Abortion in the case of rape AND the life of the mother

[Milasol]

You are talking about your personal experience in one single crisis center in a first-world country.

Let’s look at it world-wide. If the estimated yearly rape cases in South Africa is 500,000, then the world-wide number must be in the tens of millions. If only 1% of those poor women get pregnant, that’s an awful lot of pregnancies due to rape. Many might be able to handle this traumatic experience and see it through for another 9 months without becoming a psychological wreck, but thousands of others won’t. I think that this problem needs to be addressed.

Still can you tell God one life is less than another?

And I am from a third world country. I know how many try to frame the debate of abortion.

All I say is that one won’t solve rape with abortions, clearly. One won’t solve the trauma of rape by adding additional trauma with abortion. And one can certainly help the woman. But let’s try and reduce rape first and foremost and not try and justify abortion.

And I work in a women crisis center that is involved internationally with about a hundred other crisis centers.

The stats here are that of less than 1%. In other countries it might be higher or lower. Still I don’t see justification for killing anyone. Rape does not justify the murder of someone. It should prompt other ways to try and solve the core of the problem and not the consequence.

Lastly, can you really say that the life of the child is less valuable to God than that of the mother?

 

[Hans_W]

Still can you tell God one life is less than another?

And I am from a third world country. I know how many try to frame the debate of abortion.

All I say is that one won’t solve rape with abortions, clearly. One won’t solve the trauma of rape by adding additional trauma with abortion. And one can certainly help the woman. But let’s try and reduce rape first and foremost and not try and justify abortion.

And I work in a women crisis center that is involved internationally with about a hundred other crisis centers.

The stats here are that of less than 1%. In other countries it might be higher or lower. Still I don’t see justification for killing anyone. Rape does not justify the murder of someone. It should prompt other ways to try and solve the core of the problem and not the consequence.

Lastly, can you really say that the life of the child is less valuable to God than that of the mother?

No, we cannot put a value on a life, we must do our best to protect the innocent unborn life. But we also need to consider the already-born lives. I cannot imagine how it must feel to have to carry the child of a rapist, perhaps a violent criminal, somebody you are going to hate all your life. Some women might be able to handle this, but I can fully understand that this experience can destroy other women for the rest of their lives.

I wonder how many women have committed suicide in such a situation, out of desperation. Not everybody can go to a crisis center, and even that won’t help everybody.

I know, it must be very difficult to filter out the really desperate cases. Many will exploit these kind of loopholes. But there should be some medical + psychological assessment available for extreme cases.

 

[Milasol]

No, we cannot put a value on a life, we must do our best to protect the innocent unborn life. But we also need to consider the already-born lives. I cannot imagine how it must feel to have to carry the child of a rapist, perhaps a violent criminal, somebody you are going to hate all your life. Some women might be able to handle this, but I can fully understand that this experience can destroy other women for the rest of their lives.

I wonder how many women have committed suicide in such a situation, out of desperation. Not everybody can go to a crisis center, and even that won’t help everybody.

I know, it must be very difficult to filter out the really desperate cases. Many will exploit these kind of loopholes. But there should be some medical + psychological assessment available for extreme cases.

We provide medical (free health insurance for pregnant women and this is provided nationally), we also provide psychological, emotional support.
We also provide babysitting for girls to finish HS
We also provide shelters (this is also provided nationally)
We provide adoption (open, close) counseling and direct process
We provide nutrition needs for mother and child
We provide clothing for mother and child
We provide clothing, furniture, all throughout
We also provide life guidance (an overarching counseling program to help poor mothers and mothers in crisis get out of circumstances and help them live better lives)
We also provide a whole host of other services and we are linked with about a hundred other crisis centers as well as the vast number of charitable organizations.

Yes, it is horrible for the women to carry that child, however we don’t kill. Under any circumstances we don’t kill. We also don’t solve a crime with a murder.

It is horrible for the woman but it is also horrible for the baby to be killed.

Where I work we are very well aware of the horrible situation these rape victims find themselves in and go through, but we don’t ever, ever, ever solve the situation by killing that unborn child. Innocent child. The criminal is not the child but the rapist so the child should not get a death sentence.

Suicide is highest in women who have had abortions… and by far.

