Why is an innocent fetus so sacred, no matter the circumstances, but innocent bystander’s deaths in nations we invade are so easily justified by some of these same people?
I don’t know that anyone finds it “easy” to justify the deaths of innocent civilians in war.
If this is a serious question, though, there’s the rule of double effect.
I agree about the rule of double effect, but that can apply to abortion as well.
No, not applied properly. The rule of double effect is not another way of saying that the end justifies the means. Applied properly, the rule does not allow for an intrinsically evil action to be committed so that another perceived good can be attained. It only recognizes that sometimes actions that are in themselves justified also lead to bad outcomes, in addition to good outcomes, and makes allowances for that.
So in this case the moral difference is the intent. The intent of war is to kill the bad guys, whereas the intent of abortion is to kill the fetus, except in those cases where the intent is to save the mother’s life, perhaps.
Would that be accurate?
Errr . . . almost.
Assume a just war. Now imagine enemy headquarters, situated next to a residential neighborhood. A direct hit on enemy headquarters will end the war in a just victory. It will also probably kill some civilians in the surrounding neighborhood. That’s likely acceptable under the rule of double effect. The act of bombing enemy headquarters is itself a licit act. It will lead to the* side effect* of civilian deaths, but that is not the aim.
Now assume a just war. Imagine a neighborhood full of civilians. Destroying that entire neighborhood will weaken the enemy’s will to fight and end the war. It is likely NOT acceptable under the rule of double effect to carpet bomb the neighborhood full of civilians. That’s because, although doing so will lead to what some would characterize as the greater good, killing civilians is an evil act, and good ends do not justify evil means.
Which is why killing the fetus to save the mother’s life is also not justified under the rule of double effect. It is probably acceptable under the rule to treat the mother for a disease that will lead to the death of the fetus, but it is not allowable to “treat” the mother by killing the fetus. (Let’s say the mother has cancer, and chemotherapy is necessary to save her life. Chemotherapy will certainly result in the death of the fetus. Under the rule of double effect, it would be justifiable to undergo treatment: The aim is to save the mother’s life, and the death of the fetus is a side effect, not the means by which the mother’s life is saved.)
The common conditions listed for the rule of double effect to apply, for those who might not know:
*The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent. * *The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may merely permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect, he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary. * *The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words, the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise, the agent would be using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed. * The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect. In forming this decision many factors must be weighed and compared, with care and prudence proportionate to the importance of the case. Thus, an effect that benefits or harms society generally has more weight than one that affects only an individual; an effect sure to occur deserves greater consideration than one that is only probable; an effect of a moral nature has greater importance than one that deals only with material things.
So while some collateral damage in war would fall under the principle of double effect, an abortion to save the mother’s life would not.
You are still knowingly killing innocent people. If you do this in a war whose justification is somewhat suspect, thats pretty hard for me to swallow. World War2? Sure. Afghanistan. Sure. But widespread christian support for Vietnam and Iraq, when it is a known that many innocent lives will be lost…that makes it hard for me to believe that they REALLY care about life, that maybe what they really care about is just the raw dogma itself, the customs and traditions. You learn growing up that abortion is evil. For some reason we don’t teach that war can be evil with near the same vehemence in our society.
I pasted this back into the proper thread. Hope you don’t mind, jack, but I don’t see any reason to mix it up in the other thread.
You’re making an entirely different objection now, though. You see that, right?
Originally I asked a question, which technically isn’t an objection at all.
Sigh.
Alright, fine. Do you see that your current objection is a very different matter than your original question, right?
To short circuit the stupid semantic games, hopefully, let me tell you why.
Your original question dealt with the moral difference, if any, between killing different sets of innocent people in differing situations. Your current objection is based, murkily, on ideas of what a just cause of war is.
It has the potential to be an interesting conversation, particularly if you intend to mount a critique of the rule of double effect. If you’re just going to assert that anti-abortion people are only anti-abortion because they’re brainwashed, despite the actual moral argument they advance . . . that’s obviously much less interesting.
yes, I went from asking a question, to getting some answers, to stating an objection. I even admit to playing a semantic game with that last post, because I felt you were doing the same. that did happen. =)
I’m not going to mount a critique on the rule of double effect, as like I said I have nothing original to add. I can link you to some though:
All life is sacred…unless we say so.
What is so hard to understand about that?
Do you REALLY think that pro-lifers find it “easy” to justify innocent deaths?
I can think of situations where innocent deaths might be justified, but I wouldn’t call any of those situations/decisions “easy”.
If we really wanted to get into it, could we not start talking about how people are all aghast about 3000 deaths in 4 years in a war that believe it or not some people believe we should be fighting, while not seeming to even take noice at the 16,000 murders that occur every year in the US?
Or how abortions can go on with nary a peep from what ppears to be most people, yet a couple of dogs get killed, and a fooball player would be strung up if some people had their way.
Of course, I am not condoning what was done to those dogs, nor do I think it is “easy” to send troops into battle, and do not attempt to diminish the sacrifice they have made. This thread just reminded me of how I find it strange the things that make people get all righteous and indignant, while ignoring something else that is frankly just as bad if not worse.
Or how abortions can go on with nary a peep from what ppears to be most people, yet a couple of dogs get killed, and a fooball player would be strung up if some people had their way.
