Is abortion a lesser sin that murder of an older human?

[avemariagratiaplena]

Primarily I’d like redirection to better sources because either there is nothing considering this or my Googling skills are horrific, so that’s why I’m asking here. Specifically looking for Catholic answers, I found plenty from unbelievers

I am asking to know a) why it feels like the death of a human at that stage is of much less value than the death of a human just one year older or even another person not born who is just several months older (although these still don’t compare in seeming emotional value to those several years older or just someone plainly 20 years old). There there is the whole “would you save embryos or a child” thing and in every instance no matter how many of them they are I’d save the child, even if there was a 100% chance the embryos could be implanted and grow well (which there is not in real life) b) the Exodus 21 law, they do not give death for causing the death of an infant like this. This could be because it was an accident (but there is no other law talking about this at all, and we know abortions were happening in this era and around them for centuries, seems like it’d be on the list to address by God but He does not). I know Jewish opinion varies on this a bit, some thinking that the retribution applies to the infant, the most seem to think it doesn’t which is what the passage seems to say to me. There is the Genesis 9:6 question they have but it seems stretched and not in agreement with any commentary I know of or what the words say. So I’m ignoring that and the whole Noahide fiasco.

So is it a lesser sin somehow? Yes both would be murder but is it a less serious murder? Or is the root of this nothing more than my moral sensitivities being way out of wack due to being born and raised in this culture? Any help (ESPECIALLY DOCUMENTS) would be appreciated God bless

Edit: another question for anyone who knows histories of this, in Christian states was it punished the same? That’s another way of answering it.

 

[Fidem]

Any life has the same value: a 5 seconds old embryo, a 20 years old adult or a 95 years old sick elder. Moreover, murdering your own child must be one of the worst possible sins!

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

That’s essential the question I am asking: does it though? Yes it’s all under murder, but can’t we rank murders based on severity both a) what was done to the victim b) who they are? I am asking in another way: if we can’t rank life value like that, why does it instinctively feel like we can? I’d say (this isn’t based on sound moral consideration, which is why I’d like any help with it) that murder of a parent, or child, or spouse is somehow “worse” than a complete stranger. Likewise as I mentioned in the OP, that of a 5-second-year-old feels like it isn’t as bad as that of a 5-year-old (even if both are your own children). Why is this? What is going on? What is the teaching if there aren’t any?

 

[Psalm30]

There there is the whole “would you save embryos or a child” thing and in every instance no matter how many of them they are I’d save the child

Before delving too much into this one, I’d just like to know when this would happen. In what situation would you have to choose between saving an embryo in the womb or a born child? Having to choose between saving the pregnant woman or the unborn baby certainly does happen. But I’m having a hard time fathoming a situation where saving a born child would require the death of an embryo, or vice versa. Maybe someone can enlighten me?

 

[Fidem]

The reasoning, the malice can change the gravity of sin, of course. But only Our Lord can see our hearts and understand how guilty are you. Moreover, when you kill you own child, it is a plethora of sins: murder, rebellion against God’s entrusted duty of raising His creature, ungratefulness regarding the great gift of parenthood, responsability towards an innocent being that depends almost entirely on you, etc, etc. But your guilty may be lessened by a profound ignorance of the horror of abortion or a extremely grave condition. But again, this is up to Our Lord, we can’t classify specific gravity of each murder.

 

[goout]

I am asking to know a) why it feels like the death of a human at that stage is of much less value than the death of a human just one year older or even another person not born who is just several months older
…

Because our sense of compassion and empathy are corrupted and weak. We (human beings generally speaking)… are numb. We don’t see or perceive very well. We need material reinforcement.

And the child in the womb is hidden. It has none of the temporal attributes that we tend to acknowledge; power, honor, wealth, status. The unborn child has none of these like “born people”.
Because we do not perceive well and have corrupted sense of compassion, it is easier for us to ignore these least among us.
I have a good friend who is a pastor of a non denom, and one of his favorite exhortations is to care for the least of those among us. And he does not include unborn children in that sense of compassion.

Along these lines of perception and feelings:
there are psychological studies demonstrating this lack of empathy for others, whereby people will progressively hurt others by pushing a shock button, when there is no direct contact with the other. We become numb to others when direct personal contact is removed.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

It’s a hypothetical to test moral consistency/morals. It wouldn’t happen (I don’t think). But it’s usually like you’re in a fertility clinic (or whatever you call the places they do IVF) and it’s burning and you can save 5000 embryos or 1 child, pick one. It’s just a hypothetical.

And the child in the womb is hidden . It has none of the temporal attributes that we tend to acknowledge; power, honor, wealth, status. The unborn child has none of these like “born people”.
Because we do not perceive well and have corrupted sense of compassion, it is easier for us to ignore these least among us.

Along these lines of perception and feelings:
there are psychological studies demonstrating this lack of empathy for others, whereby people will progressively hurt others by pushing a shock button, when there is no direct contact with the other. We become numb to others when direct personal contact is removed.

