Unjust war vs abortion

[cathoichelp]

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.

I don’t think any woman who has to end a pregnancy because she will otherwise die - and her unborn child will die with her - has a disregard for human life… I don’t think most woman in this situation feel that the life inside her is not a life or not her child.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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

So you’re saying the abortion is an accident? We’re not talking about a case in which the child unfortunately dies in an emergency surgery or something. We’re talking about cases in which the child is directly and intentionally murdered.

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.

Are you talking about unintentional miscarriages? Obviously, if someone suffers miscarriage, then the fault is on the side of nature and nobody intended the death of the child.

But if you are talking about women who take drugs which are intended to kill their children, then how can you say they didn’t want to kill their children? Were the drugs part of a mix-up, did she not intend to take the pills? Did she not know that the drugs were designed to kill her child and instead think they were for something else?

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.

Just because someone feels sorry about what they have done later doesn’t make it okay. Indeed, if they truly feel sorry, they would regret their action, which means they wish they would have made a different choice.

Natural death is one thing, no one can be blamed for that. But murder is something quite different.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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

No, in an abortion the action itself is the murder of a child. This murder may be done for any number of reason – none of which make the murder okay because murder is intrinsically disordered, it is intrinsically evil.

If someone undergoes lifesaving surgery, the intent is to save a life. In abortion, the intent is to end a life. They are opposites.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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.

You are confusing the intent of an act with an attempted justification.

To use the example, I used before, I could point a gun at my husband and shoot him in the head. My intent is to murder him. My attempted justification is to cash in on his life insurance policy.

But you are saying that I can point a gun at my husband, shoot him in the head so that he dies and I can cash out his life insurance policy, all the while saying that my intention was not really to kill him but to get a million dollars and thus I cannot be guilty of murder because his death was just a tragic necessity in order to cash out his life insurance?

You are clouding your logic with emotion.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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.

That is an indirect act in which surgery is done on a woman to save her life. As a secondary and undesirable consequence, the child dies. This is the same as the example I gave of a woman who gets into a bad car accident and undergoes surgery, during which the baby unfortunately might die.

This is very different from intentionally and directly murdering a child out of a belief that the mother’s health might improve as a result.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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 -

You cannot directly terminate a pregnancy (i.e. murder a child) which has implanted in the tube. What you can do is remove the actual problem – the burst tube. The child is not the problem, the tube is.

 

[cathoichelp]

So you’re saying the abortion is an accident? We’re not talking about a case in which the child unfortunately dies in an emergency surgery or something. We’re talking about cases in which the child is directly and intentionally murdered.

Are you talking about unintentional miscarriages? Obviously, if someone suffers miscarriage, then the fault is on the side of nature and nobody intended the death of the child.

But if you are talking about women who take drugs which are intended to kill their children, then how can you say they didn’t want to kill their children? Were the drugs part of a mix-up, did she not intend to take the pills? Did she not know that the drugs were designed to kill her child and instead think they were for something else?

Just because someone feels sorry about what they have done later doesn’t make it okay. Indeed, if they truly feel sorry, they would regret their action, which means they wish they would have made a different choice.

Natural death is one thing, no one can be blamed for that. But murder is something quite different.

So you believe if a women will die and her unborn child will also die and she has a medical procedure to end the pregnancy to save her own life - and protect her other children… then she has committed murder?
Because if you believe that how can you not believe if we drop a bomb in order to take out a bad person or cripple an enemy causing harm -knowing other people who are innocent of wrong doing will also die … that is not murder… but justified given the circumstances?

 

[cathoichelp]

You cannot directly terminate a pregnancy (i.e. murder a child) which has implanted in the tube. What you can do is remove the actual problem – the burst tube. The child is not the problem, the tube is.

this is just using different words to justify abortion …
If you remove the place where the baby is … you kill the baby- The only way to not kill the baby would be to leave it there and let nature take it course - thus the mother and child dying …

A case where a women can’t carry the pregnancy due a heart condition where she is going to stroke and die - its a different procedure but it seeks the same result -
there is no difference -

The tube is not the problem - without the baby there the tube was fine… the tube is at risk because of pregnancy …
The pregnancy is still the problem…

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

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

So the woman knows that she is murdering her child thinks that murder is sometimes justifiable? Well, in case there is confusion, logic tells us the answer – murder is never justifiable.

 

[cathoichelp]

You cannot directly terminate a pregnancy (i.e. murder a child) which has implanted in the tube. What you can do is remove the actual problem – the burst tube. The child is not the problem, the tube is.

right but you can indirectly end a pregnancy through a loop hole NOT call it abortion and its fine …
ok same thing … different name -


in both cases… be it high blood pressure or pregnancy in the tube according to abortion always being murder the mother and child should just die. period. whether you remove the tube w the embryo in it - or just remove the embryo YOU have taken the life of that embryo not God …
its an unnatural end of pregnancy - it’s murder either way

 

[cathoichelp]

So the woman knows that she is murdering her child thinks that murder is sometimes justifiable? Well, in case there is confusion, logic tells us the answer – murder is never justifiable.

