Can someone who supports abortion go to heaven?

[Sbee0]

Sbee0:

openmind77:

FCS:

I suggest you look up how abortion works-it is the direct killing of a child.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Yes they are. Ours is the correct one.

We will know the correct opinion when the Christ Returns which I hope will be soon. You may be surprised.

Sorry I think I assumed a different context of your quote that I was replying to.
I actually agree with the “direct” reference. Natural miscarriages are not abortion, and neither is an attempt to treat a health condition where the side effect MAY (as opposed to definitely WILL) be end of pregnancy.

 

[stpurl]

Even if that were true, and the evidence is not all in, please tell me what exactly is so different about a child in the womb having the capacity with the passage of time to 'think cogent thoughts aside from a child who is born.

Put it this way. Conception lasts what, 280 days, i.e. 9 months?

A child starts to according to you think ‘coherent thoughts’ after birth. In fact, let’s say as most pediatricians do between birth and age 3 which sees the greatest growth in brain development.

OK, now let’s take your developmentally delayed child. At age 1 that child is probably at the mental age of a 3 month old. IOW, there is a 9 month ‘difference’ between that child and a ‘normal’ one year regarding ‘thinking’.

OR, the exact difference in age between a child at conception and a child at birth.

So, do we kill the developmentally delayed child any time up to age 1 or so because the child isn’t 'thinking" any more (according to you) than a child in the womb?

 

[openmind77]

Even if that were true, and the evidence is not all in, please tell me what exactly is so different about a child in the womb having the capacity with the passage of time to 'think cogent thoughts aside from a child who is born.

Put it this way. Conception lasts what, 280 days, i.e. 9 months?

A child starts to according to you think ‘coherent thoughts’ after birth. In fact, let’s say as most pediatricians do between birth and age 3 which sees the greatest growth in brain development.

OK, now let’s take your developmentally delayed child. At age 1 that child is probably at the mental age of a 3 month old. IOW, there is a 9 month ‘difference’ between that child and a ‘normal’ one year regarding ‘thinking’.

OR, the exact difference in age between a child at conception and a child at birth.

So, do we kill the developmentally delayed child any time up to age 1 or so because the child isn’t 'thinking" any more (according to you) than a child in the womb?

It is not a question of killing. Nobody wants to kill anything. The doctor performing the procedure should take whatever appropriate steps he can to avoid killing and in order to save it. But the question is can a woman be forced to keep another being inside her body when she does not want to. The woman’s personal freedom should not be infringed. She should be able to decide to take whatever action she wants regarding her own body.

 

[openmind77]

openmind77:

If you were using my body as a host for survival and I asked that you be removed from my body, I am not threatening you at all.

You’re threatening me with death. That’s not threatening?
What is a threat then, if not death?

If you are using my body as a host, I am not threatening you at all . I am just asking that you be removed. Just as if you were in my home and I asked the police to come and remove you, I would not be threatening you at all. A person’s rights over their own body are even more fundamental than over their home. Nobody has an absolute right to use someone else’s body as a host.

 

[vz71]

Just as if you were in my home and I asked the police to come and remove you, I would not be threatening you at all.

This analogy fails.

A proper analogy would be to invite someone in, with a nine month lease, knowing the only way to break the lease is to murder the tenant.

 

[RC1960]

Has someone been talking to the old, Mr. Scrooge?:

"I wish to be left alone,’’ said Scrooge. ``Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don’t make merry myself at Christmas and I can’t afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned: they cost enough: and those who are badly off must go there.’’

``Many can’t go there; and many would rather die.’’

If they would rather die,'' said Scrooge, they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides – excuse me – I don’t know that.’’

``But you might know it,’’ observed the gentleman.

It's not my business,'' Scrooge returned. It’s enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people’s. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!’’

Seeing clearly that it would be useless to pursue their point, the gentlemen withdrew. Scrooge resumed his labours with an improved opinion of himself, and in a more facetious temper than was usual with him."
-Charles Dickens, 1840. (an Attitude that stems even further back to Thomas Malthus, 1742.)

