A theological argument FOR abortion

[Adeodatus]

Exactly right. But that is not my philosophy, it is the religious (Christian) philosophy, whether realized or not. This life is only a testing ground, this life is meaningless without the assumed continuation.

Neither of your claims are true. See text of my previous post.

 

[R_Daneel]

Neither of your claims are true. See text of my previous post.

I read it. This is what you wrote: " It doesn’t matter if the bomb will destroy the whole planet… it is better that all should die rather than a rape be committed." I find this totally irrational.

 

[kingal86]

This piqued my interest, because I have seen/read some Christians try to justify Biblical acts of genocide by saying that it was perfectly acceptable for God to command the murder of morally innocent babies (as recorded in the OT) because said babies’ souls would be received into heaven upon their deaths.

First of all, I wonder how it is rationally possible to justify the acts of genocide recorded in the Bible (at least without supposing that God dictates a different moral code than that to which He Himself adheres); is this not a case of ends being held to justify means?

I’ve always wondered about the genocidal bits of the Old Testament (though I think I mostly hold to a view of retrospective justification by claiming divine orders)…

 

[Adeodatus]

I read it. This is what you wrote: " It doesn’t matter if the bomb will destroy the whole planet… it is better that all should die rather than a rape be committed." I find this totally irrational.

I think maybe you have so internalized the principle of Consequentialism that it’s hard for you to see matters outside of that world view.

From the standpoint of Moral Realism, some acts (“moral objects”… the things that are actually done) have an intrinsic moral value (including negative values). That’s not the case with all moral objects, but being a Moral Realist means that you think that there is a set of moral objects that have intrinsic moral values.

A Moral Absolutist (such as Catholics) is a type of Moral Realist who thinks that some of those moral objects with intrinsic values (usually the negative ones) are absolutes, meaning in the case of the negatives that they cannot be done under any circumstances. Therefore considerations like consequence, proportionality, reciprocity, etc. are irrelevant in the cases of those moral objects… to be free from qualification is just what it means to be an absolute.

Taking the case of rape, for example: to the absolutist who rules out rape as a negative absolute, there is not one single case out of the whole infinity of possibility under which a rape would be justified. There is simply no need to even worry about whether rape is a choiceworthy act… it is not, will not be and cannot be. That holds true no matter how hyperbolical the proposed consequences. Even if it would prevent a million other rapes.

 

[R_Daneel]

From the standpoint of Moral Realism, some acts (“moral objects”… the things that are actually done) have an intrinsic moral value (including negative values). That’s not the case with all moral objects, but being a Moral Realist means that you think that there is a set of moral objects that have intrinsic moral values.

I disagree with your definition of “realist”. A realist is someone who takes** all the aspects into consideration**, the aim, the means, the mitigating and the exacerbating circumstances.

A Moral Absolutist (such as Catholics) is a type of Moral Realist who thinks that some of those moral objects with intrinsic values (usually the negative ones) are absolutes, meaning in the case of the negatives that they cannot be done under any circumstances. Therefore considerations like consequence, proportionality, reciprocity, etc. are irrelevant in the cases of those moral objects… to be free from qualification is just what it means to be an absolute.

Taking the case of rape, for example: to the absolutist who rules out rape as a negative absolute, there is not one single case out of the whole infinity of possibility under which a rape would be justified. There is simply no need to even worry about whether rape is a choiceworthy act… it is not, will not be and cannot be. That holds true no matter how hyperbolical the proposed consequences. Even if it would prevent a million other rapes.

There are sevaral problems with this. First, who decides which are those “special” instances which belong to the “unquestionable” category? As for rape (which I consider one of the most hideous acts of violence) it is not even mentioned in the 10 commandments. However murder and stealing are. Yet, there are some kinds of murder (self defense, war and state-sanctioned executions) when murder is considered acceptable. Most people would say that simple stealing of a piece of bread to prevent starvation is acceptable. Maybe you disgree, I don’t know. Would you elaborate?

Second, that there is no enumerated list of what are those “unquestionable” acts. It seems that this “unlisted list” is arbitrary. So the so called “absolutely morally unacceptable actions” are based on an arbitrary value system. How is that “absolute”?