This makes sense, thank you. Would it change the guilt/moral weight, this fallen infirmity we have? I think that before the Fall we’d be much more aware of the personhood of others and their existence, etc. And I think the Saints become like that in life and especially so in heaven and when we have glorified bodies maximally so

 

[goout]

It’s a hypothetical to test moral consistency/morals. It wouldn’t happen (I don’t think). But it’s usually like you’re in a fertility clinic (or whatever you call the places they do IVF) and it’s burning and you can save 5000 embryos or 1 child, pick one. It’s just a hypothetical.

goout:

And the child in the womb is hidden . It has none of the temporal attributes that we tend to acknowledge; power, honor, wealth, status. The unborn child has none of these like “born people”.
Because we do not perceive well and have corrupted sense of compassion, it is easier for us to ignore these least among us.

Along these lines of perception and feelings:
there are psychological studies demonstrating this lack of empathy for others, whereby people will progressively hurt others by pushing a shock button, when there is no direct contact with the other. We become numb to others when direct personal contact is removed.

This makes sense, thank you. Would it change the guilt/moral weight, this fallen infirmity we have? I think that before the Fall we’d be much more aware of the personhood of others and their existence, etc. And I think the Saints become like that in life and especially so in heaven and when we have glorified bodies maximally so

You can’t reduce moral responsibility. If you are employing your conscience, you are also forming and enlightening your conscience. And if your conscience finds a moral imperative, you can’t abdicate that imperative by pointing to weakness.

Our mothers were spot-on when they admonished us “you ought to know better”. And typically this means that we do know better, but we choose poorly despite our knowledge.

 

[Tis_Bearself]

why it feels like the death of a human at that stage is of much less value than the death of a human just one year older or even another person not born who is just several months older

“Feels” are not a good basis for moral decisions.
It’s a natural tendency for people to value a born baby they can see over an embryo that is out of sight, out of mind. That’s why pro-life tends to put so much emphasis on showing a developing embryo to show that it has features that look like a baby at a very early stage, and why the pro-abortion side just calls it a clump of cells.

 

[Fidem]

Exactly. Our Lord gave us Reason. We may be less affected emotionally towards an unborn human, but our Reason easily shows it’s intrinsic value.

 

[Gorgias]

why it feels like the death of a human at that stage is of much less value than the death of a human just one year older or even another person not born who is just several months older

Out of sight, out of mind, perhaps?

the Exodus 21 law, they do not give death for causing the death of an infant like this. This could be because it was an accident

That’s exactly the point. A couple of thoughts:

• this is precisely in the context of “collateral damage”. It’s not a question of a man harming a woman with intent; it’s a question of men fighting and a pregnant woman getting harmed and miscarrying. So… apples and oranges, no?
• we’re not under the Mosaic law, so it’s irrelevant anyway

So is it a lesser sin somehow? Yes both would be murder but is it a less serious murder?

From a Catholic perspective, it’s more heinous because the murdered person is not only innocent, but without sin.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

All are equally sinful and horrendous, abortion of a pre-born conceived entity (whether you call it a blastocyst, embryo, conceptus, fetus, baby, what have you) being, if anything, even worse, because the PBCE cannot get away, cannot defend itself, and will die unbaptized on top of that, thus (if you accept the theory of limbo) depriving it of heaven for all eternity.

This said, even though the dogma of the Immaculate Conception strongly hints at ensoulment at the instant of conception, we simply don’t know when the PBCE has a soul infused into it. Is it murder if the PBCE is aborted before the soul enters it? Aquinas thought, given the understanding of the time (and following Aristotle), that the male PBCE was infused with a soul at 40 days, while a female PBCE received a soul at 80 days. (Don’t know why he made that distinction, can anyone shed light?) Regardless, I always use the shooting safety analogy — “be sure of your target and what is behind it”. If we are not sure whether the PBCE is ensouled, we have to assume it is, and we risk committing the mortal sin of murder if we abort it heedless of this assumption. Even Ronald Reagan (who would have been raised a Catholic if his father had overseen his religious upbringing instead of his mother) alluded to as much.

 

[PennyinCanada]

How about applying James 2 to the unborn, who have no voice in court, no lawyer to defend their innocence, but they are taken to the abortionist and their life ended.

A Warning against Favoritism
…5 Listen, my beloved brothers: Has not God chosen the poor of this world to be rich in faith and to inherit the kingdom He promised those who love Him? 6 But you have dishonored the poor. Is it not the rich who oppress you and drag you into court? 7 Are they not the ones who blaspheme the noble name by which you have been called?…

Remember that pregnancy always resolves itself with the birth of a baby. It is not a ‘crisis’. Soon the woman will not be pregnant. Why not let the baby live and go to a new family? Why the rush to end it’s life? It is truly an evil act to abort a baby.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

That’s exactly the point. A couple of thoughts:

I’d then wonder why there was not a Law explicitly about it anywhere, yes you could reason it out but from other moral statements in the OT canon (even with just the Torah alone and not prophets or Wisdom or Psalms I think it could be reasoned out) but I don’t know if they did this throughout the period when the OT was being revealed, I’ll check the Mishnah to see of anything is on it in there but that is all second-temple and the context had changed a lot since the time of Moses

From a Catholic perspective, it’s more heinous because the murdered person is not only innocent, but without sin.

