Why Do Catholics Confess Their Sins to a Priest?

No One Can Forgive Sins, but God!

Recently articles circulated the internet about Pope Francis granting permission for all priests to forgive the sin of abortion (here for example).  Predictably so, many non-Catholic Christians started their "only God can forgive sins" talk and started bashing (or mocking) Catholics and their sacrament of confession (Sacrament of Reconciliation).   Thankfully, many non-Catholics were merely inquisitive.

Fact is, Catholics do teach that God alone forgives sins.  This is obvious to those who actually have studied Catholicism and not merely listen to what anti-Catholic Protestants are spouting off,

What Do Catholics Believe About Priests Forgiving Sins?

The Catechism (i.e. teaching) of the Catholic Church says:

[Paragraph 1440] Sin is before all else an offense against God, a rupture of communion with him. At the same time it damages communion with the Church. For this reason conversion entails both God's forgiveness and reconciliation with the Church, which are expressed and accomplished liturgically by the sacrament of Penance and Reconciliation.

Only God forgives sin        [yes, these exact words are in the Catechism]
(1441) Only God forgives sins. [cf Matt 2:7] Since he is the Son of God, Jesus says of himself, "The Son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins" and exercises this divine power: "Your sins are forgiven." [Mk 2:5, 10; Lk 7:48] Further, by virtue of his divine authority he gives this power to men to exercise in his name. [cf Jn 20:21-23]

(1442) Christ has willed that in her prayer and life and action his whole Church should be the sign and instrument of the forgiveness and reconciliation that he acquired for us at the price of his blood. But he entrusted the exercise of the power of absolution to the apostolic ministry which he charged with the "ministry of reconciliation." [2 Cor 5:18] The apostle is sent out "on behalf of Christ" with "God making his appeal" through him and pleading: "Be reconciled to God." [2 Cor 5:20]

There are approximately fifteen (15) pages in the Catechism of the Catholic Church detailing the confession, penance, and indulgences.  I certainly will not quote or cover all things discussed therein.  Those who have an opened mind and are willing to honestly learn what the Church teaches will explore more for themselves.

Looking at these divinely-inspired passages quoted, or referred to, in the Catechism we read:

 Therefore, if any one is in Christ, he is a new creation; the old has passed away, behold, the new has come.  All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. So we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We beseech you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. (2 Cor 5:17-20)

Notice there are two aspects of reconciliation being taught here:  the "ministry of," and the "message of."   Again, a whole other blog post could barely cover this.

What Do Catholics Believe About Priests Forgiving Sins?

In John 20:20-23 we read Jesus giving his Apostles the power to forgive sins (kind of like a sheriff sharing his authority with his deputies).  After his resurrection Jesus appeared to those closest to him and to the disciples we read:

When he had said this, he showed them his hands and his side. Then the disciples were glad when they saw the Lord. Jesus said to them again, “Peace be with you. As the Father has sent me, even so I send you.” And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and said to them, “Receive the Holy Spirit. If you forgive the sins of any, they are forgiven; if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”

Now, I am aware this brings about another question about Catholic teaching - the apostolic nature of the bishops and priests.   This is a conversation for another blog post.  But you may wish to explore it on your own.  Again, in order to find out what Catholics believe, go to reliable Catholic sources.  (This link is a good place to start.)  Yet, there is no doubt, if you believe the words in the Bible, Jesus gave his disciples the authority to forgive sins.  This is given to the Apostles (and their rightful successors), not all believers.

What Happens In Confession?

There is no set rule per se.  I've been to several different confessors and each is a little different.  It is certainly not some creepy experience like what is often portrayed in movies and television.

(This link is a typical example of what confession is like.)

What Makes Confession So Special to Catholics?

Going to confession the first time was kind of scary.  I still had some of those old Protestant ideas floating around in my head.  I took a four-page list of all the sins I could remember committing.  Father Leon was my first confessor.  He is a retired diocesan priest of the Diocese of Wheeling-Charleston who was assisting in a communal penance service that night.  My wife & I had met him briefly before and were very impressed with his gentle kindness.

He made me feel at ease and welcomed.  Mercy does that to a contrite person.

I prayed one of the standard Acts of Contrition:

O, my God, I am heartily sorry for having offended you and I detest all my sins, because I dread the loss of heaven and the pains of hell; but most of all because they offend you, my God, who are all good and deserving of all my love. I firmly resolve with the help of your grace, to confess my sins, to do penance, and to never sin anymore. Amen.

He saw me pull out the list and start at the beginning.  He immediately and gently lifted his hands and said something like: "Whoa, I don't want you to read through all those.  Fold that up and just tell - from your heart - what you've done."

I started from the earliest things I could remember.  Some years had more sins than others.  I recalled the horrible things I once said about Mary, the Pope, and the Catholic Church.  Tears filled my eyes... and Father Leon's eyes got a bit teary too.  My heart was broken like never before.  I have cried at altars and pews in Protestant churches many times, but nothing like this.

