A theological argument FOR abortion

[Marc_Anthony]

Well, this commandment is supposed to say: “thou shalt not murder”. Murder is the intentional taking of a human life. Yet, there are exceptions to this (self defense, war, etc…) - so the rule is not absolute. Maybe the intentional taking of a human life is ok, if the sole aim is “help” that being to eternal bliss. After all the Catholic Church tortured the alleged witches until they renounced the devil, and then the Church burned them while they were in the state of “grace”. So this practice was conducted by the Church.

The Church was wrong (which BTW does not mean the Church was not the one true infallible Church since this was not infallible). No, you cannot take a human life for that reason and the Church never taught that because it’s silly. It would be disobeying God to help God. Those occasions for justified murder you mentioned are done with it being realized that murder is not something you do to help the person you murder, which is obviously ridiculous.

BTW my Bible, which is Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, says, “You shall not kill” NOT “You shall not murder”.

 

[R_Daneel]

This is what abortion is, intentional taking of innocent human life.

Innocent has nothing to do with it. According to believers, no one is “innocent”. And by your opinion, if every intentional taking of a human life is “murder”, then so is self-defense and war.

Now, properly speaking, murder is the “intentional and **unlawful **taking of a human life”. As such, self-defense and war (and executions) are not murders, since they are legally sanctioned. And in this case, abortions are also not murders, since the law says otherwise. Maybe you would like them to be declared illegal, and thus murders, but that is neither here, nor there.

Nonsense. Pure, unadulterate nonsense.

An unpleasant fact. Denial of facts is not helpful.

 

[R_Daneel]

If God felt it important for us to know, he could have spelled it out for us. But he didn’t, and I would dare say it would be disobedient of us to second guess God and act like this issue is of vital importance to us when we are perfectly capable of getting along without knowing.

But you keep on “second-guessing” God’s intentions all the time! When you do not deny the existence of evil actions, you keep on saying that God has a “greater” plan - which is also never mentioned in the Bible. How come that you are allowed to “second-guess” and I am not? Just because it is inconvenient?

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Innocent has nothing to do with it. According to believers, no one is “innocent”.

Nobody said that.

 

[R_Daneel]

BTW my Bible, which is Nihil Obstat and Imprimatur, says, “You shall not kill” NOT “You shall not murder”.

Oh, how many times has this been brought up. When the atheists point out that “thou shalt not kill” includes the taking of any life, not just human, the retort was swift, saying that “kill” should really read “murder”. I wonder, why can’t you believers come to a concesus on these matters? If I say “white”, you say “black”. If I say “black”, you say “white” - on the very same subject. Can’t you guys just come to an agreement?

Nobody said that.

Only a few thousand times on these boards…

 

[R_Daneel]

The Church has done no such thing. Perhaps individual Catholics. See the example about the Conquistador.

The inquisition was an offical institution of the Church. Don’t try to wiggle out.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Only a few thousand times on these boards…

Name one time a person said that a baby was not an innocent human life.

And even if somebody has said that “nobody’s innocent”, they’re wrong.

 

[Black_Rose]

Name one time a person said that a baby was not an innocent human life.

And even if somebody has said that “nobody’s innocent”, they’re wrong.

Are you actually aware of the arguments the pro-choice people use to support their arguments?

Most typically appeal to a woman’s putative right to choose and sovereignty with her own body. The most prominent incarnation of this argument Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “A Defense of Abortion” where she proposes a thought experiment where a violinist with a kidney ailment the body of a kidnapped person. If the kidnapped person disconnects from the violinist, then the violinist would die. Thomson argues that abortion is analogous to the hypothetical though experiment where it would be acceptable to disconnect from the machine since the violinist does not have the right to use another person’s body and the kidnapped person does not have a moral obligation to share his/her body.

However, another common argument also used is to downplay the moral significance of the fetus. The key assumption of this line of reasoning is that entities that worthy of ethical concern must have the characteristics of sentience. Next, one would argue that a fetus does not possess these properties; for instance, fetus are not conscious, incapable of feeling pain and suffering, and do not have interests.