I am fine with that
Then neither is war

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

So you believe if a women will die and her unborn child will also die and she has a medical procedure to end the pregnancy to save her own life - and protect her other children… then she has committed murder?

How would you define “murder”?

I defined it earlier as the intentional and direct killing of a person known to be innocent. In what way then, utilizing that definition, is abortion not murder?

In abortion, is the child’s death unintentional? Is it an accident?
In abortion, is the child’s death not direct? Is it the unfortunate side-effect of some good act?
In abortion, is the child not known to be innocent? Is he or she a murderer or a serial rapist, have they committed treason or some other capital crime? Is the mother an agent of the State, given authority to execute criminals?

There is clearly no way in which abortion is not murder.

You are just claiming that murder is sometimes justifiable. It is not.

Or else you are using some other definition of “murder”. How do you define the word?

 

[cathoichelp]

How would you define “murder”?

I defined it earlier as the intentional and direct killing of a person known to be innocent. In what way then, utilizing that definition, is abortion not murder?

Is abortion not intentional? Is it an accident?
Is abortion not direct killing? Is the death a side-effect?
Is abortion not the killing of an innocent person? Is the child guilty of some capital crime?

There is clearly no way in which abortion is not murder.

You are just claiming that murder is sometimes justifiable. It is not.

Or else you are using some other definition of “murder”. How do you define the word?

I am not claiming abortion is not murder (or the opposite) I am sorry you misunderstood me.
I should be more clear. I was not making a statement in favor or abortion or in favor of war or in opposition of either -
that was not the question

The question at hand was how is there just war and not just abortion

If the intent of an abortion is to save the life of the mother not to murder the unborn child … that is no different than going to war and murdering innocent people in order to save others or protect a greater good.

We go to war to save lives and take lives in the process. This is justified based on a greater good.
If a doctor ends a pregnancy where the mother would otherwise die and the baby would also die with her that is not having the intent to murder someone that is having he intent to SAVE someone- lets say a women who already has a child or children at home
The women in this case is doing something selfless - she does not want to do this … she wants to cling to this pregnancy she wants to protect the unborn - but there is no hope of a positive outcome.
she knows she and the unborn will die - both lives will be lost and her other children will now be left motherless.
That is not her murdering her unborn. That is her having to save her own life and protect her family. The result of the medical procedure is the loss of the unborn but that is not the intent.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

this is just using different words to justify abortion …
If you remove the place where the baby is … you kill the baby- The only way to not kill the baby would be to leave it there and let nature take it course - thus the mother and child dying …

The child dies as an unfortunate side-effect of a life saving operation – the removal of the burst tube.

A case where a women can’t carry the pregnancy due a heart condition where she is going to stroke and die - its a different procedure but it seeks the same result -
there is no difference -

No, because you are saying that the child is the problem. The child is not the problem, the heart is the problem. You could do things to the heart, even have a heart transplant, whatever you can to fix the heart. But you cannot murder the child in hopes that the heart may be relieved of stress.

The tube is not the problem - without the baby there the tube was fine… the tube is at risk because of pregnancy …
The pregnancy is still the problem…

The child is not the problem, you cannot murder the child. The burst tube is the problem, that you can fix.

If you had a burst Fallopian tube for some other reason, if the child wasn’t there, what would you do? You would remove the section of the tube that is the problem and cauterize the wound. Whether or not there is a child in the tube doesn’t bear on the morality of the act as long as the act is of grave necessity (you can’t just go randomly cutting apart Fallopian tubes if there is nothing wrong with them just as you can’t cut off your arm unless it is mangled).

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

I am not claiming abortion is not murder (or the opposite) I am sorry you misunderstood me.

If abortion is murder, then it should be clear that it can never be licit because murder is never licit.

If the intent of an abortion is to save the life of the mother not to murder the unborn child … that is no different than going to war and murdering innocent people in order to save others or protect a greater good.

Sure, war would always be illicit if war was the murdering of innocent people, it is not.

How did we define “murder”? The intentional and direct killing of a person known to be innocent. In war is there intentional and direct killing? Yes. But is an enemy soldier a person known to be innocent? No. They are trying to kill you, thus they are not innocent. Killing them is an act of self-defense, just like killing someone who is trying to rape you.

In war is there killing of innocent people? Generally, yes. But is it intentional and direct? No.

During a war, there may be individual cases of murder (for instance, some things that happened in Vietnam or the recent case of the “thrill kill” murders of unarmed Afghani civilians by US soldiers. Are these horrible crimes? Yes, they are murder. But war is not murder, these are aberrations.