No act of confessing my sins in my old Protestant settings could compare to this.

As I neared the end of my mental list I began - only slightly began - to feel a sense of peace.   I finished and looked at Father Leon, but all I could think of was looking at Jesus, the God-man who died for my sins; the man who died because of my sins, even if I was the only one in history to have ever sinned.  Yes, Father Leon was there, but so was God.  Whenever two or three are gathered in the name of the Lord, He is there.... remember?

Father Leon said something like:  "That was a good confession."  For my penance he told me to tear up that list and throw it away knowing that God has forgiven me.  That those sins were paid for in full.

Then... Father Leon said some of the most beautiful words a sinner can hear.  Something like:

“God, the Father of Mercies, through the death and resurrection of his Son, has reconciled the world to himself and sent the Holy Spirit among us for the forgiveness of sins. Through the ministry of the Church, may God grant you pardon and peace. And I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. Amen.”

The sins I have prayed over so many times in privacy finally felt torn away from my heart.

Few things compare to this in beauty, peace, comfort, and joy.

Why Not Go Directly to God?

Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI said:

I would say two things. The first: naturally, if you kneel down and with true love for God pray that God forgives you, he forgives you. It has always been the teaching of the Church that [when] one, with true repentance — that is, not only in order to avoid punishment, difficulty, but for love of the good, for love of God — asks for forgiveness, he is pardoned by God. This is the first part. If I honestly know that I have done evil, and if love for goodness, a desire for goodness, is reborn within me, [and if there is] repentance for not having responded to this love, and I ask forgiveness of God, who is the Good, he gives it to me. But there is a second element: sin is not only a “personal,” individual thing between myself and God. Sin always has a social dimension, a horizontal one. With my personal sin, even if perhaps no one knows it, I have damaged the communion of the Church, I have sullied the communion of the Church, I have sullied humanity. And therefore this social, horizontal dimension of sin requires that it be absolved also at the level of the human community, of the community of the Church, almost physically. Thus this second dimension of sin, which is not only against God but concerns A Companion to the Individual Celebration of the Sacrament of Reconciliation 8 the community too, demands the sacrament, and the sacrament is the great gift in which through confession, we can free ourselves from this thing and we can really receive forgiveness in the sense of a full readmission to the community of the living Church, of the Body of Christ. And so, in this sense, the necessary absolution by the priest, the sacrament, is not an imposition — let us say — on the limits of God’s goodness, but, on the contrary, it is an expression of the goodness of God because it shows me also concretely, in the communion of the Church, I have received pardon and can start anew. Thus, I would say, hold on to these two dimensions: the vertical one, with God, and the horizontal one, with the community of the Church and humanity. The absolution of the priest, sacramental absolution, is necessary to really absolve me of this link with evil and to fully reintegrate me into the will of God, into the vision of God, into his Church and to give me sacramental, almost bodily, certitude: God forgives me, he receives me into the community of his children. I think that we must learn how to understand the Sacrament of Penance in this sense: as a possibility of finding again, almost physically, the goodness of the Lord, the certainty of reconciliation. (Pastoral Visit to the Rebibbia District Prison, December 18, 2011)

Yes, I still confess my sins to God in the privacy of my own home, but I also go to confession in front of a priest for the Sacrament of Reconciliation.  Through this sacrament I am strengthened and encouraged, but most importantly, reconciled.

Through somewhat regular confession I have become stronger, yet more aware of my weakness and dependency on God and his Church.

What I once mocked, I now love.

Sources and Further Reading:

http://www.im.va/content/dam/gdm/documenti/pdfvari/24HoursForTheLord.pdf

http://www.catholic.com/magazine/articles/how-can-a-priest-forgive-sin

http://www.bustedhalo.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/how-to-confess.pdf

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catechism/catechism-of-the-catholic-church/

Castro, the Pope, and Common Decency

I'm sure many are connected to people on social media who are not their friends.  I know many people on my friends lists & contacts are not my friends.  Many are acquaintances.  Some I've never met.

However, I try to be friendly to all of them.

If I'm aware the brother (or anyone close) of someone on my friends/contacts list dies, I'm going to send my condolences and offer my prayers.  Sadly I don't find out many of such deaths and are unable to express words of comfort.

 Even if the deceased was a criminal - I'm not going to say something like:  "Hey, I'm glad your scumbag brother died.  He did so many bad things.  So many of us are glad he's dead."

Fidel Castro did many bad things for decades.  There's no denying that.  Hundreds of thousands (probably millions) of people fled Cuba while he was dictator.  Many went into the water on homemade rafts and sailed to Florida.  Many Cubans risked their lives to flee from Castro and his cruelty.  Many people died because of his cruelty.

