the question is not will the person doing the killing be better off the question was whether the body and the soul of the infant would be better off...nice dodge though very subtle.
So basically the position "every child a wanted child" is plausable because the soft happy and quite place of limbo/hell is preferable in terms of the childs position.
And the straw man about telling people their aborted children are roasting in hell is just that...I never made the argument.
My position is that the soft and pleasent limbo/hell takes away from the tragedy that is an abortion. The soul that has lost its ability to be with its creator in the afterlife might as well be roasting in flames because its just as bad. hell is hell no matter what level. Of course -I like you- wish to hold the pius thought that the aborted children are in a nice place, maybe allowed to cling close to the Blessed Virgin instead of God...who knows....the Church as you said has not proclaimed the state...but it is no good to try to mitigate the evil of abortion with sentementality.
Howdy, Vox! Any other proposition for harsher punishment in regard to unbaptized infants is the true sentementality stemming from one's own vision for a "just" afterlife -- regardless if it proves to be a quite useful tactic for combating the evil of abortion. The truth is far more useful. If one wants to delve into that territory then, frankly, even though the Limbo of the Infants is a naturally joyful state, I think the deprivation of the Beatific Vision in Limbo and the eternal torment and despair to be experienced by an unrepentant parent in the flames of hell, is more than enough stimulus to slap some sense into a "pro-choicer".
St. Thomas Aquinas is quite eloquent as to what is to become of those unbaptized infants in the Limbo of the Infants. I haven't thumbed through this entire thread so I apologize if this has already been referenced. In St. Thomas Aquinas' Supplement to the Summa, the Angelic Doctor states in referencing a Gregory Nazianzen:
Further, Gregory Nazianzen, in his fortieth sermon, which is entitled On Holy Baptism, distinguishes three classes of unbaptised persons: those namely who refuse to be baptised, those who through neglect, have put off being baptised until the end of life and have been surprised by sudden death and those who, like infants, have failed to receive it through no fault of theirs. Of the first, he says that they will be punished, not only for their other sins but also for their contempt of Baptism; of the second, that they will be punished, though less severely than the first, for having neglected it; and of the last, he says that a just and eternal Judge will consign them neither to heavenly glory nor to the eternal pains of hell, for although they have not been signed with Baptism, they are without wickedness and malice and have suffered rather than caused their loss of Baptism. He also gives the reason why, although they do not reach the glory of heaven, they do not therefore suffer the eternal punishment suffered by the damned: Because there isamean between the two, since he who deserves not honour and glory is not for that reason worthy of punishment and, on the other hand, he who is not deserving of punishment is not, for that reason, worthy of glory and honour. (Q.70bis)
St. Thomas continues in saying:
I answer that, Punishment should be proportionate to Fault ... Wherefore, no further punishment is due to him besides the privation of that end to which the gift withdrawn destined him, which gift human nature is unable of itself to obtain. Now, this is the divine vision and consequently the loss of this vision is the proper and only punishment of original sin after death: because, if any other sensible punishment were inflicted after death for original sin, a man would be punished out of proportion to his guilt, for sensible punishment is inflicted for that which is proper to the person, since a man undergoes sensible punishment insofar as he suffers in his person. Hence, as his guilt did not result from an action of his own, even so, neither should he be punished by suffering himself but only by losing that which his nature was unable to obtain. On the other hand, those who are under sentence for original sin will suffer no loss whatever in other kinds of perfection and goodness which are consequent upon human nature by virtue of its principles. (Q.70bis)
Lastly, he states:
Reply - Objection 5. Although unbaptised children are separated from God as regards the union of glory, they are not utterly separated from Him: in fact they are united to Him by their share of natural goods and so will also be able to rejoice in Him by their natural knowledge and love. (Q.71).
Saint Thomas described the Limbo of Infants as an eternal state of natural joy, untempered by any sense of loss at how much greater their joy might have been had they been baptized. He argued that this was a reward of natural happiness for natural virtue; a reward of supernatural happiness for merely natural virtue would be inappropriate since, due to original sin, unbaptized children lack the necessary supernatural grace and so are only deprived of the Beatific Vision.