Only during an unjust war, such as a war of conquest, are the killings the murder of innocents. But in a just war, those enemy soldiers are not innocent bystanders.

 

[cathoichelp]

In modern war we are not on foot running after bad people defending ourselves by shooting other bad people. We are not only killing soldiers we are accepting the loss of innocent people in order to protect a greater good.

In modern war half the time we are no where near the actual person we are far away shooting at targets knowing that other people who are not bad … who may be children - but at the very least are the people we aim to save who we are killing in the process of saving other people.
War is armed (with weapons) hostile action against a nation or persons in a nation -
War is using murder to solve a problem.

It is not reasonable to have a heart transplant for serve hypertension - that is absurd.
So if you do something to avoid directly ending the pregnancy it is ok?
Its the same result … only doing more complicated procedures farther complicates the situation …
No doctor in their right mind is going to replace someone’s heart if the only strain on the heart is pregnancy.
Your choice is die with the unborn child or end the pregnancy.
The pregnancy is ending because the body could not handle the pregnancy. The procedure is done to safe the mother. Once the pregnancy is ended her blood pressure returns to normal its a condition of pregnancy - she does not have the condition unless pregnant

if a tube is going to burst due to a tumor the TUMOR is the problem not the tube. The tube is an innocent bystander -
It is not bursting without cause - if it is that has nothing to do with this conversation.

Likewise I have a friend who has had heart problems and surgeries starting at 9 - she tried for 2 years to get pregnant and could not. She ended up adopting from foster care. A little girl who was 4 months at the time of adoption she is now 3 … Born a month before my daughter
A few months ago my friend became pregnant. She was THRILLED- But her body could not handle the pregnancy. She fought hard was in the hospital for over a week but it got to the point where she would die if she did end the pregnancy.
Nothing was bursting she didn’t need a heart transplant she just could not carry a pregnancy.
Her doctors thought this would happen if she became pregnant with twins so they didn’t recommend fertility treatments and she ended up adopting.
Sadly, this happened to her when she was only carrying one child.
The pregnancy was ended and I assure you she is fine (physically) she can’t run a marathon and she can’t carry a pregnancy but she doesn’t need a heart transplant. She needed a D&C to end the pregnancy.
Or she could have chosen to let her own life end and the life of her unborn child - leaving her husband and 3 year old without her -
She was only 8 weeks pregnant … There was no way she was going to make it anywhere near a point here this baby could survive.

now you might call this murder. That is ok if that is your opinion.
However, if you can not justify a medical termination of a pregnancy to save the mother and protect her family -
than you can not justify war causalities -

 

[cathoichelp]

If abortion is murder, then it should be clear that it can never be licit because murder is never licit.

Sure, war would always be illicit if war was the murdering of innocent people, it is not.

How did we define “murder”? The intentional and direct killing of a person known to be innocent. In war is there intentional and direct killing? Yes. But is an enemy soldier a person known to be innocent? No. They are trying to kill you, thus they are not innocent. Killing them is an act of self-defense, just like killing someone who is trying to rape you.

In war is there killing of innocent people? Generally, yes. But is it intentional and direct? No.

During a war, there may be individual cases of murder (for instance, some things that happened in Vietnam or the recent case of the “thrill kill” murders of unarmed Afghani civilians by US soldiers. Are these horrible crimes? Yes, they are murder. But war is not murder, these are aberrations.

Only during an unjust war, such as a war of conquest, are the killings the murder of innocents. But in a just war, those enemy soldiers are not innocent bystanders.

and murder is the killing of another person.
Murder can be unintentional
For example … if by accident i run someone over w my car and kill them - i am still considered to have murdered them.
If I am shooting on a gun range and hit a person by accident I have still murdered them.
there are degrees of murder -
But murder is not only intentional.
if i shoot someone by accident its a lesser charge but its still murder.

If i meant to kill my ex boyfriend and shoot his new girlfriend in the process that is no less murder.
In war we aim to kill the enemy and kill other people as a result -
but we knowingly do this. We understand the nature of war and we accept the loss of life -
We don’t go into war thinking no one will be killed except the bad guy. C’mon we know what we are doing and what will happen.

 

[meltzerboy]

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.

I agree with your position here and this is exactly the justification used in Orthodox Judaism: if BOTH mother and child will die without aborting the child, it is considered moral to perform the abortion, in which at least the mother’s life will be spared. It is the same reasoning used in the case of conjoined twins who must be separated: if the surgery means that ONE will die, and, at the same time, if no surgery means they will BOTH die, then Orthodox Judaism advocates that the surgery be performed to save ONE life rather than forfeit BOTH. I believe Catholicism takes a different stance on this and says that surgery should NOT be performed because it is the willful murder of one life, whereas not performing surgery means the natural death–not murder–of both lives. These are both horrible choices with which families are confronted.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

In modern war we are not on foot running after bad people defending ourselves by shooting other bad people.

