Rape row sparks excommunications

CiaranMT

The Beeb

This is pretty twisted, in my view.

By Gary Duffy
BBC News, Sao Paulo


A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins. It is alleged that she had been sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather. The excommunication applies to the child's mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.

The pregnancy was terminated on Wednesday. Abortion is only permitted in Brazil in cases of rape and where the mother's life is at risk and doctors say the girl's case met both these conditions. Police believe that the girl at the centre of the case had been sexually abused by her step-father since she was six years old. The fact that she was pregnant with twins was only discovered after she was taken to hospital in Pernambuco complaining of stomach pains.

Her stepfather was arrested last week, allegedly as he tried to escape to another region of the country. He is also suspected of abusing the girl's physically handicapped older sister who is now 14.

Intervention bid

The Catholic Church tried to intervene to prevent the abortion going ahead but the procedure was carried out on Wednesday. Now a Church spokesman says all those involved, including the child's mother and the doctors, are to be excommunicated.
The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, told Brazil's TV Globo that the law of God was above any human law.

He said the excommunication would not apply to the child because of her age, but would affect all those who ensured the abortion was carried out. However, doctors at the hospital said they had to take account of the welfare of the girl, and that she was so small that her uterus did not have the ability to contain one child let alone two. While the action of the Church in opposing an abortion for a young rape victim is not unprecedented, it has attracted criticism from women's rights groups in Brazil.

JonJoeDali

Catholic Church against abortion. Shock horror!

Xizors Palace

Yeah, I saw this on the news. Nearly two years ago. Why bring it up now?

Manach

Perhaps he OP needs an excuse to display his footer attachment.

Fanny Cradock

CiaranMT, is there a particular point to this thread?

CiaranMT

Well I saw this in A&A, thought I might nab it and see what you folks here in the Christianity forum made of it. Didn't realise the article was 2 years old.

Pay no heed to my sig, I'm not looking for fish :P

Rowley Birkin QC

I was also going to post this in here to get the views of Christians on it.

I think it is irrelevant that it happened two years ago. The point still stands that the RCC excommunicated some of its members for saving the life of a 9 year old girl who was also a victim of incestuous sexual abuse.

To me that seems completely twisted and I'm wondering if any of the contributors here can explain it to me/give their views on it.

Cheers.

Fanny Cradock

I wouldn't say that it is irrelevant that it happened two years ago. It would be interesting to learn what has happened in that time.

Whatever about the delicate issue of abortion (and it seems the RC is being consistent in its opposition to abortion), I don't agree with their decision to excommunicate.

I'm not RC, btw.

CiaranMT

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wouldn't say that it is irrelevant that it happened two years ago. It would be interesting to learn what has happened in that time.

Whatever about the delicate issue of abortion (and it seems the RC is being consistent in its opposition to abortion), I don't agree with their decision to excommunicate.

I'm not RC, btw.

It would. If I get a chance I might follow it up later.

In fairness, there was no other option than to carry out the abortion, given the girl's situation.

Xizors Palace

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

I wouldn't say that it is irrelevant that it happened two years ago. It would be interesting to learn what has happened in that time.

Whatever about the delicate issue of abortion (and it seems the RC is being consistent in its opposition to abortion), I don't agree with their decision to excommunicate.

I'm not RC, btw.

The participants in the abortion excommunicated themselves, Latæ sententiæ. That means, by the very act of abortion itself, they excommunicated themselves, in a similar way in which you might saw the branch on which you sit, thus dropping out of the tree. They cut themselves off from the Church by their sin of abortion. The local bishop merely declared what had already come to pass.

There are so many assumptions made and opinions presented as facts. For example, the girl was too small to carry the twins, she would have died, etc... None of which we know would have happened. There are many things that might have happened: there might have been a spontaneous miscarriage; the girl might have carried the twins until they could have been delivered by C-section; etc...

The Church forbids direct abortion and therefore there can be no direct attacks on the innocent unborn. Any medical issues that arose during the course of the pregnancy could have been dealt with as and when.

The pro-abort side use emotive language but they only really care about widespread legal abortion. This girl is a convenient puppet for them to show off in order to advance their nefarious goals. They don't care about the girl; they care about abortion. On the other hand, the Church cares about all: the girl and the unborn children. The little twins had nobody to speak for their equality, their diversity, and their right to life, except for the Church. We must be tolerant of the right to life of others, otherwise our diversity/equality rhetoric is just empty words.

