God is pro-choice according to nun

[withwind]

A Sister came to a college in my area talking with students - she claimed that she personnally did not believe in the Original Sins and other stuff that is very contradicted to the Catholic faith.

It is not good.

 

[Cristiano]

…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.

This statement completely lacks a logical sequence. What is the correlation between evolution/creation and miscarriage?

 

[Verbum_Caro]

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.

Jfhh,

The immorality of abortion arises from human intervention procuring it.

God is no more an “abortionist” as He is a “murderer” when people die of old age.

In sum, I disagree with your characterization of your comment as “true.”
VC

 

[jfhh]

Jfhh,

The immorality of abortion arises from human intervention procuring it.

God is no more an “abortionist” as He is a “murderer” when people die of old age.

In sum, I disagree with your characterization of your comment as “true.”
VC

I think you didn’t understand the “If evolution is false” part.

I believe evolution is true so I do NOT beleive God is an abortionist.

 

[jfhh]

This statement completely lacks a logical sequence. What is the correlation between evolution/creation and miscarriage?

Maybe if a similar argument comes from a Dominican priest and renowned philosopher, scientist, and geneticist then you wouldn’t be so quick to judge:

SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-christian-mans-evolution&print=true

US CATHOLIC
uscatholic.claretians.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=12552

 

[jfhh]

from the second link:

Q: Are the problems with intelligent design just scientific?

A: From my point of view intelligent design is blasphemy. There are not only imperfections, as Paley noticed, there are outright dysfunctions and an enormous amount of cruelty and sadism in evolution. You wouldn’t want to attribute that to the Creator. Almost nothing is well designed.

Take the human jaw: It is not big enough for our teeth, so we have to pull out the wisdom teeth and then straighten the others. An engineer who designed a jaw not big enough for all the teeth would be fired.

The human eye has a huge defect because the way the eye evolved in mammals left a blind spot where the optic nerve crosses the retina on the way to the brain. Octopus and squid, on the other hand, have eyes as complex as ours, but without a blind spot. What a mistake to attribute to the Lord!

We have known for some time that 20 percent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion within the first two months, about 20 million miscarriages a year. If God explicitly designed the human reproductive system, is God the biggest abortionist of them all? Even the human birth canal isn’t big enough for the babies. Roughly 530,000 women die each year as a consequence of pregnancy and childbirth. There’s something very wrong there.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Maybe if a similar argument comes from a Dominican priest

Former Dominican and presumably laicized priest (I only bring this up because you first brought up that he was a Dominican priest, presumably as a bolster).

 

[jfhh]

Former Dominican and presumably laicized priest (I only bring this up because you first brought up that he was a Dominican priest, presumably as a bolster).

First of all, you are ceding that the argument is not nonsense. You can’t say the argument is illogical and then use an ad hominem to show it is illogical.

Second, AFAIK, he has never been expelled from the Order of Preachers and nor has he been laicized. It didn’t mention anything to that effect in the Scientific American I read (the U.S. Catholic article I didn’t read completely; I found it b/c the Scientific American article referenced it). Doing some digging it appears that he renounced his vows but I have no information on whether the church has actually dismissed him from the order. It is extremely unlikely that he is liaicized. Laicization is very rare and is not btw a punishment necessarily.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

I think you didn’t understand the “If evolution is false” part.

No, I did catch that. It doesn’t touch upon the faults in your statement.

You said 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.

Here are the problems with your statement:

1. It does not follow that if God designed human bodies then He designed them to cause spontaneous abortions. This only follows if God actively created the human body as it is now. The Fall might have something to do with the various imperfections and diseases that we contend with now.
2. The physical evil of spontaneous abortion is completely distinct from the moral evil of procured abortion. Procured abortion is evil because we actively seek to kill an innocent human being. God’s permissive will in allowing spontaneous abortion, just as in allowing death by accidental poisoning, would not make Him an abortionist nor a poisoner.
3. God has dominion over life and death, and could choose to create life or take it. It does not follow that *if *God actively wills to kill one of his creatures that He has violated a moral law, in the same way that an abortionist who transgresses beyond his limitations and takes a life which is not his to take.

