Abortion: When does life really start?

element_115x wrote:"...Direct abortion is never morally permissible, no matter what the reason, i.e. no matter what the intended end may be. So direct abortion is not permitted, even to save the life of the mother..."

May i ask... if such a situation ever happens to you, are you personally willing to die with your unborn baby to satisfy a sacred dogma? Or maybe let the baby survive and let yourself die for it? And how would your husband fare into all these?

Namaste!

you are welcome to review my previous posts for the answer.

Yidda wrote:

you are welcome to review my previous posts for the answer.

I would very much like to hear a direct 'personal' answer.

Namaste!

Ateo wrote:This is a fallacy of composition, Yidda. What happened to Jesus does not apply to the rest of us. Jesus was instantly incarnated, but that does not mean that personhood starts at conception. The Bible said otherwise.

it was affirmed by church councils which I have quoted please read.

Let me continue ...

The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary

element_115x wrote:

I would very much like to hear a direct 'personal' answer.

Namaste!

you may as well read first those actual situations on those previous posts which is similar to your question and what does the church says about it.

The problem with what you are posting, Yidda, is that they come from your Magesterium, thus it is difficult for me to critique it effectively because your Magesterium changes its mind from time to time. It would have been better if you base your teaching on hte Bible because that document is well studies and is familiar to me.

Anyway, here was what your Magesterirum decided before:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):

	He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."
	Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

Ateo wrote:The problem with what you are posting, Yidda, is that they come from your Magesterium, thus it is difficult for me to critique it effectively because your Magesterium changes its mind from time to time. It would have been better if you base your teaching on hte Bible because that document is well studies and is familiar to me.

Anyway, here was what your Magesterirum decided before:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):

	He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."
	Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

we are speaking here of the infallible teaching of the church. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the church and it teaches from One Divine revelation - Tradition and Scripture.

Yidda wrote:

you may as well read first those actual situations on those previous posts which is similar to your question and what does the church says about it.

No, i don't need to hear what the Church says about it, i'm not having a conversation with the Church... i want to hear it from you.

Namaste.

The Immaculate Conception of the Virgin Mary

A. The Blessed Virgin Mary was preserved free from all effects of original sin.

Pope Pius IX: "We declare, pronounce, and define that the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instant of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful."

B. Original sin effects both body and soul.

Council of Trent: "If any one does not confess that the first man, Adam, when he had transgressed the commandment of God in Paradise, immediately lost the holiness and justice wherein he had been constituted; and that he incurred, through the offence of that prevarication, the wrath and indignation of God, and consequently death, with which God had previously threatened him, and, together with death, captivity under his power who thenceforth had the empire of death, that is to say, the devil, and that the entire Adam, through that offence of prevarication, was changed, in body and soul, for the worse; let him be anathema."

Council of Trent: "If any one asserts, that the prevarication of Adam injured himself alone, and not his posterity; and that the holiness and justice, received of God, which he lost, he lost for himself alone, and not for us also; or that he, being defiled by the sin of disobedience, has only transfused death, and pains of the body, into the whole human race, but not sin also, which is the death of the soul; let him be anathema:--whereas he contradicts the apostle who says; By one man sin entered into the world, and by sin death, and so death passed upon all men, in whom all have sinned."

C. Therefore, the Virgin Mary was preserved free from the effects of original sin in both her body and her soul.

D. This preservation from all effects of original sin, in body and in soul, occurred in the first instant of her conception:

Pope Pius IX: "in the first instant of her conception [in primo instanti suae conceptionis] ... preserved immune from every stain of original sin [ab omni originalis culpae labe praeservatam immunem]

E. Therefore, the body and soul of the Virgin Mary were created at the same time, at her conception. If her soul were created before or after her body, or before or after her conception, then she would not have been preserved free from all effects of original sin, in body and in soul, in the first instant of her conception. The dogma of the Immaculate Conception requires us to believe that the body and soul of the Virgin Mary were created at the same time, and in the first instant of her conception.