Manach

A slightly more detailed BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7978696.stm report. It is fairly similar to the OP's report, though it does mention that "Opponents of abortion say the girl could have safely had a Caesarean section.".

super_furry

Trying to look at it from a neutral point of view - which is difficult in such an emmotive case - I think most people are outraged because they see the victim of a heinous crime being further stigmatised by the church. A church, which has been linked to similar crimes recently.

There's no mention as to whether the child's rapist was excommunicated either, which again may well be due to biased reporting, or may be because he simply wasn't. Which, again, would lead to anger.

CiaranMT

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The participants in the abortion excommunicated themselves, Latæ sententiæ. That means, by the very act of abortion itself, they excommunicated themselves, in a similar way in which you might saw the branch on which you sit, thus dropping out of the tree. They cut themselves off from the Church by their sin of abortion. The local bishop merely declared what had already come to pass.

There are so many assumptions made and opinions presented as facts. For example, the girl was too small to carry the twins, she would have died, etc... None of which we know would have happened. There are many things that might have happened: there might have been a spontaneous miscarriage; the girl might have carried the twins until they could have been delivered by C-section; etc...

The Church forbids direct abortion and therefore there can be no direct attacks on the innocent unborn. Any medical issues that arose during the course of the pregnancy could have been dealt with as and when.

The pro-abort side use emotive language but they only really care about widespread legal abortion. This girl is a convenient puppet for them to show off in order to advance their nefarious goals. They don't care about the girl; they care about abortion. On the other hand, the Church cares about all: the girl and the unborn children. The little twins had nobody to speak for their equality, their diversity, and their right to life, except for the Church. We must be tolerant of the right to life of others, otherwise our diversity/equality rhetoric is just empty words.

To seriously suggest a nine-year old girl could have carried a pair of twins until they could have been delivered by C-section is ludicrous, frankly.

I am still debating the idea of abortion and the rights of the unborn in my mind and agree that careful consideration should be given to where the rights of the unborn child stand. However, I don't think you'll find a more clear-cut case for the need for an abortion than this one.

What does the Church say about the child rape that her father carried out over a number of years?

Xizors Palace

super_furry wrote: »

There's no mention as to whether the child's rapist was excommunicated either, which again may well be due to biased reporting, or may be because he simply wasn't. Which, again, would lead to anger.

The rapist committed mortal sin and therefore cut himself off from the Church.

CiaranMT wrote: »

However, I don't think you'll find a more clear-cut case for the need for an abortion than this one.

What does the Church say about the child rape that her father carried out over a number of years?

As per the post above, the girl could well have carried the twins and then had them delivered by C-section.

The rapist committed many mortal sins. That is what the Church teaches.

Rape and abortion are both mortal sins.

I found this comment below a story about this case:

This is another case of irresponsible reporting on the part of the press and trying to sensationalise this issue and vilify the Church. If people have done their homework they will come to know that excommunication, or in fact any penal law in the Church, can only be applied to person (baptised catholics) over the age of 16. See The Code of Canon Law (canon 1323, no1). PRESS - please get your facts straight. All the Vatican have done in this matter is to state its perrenial position on the sanctity of human life (from conception to natural death).

However, the accomplises (like the girls parents or doctors who assisted in the case) may have incurred a latae sententiae (ipso facto - by the very act) excommunicated ... therefore, in the case of abortion, excommunication is never imposed by anyone other than by the sinner him/herself (by their very acts).

So it would appear that the girl was not excommunicated because she was too young, only the mother and those directly involved in procuring an abortion.

CiaranMT

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The rapist committed mortal sin and therefore cut himself off from the Church.

Fair enough.

As per the post above, the girl could well have carried the twins and then had them delivered by C-section.

You're citing an unknown, unnamed source from that article, I know the sentence. I'd take the word of the child's doctors myself.

Even getting away from that, how can you think that a nine-year old girl, in the very first throes of puberty can bear one, let alone two babies? A nine year old girl now, mind. A girl similar to those you see making their First Holy Communion in white dresses.

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

Rape and abortion are both mortal sins.

Apparently the father was not excommunicated

The child's stepfather, who allegedly has been raping the girl since she was 6 and is also suspected of abusing her physically handicapped 14-year old sister, was arrested as he attempted to flee for parts unknown. He has not, however, been excommunicated and Sobrinho told Globo TV that "A graver act than (rape) is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life."