Yet, when Castro died, would it not be fitting to send condolences to his family?  Sure, especially if you're a Head of State or an international figure.

That's what Pope Francis did and some are criticizing the Pope for being civil.

For instance Allan West said:  "But listen to the Pope’s response to Castro’s death, and you’d get the impression we just lost a hero."  

Castro was cruel on his entire nation - especially the Catholics living in Cuba.  The Pope (and the two Popes prior) have tried to heal the wounds cause by Fidel Castro.  They've pleaded and reasoned for him to change.

Pope Francis was instrumental in opening diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Cuba.

No conservatives were upset when Gorbachev and Reagan became friendly and tried to work things out.  No conservatives blamed a dead Reagan for being a commie when Gorby came to Ronnie's funeral!

Yet, Pope Francis reaches out to the surviving brother, offers condolences and prayers for all - especially the people of Cuba.  He didn't call Castro a hero.  He didn't praise Castro for being a nice dictator.

What's wrong with that?   Nothing.  Wouldn't you want the same?

Here is the full text of the telegram from Pope Francis: 

On receiving the sad news of the death of your dear brother, His Excellency Mister Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz, former president of the State Council and of the Government of the Republic of Cuba, I express my sentiments of sorrow to Your Excellency and other family members of the deceased dignitary, as well as to the people of this beloved nation. At the same time, I offer prayers to the Lord for his rest and I entrust the whole Cuban people to the maternal intercession of our Lady of the Charity of El Cobre, patroness of that country.
Francisco, PP

http://www.allenbwest.com/matt-palumbo/pope-francis-issues-unholy-response-castros-death

(http://en.radiovaticana.va/news/2016/11/26/telegram_for_the_death_of_fidel_castro/1275046)

Answering the Violinist Argument

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

I addressed the first three objections in previous posts.  You may see those post by following the links above.

In this post I address the fifth group of objections: The Violinist Argument.

The violinist argument

            In this objection I present what is sometimes called “the violinist argument.”  This argument begins by accepting that the fetus is a living, human being and that its right to life certainly outweighs the woman’s rights concerning her choice and decisions about her body, so, then, an abortion may not be performed.  However, as Judith Jarvis Thompson goes on to say,

                It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this. You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you—we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug you would be to kill him. But never mind, it's only for nine months. By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged from you.

            Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation? No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness. But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not nine months, but nine years? Or longer still?  What if the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right to life, and violinists are persons. Granted you have a right to decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs your right to decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous, which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding argument I mentioned a moment ago.[1]

This argument is similar to saying that if a woman’s freedom or liberty is being attacked in any way – rape, kidnapping, etc. – then she has the legal authority to repel the attacker.  Whether the attacker is outside of her body or inside is inconsequential, the woman has the right to maintain her liberty and freedom.  If a fetus is threatening a woman’s freedom, she has the right to use lethal force and abort the fetus.

Response to the violinist argument

The violinist argument does sound rather convincing at first, but once a person gets past the appeal to pity the argument sounds off key.  Thompson presents a reasonable argument to something other than abortion.  Her analogy is clever, but it is a faulty analogy when compared to pregnancy and abortion.  Her analogy is faulty in several respects.

Pregnancy is Not a Crime:

First, kidnapping is a crime, pregnancy is not.  Granted, some places declare families may have only a certain number of children; but no one that I am aware is sent to prison because of a pregnancy.  Abortions are performed in China in these cases, but to my knowledge no one is arrested.[2]  Even in places such as China, since parents are not arrested for the first pregnancy it goes to show that it is not a crime.  However, first time kidnappers are not left off the hook.  Kidnapping is repulsive in every culture.  In nearly every culture a pregnancy is often considered a joyous occasion.  In every culture there are women who would love to have a baby; yet I do not think many wish to be kidnapped.  Equating pregnancy to kidnapping is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails.

Pregnancy is Not an Unnatural Surgery:

The violinist argument also fails to be valid by equating surgery with maternity.  The surgical attachment of a person to the outside of another person is an abnormal and unnatural process.  The process of pregnancy is natural and has been happening long before surgery or physicians walked the earth.  Equating surgery to pregnancy is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails again.

Pregnancy does Not Render a Woman Helpless:

In the violinist argument the woman remains helpless for nine months or more.  Pregnant women still are capable of many jobs and activities.  It is true that it is often the case that women are limited to what they can and cannot (or should not) do while they are pregnant, but it is ludicrous to say that this somehow compares to being bedridden with a fully grown man sewn to your back.  Equating these situations is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails a third time.

