Could God ever condone an abortion?

[ichabode]

The problem with the question is the question itself. When Saint Luke says that nothing is impossible for God he was speaking about human limitation and not trying to construct silly illogical puzzles for fools. Hebrews chapter 6 states for instance that lying is impossible for God.

God is all good. God does not create evil as evil is what is there when there is no good. Persons other than God choose a choice that is not good, but God cannot do that.

God cannot make a four sided triangle or create a rock that He could not lift. These are illogical and nonstatements no matter how much the fool thinks they are being clever. It is only clever to the ignorant who have not given serious thought to the question.

The person who will kill an unborn child should repent and ask forgiveness to God for the act of murder. To blame God for the act is to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit and cut themselves off from forgiveness because they blame the very person they need to ask for forgiveness.

There are no absolute truths …Oh except my statement about there being no absolute truths. You could spend hours and hours coming up with nonsense God does not have to suffer for our sophomoric philosophical games.

And by the way God is existence, and by that there was never a point in time where He came into existence; therefore, it is impossible for God in the Triune Godhead to die.

He did die on the cross not to confuse you, but that is the term we use when the soul is separated from the body and not to say He was not existing.

 

[Rau]

Hence your faith is wrong since it is not reasonable. How it could come from God?

My faith does not adopt the same premise as your view, which is that acts with the optimum balance of good versus bad outcomes are necessarily moral acts.

Imagine your 2 children were held hostage by a gunman, but you believe that if you follow the gunman’s instruction to go into the street and randomly kill a passer-by, your two children will be saved. I assume you would feel morally entitled to kill the passer-by? If you did so, how would the law treat you? If you refused and your 2 children were killed, how would the law treat you? Here I speak of the civil law of course. As regards the moral law, I am sure God would hold you culpable (to some degree, noting the pressure you were under) for the death of the passer-by, and solely the gunman culpable for the death of your children.

No, thanks I don’t need that when I find a single error in it. How it could divine when it is erroneous. The problem is that you don’t even doubt even when the error is in front of your eyes.

This may come as a shock, but something not matching your notion of correctness does not guarantee it is in error. Your idea that it is good to kill one innocent to save two is only correct if deliberately killing innocents is a permissible act. That is, if God permits it. I say he does not. I presume you say there is no God, in which case you would appear to be free to adopt whatever you’re comfortable with. Or perhaps you believe God does permit us to kill innocents? But from where did you learn that?

 

[francisca]

Could God ever condone an abortion?

In the case where abortion as a result of adulterous relationship (which I believe is the greater portion of abortion cases), according to The Torah (God’s Law), the relationship itself is punisable by stoning to death. So if the father and mother themselves has no right to live anymore according to God’s law, then children of adulterous relationship has no right to live either. So if we insist on following God’s law, then we shouldn’t forgive adultery either, so then we don’t even have abortion cases.

If only we were judged according to God’s law, our abominable society would have been wiped out long time ago. The reason why we are still here is because a long time ago, God ordained secular power to Israel kings to judge Israel (read 1Samuel 8). This was in accordance to the people’s voice requesting God to give them a human king. These Kings judged Israel according to God’s law as understood by them and their wisemen. In otherwords God’s law as far as understood by human ruler. The bible passage 1Samuel8 also mention that the reason why God agree to a kingdom in which God was/ is not the king was because Israel had repeatedly fallen into abomination.

So now, we have what we call just war, social justice, secular court, and so on. These are a set of justice system that doesn’t follow ideal religious principle, rather, following our understanding about what justice means as being revealed by God to our sense of humanity/ consience.

If abortion is murder, then it’s under crime law.
according to crime law, a suspect is innocent until found guilty.
both parents must be tried, becasue both parents equally responsible for the life of the child,
eventhough each parent contribute in the life of the child differently according to their natural means.
intent must be proven case by case
if a person being compelled to commit murder, he/ she at least has diminished responsibility.

The way to come out from the above in my opinion is: exactly the same way we allow porn, and adultery, and everything else.

If we allow one immorality that promote adulterous behavior (porn) for example, in which morality can we punish the outcome of such promotion?

Let’s say “I allow cigarette commercial” to run in the media. By which morality principle can I say “buying cigarettes and smoking is crime” ?

 

[francisca]

In the case of abortion within marriage. There is a passage that say “wife’s body belong to the husband, and husband’s body to the wife”. With this passage alone we can conclude that husband and wife commit murder in the case of abortion, if we define abortion as murder.