So raping your children, not all that bad after all. Who knew...

CiaranMT

Wicknight wrote: »

Apparently the father was not excommunicated

The child's stepfather, who allegedly has been raping the girl since she was 6 and is also suspected of abusing her physically handicapped 14-year old sister, was arrested as he attempted to flee for parts unknown. He has not, however, been excommunicated and Sobrinho told Globo TV that "A graver act than (rape) is abortion, to eliminate an innocent life."


So raping your children, not all that bad after all. Who knew...

Missed that somehow :pac:

Zombrex

CiaranMT wrote: »

Missed that somehow :pac:

Sorry, it is in a different article, not the original one. Google has it a few places if you just type in what I quoted.

Slav

Wicknight wrote: »

Apparently the father was not excommunicated

AFAIK according to RCC canon low, raping a child is not subject to latae sententiae excommunication. Killing a child, including a newborn one is not subject to latae sententiae excommunication either. Abortion is. So this is how Rome is trying to moralise and look pro-life. Fail.

Zombrex

Slav wrote: »

AFAIK according to RCC canon low, raping a child is not subject to latae sententiae excommunication. Killing a child, including a newborn one is not subject to latae sententiae excommunication either. Abortion is. So this is how Rome is trying to moralise and look pro-life. Fail.

Makes you long for the good old days were attending Trinity College got you excommunicated.

I guess excommunication has always been used more as a political tool than a moral one.

Slav

Not sure it was a political tool in case of that abortion. One of the most useful application of the Occam's Razor says that we should not blame politics when someone's actions can easily be explained by human stupidity. They have flawed canon law and they don't hesitate to publicly apply it without considering the damage it does (including the damage to the Church image and the gospel they are supposed to preach). In that particular case there are no winners as far as I can see.

Xizors Palace

Slav wrote: »

AFAIK according to RCC canon low, raping a child is not subject to latae sententiae excommunication. Killing a child, including a newborn one is not subject to latae sententiae excommunication either. Abortion is. So this is how Rome is trying to moralise and look pro-life. Fail.

You make a common error which I will now clear up. Everybody knows it is wrong to rape a person. Everybody knows that. But not everyone seems to understand that it is a very serious sin to kill an unborn child. Everybody knows it is wrong to kill a born child, but people make all sorts of excuses and allowances for abortion in 'difficult' circumstances. The whole idea of excommunication is not to punish but to alert the sinner and everybody else that a serious sin has indeed been committed and is really a plea from the Church to repent.

When somebody rapes a person, everybody knows that is very wrong, but people find themselves making all sorts of excuses and allowances for killing the unborn who is conceived because it was as a result of rape. Somehow, the context of the child's conception affects whether or not he should be allowed to live or not. In rape cases, abortion simply makes a murderer of the mother. Two wrongs do not make a right.

Anybody who commits the sin of rape, sexual abuse, or abortion, commits a mortal sin. Such a person has cut themselves off from the Church and must go to Confession before they can be received back into the Church.

Because a lot of people think abortion is okay. I don't think you'll find anyone that will disagree with you when you say sexual assult is wrong. Whereas abortion, you'll have maybe half agree with you and half won't.

Excommunication is not meant as a standard punishment for sins. Its mean for major violations of Canon Law, or in this case reinforce an act that is generally accepted in society as sin.

SLAV: You shouldn't judge the Church about something you do not understand. This article will help you to understand: http://www.priestsforlife.org/preaching/never.html

To clarify: everybody knows that rape is wrong. But not everyone knows or accepts that abortion is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how the poor infant child was conceived. That is why the Church applies this penalty to anyone who commits the sin of abortion. Both rape and abortion are mortal sins. The excomm on abortions let's everyone know that this is a serious sin, given the doubt and confusion over the issue, doubt which doesn't surround the sin of rape.

Slav

Xizors, forget about rape, that was not my point. Murderer of an unborn baby is latae sententiae excommunicated. Murderer of a newborn baby, even if the baby is 1 minute old, is not. It's as simple as that. No surprise nobody from pro-choice camp listens to Rome's moralising on abortion and the rest of us on the contraception issue as it's presented by Rome. At very least RCC looks inconsistent here and its message is vague.