Why is this? I never heard of this before, and the only things I’d heard of making murder worse was who it was done to why it was done and what was done to them (assuming equal things patricide is worse than killing a spouse for instance, just in a vacuum, and having the same malice/intentions in doing it) So the longer someone has been a sinner the less bad it is to kill them?

All are equally sinful and horrendous, abortion of a pre-born conceived entity (whether you call it a blastocyst, embryo, conceptus, fetus, baby, what have you) being, if anything, even worse, because the PBCE cannot get away, cannot defend itself, and will die unbaptized on top of that, thus (if you accept the theory of limbo) depriving it of heaven for all eternity.

I thought of limbo affecting this, would it be not that bad then if they did go to heaven? Also is the metric for how bad a murder is (in part) how defenseless the victim was? Then it’d make it equal sort of to killing someone in hospice who is totally reliant on others for all aid, or anyone in that situation.

This said, even though the dogma of the Immaculate Conception strongly hints at ensoulment at the instant of conception, we simply don’t know when the PBCE has a soul infused into it. Is it murder if the PBCE is aborted before the soul enters it? Aquinas thought, given the understanding of the time (and following Aristotle), that the male PBCE was infused with a soul at 40 days, while a female PBCE received a soul at 80 days.

I thought there was a dogma about this making it that conception and ensoulment were the same “moment” but maybe it was just the IC. I read about late ensoulment in books like Anne Catherine. If true would it make it a less of a crime? It wouldn’t be murder it’s be a mortal sin by assumption, which isn’t as bad. In Christian history (from wikipedia at least) this distinction between conception and ensoulment has been ignored for calling it murder. They generally seem to follow your shooting safety analogy, from the early centuries to now, so I think it is irrelevant like you said.

But if it is relevant, sentience I believe would be a good starting point, I’ll need to get the studies again but I believe it occurs (noticeably at least) inabout a month and a half, so their estaments of 40-80 days aren’t that far off

 

[Gorgias]

I’d then wonder why there was not a Law explicitly about it anywhere

Well… the understanding of human reproductive biology wasn’t then what it is today. So, it’s kinda anachronistic to look for a law back then that covers an understanding that we only gained relatively recently. (Case in point: Aquinas didn’t believe Mary was sinless from her conception, because of a misunderstanding about fetal development (and therefore, of ensoulment).)

So the longer someone has been a sinner the less bad it is to kill them?

No. If it’s murder, then it’s still murder, and gravely sinful. However, the circumstances increase the culpability.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

All are equally sinful and horrendous, abortion of a pre-born conceived entity (whether you call it a blastocyst, embryo, conceptus, fetus, baby, what have you) being, if anything, even worse, because the PBCE cannot get away, cannot defend itself, and will die unbaptized on top of that, thus (if you accept the theory of limbo) depriving it of heaven for all eternity.

I thought of limbo affecting this, would it be not that bad then if they did go to heaven?

Robbing someone of heaven is worse than not robbing someone of heaven. I wouldn’t die on this hill, but I do have to think that makes the sin even worse than it already is.

Also is the metric for how bad a murder is (in part) how defenseless the victim was?

I think so, but again, this is not a hill I’d die on either.

And there is no such thing as a “not so bad murder”.

I thought there was a dogma about this making it that conception and ensoulment were the same “moment” but maybe it was just the IC.

You may be thinking of a passage from the Catechism that confuses a lot of people:

366 The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not “produced” by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection.

Typical English-speakers see the word “immediately” and think it means “right here, right now, at the very moment of conception”. That’s not what “immediately” means in this context. Here, “immediately” means “without any mediation, without any action or agency of the parents, directly by and from Almighty God”. A time frame is not specified. Vernacular English-speakers don’t typically use the word “immediately” in this philosophical, metaphysical sense, hence the confusion.

 

[avemariagratiaplena]

Thank you for that explanation of immediate! It makes so much more sence that it is literally just “the absence of mediation” instead of “instantly”, how not when. Late ensoulment might be true then, I can see various ideas about it. Then the Saints who saw vision of it wouldn’t be off after all, which is very nice to know I can trust the whole of their works. But then again maybe it is false because:

“On the contrary, Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iii): ‘At the very instant that there was flesh, it was the flesh of the Word of God, it was flesh animated with a rational and intellectual soul.’"

What is true of Christ must also be true of us. There are lots of dogmas about Christ and His soul and body, and it seems to imply that it was immediately made in the sense of “instantly” not “how.” But I’ll have to look more into what they mean, but thank you

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Yes it’s all under murder, but can’t we rank murders based on severity both a) what was done to the victim b) who they are?

It’s because of emotional responses and emotions are not more accurate.