I am not that concerned with abortion since I realized that utilizing the sectarian morality of the Catholic Church is an otiose tactic for changing the secular perspective of society. The secular edifice permitting abortion is built on foundation of abstract, unselfish utilitarian ethics and self-interested concerns of feminism.

 

[R_Daneel]

Name one time a person said that a baby was not an innocent human life.

Nobody said that explicitly. It was always presented as a generic statement.

And even if somebody has said that “nobody’s innocent”, they’re wrong.

Looks like you don’t take the concept of “original sin” seriously. Which is fine by me.

 

[Grace_Angel]

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 - 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.

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.

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.

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.

R Daneel, if you believe that a woman who wants to abort her child is thinking “Heaven” or “hell” you are more infantile than your whole posts suggests.
Abortion is the outcome of selfishness, pure and utter selfishness.
It has nothing to do with after life. Indeed in probably 100% of cases the after life, God, heaven, hell are the least things considered. What is first and foremost considered is "inconvenience " and perhaps also "I dont want this kid and I am not willing to loan my body to this child long enough to bring him/her to birth and then give the child to someone who may want him. Again selfishness/egocentricity.
Abortion is a sacrificial act, but its a human sacrifice offered to Molloch leading to loss of faith,spirit, God.
The last human sacrifice for sin was that of Our Lord Jesus and this so that we would never again be called to offer human sacrifice but sadly 20th century into 21st century have forgotten this fact and are now offering sacrifice to satan.
Sorry Daneel, you have it wrong…very wrong.
GraceAngel.

 

[Answersplease]

Yes, indeed it is… but it is a Catholic “rubbish”. Everything stated in it is based on Catholic belief. From the fate of the unborn all the way to the good intent of the woman, to the highest form of love as the ultimate sacrifice… I did not invent it, I learned it from you guys. Don’t blame the mirror for the reflection.

Answersplease:

You think that what you said is Catholic?

You intentionally misrepresent Catholicism.

The Catholics teach that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is NEVER right to commit a sin in order to achieve a percieved good objective.

ALSO

You HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING about LOVE.

For I tell you GOD IS LOVE (1 John 4:8).

The babies mother would do THE WILL OF GOD if she really knew what LOVE was.

That “rubbish” about aborting babies to send them to heaven being the greatest act of love is from YOUR brain.

The further “rubbish” about the mother sacrificing her own salvation as being an act of love is also from YOUR brain.

Sacrificing her own salvation would be a rejection of God Himself and as God is Love, then she rejects Love as well.

 

[R_Daneel]

R Daneel, if you believe that a woman who wants to abort her child is thinking “Heaven” or “hell” you are more infantile than your whole posts suggests.

I don’t believe any of that. It was posited as a hypothetical scenario, examining the corollaries of the Catholic belief - which is irrational and illogical. Feel better now?

 

[Answersplease]

RDaneel, I have to say I admire your gumption.

I think you’ll probably find that most Catholics here will respond to this as a facetious attack on their beliefs, and perhaps that was your intent…

However, I do think that within this, there is a point of cognitive dissonance to be addressed for anyone who seriously believes that miscarried human foetuses go straight to heaven - how is it morally supportable, in the light of such a belief, for abortion to be condemned as injustice? The outcome for the foetus is favourable - given what is believed to be the ultimate purpose of earthly life - even if the intent of the mother is not necessarily compassionate.

Answersplease:

There is NO point of cognitive dissonance.

You believe there is because you don’t understand how knowledgeable Christians think.

IT IS THE WILL OF GOD THAT IS PARAMOUNT.

God may have had a plan for that baby, that baby might have been the NEXT MOTHER TERESA of Calcutta.

The outcome for the BABY that you call a foetus is NOT favourable.

Any knowledgeable and DEVOUT Christian would NOT miss an opportunity to give glory to God. That BABY that you call a foetus missed out on an earthly life in which that BABY could have glorified God by being a witness for God to atheists like you.

