Is abortion a mortal sin?

[Marybell61]

“If it’s not a human baby, you’re not pregnant.”

Yes. Mortal sin. Slam dunk.

 

[Erikaspirit16]

Like everything else, it’s a matter of individuals’ and the government’s priorities, as well as the Church’s, I suppose.

Exactly. Those who are most adamant that abortion is a mortal sin, etc. etc. are also the ones who are against any practical measures to reduce abortions. Ironic. And they don’t even realize it.

 

[brian_custer]

yes; abortion is a mortal sin

i fully realize government & human beings are largely too lazy, stupid & morally bankrupt to do anything about it…

 

[Monica83]

In most cases abortion is a mortal sin unless forced to by another person. The act of making an appointment for an abortion then coming in for it and laying down on the table is where the full deliberation and forethought come in.

 

[nancyhill]

Abortion without any strong reason is a sin in my opinion. If abortion is just because of choice then definitely it is a sin.

 

[DarkLight]

I’d question the “full knowledge” part. I know for me when I was an atheist, it seemed extremely clearly FALSE that a fetus was a human being with human rights. Like, I didn’t even understand how someone could believe otherwise unless they were invoking explicitly religious beliefs. Abortion was just another way to choose not to have a baby, morally equivalent to birth control or even to choosing not to have sex. Sure, I knew the Catholic church thought it was wrong, but why did I care what I believed to be a false church thought was a sin?

 

[fredystairs]

Respectfully, I cannot think of any “strong reasons” that would make a direct abortion licit. It is always grave matter.

 

[DarkLight]

I can understand how people condone it in the case where the pregnancy will almost certainly lead to the death of the mother prior to viability of the fetus. Many believe that it is better to abort the child in order to save the life of the mother, than to lose both, even if they regret the death of the child.

 

[meltzerboy2]

Even if the mother’s life is in imminent danger if the pregnancy is not terminated? This is rare, I know, but it does happen. That is why Judaism (all denominations) allows for abortion in such circumstances. Other circumstances more controversial (in Judaism) include if there are two unborn babies, one healthy and the other not, and the ill baby is affecting the well-being of the healthy one such that the latter may die. Still another possibility involves the single unborn baby’s congenital abnormality to such an extent that s/he, if remaining alive, will most probably be born with severe and painful impairments and will also probably not live very long. Then, further down the list, are women who were victims of rape or incest. I know it is not the baby’s fault, but the physical and psychological health of the mother is taken into account and given precedence (in Judaism). Apart from the first instance of the mother’s physical health being impacted, the other qualifications are not uniformly accepted by rabbis although they are considered.

Now if ALL abortion is banned, then we are, pardon the expression, throwing out the baby with the bathwater in possibly denying a woman her right to live or injuring her physical or psychological health. It is also ignoring alternative religious teachings regarding abortion, such as those dictated by Jewish law. That is, in my view, an instance of religious discrimination.

 

[saayachan]

Consider the words of Pope Francis in 2016:

“I wish to restate as firmly as I can that abortion is a grave sin, since it puts an end to an innocent life… In the same way, however, I can and must state that there is no sin that God’s mercy cannot reach and wipe away when it finds a repentant heart seeking to be reconciled with the Father.”

Remember that no sin is beyond forgiveness and that only God can judge someone who has partaken in abortive procedures (the pregnant woman is not the only one sinning - consider father of the child, receptionists, nurses, doctors, etc.). God is the only one who truly knows the heart and mind of the individuals involved. Sure, some people on this thread were taught from day one that abortion was wrong and concluded with the end of an innocent life. Others were not taught this. Who’s to say that a married woman in her 40s who “knows better” shall be judged the same as an 18-year-old who was raped and never considered life to begin at conception? Not me, that’s for sure. Judging this is too complex for my human mind as I cannot possibly know the circumstances of each individual’s life and decisions. Only God knows these things.

 

[fredystairs]

I can understand how people condone it in the case where the pregnancy will almost certainly lead to the death of the mother prior to viability of the fetus. Many believe that it is better to abort the child in order to save the life of the mother, than to lose both, even if they regret the death of the child.