Xizors Palace wrote: »

SLAV: You shouldn't judge the Church about something you do not understand. This article will help you to understand: http://www.priestsforlife.org/preaching/never.html

If someone's views are not compatible with your own or the RCC's then it's not necessarily because of ignorance of that someone.

Xizors Palace

Slav wrote: »

Xizors, forget about rape, that was not my point. Murderer of an unborn baby is latae sententiae excommunicated. Murderer of of a newborn baby, even if the baby is 1 minute old, is not. It's as simple as that. No surprise nobody from pro-choice camp listens to Rome's moralising on abortion and the rest of us on the contraception issue as it's presented by Rome.

If someone's views are not compatible with your own or the RCC's then it's not necessarily because of ignorance of that someone.

I will say it again: murder of an unborn child is excommunicable. Everybody knows, and it is generally accepted, that the killing of a born infant is a grave sin, so if there is no excomm applied to that, it is because it is unnecessary. The wider society, and also within the Church, have come to view abortion as no big deal. By slapping an excomm on it, the Church is saying Yes, it is a big deal: repent!

You have a very anti-Catholic attitude: you have made that clear throughout this forum on several occasions. So please, don't try to muddy the water just so that you can kick the Catholic Church - you seem to like to do that just whenever you can. You must, I repeat must, accept the diversity and equality of the Catholic Church. You must accept that the Church is able to conduct its affairs as it sees fit. You must be tolerant and desist from seeking to superimpose your views on the Church.

And anyway, this matter is really an internal disciplinary matter for the Catholic Church, so... why are you sniping from the outside?

dublogic

“You must, I repeat must, accept the diversity and equality of the Catholic Church. You must”

@Xizors Palace Enjoying your bully pulpit are we? I am convinced that people like you are hired by anti catholic church groups to demonise the catholic church. Based on your comments thus far I would say you have may have a thorough knowledge of Catholism but no Christ within you.

Thats a pretty tough accusation however I’m getting the impression you coulden’t care less about that girl – as long as the administrative (man made) machinations of the church are seen to then who cares about its humanity? You really need to ask yourself why you are a Catholic? Ego? A great place to judge others? Love for your fellow man?

Xizors Palace

dublogic wrote: »

“You must, I repeat must, accept the diversity and equality of the Catholic Church. You must”

@Xizors Palace Enjoying your bully pulpit are we? I am convinced that people like you are hired by anti catholic church groups to demonise the catholic church. Based on your comments thus far I would say you have may have a thorough knowledge of Catholism but no Christ within you.

Thats a pretty tough accusation however I’m getting the impression you coulden’t care less about that girl – as long as the administrative (man made) machinations of the church are seen to then who cares about its humanity? You really need to ask yourself why you are a Catholic? Ego? A great place to judge others? Love for your fellow man?

All the Catholics want is to be left to 'be Church'* as we believe God is calling us to be.

I've latched onto the diversity rhetoric. I'm not bullying, merely saying we Catholics have rights too. It is tongue in cheek but with a serious point: for all the talk of those who espouse the diversity/equality agenda, there is little tolerance for the Church and her right to be. There is a growing intolerance from the diversity/equality agenda as regards the Catholic Church.

The girl is a victim, but so too were her little unborn babies. They did nothing wrong yet they were punished for the sins of the father.

You should not judge me, for the standard you apply to me will be applied to you on the last day. You accuse me of judging others yet go on to do that which you condemn to me.

Do you care about the humanity of the little unborn innocent babies?
Do you care about the immortal soul of the girl or her mother?
Do you care about the souls of the doctors or the nurses?

Lest we forget: the mother gave her consent to the doctor to kill the little unborn babies. The little babies did nothing wrong.

* I use this phrase tongue in cheek.

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

To clarify: everybody knows that rape is wrong. But not everyone knows or accepts that abortion is ALWAYS wrong, no matter how the poor infant child was conceived. That is why the Church applies this penalty to anyone who commits the sin of abortion. Both rape and abortion are mortal sins. The excomm on abortions let's everyone know that this is a serious sin, given the doubt and confusion over the issue, doubt which doesn't surround the sin of rape.

If the father turned up at a church could he receive communion?

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The little babies did nothing wrong.

Neither did the little girl. The doctors conclusion that giving birth would damage the girl. They aborted the babies to save the little girl.

