Permissibility Of Abortion

[Storm Rider]

I agree that voluntary abortion for convenience or other social reasons is a grave sin. But I think that the Catholics take it to the extreme when they put it on a par with murdering a human being that has already come into the world. Under no penal code, including the biblical one, are they deemed to be equivalent. I know of no country in the world where capital punishment is (or has been) mandated for murder, that the two are made equivalent. The Bible doesn't do it, the Jews never did it, the Muslims do't do it, in European countries (where murder carried the death penalty until quite recently) it was never done, and I don't know of any country or civilization in the past or present, religious or irreligious, where the two have been deemed equivalent. A distinction has been made between a human being that has actually been born (come into the world), and one who has not been.

Zerinus, when I think of this issue I strive to understand the value of life, particularly innocent life. It is my impression that the Catholic Church has placed the value of innocent life very highly and I have difficulty finding any fault with that position. What the world does or has done is irrelevant to what it is the correct choice, proper position for a disciple of Christ. It is apparent that the Catholic Church has determined that there are choices that are acceptable that also end the life of the unborn. The LDS Church also has pronounced that there MAY be acceptable choices when rape, incest, and health of the mother are concerned. Neither group is cavalier in declaring their position or in their support for life. However, trying to understand why the life of a child resulting from rape or other horrendous acts can, is some instances, be determined to be of no value, to merit death, is a viable question to contemplate for LDS.

The LDS Church has stated "may" be acceptable choices and counseled that such a choice should only be taken with caution and by direction of the Spirit. Our position can create moral delimmas for our members that faithful Catholics would never need to consider, but that is not a bad thing in and of itself. Our whole life is about learning to follow the will of God rather than our own and this situation would put such a challenge in sharp contrast.

[altersteve]

I can agree to all but bolded portion. It is not necessary to sin to grow closer to Christ. What is needed to grow closer the Christ is to learn how to receive and listen to personal revelation.

You're right, I guess I worded that the wrong way.

[altersteve]

It is a round about way of saying God desires sin.

No it's not, because that's not at all what I'm saying.

Sorry, but it doesn't look like you're really trying to understand what I'm saying, so never mind.

[CV75]

I don't agree first that God created a scenario where sin was required, and second, that sin is required to "progress". You have to understand, those two notions appear, to me, as not God speaking but man. Excuse making even for the act of sin.

Catholic morality is also clear, a good end does not justify evil means. In other words, an evil act is not made good by a good intent. Evil is objectively evil.

I never said that God created a scenario where sin was required—this is a derail and should be another topic.

I never said that sin is required to "progress"—my thoughts on this topic have not been expressed here and have nothing to do with applying the two commandments to abortion. It is not properly characterized as "ends justify the means" anyway.

Now, please stay on topic: You seem to be avoiding the principles that are pertinent to the OP.

1: that life has to be created and preserved before it can be killed and is therefore takes priority.

2: that in some cases, God commands or condones the taking of human life (and its contraception, for that matter).

3: that God will not force obedience to His commandments or acceptance of His blessings any more than He will force disobedience.

You also seem to holding fast to mutually exclusive principles:

1: that contraception is a sin because it prevents the creation of life—yet to multiply and replenish the earth is only a paradisiacal blessing and not a commandment that contraception breaks.

2: that God intended for Adam’s and Eve’s offspring to be born into an immortal paradise, never to die and never knowing good and evil—yet He gave them commandments to keep and allowed the serpent to dwell there and tempt them.

Plesae explain your position on the points you are avoiding, and explain how the principles you hold fast to make any sense.

[Vance]

Yeah, He did.

Apparently NOT!

They chose to sin against God.

If He created them from nothing, then they are what He made them to be. If they chose to sin against God it is ONLY because He created them to do so.

Our free will is a gift from God, that we might love Him freely.

This is illogical.

If He created them from nothing, then they are what He made them to be. If they chose to sin against God it is ONLY because He created them to do so.

We can use our free will for evil, which is an abuse of the gift God has given us.

This is illogical.

If He created them from nothing, then they are what He made them to be. If they chose to sin against God it is ONLY because He created them to do so.

If you step in front of a moving bus and die, is it an assumption to say that if you had stayed on the curb you would not have been hit by the bus?

If God created them from nothing, then we are what He made us to be. If we chose to step in front of a moving bus it is ONLY because He created us to do so. If we had stayed on the curb then it is ONLY because He created us to do so.

If God created Adam and Eve from nothing, and if God is omniscient, THEN God knew they would sin against Him because He created them to do so.

[Vance]

Catholic teaching is God created us where He wants us to be, with Him.

Apparently not. We are with Him now are we?

We fail.

