God is pro-choice according to nun

  • Thread starter Thread starter Lepanto
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I am shocked (I probably shouldn’t be) and sickened. I found this to be most especially disturbing:
I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative.
Why stop there? Maybe killing the old and the infirm is “the lesser of two evils” and “the most merciful alternative.” Why address the actual issue of why babies are starving in Honduras when one can ignore the larger problem and treat the symptoms of it?
 
I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative.
If killing them is the lesser of two evils, why not kill them now? I wonder if this nun nut thought this through.
 
She needs to spend more time reading the Bible & less time writing letters. Jesus said that we will ALWAYS have the poor with us. Therefore, we cannot eliminate poverty because Jesus words are true. We are called to help the poor; however being poor is no excuse for committing the sin of abortion. What good would it do to be middle class or rich and still have an impoverished soul? And I would argue any individual who believes in abortion or promotes abortion is an impoverished soul who can’t discern the truth.
 
God gave everyone a free will and he does not pressure people into using that free will to do what is right.
So she admits in her own letter that “right” does exist.

But no pressure to actually do it. To choose wrong is a God-given freedom, without apparent ramifications. Just choosing alone is divinely-given, and the actual choice irrelevant.

Praised be God, for the TRUE teaching authority of the Church.

Tim
 
I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative.
Funny, Mother Theresa never came to the same conclusion. But let’s not question ourselves. Even when in direct opposition to Rome. We could never be wrong. Ever.

Prayers for our confused Sister. The evil one is at work here.

Tim
 
clearly misguided. rather disgusting to read as well. who equates abortion to being merciful and calls themselves Catholic?

sounds like an angry attempt to justify her vote.

Obama is going to try and get FOCA pushed through. That is not doing “what he can to prevent abortion”.

someone might want to inform her, Obama is not anti-war as well. He will gladly fight a War in Afghanistan.
 
GOD IS PRO-CHOICE
Even though Catholic bishops are already pressing President-elect Barack Obama on the issue of abortion, it is time they begin to realize that 54% of Catholics who voted for him do not agree with the bishops telling people how to vote.
When St. Augustine was ordained against his will, he begged the bishop to not make him a priest, but the bishop replied, “The voice of the people is the voice of God.” I think this is where the nun is coming from; if more than half of the Church in America is against the bishops and for Obama, than God must be so as well.

However, the flaw in this type of reasoning is threefold: 1) The Church is Catholic, that is, Universal, not just American; 2) The Church has stated, infallibly, that abortion is an intrinsic evil that may not be performed under any circumstances; 3) Christ said, “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” Now if He is the Life, than how He can be for death?
Obama may be pro-choice, but so is God. God gave everyone a free will and he does not pressure people into using that free will to do what is right. Obama promised to do what he can to prevent abortion. What more need he do when so many other pressures to make changes are upon him?
This is one reason why there are pro-choice Catholics; they get the terminology mixed up, or are fed lies about the pro-choice movement. “Pro-choice” dose not mean the freedom to choose; if that were simply the case - if “pro-choice” simply meant having the freedom to choose - than God would certainly be pro-choice, for, as the nun correctly states, God pressures no one to use His gifts (and freewill is one of His gifts) rightly. He is Love, and as Love, He respects us and trusts us to act responsibily, just as a husband respects his wife and trusts her to act responsibily. “Pro-choice” means having the right to kill - the right to choose the death of another. No one has that right or that choice, ever.

Obama will do all he can to prevent abortion. He lied during his compain and he will - if FOCA leaves Congress - sign the bill into law, which will destroy any and all limitations on abortions, both federally and statewise.
Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life. So is war and violent killing on the street. I have often seen many starving babies in hospitals in Honduras and witnessed their pain. In these cases, abortion might have been the lesser of two evils, and even the most merciful alternative.
Abortion is the killing of an innocent life which cannot defend itself and which has not even had the chance at life; war and self-defense (violent killing, I assume) is the defense of life, at the national and personal levels. There is no comparison between snuffing life out and defending one’s life, even if at the cost of another’s life.

