Absolute Prohibition of Abortion

[Diogenes]

One question for debate is whether Islam and the Roman Catholic church prohibit abortion in all cases.* They both appear to, even to save the mother's life. The RC view is nuanced, perhaps using disingenuous logic.#

Assuming these two major religions DO prohibit abortion even to save the life of the mother, as well as in the cases of rape and incest, how can this prohibition be morally justified?


_________________
*

"Never and in no case has the Church taught that the life of the child must be preferred to that of the mother. It is erroneous to put the question with this alternative: either the life of the child or that of the mother. No, neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child." (Pope Pius XII, Allocution to the Association of Large Families, AAS (1951), XLIII, p. 855.)

#

The only ethically justified understanding of this much-celebrated exception shows that it is not an exception at all! The classical example of an ectopic pregnancy or the example of the cancerous uterus, which allow the surgeon, ethically, to remove the woman's damaged reproductive organs in order to save her life, should not be used as examples of abortion, even though a baby's life is terminated in the progress.

https://www.ewtn.com/catholicism/librar ... ther-12052

[JehovahsWitness]

This is true, they were willing to die because they believed certain things are right and certain things are wrong; we all have lines in the sand beyond which we will not cross.

But what of the lines in the sand beyond which you would not allow others to cross? ...

I am not the master of anyone's will except my own. I believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker.



JEHOVAH'S WITNESS

[Miles]

This is true, they were willing to die because they believed certain things are right and certain things are wrong; we all have lines in the sand beyond which we will not cross.

But what of the lines in the sand beyond which you would not allow others to cross? ...

I am not the master of anyone's will except my own. I believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker.

Guy has a gun and intends on killing your significant other, which you can easily prevent. Should we assume you let him shoot because either the law of the land or his maker will take care of him?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

I am not the master of anyone's will except my own. I believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker.

Guy has a gun and intends on killing your significant other, which you can easily prevent. Should we assume you let him shoot because either the law of the land or his maker will take care of him?

.

Neither the law of the land nor divine law prohibits someone taking reasonable meassures to prevent themselves or their family from being subject to abuse or murder.


JW

[Miles]

I am not the master of anyone's will except my own. I believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker.

Guy has a gun and intends on killing your significant other, which you can easily prevent. Should we assume you let him shoot because either the law of the land or his maker will take care of him?

.

Neither the law of the land nor divine law prohibits someone taking reasonable meassures to prevent themselves or their family from being subject to abuse or murder.

Not talking about what you're allowed to do under any law, but what choose to do. You said "I believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker." I simply wondered how far you carried this laissez-faire belief of yours, and evidently, only so far. It's a qualified belief. That depending on the situation, you sometimes "believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker."


.

[JehovahsWitness]

Not talking about what you're allowed to do under any law, but what choose to do.

I choose to always obey the law (where it is not is not in conflict with divine law) and live in a way that is in line with my bible trained conscience. The same conscience that dictates I not voluntarily submit or allow those in my charge to submit to abuse if it is possible to escape doing so.

That depending on the situation, you sometimes "believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker."

No, not sometimes but always. If someone used their free will to attack me or my family, they would have to face the consequences of my calling the police, trying to get away or in extreme cases defending myself.

[Miles]

Not talking about what you're allowed to do under any law, but what choose to do.

I choose to always obey the law (where it is not is not in conflict with divine law) and live in a way that is in line with my bible trained conscience. The same conscience that dictates I not voluntarily submit or allow those in my charge to submit to abuse if it is possible to escape doing so.

That depending on the situation, you sometimes "believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker."

No, not sometimes but always. If someone used their free will to attack me or my family, they would have to face the consequences of my calling the police, trying to get away or in extreme cases defending myself.

Now you're saying you always "believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be befor the law of the land or their maker." Yet you believe interfering with their choice is fine if you don't like that choice: If, for instance, they chose to attack you.