We have had similar discussions before, and I rmember commenting on how I didn’t like that some people would save their pets before saving a (human) stranger. Simply put, they valued their pet’s life over a human stranger, and I felt the exact opposite. IMO, there was 0.0000001% chance that either group was going to change their stance too.
People don’t seem to value human life, except that in death it provides them a platform to support/condemn an idea or event. There have been more than one person use a soldier’s coffin as a soapbox in the last few years.
What you bring up is likely a joke about American culture. We can see a gunman shoot 50+ peopple in a movie, and think nothing of it, but when he kicks the door out of the doorway, then the bastard must die.
I would say that each generation is rapidly more desynthesized to the decreasing value of human life in our society. Disheartening.
to the original post -
the realist in me suggests looking at the God of the pro-lifers - - that God is a vengeful and jealous God. Open up the Old Testament and almost every chapter has accounts of that God committing genocide and destroying anything and anyone not behaving and living under It’s control. Pro-lifers are merely mimicking their God. And it’s not just innocent bystanders of war - - every continent has seen the exploitation, rape and murder of indigenous peoples by so-called pro-lifers.
the idealist in me hopes that it is due to an improper diagnosis by the pro-lifers. As someone once suggested, Hell is the too-late realization of the realization that we are all interconnected. Hell is a lot more crowded than we think.
First of all, let’s agree to stop using the word “War.” Let’s call it Coercive Diplomacy instead……it sounds nicer.
Secondly, instead of using the word “Death” let us use the phrase; ‘failure to achieve ones wellness potential’
With this in mind, whether shredded by daisy-cutters or suicide bombers, those people failed to achieve their wellness potential.
The innocent fetus, unborn, needs to be given the opportunity to be successful at achieving its wellness potential.
So, it is simply a matter of giving the unborn the same rights as the living; The opportunity to try and survive in this cruel world.
that God is a vengeful and jealous God.
We’ve been thorugh this many times, but yes, God does not like His creation to place other things above Him.
Yes, God has brought his wrath among peoples that have not headed repeated warning to leave Isreal alone (i.e., stop trying to wipe them off the map).
Open up the Old Testament and almost every chapter has accounts of that God committing genocide and destroying anything and anyone not behaving and living under It’s control.
I think if you research it thoroughly you’ll see a repeated pattern. People are attacking Isreal, Repeated warnings are given to “knock it off”, warning are ignored, attacks continue … God ends it. I’ll try and find the thread where we discussed this. I concede that the information can be hand-waved off as coming from a religous source (who else is going to research and write about it?), and that the explanations may not be accepted by all. But, hey, that’s typical of a religious topic.
I think you’ll find that the people God “eliminated” were among the worst of the worst to many peoples, along the lines of maruaders and such.
Pro-lifers are merely mimicking their God. And it’s not just innocent bystanders of war - - every continent has seen the exploitation, rape and murder of indigenous peoples by so-called pro-lifers.
Unfortunately that is correct in many cases, with religious people using religion to do some awful things. But, I would politely suggest that they are not mimicing the pattern that God displays in the OT (although one could argue that the final result is similar, so who cares about what hapens in between), and other peoples were not in a similar situation as those in the OT. I am not, however, trying to gloss over the violence that occurs in the OT … just perhaps trying to illustrate that much more occured (more initial diplomacy) than just God getting pissed and “unleashing the fury”.
I’ll leave it at that b/c I know that no one wants preached at or anything like that, and it’s not my intent. I’m just asking that one consider (and possibly research) that there’s more occuring than what one may initially think. I do not know of a situation in the OT where God wiped out a violent or extremelly sinful people without first sending a messenger or warning of some type … often more than once, and then allows for a period of time to pass before issuing judgement. Obviusly, those warnings are ignored, mocked, etc.
I think every Christian who’s seriuos about it had to deal with the violence in the OT, and it (especially when discussing w/ non-religius people) isn’t the most fun topic to talk about.
Thanks for listening.
“Why is an innocent fetus so sacred, no matter the circumstances, but innocent bystander’s deaths in nations we invade are so easily justified by some of these same people?”
-
- Very convoluted argument.
First of all, we didn’t “invade” either Iraq nor Afghanistan (not sure which country your referencing, but we didn’t invade either). We moved against Afghanistan because of an act of war by OBL and Afghanistan’s refusal to give him up. We moved against Iraq because of their refusal to honor the cease-fire agreements signed after Desert Storm and also their refusal to acquiesce to 17 UNSC Resolutions. Both actions were clearly justified. Your use of the term “invade” clearly indicates that you think we shouldn’t be there. While I agree that we certainly shouldn’t STILL be in either place, and I question the failed diplomacy that brought us there, there was clearly adequate justification for our actions.
Next, US soldiers are put at risk and the vast majority of their deaths have been the result of assuming that there are/were a great many more “innocent civilians” in Iraq than there actually are/were.
Now, how you can relate the deaths of adults in wartime, who clearly had the opportunity to stay clear of battle and to NOT provide cover for terrorists, i.e., non-uniformed combatants to the deaths of unborn children who were never given the opportunity to make potentially fatal mistakes escapes me completely. There just aren’t many subject less logically connected.
And what intrigues me is how those who say it’s perfectly all right to destroy an innocent unborn child can rail on about the alleged (and non-existent) rights of terrorists.
so we “moved against” Iraq and a couple of hundred thousand people have “failed to meet their wellness potential.”…I’m beginning to get it now.