Which is more serious - killing the unborn or born?

[Extempore]

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.

Interesting. I’d be curious to see - hypothetically of course - what people would think if the toll were much higher (say, equal to the abortion rate) and whether they would still consider the two to be morally equivalent.

My gut reaction is to say, yes, of course all life is equally sacred but I think in the case of the unborn you need to factor in the fact that they haven’t had the opportunity to be baptized which is something we can’t say for already-born casualties of war.

 

[wynnejj]

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.

Both Pope John Paul II & Benedict XVI are opposed to the war and the USCCB has published their view that we should get out of Iraq as soon as possible, but ensuring a “responsible transition” and not “cut-and-run”. We entered Iraq according to Bush based on the belief of WMDs & terrorist training camps. The premise that he posed before the American public was not based on any of the issues that you have cited, if memory serves me well of his televised announcement of his order to send troops to Iraq. A pre-emptive war has raised serious issues and, seems to be regarded by our Magisterium as unjust.

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

If a war is truly unjust, then the count of insurgents and civilians should truly be considered unjustified casualties by a nation. Any argument that suggests the ends justify the means is immoral, despite the fact that good may come from it such as implied in your first paragraph.

 

[wynnejj]

Interesting. I’d be curious to see - hypothetically of course - what people would think if the toll were much higher (say, equal to the abortion rate) and whether they would still consider the two to be morally equivalent.

My gut reaction is to say, yes, of course all life is equally sacred but I think in the case of the unborn you need to factor in the fact that they haven’t had the opportunity to be baptized which is something we can’t say for already-born casualties of war.

Christian America has committed many atrocities against the black man as slave and the native American with the notion that they are somehow lesser men because they are not baptized Christians.

I suspect, though, that you may be saying the opposite - that is, the unborn should get preferential treatment because they haven’t been baptized. Somehow if the number of unjust war casualties and the number of abortion casualties were equal, I probably would be inclined toward calling it a toss-up, and vote based on other common good issues.

 

[Extempore]

Christian America has committed many atrocities against the black man as slave and the native American with the notion that they are somehow lesser men because they are not baptized Christians.

I suspect, though, that you may be saying the opposite - that is, the unborn should get preferential treatment because they haven’t been baptized. Somehow if the number of unjust war casualties and the number of abortion casualties were equal, I probably would be inclined toward calling it a toss-up, and vote based on other common good issues.

I was referring to the latter example - namely that I think the baptism issue definitely warrants a second look. No matter which way you look at the issue, once a person is born they are open to the opportunity to be baptized. Unborn children will never have this opportunity, so, in a way, they are at a further deficiency. How serious this issue is treated will probably largely depend on what a person believes happens to children who die before they are baptized.

 

[wynnejj]

I was referring to the latter example - namely that I think the baptism issue definitely warrants a second look. No matter which way you look at the issue, once a person is born they are open to the opportunity to be baptized. Unborn children will never have this opportunity, so, in a way, they are at a further deficiency. How serious this issue is treated will probably largely depend on what a person believes happens to children who die before they are baptized.

I agree. Somehow I believe that the fate of the unbaptized child in the loving care of God Almighty will be well recompensed. I’m reminded of the pictures of Our Blessed Mother and all the little angels that surround her.

 

[FM927]

what if the parents are to young i think they should give it up but they should not have sex:shrug:

And that is the reason I believe in Contraception as a choice between two evils.

As Olivia stated: They should not have had sex", but they did, so
before getting to the point where Abortion would have been a possible choice, if contraception had been used, that choice would have NEVER come into play!

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

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.

Agreed, and I believe this was a just war.

However, there is NO justification for the war against unborn babies—anywhere in the world.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

I agree. Somehow I believe that the fate of the unbaptized child in the loving care of God Almighty will be well recompensed. I’m reminded of the pictures of Our Blessed Mother and all the little angels that surround her.

Angels are not, nor ever have been, nor ever will be, human beings. They are creations of God. Humans do not become angels.

This is NOT to say that such babies will not reach heaven—just that the two are different species.

I continue to grieve that so many Catholics abandoned orthodoxy to elect this pro-infanticide person.

 

[wynnejj]

Agreed, and I believe this was a just war.

Time will tell whether our aggressive democracy nation building with such a loss of life will have a lasting impact in the region, and not foment further conflict due to Western culture influences clashing with neighboring Islam nations. Again, two popes are not fans of the USA invasion of Iraq.

However, there is NO justification for the war against unborn babies—anywhere in the world.

Agreed. This is the war that our nation should be focusing on.

 

[wynnejj]

And that is the reason I believe in Contraception as a choice between two evils.

As Olivia stated: They should not have had sex", but they did, so
before getting to the point where Abortion would have been a possible choice, if contraception had been used, that choice would have NEVER come into play!

Yes. The predictions of the future of the general use of contraception leading to more promiscuity with its consequent unintended pregnancies and abortions is the truth of the Magisterium guided by the Holy Spirit as demonstrated in the encyclical Humanae Vitae.

