Abortion in the context of child rape victims

[VoiceofTruth]

I’ve just been recently swept up into a debate about abortion and whether it is justifiable or not, and am struggling to answer a pro-choice advocate’s argument according to the Catholic view on abortion. Basically, the person brought up cases of young girls (from the ages of 6 months to 10 years old) getting raped and how overwhelming and even dangerous it would be for girls that young to give birth and have responsibility for the child. The response, in their view, is to allow the girls to abort. How do I defend my position as a pro-life supporter and Catholic?

 

[Ignatius]

the person brought up cases of young children from the ages of 6 months …?

Do you know what causes pregnancy?
This is a false argument, A 6 month or even a 7 year old can’t get pregnant!

 

[Geist]

Do you know what causes pregnancy?
This is a false argument, A 6 month or even a 7 year old can’t get pregnant!

Not true. The worlds youngest mother was 5, likely impregnated by her father who was acquitted for lack of evidence. This was in Peru and her name is Lina Medina; the circumstances of her pregnancy were well documented in 1939 when it happened.

The baby was healthy and born via c-section.

 

[VoiceofTruth]

Do you know what causes pregnancy?
This is a false argument, A 6 month or even a 7 year old can’t get pregnant!

Sorry, forgot to specify that the person brought up the case of a 6 month old getting raped (but obviously not pregnant!) to add impact to their argument. It was obviously ridiculous, though! As for a 7 year old, there are actually very rare cases where a child that young can get pregnant, but I agree that it’s pretty doubtful…however, it’s more likely for a 9-12 year old to get pregnant since a girl can start menstruating then. What about in those cases?

 

[VoiceofTruth]

Not true. The worlds youngest mother was 5, likely impregnated by her father who was acquitted for lack of evidence. This was in Peru and her name is Lina Medina; the circumstances of her pregnancy were well documented in 1939 when it happened.

The baby was healthy and born via c-section.

True, that’s exactly the case I had in mind.

 

[Geist]

it’s more likely for a 9-12 year old to get pregnant since a girl can start menstruating then. What about in those cases?

For most of human history in all cultures a girl was typically a mother by 14. This was because life expectancy was really abysmal then. A death at 20 would have been considered a decent run for most peasants.

We’re here now so it obviously wasn’t lethal beyond the normal high risk of delivery in those times. A low maternal age for a viable pregnancy is not an excuse for an abortion as long as a c-section was available (seeing as a vaginal delivery would have been lethal for mother and child in the case of the 5 year old), and if you can get a d+c i’m sure you can get a c-section where you live.

 

[Ignatius]

Not true. The worlds youngest mother was 5, likely impregnated by her father who was acquitted for lack of evidence. This was in Peru and her name is Lina Medina; the circumstances of her pregnancy were well documented in 1939 when it happened.

The baby was healthy and born via c-section.

I think you are mistaken. Can you please provde a link to primary evidence for this so I can accurately present the case?

 

[Ignatius]

For most of human history in all cultures a girl was typically a mother by 14. This was because life expectancy was really abysmal then. A death at 20 would have been considered a decent run for most peasants.

We’re here now so it obviously wasn’t lethal beyond the normal high risk of delivery in those times. A low maternal age for a viable pregnancy is not an excuse for an abortion as long as a c-section was available (seeing as a vaginal delivery would have been lethal for mother and child in the case of the 5 year old), and if you can get a d+c i’m sure you can get a c-section where you live.

Let’s focus on the deeper issues raised by this phony controversy. It is important to speak truth to power, and that is what we are always doing when are speaking on behalf of beings that cannot speak for themselves, imploring those with power over them to spare their lives because the laws will not do so as they ought. It is not said quite so bluntly in the the soft conservative media, but the basic premise of the “rape exception” position grows from the same root of the emotional outrage of the left, which is the idea that rape babies deserve to die. Even people who find the abortion of merely unwanted babies distasteful can’t agree fast enough that if a woman is impregnated as a result of rape, absolutely nothing should stand between her and the nearest baby butcher.

It is never permissible, under any circumstances, to willfully and knowingly take the life of an innocent human being. This is not simply a position that is dictated to me by my church or my pastor, but it follows from our shared heritage of natural law, respect for human rights, and the protection of the most vulnerable members of our society. Rape is a barbaric act deserving of the most severe penalties that we can get away with under the 8th amendment. But while individuals may commit barbaric acts every day, we do not become a barbaric society until we institutionalize and legitimize barbarism as we have with abortion on demand.