Your last sentence is pretty frightening to me. You said: “Even if it would prevent a million other rapes”. The problem here is that there is no real, substantial difference between the guilt by commission and guilt by omission. If someone is able to prevent a wrong act, but fails to do so, he is exactly as guilty as the perpetrator himself. If you could prevent those millions of rapes by committing one rape, you are exactly as responsible for those millions of rapes as the perpetrators themselves. You cannot “wash your hands” a la Pilate.

 

[fkjuliano]

Your question reveals the emptiness of your disbelief system! You spend a lot of time and energy on this forum attacking theism and Christianity because you have **nothing **to defend…

Your distortion of Christian belief highlights your belief that earthly existence is unconditionally and categorically without any meaning. You are obviously ignorant of the fact that this life is, in the words of John Keats, a vale of soul-making rather than a meaningless spark in the darkness of eternity…

All the pain, misery, horror in this existence is without significance for you because you accept it as a brute fact without making any attempt to consider whether in your wisdom you can create a pain-free, misery-free, horror-free world. If life is so terrible why bother to hang around? Is it just because you’re afraid of death?
Obviously you have no scruples about killing the defenceless because you regard goodness and justice as mere human conventions… Perhaps you are the one who is envious… of something else…

Are you suggesting that the atheist way of life does have ultimate significance?
If so where do you obtain it? If not why pretend that it does? Of course, your version of life as a senseless joke by the blind Goddess makes nonsense of any claim to intellectual superiority on your part. Your little “agitation of the brain” - as David Hume called it - is an inadequate tool for proving anything whatsoever.

The amazement never stops that you’re so obsessed with attacking Christianity that you can find nothing better to do! Why devote your valuable time and energy - when your life is so meaninglessly short - to sheer nonsense? Could it be that you cannot really find anything worthwhile in your mindless philosophy and are envious of those who can? Or is it because the pleasure of destruction exceeds all your other forms of entertainment while you await for extinction? After all you don’t have a glimmer of doubt that you have absolutely nothing to look forward to, do you?

You keep saying Catholic teachings are self-contradictory, but they certainly are not. The Catholic Church teaches that taking an innocent life is always wrong, no matter the purpose. That is a very clear and oft-repeated doctrine that you have chosen to ignore. There is no exception when the murderer believes the victim will go to heaven by dying at that particular moment. “Intent” in this case only refers to whether or not the murdered intended to kill, if he or she did, then the act was a mortal sin, regardless of consequence. There is a contradiction, but it is only within the imaginary belief system you have devised and then pretended to be that of the Catholic Church. In other words, your whole argument is a rather obvious variation of the straw man fallacy: build up a weak position, then tear it down.

By the way, I too was once a militant atheist who would go to Christian forums and try to dissuade others from their faith, so I know exactly where you are coming from. You are motivated by your own unhappiness; you want as many people to have a life as empty as yours, because, as we all know, misery loves company. Also, as a “bright”, you are convinced of your superior intelligence. Believing that about yourself naturally inspires vanity and that vanity can hardly abide those who think in a different way, so you feel compelled to devise fallacious arguments to try bring Christians down to the darkness in which you dwell. And you do dwell in darkness; all atheists do. That is why it is so deliciously ironic that atheists have of late chosen to call themselves “brights”. Of course, I know should not say “deliciously”. I thought about using “sadly” instead, and if I were a perfect Christian I would actually feel that way. But, do you know what? Atheists are just not very nice. In the name of their twisted ideologies, they killed 100 million+ people since the beginning of the 20th century and yet have the gall to say Christianity is the source of all evil.

Something that was crucial in my own transformation from atheist to faithful Catholic was watching a couple of testimonies in which atheists who had near-death experiences described the fate awaiting atheists: total darkness, endless and featureless, for all eternity. When I first heard that, I was horrified, but then I gradually understood the justice inherent in that fate. Atheists reject God and deny Him before others, so they experience existence as if God did not exist. That is where your “brightness” is leading you. You should give some thought as to whether that is really where you want to go.

