Is Being Pro-Abortion Sinful?

[katherine2]

we should be a little cautious about judging people based on a few words. I’ve know people who say they are pro-choice because they believe pro-life laws will be ineffective. I don’t believe that, but that is a conclusion I come to based on human reasoning, not theological dogma. I’ve also met people who told me to my face we have to stop abortion because … well, I can’t even type it, but to clean it up, it deals with a concern that white women are aborting and throwing off the racial demographics… you know what I’m getting at.

 

[st_felicity]

katherine2:

we should be a little cautious about judging people based on a few words. I’ve know people who say they are pro-choice because they believe pro-life laws will be ineffective.

WHAT??? That doesn’t even make sense… :nope:

katherine2:

I don’t believe that, but that is a conclusion I come to based on human reasoning, not theological dogma…

You contradict yourself in a single breath…id on’t believe it, but it’s my conclusion??? What is that?

katherine2:

I’ve also met people who told me to my face we have to stop abortion because … well, I can’t even type it, but to clean it up, it deals with a concern that white women are aborting and throwing off the racial demographics… you know what I’m getting at.

This also doesn’t make sense. If someone said that to you that person is pretty ignorant because historically it’s the African American community that has suffered the most due to abortion. Sanger anyone??? Someone else more educated in the history of Planned Parenthood I’m sure will pass on the info I’m referring to–

 

[vern_humphrey]

st_felicity:

This also doesn’t make sense. If someone said that to you that person is pretty ignorant because historically it’s the African American community that has suffered the most due to abortion. Sanger anyone??? Someone else more educated in the history of Planned Parenthood I’m sure will pass on the info I’m referring to–

I think Katherine sometimes fails to distinguish between what people actually say and do, and what she THINKS them MIGHT say and do.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon11.gif

 

[Deacon2006]

Listener:

The problem is that “pro-choice” is a very ambiguous term.

No its not, it means supporting abortion, i.e. the willful murder of a child. If they believe that someone has the right to kill children they are obviously immoral. If they then are so entrenched in this immoral belief that they encourage or fail to reasonably dissuade others, from having an abortion then they have obviously sinned against the fifth commandment. Don’t be so quick to dismiss what is only in ones heart to be a simple matter of opinion. God has on many occasions revealed that the desire, ie opinions, of the heart is the stuff of our judgment.

When people say that they are pro-choice, they may mean anything from “God did give people a free will” to “Abortion is the best thing that ever happened to women.” I think it is very destructive to go around thinking that people are guilty of grave sin because of an opinion they hold, when half the time you don’t even know what they mean by their opinion.

Ridiculous and recklessly silly point, the prochoice side of the argument is one that states a women has a right to an abortion if she so chooses. This is a given, and any attempt to redefine what prochoice means, in common parlance, is disrespectful to those people who call themselves prochoice. At the worst an attempt to corrupt the language of this debate to obscure the evil of the prochoice position is in itself is a grave sin against the eighth commandment.

The whole thrust of your argument is indifferent to the desires of God and that in itself is a grave sin against the first commandment. We can never be indifferent to life issues just as responsible people can never be indifferent to bank robbery, to acknowledge the choice compels the judgmental action to the good. To say one can rob a bank dictates the judgment that robbing banks is evil.

We are not God, we do not create freedom, we as creatures of God are always compelled in freedom to respond to the good, and the good in this case is to be prolife, all other positions are not of the good and as such are gradients of evil, this includes doing nothing in the face of evil, sin of omission.

To publicly claim that one is prochoice given the common understanding of what this means in moral and cultural terms is unequivocally an evil position to take. The church has taught this for 2000 years and it can be considered by the wise as infallible.

God Bless

 

[marthax2]

Listener:

Suppose I said that a bank robber had a choice. He could either choose to keep robbing banks, or he could choose to reform and stop robbing banks. Does that make me “pro-choice” for robbing banks? Does that make me guilty of the sin of bank robbery?

It’s true the bank robber has a choice. He has a choice because God gives us free will; He allows us to choose good or evil. If someone believes he has a right to make the wrong choice, robbing banks, that would make him “pro-choice” in the same sense that those who believe women have the right to choose abortion are “pro-choice.”

Someone who approves of bank robbing banks is not guilty of robbing banks but of a sin against faith, refusing to believe that robbery is a sin.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2088:

“There are various ways of sinning against faith: Voluntary doubt about the faith disregards or refuses to hold as true what God has revealed and the Church proposes for belief.”

The Church proposes for belief the infallible teaching that abortion is intrinsically evil.

 

[marthax2]

Clarification:

If A knows that B is going to rob a bank (or abort her baby), A shares the responsibility for the sin if s/he expresses approval to B or does not try to stop him or her.

“[W]e have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them …” (CCC 1868).