 

[Bahman]

My faith does not adopt the same premise as your view, which is that acts with the optimum balance of good versus bad outcomes are necessarily moral acts.

That is not a good approach since if that is true then we are going downward instead of upward in our spiritual journey which this is against the divine moral laws. So your situation is paradoxical since the divine moral system should assist us to grow up spiritually.

Imagine your 2 children were held hostage by a gunman, but you believe that if you follow the gunman’s instruction to go into the street and randomly kill a passer-by, your two children will be saved. I assume you would feel morally entitled to kill the passer-by? If you did so, how would the law treat you? If you refused and your 2 children were killed, how would the law treat you? Here I speak of the civil law of course. As regards the moral law, I am sure God would hold you culpable (to some degree, noting the pressure you were under) for the death of the passer-by, and solely the gunman culpable for the death of your children.

I will decide about the situation accordingly: 1) I reject if I am requested to kill three kids, 2) I accept if I am requested to kill one kid, etc. You could possibly imagine the rest of scenarios yourself.

This may come as a shock, but something not matching your notion of correctness does not guarantee it is in error. Your idea that it is good to kill one innocent to save two is only correct if deliberately killing innocents is a permissible act. That is, if God permits it. I say he does not. I presume you say there is no God, in which case you would appear to be free to adopt whatever you’re comfortable with. Or perhaps you believe God does permit us to kill innocents? But from where did you learn that?

I would say that your system of belief is erroneous so people shouldn’t accept it. Everybody could be in a trial and take the responsibility especially when the errors are obviously are showed.

 

[Rau]

That is not a good approach since if that is true then we are going downward instead of upward in our spiritual journey which this is against the divine moral laws. So your situation is paradoxical since the divine moral system should assist us to grow up spiritually.

Hardly. We should not be murdering innocents, by which acts we ourselves add to the evil in the world. That does nothing positive for our spirituality, other than to reduce us.

I will decide about the situation accordingly: 1) I reject if I am requested to kill three kids, 2) I accept if I am requested to kill one kid, etc.

That is a “Consequentialist” approach - whereby all deeds, no matter how heinous, may become right and proper in appropriate circumstances. It says we may lower ourselves to whatever level we perceive will produce the desirable balance of consequences. But in fact, such murderous acts will lead to further acts of violence, for surely those innocents that you would threaten deserve and will attract protection by another… An unpredictable sequence of violence is thereby initiated under the guise of doing good. Will you consider all these possible consequences before you act to murder?

I would say that your system of belief is erroneous so people shouldn’t accept it.

I would say yours adds to evil.

Everybody could be in a trial and take the responsibility especially when the errors are obviously are showed.

Sorry, I do not know what you are trying to say.

 

[francisca]

Hardly. We should not be murdering innocents, by which acts we ourselves add to the evil in the world. That does nothing positive for our spirituality, other than to reduce us.

That is a “Consequentialist” approach - whereby all deeds, no matter how heinous, may become right and proper in appropriate circumstances. It says we may lower ourselves to whatever level we perceive will produce the desirable balance of consequences. But in fact, such murderous acts will lead to further acts of violence, for surely those innocents that you would threaten deserve and will attract protection by another… An unpredictable sequence of violence is thereby initiated under the guise of doing good. Will you consider all these possible consequences before you act to murder?

In the case of mother is in danger, the position of the church is quite clear that the mother must be saved first, then the fetus.

Regarding Abortion,

The safety of the women (and therefore their fetus) is the most moral choice out of all the other options. You may argue immorality of abortion. But it is also immoral to put women (and their fetus) into the hand of illegal clinics. Illegalizing abortion doesn’t stop it from happening. So again you gotta make a choice. And which choice you make that is depend on the forseen outcome as consideration. .

The term “we should not be murdering innocents” is true in itself. How do we stop it from happening?

From my point of view, all immorality discussion about abortion will still ends in immorality when we allow permissive culture to continue hence abortion regardless legality (the term “allowing/ not allowing abortion” has nothing to do with legality). Illegalizing abortion cannot stop it from happening. so in the end you will still see immorality (exept you don’t see it at the corner of the street anymore).

The source of evil is not being addressed, then abortion will still happening.
The hienious crime behind abortion should be the reason why there are so many abortions. I don’t think legality is the cause of this number. No woman get an abortion simply because it is legal.

 

[Rau]

In the case of mother is in danger, the position of the church is quite clear that the mother must be saved first, then the fetus.

Do you have a source for that?

