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

  • Thread starter Thread starter CatholicSoxFan
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
And world hunger is a terrible tragedy too, but we know we can’t kill, even the most unwanted and unloved people, to help others.
Is abortion ever murder Hans?
Here we go again - that’s what I mean by silly little questions.

Why don’t you comment on my figure of only 1.5% of Catholics in the US practicing Natural Family Planning? If the rest uses contraceptives, then Milasol’s figure of 55 million babies killed in abortions becomes laughable.

Why don’t you comment on Pope Francis’ open criticism of the Church for being obsessed with abortion, contraceptives and moral dogmas?
 
Here we go again - that’s what I mean by silly little questions.

Why don’t you comment on my figure of only 1.5% of Catholics in the US practicing Natural Family Planning? If the rest uses contraceptives, then Milasol’s figure of 55 million babies killed in abortions becomes laughable.

Why don’t you comment on Pope Francis’ open criticism of the Church for being obsessed with abortion, contraceptives and moral dogmas?
Thank God for Pope Francis. I pray that his words will bear fruit - and soon.
Keep posting Hans, please. 🙂
 
Thank God for Pope Francis. I pray that his words will bear fruit - and soon.
Keep posting Hans, please. 🙂
I am from Buenos Aires. Pope Francis was our Bishop. He thinks abortion is horrific and has actively fought against it in Argentina.
 
*Originally Posted by *Rau **
A “termination” - a clinical sort of word. So, it is just a medical procedure. Is it akin to removing a skin cancer?

In the case of rape - yes.
Wow :eek: And if the child were to be born, it would be ok to kill it then too, I suppose. Gives new meaning to the notion of the “sins of the father being visited on the son”… The innocent child is to be despised and hated. A worthless cancer.
 
I don’t understand how “circumstances” make the difference as to whether intentionally killing an innocent is or is not murder! Two of us are on a desert island that can only support one of us. May I kill you ?
They don’t get it. Because the baby apparently ceases to be human when they want to.

They’ll realize that each one of us is made on God’s image including the babies when they die.
 
Thank God for Pope Francis. I pray that his words will bear fruit - and soon.
Keep posting Hans, please. 🙂
Here is a quote from Pope Francis. Read and learn

"“Because God is first; God is always first and makes the first move,” he said. “I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else — God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.”

Here is another:

“Defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right,” Pope Francis wrote in the apostolic exhortation.** "It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.**
 
Here we go again - that’s what I mean by silly little questions.

Why don’t you comment on my figure of only 1.5% of Catholics in the US practicing Natural Family Planning? If the rest uses contraceptives, then Milasol’s figure of 55 million babies killed in abortions becomes laughable.

Why don’t you comment on Pope Francis’ open criticism of the Church for being obsessed with abortion, contraceptives and moral dogmas?
I’ve not been demeaning of you Hans. Perhaps you could reciprocate?

I don’t have any idea of whether 1.5% is right or not. But I am sure it is irrelevant in so far as what is truth, and what the Church should teach. Jesus did not take a poll, then preach popular opinion.

The Pope is correct - far too often, the Church comes across as having a voice on these issues, but bit too quiet on others. The failings of its own clergy comes to mind. But the Pope did not for a nanosecond suggest that the Church taught falsehood, or should retract or re-assess teaching.
 
I am from Buenos Aires. Pope Francis was our Bishop. He thinks abortion is horrific and has actively fought against it in Argentina.
Obviously, he draws a distinction between an “inconvenient” pregnancy and cases where abortion would be justifiable.
How else would you explain his language of “the Church has grown obsessed with abortion, …”. Could it mean that the Church is not strict enough?
 
I wonder if you are a man?
I cannot see any justification for any victim of rape to have to carry the child of her rapist.
Equally, in the case of rape, I do not see very early stage abortion as murder.
It would be interesting to have a survey of the views of Catholic women on this issue.
Murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought

So:
  • the killing of a human being. Was the baby a human? If not, what species was he/she?
  • by a sane person. If the mother is insane, how about the physician, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner who performed the abortion? Were they sane?
  • with intent: did the mother and the physician, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner who performed the abortion intend to perform the abortion?
  • malice aforethought: did they wish the demise of the baby or was the death of the baby just an accident?
Sounds like murder to me. But what do I know, being male?
 