 

[RPRPsych]

I’ve just been recently swept up into a debate about abortion and whether it is justifiable or not, and am struggling to answer a pro-choice advocate’s argument according to the Catholic view on abortion. Basically, the person brought up cases of young girls (from the ages of 6 months to 10 years old) getting raped and how overwhelming and even dangerous it would be for girls that young to give birth and have responsibility for the child. The response, in their view, is to allow the girls to abort. How do I defend my position as a pro-life supporter and Catholic?

Very good question.

The answer hinges on three points:

1. The question of when life begins. Once we accept that life begins at the moment of conception (a biologically and theologically sound position), then we cannot make exceptions to the taking of life, especially that of an innocent child.
2. The fact that young girls conceiving is an exceptional circumstance; in the case of Lina Medina (mentioned by the poster above), there was a combination of a medical condition (“precocious puberty”, meaning that the young girl was fertile at the age of 6) and a sexual offence (either rape by a stranger or incest; it was never proven which.) You could also point out that Lina’s baby was born by Caesarean section, that she viewed him as a little brother (a girl of 6 obviously can’t understand motherhood), and that the boy was allowed to live and grew up to be a man. So despite a worst-case scenario in that particular case, the ending was nowhere as bad as the “pro-choicers” make it out to be.
3. The moral principle that one cannot do evil that good may come. Existence (life) is an absolute good; in this case, we must see if there is an alternative to abortion that would preserve the lives of both mother and baby. This is even more possible today than it was in 1939; modern technology would allow such a pregnancy to come to term (and even if an emergency Caesarean is needed before “term”, life support for premature babies is extraordinarily advanced nowadays); and social support systems (either local communities, or the modern “welfare state”) would allow for the healing of both the mother and the baby, including the option of adoption. Thus, since an alternative exists that would not require taking the child’s life, that alternative must be chosen.

 

[DebChris]

If we claim that life begins at conception, then we are likewise called to protect that life.
Of course the mother’s life is also to be protected. A fetus may be aborted as an unfortunate consequence of saving the mother’s life. The child cannot live without the mother.
Regardless of the mother’s age, she needs continued support throughout this difficult time.

When we objectify the fetus, we objectify the woman as well. This is why the earliest feminists fought for laws against abortion. Women deserve better.
feministsforlife.org/

It has been my experience that pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates are not ready to hear the truth. None has yet to show me how allowing abortion advances women’s rights.
Our value as humans is not dependent on the circumstances that surround our conception.

 

[nordskoven]

Stop rape. Stop Sharia law that legalizes the statutory rape of child-brides, and the rape of young men by predators given a pass by any sympathetic Imam. Stop the cover-up of child rape. Remove the statute of limitations on child rape. Remove judges that slap wrists of child rapists. Stop letting rape kit swabs sit in evidence lockers for want of funding for DNA testing.

Stop gag orders as part of private settlements with rape victims (per past Catholic Church policy in America). Stop private settlements with rape victims. Execute child rapist to emplace a zero tolerance on recidivism instead of urging the execution of the child of the rapist. Stop funding Planned Parenthood which is statutory rape friendly as shown by sting operations. There is an inverse ratio: the younger the victim; the older the perp getting her aborted at Planned Parenthood.

Act like child rape is the highest of high crimes instead of a psychological preference. Seize the Kinsey Institute records and imprison those who covered up paid child rape in the name of science.

 

[hotdiggity]

abortion is never right. under any circumstance.

 

[TheRealJuliane]

No matter the age of the mother (and it is extremely rare for a girl in precocious puberty to be raped, so the argument is fallacious), the baby should not be killed, but adopted to a loving family.

 

[Equites_Christi]

The argument implies that it is better for a baby to be killed than for someone to suffer emotionally. That’s pretty sick.

 

[centurionguard]

Stop rape. Stop Sharia law that legalizes the statutory rape of child-brides, and the rape of young men by predators given a pass by any sympathetic Imam. Stop the cover-up of child rape. Remove the statute of limitations on child rape. Remove judges that slap wrists of child rapists. Stop letting rape kit swabs sit in evidence lockers for want of funding for DNA testing.

