Should Judas' parents have gotten an abortion?

  • Thread starter Thread starter SenorSalsa
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

SenorSalsa

Guest
“but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”-Mark 14

Therefore would it not have been better for his parents to have an abortion then to have him be born?

NB: I pose this as a hypothetical question for discussion and debate. It is not a position I hold
 
Interesting question but I think it is really quite simple. If he was not born who would have betrayed Jesus? Someone would have to. So then it would be woe to that man and so on and so forth.
 
SenorSalsa said:
“but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”-Mark 14

Therefore would it not have been better for his parents to have an abortion then to have him be born?

NB: I pose this as a hypothetical question for discussion and debate. It is not a position I hold
Click to expand...
Murder to avoid treachery is never acceptable.
 
SenorSalsa said:
“but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”-Mark 14

Therefore would it not have been better for his parents to have an abortion then to have him be born?

NB: I pose this as a hypothetical question for discussion and debate. It is not a position I hold
Click to expand...
There must be a distinction drawn between the goodness of Judas’ ability to make the choices that ultimately damned him and the presumption of deciding who’s free will is better left unexercised.
 
Abortion is never the answer under any circumstance. I mean that would be like asking if Hitlers parents should have gotten an abortion. All Judas had to do was ask forgiveness and would have been washed clean but he couldnt deal with what he did. And I agree if not him someone else would have had to take his place.
 
SenorSalsa said:
“but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”-Mark 14

Therefore would it not have been better for his parents to have an abortion then to have him be born?

NB: I pose this as a hypothetical question for discussion and debate. It is not a position I hold
Click to expand...
The Church teaches that the end does not justify the means.
We cannot do evil to achieve good.
 
thistle said:
The Church teaches that the end does not justify the means.
We cannot do evil to achieve good.
Click to expand...
what about the principle of double effect, where an action that results in both a good and bad effect is morally acceptable as long as the good out ways the bad. As a simple example, speeding and running a red light in order to get your pregnant wife to a hospital on time.

You may be taking a life, but straight from God’s mouth, it would be better for him to not be born than to have been born, so does that not seem like a lesser evil than the good
 
what about the principle of double effect, where an action that results in both a good and bad effect is morally acceptable as long as the good out ways the bad. As a simple example, speeding and running a red light in order to get your pregnant wife to a hospital on time.
Click to expand...
You’re leaving out part of the principle of double-effect, namely that the intended action must be at least morally neutral. Abortion is never morally neutral, so the principle of double-effect doesn’t come into play.

Peace and God bless!
 
SenorSalsa said:
“but woe to that man by whom the Son of Man is betrayed. It would be better for that man if he had never been born.”-Mark 14

Therefore would it not have been better for his parents to have an abortion then to have him be born?

NB: I pose this as a hypothetical question for discussion and debate. It is not a position I hold
Click to expand...
abortion in this case would mean that his parent would have killed him. Jesus never suggested that it would have been better if his parents had killed him!

Perhaps he suggested that it would have been better if he had not been conceived!

This is different. But it can make us wonder if God create at our suggestion. Meaning like the conception of Juda is something God ‘allowed’ to happen, an evil he allowed to happen (because he was able to derive a greater good out of it) but which should not have happened.

We also need to consider who is pronouncing this judgement: God. Judgement belong to God alone.
 
This is a very interesting question.
Since no one can know that their unborn child will be a moral monster, I presume the question really is, should they have aborted their child if they know what their son would become.
This is equivalent to the old question of vigilante-type justice. Some people would think it justfiable if private citizens take it into their own hands to punish someone they know is a criminal if the law is incapable of doing it. It seems that most Americans are against this, when it comes to the question for example of whether it would be okay to shoot an abortionist or burn down an abbortion clinic though these things could save many children’s lives. I think on such a basis that I have to conclude that it would be a mistake to perform such an abortion, though I admit that it could save millions of lives, since it itself would be an immoral act.
 
Murder is always a grave sin…God could have caused a miscarriage, but He didn’t

Better to let God decide who should ,or should not be born

Salvation was worked out by Divine Plan, and Judas played the part he chose…it wasn’t chosen for him…But he was the one that started the ball rolling…
 
God created Judas just the same as everyone else. Also like everyone else God can’t control free will.

The reading from Mark could suggest something else.

Effectively when Judas betrayed God he was “dead” in a way, or like he was never born.
 
No…Judas’ parents should not have had an abortion.

Judas was an innocent little baby, too. He was one of the apostles, and I’m sure loved Jesus.

Of course he betrayed our Lord…but part of Judas’ condemnation came because he refused to seek or accept Jesus’ forgiveness. He killed himself out of shame instead.

I think that is what Jesus was referring to. Remember Peter also denied Jesus…but came back to Him and asked forgiveness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top