A theological argument FOR abortion

[vera_dicere]

A few people have already given much better answers than I could in the many pages this thread has been, but because I’m in a slightly pedantic mood:

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”.

Genetically it is a “he” or a “she” or, in some rare cases a mish mash. At the moment of conception that human being’s complete genetic structure is decided, including those pesky X and Y chromosomes.

While the zygote will not yet be expressing its gender, its genetic gender has already been determined, any error to its physical expression will transpire during pregnancy due to any number of variable.

But technically, the zygote can be a he or a she depending on whether its XX or XY (or as mentioned the usual quirks).

Further more, it is a human being, exactly as intended for its stage of development, bar some catastrophic genetic or cellular failure.

 

[Answersplease]

No, you did not answer anything. You stated that God is love, which is a meaningless statement. That is not an answer, no matter how hard you think it is, and no matter what the Bible might say. The Bible is not relevant when talking to an atheist.

Answersplease:

How VERY clever of you.

How long did it take for you to come up with such an informative response? (rolls eyes)

LOOK AT YOUR TOPIC’S TITLE:
**
“A theological** argument FOR abortion”

First you try to use a misrepresented form of Catholicism that actually came from your own mind, to try to undermine the Catholic Church with their own theology (misrepresented by you as stated earlier).

Then when I ANSWER YOUR THEOLOGICAL argument,

YOU FAIL to provide counter arguments to MY ANSWERS.

Then you provide an OBVIOUS DIVERSION about voices and tape recorders.

Then you move away from your original topic and grasp fro strawmen that you can easily tear down.

Then you take a cop out by basically saying that THEOLOGY means nothing to an atheist.

You FAIL epically in this debate.

Answersplease:

**
ANSWER THIS:**

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.

**
AND ANSWER THIS:**

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]

Too many posts to answer individually, but I will try to touch upon their content.

First, the fate of the miscarriages - which happen millions of times every day. Most of the fertilized eggs never gets implanted into the uterus wall, they get simply flushed out from the woman’s body. Since this fact goes innoticed by the indivual persons, there is no “baptism” going on for them, so this argument was nonsense.

Second, in the case of known miscarriages, the fate of the “baybee” is not unimportant to the mother. It is simply not true that this is an unimportant question in general (as many of you have “argued”). Suppose that the victim of a miscarriage, who happens to be a nice Catholic woman goes to her priest in her distress, and asks about the fate of her “child”? What can the priest do? Since a “while lie” is not an acceptable option, he must tell her that the “child” may be in heaven, or may be hell - the Church simply does not have an answer, but he urges her to trust God that the “child” is in heaven. I wonder what the psychological ramifications would be…

Third, there is the doctrine of “invincible ignorance”. (From the Catholc Encyclopedia: newadvent.org/cathen/07648a.htm)

Invincible ignorance, whether of the law or of the fact, is always a valid excuse and excludes sin. The evident reason is that neither this state nor the act resulting therefrom is voluntary.

Therefore the “victims” of miscarriages are definitely not culpable for anything. Most importantly they are free of any sin, let alone any “mortal sin”. If that is not an offical teaching of the Church, I don’t know what is. So it seems that all of you who argued about the lack of “official” teaching are in error. Those “baybees” die in the state of “sinless” grace.

So the premises of the OP are valid. The fate of any and all miscarriages, natural or otherwise, is crystal clear, namely that those “baybees” will get to heaven.

 

[JohnDamian]

So the premises of the OP are valid. The fate of any and all miscarriages, natural or otherwise, is crystal clear, namely that those “baybees” will get to heaven.

The state of grace (or not) is absolutely irrelevant.

Killing someone is wrong, regardless of if they shall go to heaven, or hell.

To kill a person who is in mortal sin is wrong.
To kill someone who is in a state of grace is wrong.

The age, race, gender or any other thing is absolutely irrelevant.

 

[Sarpedon]

First, the fate of the miscarriages - which happen millions of times every day. Most of the fertilized eggs never gets implanted into the uterus wall, they get simply flushed out from the woman’s body. Since this fact goes innoticed by the indivual persons, there is no “baptism” going on for them, so this argument was nonsense.

This is acceptable, but there may be sacramental means used by God we are not aware of.

