Which is more serious - killing the unborn or born?

[somelady]

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.

I agreed. Some Catholics I know, their faith is justified by their feelings. Conversations always starts with" well, you know as long as your nice, and live a godly life, you’ll be okay."

 

[Extempore]

I agree with wynnejj’s comments regarding the apathy. Sadly, it is a reality in many parishes. Priests don’t feel comfortable preaching a message that half the people don’t hold to ‘politically’ and this breeds a feeling of acceptance amongst those who think that they can merge secular and Catholic principles (we call them “cafeteria Catholics” I believe?)

Anyway, to wynnejj: Do not despair! When they say on the radio or on the television that 50% of Catholics are pro-abortion, do not despair! These are people who are Catholic in name only.

As the Catechism tell us:

Heresy is the obstinate denial of any truth of the Catholic faith, on a matter of faith or morals, which has been definitively taught by the Magisterium. The Magisterium has repeatedly and definitively taught that abortion is always gravely immoral. (CCC 2270 to 2275)

Abortion is a grave matter within the Church and, all too sadly, public opinion seems to indicate that Catholics on average do not consider this subject to be a matter of grave, moral importance. A “legal issue” perhaps, but not a significant moral one.

I congratulate those diocesan Priests who are willing to be up front and honest about the grave evil of abortion and what it means when a Catholic supports it* in any form.* These are perhaps things that the laity do not want to hear but that does not mean that they should not be said.

 

[wynnejj]

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…

Thanks, for your witness.

 

[Lujack]

While both are equally unjustified, I think you can make the argument that killing the born tends to be more serious. A woman who has the abortion at least has a possible claim of ignorance on her side; there is no such claim for killing a seven year old.

 

[wynnejj]

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.

You are right. Hanging onto the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church for dear life is the idea of “Embrace it” that comes to my mind. I remember seeing a picture of St John Bosco’s dream depicting a terrible storm at sea and boats finding their only purchase to land being this outcrop of rock, or maybe it was one long piling, with the Pope standing atop with his hands over the waters.

 

[wynnejj]

While both are equally unjustified, I think you can make the argument that killing the born tends to be more serious. A woman who has the abortion at least has a possible claim of ignorance on her side; there is no such claim for killing a seven year old.

I can see your point from a subjective point of view, and have indeed heard true life stories about the confusion of many women as they deliberated their decisions. In the case of second & third trimester abortions, I think the subjective culpability is still there and, I have to believe that they are not likely to be ignorant because all they have to do is think about a pre-mature baby’s birth.

In the 1st trimester, the subjective culpability is more blurred and may lead to misconception, not so much ignorance, about the taking of human life. In this case, I think a woman can take a practical view and can be easily persuaded that they are doing the responsible thing. That is, the idea that the mental faculties & pain centers are not developed, so if you do not want to keep the baby then you better abort quickly.

This view by someone who believes they are taking responsible action is an SPCA mentality. It is animal husbandry applied to human beings.

 

[Lujack]

I can see your point from a subjective point of view, and have indeed heard true life stories about the confusion of many women as they deliberated their decisions. In the case of second & third trimester abortions, I think the subjective culpability is still there and, I have to believe that they are not likely to be ignorant because all they have to do is think about a pre-mature baby’s birth.

In the 1st trimester, the subjective culpability is more blurred and may lead to misconception, not so much ignorance, about the taking of human life. In this case, I think a woman can take a practical view and can be easily persuaded that they are doing the responsible thing. That is, the idea that the mental faculties & pain centers are not developed, so if you do not want to keep the baby then you better abort quickly.

This view by someone who believes they are taking responsible action is an SPCA mentality. It is animal husbandry applied to human beings.

Late second trimester and third trimester, definitely. For some women, any abortion they get is morally culpable, because they do know better. That’s why its only a potential claim of ignorance; they might not be able to make that claim at all.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

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…

Thank you for the posting. This reflects the unspoken thoughts of many. If only we all had the courage to speak out.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Which is more serious? Killing the unborn or born?

What if it was legalized that parents could bring their teenagers to a clinic to have them “put down” on demand, no questions asked?