I can see where the nun is coming from when she says abortion is the lesser of two evils: why allow babies to suffer, but instead, mercy-kill them so they don’t have to suffer? Yet the Church has definitely stated that mercy-killing is evil and not to be committed.
I challenge our bishops to dwell more on unjust economic issues that both create and perpetuate the need for children to die of starvation, and for women to choose abortion. It would be better to aim at eliminating poverty rather than focus only on abortion. Poverty in our country and the world at large is a disgrace that cries to heaven for vengeance.
Sr. Arlene Welding, SSSF; Campellsport, WI
I believe what the nun means is, why focus simply on abortion, and not on other issues which are threatening the growth and well-being of our nation, such as poverty and starvation in the streets? If abortion was not against the right to life - which is the one fundamental right of every human being who, from conception, has a human life - than I would definitely say poverty is a much bigger issue and needs more attention from the bishops; and this would be coupled by the Church’s love for the poor and by the Lord’s command to feed the hungry, quench the thirsty, clothe the naked, etc.

However, you can’t have poor people or people to comfort the poor if you don’t give these people the right to life, if you give mothers the right to kill the saints in their wombs; and this is coupled with the Lord’s mission and with the Church’s words: Jesus came to give us life, abundant life, yet how can a human being have life if that little one is killed in the mother’s womb? And the Church has always taught that the defense of life - the defense of human life and of the right to life - is fundamental in the fight against evil.
 
It seems we have very weak leaders in the American Catholic Church. Any catholic religious that thinks that abortion is a acceptable alternative to hunger and doesn’t think that it is as important as other social and economic issues should be thrown out. Has that happened? Will it happen? She probably is beyond repair and should be free to express her views as a secular person. By doing nothing, the nun’s order and the archbishop insult good Catholics who know that if Jesus was on earth would not put up with this. Jesus preached and did not mince words. When people did not like what he said and walked away, He did not go after them or sugar coat His message. Unfortunately, a lot but not all of our bishops seem to forget the verse in Timothy…the one about preaching "In season and Out of season. They need to start acting like the Apostles from whom they form an unbroken line.
 
I am shocked (I probably shouldn’t be) and sickened. I found this to be most especially disturbing:

Why stop there? Maybe killing the old and the infirm is “the lesser of two evils” and “the most merciful alternative.” Why address the actual issue of why babies are starving in Honduras when one can ignore the larger problem and treat the symptoms of it?
I suffer a lot at my job in the cold. Could somebody please kill me off too?😃

(joke)

And, yes, I am going to again raise the issue of excommunication. If a nun is promoting abortion, can she be excommunicated?
 
If killing them is the lesser of two evils, why not kill them now? I wonder if this nun nut thought this through.
Silly me…I actually thought FEEDING hungry babies was the merciful thing to do. :rolleyes: 😃
 
I know, it is a crazy, insane idea to feed the hungry rather than kill them. 😦
Don’t let these people know if you are hungry, or they will kill you too!😉

I take the position that one RCC clergyman takes: I would gladly die tomoorow to end abortion!
 
If calling free will is ‘pro-choice’, then God is not restricted in his choice either.

He can send the nut to hell fire if he so chooses.
 
If calling free will is ‘pro-choice’, then God is not restricted in his choice either.

He can send the nut to hell fire if he so chooses.
God cannot choose evil, it would be against his divine nature. He won’t send this nun to hell either, it is her free will choices that will condemn her.

Iowa Mike
 
God cannot choose evil, it would be against his divine nature. He won’t send this nun to hell either, it is her free will choices that will condemn her.

Iowa Mike
That is an accurate way of putting it.

I was playing by the nut’s rule.
 
I am prochoice and I haven’t read the nun’s comments but based on the OP, I would say the nun is making a wrong argument.

God gives free will to women to do evil things, including evil abortion. But God also gives free will to men to do good things, including – if this were a good thing to do – using societal force to constrain the choices of women with respect to abortion.

So it’s not clear that God favors the pro-choice position. What is clear is that God takes a “hands off” approach to governing the universe, preferring to let the angelic order and human order evolve and govern in God’s spirit, a kind of delegation to angels (for grand and human affairs) and (as for the animal and plant kingdom) to humans.

There are many bad pro-life arguments, few good ones. There are also a few bad pro-choice arguments, this is one of them.

What IS true however is that if evolution is false, then God is the biggest abortionist of them all. If God designed human bodies then God designed them so that women would naturally have abortions (sponatenous abortions that occur either before implantation without human intervention or shortly after implantation without human intervention or thereafter without human intervention) about 2/5-3/5 of the time.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top