Pregnancy is Not an Unnatural Bond with a Stranger:

The mother/child relationship is a special bond known throughout the world and history.  Even though there are cases where this relationship is soured with horrific results, the rest of the world was shocked and did not respond by simply saying, “Oh, well, those things happen.”  Every culture expects mothers and their children to possess a bond that cannot be accurately described in casual terms.  Thompson, however, attempts to reason that the mother’s feelings towards her child are of the same nature as her feelings to a complete stranger.  To equate the stranger/stranger relationship with that of a mother & child is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails a fourth time.

Pregnancy is Not Science Fiction:

Another flaw with Thompson’s argument is that she does nothing more than to appeal to a fictitious, extremely far-fetched scenario.  Thompson tries to persuade her readers that since they would justify the woman’s choice to withhold life support in this improbable scenario that we should therefore also see justification in women’s choices that lead to over a million abortions each year.  To equate the rare with the rampant is unreasonable.  Thompson’s analogy fails again.

Abortion is Not Merely Withholding Life Support:

Author, speaker, and radio personality, Greg Koukl also responds to Thompson’s violinist argument.  He comments on the flaws that I too noticed: artificial attachment vs. natural process; equating the mother/child relationship to that of a host/predator type of engagement or to the stranger/stranger relationship.  However, he also points to a most serious flaw in the violinist argument.  Koukl says it this way:  

“In the violinist illustration, the woman might be justified withholding life-giving treatment from the musician under these circumstances.  Abortion, though, is not merely withholding treatment.  It is actively taking another human being’s life trough poisoning or dismemberment.  A more accurate parallel with abortion would be to crush the violinist or cut him into pieces before unplugging him.”[3]  

Koukl found the crucial flaw in Thompson’s argument.  Abortion is not simply withholding life-support from an organism that is dying by natural means.  Abortion is unnaturally and intentionally ending a life that is following nature’s course of life.  Abortion is not withholding mercy; abortion is taking an innocent life.  Equating abortion to the withholding of life-support from dying individuals is unreasonable.  

Thompson’s analogy fails, period.

End Note:

There is help for those who have participated in an abortion.  Rachel's Vineyard is a wonderful resource and place for healing.

---

[1] Thompson, Judith Jarvis, “A Defense of Abortion,” Journal of Philosophy and Public Affairs 1 (1971): 

[2] I do not think abortion is justified even in the case as China’s population problems.

[3] Greg Koukl, “Unstringing the Violinist,” [article online], available from  http://str.org/free/commentaries/abortion/unstrign.htm; Internet; accessed 8 February 2003.  No longer at this site address.  Cannot find update.

---

"Women's Health" Objections: Answering the Pro-Abortionists

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

I addressed the first three objections in previous posts.  You may see those post by following the links above.

In this post I address the fourth group of objections: Objections from "women's health."

The objection concerning endangering the mother’s life

            The fourth objection troubles some pro-lifers:  what if the mother’s life is in danger and an abortion will keep her alive?  Some pro-abortionists will throw this objection back to the pro-life side.  If the intentional act of taking a human life is wrong, and if some innocent woman is about to die because of complications in pregnancy or delivery, then those who have forbidden abortion have intentionally done something that ends the life of an innocent human being, therefore, abortion should be legal at least in the case when a woman’s life is in danger.

            This is a very popular starting point for pro-abortionists.  They cloak abortion under the mantra of “women’s health” or “women’s reproductive health.”  They hide the killing of the unborn baby by redirecting the argument to a potentially life-saving procedure towards the mother.

Response to objections concerning saving the mother’s life

There are two cases to this objection and they must be dealt with separately.  The first is the case where continuing the pregnancy will result in the death of both the mother and the baby unless an abortion is performed.  The second is the case where it is highly likely that one or the other will die, but it is highly unlikely that both will die.  I will answer the first, but I will leave my answer for the second to a later time because it goes into the Principle of Double Effect.  This is beyond the scope of this post.

Save One Life or None?

In the case that it is likely that both mother and child will die, I think it is clear that an abortion is the right thing to do.  This is neither inconsistent nor contrary to my argument.  Here’s why.  We are faced with a dilemma: either only one person lives or none live.  

This is not the same as the dilemma to kill one or to kill two.  

Nor is it the same as the dilemma to let one live or to let two die.  

I am not playing a game of semantics here.  In this case it is certain that the baby will die no matter what course of action is chosen.  Sadly, nothing can be done to stop that.  An abortion will not change the outcome for the baby, but it will save the life of the mother in this case.  Saving the life of one person - and not at the expense of another person’s life - is a noble act.

In the case at hand, the baby is developing, not in a good way, but in a destructive way to two lives.  Something is fatally wrong with the natural process - not just to one human being, but to two human beings.

A life is saved by stopping the pregnancy.  Not stopping this pregnancy is an act that will intentionally end the life of a human being (the mother).  This is in agreement with my thesis.  I could easily say that the pro-abortionists are in agreement with my pro-life position in this instance; that is, acting in a way that saves an innocent human life.