F. Every single member of the human race is a human being composed of both a soul and a body:

Council of Ephesus: "In the same sort of way a human being, though he be composed of soul and body, is considered to be not dual, but rather one out of two."

Pope Pius XII: "A marvelous vision, which makes us see the human race in the unity of one common origin in God 'one God and Father of all, Who is above all, and through all, and in us all' (Ephesians 4:6); in the unity of nature which in every man is equally composed of material body and spiritual, immortal soul...."

Pope Pius XII: "The soul is not a person, but the soul, joined to the body, is a person."

G. The Virgin Mary is a descendent of Adam and Eve, and a member of the human race. Her human nature, body and soul, is like the human nature of every member of the human race, and our human nature is like her human nature (except that she is sinless).

Second Vatican Council: "At the same time, however, because she belongs to the offspring of Adam she is one with all those who are to be saved."

Second Vatican Council: "Thus Mary, a daughter of Adam, consenting to the divine Word, became the mother of Jesus, the one and only Mediator."

Pope John Paul II: "The Second Vatican Council prepares us for this by presenting in its teaching the Mother of God in the mystery of Christ and of the Church. If it is true, as the Council itself proclaims, that only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light,' then this principle must be applied in a very particular way to that exceptional 'daughter of the human race,' that extraordinary 'woman' who became the Mother of Christ. Only in the mystery of Christ is her mystery fully made clear."

Pope John Paul II: "Following tradition, the Council does not hesitate to call Mary 'the Mother of Christ and mother of mankind': since she belongs to the offspring of Adam, she is one with all human beings...."

H. Therefore, the Virgin Mary is also consubstantial with us in humanity and like us in all respects except for sin.

I. Therefore, what is true of the Virgin Mary is also true of us, the soul of each and every human being (i.e. each and every descendent of Adam and Eve) is created at the same instant as the body, which is the first instant of conception. If this were not true, then the Virgin Mary would not be like us in all respects except for sin, and she would not be "the offspring of Adam" and "one with all human beings."

J. Therefore, every human being, beginning at the first instant of conception, is a human person, having both a body and a soul.

K. The first instant of conception is the single cell stage of development.

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "Thus the fruit of human generation, from the first moment of its existence, that is to say from the moment the zygote has formed, demands the unconditional respect that is morally due to the human being in his bodily and spiritual totality. The human being is to be respected and treated as a person from the moment of conception; and therefore from that same moment his rights as a person must be recognized, among which in the first place is the inviolable right of every innocent human being to life."

Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith: "The human being must be respected -- as a person -- from the very first instant of his existence."

Therefore, from the moment of conception, even when the human being is only a single cell, and at any time from conception to birth, the killing of a human being is the sin of abortion, which is a type of murder. For murder is the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being, and all human beings prior to birth are certainly innocent.

There should be no debate among the faithful about the time of 'ensoulment', or about when a prenatal becomes a human person. The dogmas of the Incarnation and of the Immaculate Conception necessarily imply that, in the very same instant, the body is created, and the soul is created, and body and soul are one. A human being, at any stage of life, in any condition whatsoever, has a body and a soul; every human being with a body and a soul is a human person. The soul in particular is made directly by God, in the image of God. Therefore, human life must be protected from the moment of conception. All prenatal human beings are innocent human persons created by God and in the image of God.

Yidda wrote:

we are speaking here of the infallible teaching of the church. The Magisterium is the teaching authority of the church and it teaches from One Divine revelation - Tradition and Scripture.

You assert without pausing to consider the situation. You are saying that the Magisterium is infallable and yet I have just posted that Pope Innocent's teaching was different from the current teaching and Jerome's belief in delayed ensoulment is not the current belief.

Ateo wrote:



You assert without pausing to consider the situation. You are saying that the Magisterium is infallable and yet I have just posted that Pope Innocent's teaching was different from the current teaching and Jerome's belief in delayed ensoulment is not the current belief.

The Church teaches infallibly in three ways:

1. papal infallibility
These are usually written definitions of doctrine.