The responsibility of the abortion rests with the father. Yet he was the only one who wasn't excommunicated.

Xizors Palace

Wicknight wrote: »

If the father turned up at a church could he receive communion?

The father? The step-father you mean. He should not present himself for Holy Communion.

Wicknight wrote: »

Neither did the little girl. The doctors conclusion that giving birth would damage the girl. They aborted the babies to save the little girl.

The responsibility of the abortion rests with the father. Yet he was the only one who wasn't excommunicated.

No, there was medical opinion that the girl could have kept the babies for a while and then be delivered by C-section. Giving birth wasn't an issue if she had c-section. You cannot do evil (murder) so good might come of it. Abortion is not a walk in the park but carries great risk. The end does not justify the means.

I am sure the stepfather would have been very happy with an abortion on the quiet. That way, he could have continued his abuse. This does happen: abortion is used to conceal abuse. In any case, I don't think the stepfather had any input into the abortion decision, therefore, it is one sin he hadn't a part in. As far as I can see, it was the mother who pushed for an abortion.

Read the posts above which I wrote. They explain why the stepfather was not excommunicated. It's clear to me that you have not read my above posts so I'm not going to repeat myself. They are on this page.

Zombrex

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The father? The step-father you mean. He should not present himself for Holy Communion.

If he does what happens?

Xizors Palace wrote: »

No, there was medical opinion that the girl could have kept the babies for a while and then be delivered by C-section.

From who?

Slav

Xizors Palace wrote: »

I will say it again: murder of an unborn child is excommunicable. Everybody knows, and it is generally accepted, that the killing of a born infant is a grave sin, so if there is no excomm applied to that, it is because it is unnecessary. The wider society, and also within the Church, have come to view abortion as no big deal. By slapping an excomm on it, the Church is saying Yes, it is a big deal: repent!

I'm not really interested in reasons why certain actions are causing excommunication and the others are not or why this latae sententiae exists in the first place. It's all RCC internal affairs. What I am interested in however is that the actions of RCC officials were damaging to Christianity and its pro-life message.

You have a very anti-Catholic attitude: you have made that clear throughout this forum on several occasions.

It's personal and therefore off topic here but no, far from it. I'm actually very pro-Catholic. Seriously.

So please, don't try to muddy the water just so that you can kick the Catholic Church - you seem to like to do that just whenever you can. You must, I repeat must, accept the diversity and equality of the Catholic Church. You must accept that the Church is able to conduct its affairs as it sees fit.

Please don't lose connection with the reality. Very little people outside RCC care how it does its internal business and I'm definitely not one of them. However when RCC goes public, even if unwillingly as it was probably the case with the incident we are discussing, it somehow becomes public affairs and you would naturally expect that people will reflect on it.

You must be tolerant and desist from seeking to superimpose your views on the Church.

Another observation for you: when people express their views they are not necessarily trying to superimpose them on you or your respectful Church. Specifically when they articulate them on a public forum they are are normally expecting a good discussion, nothing more and nothing less.

And anyway, this matter is really an internal disciplinary matter for the Catholic Church, so... why are you sniping from the outside?

As I said I would not call it sniping but anyway. There would be no issue with that excommunication if done privately. But once it went public it became a public matter and now it's not unreasonable to expect a public discussion of every possible aspect of it, is it?

Now if you are asking me why am I "sniping" from the outside I can tell you that at this stage I'm not considering it to be "from the outside". I see the RCC as an important part of Christendom; its wins benefit all Christians and its failures damaging it - same as behaviour of my neighbour can damage or improve the image of my whole neighbourhood. The specific topics of my personal interest here are:

1) What's the perception of this story among non-Christians and pro-choice camp?

2) How damaging was it for RCC, Christianity, pro-life camp?

3) Canon Law - good thing or bad thing?

4) Economia and RCC in general and in particular what were the other options (if any) of the RCC officials involved to deal with this issue.

hairy sailor

It's great to see the church taking the moral high ground as usual expecting a poor child to carry twin's as a result of rape,were the church as quick & on the ball excommunicating all the pedophile priest's,i think not

Xizors Palace

Slav wrote: »

It's personal and therefore off topic here but no, far from it. I'm actually very pro-Catholic. Seriously.

Please don't lose connection with the reality. Very little people outside RCC care how it does its internal business and I'm definitely not one of them. However when RCC goes public, even if unwillingly as it was probably the case with the incident we are discussing, it somehow becomes public affairs and you would naturally expect that people will reflect on it.