Notice I am not stating that the abortion is performed simply because the baby has a disease (Downs Syndrome, bone deformity, etc).  I am not saying an abortion is permitted because of the baby is not "perfect."  It is morally wrong to perform an abortion merely because the baby has a disease, deformity, or even a life-ending complication.  In these cases the baby should be born and allowed to live out his or her natural life the best we can provide.  We should try to save the child's life in cases of disease.  We should care for the sick.  We don't kill innocent humans beings simply because they're less than perfect.

The case here, when baby is certain to die and the mother will likely die, permits aborting the pregnancy so the mother can live.   A life is saved, but not at the cost of another innocent life.

A Few Statistics on Abortion and Women's Health:

Saving the life of the mother is not why most abortions are performed!
Even the abortionists admit that in their own research:

"The reasons patients gave for having an abortion underscored their understanding of the responsibilities of parenthood and family life. The three most common reasons—each cited by three-fourths of patients—were concern for or responsibility to other individuals; the inability to afford a child; and the belief that having a baby would interfere with work, school or the ability to care for dependents. Half said they did not want to be a single parent or were having problems with their husband or partner.[4]"

There you have it from their own research.  Most abortions are not performed for saving the life of the woman.   Most abortions are for the convenience of the woman.

The Center for Disease Control states:

"Many studies show that an increasing number of pregnant women in the United States have chronic health conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, and chronic heart disease.  These conditions may put a pregnant woman at higher risk of pregnancy complications. Although the overall risk of dying from pregnancy complications is low, some women are at a higher risk than others. The higher pregnancy-related mortality ratios during 2009-2011 are due to an increase in infection and sepsis deaths. Many of these deaths occurred during the 2009-2010 influenza A (H1N1)pdm09 pandemic which occurred in the United States between April 2009 and June 2010.  Influenza deaths accounted for 12 percent of all pregnancy-related deaths during that 15 month period."

The danger to pregnant women is not the baby in the womb, but other diseases that can be treated with methods other than abortion!  In fact, the abortion does not even treat the disease above.  Stop killing the innocent unborn and claim it's for the health of the woman.  

The CDC also states :

"Of the 3,404 deaths within a year of pregnancy termination that occurred during 2011-2012 and were reported to CDC, 1,329 were found to be pregnancy-related. The pregnancy-related mortality ratios were 17.8 and 15.9 deaths per 100,000 live births in 2011 and 2012, respectively."

That is, in 2012, 0.0159 % of pregnancies resulted in the death of the mother.  For the same year, there were 669,202 abortions in the United States reported to the CDC.

 According to the CDC and assuming approximately half of all babies are female, there were approximately 334,601 females killed during an abortion in 2012.

Abortion is not about a female's health.   

The pro-abortion arguments that abortion is all about women's health are invalid. 

End Note:

There is help for those who have participated in an abortion.  Rachel's Vineyard is a wonderful resource and place for healing.

Objections of the Lesser Evil: Answering the Pro-Abortion Argument.

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

I addressed the first two objections in previous posts.  You may see those post by following the links above.

In this post I address the third group of objections: Objections from lesser evil.

Objections from the lesser evil

            A third class of objections try to address the conditions that caused the pregnancy or of the well-being of the child should it be born.  These include pregnancy as a result of rape or incest, pregnancy occurring during an unfortunate time of the woman’s life, or pregnancy to a woman who is unable to or unlikely to love and care for her child.  This class of objections is often given by those who may concede that abortion is wrong and not a matter of choice, but that in these cases it is a “necessary evil.”  Those that offer these objections believe that, should the pregnancy go to term, the woman and/or the child will be in such a predicament that it is best to end the suffering before it gets any worse.

Response to objections of the lesser evil

Rape or Incest:

In the cases of rape or incest we do not give the woman the right to later go and kill the rapist (or the relative).  And, if she is not permitted to later kill the perpetrator of the crime, then why should she be permitted to kill the result of that crime (i.e. abort the baby)?  Will aborting the baby erase the crime?  No, it only adds to the crime.  Certainly we would not approve if the mother decided to have the baby and seven years later look her child in the eye and say, “You are a result of rape.  Every time I look at you I think about the incident and I just can’t take it anymore, so I’m going to kill you and hope that the memory goes away.”   Any person who thinks that of a child is in need of help, but he child needs to be protected nonetheless.

An embryo is as human as a seven-year old, it is just not as developed.  Age and location of the human are not qualifiers for murder.  Abortion in these cases will not heal any emotional wounds.  Having the baby will not necessarily complicate matters either.  The mother can give the baby in adoption or keep the child herself.  There are many parents suffering from infertility who are wanting to adopt and love a child as their own.  None of us can predict the future and know for certain that the mother & child of unfortunate circumstances cannot bond stronger than others and have a love for each other that few others can understand.