Nothing justifies the killing of that child. Not even the rape that a criminal committed. We help the mother in that difficult situation with all of our will and power but we do not kill. That life that a rape victim is carrying due to a crime is innocent. Innocent.

 

[LoganBice]

You are talking about your personal experience in one single crisis center in a first-world country.

Let’s look at it world-wide. If the estimated yearly rape cases in South Africa is 500,000, then the world-wide number must be in the tens of millions. If only 1% of those poor women get pregnant, that’s an awful lot of pregnancies due to rape. Many might be able to handle this traumatic experience and see it through for another 9 months without becoming a psychological wreck, but thousands of others won’t. I think that this problem needs to be addressed.

How do you propose we solve this issue?

that statistic is the United States. I am from the United States, I fight to end abortion here! I do not have the ability or power to end abortion in South Africa except through prayer.

 

[Prodigirl]

I don’t think the abortion argument usually hinges on who is responsible for the child being in the womb …

IT SHOULD. I will not spend three days here making a sound argument for advance consideration of prophylactic sexual behavior, but anyone who engages in sexual activity who does not or cannot afford to create life should either cease and desist or use birth control. Anyone who uses NPF should be totally prepared for conception, and anyone else should use the effective birth control method that best suits them. This is not for anyone outside the sexual relationship to judge. If a man or woman believes in God and takes prophylactic measures, that is between them and their God. If God considers this to be immoral, then they will suffer whatever consequences are due down the line. If they are non-believers, that is between them only. If someone outside the union believes that God exists and the non-believer is foolish or immoral, those are thoughts best kept to the self.

Men and women are equally responsible for conception if the sexual activity is consensual. It is critical that this fact not be swept under the rug. The problem and the solution exist before the sex act takes place, not after.

 

[Pug]

IT SHOULD. I will not spend three days here making a sound argument for advance consideration of prophylactic sexual behavior, but anyone who engages in sexual activity who does not or cannot afford to create life should either cease and desist or use birth control. Anyone who uses NPF should be totally prepared for conception, and anyone else should use the effective birth control method that best suits them. This is not for anyone outside the sexual relationship to judge. If a man or woman believes in God and takes prophylactic measures, that is between them and their God. If God considers this to be immoral, then they will suffer whatever consequences are due down the line. If they are non-believers, that is between them only. If someone outside the union believes that God exists and the non-believer is foolish or immoral, those are thoughts best kept to the self.

Men and women are equally responsible for conception if the sexual activity is consensual. It is critical that this fact not be swept under the rug. The problem and the solution exist before the sex act takes place, not after.

Short Reply: Your snip from my post is out of the context I gave it, so your post is not related to what I said.

Long Reply: I was replying to CatholicSoxFan, whom I thought would be helped with his/her dilemma by directing attention towards double effect or direct action verses side effects. In fact, later in the thread this proved to be the case that he reported on that way of thinking being helpful, but in response to some other poster besides me, and in different language.

As I meant it, no it does not matter if you were raped or if you voluntarily chose to have sex. Either way the answer is the same: you can’t kill an innocent child. The same would go for some drug like the pill. If you get pregnant while on it, you still can’t kill an innocent child.

To address your point, which is not what I was talking about, yes, one ought to pay attention to what one is doing. Sex has a purpose and known effects. It is irrational to ignore that. Don’t have sex if that is what needs to happen. Abstinence makes sense in many circumstances. I don’t support contraception, but that is outside the topic of the thread. Both men and women are responsible parties, but again, that is outside the topic of the thread.

 

[LoganBice]

This is how I think about it when I start to wonder why people can’t just sleep around because it’s pleasurable… I remember 1) God said not to and 2) I think of this analogy. You eat food to survive, that’s it’s purpose and design but as a secondary trait eating food can be pleasurable. If you begin to eat solely for pleasure you become overweight because you are abusing the intended purpose of food. That’s how sex is. It’s intended purpose is to create life but if you abuse it and do it soley doe the secondly characteristic of pleasure then you will be hit with consequences such as pregnancy and stds which lead to another set of delimma a and issues you must face. It really just comes to show that sin does have a ripple effect when you commit them. Some more then others.

 

[Emily2014]

There was a similar thread on this forum which started end of May. I am sure you can find it. The question of permissible abortion was specifically addressed to a case in Brazil a couple of years ago.