1) What's the perception of this story among non-Christians and pro-choice camp?

2) How damaging was it for RCC, Christianity, pro-life camp?

3) Canon Law - good thing or bad thing?

4) Economia and RCC in general and in particular what were the other options (if any) of the RCC officials involved to deal with this issue.

I call out not only arguments and so on but also I look at the motivations of those who make various statements. I call that out too. I look behind the claims and so on - I get to the heart of why this person is making comment. I don't call that personal.

There has been a string of stories posted on these forums in an attempt to make the Church look like a bad villain. From the story about the burial ground in Belfast for unbaptised to this story. Supposedly self-righteous stories but with an anti-Catholic agenda.

hairy sailor wrote: »

It's great to see the church taking the moral high ground as usual expecting a poor child to carry twin's as a result of rape,were the church as quick & on the ball excommunicating all the pedophile priest's,i think not

Priests who abuse the youth are in a state of mortal sin. You didn't read any of my previous posts, because I explained all this.

CiaranMT

Xizors Palace wrote: »

There has been a string of stories posted on these forums in an attempt to make the Church look like a bad villain. From the story about the burial ground in Belfast for unbaptised to this story. Supposedly self-righteous stories but with an anti-Catholic agenda.

If and when people post positive stories and articles regarding the RCC, do you automatically assume the person has a pro-RCC agenda?

This isn't an anti-RCC story. It is a story which shows up inconsistencies and unfairness in the logic employed by the RCC.

And you still haven't answered whether you yourself think it fair to expect a nine year-old girl to carry two babies until a C-section is possible?

Xizors Palace

CiaranMT wrote: »

If and when people post positive stories and articles regarding the RCC, do you automatically assume the person has a pro-RCC agenda?

This isn't an anti-RCC story. It is a story which shows up inconsistencies and unfairness in the logic employed by the RCC.

And you still haven't answered whether you yourself think it fair to expect a nine year-old girl to carry two babies until a C-section is possible?

You posted the story to get a response, for whatever private motivation you had, even though the story was nearly 2 years old and had been widely dealt with at the time on internet forums etc...

The girl could have carried the twins 'til they were viable then c-section could be used. Also, she might have spontaneously miscarried had her body been unable to continue. Nature has its ways of dealing with reality. Whatever the case, the doctors would have done the best by both mother and twins to ensure the right to life of all was protected. As it was, the twins were destroyed. This was an unpleasant and difficult incident, but abortion was not the solution.

Pro-aborts like to use absolutes only when it suits them, like 'she will die if she doesn't get an abortion.'' We don't know the future. We do what we can to help mother and baby and that's that.

CiaranMT

Xizors Palace wrote: »

The girl could have carried the twins 'til they were viable then c-section could be used. Also, she might have spontaneously miscarried had her body been unable to continue. Nature has its ways of dealing with reality. Whatever the case, the doctors would have done the best by both mother and twins to ensure the right to life of all was protected. As it was, the twins were destroyed. This was an unpleasant and difficult incident, but abortion was not the solution.

Pro-aborts like to use absolutes only when it suits them, like 'she will die if she doesn't get an abortion.'' We don't know the future. We do what we can to help mother and baby and that's that.

We don't know the future. That's true. Why, then, do you continue to assert that the girl could have carried two babies, when her doctors stated that it was unsafe to do so?

The idea that a little nine year old girl should carry 2 unborn babies (and put her own health at serious, serious risk) as a result of rape on the part of her step-father, to fall in line with Church doctrine really doesn't make the RCC look all that good. Do you disagree?

Xizors Palace

CiaranMT wrote: »

Do you disagree?

I don't agree with you. I've already said that. I said what I meant to say in my above post.

Manach

The Church is not meant to appear good, but to embody goodness (which it does on average -historically )
However, the death of the unborn was the actual result of this abortion. The Church seemed to take their position not only based on the tragic circumstances on that case but to lay down a marker for, in legal terms, public policy reasons to state that choosing abortion as a first option is wrong and other options be considered.

Xizors Palace

Manach wrote: »

However, the death of the unborn was the actual result of this abortion. The Church seemed to take their position not only based on the tragic circumstances on that case but to lay down a marker for, in legal terms, public policy reasons to state that choosing abortion as a first option is wrong...

