English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071114/ap_on_re_us/catholic_bishops

"The direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life is always wrong and is not just one issue among many," the bishops said..:

Doesn't collateral damage in warfare, or polluting people with toxic wastes count?

Why is abortion the only sort of killing that gets the religious folks truly riled?

2007-11-14 05:19:04 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture Religion & Spirituality

spiffs:
Putting to death a violent criminal may be wrong, but is not putting to death a completely innocent child even worse than that?

If all are equal in life, all our deaths are equal.

2007-11-14 10:49:10 · update #1

22 answers

of course not...death penalty also wrong

2007-11-14 05:22:08 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

In our country, where the political system has become little more than a brutish contest of who can rally the most people in the shortest amount of time, issues like abortion are a great way to gain political support.

Republicans especially have become almost one with the religious right and it is that power base which has continually won them elections for some time. To keep the attention, as well as the support, they choose an issue that touches something deep inside of people (in this case the murder of babies) and they blow it insanely out of proportion. They put it for front in the media and rant and rave, constantly keeping it on the minds of the voters. Many people see these issues on the television and take the bait, often without taking time to gather very much data or even to question that perhaps there are other things that are just as important or more so.

Issues that are debatable or, worse, issues that they don't want to have to fix (like pollution) are down played and hidden underneath the strong emotional response to the first issues. A lot of people don't even stop to think about the fact that pollution in our system makes so many people sick every year, or that killing in war is still killing and cannot just be shoved under the carpet.

So I don't think that abortion is the only killing that get the religious riled, but it is what they hear about, get warned about, and see portrayed to them constantly. Look at the major issues listed in this article. All of them things that cause fighting at home, rally great response, but keep the eyes and thoughts off the current worries about the world and war.

Many religious people who are well versed in scripture and paying attention to the world on a grand scale are separating themselves from the religious right and speaking out on all of the current issues. God loves all life and all life is sacred, unborn to any age. Forgive my long bit of ranting. I hope I was helpful in some way.

2007-11-14 06:57:15 · answer #2 · answered by KiKi 2 · 1 0

I think some distinctions must be made between the different types of killing. One can kill another to defend themselves or their country. In this regard the killing, though unfortunate, may have been justified.

Now, in the case of an abortion we have an unborn child. This child has never done anything wrong to anyone and is completely innocent. There is a difference between a crazed murderer with an ax and an innocent unborn child. Surely you are able to see the difference here? The unborn are more innocent than you or I even, for we have done wrongdoings however minimal, but they have not even had the chance to do so. Many christians are also vehemantly opposed to the death penalty and euthanasia. However, even in these cases one is usually dealing with someone who is terminally ill or has transgressed the law, not the unborn innocents.

Putting to death a violent criminal may be wrong, but is not putting to death a completely innocent child even worse than that?

2007-11-14 07:01:00 · answer #3 · answered by Spiffs C.O. 4 · 1 1

The Catholic Church facilitates abortion in circumstances of mom's well-being (healing abortion). this might mean that if the mummy mandatory a existence saving surgical technique, and it only handed off to threaten the existence of the unborn babe, it would be allowed and there could be no "blame" located if the babe did no longer make it. (Technically there are 3 varieties of abortion as miscarriage is seen spontaneous abortion (involuntary) - for which there is not any blame, like there is not any blame for healing abortions). The Catholic Church advises that the well-being of the mummy come first, (extraordinarily) if the female has others that are under her care. This individual has a accountability to be sure that they are cared for. [it is what i exchange into taught to the best of my recollection] The Catholic Church is damaging to a minimum of one/3 (0.33 because of the fact i'm coming to it 0.33) form, which could be non-obligatory. this could be whilst the mummy only options to have an abortion to be rid of the babe, options to have surgical technique for some thing that has no longer something to do with well-being (random occasion - nostril activity to look prettier) that could knowingly endanger the babe, and problems with that nature. i'm hoping that I responded all your question... [ @ answer4y whats up! I fastened that. ]

2016-10-16 12:29:52 · answer #4 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

By definition "collateral damage" is not "direct and intentional destruction of innocent human life." It's "collateral." For example, those civilians murdered by Black Water if those in Black Water didn't think that those people were a threat to their lives, is murder and opposed by the Church since it was "direct and intentional." Toxic waste is a difficult issue. If those who were dumping the waste directly and intentionally dumped it to hurt people, then it is opposed by the Church as murder. However, merely knowing that's it's wrong and not intentionally trying to harm others by dumping it, is not considered murder.