Second, in the case of known miscarriages, the fate of the “baybee” is not unimportant to the mother. It is simply not true that this is an unimportant question in general (as many of you have “argued”). Suppose that the victim of a miscarriage, who happens to be a nice Catholic woman goes to her priest in her distress, and asks about the fate of her “child”? What can the priest do? Since a “while lie” is not an acceptable option, he must tell her that the “child” may be in heaven, or may be hell - the Church simply does not have an answer, but he urges her to trust God that the “child” is in heaven. I wonder what the psychological ramifications would be…

There can be “psychological” aspects to almost anything. The simple fact of the matter is that no human can do anything about the death of babies without the normative sacrament in such a situation, so there is nothing we are called to do- God will take care of the rest, and the woman would have no reason to doubt that God took care of things in the best possible way.

Therefore the “victims” of miscarriages are definitely not culpable for anything. Most importantly they are free of any sin, let alone any “mortal sin”. If that is not an offical teaching of the Church, I don’t know what is. So it seems that all of you who argued about the lack of “official” teaching are in error. Those “baybees” die in the state of “sinless” grace.

There was never any question about personal sin in such a matter. Such babies have no personal sin. The main question concerns original sin. I already quotes catechism passages on original sin, which explains that such sin is a state rather than a guilt. As a state, baptism by water is the normative means of removing that state. Baptism by blood and baptism by desire are also non-normative means of removing the state. There may well be additional non-normative means of removing the state that God employs, which we have no role in conferring.

So the premises of the OP are valid. The fate of any and all miscarriages, natural or otherwise, is crystal clear, namely that those “baybees” will get to heaven.

There are two issues here. One is whether or babies that die without normal baptism can be freed from original sin. While we have no absolute revelation on this subject, we can infer that God likely has a non-normative means of doing so.

The other is whether or not such babies, released from sin, will attain heaven. While this is the case, this does not justify your argument because love (which is the nature of heaven), is not concerned only with private salvation. A heaven-bound person would not attempt to save himself as quickly as possible and ignore others, or save someone they personally are connected with and leave the others behind. We are entrusted with the task of bringing the whole world to salvation, and trying to short-circuit that by depriving your children the chance to work in the world for the salvation of souls is immoral. Your argument would be correct if we existed in a selfish vacuum where we should try to secure personal security at any cost, which we do not. We have a role to play, and we ought not to abandon that role in an attempt to secure personal security for ourselves, or for those who are emotionally close to us. This is the fundamental flaw in your argument. Given that all of us are entrusted with a role to play in the salvation of the world, how do you justify a human attempt to kill babies for their own personal security above that of their salvific role? I imagine the children in heaven who would suffer such a deprivation would regret their denied chance to participate in the history of the world.

 

[the_hazel_nut]

So the premises of the OP are valid. The fate of any and all miscarriages, natural or otherwise, is crystal clear, namely that those “baybees” will get to heaven.

No. Original Sin. And why do you call them “baybees”?

 

[NoAvailableName]

So the premises of the OP are valid. The fate of any and all miscarriages, natural or otherwise, is crystal clear, namely that those “baybees” will get to heaven.

I am not a Catholic and certainly am not bound by your original premises.

“A theological argument FOR abortion” becomes “A Catholic argument FOR abortion”

Virtually none of the Catholics here think you are accurately representing Catholic beliefs.

“A Catholic argument FOR abortion” becomes “An argument FOR abortion using an atheist’s interpretation of Catholicism”

You still haven’t shown, even given your premises, why one should want to subvert God’s will and deny those who should have received a greater reward that reward all in the name of sparing those who deserve punishment the punishment they deserve.

“An argument FOR abortion using an atheist’s interpretation of Catholicism” becomes “An invalid argument FOR abortion using an atheist’s interpretation of Catholicism”.

Change your title to that, and I don’t think anyone here will disagree with you anymore.

 

[Betterave]

There was never any question about personal sin in such a matter. Such babies have no personal sin. The main question concerns original sin. I already quotes catechism passages on original sin, which explains that such sin is a state rather than a guilt. As a state, baptism by water is the normative means of removing that state. Baptism by blood and baptism by desire are also non-normative means of removing the state. There may well be additional non-normative means of removing the state that God employs, which we have no role in conferring.

Good post, except you write here as if RD is aware of and understands the difference between original and personal sin. That seems highly unlikely.

 

[Sarpedon]

On sin in general:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a8.htm#1854
On original sin and the fall:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p1s2c1p7.htm#390

 

[R_Daneel]

This is acceptable, but there may be sacramental means used by God we are not aware of.

Yes, there “might” be. Of course you are speculating here, but there is nothing wrong with speculation. I am always speculating, too. I will go even one step further, everyone is speculating about God, and about all of the attributes of God. All those alleged “revelations” are just speculations. (Yes, I know, many will deny it, but they are just deluding themselves.) But if we are speculating, at least let’s admit it honestly, and let’s do it logically.