The Church in Donum Vitae states that the human person exists from the moment of conception. What some would be advocating in the situation that you mention above is to kill the human person in the womb to save the life of the mother. This is not licit by Church teaching. Further, it is directly against the teaching of the New Testament: And why not do evil that good may come? - as some people slanderously charge us with saying. Their condemnation is just. Romans 3: 8.

Blessings

 

[EvangelistVictor]

Have you ever heard EWTN talk about the crooks at ENRON or the nice folks on Wall St. that plunged the world into economic crisis and basically stole retirement money from millions of people? Not a peep.

They don’t because as the same with Evangelical talk radio, talking about these things would come against their political affiliation. I’ll just say it, Republicans. Don’t want to offend any Republicans Catholic brothers, but its the truth.

I think there a spiritual dimension to this also possibly. The devil knows the abortion battle in the USA is already over. The supreme court ruled on the issue and its set in stone basically. So maybe he somehow gets people’s minds to only focus on abortion and homosexuality so they avoid ALL the other sins that Satan has power over.

My dad, who was a die hard Catholic unto his death told me when I was very young that Beelzebub has been around for thousands of years and is very wise and knows all the ways of man.

 

[fredystairs]

I’d like to preface my replies to you by stating that it will take me some time (probably a day or more) for me to reply to all of the statements in your post. I apologize, but it will take me some time to do some research.

Even if the mother’s life is in imminent danger if the pregnancy is not terminated?

As I mentioned in my reply to Darklight, the Church teaches that this is not morally acceptable. One may not do evil that good come from it. Otherwise, it would be morally acceptable to kill someone, harvest his organs and use those organs to save a whole bunch of people from various diseases. Also, the scenario you describe is not just the “termination of a pregnancy.” It is the willful killing of an innocent human person.

The Church has canonized women who have given their lives for their children rather than abort them. One of them is St. Gianna Beretta Molla:

https://www.franciscanmedia.org/saint-gianna-beretta-molla/

Other circumstances more controversial (in Judaism) include if there are two unborn babies, one healthy and the other not, and the ill baby is affecting the well-being of the healthy one such that the latter may die.

Let us change the scenario slightly. Let us say that there were two people and only food enough for one. Would it be acceptable to kill the one person, so that the other one would have enough food? Again, when we are discussing abortion, we are discussing the direct killing of an innocent human life, not just allowing them to die.

I will have to return tomorrow to respond further.

Blessings

 

[meltzerboy2]

Thank you for your replies so far. The part I left out (possibly because I am tired of being tarred and feathered over the abortion issue on a Catholic forum) is that Judaism differentiates between the personhood of an unborn baby and that of its mother. In Judaism, life as a complete person begins not at conception but at birth. This religious teaching is derived from Genesis: when Adam was formed from the dust, he became a living soul, called a nefesh, that is, the breath of life was inspired in him. In other words, the person is ensouled at birth rather than conception. This is not a biological definition of human life but a religious definition of personhood.

I realize this is changing the topic somewhat, but how do you feel about the notion of “just war” when it involves killing innocent civilians to ensure that the war is terminated so that countless more people are not killed? I am referring, for example, to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. Is this action justified by the Church?

 

[fredystairs]

Thank you for your replies so far.

You’re welcome.

In Judaism, life as a complete person begins not at conception but at birth. This religious teaching is derived from Genesis: when Adam was formed from the dust, he became a living soul, called a nefesh, that is, the breath of life was inspired in him. In other words, the person is ensouled at birth rather than conception. This is not a biological definition of human life but a religious definition of personhood.

This is good to know. It will help me to understand where you are coming from. This does bring up a couple of questions. In your previous post, you mentioned some scenarios concerning abortion: life of the mother, saving one life over another, rape, etc. My understanding is that getting an abortion for these reasons is relatively rare. The vast majority of the reasons for the abortion is that the child is an inconvenience: the parents have to finish school, etc. Would Judaism consider these cases to be acceptable? If, as you mention above, Judaism does not recognize the personhood until birth, then it would seem to me that there should be no hesitation is allowing an abortion for any reason, yet you mention that there is some controversy with the removal of one baby to allow the growth of another. I guess that I do not understand why there would be any controversy if ensoulment does not happen until birth.