 

[Answersplease]

Yes, indeed it is… but it is a Catholic “rubbish”. Everything stated in it is based on Catholic belief. From the fate of the unborn all the way to the good intent of the woman, to the highest form of love as the ultimate sacrifice… I did not invent it, I learned it from you guys. Don’t blame the mirror for the reflection.

Answersplease:

You think that what you said is Catholic belief?

You intentionally misrepresent Catholicism.

The Catholics teach that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

It is NEVER right to commit a sin in order to achieve a percieved good objective.

ALSO

You HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING about LOVE.

For I tell you GOD IS LOVE (1 John 4:8).

The babies mother would do THE WILL OF GOD if she really knew what LOVE was.

That “rubbish” about aborting babies to send them to heaven being the greatest act of love is from YOUR brain.

The further “rubbish” about the mother sacrificing her own salvation as being an act of love is also from YOUR brain.

Sacrificing her own salvation would be a rejection of God Himself and as God is Love, then she rejects Love as well.

 

[Answersplease]

RDaneel, I have to say I admire your gumption.

I think you’ll probably find that most Catholics here will respond to this as a facetious attack on their beliefs, and perhaps that was your intent…

However, I do think that within this, there is a point of cognitive dissonance to be addressed for anyone who seriously believes that miscarried human foetuses go straight to heaven - how is it morally supportable, in the light of such a belief, for abortion to be condemned as injustice? The outcome for the foetus is favourable - given what is believed to be the ultimate purpose of earthly life - even if the intent of the mother is not necessarily compassionate.

Answersplease:

There is NO point of cognitive dissonance.

You believe there is because you don’t understand how knowledgeable Christians think.

IT IS THE WILL OF GOD THAT IS PARAMOUNT.

God may have had a plan for that baby, that baby might have been the NEXT MOTHER TERESA of Calcutta.

The outcome for the BABY that you call a foetus is NOT favourable.

Any knowledgeable and DEVOUT Christian would NOT miss an opportunity to give glory to God. That BABY that you call a foetus missed out on an earthly life in which that BABY could have glorified God by being a witness for God to atheists like you.

 

[R_Daneel]

You intentionally misrepresent Catholicism.

Have you ever recorded your voice on a tape recorder and listened to it? It is an interesting experiment. You will hear something very strange and different, compared what you think your voice “really” sounds like. This is what I am doing here. I am playing back your “voices” and you are unable and unwilling to realize that it is your voice.

You would call that tape recording a “misrepresentation” of your voice. Guess what? It is the “real thing”. The fact that you don’t like it only tells me that you don’t want it.

 

[Answersplease]

Answersplease:

False DIVERSION.

I ANSWERED YOUR theological argument.

Do you have ANY counter arguments to my answers.

OR

Will you continue on your OBVIOUS DIVERSION about voices and tape recorders.

 

[Grace_Angel]

I don’t believe any of that. It was posited as a hypothetical scenario, examining the corollaries of the Catholic belief - which is irrational and illogical. Feel better now?

I feel perfectly fine, thank you for asking. However, I have concerns for your health though.
GraceAngel.

 

[rwillenborg]

Let’s be very clear.
Catholic doctrine says that we trust our children who died before baptism (including those who died in the womb) to God’s mercy. For Catholics, this is quite sufficient. They have infinite trust in God’s mercy. This is why you will find so many Catholics certain that their babies are in heaven. The Catholic Church HERSELF does not offer them this assurance. The Catholic Church is very explicit in their teaching that we don’t KNOW WITH CERTAINTY the fate of our unbaptized children. Which is why the word ‘trust’ is in there.
So, your premise ‘All aborted babies go to heaven’ is false.
The Catholic Church is very clear that everyone who is in heaven chose to be there, and God would not force his will on an adult, nor would he do so on a child. Though the Catholic church does not claim to know HOW such a choice would be posited to a soul after leaving earth, they do claim with certainty that a choice will be given.
In other words, children who die prematurely are NOT assured of heaven. Catholics, however, trusting in God’s mercy, believe their children are there. You will find this even in the parents of grown children after they have lost the child. They are trusting in God’s mercy. There is no hard and fast rule of the Catholic church which states that to die an early death assures you of heaven.