The premise of the theists is that God is good, God is just and God is merciful. Contrast that to the hypothtical possibility that the unbaptized “might” not be admitted to heaven, but condemned to the fires of hell (and no, there is no “third” possibility). How could this hypothesis be reconciled with the alleged attributes of God? It cannot be. It is illogical to the extreme to say that someone who never committed a sin, who is even unable to commit a sin, whose only “fault” is that they are in the “state” of “original sin” will be comdemned for what they are totally innocent of.

A just judge would never give out a condemning sentence if there is no crime (or sin), that is the personal act of the “accused”. If you say that God is just, then he is bound by his “just” nature not to commit such an atrocity. If God “may” commit such an act, then the expression: “God is just” is simply a meaningless proposition.

I have no problem with speculation, but I point out the problem of dumb speculation.

 

[JohnDamian]

A just judge would never give out a condemning sentence if there is no crime (or sin), that is the personal act of the “accused”. If you say that God is just, then he is bound by his “just” nature not to commit such an atrocity. If God “may” commit such an act, then the expression: “God is just” is simply a meaningless proposition.

A just judge may not pass a sentance on an innocent man; but he would hardly gift a man who has acheived nothing a prize.

 

[R_Daneel]

A just judge may not pass a sentance on an innocent man; but he would hardly gift a man who has acheived nothing a prize.

Very true, but this correct observation does not let you off the hook. You, Christians, painted yourself into a corner by stipulating the heaven-hell dichotomy. (Just in case someone wishes to bring up the concept of purgatory, that is merely a Catholic concoction. Also the purgatory is supposed to be a “way-station” reserved for those who only had “minor” sins, which does not apply here.)

Since there is no “third” alternative, it is much more logical that the sinless will get admitted into heaven, which might not be deserved (on account of not having done any “praiseworthy” acts) then to be punished by eternal damnation. If you are so inclined, you might consider the alleged “merciful” aspect of God here, which would logically lead to heaven and not to hell.

 

[seagal]

A just judge would never give out a condemning sentence if there is no crime (or sin), that is the personal act of the “accused”. If you say that God is just, then he is bound by his “just” nature not to commit such an atrocity. If God “may” commit such an act, then the expression: “God is just” is simply a meaningless proposition.

This, this thought right here, is exactly why the Church has not definitively declared what happens to unborn babies when they die. The Church has studied and discerned through what we do know, to understand the will and mind of God, and I think we know it better than you do (although obviously not fully). The Church is fully aware of the apparent contradiction you outlined. Don’t you think we’ve studied that very thing for centuries? The Church is also fully aware that God’s mercy and justice are far greater than our human standards. This is why she says in the CCC:

As regards children who have died without Baptism,*** the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God***, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”*** allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism***. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (CCC 1261)

I don’t know how it can be made any clearer to you.

 

[R_Daneel]

This, this thought right here, is exactly why the Church has not definitively declared what happens to unborn babies when they die. The Church has studied and discerned through what we do know, to understand the will and mind of God, and I think we know it better than you do (although obviously not fully). The Church is fully aware of the apparent contradiction you outlined. Don’t you think we’ve studied that very thing for centuries? The Church is also fully aware that God’s mercy and justice are far greater than our human standards. This is why she says in the CCC:

The contradiction I pointed out is not simply “apparent”, it is real. The logical solution is crystal clear. Appeal to the “authority” of the Church is not argument, it is merely an attempt to hide your head in the sand, and hope that the contradiction will go away if you pretend that it is not there. It is there, and it will stay there.

 

[CWBetts]

There is no contradiction. The ends so not justify the means. Your perceptions of reality have been polluted by the likes of Machiavelli, Kant, Hume, and Ockham.

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes, there “might” be. Of course you are speculating here, but there is nothing wrong with speculation. I am always speculating, too. I will go even one step further, everyone is speculating about God, and about all of the attributes of God. All those alleged “revelations” are just speculations. (Yes, I know, many will deny it, but they are just deluding themselves.) But if we are speculating, at least let’s admit it honestly, and let’s do it logically.

We are both using non-scientific reasoning, which we also use to establish the veracity of science.