Before Margret Sanger, in 1921, it was eugenicist Dr. Marie Stopes who fashioned the “Every child, a wanted child.” slogan, showing that today’s “Progressive” politics is actually last centuries redux, and their formal policy is older still. The arrogance of labeling as “unwanted” suffering" is the projection of some measure that would condemn even JKR’s first-born daughter and the impetus for the “Harry Potter” saga. Most inspirational stories are so because achievements were made despite the circumstances not because of them. No one is smart enough to know the life-path of another. Will they go to Heaven is purely between them and God. We cannot judge nor be privy of souls because we cannot know their hearts but we may always pray for them.

The “certainty” in knowing these children will always suffer and always be poor says that Life doesn’t change or never finds a way. Ignored is the suffering inflicted by the abortion procedures performed without anesthetic. Surviving to be born, they can still set “it” aside and made “comfortable” as “it” slowly dies of starvation/exposure. It’s the pinnacle of impositions upon another Life. The only people that support abortion are those who haven’t had it done to them.

The Catholic Church is tasked with handing on the Faith, in teaching what the Church teaches, (CCC/Prologue aip3.) It is not about my interpretation/opinion of it. -To do so is “Private Judgement” and to adhere to Private Judgement" is to displace the Primacy of Peter.

During the “profession of Faith” when you declare, I believe in the Holy Spirit, the “Lord & Giver of Life …” Whom then is it that abortion is directly opposing? Certainly, for Catholics, this has a clear and applicable acknowledgement: abortion always takes Life.

The Nicene Creed -CCC/p122a3p1.-informs us about this so-called “sincerity” that is the attempted work-around of misplaced compassion. (Guilt?) Where is there no suffering in this world? The Crucifix is the witness of the condescension of God to suffering that gives our suffering meaning.

 

[openmind77]

openmind77:

Just as if you were in my home and I asked the police to come and remove you, I would not be threatening you at all.

This analogy fails.

A proper analogy would be to invite someone in, with a nine month lease, knowing the only way to break the lease is to murder the tenant.

What lease? I may not have given consent. I may not be old enough to give consent. It could be an accident (have you seen ‘Jane the Virgin’). So in all these cases you have no lease or any right to remain at all. Even if I invite you, I may have changed my mind. The point is the parties involved are the host, the fetus and God - NOBODY else. So all other nosey busybodies should mind their own business, especially the government.

 

[vz71]

I may not have given consent.

Don’t matter.
You still must murder the tenant to get them out.

 

[openmind77]

openmind77:

I may not have given consent.

Don’t matter.
You still must murder the tenant to get them out.

It is unfortunate that the fetus can not survive outside, but the woman can not be ordered by anyone to provide her body as host (especially when there was no consent). The decision should entirely up to her. I would not call not making ones body available for someone else - ‘murder’. You of course can call it whatever you want.

Soon technology will advance so that fetuses can be transplanted from one host to another, then this problem will be solved. We can just transplant the fetus to some pro-life woman. Until that time we need to respect the rights of the woman with the unwanted pregnancy.

 

[vz71]

The decision should entirely up to her.

That is part of what makes rape such a horrible crime.
The rapist removes the choice from the woman.

 

[steve-b]

If someone has good intentions when being pro-choice, can this person go to heaven?

There are people who support abortion because they do not want the child to suffer in this world and to be poor.

So in this case, is it still a sin to be pro-choice, when you care about the well being of that child that will suffer in this world?

ps. I am pro-life, I am just curious/concerned to know where my pro-choice friends are standing

Example: Abortion, or voting for abortion candidate, or abortion party

One of the more politically popular statements made today, is "I wouldn’t do/vote/ (name the wrong) but I won’t stop you from doing it"

That statement is bankrupt for the following reasons

When Jesus was asked what is the greatest commandment Jesus said

Mt 22:36 “Teacher, which is the great commandment in the law?” 37 And he said to him, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. 38 This is the great and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. 40 On these two commandments depend all the law and the prophets.”

So

That politically corrupt statement above, breaks both commands. If an action is bad for me, (mortal sin) then it’s not good for my neighbor as well. So…One then can’t claim to love neighbor if they aren’t willing to correct their neighbors bad behavior. AND in extension they can’t claim to love God above everything when they won’t do anything to correct and maybe even support by vote, their neighbor’s bad behavior…