Abortion

Home Forums All Things Catholic Abortion

This topic contains 29 replies, has 8 voices, and was last updated by  gesundheit 9 years, 1 month ago.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 30 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #1255

    weather
    Member

    Webster’s dictionary describes an abortionist as one who is guilty of the crime of procuring a criminal abortion: or who induces abortion.(And this is a non-secular book).

    If one reads Deuteronomy 31:19 before God gave Moses the 10 commanments it reads, “I call heaven and earth to witness this day, that I have set before you life and death,blessing and cursing. Choose therefore [color=blue:2q51lhpq]LIFE[/color:2q51lhpq], that both thou and thy seed may [color=blue:2q51lhpq]LIVE[/color:2q51lhpq].”

    I’m strictly against abortion,I wonder what other peoples view points are?

    #6269

    Te Deum
    Member

    I’m obviously against abortion. The only time I can consider it a lesser evil is when the mother’s life is at risk.

    In all other cases, an uncompromising no!

    #6271

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:7m6cltnn]I’m obviously against abortion. The only time I can consider it a lesser evil is when the mother’s life is at risk.

    In all other cases, an uncompromising no![/quote:7m6cltnn]

    [color=darkblue:7m6cltnn]I second that…[/color:7m6cltnn]

    #6272

    weather
    Member

    I may be wrong but I read or was told that Catholic doctrine does not approve abortion at any cost(even if a mothers life is a risk).maybe you more educated ones can look that up.

    #6273

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:3fd97jtv]I may be wrong but I read or was told that Catholic doctrine does not approve abortion at any cost(even if a mothers life is a risk).maybe you more educated ones can look that up.[/quote:3fd97jtv]

    [color=darkblue:3fd97jtv]The intention is to preserve life weather. Having to choose is hard enough. It is a personal choice in my opinion.[/color:3fd97jtv]

    #6275

    weather
    Member

    I will have to look up were I read this,cause you are still taking a life,it was something like one has to leave it in God’s mercy and grace what will happen.
    P.S. how do I change my identity from “weather” to something else without eliminating my posts?

    #6276

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    [quote:iwy61x6x]P.S. how do I change my identity from “weather” to something else without eliminating my posts?[/quote:iwy61x6x]
    Offer me quite a large sum of money along with your desired name change. <img src=” title=”Wink” />

    P.S. abortion is always wrong. The life of the mother does not trump the life of the baby.

    #6286

    Te Deum
    Member

    [quote:hf4xyi32]P.S. abortion is always wrong. The life of the mother does not trump the life of the baby.[/quote:hf4xyi32]

    So, the life of the baby is more important than that of the mother’s? It’s quite a tough call, I’d say. It’s about choosing between lives, something I hope I’ll never have to pass through.

    #6290

    Benedict
    Member

    “And why not say–as we are accused and as some claim we say–that we should do evil that good may come of it? Their penalty is what they deserve.” Romans 3:8

    Romans 3:8 teaches that we may never do evil to bring about good – the ends never justify the means.

    [b:3ch90f8n]1753[/b:3ch90f8n] A good intention (for example, that of helping one’s neighbor) does not make behavior that is intrinsically disordered, such as lying and calumny, good or just. The end does not justify the means. Thus [u:3ch90f8n]the condemnation of an innocent person cannot be justified as a legitimate means of saving the nation[/u:3ch90f8n]. On the other hand, an added bad intention (such as vainglory) makes an act evil that, in and of itself, can be good (such as almsgiving).

    Nor can the abortion of the child be justified as a legitimate means of saving the mother.

    Do I expect many, if any, people to act in accordance with this? No. I would probably do so to save my own wife, although I would be condemning myself all the more because I know and understand both that it is wrong and why it is wrong.

    #6292

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    [quote:3ccoi1jo]I would probably do so to save my own wife, although I would be condemning myself all the more because I know and understand both that it is wrong and why it is wrong.[/quote:3ccoi1jo]
    Then why would you chose to do it? Personally I would take the gamble and pray that everything turns out all right.

    Saying what you did is a lot like politicians who say their faith doesn’t influence their politics…it’s sounds like a total disregard for your religious beliefs.

    #6293

    Benedict
    Member

    If my wife had the strength to follow Romans 3:8, I would be fine with it. But I would not be able to make that choice for her if left up to me. I feel that if I ever get married, it would be my one and only chance at being married. Perhaps my paranoia in that regard would mitigate my culpability, although then I would be guilty of selfishness and idolatry.

    #6297

    Mister Emu
    Member

    The only instance of “abortion” being acceptable that I have ever heard of is ectopic pregnancy…

    #6298

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:2tsh6cpd]The only instance of “abortion” being acceptable that I have ever heard of is ectopic pregnancy…[/quote:2tsh6cpd]

    [color=darkblue:2tsh6cpd]That what I was talking about. I just didn’t know the techie word for it…[/color:2tsh6cpd]

    #6299

    Benedict
    Member

    Ectopic pregnancy is not technically the same as abortion. The death of the child is an unintended side-effect rather than the intended effect. As such, it falls under the principle of double-effect: a morally neutral act (the removal of the uterus/fallopian tube), intended for a good (to save the mother), produces a secondary evil (abortion of the child) that is tolerated because it is not inproportional to the good.

    #6300

    Victor
    Member

    [quote:193mwebh]Ectopic pregnancy is not technically the same as abortion. The death of the child is an unintended side-effect rather than the intended effect. As such, it falls under the principle of double-effect: a morally neutral act (the removal of the uterus/fallopian tube), intended for a good (to save the mother), produces a secondary evil (abortion of the child) that is tolerated because it is not inproportional to the good.[/quote:193mwebh]

    [color=darkblue:193mwebh]I’m so used to giving those who disagree with the Church’s position on this that I hardly have the energy to bicker over the meaning of words. But you have made an excellent point. One in which I will make a point to make from now on.[/color:193mwebh]

    #6309

    Bernardine
    Member

    I am against abortion. Call me crazy, but I believe God is pro-life.

    #6352

    Te Deum
    Member

    Not only He is pro-life, He is Life! <img src=” title=”Very Happy” />

    #6364

    Bernardine
    Member

    [quote:17lacoxb]Not only He is pro-life, He is Life! <img src=” title=”Very Happy” />[/quote:17lacoxb]

    Amen brother, amen.

    #6392

    weather
    Member

    I guess I don’t get it,Why don’t people understand “ABORTION KILLS” I’m thinking there cant be alot of truly religious people in the world,only selfish ones who think for the moment.Don’t they realize they KILLED a human being and will go to hell unless they truly repent there terrible sin? I think the media has a great influence on their choice. But again I’m a senior citizen(69) but with alot of wisdom.
    God have mercy on them.

    #6393

    Andres Ortiz
    Keymaster

    The question is whether it is truly a human life or not when it is in the womb. To me it’s a silly argument: what else would it be?

    There’s no chance of it turning into a frog, a moose or an elephant. Because it is not sentient until a certain point that does not make it less of a human, but some people think so.

    It doesn’t breathe so it must not be human goes some other thinking.

    A lot of strange thought on what a baby inside the womb is. Combine that with vocab words such as embryo, fetus, etc. and of course some people will not think of it as a human. I see those terms though as naming the stage of development (much like we use infant, toddler, adolescent, adult) rather than the name of what it is.

    Regardless it’s still a [b:27wy034a]human[/b:27wy034a] fetus or a [b:27wy034a]human[/b:27wy034a] embryo. It’s [b:27wy034a]human[/b:27wy034a]! You can’t call it anything else.

Viewing 20 posts - 1 through 20 (of 30 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.