Does abortion save millions from hell?

  • Thread starter Thread starter FiveLinden
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D.Erasmus.R said:
If deceased foetuses go to hell then these foetuses can’t be innocent(unless the innocent are punished in hell);
Click to expand...
The idea of Limbo is that those who go there have natural joy, for they do not deserve punishment, but that they are not in Heaven.

Since we do not have a right to go to Heaven, it is not unjust for the soul to go to Limbo.

As to those involved in abortion, as I said, one of the bad parts of committing abortion is that (if Limbo is their destination) the act cuts souls off from ever attaining Heaven.

However, if some who commit those acts repent and make reparation either here or in Purgatory, they will be able to go to Heaven, due to God’s mercy.
 
Last edited:
Just noting He didn’t spare His own Son who was completely innocent and free from the stain of the original sin. We know that baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation. Whether an unborn / unbaptised baby could somehow obtain the baptism, we don’t know. It may happen, but it need not necessarily.
 
An ation my be performed on a woman against her will - forced ations in China - so ation. If ation is simply the killing of a foetus then every situation where a foetus is killed must be taken into account. This especially includes violence against pregnant women.
 
JimG said:
The Church teaches the doctrine of original sin. Every human being who comes into existence has original sin on his soul. The only exception is the Blessed Mother, who was conceived without original sin, and in a state of sanctifying grace. In order to be free of original sin, baptism is necessary. That is doctrine. Anyone who kills an unborn child deprives it of the chance of baptism.
Click to expand...
Minor correction. John the Baptist was not conceived free from original sin but he was born free from original sin.
 
It is still unjust for God to allow an innocent victim to cut from heaven for eternity while allowing the perpetrator to enjoy heaven. It means that God doesn’t restore justice to innocent victims.
 
One last time:

The two cases are completely separate.

No one has the right to Heaven. Period. Which means that the baby has not lost anything.

The act of killing unborn babies takes away their chance to live and come to love God and thus attain Heaven.

This is why the unjust killing of a human being is so terribly wrong, not just the natural reason of I don’t want to be killed, you don’t want to be killed, so let’s make a rule against it.

However, if the perpetrators of such acts come to repent and make reparation for their sin(s), which include(s) the taking away of that chance; once they experience a metanoia and repent and become willing to make reparations, they change paths, and, altho they have no right to it, God will in His mercy grant them Heaven.
 
FiveLinden said:
There would be many fewer in hell.
Click to expand...
Except that all the abortionists, all or most of those who help provide abortion, and many of the parents, would go to hell when they wouldn’t have if not for their acts of abortion.
And you still haven’t dealt with the fact that we don’t know whether the unborn or the unbaptized infants go to heaven.
D.Erasmus.R said:
If deceased foetuses go to hell then these foetuses can’t be innocent(unless the innocent are punished in hell); thus the killing of foetuses is not the killing of innocents.
Click to expand...
Deceased foetuses do not go to hell. That much we do know. God is not unjust. So the killing of the unborn is the killing of innocents.
D.Erasmus.R said:
It is still unjust for God to allow an innocent victim to cut from heaven for eternity while allowing the perpetrator to enjoy heaven. It means that God doesn’t restore justice to innocent victims.
Click to expand...
  1. Heaven is God’s gift to us. We don’t have a right to it.
  2. Since we don’t know what God has in mind for the unborn we can’t say they will never reach heaven. We know only that God’s mercy is incredibly far-reaching.
  3. “The perpetrator enjoys heaven” is true only if the perpetrator repents, and then he faces however long in purgatory.
 
Last edited:
RE: the original question.
This reasoning supports the Aztec practice of bloody child sacrifice. How does that sit?

What is the difference, either moral or physical?
 
po18guy said:
This reasoning supports the Aztec practice of bloody child sacrifice. How does that sit?
Click to expand...
I am not sure that posing such a question supports child sacrifice. But as I understand Catholic teaching all victims of such sacrifice are, based on Catholic belief in God’s goodness, in heaven. For them that is a better outcome than not being in heaven.
 