2. solemn definitions of Ecumenical Councils.
These are also usually written definitions of doctrine.

3. teachings under the universal Magisterium
These teachings are infallible, not by virtue of being defined in a particular statement in a particular document, but by virtue of having been taught universally, in many places throughout the world, at various times, by the body of Bishops, and also by the Pope.

Opinions and theological positions are not infallible teachings.

Yeah right, buti nga impyerno ang bagsak ni Pope Innocent for allowing abortion on the lover of one of the monks.

element_115x wrote:"...Direct abortion is never morally permissible, no matter what the reason, i.e. no matter what the intended end may be. So direct abortion is not permitted, even to save the life of the mother..."

May i ask... if such a situation ever happens to you, are you personally willing to die with your unborn baby to satisfy a sacred dogma? Or maybe let the baby survive and let yourself die for it? And how would your husband fare into all these?

Namaste!

Under the principle of the "double effect,"attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.~ http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLEN /ENCYC043.HTM

Yidda wrote:

Under the principle of the "double effect,"attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.~ http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLEN /ENCYC043.HTM

Thanks! But isn't removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life the same as direct abortion? I could just be having semantic confusions here... but still it seems i can't reconcile it with the statement: "...Direct abortion is never morally permissible, no matter what the reason, i.e. no matter what the intended end may be. So direct abortion is not permitted, even to save the life of the mother..." ???

Ateo wrote:The problem with what you are posting, Yidda, is that they come from your Magesterium, thus it is difficult for me to critique it effectively because your Magesterium changes its mind from time to time. It would have been better if you base your teaching on hte Bible because that document is well studies and is familiar to me.

Anyway, here was what your Magesterirum decided before:

Pope Innocent III (circa 1161-1216):

	He wrote a letter which ruled on a case of a Carthusian monk who had arranged for his female lover to obtain an abortion. The Pope decided that the monk was not guilty of homicide if the fetus was not "animated."
	Early in the 13th century he stated that the soul enters the body of the fetus at the time of "quickening" - when the woman first feels movement of the fetus. After ensoulment, abortion was equated with murder; before that time, it was a less serious sin, because it terminated only potential human life, not human life.

Catholic theology, which now regards the early fetus as a person, did not always do so. The Church first adopted the belief of Aristotle, St.Jerome, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas that ensoulment occurs several weeks after conception. Pope Innocent III, who ruled at the turn of the 13th Century, made that belief part of Church doctrine, allowing abortion until fetal animation. It was not until 1869 that the Church prohibited abortion at any time and for any reason.

'Religious' Coalition for Abortion Rights.June 1978 propaganda pamphlet entitled "ABORTION: Why Religious Organizations in the United States Want to Keep it Legal

The falsehoods quoted have been bandied about by devious pro-abortionists for the last century, and the time has come to lay them to rest once and for all. Most importantly, the Catholic Church has never "approved of" or "condoned" abortion in any part of its history. It has never taught that the time of 'ensoulment' of the unborn child depended on its sex, as stated above; this was merely the speculation of two theologians (who, by the way, both condemned abortion at all times).
And the Catholic Church has never accepted the theory of delayed animation. The only time that the Church has ever addressed this question is when Pope Innocent XI officially condemned the theory that animation took place at birth.The teachings of the Catholic Church have been uniformly against abortion in any form, and have been stated and restated consistently through the centuries.
Those who believe otherwise are hereby challenged to produce a statement by any Pope, cardinal or bishop supporting abortion from any period in history (declarations by Modernist priests with suspended teaching authority don't count).

EARLY PRONOUNCEMENTS OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AGAINST ABORTION

You shall not kill an unborn child or murder a newborn infant.

The Didache ("The Lord's Instruction to the Gentiles through the Twelve Apostles"). II, 2, translated by J.A. Kleist, S.J., Ancient Christian Writers, Volume 6. Westminster, 1948, page 16.

You shall love your neighbor more than your own life. You shall not slay the child by abortion.
Barnabas (c. 70-138), Epistle, Volume II, page 19.