The premise of the theists is that God is good, God is just and God is merciful. Contrast that to the hypothtical possibility that the unbaptized “might” not be admitted to heaven, but condemned to the fires of hell (and no, there is no “third” possibility). How could this hypothesis be reconciled with the alleged attributes of God? It cannot be. It is illogical to the extreme to say that someone who never committed a sin, who is even unable to commit a sin, whose only “fault” is that they are in the “state” of “original sin” will be comdemned for what they are totally innocent of.

I agree with you 100%. That’s why I reject limbo. I find it nearly impossible to reconcile limbo with God’s nature.

Now, this is based on my philosophic reasoning, not direct revelation. We do not have direct revelation on this matter. We do have the faculty of reason, however, and therefore I use my faculty to conclude that limbo is false. I don’t claim to uphold this based on anything other than my own reason.

We can know things that are not revelation. You are confusing the two things. Yes, we lack revelation about the fate of unbaptized infants. However, we can use reason to examine the question on philosophic grounds. If you were a Catholic, you would be 100% orthodox as long as you did not claim to base your position in revelation.

Since you are 100% orthodox, do you still have an objection to Catholic teaching?

 

[R_Daneel]

I agree with you 100%. That’s why I reject limbo. I find it nearly impossible to reconcile limbo with God’s nature.

Now, this is based on my philosophic reasoning, not direct revelation. We do not have direct revelation on this matter. We do have the faculty of reason, however, and therefore I use my faculty to conclude that limbo is false. I don’t claim to uphold this based on anything other than my own reason.

I am very much confused. I never said anything about “limbo”, except that I acknowledged that we can disregard it. I have no idea what you wish to say here.

We can know things that are not revelation. You are confusing the two things. Yes, we lack revelation about the fate of unbaptized infants. However, we can use reason to examine the question on philosophic grounds.

And that is precisely what we are engaged in.

Since you are 100% orthodox, do you still have an objection to Catholic teaching?

Sorry, I am still confused. What Catholic teaching do you refer to?

If you say that CC teaches that the fate of the unbaptized is “undecided”, then I do not agree. Here is a short analysis. On one hand, God’s alleged “love”, “justice” and “mercy” cannot be reconciled with the idea that the unbaptized will be doomed to eternal suffering. (Especially in the today’s much more liberal environment.) That is simple logic.

On the other hand, there are the words of Jesus, where he said: “no one gets to the Father except through me”. The idea that the unbaptized get a “free pass” circumventing Jesus is would be disastrous to the Catholic Church, ostensibly founded by Jesus himself.

If there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, if it is not necessary to be baptized by the Church, then there is no need for the Church - as far as salvation is concerned. To admit that would be the equivalent for the Church of cutting its own throat. And that cannot be expected. So the Church digs its collective heels into the ground, and maintains that the fate of the unbaptized is a “mystery” (what an overused word!). Many people (especially on these boards) would never dream of contesting the authority of the Church - which is why I received all those quite vitriolic comments. They don’t want to see a logical analysis contradicting the Church’s authority. Well, that is just too bad - for them, not for me. The ostrich-method cannot be maintained forver.

 

[JohnDamian]

If there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, if it is not necessary to be baptized by the Church

To quote from the CCC; 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowlege the creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

This, and other readings from the Section of the CCC enttiles “The Proffession of Faith” explain the relationship of other religions (outside Catholocism) with God.

Further; 848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

etc.

However, the Catechism stipulates that Baptism and the Church are the true path to salvation; through the foundations laid by Christ in establishing the Church.

 

[Sarpedon]

I am very much confused. I never said anything about “limbo”, except that I acknowledged that we can disregard it. I have no idea what you wish to say here.

Your original post:

The premise of the theists is that God is good, God is just and God is merciful. Contrast that to the hypothtical possibility that the unbaptized “might” not be admitted to heaven, but condemned to the fires of hell (and no, there is no “third” possibility). How could this hypothesis be reconciled with the alleged attributes of God? It cannot be. It is illogical to the extreme to say that someone who never committed a sin, who is even unable to commit a sin, whose only “fault” is that they are in the “state” of “original sin” will be comdemned for what they are totally innocent of.

Limbo is a hypothesized place where otherwise innocent infants who only had original sin would be deprived of the vision of God, but spared of any other torments. Therefore, you are implicitely saying that you do not think that a just God would deny infants the beatific vision only because of original sin.