You're right, and that was why Pope John Paul II slapped an excomm latae sententiae penalty on the crime of abortion, just at a time when increasing numbers of people were coming to regard abortion as neutral or good, the Church reminds us that, no, abortion is a grave evil.

The teaching of the Church is clear:

Abortion

2270 Human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. From the first moment of his existence, a human being must be recognized as having the rights of a person - among which is the inviolable right of every innocent being to life.72

Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, and before you were born I consecrated you.73
My frame was not hidden from you, when I was being made in secret, intricately wrought in the depths of the earth.74

2271 Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law:

You shall not kill the embryo by abortion and shall not cause the newborn to perish.75
God, the Lord of life, has entrusted to men the noble mission of safeguarding life, and men must carry it out in a manner worthy of themselves. Life must be protected with the utmost care from the moment of conception: abortion and infanticide are abominable crimes.76

2272 Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. "A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae,"77 "by the very commission of the offense,"78 and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law.79 The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.

2273 The inalienable right to life of every innocent human individual is a constitutive element of a civil society and its legislation:

"The inalienable rights of the person must be recognized and respected by civil society and the political authority. These human rights depend neither on single individuals nor on parents; nor do they represent a concession made by society and the state; they belong to human nature and are inherent in the person by virtue of the creative act from which the person took his origin. Among such fundamental rights one should mention in this regard every human being's right to life and physical integrity from the moment of conception until death."80

"The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law. When the state does not place its power at the service of the rights of each citizen, and in particular of the more vulnerable, the very foundations of a state based on law are undermined. . . . As a consequence of the respect and protection which must be ensured for the unborn child from the moment of conception, the law must provide appropriate penal sanctions for every deliberate violation of the child's rights."81

The Church cares about the immortal souls of all and about the future souls which would be destroyed by abortion should the vicious practise gain a foothold. In abortion, the souls of the mother and all participants and enablers is placed in very grave danger of damnation. The little babies are also deprived of their life and of their right to be baptised into the Church.

FISMA

Abortion in the case of rape or incest is the standard argument used by pro-lifers to justify their cause.

That's a pretty tough sentence on the unborn child - the death penalty that is - for an act that was no fault of their own.

I thought punishing the child for the sins of the father, so to speak, was something that was stopped a long time ago, like old testament times.

Apparently not.

Memnoch

FISMA wrote: »

Abortion in the case of rape or incest is the standard argument used by pro-lifers to justify their cause.

That's a pretty tough sentence on the unborn child - the death penalty that is - for an act that was no fault of their own.

I thought punishing the child for the sins of the father, so to speak, was something that was stopped a long time ago, like old testament times.

Apparently not.

I understand the argument against abortion. I really do. I'm on the fence, have been for the last 10 years almost on this issue because I like to base my opinions on sound scientific logic and in this case the science is still unconvincing.

I don't know at what point something is life. It may very well be at conception. I can see a strong argument for it certainly, and sometimes I do think that the religious perspective on this issue might be the correct one (though perhaps not always for the right reasons.) There may come a time in the future 200-300 years ago when we learn more science that the abortions of our day come to be regarded as a great barbarity, like we regard slavery or many other heinous acts. On the other hand, they might not. But its an unsurity I'm not comfortable with.

However, when I see pro-lifers make such once sided emotive arguments that go on and on about the rights of the child but completely ignore the balance of the issue and the rights of the mother, I find that both distressing and disingenous and become quite disinclined to listen to them and disenchanted from their point of view.

You cannot talk about the punishment inflicted on the foetus and ignore the punishment inflicted on the victim of rape without seeming like an utter hypocrite in my eyes.

I think rape is probably the issue where I would definitely be in the pro-choice camp.

Water_Walker

I realize that the time of the occurrence of this article has passed but I would like to add that the most important person it this situation is the child, what did she want? It wasn't her sin that created the pregnancy for it is the Father that goes before us always, the sin is on Him by allowing this to happen. If she didn't want to carry the pregnancy to its fruition, then the most loving act to be visited upon her is for her to be told she had a choice, that her voice matters most dear to the Father and that if in her heart of hearts she didn't want to become a mother at 9 years of age that He would bear the sin of the abortion on her behalf. This is my understanding of the spirit of the Father and I believe we should have compassion and forgiveness towards those who would seek to push others away from love, and the truth of his eternal and inextinguishable love for us.
Someone recounted this saying to me recently. "if you want the Father to move mountains, he expects you to bring a shovel". We have to love one another, we have to include each other and treat each other without judgement or repression regardless of age or mental state.