 

[manualman]

Listener,

lets examine the same principal under different appearance. Do you remember Susan Kennedy Smith? The woman who strapped her two toddlers into their car seats and rolled the car into a pond?

What would you say about a person who asserted that she should not be in jail? That such a crime is just a matter of free will and not the concern of the public at large?

Ridiculous. Of course such behavior cannot be permitted.

Abortion always comes back to the personhood of the unborn child. Anyone who deeply believes society can or should tolerate the murder of an innocent human being exists in a moral state totally at odds with God’s love and mercy. If I recall correctly, that’s the definition of mortal sin.

 

[Trelow]

Millstones, baby, millstones.

 

[Listener]

manualman:

What would you say about a person who asserted that she should not be in jail? That such a crime is just a matter of free will and not the concern of the public at large?

The sin here was throwing the children in the river. A person’s opinion about whether or not someone should be in jail is not a sin. I’m sorry, but I was raised on the Baltimore Catechism, pre Vatican II. It was very clear about what was a sin and what wasn’t a sin. I don’t remember the details of this particular case, but the pre-Vatican II church always taught that if someone was mentally ill or had a very low IQ, they were probably incapable of sin. If this woman happened to be seriously mentally ill, she would not be guilty and should be spending her life in a mental institution instead of a jail cell. Even if she was guilty, the question of how much time she should spend in jail is an opinion, not a sin! Was Jesus guilty for not stoning the woman in adultery?

 

[Listener]

marthax2:

Clarification:

If A knows that B is going to rob a bank (or abort her baby), A shares the responsibility for the sin if s/he expresses approval to B or does not try to stop him or her.

“[W]e have a responsibility for the sins committed by others when we cooperate in them …” (CCC 1868).

I don’t think you understood my point about the bank robber. I am, of course, assuming that no one knows when or if this bank robber is going to rob a bank. I’m simply saying that you can agree that God gave a bank robber a free will and you are incapable of stopping him since you don’t know when or if he is going to do it. You probably don’t even know that this person is a bank robber. This does not in any way imply that you think that robbing banks is a good thing.

 

[manualman]

Listener:

The sin here was throwing the children in the river. A person’s opinion about whether or not someone should be in jail is not a sin.

Ah, me and my imperfect analogies. The point is not about jail. It is about the legality of committing murder.

I cannot imagine that one could be both in a State of Grace and the state of mind that the murder of these two toddlers is a morally neutral topic not requiring a stand. Apathy is a symptom of neglect of Pride (to quote a nice examination of conscience I just got last night!)

I’m a bit younger than the Baltimore Catechism, so I’ll take your word on it. But given the size difference between it and the current one, I’d say you might consider the possibility that there is a bit more subtlety in the moral realm than can be fit into a memorizable booklet.

 

[marthax2]

Listener:

I don’t think you understood my point about the bank robber. I am, of course, assuming that no one knows when or if this bank robber is going to rob a bank. I’m simply saying that you can agree that God gave a bank robber a free will and you are incapable of stopping him since you don’t know when or if he is going to do it. You probably don’t even know that this person is a bank robber. This does not in any way imply that you think that robbing banks is a good thing.

Yes, I see that I did misunderstand you.

 

[Listener]

Deacon2006:

Ridiculous and recklessly silly point, the prochoice side of the argument is one that states a women has a right to an abortion if she so chooses. This is a given, and any attempt to redefine what prochoice means, in common parlance, is disrespectful to those people who call themselves prochoice. At the worst an attempt to corrupt the language of this debate to obscure the evil of the prochoice position is in itself is a grave sin against the eighth commandment.

The whole thrust of your argument is indifferent to the desires of God and that in itself is a grave sin against the first commandment. We can never be indifferent to life issues just as responsible people can never be indifferent to bank robbery, to acknowledge the choice compels the judgmental action to the good. To say one can rob a bank dictates the judgment that robbing banks is evil.

God Bless

**2478 **To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

 

[fix]

For anyone to claim they are “pro choice” is to approve of baby murder. There is no way one can be in good standing with God if one accepts that baby murder is acceptable.

Are there many people today who claim they are pro choice and understanding that to mean they think abortion is always an evil?

 

[vern_humphrey]

**2478 **To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another’s statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.

But when a man points a gun at you and says, “Give me your wallet or I’ll blow your head off,” all the Christian charity in the world can’t interpret that as a loving statement.

Similarly, when one says, “Hitler should have sent more Jews to the gas chamber,” that is difficult to interpret as anything more than antisemitism – and a vicious, virulent form of it, at that.

And one who, after thirty years and about 40 million plus innocent deaths, approves of abortion stands on the same ground as those who supported Hitler’s antisemitic policies.

 

[mlchance]

**2478 **To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor’s thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way…

IOW, to paraphrase Napoleon Bonaparte: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.



– Mark L. Chance.