According to your explanation, we didn't fail at all. Adam and Eve did. But as you say above, "God created (Adam and Eve) where He want(ed) (them) to be, or what He wanted them to be.

Jesus is Who reconciles us, not our sins, or ourselves, or a "progression". Follow Him. He is without sin.

True, but irrelevant to the topic at hand.

[Vance]

You know I just realized that the whole Catholic view of the fall begs the question. Supposedly the propensity to sin came as a result of the fall, but the whole fact that they sinned in the first place shows they already had the propensity to do so.

It's a circular argument. Here they are in paradise- Eden- and they decide to sin? Why would anyone do that- in paradise with God in effect watching them? What was their motivation to follow Satan?

It makes no sense. In effect they had "original sin" and would have had to already be "fallen" before the fall even happened!

To me, it is a mass of confusion.

[Vance]

It is my impression that the Catholic Church has placed the value of innocent life very highly and I have difficulty finding any fault with that position.

This the problem I have with that. It seems to m that to be able to claim the high moral ground they (the Catholic Church) claims that the unborn are "innocent", yet, upon birth they are immediately guilty and are in need of baptism. It is my understanding that their doctrine is that man is conceived in sin or born in sin and thus are not innocent but are guilty and are in need of baptism. Just more to add to the mass of confusion, I guess.

Could a Catholic poster explain this to me?

Edited September 26, 2012 by Vance

[blueadept]

This the problem I have with that. It seems to m that to be able to claim the high moral ground they (the Catholic Church) claims that the unborn are "innocent", yet, upon birth they are immediately guilty and are in need of baptism. It is my understanding that their doctrine is that man is conceived in sin or born in sin and thus are not innocent but are guilty and are in need of baptism. Just more to add to the mass of confusion, I guess.

Could a Catholic poster explain this to me?

I

I wished they wouldn't have used the term 'Original Sin' personally since none of us is judged for that. We are only judged on 'actual sin' which takes 3 things to even qualify. 1) It has to be of serious matter, 2) You have to be aware that it's a serious matter, and 3) you are willing to commit the sin regardless.

So yes, babies are innocent. They simply have inherited a fallen nature. Think of the reasons LDS perform a 'baby blessing' and apply that to why Catholics baptise children and you might understand our intentions better.

Edited September 26, 2012 by blueadept

[Duncan]

In my Mum's ward there was a YW who was raped and got pregnant at a camp for school. She kept it as I recall but she wasn't ever disciplined for anything, nor would she be.

[blueadept]

In my Mum's ward there was a YW who was raped and got pregnant at a camp for school. She kept it as I recall but she wasn't ever disciplined for anything, nor would she be.

One would hope she wouldn't be disciplined for being raped. That being said, I can't imagine keeping the child since the mother should see the rapist in the eyes of her own child. Adoption is the only option IMHO. As I said earlier, I've met a few adults who are adults that know their father was a rapist but are extremely thankful their mother gave them up for adoption to be raised in a loving home. They all seem to have the same wish which is to be able to someday thank them for that decision.

[Vance]

I

I wished they wouldn't have used the term 'Original Sin' personally since none of us is judged for that. We are only judged on 'actual sin' which takes 3 things to even qualify. 1) It has to be of serious matter, 2) You have to be aware that it's a serious matter, and 3) you are willing to commit the sin regardless.

So yes, babies are innocent. They simply have inherited a fallen nature. Think of the reasons LDS perform a 'baby blessing' and apply that to why Catholics baptise children and you might understand our intentions better.

I am not sure I can reconcile what you wrote with this,

"[W]hoever says that infants fresh from their mothers’ wombs ought not to be baptized, or say that they are indeed baptized unto the remission of sins, but that they draw nothing of the original sin of Adam, which is expiated in the bath of regeneration . . . let him be anathema [excommunicated]. Since what the apostle [Paul] says, ‘Through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so passed to all men, in whom all have sinned’ [Rom. 5:12], must not be understood otherwise than the Catholic Church spread everywhere has always understood it. For on account of this rule of faith even infants, who in themselves thus far have not been able to commit any sin, are therefore truly baptized unto the remission of sins, so that that which they have contracted from generation may be cleansed in them by regeneration" (Canon 3 [A.D. 416]).

Council of Mileum II

That I found here,

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/early-teachings-on-infant-baptism

And, I don't see how giving a name and a blessing can be equated with washing away "original sin" which is "contracted from generation".

But, I guess that is why I am not Catholic.

[blueadept]

I am not sure I can reconcile what you wrote with this,

Council of Mileum II

That I found here,

http://www.catholic....-infant-baptism

And, I don't see how giving a name and a blessing can be equated with washing away "original sin" which is "contracted from generation".

But, I guess that is why I am not Catholic.

