Sentences with phrase «innocent human life»

Let us focus mainly on the crime of murder, the deliberate taking of innocent human life.

The question is whether it is right to destroy innocent human lives.

The first statement, which has to do with the taking of innocent human life, is the least controversial of the three.

«Catholic politicians should build new coalitions in support of protecting innocent human life: Coalitions, first and foremost, with American women» the majority of whom are pro-life» who understand that Roe's abortion license has encouraged irresponsible male sexual behavior more than any other legal act in our history.

The mission of MCCL is to secure protection for innocent human life from conception until natural death through effective education, legislation, and political action.

The clear and authoritative teaching of the Catholic Church is that it is always and intrinsically wrong to directly intend to terminate innocent human life.

It is a very helpful guide to the formation of conscience with respect to questions raised in voting and other political activity if, in fidelity to the Church's teaching, one recognizes the «intrinsic evil» of taking innocent human life in abortion.

Let's be honest; this has never been about saving lives — if it were, they'd ban most alcoholic beverages which take far more innocent human lives...

For this reason, Evans counsels Christians to avoid the «embryonic life» narrative, which holds innocent human life to be inviolable from conception to natural death, because invoking the value of unborn life pushes people into pugilistic abortion - rights corners.

To begin, it is unclear whether Collins has any moral qualms about the wanton destruction of innocent human life given his apparent optimism about the sufficiency of private funds for the doing the federal government's dirty work.

It will eventually destroy innocent human lives (such as unborn children and religious minorities) and bring strifes among people one way or another because of the shedding of innocent blood.

The fundamental moral concern to protect innocent human life is not, however, overridden, even in the face of such violence.

At some point we will start rationalizing the killing of innocent human life; oh wait we're already there with abortion!

«Such social doctrine provides directions but, with few exceptions (for instance, the defense of innocent human life), does not provide directives of immediate applicability to policy questions on which people of good faith, guided by reason and conscience, can come to different conclusions.»

To endorse gay marriage, abortion and distruction of innocent human life, no matter what color of that child is unnatural and evil.

Di Noia later decried a trend toward «exclusive humanism» and said, «That innocent human life is now so broadly under threat has seemed to many of us one of the signs of this growing peril.»

Washington archdiocese spokeswoman Susan Gibbs told CNN afterwards that the reference to «innocent human life» was meant «broadly,» referring to «all life that is at risk, not just simply the unborn, but the fragility of all human life.»

But if we put that matter aside, and if our main interest lies in protecting the lives of our people, why do the mavens on national security show no concern for the 1.2 million innocent human lives taken each year in abortion?

And while I'm grateful believers and unbelievers can agree that the taking of innocent human life is wrong, without a basis for this knowledge, this is a position can turn on a dime.

The Church, however, has consistently taught over the centuries that the direct and intentional taking of innocent human life, as in abortion, is a grave and intrinsic evil.

On abortion: Abortion is, put quite simply, the killing of an innocent human life who can do nothing to defend him or herself.

The inevitable alternative to the old commandments are Singer's new commandments: «Recognize that the worth of human life varies,» «Use active means to take innocent human life,» and so on.

8) The sentence of death may be improper if it has serious negative effects on society, such as miscarriages of justice, the increase of vindictiveness, or disrespect for the value of innocent human life.

At the same time, however, we must ask: If one believes that 25 million abortions are equivalent to 25 million instances of the taking of innocent human life, does not the analogy with the Holocaust become more appropriate?

In Poland, the priest - editor of a major Catholic magazine was convicted of violating a complainant's human rights and assessed a heavy fine because he described abortion for what it is: the willful taking of an innocent human life.

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia in a recent lecture: «A Christian should not support a government that suppresses the faith or one that sanctions the taking of an innocent human life.»

And it is certainly not irrational or irrelevant to insist on that most basic of civilizational requirements: the protection of innocent human life.

One part of the document says: «We can safely assume that many who seek to justify abortion would never agree with infanticide or any other taking of innocent human life.»

By what criteria do we absolutize the principle of autonomy independent of the object chosen — even when that choice entails the destruction of innocent human life?

I know that is wrong because my beliefs dictate that human life is sacred, and innocent human life is more so.

Thus, it is always wrong to commit adultery or take innocent human life, whatever the circumstances, because such an act is in itself morally wrong.

Catholics, as well as any other group opposed to the taking of innocent human life, will find it difficult if not impossible to practice medicine in accordance with the ACOG recommendations.

The protection of innocent human life is the first responsibility of the limited state, and abortion is inescapably a public question.

Contrast the precept against the taking of innocent human life.

They must support the principle of the protection of innocent human life and the implementation of that principle in law.»

«The American democratic experiment will be debased and coarsened if it continues to deny the principle of the inviolability of innocent human life.

Meanwhile, the Republican Party has in recent decades become the champion of the Church's public priorities — the protection of innocent human life, parental choice in education, the defense of marriage, church - state cooperation, and an array of issues under the rubric of religious freedom.

There's NO excuse for taking innocent human life of any kind; no matter what your perspective may be.