There could be arguments for the practice. “Quality of Life over Quantity of Life”. Population control. Over-crowded prisons due to juvenile delinquency leading to hardened adult criminals. Incentive to keep the kids good and take their education seriously. Children of “bad” parents would not introduce their dysfunctional kids into the next stage of adult society that makes laws that govern our society.

What if our local Christian churches, due to governmental controls affecting church finances and charitable institutions, and for non-violent dialog reasons, and for reasons of not turning away souls who may have engaged in the practice, had refused to decry the practice vigorously and did not even include a weekly prayer petition for our country to end the practice?

Is this scenario more serious than the status quo of abortion in the USA?

No.

The murder of innocents is the same, no matter what age. And our new ‘president’ has just about made abortion mandatory.

 

[wynnejj]

No.

The murder of innocents is the same, no matter what age. And our new ‘president’ has just about made abortion mandatory.

I just hope that those who may have voted for Obama for other reasons, banking on the notion that the FOCA legislation will never reach his desk, are correct. Mandatory compliance with abortion access without restrictions will be hard to reverse as a nation once it is in place. It will take the chastisement of a terrible war to change the hearts & minds of the American populace toward fear of the Lord, if we don’t come to our spiritual senses soon. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta said: “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.”

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I just hope that those who may have voted for Obama for other reasons, banking on the notion that the FOCA legislation will never reach his desk, are correct. Mandatory compliance with abortion access without restrictions will be hard to reverse as a nation once it is in place. It will take the chastisement of a terrible war to change the hearts & minds of the American populace toward fear of the Lord, if we don’t come to our spiritual senses soon. As Mother Teresa of Calcutta said: “The fruit of abortion is nuclear war.”

Unless I’m much mistaken, he’s already enacted this.

Infanticide abroad, funded by OUR tax dollars.

I blame those who voted him into office—the Bishops made it blazingly clear what their position was, and over half of Catholics ignored it. His associations themselves made it clear whose side he was on. People ignored that too.

You got what you wanted. A little late for buyer’s remorse, isn’t it?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

About a week ago, at a meeting, I explained the consequences of FOCA to a large group of people. Many Hispanic. Afterwords they came up and said, “We did not know”. My simple question was who were you listening to, or more importantly, who were you not listening to. Now we have to live with it.

 

[wynnejj]

Unless I’m much mistaken, he’s already enacted this.

Infanticide abroad, funded by OUR tax dollars.

I blame those who voted him into office—the Bishops made it blazingly clear what their position was, and over half of Catholics ignored it. His associations themselves made it clear whose side he was on. People ignored that too.

You got what you wanted. A little late for buyer’s remorse, isn’t it?

Oh great! Now when we try to weigh our political choices based on body count / casualties, we will have another largely un-monitored holocaust for which we as Americans will be liable to Our Lord. When I was trying to weigh the horrors of the collateral damage of non-combatants in our War in Iraq as opposed to 4 more years of abortion, I was stunned that some survey statistics put the count just over a million deaths due to the war. More reasonable counts based on hospital, mortuary, and other reliable (non-statistical) counts put it at 100,000 to 200,000. These are real heavy figures to be weighed against our 50 milliion count for abortions. To some, the innocent Iraq citizens whose lives were lost in such huge numbers was a significant factor when compared to the abortion issue that may or may not have made any great strides under a new Pro-Life president.

Little would I have factored in the untold holocaust of abortion services -abroad- with my tax dollars (making me the man who hires the assasin) which a Pro-Choice president might foist on the American public. I assume that what we are talking about is rescinding the Mexico policy by executive order?

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

The collateral civilian damage in Iraq was not as high as the figures you listed, but it does include the body count inflicted by the insurgents on the innocent civilians, as if we had anything to do with it. These oppressed people want freedom just as much as we do. It is the insurgents that want to maintain Taliban rule because it gives them POWER.

 

[Extempore]

In the 1st trimester, the subjective culpability is more blurred and may lead to misconception, not so much ignorance, about the taking of human life. In this case, I think a woman can take a practical view and can be easily persuaded that they are doing the responsible thing.