There are several purposes of baptism which is to cleanse one of all sins. Obviously a baby has no actual sins to be cleansed but just our concept of original sin(a fallen nature). Baptism leaves an indelible mark on an individual (is now known by God) and the way we can start to receive God's graces. For Catholics, we don't start receiving God's graces until baptism is done. For us, why wait until the kid gets older to receive those. For baby blessings, the prayer given seems to ALWAYS incorporate this concept of asking the Lord to bless the child so that they can receive these graces. Thus the comparison.

The way I interpreted your reference is what can happen if we separate ourselves from God and have the child wait in receiving these graces. Any person willing to do that should be anathema. From our perspective, a person is unknown to God until baptism.

I also suggest you read the section in the Catechism in regards to what we believe for baptism if you want to better understand our concept. That's where I direct all my students

Edited September 26, 2012 by blueadept

[Vance]

There are several purposes of baptism which is to cleanse one of all sins. Obviously a baby has no actual sins to be cleansed but just our concept of original sin(a fallen nature). Baptism leaves an indelible mark on an individual (is now known by God) and the way we can start to receive God's graces. For Catholics, we don't start receiving God's graces until baptism is done. For us, why wait until the kid gets older to receive those. For baby blessings, the prayer given seems to ALWAYS incorporate this concept of asking the Lord to bless the child so that they can receive these graces. Thus the comparison.

Ok, I can see why you made the comparison. I don't agree with it, but I can see it.

The way I interpreted your reference is what can happen if we separate ourselves from God and have the child wait in receiving these graces. Any person willing to do that should be anathema. From our perspective, a person is unknown to God until baptism.

That isn't what I got from that quote. But I am not Catholic.

The word "generation" certainly implies that the taint of "original sin" is inherited at conception. Thus, the unborn are not innocent but rather guilty of "original sin".

Plus, if the unbaptized are unknown to God, would killing them be a lessor sin than killing a baptized person?

[Calm]

The reason the Catholic Church is against them is because most of the them are abortive methods, the pill, the IUD, etc.

I don't believe this is accurate from what has been described to me. They are just as against the barrier methods.

My understanding is that contraception is seen as a sin because it usurps God's role in determining when and how life will begin.

However, I don't really understand with that reasoning (if I am correct) why abstinence is seen as acceptable as a form of birth control because I don't see much difference between that and use of a barrier even if one employs a device and the other is just self control.

[blueadept]

The word "generation" certainly implies that the taint of "original sin" is inherited at conception.

We agree on this point even if I've explained that we are not judged for this since it is not an actual sin but our concept is that we've inherited a separation from God and the only way to rectify that is through baptism.

Thus, the unborn are not innocent but rather guilty of "original sin".

which we are not judged for....that's correct

Plus, if the unbaptized are unknown to God, would killing them be a lessor sin than killing a baptized person?

No. Taking any innocent life is wrong....baptized or unbaptized

[Vance]

No. Taking any innocent life is wrong....baptized or unbaptized

But there is no "innocent life" for all are guilty of "original sin", and must be baptized.

[blueadept]

But there is no "innocent life" for all are guilty of "original sin", and must be baptized.

Just as LDS believe that all will eventually be baptized either in this life or the next, the RCC believes that the only known way for someone to be saved is through a baptism that the RCC recognizes. As far as your 'all are guilty' comment, as mentioned we are not judged for that and leave the issue in the Lord's hands in regards to whom he will save and who will not be saved. The only known way to us is through baptism in the Lord's true church but we recognize we should let God be God on this matter.

[MiserereNobis]

So, you don't see the pattern then.

Is that your counter argument?

Give us some words, Vance, give us some more words so that we can discuss things

[MiserereNobis]

Hello...? I posted a reply yesterday:

I took a day or two off. Nothing personal

"The issue of abortion ties back to both commandments"--in reference to the commandments given in the Garden of Eden.

Which one is more important: the command to multiply and replenish the earth, or to not bring death into the world by partaking of the forbidden fruit (and thus kill what God created)?

We Catholics understand the Garden differently than the LDS church. Adam and Eve could have remained in paradise and multiplied and replenished the earth without the fall. I know the LDS position states differently -- that the fall was necessary -- but that is not the Catholic position so there is no contradiction for us.

Sometimes the fall is referred to as "felix culpa" -- the fortunate fall -- but that only means it was fortunate insomuch as it gave us a Redeemer which otherwise would not have been needed.