 

[Leela]

That same argument could be used to say that murdering babies (who have been born) is fine because they go straight to Heaven. Or that murdering a Catholic in state of grace (e.g. immediately after Confession) is fine cos he’ll go straight to Heaven.

As I recall, this is no mere hypothetical. Spanish conquistadores supposedly stole babies from their Mayan mothers, baptized them, and then killed them so they would not be raised by their heathen parents to reject Jesus. They believed that they were preventing the babies from being eternally damned and ensuring a place for them in Heaven.

The logic and morality of the act seems inescapable to me given the premises. Even if the Conquistadores thought that they themselves would be damned for their murders, they were then making the greatest possible sacrifice to save the babies. Jesus said that there is no greater love than to give your life for your friend. Perhaps there is a greater love. One could give up his eternal soul in the way these Conquistadores did.

You don’t have to tell me that the idea is disgusting. It’s not my idea. It is a consequence of Catholic ideas. It is part of why the whole Heaven/Hell thing makes no sense to me.

 

[R_Daneel]

As I recall, this is no mere hypothetical. Spanish conquistadores supposedly stole babies from their Mayan mothers, baptized them, and then killed them so they would not be raised by their heathen parents to reject Jesus. They believed that they were preventing the babies from being eternally damned and ensuring a place for them in Heaven.

The logic and morality of the act seems inescapable to me given the premises. Even if the Conquistadores thought that they themselves would be damned for their murders, they were then making the greatest possible sacrifice to save the babies. Jesus said that there is no greater love than to give your life for your friend. Perhaps there is a greater love. One could give up his eternal soul in the way these Conquistadores did.

You don’t have to tell me that the idea is disgusting. It’s not my idea. It is a consequence of Catholic ideas. It is part of why the whole Heaven/Hell thing makes no sense to me.

Thank you Leela for that particular trivia. Indeed it is the simple logical corollary of the Catholic beliefs. Of course someone will contend that those conquistadores were in error (at the very least). I wish they could go back and that to those conquistadores themselves… then they would have been regarded as heretics, with the usual consequences…

 

[crazzeto]

It is very simple and straightforward.

Take a zygote, freshly impregnated, before it even leaves for the trip to the uterus. According to the theists, it (definitely not a “he” or a “she”) is already a “human being”. It never gets implanted into the uterus wall, just gets flushed out from the woman’s system. What will be its fate? Will it get into heaven, or will be sent to hell? The limbo is no longer an offical doctrine -

Limbo was never official doctrine, it was a device used by theologians starting in the middle ages to say “we put the fate of unbaptised infiants upn the mercy of God”. That is to say, we don’t know and can never know until the end of all things what God’s perfect plan is.

so we can leave that out from consideration. Surely it will not get to hell, not even the most conservative Catholic would assert that. So it will go into heaven, in some capacity. There are some people who say that it will not get to the beatific vision (whatever that means). But even a “low-level” heaven is pretty good.

It means you see the face of God, you are in his presense. This is what heaven is, being in the presense of God. It’s not sitting around on a cloud playing a harp. We don’t know God’s perfect plan for this seario, we merely put these cases upon the Mercy of God.

Now, the second possibility is that the zygote gets implanted into the uterus wall, but for some reason or another, it gets spontaneously aborted. The result is the same, it will get into heaven. Good outcome.

Suppose that the abortion is not spontaneous, it is volitional. For the fetus the outcome is not diifferent, still a nice, cozy, warm place in heaven. Good outcome again. So, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, abortion is good. No risk of hell, only an assured place on God’s bosom.

This is incorrect reasoning, “I sent them to heaven” is not a valid argument for murder. Thou shalt not kill, pretty straight forward if you ask me.

But, what about the woman who makes this decision? Well, it depends on her intent. Catholics, (unlike some Protestants) take the intent into consideration, and not just the act itself. If her intent is to assure a place in heaven, she acts out of love, performing an act in the fetus’s best interest. Furthermore, she sacrifices herself, her future place in heaven, which is the highest form of love. So, she is not a criminal, she does not sin, she puts the well-being of the fetus in front of her own. Thus she is to be praised and a self-sacrificing person, who risks everything just to assure the fetus’s place.