For us [Christians], murder is once and for all forbidden; so even the child in the womb, while yet the mother's blood is still being drawn on to form the human being, it is not lawful for us to destroy.To forbid birth is only quicker murder. It makes no difference whether one takes away the life once born or destroys it as it comes to birth. He is a man, who is to be a man; the fruit is always present in the seed.

Tertullian, 197, Apologeticus, page 9.

Those women who use drugs to bring about an abortion commit murder and will have to give an account to God for their abortion. Athenagoras of Athens, letter to Marcus Aurelius in 177, Legatio pro Christianis ("Supplication for the Christians"), page 35

It is among you that I see newly-begotten sons at times exposed to wild beasts and birds, or dispatched by the violent death of strangulation; and there are women who, by the use of medicinal potions, destroy the unborn life in their wombs, and murder the child before ,they bring it forth. These practices undoubtedly are derived from a custom established by your gods; Saturn, though he did not expose his sons, certainly devoured them.

Minucius Felix, theologian (c. 200-225), Octavius,p. 30.

... if we would not kill off the human race born and developing according to God's plan, then our whole lives would be lived according to nature. Women who make use of some sort of deadly abortion drug kill not only the embryo but, together with it, all human kindness.

Clement of Alexandria, priest and the "Father of Theologians" (c. 150-220), Christ the Educator, Volume II, page 10. Also see Octavius, c.30, nn. 2-3.

Sometimes this lustful cruelty or cruel lust goes so far as to seek to procure a baneful sterility, and if this fails the fetus conceived in the womb is in one way or another smothered or evacuated, in the desire to destroy the offspring before it has life, or if it already lives in the womb, to kill it before it is born. If both man and woman are party to such practices they are not spouses at all; and if from the first they have carried on thus they have come together not for honest wedlock, but for impure gratification; if both are not party to these deeds, I make bold to say that either the one makes herself a mistress of the husband, or the other simply the paramour of his wife.

St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), De Nuptius et Concupiscus ("On Marriage and Concupiscence"),1.17.

Some virgins [unmarried women], when they learn they are with child through sin, practice abortion by the use of drugs. Frequently they die themselves and are brought before the ruler of the lower world guilty of three crimes; suicide, adultery against Christ, and murder of an unborn child.

St. Jerome, Bible Scholar and translator (c.340-420), Letter to Eustochium, 22.13.

The hairsplitting difference between formed and unformed makes no difference to us. Whoever deliberately commits abortion is subject to the penalty for homicide.

St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), First Canonical Letter, from the work Three Canonical Letters. Loeb Classical Library, Volume III, pages 20 to 23.

Accordingly, among surgeon's tools, there is a certain instrument,which is formed with a nicely-adjusted flexible frame for opening the uterus first of all, and keeping it open; it is further furnished with an annular blade, by means of which the limbs within the womb are dissected with anxious but unfaltering care; its last appendage being a blunted or covered hood, wherewith the entire foetus is extracted by a violent delivery. There is also a copper needle or spike, by which the actual death is managed in this furtive robbery of life: they give it, from its infanticide function, the name of enbruosphaktes, the slayer of the infant, which was of course alive ... life begins with conception, because we contend that the soul also begins from conception; life taking its commencement at the same moment and place that the soul does.

Tertullian, theologian (150-225), Treatise on the Soul, pages 25 and 27.

Those who give drugs for procuring abortion, and those who receive poisons to kill the foetus, are subjected to the penalty for murder.Trullian (Quinisext) Council (692), Canons,91.