However, the discussion has not been about that, but rather whether the child may be murdered in order to save mother (which is largely a theoretical debate these days, but was a practical question in the past).

But it is also immoral to put women (and their fetus) into the hand of illegal clinics. Illegalizing abortion doesn’t stop it from happening. So again you gotta make a choice. And which choice you make that is depend on the forseen outcome as consideration.

Consequences are one of the factors that determine morality, but the anticipated “best” consequence (for the parents) does not necessarily ensure a moral act. The discussion is not so much about what the law should be, but rather what acts (by parents and clinicians) are moral. Is murdering the innocent child ever a moral choice for parents to take? No - not if you embrace Catholic principles of morality.

The term “we should not be murdering innocents” is true in itself.

Yes. It is a Catholic principal that some acts are intrinsically evil, thus always wrong to choose, though some do not accept that, hence the recent direction of this thread.

No woman get an abortion simply because it is legal.

Of course not, however there are more abortions because it is legal.

 

[Bahman]

Hardly. We should not be murdering innocents, by which acts we ourselves add to the evil in the world. That does nothing positive for our spirituality, other than to reduce us.

Not hardly but clearly. Father apparently did a crime too by sending an innocent, namely Jesus, to hands of criminals, knowing the consequences. He did it for better good hence his approach is also Consequentialist.

That is a “Consequentialist” approach - whereby all deeds, no matter how heinous, may become right and proper in appropriate circumstances. It says we may lower ourselves to whatever level we perceive will produce the desirable balance of consequences. But in fact, such murderous acts will lead to further acts of violence, for surely those innocents that you would threaten deserve and will attract protection by another… An unpredictable sequence of violence is thereby initiated under the guise of doing good. Will you consider all these possible consequences before you act to murder?

I am so sorry but I have to be blunt! Isn’t your system of belief is Consequentialist approach? Don’t you prefer God over Satan and Haven over Hell?

I would say yours adds to evil.

Hence your system of belief adds to evil too considering the previous argument.

Sorry, I do not know what you are trying to say.

I don’t know what more to say when you don’t accept that your system of belief is Consequentialist too( considering the second comment) yet arguing that this system is wrong? Didn’t you accept that Jesus died for our sins? He accepted death for a better Good. He was aware of the consequence before his incarnation yet he accepted it hence his approach is Consequentialist.

 

[Rau]

Not hardly but clearly. Father apparently did a crime too by sending an innocent, namely Jesus, to hands of criminals, knowing the consequences. He did it for better good hence his approach is also Consequentialist.

I am so sorry but I have to be blunt! Isn’t your system of belief is Consequentialist approach? Don’t you prefer God over Satan and Haven over Hell?

Hence your system of belief adds to evil too considering the previous argument.

I don’t know what more to say when you don’t accept that your system of belief is Consequentialist too( considering the second comment) yet arguing that this system is wrong? Didn’t you accept that Jesus died for our sins? He accepted death for a better Good. He was aware of the consequence before his incarnation yet he accepted it hence his approach is Consequentialist.

Read the section in the catechism about “the morality of human acts”. It will explain the role of Consequences (circumstances) in determining the morality of (human) acts.

In Consequentialism, the foreseeable consequences are all that matter, and that idea is entirely incompatible with Catholic principles.

 

[Bahman]

Read the section in the catechism about “the morality of human acts”. It will explain the role of Consequences (circumstances) in determining the morality of (human) acts.

Why should read that? Could you please provide a simple argument which show your understanding on the topic?

In Consequentialism, the foreseeable consequences are all that matter, and that idea is entirely incompatible with Catholic principles.

Unfortunately, you didn’t provide a simple argument to show that why yours system of belief is incompatible with Consequentialism. It is very simple, you prefer God over Satan and Heaven over Hell because of simple reason: You know the consequence. Your moral system as a result falls apart!

 

[Rau]

Why should read that? Could you please provide a simple argument which show your understanding on the topic?

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

Unfortunately, you didn’t provide a simple argument to show that why yours system of belief is incompatible with Consequentialism. It is very simple, you prefer God over Satan and Heaven over Hell because of simple reason: You know the consequence. Your moral system as a result falls apart!

See above.

 

[Bahman]

vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s1c1a4.htm

See above.

You unfortunately don’t have any argument so why you don’t accept the error in your system of belief. That link unfortunately doesn’t provide any insight. You could see it yourself if you judge it critically.