(I'm not sure we should derail this thread into a discussion on the fall, but I wanted to answer your question)

[CV75]

Just as LDS believe that all will eventually be baptized either in this life or the next, the RCC believes that the only known way for someone to be saved is through a baptism that the RCC recognizes. As far as your 'all are guilty' comment, as mentioned we are not judged for that and leave the issue in the Lord's hands in regards to whom he will save and who will not be saved. The only known way to us is through baptism in the Lord's true church but we recognize we should let God be God on this matter.

if I may rephrase:

Catholic “original sin” refers to being subject to (or “guilty” of) death, a sinful nature (concupiscence) and Satan’s temptations. Though innocent of committing any sins, infants haven’t a holy nature because they are conceived by sinners (Adam and Eve) and so are subject to death and to Satan. Only when they (inevitably) give in to temptation they become guilty of personal sin.

Catholics baptize infants not to remit the actual guilt of personal sin but to remit the “guilt” of this “original sin” and save them the effects of death, a sinful nature, and Satan’s power. Without baptism, the unbaptized and non-Catholic (including aborted fetuses) must be entrusted to the mercy of God, who may save anyone He wants to in alternative, curently unknown ways. So the real sin is in preventing a child from enjoying that which has been given to the Catholic world as their only revealed means of salvation and tempting the Lord to show His mercy in another way.

I’m not sure how this plays into abortion, which is its own sin, as the unbaptized fetus remains in the Lord’s hands. It appears the sin is in the willful disobedience of the aborting parties. In which case, can God ever, in extreme circumstances, inspire someone to kill?

[blueadept]

I don't believe this is accurate from what has been described to me. They are just as against the barrier methods.

My understanding is that contraception is seen as a sin because it usurps God's role in determining when and how life will begin.

As usual, you've decribed it correctly that we are against artificial birth control but not natural birth control. There's nothing wrong with working what God has naturally given to us.

However, I don't really understand with that reasoning (if I am correct) why abstinence is seen as acceptable as a form of birth control because I don't see much difference between that and use of a barrier even if one employs a device and the other is just self control.

We seem to discuss this in about every contraceptive thread which I've come to expect...

Here is my attempt this time. Too much of a good thing can eventually be bad. There is nothing wrong with a couple using natural birth control to delay pregnancy or to space out pregnancies. If they are using it to excessively wait or to not have children, there is a problem since they are using it for selfish reasons. That's an obvious abuse of something meant to be good.

[blueadept]

if I may rephrase:

Catholic “original sin” refers to being subject to (or “guilty” of) death, a sinful nature (concupiscence) and Satan’s temptations. Though innocent of committing any sins, infants haven’t a holy nature because they are conceived by sinners (Adam and Eve) and so are subject to death and to Satan. Only when they (inevitably) give in to temptation they become guilty of personal sin.

Catholics baptize infants not to remit the actual guilt of personal sin but to remit the “guilt” of this “original sin” and save them the effects of death, a sinful nature, and Satan’s power. Without baptism, the unbaptized and non-Catholic (including aborted fetuses) must be entrusted to the mercy of God, who may save anyone He wants to in alternative, curently unknown ways. So the real sin is in preventing a child from enjoying that which has been given to the Catholic world as their only revealed means of salvation and tempting the Lord to show His mercy in another way.

[CV75]

We Catholics understand the Garden differently than the LDS church. Adam and Eve could have remained in paradise and multiplied and replenished the earth without the fall. I know the LDS position states differently -- that the fall was necessary -- but that is not the Catholic position so there is no contradiction for us.

Sometimes the fall is referred to as "felix culpa" -- the fortunate fall -- but that only means it was fortunate insomuch as it gave us a Redeemer which otherwise would not have been needed.

(I'm not sure we should derail this thread into a discussion on the fall, but I wanted to answer your question)

Yes, i've been trying to stay out of those weeds.

Yet, as far as the Catholic treatment of the two commandments as they apply to the abortion issue is concerned, I haven't seen a response, so perhaps it is unanswerable from the Catholic perspective.

[MiserereNobis]

You know I just realized that the whole Catholic view of the fall begs the question. Supposedly the propensity to sin came as a result of the fall, but the whole fact that they sinned in the first place shows they already had the propensity to do so.

One can sin without the propensity to sin (look at Lucifer as a non-human example -- the angels did not have a fallen nature yet 1/3 of them went with the devil).

It's a circular argument. Here they are in paradise- Eden- and they decide to sin? Why would anyone do that- in paradise with God in effect watching them? What was their motivation to follow Satan?

Temptation arises from: the flesh, the world, and the devil. You had one of those three in the Garden (the devil) tempting Eve's pride, telling her she could be just like God. She followed him much like the angels followed him.

It makes no sense. In effect they had "original sin" and would have had to already be "fallen" before the fall even happened!

You can sin without a fallen nature, but with a fallen nature you cannot not sin.

I hope that helps resolve the issue of circular reasoning, even if you disagree with the ideas.

Edited September 26, 2012 by MiserereNobis