No Catholic can say the intent of the woman would make the abortion not sinful in any capacity, nor even not gravely sinful. In fact I would suggest each and every time it’s mortally sinful as this is a part of the natural law which is written into the hearts of all. A woman killing her own child is known to be in direct contradition of the natural law to which we will all be held accountable. Perhaps the only real thing up in the air is whether or not she is an excommunicant.

Moreover, she prevents the possible “slip” of her child, who might commot some mortal sin and consequently would be confined to eternal damnation. From a simple risk-benefit analysis, it is her optimal solution. The fetus will get an assured place in heaven. Her fate is also assured, as a self-sacrificing person, who exhibits the highest form of love. Surely God will take her intent into consideration.

So, go and abort all your children. It is in the best interest of the child, and in the best interest of the mother. Be careful, however, not to be selfish, and do not perform the abortion for some temporal gain. Always cast your eyes on the heaven. God will understand your motive, and will reward for it.

It’s obvious you lack a sound understanding of theology and scripture, which leads me to believe you’ve never had any religious formation at all. So I won’t fault you for your bad theology, but I would suggest you reconsider your stance on the issue of aboriton.

 

[Lycorth]

It’s amazing how cognitive dissonance works.

The Church has always taught that murder is wrong. Therefore, killing babies so that they would not have the chance to sin or be led astray would be murder on the part of the one doing the killing. It probably wouldn’t even be forgiven in confession since in order to be forgiven, one has to actually regret the sin, and it is highly unlikely that someone killing babies for the sake of Heaven would ever fully regret the act.

But some people have to get their rocks off by attacking the Church, especially when they have nothing better to offer in its place. Sad.

 

[Leela]

It’s amazing how cognitive dissonance works.

The Church has always taught that murder is wrong. Therefore, killing babies so that they would not have the chance to sin or be led astray would be murder on the part of the one doing the killing. It probably wouldn’t even be forgiven in confession since in order to be forgiven, one has to actually regret the sin, and it is highly unlikely that someone killing babies for the sake of Heaven would ever fully regret the act.

But some people have to get their rocks off by attacking the Church, especially when they have nothing better to offer in its place. Sad.

You are certainly right that the Catholic Church does not excuse murder for the purpose of saving souls. Hell will no doubt be the consequence in Church teaching for such an unrepented act. Yet, given the Heaven/Hell premises, and knowing that one would be condemning himself to hell to actually do it, would it not still be the most profound sacrifice imaginable to baptize and kill as many babies as possible to ensure the salvation of their souls at the expense of his own soul? What more could one have to offer for the salvation of these babies than the eternal torment of his own soul? What greater love could there be than to sacrifice one’s very soul for others?

I know it is a terrible consequence of belief in the Heaven/Hell business, but there it is. If there is a way to avoid this conclusion I would be very interested in hearing it.

The ultimate in loving self-sacrifice is to murder others to ensure the salvation of others. This is a very religious sort of nihilism that only shows up among believers who don’t merely believe in believing but who REALLY believe. This world is ultimately trivial for the likes of the suicide bomber who sincerely and whole-heartedly believes in the existence of Heaven and Hell.

 

[Betterave]

As I recall, this is no mere hypothetical. Spanish conquistadores supposedly stole babies from their Mayan mothers, baptized them, and then killed them so they would not be raised by their heathen parents to reject Jesus. They believed that they were preventing the babies from being eternally damned and ensuring a place for them in Heaven.

The logic and morality of the act seems inescapable to me given the premises. Even if the Conquistadores thought that they themselves would be damned for their murders, they were then making the greatest possible sacrifice to save the babies. Jesus said that there is no greater love than to give your life for your friend. Perhaps there is a greater love. One could give up his eternal soul in the way these Conquistadores did.

You don’t have to tell me that the idea is disgusting. It’s not my idea. It is a consequence of Catholic ideas. It is part of why the whole Heaven/Hell thing makes no sense to me.