Another question that I have is how Judaism relates abortion to Jeremiah 1:5, Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I dedicated you a prophet to the nations I appointed you. Here G-d is talking to Jeremiah and it seems to me that He is saying that Jerimiah was very alive to G-d before he was born. In my mind that would seem to contradict Judaism’s teaching that ensoulment does not happen until birth. Am I missing something here?

continued

 

[fredystairs]

I realize this is changing the topic somewhat, but how do you feel about the notion of “just war” when it involves killing innocent civilians to ensure that the war is terminated so that countless more people are not killed? I am referring, for example, to the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to end World War II. Is this action justified by the Church?

Or the firebombing of Dresden, Germany. These would be condemned by the Church because they are not trying to simply attack a military target but are more directly attacking the civilian population - that is the purpose of the attacks. However, the Church does understand that civilians may be harmed during a war. Let us take an example - in a just war, one is trying to bomb a munitions factory, or some other factory that is directly involved with the war effort. One of the bombs malfunctions and rather than hit the factory, it lands in a residential area and kills some civilians. Under the principle of double effect, the good effect was intended, the bombing of the factory could help end the war, while the bad effect, the loss of civilian life was not intended. This would be a good example of the right use of the principle.

One other thing here, is that the Church obviously would like to avoid all war, and to avoid all civilian casualties. However, it is understood that we live in a fallen world and bad things happen; war is sometimes unavoidable.

Blessings

 

[fredystairs]

Still another possibility involves the single unborn baby’s congenital abnormality to such an extent that s/he, if remaining alive, will most probably be born with severe and painful impairments and will also probably not live very long.

I think this could be classified as both an abortion and as an act of euthanasia: putting the child out of its misery. The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) teaches the following about euthanasia:

Euthanasia
2276 Those whose lives are diminished or weakened deserve special respect. Sick or handicapped persons should be helped to lead lives as normal as possible.
2277 Whatever its motives and means, direct euthanasia consists in putting an end to the lives of handicapped, sick, or dying persons. It is morally unacceptable.
Thus an act or omission which, of itself or by intention, causes death in order to eliminate suffering constitutes a murder gravely contrary to the dignity of the human person and to the respect due to the living God, his Creator. The error of judgment into which one can fall in good faith does not change the nature of this murderous act, which must always be forbidden and excluded.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P7Z.HTM

Again, this would be a direct killing and would be morally unacceptable.

And just today, Pope Francis compared the abortion of sick or disabled children to be similar to what the Nazis did during the 1930s and 40s:

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/...ion-of-sick-disabled-children-to-nazism-70419

Blessings

 

[meltzerboy2]

It should be understood that although Judaism MAY permit abortion in certain unusual circumstances (and actually requires it in the case of the mother’s physical health and life being endangered), abortion is still considered to be a LAST resort, never a first resort. Abortion on demand due to finishing school or lack of finances would NOT be regarded as a last resort according to Judaism. Fundamental to this view is that the personhood of each human being is “under construction” in the womb. What is personhood according to Judaism? It is the link between the soul of each individual with their human body. This link is, again from a religious perspective, believed to occur at the moment of birth. The fact that G-d knew Jeremiah before He formed him in the womb and before he was born means that G-d knew the soul of Jeremiah just as, according to Jewish belief, He knew the souls of EVERY human being ever to be created in the Garden of Eden as well as at Mount Sinai when He gave the Jewish people His Law. However, these souls were not yet connected to the physical body of each person, and therefore their personhood was not yet fully formed. Ensoulment means linking the soul to the body.

 

[meltzerboy2]

I rarely disagree with Pope Francis, but on this occasion I believe his comparison of the abortion of an unborn baby who is suffering in pain to Nazi genocide is unfortunate.