In brief, the victim was a 9-year-old girl abused repeatedly by her stepfather. She complained about stomach pain, was taken to a hospital by her mother and was diagnosed as 15-week pregnant with twins. The child weighed 80 pounds (35 kg) and the doctors stated that her life was in danger. Her body, her uterus, was too small to support one baby, let alone two. Not a surprise diagnosis.

Anyway, the discussion went on for weeks on this forum. In the end I was the only one pleading for common sense and compassion for this poor 9-year old child. I was attacked by half a dozen posters telling me that I wasn’t a Catholic if I argue for an abortion, even in such extreme circumstances.

To the other posters : If she had been your daughter ?!!!
There are many very young girls in this situation. I am sure that Our Blessed Lord would not wish them to endure more suffering that that already caused by the rape.
Surely we cannot generalise on these issues.

God bless you

 

[Milasol]

To the other posters : If she had been your daughter ?!!!
There are many very young girls in this situation. I am sure that Our Blessed Lord would not wish them to endure more suffering that that already caused by the rape.
Surely we cannot generalise on these issues.

God bless you

Are you saying that the very soul God created should be killed because He doesn’t want the woman to suffer?

Se we should kill the person God created because He doesn’t really want that person alive?

What about crosses?

What about the child?

What about eternity?

~90 years here with a cross outweighs eternal salvation?

If God didn’t want the woman to suffer why did He create that child?

Does the child not suffer?

It is a horrible situation, I know that, but do we kill and solve the problem?

If one child sees his brother being taken to the gas chambers, do we kill that child so he doesn’t suffer for the rest of his life the trauma of seeing his brother gassed to death?

If it was my daughter I would not certainly advise her to kill that child. Abortion does destroy women. That is something not many want to talk about. I personally know women who aborted and now the cross they have is almost not bearable.

 

[LoganBice]

To everyone who keeps saying “I don’t think God would…” Just remember you don’t speak for God. The teaching of the Catholic church is the teaching of God, not your speculation.

God Bless

 

[Hans_W]

If God didn’t want the woman to suffer why did He create that child?

I would love to see your answer to this question, before I give you my take.

Then we’ll look at the rest of your argumentation.

 

[Milasol]

I would love to see your answer to this question, before I give you my take.

Then we’ll look at the rest of your argumentation.

The answer is in the question. God created a person and I am nobody to go against God’s will and destroy that person.

 

[LoganBice]

ARTICLE 5
THE FIFTH COMMANDMENT

You shall not kill.54
You have heard that it was said to the men of old, “You shall not kill: and whoever kills shall be liable to judgment.” But I say to you that every one who is angry with his brother shall be liable to judgment.55

2258 "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being."56

 

[LoganBice]

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

2274 Since it must be treated from conception as a person, the embryo must be defended in its integrity, cared for, and healed, as far as possible, like any other human being.

Prenatal diagnosis is morally licit, "if it respects the life and integrity of the embryo and the human fetus and is directed toward its safe guarding or healing as an individual. . . . It is gravely opposed to the moral law when this is done with the thought of possibly inducing an abortion, depending upon the results: a diagnosis must not be the equivalent of a death sentence."82

 

[Emily2014]

Hans W. was originally referring to the horrendous rape of a 9 year old child. O.k, physically the poor lamb was able to conceive, but mentally and emotionally she was a little girl - a cruelly abused little girl.
Surely no-one could possibly believe that our priority should be other than to try to save her sanity and that of all other young victims, whose innocent lives are violated in such a terrible way.
Perhaps those who are so vehement in their ‘umbrella assumption’ of the evil of all abortion should consider that each situation is different and temper their judgement with mercy.

God bless you.

 

[LoganBice]

Hans W. was originally referring to the horrendous rape of a 9 year old child. O.k, physically the poor lamb was able to conceive, but mentally and emotionally she was a little girl - a cruelly abused little girl.
Surely no-one could possibly believe that our priority should be other than to try to save her sanity and that of all other young victims, whose innocent lives are violated in such a terrible way.
Perhaps those who are so vehement in their ‘umbrella assumption’ of the evil of all abortion should consider that each situation is different and temper their judgement with mercy.

God bless you.

