justified. Not you (unless you hold such a position).

Contrastingly it is clear in the Catechism that abortion is ALWAYS wrong. There is no room to debate this without dissenting from Church teaching. Furthermore, I question why you would even bother trying to argue against this. Is this purely political for you? Or are you yourself a struggling teen or parent faced with an impending pregnancy? If so there are various places I could direct you to try to help you out my friend.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Thank you very much my friend. So my question is, If this procedure is to remove the misscarried fetus for the heath of the mother, then what would be the difference in having an abortion to protect the life of the mother. Maybe Im not wording this correctly. Before anyone goes crazy on me, Im not siding on the side of prochoice. Im just trying to get some things figured out. Peace

What’s the difference between burying your husband who has died and murdering him and burying him in your backyard?

 

[benidict]

What’s the difference between burying your husband who has died and murdering him and burying him in your backyard?

Its not the same. Let me put it this way. Any Catholic husbands out there, want to state for the record that if it came down to it, you would let your wife die, instead of allowing an abortion that would save her life? Just so its not a hypothetical. Anyone want to claim to have made THIS decision. What if the wife wanted the procedure so she did not die? Is she guilty of a great evil for wanting to save her life? On a personal level, I think there are alot of grey areas. Slam me if you want. I know women who have had this procedure, and have heard what suffering follows. Some women do not have a solid grasp of what the procedure entails and therefore honestly do not think they are taking a life. So no, we cant always say its murder. Sometimes it due to ignorance.

 

[cathoichelp]

Courts decide intent all the time. If I point a loaded gun at someone at pull the trigger, it is clearly my intent to severely injure or kill the individual – even if I miss. When someone intentionally takes an abortifacient drug or pays someone to slice her baby up into bits or throws herself down a flight of stairs in order to miscarry, the intent is clear – the intent is to kill the child. Now, a child may actually survive some forms of abortion and be born alive (hence, the Born-Alive Infants Protection Act in the US, which states that if an abortion fails and the child is born alive, you cannot then kill the child after it is outside of the mother) but the intent is still to kill the child, just as I could fire a gun at someone and miss or only give them a flesh wound.

You are talking about people’s justifications for an act, not the act itself. If I murder my husband in order to cash out his life insurance policy, you could say that I am just trying to provide a better life for myself and my children. But the courts won’t be terribly sympathetic. Certain acts, such as the directly intended killing of an person known to be innocent, have no justifiable cause.

The purpose of bombs is to take out military targets. To target civilians is a war crime. Civilians may unfortunately be collateral damage but that doesn’t mean that their death is intended. The intention is to take out military targets and this must be done in a way that is proportionate. For instance, nuclear bombs should only be used in very rare circumstances or never, since the likelihood of massive numbers of civilian deaths is very high. But if we are only talking about conventional bombs, they are used quite necessarily, to take out military bases, tanks, trains, airports, etc. – military targets. Your assertion that nations routinely bomb elementary schools because pilots and their commanders just love blowing up little children is contrary to reality and quite offensive. That’s what terrorists do. What we do is kill terrorists.

And the intent of some abortions is to save the life of the mother not kill someone -
You can tell me all day long you know someone’s intent that does not make it so

As for court intent is one of the HARDEST things to prove lol … Because proving someones intent is always an assumption you know what they were thinking.
Yes you can call a murder first degree based on x y and z - but that is not the same thing as proving intent in most cases …
Self defense is hard to prove for example -
Very few women who have had to have an abortion early in pregnancy due to medical issues would tell you they wanted to or intended to murder their unborn child. This is the most insensitive argument I have heard in a long time.
Imagine knowing you will die and the child will die anyway and being faced w that choice while having other children? They mourn the loss of that child… Its a horrible thing to go through. It is not intentional murder by any means.

 

[cathoichelp]

Cathoichelp I suggest brushing up on your knowledge of the Catechism and militaristic foreign policy for that matter. It appears you haven’t a clue regarding war operations or basic military strategy.

I don’t know if you read this when it was first presented to you but:

usccb.org/catechism/text/pt3sect2chpt2art5.shtml

The answers are all in there.

And may I point out that in a just war, innocent causalities are not something we look past. They are regretted and mourned.