That’s one issue, but even more obscured is the whole contraceptive (Plan B) consequences which I think many women (either through ignorance, lack of information or whatever) don’t know about. How many abortions are the result of the “morning after” pill and how many women actually know that this is what happens? Furthermore, are these numbers even considered in the abortion statistics, or are we only counting women who go to clinics to procure them?

 

[wynnejj]

The collateral civilian damage in Iraq was not as high as the figures you listed, but it does include the body count inflicted by the insurgents on the innocent civilians, as if we had anything to do with it. These oppressed people want freedom just as much as we do. It is the insurgents that want to maintain Taliban rule because it gives them POWER.

npr.org/news/specials/tollofwar/tollofwarmain.html

It is so hard to nail down the actual count, but NPR has an interesting bar chart of the different research surveys on civilian and Iraq security forces.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_casualties

Wikipedia also cites the Lancet study of John Hopkins University which surveyed in June 2006 at 650,000 casualties and, the Opinion Research Business survey in August 2007 at 1,033,000.

Some of the numbers seem so widely varying that it is hard to know what to believe. I tend to go with the Brookings Institute number at appoximately 117,000 for civilian and Iraq security forces on the NPR bar chart.

 

[Matariel]

Playing numbers games don’t get anyone anywhere. There were millions more deaths in WWII, and that war didn’t even involve insurgents. Numbers games be played by anyone.

 

[wynnejj]

That’s one issue, but even more obscured is the whole contraceptive (Plan B) consequences which I think many women (either through ignorance, lack of information or whatever) don’t know about. How many abortions are the result of the “morning after” pill and how many women actually know that this is what happens? Furthermore, are these numbers even considered in the abortion statistics, or are we only counting women who go to clinics to procure them?

I’m pretty sure that the 50 million figure does not include the “morning after” pill.

I remember a CDC (Center for Disease Control) chart that tracked reported abortions by states that were willing to participate. That information stopped being available at some point, but I haven’t checked in a while. Of course, there is the Guttmacher Institute associated with Planned Parenthood that seems to be keeping the stats now.

 

[wynnejj]

Playing numbers games don’t get anyone anywhere. There were millions more deaths in WWII, and that war didn’t even involve insurgents. Numbers games be played by anyone.

I tend to disagree. Assuming that one acknowledges that all abortion is murder (and no less so than any other) and also believes that the War in Iraq must be stopped as an unjust war, then when making political choices for a presidential candidate the choice becomes who is going to cause the most damage in terms of loss of life. I’m trying to see if there is a “proportionate reason” for a person to vote for the Pro-Choice candidate over the perceived Pro-War candidate. In the last election, I am sure that there was no proportionate reason, but it makes more sense to me why one might think otherwise.

I have to tell you that when I first heard in mid 2006 that the Iraq death toll was over half a million based on the questionable Lancet survey of John Hopkins University, I was stunned because all I had been hearing was the military death counts of about 3-4 thousand. It was something that gave me pause, in terms of whether I should be fighting against abortion or fighting against the war, in terms of voting. I’ve since come to believe that the Lancet was way overblown by about 4 to 5 times.

 

[Matariel]

I tend to disagree. Assuming that one acknowledges that all abortion is murder (and no less so than any other) and also believes that the War in Iraq must be stopped as an unjust war, then when making political choices for a presidential candidate the choice becomes who is going to cause the most damage in terms of loss of life.

But, I think it was a just war. Saddam was committing genocide against the Kurds, tortured his own people, and was in violation of serval UN sanctions, and probably had N-Bombs. Because of this, he must have been put down.

I’m trying to see if there is a “proportionate reason” for a person to vote for the Pro-Choice candidate over the perceived Pro-War candidate. In the last election, I am sure that there was no proportionate reason, but it makes more sense to me why one might think otherwise.

I agree.

I have to tell you that when I first heard in mid 2006 that the Iraq death toll was over half a million based on the questionable Lancet survey of John Hopkins University, I was stunned because all I had been hearing was the military death counts of about 3-4 thousand. It was something that gave me pause, in terms of whether I should be fighting against abortion or fighting against the war, in terms of voting. I’ve since come to believe that the Lancet was way overblown by about 4 to 5 times.

I don’t think you can count killed insurgents and civilians killed by insurgents. Even though their loss is terrible.