I’m afraid this house you’ve constructed was built on sand.

By the way, I think it’s odd that you use the term ‘zygote’ and ‘human being’ as if they are different things. They are not. One is a descriptor of the other. Zygote denotes the stage of growth and human being denotes the species. Surely you knew that. It’s just that in common language when we say ‘zygote’ we drop the word human because we assume everyone knows that we are talking about a human zygote, not a cat zygote, a dog zygote, or a pig zygote.
You don’t need a theologian to tell you that human life begins at conception. **There is not a reputable scientist in the world who would argue that the being which exists right after conception is human. **To discover that what results in the sexual union of two human beings is NOT a human being, well, that would be the MOST amazing discovery. You seem to believe that is the case. I’m assuming you are basing this on sound scientific facts, and I would love to see the journals these papers were published in. If you would be so kind as to link to the paper, obviously from a reputable scientific journal, showing me that the being created immediately after conception is NOT human, I would eagerly read it. Most journals of course are pay access, but you already knew that, and you won’t be able to link directly to the article, but you could at least link to the abstract. I can just look up the full article on my work computer. So, please, I am eagerly awaiting the paper which trumpets the amazing proclamation that human sex does NOT produce a human being.

Theologians will argue that the life formed is sacred and should be respected at all stages. Scientists will simply tell you that the life is there, and that it’s a human.

 

[R_Daneel]

Let’s be very clear.
Catholic doctrine says that we trust our children who died before baptism (including those who died in the womb) to God’s mercy. For Catholics, this is quite sufficient. They have infinite trust in God’s mercy. This is why you will find so many Catholics certain that their babies are in heaven. The Catholic Church HERSELF does not offer them this assurance. The Catholic Church is very explicit in their teaching that we don’t KNOW WITH CERTAINTY the fate of our unbaptized children. Which is why the word ‘trust’ is in there.
So, your premise ‘All aborted babies go to heaven’ is false.
The Catholic Church is very clear that everyone who is in heaven chose to be there, and God would not force his will on an adult, nor would he do so on a child. Though the Catholic church does not claim to know HOW such a choice would be posited to a soul after leaving earth, they do claim with certainty that a choice will be given.
In other words, children who die prematurely are NOT assured of heaven. Catholics, however, trusting in God’s mercy, believe their children are there. You will find this even in the parents of grown children after they have lost the child. They are trusting in God’s mercy. There is no hard and fast rule of the Catholic church which states that to die an early death assures you of heaven.

Yes, I understand this fully. I merely consider it a wishy-washy cop-out. Now, I would be most willing to reconsider these adjectives if the Church would admit, that it does not know anything. All the teachings are based upon suppositions, and nothing is cast in stone. But I doubt that such an admission would come forth any time soon.

The Cathecism, which is supposed to be the final word is just quibbling about many things. As I mentioned before, the Cathecism asserts that God’s existence can be known by rational means only, without reference to either faith of revelation. Except for the minor fact, that there is nothing else there. It does not say, “this is how one can know God’s existence, by reason alone” - and give us a full proof. Wishy-washy…

On one hand, the Church states that there is no salvation outside the Church, while on the other hand it says that one should never make a judgment, who gets to heaven, and who is condemned to hell. Clearly, the Church tries to blow both hot and cold from its collective mouth. It wants to keep the “priviliged status” of the Catholic crowd, while it is scared to offend the not-Catholics. A wishy-washy tactics again.

Now this tactics is relatively new. A few hundred years ago there was no problem of asserting that all Protestants and atheists will be sent to hell. Today this kind of message would not be welcome, since the non-Catholics do not live under Catholic theocracy any more. If I may say so (tongue firmly in cheek): “Thank the Lord for stripping the power away from the Church he founded!”.