Inescapable logic!? A consequence of Catholic ideas?! Wow; some of the atheists and agnostics around here could really stand to study some beginner logic (what an abuse of the word) and an introduction to Catholic ideas! This is incredibly ignorant (in both the proper and colloquial senses of the term).

1. Giving up your mortal life to help your neighbor is love (T)
2. So giving up your immortal soul to help your neighbor is love (F)
3. (1) is possible (not self-contradictory) (T)
4. So (2) is possible (not self-contradictory) (F)
5. We also know (4) is true because Spanish conquistadores allegedly (source please??) believed it (F)

 

[Betterave]

Thank you Leela for that particular trivia. Indeed it is the simple logical corollary of the Catholic beliefs. Of course someone will contend that those conquistadores were in error (at the very least). I wish they could go back and that to those conquistadores themselves… then they would have been regarded as heretics, with the usual consequences…

The other simple logical corollary is that abortion is not self-sacrifice on the part of the mother because abortion denies the child the beatific vision. Self-sacrifice would require giving birth, baptizing, then killing the child. (Pls don’t talk to us about logic RD, you’re terrible at it.)

 

[crazzeto]

Inescapable logic!? A consequence of Catholic ideas?! Wow; some of the atheists and agnostics around here could really stand to study some beginner logic (what an abuse of the word) and an introduction to Catholic ideas! This is incredibly ignorant (in both the proper and colloquial senses of the term).

1. Giving up your mortal life to help your neighbor is love (T)
2. So giving up your immortal soul to help your neighbor is love (F)
3. (1) is possible (not self-contradictory) (T)
4. So (2) is possible (not self-contradictory) (F)
5. We also know (4) is true because Spanish conquistadores allegedly (source please??) believed it (F)

Actually I’d rather read the source this poster cites, though given the kind of people we’re talking out (heck, they weren’t particularly good Catholics) I wouldnt’ be totally shocked if one could find incidents as described. Still, I’m not prepard to take such alligations completely at the world of someone who obviously has such a jaded view of the faith.

 

[Betterave]

That actually does appear to be what the Catholic position suggests. Of course I understand that intention matters, and that the immortal soul of the perpetrator is believed to be at stake. However, it must also be said that the Catholic (and perhaps general Christian) ethic holds sacrifice for one’s neighbour in the highest regard. Why is it not greater to sacrifice one’s immortal soul for the sake of another than to sacrifice any worldly good? And why is compassionate intention not considered relevant in such a circumstance? I don’t say this to be insolent, but because I am genuinely curious - such questions really never came up when I was growing up Catholic.

My own answer, as an atheist, would be that it is wrong to commit an act of assault or violence against any person against their will; is the Catholic position the same? If so, why?

Sair,
The answer to your question is quite simple:
Compassionate intention *is *always relevant. But it is not objectively justifying.

Also, one is required to love oneself even more so than one is required to love one’s neighbor. Those who truly hate themselves inevitably hate their neighbors. Love of neighbor is only possible on the basis of love of self which is extended to one’s neighbor. (Hence: love your neighbor as yourself.)

 

[R_Daneel]

That is to say, we don’t know and can never know until the end of all things what God’s perfect plan is.

We don’t know God’s perfect plan for this seario, we merely put these cases upon the Mercy of God.

So, when convenient, you say: “we don’t know”.

This is incorrect reasoning, “I sent them to heaven” is not a valid argument for murder. Thou shalt not kill, pretty straight forward if you ask me.

No, it is not straightforward at all. Murder is self-defense is ok. Murder in war is ok. State sanctioned murder - execution is ok. So sometimes “we don’t know”, other times we do? Who decides? The Church? Made up of fallible humans? And don’t say the Church is infallible, because that is just another nonsense.

No Catholic can say the intent of the woman would make the abortion not sinful in any capacity, nor even not gravely sinful. In fact I would suggest each and every time it’s mortally sinful as this is a part of the natural law which is written into the hearts of all.

This natural “law” is just another myth.

 

[R_Daneel]

You keep saying Catholic teachings are self-contradictory, but they certainly are not.

Actually, I did not say that the “teaching” is contradictory, I say that the Church’s teaching and its actions contradict each other.

