E
elts1956
Guest
I would say the killing of a baby is more morally wrong because it cannot defend itself. Both are mortally sinful.
- Status
E
elts1956
Guest
And you believe God is DIRECTLY responsible for this? So God looks at each individual pregnant woman and decides if her baby is going to live or not? If one were to follow this line of thinking, we would also have to blame God for ALL deaths, not just the death of the aborted. Do you blame God, which you deny exists, for ALL deaths?
C
Cruikshank_s
Guest
Personally, I’ll say it’s more heinous to kill the unborn. I’ve personally (and I believe it’s my right to do so) held onto the belief in limbo. I see in my own estimation the killing of innocents in the stain of original sin without the grace of baptism for the security of their eternal souls to be the most despicable crime man or woman can ever commit.
When someone murders a man or woman or child who has been born and given the grace of the sacraments, that death has the hope of salvation and the beauty of the beatific vision awaiting them. On the other hand, when the soul of the unborn is taken in an act of murder, they are denied the grace of salvation granted through baptism. To deny them not only their life, but the treasure of heaven is IMHO the total and complete work of Satan. No good or benefit can ever come from such an evil deed.
(Sorry if I’m repeating the thoughts of another, the thread is too long to read completely)
When someone murders a man or woman or child who has been born and given the grace of the sacraments, that death has the hope of salvation and the beauty of the beatific vision awaiting them. On the other hand, when the soul of the unborn is taken in an act of murder, they are denied the grace of salvation granted through baptism. To deny them not only their life, but the treasure of heaven is IMHO the total and complete work of Satan. No good or benefit can ever come from such an evil deed.
(Sorry if I’m repeating the thoughts of another, the thread is too long to read completely)
M
mtr01
Guest
Very true. Not to mention the dilemma created by the “let’s keep abortion legal but convince people not to have them” crowd: how does one convince people that something is wrong when it is legal?
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
If murder of an innocent unborn and murder of a baptized born person is each a mortal sin and would cause the eternal damnation of that person if not repented or absolved, what difference does it make whether one is more serious than the other. That’s like arguing how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. Also, debates such as this can lead to a relativistic position in different situations. Just a thought.
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
Prayers & blessings
Deacon Ed B
T
thistle
Guest
The Fifth Commandment (you shall not kill) does not grade murder according to age. All murder is a grave sin.
From the Didache (teaching of the Apostles) written around 70AD to 100AD:
Chapter 2. The Second Commandment: Grave Sin Forbidden. And the second commandment of the Teaching; You shall not commit murder, you shall not commit adultery, you shall not commit pederasty, you shall not commit fornication, you shall not steal, you shall not practice magic, you shall not practice witchcraft, you shall not murder a child by abortion nor kill that which is born. You shall not covet the things of your neighbor, you shall not swear, you shall not bear false witness, you shall not speak evil, you shall bear no grudge. You shall not be double-minded nor double-tongued, for to be double-tongued is a snare of death. Your speech shall not be false, nor empty, but fulfilled by deed. You shall not be covetous, nor rapacious, nor a hypocrite, nor evil disposed, nor haughty. You shall not take evil counsel against your neighbor. You shall not hate any man; but some you shall reprove, and concerning some you shall pray, and some you shall love more than your own life.
E
Eucharisted
Guest
Well, in my personal opinion, I would have to say killing the unborn is more serious, and that for three reasons:
- The unborn have been totally deprived of the right to life, not even allowed to be born, while the born have - however short - been alive, so their right to life, while being deprived, has not been totally deprived even from before birth
- The unborn are more vulnerable than the born, especially when the sperm has just joined with the egg (conception); and while the born can cry for mercy, the unborn cannot even shed tears
- The unborn cannot be revived if something deadly should happen to them, while the born can - even if the chance is very slgiht - be given life should something happen to them
O Mary, look with tenderness upon your littlest children, who are murdered throughout the world, and remember the bitter agony which your Son, our Lord, Jesus Christ, had to endure because of abortion and infantcide. I beg of you, O Mediatrix of all graces, to obtain for every parent and guardian in the world the divine gifts of baptism by desire, of prayer, and of hope, so that your littlest children may be spared the eternal flames and so that your only Son may be comforted in the agony He had to endure. Amen.
W
wynnejj
Guest
ahumbleplea.com/Docs/ahumbleplea.pdf
The first chapter of Randall A. Terry’s “A Humble Plea to Bishops, Clergy, and Laymen” entitled “Stop the Bishop Killing” illustrates an allegory similar to mine in my opening post. I think it clarifies the incongruity of the bishop’s / clergy’s / laymen’s performance in standing up for life issues by those who soft-soap their response to child-killing.