I just read your post again. Unreal that some even have the audacity to try and frame the abortion debate with the esoteric almost non-existent case.

Explain 56 million deaths then.
Do not EVER let me catch you posting on the genesis of poverty. ONE WORD about irresponsible sexual behavior and I will be all over you. Fair warning.

Ask the nine-year old little girl whether or not the case is esoteric and almost non-existent.
 
Obviously, he draws a distinction between an “inconvenient” pregnancy and cases where abortion would be justifiable.
How else would you explain his language of “the Church has grown obsessed with abortion, …”. Could it mean that the Church is not strict enough?
Good grief no! :eek: He was referring to “obsessive focus” on the topic, not the “suitability” of the teaching! Here is a reporting of what he said “after” the interview which is clear:

abc.net.au/news/2013-09-21/pope-francis-denounces-abortion/4972852

A further article released by an Australian Cardinal (and referenced in the link above):
sydneycatholic.org/news/latest_news/2013/2013920_354.shtml

To repeat the quote from Pope Francis: *
“Defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right,” Pope Francis wrote in the apostolic exhortation. “It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.” *
 
May I interject? I too look forward to Emily’s answer, but I suspect there are only two possibilities:
  1. Justifiable Homicide; OR
  2. Two - not homicide at all on the believe that the “very early stage” child is not a human.
Argument (1) is a bit like the lost island scenario - two many people for the available food, so we need to kill one (an innocent). But it is counter to a deeply held moral principle that it is wrong to do an intrinsic evil to achieve a good. [Stand by - I’m sure someone will bring up (erroneously) self-defence in a moment…]

Argument (2) is a kind of “out of sight, out of mind” argument.
Argument 2 is difficult for me to understand in a discussion where the person being raped is the determining factor in what may or may not be done. Argument 2 is essentially unchanged by the presence or absence of rape. I agree that “very early stage” sounds somewhat like an out of sight argument, more so than it sounds like say a viability argument, since viability isn’t currently all that early.
 
Well, if I was a physician and have to make an either/or decision on two unborn lives, I would choose the most viable one to survive.

If I had to choose between letting the already-born human or the not-yet-born foetus survive, I would opt for the already-born, fully formed human. That would be an either/or answer. I would also take the physical and psychological health of the mother into account and her future.

Your blind, fanatical, no-matter-what attitude in defence of the unborn reminds me of Richard Dawkins’ book “The Selfish Gene”: The function of a gene is to get replicated and pass on its DNA to the next generation. Once that’s done the previous generation becomes dispensable. Dawkins attributes the apparent cruelty we see in nature to blind physical forces. You, on the other hand, have to come up with the most silly explanation: God creates new life because He wants the mother to suffer (your post #69).
Catholics focus on saving the lives of both mother and child. Why do we reduce this conversation to an either/or decision?
 
Murder: the killing of a human being by a sane person, with intent, malice aforethought

So:
  • the killing of a human being. Was the baby a human? If not, what species was he/she?
  • by a sane person. If the mother is insane, how about the physician, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner who performed the abortion? Were they sane?
  • with intent: did the mother and the physician, physician’s assistant, or nurse practitioner who performed the abortion intend to perform the abortion?
  • malice aforethought: did they wish the demise of the baby or was the death of the baby just an accident?
Sounds like murder to me. But what do I know, being male?
You do not, you cannot, profess empathy toward a girl or a woman who is pregnant against her wishes for whatever reason.

The fetus is a fetus of human origin, so let’s not be cute here. But it becomes a baby when born; till that time it is a fetus.

Sanity or insanity of the mother and all attending practitioners is none of your concern. The sin will not show up on your heavenly tally, so don’t lose sleep over it.