And something very important from 2309 that nobody here has yet mentioned:

“The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good.”

So by having a political or personal opinion that any current war is unjust simply because you do not see it fitting the three main criteria, does not mean absolutely that the war is unjust. There is no lay person in this country that knows fully what is going on over there, what our true intentions in the conflict are, and what prior attempts at resolving the conflict our government leaders may have taken. You simply do not know, nor do I. And I don’t want to hear any political garbage about oil or about freedom, from either side. Reading the New York Times or the Wall Street Journal does not mean you know with certainty. The point is that the Catechism makes it clear that it is for our military and government leaders to decide whether or not the prospect of war is justified. Not you (unless you hold such a position).

Contrastingly it is clear in the Catechism that abortion is ALWAYS wrong. There is no room to debate this without dissenting from Church teaching. Furthermore, I question why you would even bother trying to argue against this. Is this purely political for you? Or are you yourself a struggling teen or parent faced with an impending pregnancy? If so there are various places I could direct you to try to help you out my friend.

Thanks for all the info! I have read it. I am not misunderstanding it - I am saying it doesn’t make much sense. It is inconsistent.

 

[davidv]

Thanks for all the info! I have read it. I am not misunderstanding it - I am saying it doesn’t make much sense. It is inconsistent.

I would say the it your misunderstanding the causes you to think it is inconsistent.

It takes three factors to determine the morality of an action.

1. The action itself, called the object.
2. The intent of the actor
3. The circumstances

If the object is immoral, like abortion, moral intent and circumstances cannot make it a moral action.

If the object is moral or amoral, immoral intentions make the action immoral.

Another thing that makes the comparison nearly impossible is that war is not a single act, and as such it is difficult to judge it as a whole.

 

[cathoichelp]

I would say the it your misunderstanding the causes you to think it is inconsistent.

It takes three factors to determine the morality of an action.

1. The action itself, called the object.
2. The intent of the actor
3. The circumstances

If the object is immoral, like abortion, moral intent and circumstances cannot make it a moral action.

If the object is moral or amoral, immoral intentions make the action immoral.

Another thing that makes the comparison nearly impossible is that war is not a single act, and as such it is difficult to judge it as a whole.

murder itself is immoral … therefore war falls into the same boat

the deifnition of war is an openly declared state of armed hostile conflict between nations or persons of a nation -
I’d say hostile and armed conflict pretty much sum up the truth of war which is a justifaction of murder in order to farther a cause -

 

[cathoichelp]

and farther more …
if the “action itself” is also a medical procedure to save a life the ACTION itself is NOT murder its life saving … the RESULT is termination of the fetus.
But the action being taken is to save a life not take a life …
So its a little hazy there in the middle…


It’s just like war the actual goal of war is to stop something bad from happening … in the process we are fully aware there will be lives lost -
But the action is intended to SAVE

In medical abortion the action itself is to save the mother -
The result is loss of the fetus -

same thing …

 

[benidict]

and farther more …
if the “action itself” is also a medical procedure to save a life the ACTION itself is NOT murder its life saving … the RESULT is termination of the fetus.
But the action being taken is to save a life not take a life …
So its a little hazy there in the middle…


It’s just like war the actual goal of war is to stop something bad from happening … in the process we are fully aware there will be lives lost -
But the action is intended to SAVE

In medical abortion the action itself is to save the mother -
The result is loss of the fetus -

same thing …

As a soldier, I agree with this thinking 100%. And personally, I would not stand in the way of a woman attempting to save her life by procuring an abortion that would save her life. It is the exact same principle. I agree. And I think both you, and I dont like it, but recognize the neccessity of both.

 

[davidv]

murder itself is immoral … therefore war falls into the same boat

the deifnition of war is an openly declared state of armed hostile conflict between nations or persons of a nation -
I’d say hostile and armed conflict pretty much sum up the truth of war which is a justifaction of murder in order to farther a cause -

Why does war=murder?

 

[davidv]

As a soldier, I agree with this thinking 100%. And personally, I would not stand in the way of a woman attempting to save her life by procuring an abortion that would save her life. It is the exact same principle. I agree. And I think both you, and I dont like it, but recognize the neccessity of both.