Rape is one of the worst crimes.  I honestly would applaud any woman who killed such an attacker as he is committing (or about to commit) this crime.  She is not the taking of an innocent life by killing her attacker.  I would give her words of encouragement and consolation for the rest of her life, but if a pregnancy should come as a result, then an abortion is not a moral option no matter how painful that would be for us to accept.  Sadly, even under such terrible circumstances, neither of us have the right to take the life of this innocent human being that is growing in her womb.  A child unwanted by his or her mother, regardless of the reasons why, is not deserving of death whether they are in or out of the womb.

Inability to Care for the Child:

No one has the right to end the child's life even if the child is wanted by the mother, but the mother is incapable of taking care of the child due to financial, physical, emotional, or intellectual problems.  Abortion is not the last resort.  It should not even be an option because we are dealing with innocent life.  The value of an innocent life far outweighs the emotional comfort of others.  A child unwanted by his mother will most certainly be welcomed by someone else.  The fetus of an incapable mother can most certainly be a child to a capable, loving, adopting mother.

I have seen children living in poverty yet smiling and laughing and playing with their friends.  We would be horrified if someone came along and thought these children should die so they would not have to live in this state of poverty.  So why would we think it is permissible to do the same to a child in the womb?  Age and location of the human are not qualifiers for murder. 

Imagine if someone came up to me and said: “Mark, a year from now you will be living in poverty.  We think it is best that we kill you now so that you won’t have to go through life that way.  Relax, we’ll be doing you a favor.”  I imagine that my reply would not sound very gentlemanly and my actions would likely become threatening to their physical well-being.  

In fact, I was suddenly laid off from work when my son was six-weeks old.  My family went from "getting by" to "struggling."  I had to swallow my pride and collect unemployment, food stamps, and WIC to provide for my family.  Unemployment checks do not go far, my friend.  I know.  There are not many jobs out there for unemployed mathematicians.  Yet, I grew to love my family more & more out of this experience.  I became more aware of how much I love them by realizing how much I'd go through for them.  My love grew during my weakness.  I had a Masters Degree and I ended up stocking shelves for minimum wage, but I loved my infant son with all my heart.

Eventually I got a job teaching.  It didn't pay much and I still struggled to pay bills.  Eventually a better offer came along in less than a year.   It's amazing how much life can change in a couple of short years.  No one has the right to "predict" the future and think their making the right choice by taking an innocent life

Poverty or being unwanted is not justification for taking an innocent life.

The pro-abortion arguments that abortion is sometimes the lesser evil are invalid.

End Note:

There is help for those who have participated in an abortion.  Rachel's Vineyard is a wonderful resource and place for healing.

Answering the Pro-Abortionists' Objections about Choice, Privacy, and Rights.

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following categories:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

In this post I address the second group of objections: Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.  

I'll address the later objections in other posts.

Objections from choice, privacy, and rights:

            These objections say abortion deals with a woman’s body and no one has the right to tell a woman what she can and cannot do with her body.  Abortion is wholly and solely the woman’s choice, they say.  This is probably the most frequent objection hence the name pro-choice.  In fact, some pro-choice advocates refer to the other side of the debate as anti-choice.  Others will just have to deal with it when a woman makes a choice concerning her body, they say.

            A related objection is the right to privacy.  Whatever a woman asks her doctor to do is a private medical matter and the government has no right to legislate anything that would invade that privacy.  This objection appears often in matters of parental consent for minors or for spousal/partner consent.  If a woman wants an abortion she can have it and that is all there is to it, they say.

            Some think since the United States Supreme Court ruling in Row v. Wade made abortion legal it is therefore morally acceptable.  Pro-choice advocates think this makes the issue of abortion a closed matter since it is “constitutionally guaranteed.”  They say it’s a constitutional right to have an abortion and to anyone who tries to take away a person’s constitutional right is criminal (since they're violating someone else's constitutional rights).  The Supreme Court ruled on the matter; the matter is closed.  Do not take away our rights, they say.

Response to objections of choice, privacy, and rights

Is Abortion Merely a Matter of Choice?

It is misleading to say that a woman (or anybody) has a right to do whatever they choose to their bodies .  Sure, a woman has the right to make many choices: hair styles, body piercing, clothes styles, which church to attend (if any at all), for whom to vote, etc.  They are also free to choose to pursue other areas where their choice is not the sole determining factor in the decision.  They may choose to apply for a certain job, but others make the decision to hire her or not.  She may choose to ask a man to marry her, but he still has a right to say no.  Every person has many choices in life that others also have a voice in the matter.  No person – man or woman – is in complete control over every aspect of their life.  An certainly no person has absolute rights to do things with their life, or their bodies, when others are directly related to the consequences.