 

[vern_humphrey]

mlchance:

IOW, to paraphrase Napoleon Bonaparte: Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity.



– Mark L. Chance.

Or to quote Uncle Herbivore, “Stupidity is exasperating. Wilful ignorance is bullet-proof.”

 

[CARose]

Journeyman:

Hypothetical for you----You have a Catholic friend who is “pro-choice” (they refuse to say pro-abortion). … What would you say to them regarding the sinful nature of their state of mind? For instance, what kind of a sin is it when one is “pro-choice” in their mind, but has never taken action on their “pro-choice” stance. …

Journeyman,

I hope you don’t mind if I bring the conversation back to the post above.

I have just such a friend in my parish. She can occationally be found at daily Mass and she’s a very loving person. She “personally” doesn’t approve of abortion and when she was a young girl she found herself unexpected pregnant and had the first of her 7 children at a very young age. She’s in her late 60’s (?), so this was quite the big deal in that era. I really like her but some of her ideas about the teachings of Christ are a bit off center.

She is “anti-abortion” but “pro-choice”. We here know that such a distinction cannot truly exist, for to be against the murder of innocent children requires that we stand up and defend these babies from the loss of their lives. We would not suggest that someone should be free to murder or free to rob banks, that laws have no place in these private decisions of individuals. Yes someone is hurt, the innocent child. In some cases, the father desires that the child be born and is deprived of the life of his offspring. In such a case, is he not also a victim?

I’ve tried a number of times to talk with her, especially before the last election. I’ve asked her to pray that the Holy Spirit open her heart to the teachings of the Church. She’s confused on several issues, and I’ve heard it said and have grown to believe it fully myself, that sin confuses us as we turn from God. Right becomes wrong and wrong looks to be right. So, she is convinced that she has, through prayer, come into a deeper understanding of the meaning Christ had than the narrow view shared by many within the Church.

I finally had to tell her that as she and I both love our private prayer with our Lord, and feel blessed to have such a deep love for Christ, it is important for her to understand that All Truth was reveal in its fullness at the end of the Apostolic Age, and the Liar is capable of imitating the divine in communicating his twisted truth. Therefore, it is extremely important that if we believe we have been blessed with coming to a deeper understanding of Our Lord, that we verify it against the teachings of the Church over the ages. If what we feel we are being asked to understand is at direct odds with the Church, we must reject it as though we were holding poison or a bomb, for this is dangerous indeed.

I told her with all the love I could muster that I was seriously concerned that she was treading in the realm of heresy and I feared for her, because I loved her very much. I then dropped the subject completely (she had already cast her absentee ballot, I was heartbroken) and have allowed her to know that I continue to care for her. I am friendly to her at church and if she brings up the subject again she will hear reitterated that I believe with every fiber of my being that she needs to consider her position if she desires eternal salvation.

Am I judging her? No, NO. I am judging her position on a very important subject. We must be willing to defend the defenseless. As the CCC says

CCC 2271

… God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected withthe utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.

We not only are called to not participate in abortions, it is our responsibility to prevent them. Our legal system exists to ensure that society cares for the rights of others. “The right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness” LIFE is listed first, without it, nothing else matters, you’re not there to enjoy them.

My approach was specific to my situation, I touched on that which we held in common, I focused on heresy because she was certain she’d been enlightened beyond the teachings of the Church. For her, this was the only way I knew to wake her up to the seriousness of her error.
…

 

[CARose]

I recommend that you pray to the Holy Spirit before you expect to see this person next. Then during the course of your conversation, again pray, pray, pray. Allow the Holy Spirit to guide you in delivering every appropriate word and not one more. Remember that we do nothing to convert the hearts of others, the Holy Spirit does that. We merely help by providing food for thought, but it is the Holy Spirit who actually does the conversion. Allow that God works in His own time.

Allow for the time necessary for your friend to come around to see the truth. Continue to love your friend in the interim.

God Bless you as you move forward on this,

CARose

P.S. Please keep us informed if anything of interest develops

 

[katherine2]

Similarly, when one says, “Hitler should have sent more Jews to the gas chamber,” that is difficult to interpret as anything more than antisemitism – and a vicious, virulent form of it, at that.

And one who, after thirty years and about 40 million plus innocent deaths, approves of abortion stands on the same ground as those who supported Hitler’s antisemitic policies.

Good situation, bad analogy.

Some of us old birds (mostly left wingers) wanted to go to war against Hitler even before December 7th. Others, an odd mix of right wingers (Lindburg types, isolationists and some true Nazis) and pacifists (Dorothy Day, Quakers, Mennonites) still were against fighting Hilter after 1944.

I take some pride i the fact my family was anti-fascist before anti-fascism was fashionable. And while I have my private opinions about the WW2 anti-war crowds, i don’t say they can’t be Catholic.