Whether you stand in the way or not doesn’t change the gravely immoral act of abortion into anything acceptable.

 

[davidv]

and farther more …
if the “action itself” is also a medical procedure to save a life the ACTION itself is NOT murder its life saving … the RESULT is termination of the fetus.
But the action being taken is to save a life not take a life …
So its a little hazy there in the middle…


It’s just like war the actual goal of war is to stop something bad from happening … in the process we are fully aware there will be lives lost -
But the action is intended to SAVE

In medical abortion the action itself is to save the mother -
The result is loss of the fetus -

same thing …

Killing the child in the womb isn’t saving a life, it is murder.

 

[cathoichelp]

Killing the child in the womb isn’t saving a life, it is murder.

and whether you admit you don’t know the intent of every women having a medical procedure to save her life while at the same time losing a child and dealing with immense pain and loss and heartache doesn’t mean her intent was murder … You are not in fact God - only a woman going through this and God know her true intent -
But if you would like to say you know everyone else’s intent carry on…
if you would like to assume that every single person who has an abortion has the SAME intent because it makes you more comfortable that’s ok with me.

That is what war is … war is using arms (weapons) and force - to fighting against other human beings.
War always involves death
(unless its like Americas war on drugs cancer ect lol -)
otherwise when we go to war we are well aware people will die… and although innocent people are not the TARGET - we do it knowing this will happen because its the nature of war … we know full well when we go to war that there is no way to prevent the loss of innocent lives.
But the intent of war (hopefully) is to bring something good or get rid of something or someone hurting people -

 

[davidv]

and whether you admit you don’t know the intent of every women having a medical procedure to save her life while at the same time losing a child and dealing with immense pain and loss and heartache doesn’t mean her intent was murder … You are not in fact God - only a woman going through this and God know her true intent -
But if you would like to say you know everyone else’s intent carry on…
if you would like to assume that every single person who has an abortion has the SAME intent because it makes you more comfortable that’s ok with me.

That is what war is … war is using arms (weapons) and force - to fighting against other human beings.
War always involves death
(unless its like Americas war on drugs cancer ect lol -)
otherwise when we go to war we are well aware people will die… and although innocent people are not the TARGET - we do it knowing this will happen because its the nature of war … we know full well when we go to war that there is no way to prevent the loss of innocent lives.
But the intent of war (hopefully) is to bring something good or get rid of something or someone hurting people -

See post #66 for the criteria to determine morality of an act.

Directly killing the baby is always and everywhere immoral. It does’t matter what anyones intent for doing so is. So, I don’t need to know the woman’s intent. It doesn’t matter. I don’t have to be God to judge the morality of an action. I can use the criteria the Church has given me and the reasoning power that God has given me to draw a logical conclusion. And, it not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of truth.

What war is going on in the womb? The baby is not an enemy. Your equating pregnacy to war is highly irrational. They, pregnancy and war, are not even close to being similar.

Thank you highlighting the key difference - the target.
In abortion the target is the innocent, defenseless baby.
In war it is the enemy combatants.

 

[cathoichelp]

See post #66 for the criteria to determine morality of an act.

Directly killing the baby is always and everywhere immoral. It does’t matter what anyones intent for doing so is. So, I don’t need to know the woman’s intent. It doesn’t matter. I don’t have to be God to judge the morality of an action. I can use the criteria the Church has given me and the reasoning power that God has given me to draw a logical conclusion. And, it not a matter of comfort, it is a matter of truth.

What war is going on in the womb? The baby is not an enemy. Your equating pregnacy to war is highly irrational. They, pregnancy and war, are not even close to being similar.

Thank you highlighting the key difference - the target.
In abortion the target is the innocent, defenseless baby.
In war it is the enemy combatants.

there is no “target” in ending a pregnancy to save a mother’s life. It is not a matter of killing a baby it is a matter of saving a womens life.
in the same way the church allows a pregnancy outside the womb to be terminated … its not even considered termination - the loss of the fetus is considered secondary to the act itself which is to keep her tube from bursting … when the baby would be lost anyway
you see the church already allows “just” abortion they just don’t call it that …

It’s called the principal of double effect and this is what is used to allow a women to have surgery if she has a pregnancy outside her womb -

* the nature of the act is itself good, or at least morally neutral;
* the agent intends the good effect and not the bad either as a means to the good or as an end itself;
* the good effect outweighs the bad effect in circumstances sufficiently grave to justify causing the bad effect and the agent exercises due diligence to minimize the harm. (Double-Effect Reasoning: Doing Good and Avoiding Evil, p.36, Oxford: Clarendon Press, T. A. Cavanaugh)

So there you have it just abortion.