Really now? What do you think infantry do? War is not as “push button” as you think.

We are not only killing soldiers we are accepting the loss of innocent people in order to protect a greater good.

The death of the innocent must only be an unintentional side-effect and must be proportionate.

In modern war half the time we are no where near the actual person we are far away shooting at targets knowing that other people who are not bad … who may be children - but at the very least are the people we aim to save who we are killing in the process of saving other people.

That true. But it is military targets that we are aiming at. We do not fight wars by bombing each other’s elementary schools as you asserted earlier, no one intends the death of innocents.

War is armed (with weapons) hostile action against a nation or persons in a nation -
War is using murder to solve a problem.

No, war is using violence to solve a problem – “war is a continuation of politics by other means”. Not all violence is murder. Recall the definition of murder used above – the intentional and direct killing of people who are known to be innocent.

It is not reasonable to have a heart transplant for serve hypertension - that is absurd.

I am not a doctor. I was simply stating a fact – that you can do something to fix the problem, which is the heart. You cannot murder a child in hopes that it will relieve the stress on the mother’s heart. You cannot commit evil that good may come of it.

So if you do something to avoid directly ending the pregnancy it is ok?

Like what?

No doctor in their right mind is going to replace someone’s heart if the only strain on the heart is pregnancy.

No doctor in their right mind is going to murder a child. Yet we are living in a culture where it seems few people are in their right mind…

Your choice is die with the unborn child or end the pregnancy.
The pregnancy is ending because the body could not handle the pregnancy. The procedure is done to safe the mother. Once the pregnancy is ended her blood pressure returns to normal its a condition of pregnancy - she does not have the condition unless pregnant

Okay and what is your solution? The child is not a criminal and the mother is not an executioner appointed by the State. You cannot commit murder under any circumstances. Any.

if a tube is going to burst due to a tumor the TUMOR is the problem not the tube. The tube is an innocent bystander -
It is not bursting without cause - if it is that has nothing to do with this conversation.

I am saying that you must address what is the actual problem. The actual problem of a tubal pregnancy is a burst tube. If there was a tumor, then you could remove the tumor because tumors are unnatural and may be removed – they are a disorder. They are not human beings, children are not a disorder in a woman’s body that needs to be cured.

Likewise I have a friend who has had heart problems and surgeries starting at 9 - she tried for 2 years to get pregnant and could not. She ended up adopting from foster care. A little girl who was 4 months at the time of adoption she is now 3 … Born a month before my daughter
A few months ago my friend became pregnant. She was THRILLED- But her body could not handle the pregnancy. She fought hard was in the hospital for over a week but it got to the point where she would die if she did end the pregnancy.
Nothing was bursting she didn’t need a heart transplant she just could not carry a pregnancy.
Her doctors thought this would happen if she became pregnant with twins so they didn’t recommend fertility treatments and she ended up adopting.
Sadly, this happened to her when she was only carrying one child.
The pregnancy was ended and I assure you she is fine (physically) she can’t run a marathon and she can’t carry a pregnancy but she doesn’t need a heart transplant. She needed a D&C to end the pregnancy.
Or she could have chosen to let her own life end and the life of her unborn child - leaving her husband and 3 year old without her -
She was only 8 weeks pregnant … There was no way she was going to make it anywhere near a point here this baby could survive.

She needs to confess her sin and be reconciled to God.

now you might call this murder. That is ok if that is your opinion.

My opinion is meaningless. The unlawfulness of murder is God’s opinion.
Ex 23:7:

The innocent and just person thou shalt not put to death

Rom 3:8:

And not rather (as we are slandered, and as some affirm that we say) let us do evil, that there may come good? whose damnation is just.

It is illicit to commit murder for any cause.

However, if you can not justify a medical termination of a pregnancy to save the mother and protect her family -
than you can not justify war causalities -

Because war casualties are either enemy soldiers, who are not innocent, or innocent people whose death was unintentional. If murder, rape, or other crimes occur in the course of war, they are crimes that happen to occur during a war, they are not the waging of war itself.

 

[PilgrimToChrist]

and murder is the killing of another person.

So if I defend myself from an attacker and kill the attacker, I have committed murder and deserve to die?

If the State executes a murderer or someone guilty of another capital crime, they are murderous?

Not every killing of a person is murder.

Murder can be unintentional
For example … if by accident i run someone over w my car and kill them - i am still considered to have murdered them.
If I am shooting on a gun range and hit a person by accident I have still murdered them.

Then you are using a different definition of “murder”, that is the only way you can say that murder is licit in any circumstance.