For example, on one hand there is the “teaching” that pain and suffering has a “redemptive” value (which is already nonsense). On the other hand the Church sets up hospitals (which is commendable!) to alleviate suffering. The actions contradict the words! Also the Church “teaches” that God only allows pain and suffering to achieve some unspecified “grater good”, and then it turns around and tries to “mess up” God’s greater plan by healing the sick in those hospitals. Either God has a plan to use the pain and suffering to achieve some greater good, or some of the pain is not necessary. In the first case the Catholic hospitals intend to interfere with God’s “perfect” plan; while in the second case God allows gratitious suffering, which contradicts God’s benevolence. No matter how you twist it, there is a huge contradiction here.

Oh, and by the way, don’t assume that you know anything about my “misery”, or “anger”, and my reasons to be here. It is only egg on your face.

 

[R_Daneel]

The other simple logical corollary is that abortion is not self-sacrifice on the part of the mother because abortion denies the child the beatific vision.

How do you know that? Have you been there and verified it? Maybe you could show the video on YouTube…

 

[crazzeto]

So, when convenient, you say: “we don’t know”.

No, it’s a truth. On the one had Christ said no one can enter the kingdom who has not been born again of water and spirit, on the other we know Gods mercy trumps his justice. Figuring out that apparent (to us) tension is something for God, not us as we don’t have enough information. Regardless, that doesn’t change the nature of my correction. No Catholic Dogma was changed when the Pope expressed his displeasure of this theological theroy…

It’s a bit like me saying scientific law was changed when it was discovered that there was no mysterious and invisible planet “vulcan” between mercury and the sun. When science realized this was wrong and explained the orbit of mercury using other more advanced means no scientific law was changed, rather a theory was disproved.

No, it is not straightforward at all. Murder is self-defense is ok. Murder in war is ok. State sanctioned murder - execution is ok. So sometimes “we don’t know”, other times we do? Who decides? The Church? Made up of fallible humans? And don’t say the Church is infallible, because that is just another nonsense.

It seems to me that athiests have great need of investing money into a good dictionary, or to learn of the webpage dictionary.com. All you’ve done is demonstrate that not all killings are murders, not that murder is ever OK under any condition.

dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder

mur·der   /ˈmɜrdər/ Show Spelled[mur-der] Show IPA
–noun
1.Law. the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2.Slang. something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3.a group or flock of crows.
–verb (used with object)
4.Law. to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6.to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.
–verb (used without object)
7.to commit murder.
—Idioms
8.get away with murder, Informal. to engage in a deplorable activity without incurring harm or punishment: The new baby-sitter lets the kids get away with murder.
9.murder will out, a secret will eventually be exposed.
10.yell/screambloody murder,
a.to scream loudly in pain, fear, etc.
b.to protest loudly and angrily: If I don’t get a good raise I’m going to yell bloody murder.

This natural “law” is just another myth.

Actually the natural law is quite real, and it is the law by which you will be judged by God.

 

[R_Daneel]

No, it’s a truth. On the one had Christ said no one can enter the kingdom who has not been born again of water and spirit, on the other we know Gods mercy trumps his justice. Figuring out that apparent (to us) tension is something for God, not us as we don’t have enough information. Regardless, that doesn’t change the nature of my correction. No Catholic Dogma was changed when the Pope expressed his displeasure of this theological theroy…

Since there is no simple, enumerated list of the “official” teachings, it is easy to use the verbal trickery of “this was never an ‘official’ teaching”.

It seems to me that athiests have great need of investing money into a good dictionary, or to learn of the webpage dictionary.com. All you’ve done is demonstrate that not all killings are murders, not that murder is ever OK under any condition.

You can’t have it both ways. Either murder is the “intentional taking of a human life”, or murder is the “intentional and unlawful taking of a human life”. In the first case killing in self-defense would be murder - while in the second case it would not be. In the first case abortion would be murder, in the second case it would not be. As I said, you can’t have your cake, and eat it, too.

Actually the natural law is quite real, and it is the law by which you will be judged by God.

Only according to the myth, which you think is reality.