FISMA

Memnoch wrote: »

There may come a time in the future 200-300 years ago when we learn more science that the abortions of our day come to be regarded as a great barbarity, like we regard slavery or many other heinous acts. On the other hand, they might not. But its an unsurity I'm not comfortable with.

I believe the parallels to slavery are already there, particularly of blacks.

Black people were not thought of as "fully human" or human at all. It was important to de-humanize them, as in doing such, you could do what you liked with them.

I throw my television in the garbage without a moral dilemna, as I do not believe it is a conscious being.

My grandfather had a horse to draw hay from the meadow. He was kind to the horse and I never felt bad that the horse was his property doing his labor.

This is exactly what the pro-choice crowd does these days - dehumanize the fetus. It's not a person. Once you dehumanize the baby, you can do whatever you want with it.

As for science and life, do you believe that science can fully define life? Science is the study of the natural world. Let science first come up with an equation for consciousness and I'll be willing to yield more to science in this debate.

Memnoch wrote: »

You cannot talk about the punishment inflicted on the foetus and ignore the punishment inflicted on the victim of rape without seeming like an utter hypocrite in my eyes.

Is it definitive and deterministic that having an abortion helps the victim? Does the second wrong make it right? Or better? Rhetorical questions, not posing them to you, sorry if it seems that way. Your post is fair and I agree there's a dilemma.

However, believing in God, I believe in absolutes, not moral relativism.

Absolutely, children come first.

No-one is saying that it is an easy decision, however, a decision must be made. In my opinion, children come first.

Memnoch

FISMA wrote: »

I believe the parallels to slavery are already there, particularly of blacks.

Black people were not thought of as "fully human" or human at all. It was important to de-humanize them, as in doing such, you could do what you liked with them.

I throw my television in the garbage without a moral dilemna, as I do not believe it is a conscious being.

My grandfather had a horse to draw hay from the meadow. He was kind to the horse and I never felt bad that the horse was his property doing his labor.

This is exactly what the pro-choice crowd does these days - dehumanize the fetus. It's not a person. Once you dehumanize the baby, you can do whatever you want with it.

You're jumping the gun a little bit there. This idea that people de-humanize the foetus so that it is easier to commit abortions, like there is some vast conspiracy to kill as many 'babies,' as possible, is just not something I find credible. Abortion is a terrible, horrible choice that some women make, but I doubt they do so lightly, even though it may seem that way to you.

As for science and life, do you believe that science can fully define life? Science is the study of the natural world. Let science first come up with an equation for consciousness and I'll be willing to yield more to science in this debate.

Well, I don't believe that religion defines anything. I also believe that most of the good things and progress we have made are down to science and the scientific method. There may be some questions that science will never answer, I don't know. But for me, religion does not answer any questions.

Is it definitive and deterministic that having an abortion helps the victim? Does the second wrong make it right? Or better? Rhetorical questions, not posing them to you, sorry if it seems that way. Your post is fair and I agree there's a dilemma.

This isn't really my reasoning though. Here is how I see it.

Abortion may or may not be damaging to a human life. (the line in my mind is still blurred about this.)

Forcing a woman (or in this case a CHILD) to carry a rape pregnancy to term definitely is. Hence I lean towards the side that I consider to be definitely harmful rather than the side that I consider to be possibly harmful.

However, believing in God, I believe in absolutes, not moral relativism.

There are countless millions who based their belief in God and followed moral absolutes throughout history. They have committed countless atrocities following those beliefs. I do not feel that any true God would not expect us to question everything.

Absolutely, children come first.

No-one is saying that it is an easy decision, however, a decision must be made. In my opinion, children come first.

Well, firstly, we'd have to agree that THEY ARE children, and that's where the crux of the disagreement between the pro-choice and pro-life argument lies. As I said, I'm not sure about this. Secondly, I'm not convinced that children SHOULD come first. It always pisses me off when I see a news report about how some American missile hit a house in Iraq or Afghanasthan or Pakistan and they mention "20 women and children were killed.' Like the lives of men are less important, or they were probably all terrorists anyway. If you say all human beings are equal then all really should be equal.