Again, the intent is clear. Women do not have an abortion without knowing what they’re doing unless they are disabled to the point where they cannot make the decision themselves to have the procedure. In that case they will have a guardian ad litem or an adult legal rep to assist them in this journey. Recent changes in abortion law from state to state make it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR what the procedure is, even if the practitioners are commanded to LIE by their governments to the patients about abortion leading to breast cancer, etc. I’m not making this up; do your homework.

Your comment on the demise of the “baby” or the “accidental death” is incredibly callous and vile. You seem to believe that women cavalierly stop by the Abortion Shoppe on their way to get their nails done. Please think again. It is an excruciating rock/hard place for these women. Your attitude is decidedly, emphatically and, unfortunately, UNChristian. I do not believe you represent true Christian thought with regard to the topic.
 
Argument 2 is difficult for me to understand in a discussion where the person being raped is the determining factor in what may or may not be done. Argument 2 is essentially unchanged by the presence or absence of rape. I agree that “very early stage” sounds somewhat like an out of sight argument, more so than it sounds like say a viability argument, since viability isn’t currently all that early.
Well, Emily will need to explain herself. But she has said that killing the unborn child of a rape victim is akin to removal of a skin cancer. I cannot see how/why the rights of the child vary according to the behaviour of the father. Which is why I wondered whether she’d be OK with early stage abortion regardless of whether rape was involved - though she got annoyed with me for enquiring. If the baby is not human, it would not matter whether the mother was a rape victim. But her focus on “rape victims” requires one to assume her view is that the Child’s rights are subject to the mother’s will, because of rape. She expresses (understandable) great empathy for the mother, but none for the baby. It is like a cancer. Pope Francis, whom she lauds, has said the exact opposite.
 
No I don’t, especially in the case of a little girl, already violated and traumatised.
In fact why should any rape victim be forced to carry the child of a rapist. I’ts inhumane.
Being raped is inhumane. Having to carry a baby that is not of your choosing could be inhumane. Killing the baby is a sin.
 
Here is a quote from Pope Francis. Read and learn

"“Because God is first; God is always first and makes the first move,” he said. “I have a dogmatic certainty: God is in every person’s life. God is in everyone’s life. Even if the life of a person has been a disaster, even if it is destroyed by vices, drugs or anything else — God is in this person’s life. You can, you must try to seek God in every human life. Although the life of a person is a land full of thorns and weeds, there is always a space in which the good seed can grow. You have to trust God.”

Here is another:

“Defense of unborn life is closely linked to the defense of each and every other human right,” Pope Francis wrote in the apostolic exhortation.** "It involves the conviction that a human being is always sacred and inviolable, in any situation and at every stage of development.**
And here are some of Pope Francis’ personal opinions he expressed, perhaps just as a compassionate, honest and warm human being, to an interviewer. His humble words don’t need bold letters or larger fonts:

Pope Francis faulted the Roman Catholic church for focusing too much on gays, abortion and contraception, saying the church has become “obsessed” with those issues to the detriment of its larger mission to be “home for all,”.

“We have to find a new balance, otherwise even the moral edifice of the church is likely to fall like a house of cards, losing the freshness and fragrance of the Gospel," Francis said in the interview.

"The church has sometimes locked itself up in small things, in small-minded rules,’ Francis said. “The people of God want pastors, not clergy acting like bureaucrats or government officials.”

“Pope Francis critiques people who focus too much on tradition, who want to go to time in the past that does not exist anymore,” said Fr. James Martin of America Magazine, which published an English translation of the interview. “He reminds people that thinking with the church, in obedience, does not just mean thinking with the hierarchy, that church is a lot bigger than its hierarchy.”

In the interview, Francis does not come out in support of gay marriage, abortion rights or contraception, saying that church positions on those issues are “clear,” but he added that the "the proclamation of the saving love of God comes before moral and religious imperatives.”

Milasol, I have no doubt that there are lots of people in Argentina, and world-wide, who think like you. Our Pope is not one of them.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top