Stop gag orders as part of private settlements with rape victims (per past Catholic Church policy in America). Stop private settlements with rape victims. Execute child rapist to emplace a zero tolerance on recidivism instead of urging the execution of the child of the rapist. Stop funding Planned Parenthood which is statutory rape friendly as shown by sting operations. There is an inverse ratio: the younger the victim; the older the perp getting her aborted at Planned Parenthood.

Act like child rape is the highest of high crimes instead of a psychological preference. Seize the Kinsey Institute records and imprison those who covered up paid child rape in the name of science.

IMHO a Miracle to stop (“Abortion”), rape, incest, and spousal abuse in this world would be one far greater than the parting of the Red Sea. Sadly; we all know this won’t happen in the time allotted to the human race due to sin.

 

[Elisabethelisa]

No matter the age of the mother (and it is extremely rare for a girl in precocious puberty to be raped, so the argument is fallacious), the baby should not be killed, but adopted to a loving family.

Its not rare for young girls to be raped at all. But its rare for them to get pregnant before a certain age.

 

[Linusthe2nd]

If we claim that life begins at conception, then we are likewise called to protect that life.

Of course the mother’s life is also to be protected. A fetus may be aborted as an unfortunate consequence of saving the mother’s life. The child cannot live without the mother.

I realize you may have written this quickly, so let’s say it differently to avoid confusion. During pregnancy a mother may experience a medical condition that threatens her life. ( this is not and cannot be the pregnancy itself). If she agrees to the procedure , a side effect may be that the child will die. That is, she may suffer an unintended, spontaneous abortion. She is free, in good conscience, to have the procedure or not. She would never be required to sacrafice her life so the baby may live. That would be the heroic thing to do, but not reqired.

To be absolutely clear, a mother may never allow the child to be directly aborted simply because she fears the pregnancy itself threatens her life or health or may threaten her health at some time after the baby is delievered.

Regardless of the mother’s age, she needs continued support throughout this difficult time.

When we objectify the fetus, we objectify the woman as well. This is why the earliest feminists fought for laws against abortion. Women deserve better.
feministsforlife.org/

It has been my experience that pro-choice/pro-abortion advocates are not ready to hear the truth. None has yet to show me how allowing abortion advances women’s rights.
Our value as humans is not dependent on the circumstances that surround our conception.

 

[Cominghome89]

Of course the mother’s life is also to be protected. A fetus may be aborted as an unfortunate consequence of saving the mother’s life.

Good post, but be careful on this point. “A fetus may be aborted” is never true, even when the mother’s life is in danger. There is an important distinction. If a woman is pregnant, and has a cancerous tumor which endangers both her life and the life of the child, for example, and the operation or radiation to remove the tumor would kill the child, having the surgery is an option. But, if a woman has a condition where the doctor believes her carrying through the child will endanger the life of both the child and the mother, an abortion is still not acceptable. The difference is very important: if the child dies as an “unfortunate consequence of saving the mother’s life,” as you said, this can be morally acceptable only if the child dying is a byproduct of the treatment, and not the “treatment” itself. There is a huge distinction between surgery or radiation and the attacking of a pre-born child.

In Christ through Mary,
Frank

 

[DebChris]

Good post, but be careful on this point. “A fetus may be aborted” is never true, even when the mother’s life is in danger. There is an important distinction. If a woman is pregnant, and has a cancerous tumor which endangers both her life and the life of the child, for example, and the operation or radiation to remove the tumor would kill the child, having the surgery is an option. But, if a woman has a condition where the doctor believes her carrying through the child will endanger the life of both the child and the mother, an abortion is still not acceptable. The difference is very important: if the child dies as an “unfortunate consequence of saving the mother’s life,” as you said, this can be morally acceptable only if the child dying is a byproduct of the treatment, and not the “treatment” itself. There is a huge distinction between surgery or radiation and the attacking of a pre-born child.

In Christ through Mary,
Frank

I think in medical terms when it comes to abortion. There is abortion as an act, more properly called aborticide (although that word is no longer in the dictionary), or the intentional termination of a pregnancy. This is not acceptable. When a child is miscarried, it is called a natural abortion. A fetus may be aborted as a result of a medical procedure even when that is not the primary purpose of the procedure, as a byproduct of the procedure. Every reasonable effort should be made to save both mother and child.

 

[JimG]

I guess there are two questions:

1. Do they believe in the death penalty?
2. Do they belive the child of a rapist should be given the death penalty?