2007-11-14 05:31:30 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

I suppose polluting people with toxic wastes is harder to prove, although it is not morally supportable. Neither is "collateral damage". The Bible and the teachings of Jesus would support the idea that it is wrong to take innocent life. As far as taking "guilty" life, the Bible does tell us to obey the government, because it is put there by God and does not bear the sword in vain. In fact, the true purpose of government in a constitutional republic is twofold: to protect from foreign invasion and to punish the guilty. No more, no less.
The two examples you quoted above of collateral damage and toxic wastes are when people are killed "accidentally", or because they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. However, abortion isn't like that. A woman consciously chooses to go to a so-called "doctor" and have her baby forcibly dismembered while still alive and ripped from her womb. She commits an atrocity against the person she is supposed to love and care about that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. That is why abortion is such a hateful crime against God and humanity.

2007-11-14 05:32:57 · answer #6 · answered by FUNdie 7 · 1 2

Your question addresses the Catholic Church, which probably has a better record (recently) of human rights affirmation than the protestant churches. Yet, the protestant churches, such as the religious right, are the loudest about abortion law reform and they are also the first and loudest to dance to the drumbeats of war.

And, lets not forget that the Old Testament record of the acquisition of Israel makes the Iraq war look like a girl scout meeting.

2007-11-14 05:34:21 · answer #7 · answered by Jennifer B 2 · 0 0

I guess you are referring to the Catholic Church. Collateral damage in warfare certainly did not bother it, as the pope stood by and silently witnessed the genocide of the Nazis against Jews. Burning witches at the stake was okay, too. It's tender mercy toward heritics during the inquision was proudly pointed out. The Jesuits had no problem murdering those who stood in their way. They are opposed to abotion for one reason only, it has the potential to reduce the numer of innocents it can brainwash in the future.

2007-11-14 05:31:54 · answer #8 · answered by johnandeileen2000 7 · 3 0

The church is confused with their killing rules. You can kill in the name of God it appears as the church mass murdered so many millions over the years all in the name of God so that is OK. Murdering innocent people who are of different religions is OK, since they all follow Satan as they do not follow the church, so once again doing Gods work. Collateral damage is OK with the church as it is Gods will that the innocent died and he will take care of those innocent, unless they are not part of the church of which then they are Satanists and are sent to hell, once again helping out the cause. Polluting innocent people is all part of Gods will, since he gave this planet to the people of the church, but if they are not part of the church then they do not matter since they are Satanists and once again helping out the cause.

Abortion is bad, because that is an innocent mind that could be molded by the church into believing their doctrines, which would be one more person to go out and increase the fold. And by increasing the fold you increase the revenue base from which the church works on, so therefore that means that Pope Eggs Benedict can live in the lifestyle that he wants to. The church has lost their grasp on reality, not that they ever really had one.

2007-11-14 05:35:19 · answer #9 · answered by disturbed001500 2 · 1 2

It gets the religious truly riled because unlike the irreligious, they have a moral conscience and recognize that abortion is the slaughter of the innocents. The Catholic Church also opposes the death penalty and the Iraq War, but even though those also cause death, they are not quite as abhorrent as the slaughter of literally millions of innocent children. We make the holocaust look like a picnic.

2007-11-14 05:25:58 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1 2

Because abortion is viewed as acceptable by the masses. Pollution, war, genocide- all are viewed as wrong but killing a child is not?

And how many abortions are done because it is deemed medically necessary? How many are done because the Mother's life is truly at stake? How many mother's would actually choose their life over a child's?

2007-11-14 05:28:44 · answer #11 · answered by ? 6 · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers