A bizarre twist on morality (abortion)

Heya Bigdaddydvo,

[ QUOTE ]
...We could take this absurd proposition a step further... It's a ludicrous proposition,...

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it clearly point to the fact the the premises might be ludicrous, no?

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
The reasoning of Andrea and your hypothetical multple abortion woman is obviously flawed. Evil is never justified, even when there may be a positive outcome.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why? Eternal life matters infinitely more than mortal life. This seems to do a huge favor to all the aborted children, with no victims (other than possibly the mother, who is still able to repent and such)

[ QUOTE ]
So even though the outcome of children in heaven is a good one, the means of accomplishing this is unacceptable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who cares?

[Double Down]

In your hypothetical, the woman is assuming that the child will not accept Jesus. Why? Even though most people are not Christian, she is (to the extent that she'd abort her kid to send him to Heaven lol), so the odds are that her kid WILL accept Jesus because it is she who will raise him.

[ QUOTE ]
In your hypothetical, the woman is assuming that the child will not accept Jesus. Why? Even though most people are not Christian, she is (to the extent that she'd abort her kid to send him to Heaven lol), so the odds are that her kid WILL accept Jesus because it is she who will raise him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Umm, no, only to be on the safe side. She doesn't want to take a chance that those kids turn out to be rebels or worse atheists.

To leave all humour out of it, this obviously (I hope) unacceptable conclusion based on a seemingly logical argument should strongly indicate that a review of the premises may be in order. By this I am repeating what I said in an earlier post which seems to be conveniently ignored. I can only assume that the lack of willingness to have a dialogue is based on a fear (certainly palpable) and its attendant insecurity.

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there anything wrong with this action?

[/ QUOTE ]

If abortion is a sin the answer to your question is yes.

Stu

[Stu Pidasso]

[ QUOTE ]
They taught us in Catholic school that unborn children get the benefit of the doubt. Seems a bit wishy-washy to me, but after the stuff about pedophile priests, they're trying to look good

[/ QUOTE ]

They taught you wrong. From Answers

The Church also recognizes two other forms of baptism: "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire." Baptism of blood refers to unbaptized individuals who are martyred for the Faith, while baptism of desire refers to catechumens who die before they can be baptized. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes these two forms:

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (1258)

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1259)

As for unbaptized infants, the Church is unsure of thier fate; "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God" (Catechism, 1261).

Stu

[ QUOTE ]
As for unbaptized infants, the Church is unsure of thier fate; "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God" (Catechism, 1261)

[/ QUOTE ]

Was I a believer, I am not sure I would entrust anything to god considering its proclivities.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
In your hypothetical, the woman is assuming that the child will not accept Jesus. Why? Even though most people are not Christian, she is (to the extent that she'd abort her kid to send him to Heaven lol), so the odds are that her kid WILL accept Jesus because it is she who will raise him.

[/ QUOTE ]

This guarantees it. It is strictly +EV

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there anything wrong with this action?

[/ QUOTE ]

If abortion is a sin the answer to your question is yes.

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

All those involved benefit. Sin is meaningless.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
They taught us in Catholic school that unborn children get the benefit of the doubt. Seems a bit wishy-washy to me, but after the stuff about pedophile priests, they're trying to look good

[/ QUOTE ]

They taught you wrong. From Answers

The Church also recognizes two other forms of baptism: "baptism of blood" and "baptism of desire." Baptism of blood refers to unbaptized individuals who are martyred for the Faith, while baptism of desire refers to catechumens who die before they can be baptized. The Catechism of the Catholic Church describes these two forms:

The Church has always held the firm conviction that those who suffer death for the sake of the faith without having received Baptism are baptized by their death for and with Christ. This Baptism of blood, like the desire for Baptism, brings about the fruits of Baptism without being a sacrament. (1258)

For catechumens who die before their Baptism, their explicit desire to receive it, together with repentance for their sins, and charity, assures them the salvation that they were not able to receive through the sacrament. (1259)

As for unbaptized infants, the Church is unsure of thier fate; "the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God" (Catechism, 1261).

Stu

[/ QUOTE ]

As I see it, all possible actions create an issue that compromises God's integrity, or justice, or something in some way.

If the baby goes to hell, it was not given its fair chance to accept Christ. God created the soul with knowledge that it wouldn't even get to choose, and would burn. God is clearly malevolent in this condition.

If the baby goes to Heaven, it becomes strategically correct to abort babies to ensure their salvation. More fairness issues.

I think most people disagree the idea of limbo, and I'd like to call this a non-option. Same with reincarnation.