The fact of the matter is that the Church does not have revelation about the fate of such infants. While baptism by water is the normative way of removing original sin, there may be non-normative means which God employs to remove original sin from infants. Therefore, your objection to Catholicism is not valid- for we do not know that God damns those who die without normative baptism. Using reason, I conclude that such a course of action is irreconciable with a just God- as you corectly point out- and therefore I reject limbo on account of my own reason. I do not claim to have revelation on the matter, but I can still use my reason. There is nothing heretical about this- we don’t know from the standpoint of revelation whether God removes original sin from infants, but we can conclude that He does fso rom reason. As long as we clarify whether we are speaking from the perspective of reason or revelation, there is no conflict here- and I fail to see how you think this disproves Catholicism

If you say that CC teaches that the fate of the unbaptized is “undecided”, then I do not agree. Here is a short analysis. On one hand, God’s alleged “love”, “justice” and “mercy” cannot be reconciled with the idea that the unbaptized will be doomed to eternal suffering. (Especially in the today’s much more liberal environment.) That is simple logic.

When the CC says that the fate of unbaptized infants is “undecided,” this does not mean that God hasn’t made up His mind or that their verdict has not been passed- rather, it simply means that we do not know from the standpoint of revelation. God also gave us the faculty of reason, and reason tells me that God would not damn infants because of such a technicality. There is no conflict here.

The idea that the unbaptized get a “free pass” circumventing Jesus is would be disastrous to the Catholic Church, ostensibly founded by Jesus himself.

If there is salvation outside the Catholic Church, if it is not necessary to be baptized by the Church, then there is no need for the Church - as far as salvation is concerned. To admit that would be the equivalent for the Church of cutting its own throat. And that cannot be expected. So the Church digs its collective heels into the ground, and maintains that the fate of the unbaptized is a “mystery” (what an overused word!). Many people (especially on these boards) would never dream of contesting the authority of the Church - which is why I received all those quite vitriolic comments. They don’t want to see a logical analysis contradicting the Church’s authority. Well, that is just too bad - for them, not for me. The ostrich-method cannot be maintained forver.

This is a frequent misunderstanding. It is true that there is only salvation through Jesus (God). Since there is only one being that has the attributes of God (there is a lot of philosophy summarized here), there simply can’t be salvation from by any other means- those means simply do not exist.

So, God is the only means to salvation, because He is the only one there. God founded a Church to be the normative means of proclaiming His will and bringing people to salvation. That’s why we engage in missionary work. God desires everyone to be in the Catholic Church because He instituted it specifically for bringing people to salvation. If a person knowingly regects this Church, understanding her role and mission, this is an outright rejection of God, which does not lead to salvation.

On the other hand, there are those who are not exposed to the Church and those who do not understand the Church. If this ignorance is invincible, such people may still be unknowing members of God’s people if they follow God to the best of their knowledge. Such people may be saved as unknowing members of the Church, even if they have never heard of Catholicism before in their life. This still isn’t the ideal situation- understanding the truth of Catholicism is better because truth is better than falsehood- but God will judge people in light of what they are fairly expected to know and do.

So, there is no salvation outside of the Church- but people are unknowing members of that Church due to ignorance. We still have an obligation to seek out the truth, which will ultimately lead us to Catholicism. This doesn’t mean that Catholicism is not necessary for salvation. Catholicism is the normative means of salvation that God employs, and He wants everyone to be Catholic to have the fullness of truth- but He will still judge people fairly in light of their invincible ignorance.

In the case of babies, they are still saved through the Church because the Church is part of reality- it is God’s action in the world, and babies do not exist in a vacuum outside the world.

 

[R_Daneel]

To quote from the CCC; 841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowlege the creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.

Isn’t this a new addition to the Cathecism? The Muslims were called “infidels” and fought agaist. This is one of the reasons that I cannot take the “declarations” of the Church seriously. They change, as the wind blows… though the wind must blow very strongly, for sure.

Further; 848 “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.”

What about those who heard the “good news”, but reject some of it, on account of finding them ludicrous? They may follow some of the moral code, which is part of, but not unique to the Church’s teachings, but reject the rest? The Church also says that one is allowed to follow one’s own conscience. So there are no “clear” guidelines. It is easy to cherry-pick some of the Church’s teachings, no matter what the objections are, and present them as “refutations” to that objection. Just like the Bible, where one can cherry-pick the verses, and find support or objection for almost anything, the Church’s teachings suffer the same “shortcoming”, self-contradictory assertions all the way.

For example, failing to attend mass is called a mortal sin, so none of the non-Catholics will pass “that” particular test - and thus they are “doomed”. Is this true, or is it false? Or is it true only for Catholics, but not for the rest? Maybe some of the “mortal” sins are not so mortal after all, and thus many of the Church’s stipulations are in error. Can’t have your cake and eat it, too.