The first chapter of Randall A. Terry’s “A Humble Plea to Bishops, Clergy, and Laymen” entitled “Stop the Bishop Killing” illustrates an allegory similar to mine in my opening post. I think it clarifies the incongruity of the bishop’s / clergy’s / laymen’s performance in standing up for life issues by those who soft-soap their response to child-killing.
E
Extempore
Guest
Interesting discussion.
First, in response to the original question, I believe there is no moral difference between killing the unborn and the born. At any age.
That aside, the lawyer in me wants to nitpick those who say that abortion is murder all of the time. I think someone here already mentioned that “murder is killing an innocent person.” Allow me to expand the definition for the purpose of clarification: “Murder is the killing of a person with with malice aforethought (evil intent).” The person need not even be “innocent” in the way we consider the term.
So, in the case of abortion, yes, it is always killing. And it is always unjustified (regardless of excuse). But my question is this: is there always evil intent involved? Surely, on the part of the doctor performing the abortion this is an interesting question. I would be inclined to argue that most doctors should know, by virtue of their medical training, that the unborn child is a human being (many, if not most medical journals agree upon that point). So, I would want to say that a person who knowingly kills another human being who is a non-aggressor, has at the VERY least, done so unjustly. I would even go so far as to say maliciously. The line between the moral law and the legal one begins to blur together.
But how about the mother? Certainly an abortion clinic is not going to inform a woman about the humanity of the unborn child. Many women, unfortunately, also subscribe the view (sometimes aided by a doctor) that the baby is “not a baby” or “less than human” or simply a “blob.” In these cases, the woman may think that she is not committing an act against human life - she has been duped. Perhaps she should know, but that is a moral question and not a legal one. So is she “guilty” (in the way we would consider a criminal so) of murder? Objectively, she has killed unjustly but cold-blooded murder has a subjective element as well and I’m not always sure that is present in every situation.
But enough of my ramblings - I merely wanted to voice some thoughts.
First, in response to the original question, I believe there is no moral difference between killing the unborn and the born. At any age.
That aside, the lawyer in me wants to nitpick those who say that abortion is murder all of the time. I think someone here already mentioned that “murder is killing an innocent person.” Allow me to expand the definition for the purpose of clarification: “Murder is the killing of a person with with malice aforethought (evil intent).” The person need not even be “innocent” in the way we consider the term.
So, in the case of abortion, yes, it is always killing. And it is always unjustified (regardless of excuse). But my question is this: is there always evil intent involved? Surely, on the part of the doctor performing the abortion this is an interesting question. I would be inclined to argue that most doctors should know, by virtue of their medical training, that the unborn child is a human being (many, if not most medical journals agree upon that point). So, I would want to say that a person who knowingly kills another human being who is a non-aggressor, has at the VERY least, done so unjustly. I would even go so far as to say maliciously. The line between the moral law and the legal one begins to blur together.
But how about the mother? Certainly an abortion clinic is not going to inform a woman about the humanity of the unborn child. Many women, unfortunately, also subscribe the view (sometimes aided by a doctor) that the baby is “not a baby” or “less than human” or simply a “blob.” In these cases, the woman may think that she is not committing an act against human life - she has been duped. Perhaps she should know, but that is a moral question and not a legal one. So is she “guilty” (in the way we would consider a criminal so) of murder? Objectively, she has killed unjustly but cold-blooded murder has a subjective element as well and I’m not always sure that is present in every situation.
But enough of my ramblings - I merely wanted to voice some thoughts.
W
wynnejj
Guest
What about the mother? Is she guilty of murder?
Assuming that the mother is not coerced as a teenager might find herself, I believe the answer is “yes”. If I feel that a person such as a black man or native American is less than human (as was the case in American history), and I kill that person without qualms, am I any less a murderer in the eyes of the law? If I mercy kill, am I any less a murderer in the eyes of the law? Once the law recognizes a human as having an unalienable right to life due to full citizenship / person-hood, then the taking of that life, whether or not the perpetrator recognizes the law, constitute murder. Ignorance of the law (by adults) does not exonerate the individual from the law, although it may have a bearing on sentencing.
