Cannot be a Christian and support abortion

[USMC_Convert]

See if my logic makes sense as I have recently heard from Christians and Catholics even that you can support abortion in certain ways/examples/hypotheticals and so on.

If it grows, eats and moves on its own then it is alive. Murder is to part a humans soul from its physical body thus ending life. Murder equals a grave sin and so support of murderers is equally as grave. Murder is the ending of a life purposely by other than natural means.

A soul is infused with the body at conception if it were not that way then Jesus could not have been both God and man at His conception, He would have been simply man for a while who turned into God later on before, during or after birth.

If it has a soul, eats, grows and moves on its own then it is human no matter what stage of life it is at.

Therefore you cannot take away, or support those that do, that life away whether moments after conception, before birth or after birth.

Please check me if I’m wrong, I’m trying to find a logical argument for some of these people who are debating with me…

 

[Stephen_says]

You have not taken into account when killing is not murder, such as self defense. And I think that is an important distinction that many abortion advocates exploit.

Just like the definition of murder does not include self defense, the definition of murder now does not include abortion, and it’s exceedingly difficult to change people’s minds about that.

 

[phil19034]

See if my logic makes sense as I have recently heard from Christians and Catholics even that you can support abortion in certain ways/examples/hypotheticals and so on.

If it grows, eats and moves on its own then it is alive. Murder is to part a humans soul from its physical body thus ending life. Murder equals a grave sin and so support of murderers is equally as grave. Murder is the ending of a life purposely by other than natural means.

A soul is infused with the body at conception if it were not that way then Jesus could not have been both God and man at His conception, He would have been simply man for a while who turned into God later on before, during or after birth.

If it has a soul, eats, grows and moves on its own then it is human no matter what stage of life it is at.

Therefore you cannot take away, or support those that do, that life away whether moments after conception, before birth or after birth.

Please check me if I’m wrong, I’m trying to find a logical argument for some of these people who are debating with me…

I think it’s also good to add something about the child having his/her own unique human DNA. Because many also try to compare a fetus to a virus or parasite.

 

[pensmama87]

I think it’s also good to add something about the child having his/her own unique human DNA. Because many also try to compare a fetus to a virus or parasite.

Right.

I have the most success keeping it to straight biology. When sperm meets egg, an entirely new being is formed with unique human DNA.

It’s wrong to kill people simply for existing.

 

[AClaire11]

And babies are completely dependent even after being born, which is a strike against the parasite argument. Unless they also support infanticide

 

[puzzledtoo]

In your op title you assert “Cannot be a Christian and support abortion”. In the actual post you only write of what it takes to be a human and that it is wrong to murder. There is no mentioning of what constitutes being a Christian. This is probably a good thing as there are probably as many definitions of what who or what a Christian is as there are denominations available to follow. I do believe however if you are able to pin that down it may help with your debate. I’m not much of a debater but that is my thought. Ooh Rah.

 

[Todd977]

The notion that an immortal, rational soul is infused at conception has not always been taught by the Catholic Church. Previously, some Catholics speculated a delayed ensoulment. For instance, the article on the “Soul” in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says of St Thomas Aquinas, with only the last of several points included:
St. Thomas’s doctrine is … the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.

 

[Bookcat]

Cannot be a Christian and support abortion…

Not a Christian with good informed conscience on this matter at least…

 

[AdamP88]

The notion that an immortal, rational soul is infused at conception has not always been taught by the Catholic Church. Previously, some Catholics speculated a delayed ensoulment. For instance, the article on the “Soul” in the 1917 Catholic Encyclopedia says of St Thomas Aquinas, with only the last of several points included:
St. Thomas’s doctrine is … the rational soul is produced by special creation at the moment when the organism is sufficiently developed to receive it. In the first stage of embryonic development, the vital principle has merely vegetative powers; then a sensitive soul comes into being, educed from the evolving potencies of the organism — later yet, this is replaced by the perfect rational soul, which is essentially immaterial and so postulates a special creative act. Many modern theologians have abandoned this last point of St. Thomas’s teaching, and maintain that a fully rational soul is infused into the embryo at the first moment of its existence.

St. Thomas didn’t have the medical knowledge that is available today. He also didn’t advocate the destruction of the embryo before ensoulment or interference with the processes that led to conception. It’s reasonable to say that he actually knew little about what we consider to be basic biology today. In the 13th century, there was no way to know if a woman was pregnant apart from the cessation of her menstrual cycle. The only observable thing about fetal development was when the baby started to move in the womb. It was reasonable to assume, with that limited knowledge, that this was the point of ensoulment.

It’s irrelevant what he believed on this point anyway, because it never constituted actual Church teaching. It was his philosophical opinion.

 

[TheAmazingGrace]

And babies are completely dependent even after being born, which is a strike against the parasite argument. Unless they also support infanticide

I tried using that argument once. What I got was one freaked-out pro-choicer who thought I was really arguing for infanticide.

 

[AdamP88]

I tried using that argument once. What I got was one freaked-out pro-choicer who thought I was really arguing for infanticide.

She probably wasn’t able to see that that is what logically follows in from her position. It’s not that extreme an accusation considering some university professors in ethics have argued that there is nothing ethically wrong with infanticide and women should be allowed to kill their babies after they are born.

 

[Barish]

…and Adam brings us full circle. Based on the OP’s logic, abortion is infanticide.

St. Thomas proposed a needlessly complex system that hasn’t been accepted. He was profound, but not infallible.

I support the idea that professor’s be able to develop any argument they choose and advocate it to their own detriment. I just wish society realized that professors are not final authority on anything. They are just people who tend to apply a method to a question and seek the ultimate result. When they go wrong, the academy lets them know and they either rethink the conclusion/method or retreat to bitterly pushing their conclusion on a small number of undergraduates. Academics say the darnedest things.

 

[EasterJoy]

One of the baptized who is mistaken or hard of heart is still baptized, so in that sense Christian identity is a permanent feature of someone who is baptized.

It is possible, however, for one of the baptized to be told some day:
I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoer. (Matt. 7:23)

Complicity with abortion is a grave matter, though, yes. There is no getting around it. It is not up for debate and the Church has always held this to be true.

 

[AdamP88]

…and Adam brings us full circle. Based on the OP’s logic, **abortion is infanticide.
**
St. Thomas proposed a needlessly complex system that hasn’t been accepted. He was profound, but not infallible.

I support the idea that professor’s be able to develop any argument they choose and advocate it to their own detriment. I just wish society realized that professors are not final authority on anything. They are just people who tend to apply a method to a question and seek the ultimate result. When they go wrong, the academy lets them know and they either rethink the conclusion/method or retreat to bitterly pushing their conclusion on a small number of undergraduates. Academics say the darnedest things.

Abortion is morally equivalent to infanticide. What’s your point?

 

[AdamP88]

One of the baptized who is mistaken or hard of heart is still baptized, so in that sense Christian identity is a permanent feature of someone who is baptized.

It is possible, however, for one of the baptized to be told some day:
I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoer. (Matt. 7:23)

Complicity with abortion is a grave matter, though, yes. There is no getting around it. It is not up for debate and the Church has always held this to be true.

If one is baptised and complicit in an abortion though, they would be automatically excommunicated. In that sense they would be excluded from the sacraments and the life of the Church until such time as they go to confession.