 

[cathoichelp]

I would assume the church does not want to call it just abortion because they don’t want to open the door to justifying abortion in other cases …
It’s a loaded topic when it comes to abortion …

but terminating a pregnancy in the tubes… and terminating a pregnancy due to serve hypertension where the mother is in threat of dying … is not any different.
The act is life saving -

As for war I didn’t say war and abortion are the same… I said the natural are similar in regards to knowingly entering into something where the loss of life is evident in order to protect a greater good.

 

[meltzerboy]

Its not the same. Let me put it this way. Any Catholic husbands out there, want to state for the record that if it came down to it, you would let your wife die, instead of allowing an abortion that would save her life? Just so its not a hypothetical. Anyone want to claim to have made THIS decision. What if the wife wanted the procedure so she did not die? Is she guilty of a great evil for wanting to save her life? On a personal level, I think there are alot of grey areas. Slam me if you want. I know women who have had this procedure, and have heard what suffering follows. Some women do not have a solid grasp of what the procedure entails and therefore honestly do not think they are taking a life. So no, we cant always say its murder. Sometimes it due to ignorance.

I mentioned this on another thread based on what I read, namely that it is Catholic teaching that if there is a choice between saving the mother’s life by aborting the unborn child, the unborn child takes precedence because they are not baptized and their soul would go to limbo, while the mother’s soul may be saved. In Orthodox Judaism, the terrible decision is in favor of saving the mother’s life.

 

[cathoichelp]

I mentioned this on another thread based on what I read, namely that it is Catholic teaching that if there is a choice between saving the mother’s life by aborting the unborn child, the unborn child takes precedence because they are not baptized and their soul would go to limbo, while the mother’s soul may be saved. In Orthodox Judaism, the terrible decision is in favor of saving the mother’s life.

This is correct.

however, in an abortion for medical reasons to save a mother’s life the unborn child AND mother will both die.
The fetus is too young to live outside the womb. So when the mother dies that baby also dies and it is no different… The unborn ends up in the same place according to that teaching.

There are very very few cases where a child could survive and the mother would die and there would even be that choice…
If the baby is old enough to deliver it is not an abortion - it’s usually done by c-section-
The only case i can even think of where the choice would be between saving the mother and saving the baby is if the women had pre-eclampsia and chose to continue the pregnancy longer to give the baby time to mature - had a stroke - the baby was delivered and survived.

Otherwise these procedures are usually done in the first trimester and there is no way the mother or baby would live.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

Its not the same. Let me put it this way. Any Catholic husbands out there, want to state for the record that if it came down to it, you would let your wife die, instead of allowing an abortion that would save her life? Just so its not a hypothetical. Anyone want to claim to have made THIS decision. What if the wife wanted the procedure so she did not die? Is she guilty of a great evil for wanting to save her life? On a personal level, I think there are alot of grey areas. Slam me if you want.

Intentional and direct murder of a person who is known to be innocent is always a serious crime, there are no circumstances which can make it a licit act. Abortion is the intentional and direct murder of an innocent person, thus it can never be licit.

I know women who have had this procedure, and have heard what suffering follows.

So why would you want women to suffer by legalizing the murder of their children?

Some women do not have a solid grasp of what the procedure entails and therefore honestly do not think they are taking a life. So no, we cant always say its murder. Sometimes it due to ignorance.

If a person does not have the use of reason (such as a mentally disabled woman or a young child who isn’t told what is going on), they know what abortion does, they cannot claim ignorance. They may try to construct twisted logic that a human being is not really a human being, that some people are “sub-human” (or untermensch) and that their murder isn’t “really” murder, but this self-deception is not logical and thus doesn’t excuse the act.