Does Original Sin Contradict Pro-Life Teaching?

[FutureSaintAva]

A popular pro-life rebuttal, usually in response to the pro-abortion rape argument, is that innocent babies, born and pre-born, should not be held responsible for the crimes of his/her father (in this case, the crime would be rape); therefore, the innocent babies should not be aborted.

But I was thinking about Adam and Eve, and how we must baptize our children to rid them of original sin - the sin that Adam and Eve placed upon us when they first sinned. Why do we need baptism if, according to the pro-life argument, we should not be held responsible for the sins of our ancestors?

Disclaimer: I am not saying that we should not baptize our babies. I know that this is necessary and imperative for their spiritual health, but I am wondering how this pro-life teaching makes sense when compared to baptism?

Is the pro-life argument that I mentioned incorrect according to Church teachings? How does this make sense?

Thank you and may the Holy Spirit bless your soul!

 

[Fr.Charles_Grondin]

There’s a few distinct difference:

1. Original Sin is something that is a natural consequence of a prior action whereas abortion is something that is directly willed to happen. If my parents lost my inheritance in stock market investments that went bad that’s quite different than if my parent’s willfully piled up the money and set it on fire.
2. Nothing that we lost in original sin is ours by right, they were free gifts from God; on the other hand however, once we exist in this world we have the right not to be killed by another person.
3. We are not ‘held responsible’ for the actions of Adam and Eve, we merely experience the consequences of their choice. In fact, in sending His Son God grants back to us the free gifts that had been lost.