VC

 

[jfhh]

1. The physical evil of spontaneous abortion is completely distinct from the moral evil of procured abortion. Procured abortion is evil because we actively seek to kill an innocent human being. God’s permissive will in allowing spontaneous abortion, just as in allowing death by accidental poisoning, would not make Him an abortionist nor a poisoner.

Same applies for politician’s permissilve will in allowing induced abortion. As you may know, God’s permissive will extends to both spontaneous abortions and to induced abortions, something your point here obscures.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

First of all, you are ceding that the argument is not nonsense. You can’t say the argument is illogical and then use an ad hominem to show it is illogical.

Eh? It wasn’t I who said your argument was illogical. That was another poster.

Furthermore, what ad hominem? You seemingly tried to bolster your argument by appeal to authority (i.e. a Dominican priest) and I simply pointed out that he is not a Dominican anymore, and presumably not an active priest. I didn’t bring that up to bolster my argument*, nor* to weaken yours – but rather to correct you (and perhaps take the wind out of your sails in your presumable appeal to authority)

jfhh:

It is extremely unlikely that he is liaicized.

Point taken, I used laicized as, admittedly inaccurate, short hand for *not an active priest. *In any case, your bringing up that a Dominican priest said such and such seems quite less useful to you (or us) now that we know he isn’t a Dominican and he presumably doesn’t function as a priest.

VC

 

[Verbum_Caro]

Same applies for politician’s permissilve will in allowing induced abortion. As you may know, God’s permissive will extends to both spontaneous abortions and to induced abortions, something your point here obscures.

No, not obscures, highlights. God’s permissive will does extend to spontaneous abortions and abortions procured *by human abortionists. *If God isn’t an “abortionist” in the latter, He isn’t an “abortionist” in the former.

Just as God is not a “murderer” when people die by accident and misadventure or naturally, and is not a “murderer” when people die by murder.

VC

 

[jfhh]

No, not obscures, highlights. God’s permissive will does extend to spontaneous abortions and abortions procured *by human abortionists. *If God isn’t an “abortionist” in the latter, He isn’t an “abortionist” in the former.

Just as God is not a “murderer” when people die by accident and misadventure or naturally, and is not a “murderer” when people die by murder.

VC

Perhaps the professor in question as well as myself was using what you have described as “admittedly inaccurate, short hand”

I hear a silent touche

 

[Verbum_Caro]

So, what was your argument shorthand for?

I explained what I meant, now its your turn, right?

VC

(And that faint *“Touche” *we thought we heard was actually *“Passé”, *for you fencing buffs in the audience.)

 

[Lepanto]

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.

If you believe this you are a Deist, not a Christian.

 

[Mark77]

This is false, erroneous, sad and sickening.

54% of Catholics voted for Obama? Who says?

I can call myself a Catholic, or a space alien or the Pope, but that does not make it true.

Anyone who devoutly follows the teachings of Jesus Christ as taught by the Church He founded, His own Catholic Church, would never, never advocate for the murder of innocent babies!

Since when is morality a democratic issue?

If 51% vote to kill the other 49%, is that right???

Sancta Maria, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!

Mark

 

[NReily]

from the second link:

Q: Are the problems with intelligent design just scientific?

A: From my point of view intelligent design is blasphemy. There are not only imperfections, as Paley noticed, there are outright dysfunctions and an enormous amount of cruelty and sadism in evolution. You wouldn’t want to attribute that to the Creator. Almost nothing is well designed.

Take the human jaw: It is not big enough for our teeth, so we have to pull out the wisdom teeth and then straighten the others. An engineer who designed a jaw not big enough for all the teeth would be fired.