There are also some choices that we are not to make – even to our own bodies.  If someone is suicidal, others do not sit back and say, “Well, it is their choice.  We shouldn’t interfere.”  The same situation would apply to a woman in cases of anorexia, bulimia, drug abuse, alcohol abuse, staying with an abusive spouse, or self-mutilation.  We would not be outraged if someone else intervened and urged the woman to make a different choice – we would applaud such actions by that other person.  There are some choices we do not allow others to make even to their own bodies.  Therefore, it is not necessarily wrong to make laws forbidding actions against one’s own body.

But, as I have shown, the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body; the fetus is in her body, but the fetus is not a part of her body.  So, the argument of a woman saying she has the right to have an abortion because she has the right to do to her body whatever she wishes fails on two grounds:  1.) the fetus is not a part of the woman’s body and, 2.) she does not in fact have the right to do whatever she wants to her body especially when the outcome of that action has effects on someone else.

Abortion is not a matter of a woman doing something to her own body.  It is a matter of a woman destroying another's body - an innocent person's body.  No woman has a right to do that!

The objection from a matter of choice is not valid.

A Constitutional Right?

Does a woman have the right, even the constitutional right, to kill her child (because that is what is happening during an abortion) for any reason she so chooses?  Absolutely not!  Even though there are currently legal decisions “giving” her that legal right, we must remember that legal rights are not always morally right.  

It was once legal to own slaves and treat them as you wished, but was it right to do so?  No!  Even though slavery was legal, it was not morally right.  The legal right was even upheld by the Supreme Court, but it was later overturned by one President.  The laws of men are not set in stone.  Therefore, the argument from Supreme Court approval is not a valid argument either.

The pro-choice objection from a matter of "constitution" rights is not valid.

A Matter of Privacy?

What about the woman's privacy?  Well, privacy is not an absolute right either; this applies to everyone.  There are many things that I could do in the privacy of my own home - or anywhere else I may have privacy at the moment - that could get me arrested, but I do not do them and then plea that my privacy needs protected.  The same goes for everyone else.  

Say a woman takes her toddler to her doctor and says, “Here, get rid of this child.  I can’t deal with her anymore, she's getting in the way of other things I have planned for life; but, oh, let’s keep this whole thing just between you and me.”  Would the rest of us be expected to say, “Oh, well, she did it in private, so it’s none of our business”?  Certainly not!

Now some object that I am talking about a toddler and they are talking about a non-viable group of cells.  Once again, I say that an innocent human is an innocent human regardless of the point of development.  Age and location of the human are not qualifiers for a life-ending act.  Privacy is not an issue when it comes to terminating the life of an innocent human being.

The pro-choice objection from a matter of privacy is not valid.

Privacy is not an issue when it comes to terminating the life of an innocent human being.

(For a further treatment of my arguments for every fetus being an individual human being separate from the mother, go here and my treatment against the pro-choice objection of personhood of the fetus go here.)

Answering Pro-Abortion Objection on the Nature of a Fetus

Restating My Thesis:

Premise 1:  All acts that intentionally take the life of an innocent, human person are immoral acts and should be illegal.  

Premise 2:  Abortion is an act that intentionally takes the life of an innocent, human person.  

Conclusion:  Therefore, abortion is an immoral act and should be illegal.

This is a valid argument.  

Which means, if the premises are true, then the conclusion is necessarily true.  For more on validity and arguments go here.  For a further treatment of my thesis go here.  

Objections to my thesis tend to fall into one of the following:

• The objection on the being of the fetus.
• Objections from choice, privacy, and rights.
• Objections from the lesser evil.
• Objections concerning endangering the mother's life or women's health.
• The objection base on the Violinist Argument.
• The objection that I should not shove my morality down someone else's throat.  a.k.a. "You cannot legislate morality."

In this post I address the first objection.  I'll address the other objections in other posts.

Objections on the Nature of a Fetus:

            This first set of objections deals with my second premise directly.  Some say that a fetus is not alive because it is not breathing and feeding on its own.  It is not out and about on its own.  If the fetus actively depends on another for life, then it cannot be alive on its own, and if it is not alive on its own, then it is truly not alive.  If it is truly not alive, then how can you kill it?  Or, so what if you do kill it?

This objection says the fetus is more parasitic in nature than it is human.  We do not see humans going around feeding off of other humans and if we did we would certainly put a stop to it immediately.  At least in early stages of development the fetus is not viable; it cannot live on its own.  The pro-abortionist asks what is wrong with stopping the development of a being (or life of a fetus) if it cannot naturally live on its own.

            In early stages of development the fetus may not look too different than the embryos of other animals.  The central nervous system does not begin to develop until after the first month of gestation.  How can it be human without a central nervous system?  Certainly abortions prior to this should be widely acceptable.  Until a central nervous system is functioning the fetus is merely a group of cells – “a bunch of goo” as some have said.  How can removing a mere blob of cells be murder?  It is certainly not a person.