AGAINST ABORTION

• The Apocalypse of Peter.
• Hippolytus, Bishop of Pontius and theologian (died 236), Refutation of All
Heresies, 9.7.
• Origen, theologian of Alexandria (185-254), Against Heresies, page 9.
•
Cyprian, Bishop of Carthage (c. 200-258), Letters, page 48.
• Methodius, Bishop of Olympus (died 311).
•
Council of Elvira in Granada, Spain (305), Canons, 63 and 68.
•
Council of Ancyra in Galatia, Asia Minor (314), Canon, 21.
•
Ephraem the Syrian, theologian (306-373), De Timore Dei, page 10.
• Ephipanius, Bishop of Salamis (c. 315-403).
•
St. Basil the Great, priest (c. 329-379), Letters, 188.2, 8.
•
St. Ambrose, Bishop of Milan (c. 339-397), Hexameron, 5.18.58. Apostolic Constitutions (late Fourth Century)
•
St. Augustine, Bishop of Hippo (354-430), Enchiridion, page 86.
•
St. John Chrysostom, Bishop of Constantinople (c. 347-407), Homily 24("OnThe Book of Romans")
•
St. Jerome (died in 420)
•
Council of Chalcedon (451)
• Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (470-543), Sermons, 1.12.
• Council of Lerida (524).
•
Second Council of Braga (527), Canons, 77.
•
St. Martin of Braga (580) •
Consillium Quinisextum (692).

http://www.ewtn.com/library/PROLENC/ENCYC043.HTM

element_115x wrote:

Thanks! But isn't removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life the same as direct abortion? I could just be having semantic confusions here... but still it seems i can't reconcile it with the statement: "...Direct abortion is never morally permissible, no matter what the reason, i.e. no matter what the intended end may be. So direct abortion is not permitted, even to save the life of the mother..." ???

Abortion is direct when the deliberately chosen act is inherently directed toward destroying human life in the womb. The term 'direct' refers to the intrinsic ordering of an act toward its moral object, not to the intention of the person.

Yidda wrote:
Abortion is direct when the deliberately chosen act is inherently directed toward destroying human life in the womb. The term 'direct' refers to the intrinsic ordering of an act toward its moral object, not to the intention of the person.

I see... so it's all a state of mind then, or an outlook as to what one thinks one is doing regardless of the actual situation?

element_115x wrote:

I see... so it's all a state of mind then, or an outlook as to what one thinks one is doing regardless of the actual situation?

wrong.

There are three sources(fonts) of morality:


1. the intention, or end, or purpose, or motive, of the person
2.the moral object, or object, or species, or nature, of the act itself

3.the circumstances, or consequences, of the intentionally chosen act

Every knowingly chosen act has all three fonts: an intended end (or purpose or motive) for which the act is chosen; the chosen act itself, which is inherently directed at its moral object; the consequences of the chosen act. All three fonts must be good for an act to be moral.

In order for the first font of intention to be good, all that is intended must be good. A bad intention makes any act immoral. However, if the other two fonts are good, and only the bad intention is causing the act to be immoral, then change your intention.

An immoral intended end makes the intention and the overall act immoral. However, if a person intends a good end, but by means of an intrinsically evil act, then the intended means is immoral. Such an intention cannot be said to be moral.

Example: A physician intends the good end of relieving the suffering of his patient. But he intends to use the gravely immoral means of euthanasia to that end. Not only is the act immoral due to an evil moral object (the killing of an innocent person), but the first font of intention is also immoral. No one can claim that their intention is good, if they intend to use an evil means to a good end. The end does
not justify the means. And so an evil intended means is not justified by a good intended end.

Yidda wrote:
Abortion is direct when the deliberately chosen act is inherently directed toward destroying human life in the womb. The term 'direct' refers to the intrinsic ordering of an act toward its moral object, not to the intention of the person.

Why are you removing the fallopian tube in the first place? Because you want to remove the fetus that shouldn't be there in the first place. This is also direct abortion!

And I would suppose the Catholic church will not support medication to terminate ectopic pregnancy, as this is also a direct abortion?

So does the Catholic church support only removal of fallopian tube for ectopic pregnancy which requires surgery?

Both procedures are direct abortion in their definition. Intentional acts to terminate potential human life.

vril wrote:

OT: I thought the sin against the so called holy spirit is unforgivable? Should this be the greatest evil?