The human eye has a huge defect because the way the eye evolved in mammals left a blind spot where the optic nerve crosses the retina on the way to the brain. Octopus and squid, on the other hand, have eyes as complex as ours, but without a blind spot. What a mistake to attribute to the Lord!

We have known for some time that 20 percent of all pregnancies end in spontaneous abortion within the first two months, about 20 million miscarriages a year. If God explicitly designed the human reproductive system, is God the biggest abortionist of them all? Even the human birth canal isn’t big enough for the babies. Roughly 530,000 women die each year as a consequence of pregnancy and childbirth. There’s something very wrong there.

Does this guy not understand the concept of Original Sin?

 

[Chris_LaRock]

Does this guy not understand the concept of Original Sin?

According to their logic, it’s okay to break a man’s leg on purpose since so many people break their leg by accident.

 

[Chris_LaRock]

UPDATE!

Pro-Choice Nun Remorseful after Silent No More Leader Unveils Tyranny of Abortion

By Kathleen Gilbert

CAMPELLSPORT, Wisconsin, December 9, 2008 (LifeSiteNews.com) - When Julie Shockley read a nun’s recently published defense of the “pro-choice” ideology as a reflection of God’s gift of free will, Shockley was immediately reminded of her own abortion experience - one she says robbed her of that very gift.

Shockley, a regional coordinator of Silent No More in western Tennessee, sent a compassionate response to Sister Arlene Welding after reading about her letter on LifeSiteNews.com (LSN). Now Shockley says she believes the nun has since reversed her errant beliefs.

In an article entitled “God is Pro-Choice,” Sr. Arlene had written in the Milwaukee Archdiocese newspaper that bishops should not have spoken out against voting for Barack Obama. “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,” wrote Sr. Arlene.

“Yes, abortion is the killing of an innocent life,” she said, but added that “abortion might have been the lesser of two evils” and “even the most merciful alternative” for children who survived the womb but now starve to death in third-world countries.

Shockley told LSN that, in responding to the nun’s words, she expressed "agreement with her about our free will, the injustices and poverty in our society that lead to abortion, and our need to address these issues.

“But having personal experience with abortion as a sixteen year old stripped of my own free will to choose what was right, and forced to abort. I asked for her compassion and understanding of our Church’s teaching - abortion is intrinsically evil precisely because it strips us of what the Lord Himself would not take - our free will,” she said.

She described to LSN the circumstances of her own abortion, in which doctors and her entire family forced her into the procedure, and promised no support should she decide to keep her baby. “In that regard, I can’t see that as having free will anymore,” she said.

In turn, Sister Arlene called her personally “to apologize for any sorrow she caused.” “She sounded truly contrite, and sorrowful herself,” said Shockley, “And I give thanks to God that He gave her the grace and humility to see where her thoughts, as expressed, were misguided.”

Shockley continued: "My faith in our religious has been strengthened because you brought us together, Sister Arlene and me. We are all human, after all, and some of us see more of suffering than others. I was strengthened by her grace, and touched deeply by her heartfelt apology; further, I was enriched by the opportunity to write to her with God’s help to enable her to see the issue from a different perspective.”

Shockley noted that other members of Silent No More, a nationwide campaign exposing the devastation suffered by those involved in abortion, also wrote to help the nun understand the true scope of the abortion tragedy. Shockley believes that, “by the grace of God,” Sr. Arlene has reconsidered her position.

“Sister Arlene is not pro-abortion,” concluded Shockley. “She is simply, like most of us, over-exposed to the suffering of the world, and at times, overwhelmed by it.”

See related LifeSiteNews.com article:

God is Pro-Choice Says Nun
lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/dec/08120105.html

 

[rjs1]

Even though this thread seems to have been diverted from its original topic I thought people might be interested to know that I sent a strongly worded email to the Religious Order that the pro-abortion nun comes from.

I was delighted to promptly receive a very apologetic reply in which I was assured that the views of the nun did not express the views of the order, that the order is against abortion and supports the Church’s teaching on that matter absolutely and that they “are addressing this concern with our sister”.