Answering the Objection:

I have demonstrated in my defense that the fetus can be nothing but human.  Humans give birth to humans and only humans.  If a human baby comes out of a woman’s womb then it must be human inside the mother’s womb.  A fetus does not somehow change species or nature during birth.  If someone says this fetus is not human, then the burden of proof is on them to prove exactly what it is and how it is not human.  If they cannot, then it is a grave error to assume their position and end an innocent life as a result.

This is a sort of plea from ignorance on their part.  They reason that if we are not sure what it is we are aborting, then what harm is there?  But, it is strange they do not seem to be too interested in being certain what it is they are aborting.  To them ignorance is bliss.  If a son came up behind his mother and asked, “Mommy, may I throw this away?”   The mother must turn around and determine exactly of what he is speaking.  It would certainly be foolish to grant blind approval.

This also goes for the objection that the fetus is not alive.  Here too I have demonstrated that the fetus is growing, contains unique genetic material, and is developing into a more specifically complex organism.  If these are not indications of a living being, then the burden of proof is on those in favor of abortion to show exactly how such organism is not alive.  Again, conjecture, opinion, or anything short of proof will not suffice in a matter of life & death.

I have given reasoned, scientific arguments that the fetus inside a woman’s body is a living, human being.  If the fetus is not a person or does not possess "personhood," then the burden of proof is on the pro-abortionists to show exactly when “personhood” is obtained, if it is at some time other than when a forty-six chromosomal, human zygote begins developing.  Yet, they continually fall short of this in their dogmatic claims.[1]
  
Is “personhood” based on consciousness alone?  Certainly not.  If it is, then why is it not legal to kill someone so high on heroin that they are oblivious to the world?  It is illegal to kill such a person because they are a living, human being – a person – and consciousness has nothing to do with the matter.

Nature is From the Beginning:

Some argue that an acorn is not an oak tree, but only potentially an oak tree: likewise a fetus is not human (or not fully human) but is only potentially human.  This argument does not hold.  An acorn does not have the potential to become an oak tree – it is an oak tree at the beginning stages of development.  An acorn does not have the potential to become anything other than an oak tree because “oak-ness” is a part of the acorn’s essence.  An acorn will emerge from the ground as a sprout, then grow some more to be a sapling, then grow more to be a larger tree, and will continue to grow until its growth is altered by outside forces; but it is always an oak.

Likewise, a fetus is not a potential human – it is human.  A fetus has no potential to become anything other than a human because “human-ness” is a part of the fetus’ essence.  A fetus will emerge from the womb as a baby, and then grow more to be a toddler, then more to be an adolescent, then to a young adult and so on.  This growth will continue in a natural manner unless it is altered by some outside force; but this fetus is always a human.  Abortion would definitely be such an outside force that terminates its growth in an unnatural way.

"But, It Cannot Live On Its Own."

True, the fetus cannot survive on its own apart from the mother, but that does not make it parasitic, nor is the fetus some form of cannibal.  A parasite attaches itself with its teeth or hook-like structures because the host will naturally try to repel it.  In a pregnancy the human zygote develops into a blastocyst which does attach to the uterine wall, but then the woman’s body welcomes the embryo by developing ways to accommodate the fetus and its development in a natural way.  These changes in the mother’s body are not only in the uterus and for the fetal stage of development, but also for the days following birth.  
During pregnancy estrogen and progesterone levels increase.  These hormones do not come from the fetus, but from the mother.  The result is a growth of the mammary glands.  Following birth the mother’s milk is rich in nutrients beneficial to the baby.[2]  These processes are natural and regular.  The woman’s body goes through changes to sustain the pregnancy and the child for months afterwards.  The woman’s body goes through changes naturally in order to continue the pregnancy.  The woman’s body naturally changes to welcome the fetus and to help it survive.  Pregnancy and birth are the natural life sustaining processes of the body.  Abortion is the unnatural, life ending actions against the baby’s body and a life altering action against the mother’s body.

Even though a fetus cannot survive on its own, that is no justification for abortion.  It is accurate to say that no babies or toddlers can survive on their own either, but that does not justify killing them either.  Many adolescents, adults, and elderly people cannot survive solely on their own, but we do not use that as a reason to kill them if they become a burden to us.  We certainly would not condone the killing of welfare recipients just because they need assistance from others and cannot “make it on their own.”  Astronauts cannot survive on their own outside the International Space Station, but that's no reason to kill them in space.  

So, if not being able to make it on their own is not a justification for killing those outside of the womb, why do some try to make it a justification for killing those inside the womb?  

The pro-abortionist reasoning is severely flawed.

---

[1]  Granted, both sides of the abortion debate are often dogmatic.  Hopefully my arguments will help both sides be less dogmatic and become more analytical & logical.

[2] Starr, Cecie and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, 5^th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1989) p 524.