I do understand the case about this 9 year old. In such a case, at least in my understanding, her life would have been threatened. Although you cannot kill the child with te intention to kill it you may take medical procedures to save the mother by removing the child early without the intention of killing the baby but it may result in the fact. We must also understand that majority of abortions are not 9 year old rape victims. That’s a pretty rare case.

 

[Milasol]

Hans W. was originally referring to the horrendous rape of a 9 year old child. O.k, physically the poor lamb was able to conceive, but mentally and emotionally she was a little girl - a cruelly abused little girl.
Surely no-one could possibly believe that our priority should be other than to try to save her sanity and that of all other young victims, whose innocent lives are violated in such a terrible way.
Perhaps those who are so vehement in their ‘umbrella assumption’ of the evil of all abortion should consider that each situation is different and temper their judgement with mercy.

God bless you.

Umbrella assumption?

Abortion is evil and so is rape. What makes rape more evil than the murder of a child? Tell me. What makes rape of a child more evil than the actual killing of a child? If anything they are equally evil.

If a rape of a child happened let’s try and not kill another child because of it.

Yes is it horrible that a child got rape but it is equally horrible that a baby gets killed.

People who try and frame the abortion debate based on a supposed case that almost never happens need to then explain the 56 million deaths in this country alone.

We are not God. We can’t kill. Is that simple. We don’t solve a tragedy with murder.

Those who try to justify abortion, the killing of a child, by presenting a rape case of a child need to explain how one evil is solved with another evil.

 

[Hans_W]

The answer is in the question. God created a person and I am nobody to go against God’s will and destroy that person.

In your post #61 you asked the following question:

“If God didn’t want the woman to suffer, why did He create that child”

What are you implying with this question? As I understand it, you are saying that God wants this 9-year old child to suffer and that’s why He made her pregnant. And we must not interfere with her suffering because God wants it so.

 

[Milasol]

In your post #61 you asked the following question:

What are you implying with this question? As I understand it, you are saying that God wants this 9-year old child to suffer and that’s why He made her pregnant. And we must not interfere with her suffering because God wants it so.

Nope I am saying that the woman will suffer, yet the child is a person created by God. So since God created that person in her womb then he must know about her suffering as well.

And we are called to bear crosses as well.

Also, tell me again is the life of the baby less valuable to God than the girl’s life? Can we decide for God?

I also repeat, those who try to frame the abortion debate by bringing in incredibly esoteric cases (almost non-existent cases) such as a 9 years old girl getting raped, need to explain 56 million deaths due to abortion. Also they need to tell me if God thinks the life of the baby is less valuable to Him that that of the girl.

If one thinks that life is a creation of God as the Church also thinks then one can’t decide who is more valuable. Period.

We cope, we bear, we help, we try to minimize suffering, but we don’t kill.

 

[runningdude]

To introduce some facts into the debate -

On average 85 000 women are raped in England and Wales each year.

It is standard procedure to offer victims of the crime of rape the morning after pill.

…

The “morning after” pill is not at minimum, not primarily an abortifacient, and possible not one at all. The scientific evidence conflicts.

Women can only possibly become pregnant following ovulation. Until ovulation occurs, pregnancy is simply impossible. There is approximately a three day window during which pregnancy is possibly, including a short time before ovulation when sperm are still viable to fertilize an egg. The morning after pill primarily blocks ovulation from occurring, and blocks the sperm from entering the egg if ovulation has occurred. Thus no conception occurs. No conception = no child = no abortion.

There is conflicting evidence as to whether oral contraception administered after intercourse could interfere with a fertilized egg, a child, from implanted. The evidence at worse, shows a slight increase over the rate of spontaneous miscarriage (where a child dies prematurely of natural causes ) Other studies have shown no difference whatsoever. In any case, there is no difference between “morning after” and “regular” contraceptive use.

Contraception is taught definitively by the Holy Catholic Church to be immoral for all persons; its immorality however is distinct from the immorality of abortion. There is a small exception in the case of rape, where a Catholic hospital may offer emergency contraception if tests show ovulation has not occurred, and this is because of the potential slight increase of harm to an undetected fetus.

Even if this increased risk were true, it would be grossly inaccurate to classify all use of emergency contraception as a procurement of an abortion or as morally equivalent to abortion.