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

And that is the reason I believe in Contraception as a choice between two evils. !

You miss the main point on contraception. Most contraceptives are abortifacts in how they react on the human body. You are only killing the child at an earlier age. You are not preventing conception, only implantation. This is one of the lies that this industry has perpetrated.

 

[FM927]

You miss the main point on contraception. Most contraceptives are abortifacts in how they react on the human body. You are only killing the child at an earlier age. You are not preventing conception, only implantation. This is one of the lies that this industry has perpetrated.

No I DO NOT MISS THE POINT!

At one point in my life my husband and I relied on the “accepted method of birth control by the church” and I got pregnant and had an abortion (which I regret with all of my being) because we did not want any more children. So I went back on the pill. A few yrs after that we again stopped using contraception and hoped for the best. Again I got pregnant but this time before I made the choice of aborting again, God made me misscarry! After that we used contraception because I did not want to make another choice like that ever again.

After so many years, I still and aways will regret the abortion, but not choosing contraception!

Everyone is called to a vocation, motherhood was NOT mine.
One child is enough for us!

 

[Deacon_Ed_B]

No I DO NOT MISS THE POINT!

At one point in my life my husband and I relied on the “accepted method of birth control by the church” !

At no time was the pill an accepted method of birth control by the Church. Some misguided priests have told couples that it was OK. These priests were wrong then and are wrong now if they ever tell anyone this. If a couple relied upon the advice of the misguided priest, this would remove culpability for them, until such point in time as they found out the true Church teaching. The priest is the one that has to answer for this erroneous advice.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

Christian America has committed many atrocities against the black man as slave and the native American with the notion that they are somehow lesser men because they are not baptized Christians.

I suspect, though, that you may be saying the opposite - that is, the unborn should get preferential treatment because they haven’t been baptized. Somehow if the number of unjust war casualties and the number of abortion casualties were equal, I probably would be inclined toward calling it a toss-up, and vote based on other common good issues.

Sorry, not a good argument either for or against abortion. Two hundred years ago? And you still tar all “Christian America” with the same brush?

 

[wynnejj]

Sorry, not a good argument either for or against abortion. Two hundred years ago? And you still tar all “Christian America” with the same brush?

Actually, you seem to be tarring me personally with the brush of being Pro-Choice leaning, or arguing for the Pro-Choice camp. You may have been interpretting some of my postings that have been trying to come to grips with the reasoning of a person who votes Pro-Choice as being my own position (or veiled attempt to convince others like a sheep in wolf’s clothing).

Any statements that I make that intimate that there may be some “responsible” reasoning for Pro-Choice or a “proportionate reason” for voting for Pro-Choice due to conflicts with other common good issues must be understood as my attempt to come to grips with the apparent unreasonable-ness of the Pro-Choice voting pattern of Christians, and Catholics especially.

My gut instinct is that repetitive Pro-Choice voters are ghouls in the light of the holocaust, and I am just trying to find some quiet place in my mind to be more charitable to those who see things differently because of the complex nature of the political process or their views on the need for abortion with restrictions.

Does that clarify my position? If you already understood my position, then I can only say that I basically agree that my argument is not a good agument either way for or against abortion, which was not my intent anyway.

 

[wynnejj]

One child is enough for us!

Your story is truly tragic and certainly mitigates your position on the matter. However, one child may not be enough for God. You are contracepting the will of God, who for a Catholic trumps the will of the personal freedom of choice.

 

[jmcrae]

Where did this idea come from, that we are supposed to be “in charge” of our lives - that we get to decide how many kids we will have, or how rich or poor we will be, etc.?

Aren’t we supposed to just accept whatever God gives us, even if it wasn’t what we had thought we were going to have or do?

 

[peary]

Which is more serious? Killing the unborn or born?

Philosophically and theologically, according to the Church, there isn’t a difference…it would be the same.

 

[FM927]

Your story is truly tragic and certainly mitigates your position on the matter. However, one child may not be enough for God. You are contracepting the will of God, who for a Catholic trumps the will of the personal freedom of choice.

If God gave us FREE WILL, then my will was to have only ONE Child! So if we went against God’s will, I am willing to accept the consequences for this choice, whatever they may be.

 

[wynnejj]

If God gave us FREE WILL, then my will was to have only ONE Child! So if we went against God’s will, I am willing to accept the consequences for this choice, whatever they may be.

I have a sin that to this day I do not feel in my gut is a big deal sin, but the Catechism says otherwise. I make every effort today after much defiance to keep to this rule of the Church. The bottom line is that the Catholic Church is either the complete Bureau of Standards & Measures of what is right or wrong or, it is complete brown matter infecting my gray matter (if you get my meaning). I believe in the Catholic Church as the complete Truth, even as I am learning what that Truth is. My faith sometimes waivers, but I am hanging in there & onto the whole Truth. You have your life’s journey, and I am not equipped as a blind person to lead the blind, only enough to say that the Magisterium would beg to differ with your assessment about contraception. Follow your conscience and form it well.