FiveLinden said:
I am not sure that posing such a question supports child sacrifice. But as I understand Catholic teaching all victims of such sacrifice are, based on Catholic belief in God’s goodness, in heaven. For them that is a better outcome than not being in heaven.
Click to expand...
Please direct me to the Church teaching which backs up your claim.
 
D.Erasmus.R said:
40.png
o_mlly:
The OP’s thought experiment premised 100 million abortions. Do you claim that a significant portion of the 100 million are other than procured direct abortions? If procured then at least 2 are involved in the direct killing of an innocent.
Click to expand...
If a tion is simply the killing of a foetus then every situation where a foetus is killed must be taken into account. This especially includes violence against pregnant women.
Click to expand...
It’s a “thought experiment” premised on elective abortions in an attempt to justify objective murder for a greater good. And you inject that coerced abortions support the math of that outrageous conclusion?

The China one and two child policy is revolting. The women penalized by their own government for being “fruitful and multiply” indeed need our prayers to have the courage to resist the coercion to abort.

Still, even this abortive act involves at least 2. The heinous Chinese government policy that coerces abortions in China does not kidnap the mother, anesthetize her and kill the child. The policy imposes impossible property fines on pregnant women who violate the policy and do not submit to an abortion. We pray that these women receive the courage to resist as many have and go into hiding rather than allow the murder of their child. Sound familiar? Read Matthew 2:13–23.
 
Which claim Thistle? The comment on unbaptised children (those sacrificed) comes from the Catechism. The ‘better outcome’ is used on my understanding that Catholic teaching from the time of Christ has thought it better to be in heaven after death than any other place. Have I missed something?
 
FiveLinden said:
Which claim Thistle? The comment on unbaptised children (those sacrificed) comes from the Catechism. The ‘better outcome’ is used on my understanding that Catholic teaching from the time of Christ has thought it better to be in heaven after death than any other place. Have I missed something
Click to expand...
This claim you made:

" But as I understand Catholic teaching all victims of such sacrifice are, based on Catholic belief in God’s goodness, in heaven.

The Church does NOT teach that unbaptised infants go to Heaven. The Church does not know what happens to them and teaches they they are entrusted to God’s mercy.
 
Last edited:
John the Baptist was born free from original sin? I’ve never heard that one before.
Why was he free from original sin?
 
Yeah, looking at it it looks like some theologians posit things about him. But I dont think anyone should claim that as a position of the Church or even a widely held belief.
 
Pnwcatholic said:
Yeah, looking at it it looks like some theologians posit things about him. But I dont think anyone should claim that as a position of the Church or even a widely held belief.
Click to expand...
No, it is right in Scripture, the Catechism, and the Church’s liturgical tradition. As the angel told Zachariah about his future son, John, “he will be filled with the Holy Spirit,
even from his mother’s womb.” (Luke 1:15).
CCC 717 "There was a man sent from God, whose name was John."89 John was "filled with the Holy Spirit even from his mother’s womb"90 by Christ himself, whom the Virgin Mary had just conceived by the Holy Spirit. Mary’s visitation to Elizabeth thus became a visit from God to his people.91
Click to expand...
The Holy Spirit by His indwelling cleanses us of sin. Being filled with the Holy Spirit and being in a state of original or mortal sin is impossible. For this reason, the Church has always celebrated the birth of St. John the Baptist along with the birth’s of Christ and Mary, since they were not born into sin.
 
Last edited:
thistle said:
" But as I understand Catholic teaching all victims of such sacrifice are, based on Catholic belief in God’s goodness, in heaven.

The Church does NOT teach that unbaptised infants go to Heaven. The Church does not know what happens to them and teaches they they are entrusted to God’s mercy.
Click to expand...
I was Thought paraphrasing the catechism: 1261 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.
 
Cruciferi said:
Yes, we can hope. However, we do NOT know for certain
Click to expand...
I don’t want to put this in a way that could cause offence, but is there not a contradiction in struggling so hard to protect unborn children as a result of faith in a God who you believe capable of sending them to hell?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top