Anyways, god allows evil for the greater good. This is clear that god will tolerate deaths of innocents including unborn child, rape and abuse of innocents, murder of innocents for the greater good. So those who are victims of these massacre are left to accept that it's god's will and it's for a greater good. Greater good for what!? You lost a child for a greater good?! What greater good can you ask for to replace the death of your child?

If anyone can make sense of this god who behave like this, you are one ufcknig deluded blind psychopath!

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is nothing other than final impenitence which is refusing, up to and including the last moment of one's life, to repent from actual mortal sin.

Humanity has withdrawn himself from God who is the source of Life and Joy. Man is the one who choses evil for God, he is the one who build a civilization without God.

vril wrote:

Why are you removing the fallopian tube in the first place? Because you want to remove the fetus that shouldn't be there in the first place. This is also direct abortion!

Under the principle of the "double effect,"attending physicians must do everything in their power to save both the mother and the child. If the physicians decide that, in the case of an ectopic pregnancy, the mother's life can only be saved by the removal of the Fallopian tube (and with it, the unborn baby), or by removal of some other tissue essential for the preborn baby's life, the baby will of course die. But this would not be categorized as an abortion. This is all the difference between deliberate murder (abortion) and unintentional natural death.

Yidda wrote:...
Man is the one who choses evil for God, he is the one who build a civilization without God.

Napapalayo na ako sa topic but I can't help but comment on Yidda's comment above. Man was forced to build civilizations without God because God did not choose to visit them. For example, the Chinese civilization -- one of the greatest in the world -- was totally ignored by God in ancient times, so obviously they build their civilization without YHWH. The Hindu civilization, equally great and ancient, equally ignored by the Israel-based and Israel-focused God. So, what can you expect?

In the Americas, the Aztecs, Mayans, Incas and other civilizations also rose without YHWH's guidance. So, Yidda should not fault them for building a civilization without the Hebrew God. At least, Jesus visited the North American area briefly, but only to check on what Moroni had done much earlier.

So, bottomline, God was politicking in Israel, but ignored the rest of the ancient world.

I can't help too but to respond on different issues raised, the origin of evil is not the Creator but the creature's freely choosing sin and selfishness. Take away all sin and selfishness and you would have heaven on earth.The cause of physical evil is spiritual evil. The cause of suffering is sin.

Yidda wrote:

wrong.

There are three sources(fonts) of morality:


1. the intention, or end, or purpose, or motive, of the person
2.the moral object, or object, or species, or nature, of the act itself

3.the circumstances, or consequences, of the intentionally chosen act

Every knowingly chosen act has all three fonts: an intended end (or purpose or motive) for which the act is chosen; the chosen act itself, which is inherently directed at its moral object; the consequences of the chosen act. All three fonts must be good for an act to be moral.

In order for the first font of intention to be good, all that is intended must be good. A bad intention makes any act immoral. However, if the other two fonts are good, and only the bad intention is causing the act to be immoral, then change your intention.

An immoral intended end makes the intention and the overall act immoral. However, if a person intends a good end, but by means of an intrinsically evil act, then the intended means is immoral. Such an intention cannot be said to be moral.

Example: A physician intends the good end of relieving the suffering of his patient. But he intends to use the gravely immoral means of euthanasia to that end. Not only is the act immoral due to an evil moral object (the killing of an innocent person), but the first font of intention is also immoral. No one can claim that their intention is good, if they intend to use an evil means to a good end. The end does
not justify the means. And so an evil intended means is not justified by a good intended end.

Ok... so what guidelines determine what is 'good' ? As far as i see it, if something involves the element of 'intention', then that makes it a state of mind just the same. It's but an outlook of how we think we are doing certain things, as i've said previously.

element_115x wrote:

Ok... so what guidelines determine what is 'good' ?

God is Good.

The Goodness of God is the basis for all morality.

All immorality is contrary to the very Nature of God. God has justice not merely as a quality, but as His very Nature. All that is unjust, all that is sin, is contrary to the very Nature of God. Morality is determined by the Goodness and Justice of the Divine Nature.

All immoral acts are in some way contrary to the Nature of God.
All moral acts are in harmony with the Nature of God.