E
Extempore
Guest
Clearly, the subject is a hypothetical one since the law currently does not recognize the unborn as a class of persons having an inalienable right to life. Thus, for our purposes, if we apply the same formula, we would be required to assume that the law stated otherwise. If it did, we would have a prosecutable situation.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Clearly, abortion is murder from a Catholic moral perspective that has not been recognized from a American legal perspective. However, Catholics treat it like it is a “lesser murder”. Is it a “lesser murder”? I don’t have the source offhand, but I read that Pope Benedict XVI stated that in the eyes of God the killing of life at any stage is equally bad because all are created in His Image. How to sell that to a secular society is tough enough, but I think it is the first step to sell it to a secularized Catholic Church. Too bad we can’t get bishops & priests to preach in solidarity that abortion is murder, not a “lesser murder”, from the pulpit in plain English.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
The resolution is simple. Man’s law does not trump God’s law.
W
wynnejj
Guest
That smacks too much of the retort of the Pro-Abortion camp that says, “If you don’t want an abortion, don’t get one.”. I’m not sure of your meaning, but it sounds like you are saying that everyone is on the honor system, which SHOULD be sufficient. When mankind is not honorable to his fellow man and denies segments of society their unalienable human rights, it is the duty of the moral element of society to impose laws on behalf of the violated. The resolution should be simple, but it is not as history bears out with numerous bloody wars.
Our problem today is that the majority of the Catholic Church in practical terms formally cooperates with intrinsic evil in the voting booth. Understandably, there are arguments against my assertion, but we have had 35 years and 50 million human lives, and we’re still fighting logic that says what about the poor & vulnerable and what about capital punishment and what about questionably unjust wars.
The poorest of the poor, the most vulnerable of the vulnerable, are being capitally punished by our own legal system with the nod of the CINOs and often the coercion of biological father and blood relatives every day in the wishy-washy PC posturing war on abortion. Why? Because the bulk of Catholic and all Christians are dumb & numb about the horror of abortion to the human being that is in the womb. That is in fact the Catholic Church’s legacy in the USA, not our President’s, and no Pshaw! will change the fact.
The most radical Pro-Lifer who kills the abortionist in defense of human life has a more defensible case before Our Lord on judgement day than the average Catholic who is indifferent to weighing the issue properly at the voting booth, in my humble opinion (which does not mean anything if truth is otherwise).
V
Volodymyr_988
Guest
We’ve already studied it. Abortion is plan B when the contraception doesn’t work.
To stop abortion, stop contracepting. To stop contracepting, stop extra-marital intercourse. To stop extra-marital intercourse, stop the hypersexualization of the culture. To stop the hypersexualization of the culture, REPENT!!!
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
You really missed the boat on the Church teaching on these topics . Either that or you do not know how to express them.
W
wynnejj
Guest
Well, I don’t know about that. I’m sorry if I offended you personally. It was a bit of a knee-jerk response to real frustrations about laid-back apathy over the years about the abortion issue in our/my local parishes. I still feel that the legacy of Catholics in the USA concerning our response in defense of life speaks for itself in the historical record. I am ashamed to be a Catholic.
D
Deacon_Ed_B
Guest
Do not equate the actions or teachings of the Church with what some whom we call cafeteria Catholics do or say. I agree there are some who for whatever reason do not want to express fully and accurately the teaching of the Church. I pray for these. Know that they do not make up the Church. Church teaching is truth revealed under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. I pray for those who do not embrace it in its entirety as such. But please, do not be ashamed of the Church, because those who do this are not THE CHURCH. Abortion is wrong and cannot be condoned. Those who vote for those politicians, some Catholic, who vote in favor of it, will have their own questions to answer at judgment. I pray for these also. Know that THE CHURCH teaches only infallible truth on faith and morals. This is a doctrine of the Church. Embrace it.
T
tobinatorstark
Guest
neither is more serious than the other because God’s laws come before Country, State and local laws
S
somelady
Guest
I totally understand how you feel, but to be ashamed of being Catholic will only make things worse. When I first joined a local Catholic church in my area, people were so nice to me. They constantly invite me to join Legion of Mary. So, I thought we were on the same boat(following the Church teaching no matter what) Before the election in one of the meetings, I had some left overs of catholics voting guide booklet so, I thought I’ll share them with my fellow Catholics. This is when I found out that these people were pro-abortions because they were willing to Vote for someone who supported abortions. I was shocked. How can they justify that, their reasons they hated Bush. Economy was more important, in other words going to church and deliver bread to shelters once a week was good enough. They really broke my heart because I looked up to these people. I couldn’t figure out how can a person pray rosary every Monday, yet support someone whom Bishops came out and said not to vote for. Under whose authority do they follow. I was so disappointed I started going to adoration, I haven’t stopped since then praying for them. And, I’m still very proud being a Catholic. People may go down but not the Catholic church, The Body of Christ can never be destroy! Thanks, for reading…- Status