"Neither the law of the land nor divine law prohibits someone taking reasonable meassures to prevent themselves or their family from being subject to abuse or murder."

and

If someone used their free will to attack me or my family, they would have to face the consequences of my calling the police, trying to get away or in extreme cases defending myself.

But if you could prevent such an attack on your family (not on you) you'd still step back and let it happen. That about it?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

...you're saying you always "believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be before the law of the land or their maker." Yet you believe interfering with their choice is fine if you don't like that choice: If, for instance, they chose to attack you.

I use the expression "free will" to refer to the ability/ capacity to make a choice. It preempts the action and is effectively a mental process

To illustrate: I am a criminal and I think to myself "today I have decided I will attack someone, that is my choice Nobody but God can stop me making this decision, because I have free will to decide if I will or will not obey the law". Now, what are the consequenses of making that choice? Well... if I act on my choice, the police might arrest me, or ... I might choose someone with a gun that kills me. Okay, well I'm happy to take that chance... I will go ahead because I have free will and neither the police nor society can stop me from thinking as I do. All anyone else can do is react as they see fit to my actions in line with the decision I made this morning.

So the way I am using the expression "free will" is the ability to make a decision to act in a particular way. It equates to the ability to think. Once a person has fully exercised his choice (made the decision), whether he is free to exercise his decision depends on law and circumstance. The policeman isnt stopping the man from making the decision, he is reacting to that decision that has already been made.



JW

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

FREE WILL, SELECTIVE FOREKNOWLEDGE and ... RESPONSIBILITY

[Miles]

...you're saying you always "believe others should be free to make their own choices and face the consequences thereof, whether that be before the law of the land or their maker." Yet you believe interfering with their choice is fine if you don't like that choice: If, for instance, they chose to attack you.

I use the expression "free will" to refer to the ability/ capacity to make a choice. It preempts the action and is effectively a mental process

To illustrate: I am a criminal and I think to myself "today I have decided I will attack someone, that is my choice Nobody but God can stop me making this decision, because I have free will to decide if I will or will not obey the law". Now, what are the consequenses of making that choice? Well... if I act on my choice, the police might arrest me, or ... I might choose someone with a gun that kills me. Okay, well I'm happy to take that chance... I will go ahead because I have free will and neither the police nor society can stop me from thinking as I do. All anyone else can do is react as they see fit to my actions in line with the decision I made this morning.

So the way I am using the expression "free will" is the ability to make a decision to act in a particular way. It equates to the ability to think. Once a person has fully exercised his choice (made the decision), whether he is free to exercise his decision depends on law and circumstance. The policeman isnt stopping the man from making the decision, he is reacting to that decision that has already been made.

But if you could prevent such an attack on your family (not on you) you'd still step back and let it happen. That about it?

.

[JehovahsWitness]

But if you could prevent such an attack on your family (not on you) you'd still step back and let it happen. That about it?

.

I have already addressed that point (see the last line in post #95)
viewtopic.php?p=1100307#p1100307

NOTE my family is part of me, anything I would do for myself includes my family ; If it came to a choice between my personal safety and that of my family, I would happily risk my own life to protect them.

[Miles]

But if you could prevent such an attack on your family (not on you) you'd still step back and let it happen. That about it?

.

I have already addressed that point (see the last line in post #95)
viewtopic.php?p=1100307#p1100307

NOTE my family is part of me, anything I would do for myself includes my family ; If it came to a choice between my personal safety and that of my family, I would happily risk my own life to protect them.

Nah. When you use "I" in comments such as "I choose to always obey the law," you're only talking about yourself. And then follow this with:

"If someone used their free will to attack me or my family, they would have to face the consequences of my calling the police, trying to get away or in extreme cases defending myself."

You set "defending myself" apart from your family when in the very same sentence you make the distinction between yourself and your family when you say "me or my family,"

So, no, you did not already address the point in post #95. The point being, "But if you could prevent such an attack on your family (not on you) you'd still step back and let it happen. That about it?" You ignored it and have gone on to some irrelevacy about free will.

.