QUESTIONS RE ABORTION, IRELAND 2013
I have some questions for people who are thinking about the rightness or
wrongness of abortion.
- Is a right to life that does not respect bodily inviolability a right to life
at all? What use is a right to life if people have the right to harvest even a
cupful of blood from you to save the life of another whether you consent or not?
- Is a right to life the same as a right to exist?
- Pro-life claim to respect the right to life of the mother equally with that of
her baby even if only a few weeks into pregnancy. Would they let a mother die
over something that may be too undeveloped to have a right to life the same as
she has?
- Is it not obvious their lives cannot be equally valuable?
- If abortion is wrong is it due to the circumstances not comparable with
murder?
- If abortion is murder and the Church says lying to prevent murder is wrong but
not sinful for you have no choice then it does it follow that counsellors should
tell lies in order to stop women who are contemplating abortion from going ahead
with it?
COMMENT: The Church is too hypocritical to admit it endorses this. Even if it
cannot clearly endorse it, it still is to blame for creating the situation. Not
all endorsement needs to be clear or verbal.
- Even if abortion is wrong, has anybody the right to say it should result in
everlasting damnation if the woman fails to repent and turn to God?
COMMENT: That is hate speech pure and simple. There is no need to go that far.
The Catholic Church hides its hate in its passive aggression and the mask often
slips.
- If calling abortion murder or a grave sin is hate speech then how can it be
pro-life to imply it is better for the woman to die in an accident rather than
have an abortion?
- Have pregnant women been in agony while Catholic hospitals have refused to
conduct aggressive pain management in case it would kill the baby even if it
were possibly dead anyway or was dying?
- Is condemning abortion as the killing of the most defenceless innocent life
out there not indirectly at least calling for the murder of the doctor as
defence of the babies?
[The Church forbids the shooting of abortionists despite teaching that abortion
is one of the worst forms of murder. It refuses to admit that in theory, if
killing an abortionist saves the babies he will abort then he should be killed
for better one death than many. If the abortionist was a doctor killing born
babies the Church would agree he should be shot dead if it's the only way. The
priests know deep down their religion is based on hypocrisy. Their belief does
not really respect the unborn babies. Such hypocrisy festers inside and can make
the priest callous towards say the Church's victims of sexual abuse. The person
who thinks for example that taking the contraceptive pill is murder can get
desensitised, at least partly, in relation to real murder. And we have seen how
all the bishops and priests that knew what was going on hardly any became
whistleblowers. Atheists realise that it is better to allow abortion than to
teach that it is murder. That teaching implies that if it is possible to know
that you can save babies by killing abortionists then you are obligated to do
it. That implication is enough to justify allowing abortion and discouraging the
view that it is necessarily murder.]