It is very simple: 1) You accepted God over Satan and Heaven over Hell because you follow Consequentialism (Please, you need to provide an argument to show me that I am wrong), 2) Your moral system of laws is subjected to your system of belief (which is Consequentialism). So we are dealing with a contraction in your world view since you accept Consequentialism in the same time you argue that you don’t believe in Consequentialism.

So I am wondering why you are evading around? I need an argument!

 

[Jesus_Lives]

In recent conversation, I’ve been told that for us to say that God could never privately reveal to someone that “it was okay for them to go through with an abortion” is to limit God and deny his omnipotence. I’ve made the argument that God can not go against what he has already revealed, but I am challenged by parts of the bible where God does condone violence against man, woman, AND child.

Any thoughts?

If God knew that the child of the devil was to be born, and destroy all that is good on the Earth, could God condone an abortion of the devil?

Did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah, because it was in his opinion evil?

 

[Rau]

You unfortunately don’t have any argument so why you don’t accept the error in your system of belief. That link unfortunately doesn’t provide any insight. You could see it yourself if you judge it critically.

It is very simple: 1) You accepted God over Satan and Heaven over Hell because you follow Consequentialism (Please, you need to provide an argument to show me that I am wrong), 2) Your moral system of laws is subjected to your system of belief (which is Consequentialism). So we are dealing with a contraction in your world view since you accept Consequentialism in the same time you argue that you don’t believe in Consequentialism.

So I am wondering why you are evading around? I need an argument!

While the manner in which you decide which human acts are moral follows the Consequentialist philosophy, what you write above has nothing to do with it. It is just nonsense, or perhaps an attempt at fun?

I refer you again to Veritatis Splendor for a fuller treatment of Catholic moral principles and the nature of alternatives such as consequentialism/proportionalism.

 

[Bahman]

While the manner in which you decide which human acts are moral follows the Consequentialist philosophy, what you write above has nothing to do with it. It is just nonsense, or perhaps an attempt at fun?

You are not providing an argument again! Claiming that my argument is nonsense or an attempt to have fun does not cut anything.

I refer you again to Veritatis Splendor for a fuller treatment of Catholic moral principles and the nature of alternatives such as consequentialism/proportionalism.

Moral principles as I mentioned before should be consistent with your belief system. You just don’t pay any attention to my argument. The question is how your moral system could be something different from consequentialism when your belief is aliened with consequentialism? It is very simple: you prefer God over Satan and Haven over Hell because you know the consequences to believe otherwise! I cannot really put your error in front of your face easier than this.

 

[Rau]

You are not providing an argument again! Claiming that my argument is nonsense or an attempt to have fun does not cut anything.

Though it appears to be appropriate.

Moral principles as I mentioned before should be consistent with your belief system. You just don’t pay any attention to my argument. The question is how your moral system could be something different from consequentialism when your belief is aliened with consequentialism? It is very simple: you prefer God over Satan and Haven over Hell because you know the consequences to believe otherwise! I cannot really put your error in front of your face easier than this.

I’ve patiently explained that Consequentialism, an approach to judging the morality of human acts, has nothing to do with choosing God over Satan. Two things not the same can’t be required to be the same!

 

[francisca]

Of course not, however there are more abortions because it is legal.

This is not necessarily true.

You only assume that this is true.

When abortion is illegal you have NO DATA to show the increase or the decrease as to compared to when it is legal.

 

[Rau]

This is not necessarily true.

You only assume that this is true.

When abortion is illegal you have NO DATA to show the increase or the decrease as to compared to when it is legal.

Reason strongly suggests it is true.

On what basis could reason conclude that making a grave act illegal would not reduce the incidence of the act? There will logically be the “marginal” cases where fear of prosecution, or fear of injury at the hands of the non-professional abortion service will dissuade someone from acting.

Also, could you answer my earlier question about your source for the claim that the Church requires a mother to be saved first and only then her baby?

 

[francisca]

Reason strongly suggests it is true.

On what basis could reason conclude that making a grave act illegal would not reduce the incidence of the act? There will logically be the “marginal” cases where fear of prosecution, or fear of injury at the hands of the non-professional abortion service will dissuade someone from acting.

The above may be true only if the potential offender have other choices to choose. In cases where offenders are in desperate situation, illegality may not stop an offence from happening.

Illegality wont dissuade an addict from buying drugs, starved & broke person from stealing food.

Also, could you answer my earlier question about your source for the claim that the Church requires a mother to be saved first and only then her baby?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_double_effect

Please read Question 64 article 7
newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm