Abortion, special cercimstances?

[SavedbyHisBlood]

I know that abortion is looked at as murder by pretty much all christians. No argument there i feel the same way.

But what if the woman wanting the abortion is a rape victom? She’d possibly never love the child, in fact she’d resent the child because of what happened to her? If this is the situation is there any grey area? Or should a woman keep her child whether she’d love him/her or not?

 

[davidv]

I know that abortion is looked at as murder by pretty much all christians. No argument there i feel the same way.

But what if the woman wanting the abortion is a rape victom?

How does the rape alter the nature of abortion?

She’d possibly never love the child, in fact she’d resent the child because of what happened to her?

Why could she not love the child? Love is a free choice to desire the good of another.

If this is the situation is there any grey area?

There are no grey areas in this regard.

Or should a woman keep her child whether she’d love him/her or not?

There are other options that don’t require the killing of an innocent child.

 

[Scottgun]

david has it. The child is innocent, and deliberately killing the innocent is wrong, period.

 

[JRKH]

I know that abortion is looked at as murder by pretty much all christians. No argument there i feel the same way.

But what if the woman wanting the abortion is a rape victom? She’d possibly never love the child, in fact she’d resent the child because of what happened to her? If this is the situation is there any grey area? Or should a woman keep her child whether she’d love him/her or not?

I will ask you this, and it is true of any “Special circumstance”.

Has the Child done anything deserving of Death??
Is the Child Guilty of Any wrong doing in it’s conception??

If the Child is innocent, then the intentional death of the Child is not justified.

The Rapist may be punished.
The Mother may put the Child up for adoption.
The Mother may seek councilling for the mental and emotional issues.

Listen to the Child in the womb as she cries -
Mommy Mommy, What did I do that I deserve to Die?

Peace
James

 

[tobinatorstark]

I know that abortion is looked at as murder by pretty much all christians. No argument there i feel the same way.

But what if the woman wanting the abortion is a rape victom? She’d possibly never love the child, in fact she’d resent the child because of what happened to her? If this is the situation is there any grey area? Or should a woman keep her child whether she’d love him/her or not?

There are no special circumstances when it comes to abortion. Never, Never, Never, ever, ever, ever

 

[kristanl]

The mother could give the child up for adoption, but thats the only alternative to not keeping the pay per say. Imagine if you were pregnant with a baby for 9 months and then gave it up for adoption- I’m pretty sure there would be a part of you that would want to keep it. But never abortions… .

 

[m134e5]

I know that abortion is looked at as murder by pretty much all christians. No argument there i feel the same way.

But what if the woman wanting the abortion is a rape victom? She’d possibly never love the child, in fact she’d resent the child because of what happened to her? If this is the situation is there any grey area? Or should a woman keep her child whether she’d love him/her or not?

Abortion is wrong under ALL circumstances. A woman who is raped, and finds she is pregnant (which statistically doesn’t happen very often) will not undo the rape by aborting the child. She can have the child, and put it up for adoption. It may seem strange to some, but having the child can help give healing to the woman. It can help her see that God is always in control, and that in spite of the evil act done, something beautiful can come of it. Abortion will not give healing- it will only add on another evil to the one already done. It’s never acceptable to destroy an innocent human life- even if that life was created with the act of someone who wasn’t so innocent.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I know that abortion is looked at as murder by pretty much all christians. No argument there i feel the same way.

But what if the woman wanting the abortion is a rape victom? She’d possibly never love the child, in fact she’d resent the child because of what happened to her? If this is the situation is there any grey area? Or should a woman keep her child whether she’d love him/her or not?

No the woman is not required to keep the child, she can give him or her up for adoption.

 

[Spirithound]

But what if the woman wanting the abortion is a rape victom? She’d possibly never love the child, in fact she’d resent the child because of what happened to her? If this is the situation is there any grey area? Or should a woman keep her child whether she’d love him/her or not?

Adoption, my friend

 

[LBSDBS]

I, like most or all of you, believe strongly against killing for convenience, so I do not take the emotional interests of the mother or father in to account when reasoning on matters of abortion in the active sense. Rape is no excuse. On LEGAL grounds, only the concerns of the baby matter,

When you establish that your objective is to minimize abortions in number and look after the needs of the child, the whole legal subject of abortion becomes very complicated. Anyone who thinks that a simple, flat out ban on abortion is going to eliminate or even minimize the damage is not living in the real world. Nikolai Ceausescu thought so and it backfired. A basic rule is that whenever you impose a flat-out ban on anything, you surrender control of it. You’d be surprised how many people are talking about acquiring all the full-auto guns, silencers and explosives they can get the day guns are banned completely in the USA, and let’s not forget what happened with the alcohol ban and the ongoing drug war.

At the same time, it is important to establish and acknowledge as a nation that Abortion is wrong, an act of murder and the people need to energize themselves to work together the minimize this problem. Changing the way society as a whole views this will have far more effect then any legal system.

On legal grounds, I am not going to say what bans are or are not ideal because I do not know. I WILL say that we need to think before we act and work to accomplish something that is actually going to work, rather then make an impotent legal statement as most pro-life groups seem to be bent on.

I guess that what separates guys like myself from the traditional “pro-life” crowd is not our morals or outlook on abortion, but that I am willing to admit that I don’t have the answer to the problem, and do not believe that we do as of yet. Not having the answer is no excuse to do nothing though. I just wish people would take some time to carefully examine what does and doesn’t work, and make efforts that are going to get the RESULTS that we all want.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

There are no special circumstances when it comes to abortion. Never, Never, Never, ever, ever, ever

Hi.

This is not true.

THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PROBLEM: If, say, a newly-pregnant woman has a disease which is always fatal – long before the fetus is viable outside the woman – but the treatment is a drug which always kills the fetus, the choice confronting the mother is saving just her life, or permitting both to die.

Under these circumstances, there is a moral obligation to kill the fetus by taking the drug.

THE SOCIAL COMPACT PROBLEM: Occasionally, a pro-life sniper kills an abortion doctor. Objectively, such murders probably save lives in the immediately sense. The Church condemns murder of abortion doctors. When it does this, the Church is implicitly affirming the right of abortionists to pursue their trade until the power of persuasion results in a change of the law.

THE SUBTLE IMPLICIT SUPPORT FOR ABORTION WITHIN THE CHURCH: It is not an accident that Roe v. Wade approved of abortions when it did. The Pill immensely popularized artificial birth control in Western culture, generating a very, very stubborn, almost-impossible-to-contest demand for “risk-free nookie” in Western culture. This immensely powerful bulldozer-like demand for “risk-free nookie” uses abortion as a “back-stop”: If the sexual promiscuity generated by the “risk-free nookie” ethos results in a pregnancy despite artificial birth control, the disappointed coiuple rush to kill the fetus.

Roe v. Wade comprised a caving-in to the enormous demand to kill offspring resulting from the ethos generated by newly-popular artificial birth control.

The Church quietly caves-in to the demand, exactly the way our society did with Roe v. wade, in another way.

Despite the fact that it has long been known that use of contraceptives ultimately generates the DEMAND for abortions, though just about every Catholic parish has a pro-life budget, almost no parish has an anti-contraception budget, and aside from encouraging Natural Family Planning the church does not actually actively condemn use of contraceptives from the pulpit.

Why not?

Because of a suspicion that the church will go broke if they do.

About 15 years ago, the Camden Diocese sponsored “Contraception Sunday” as an experiment: Every priest in the Diocese was instructed, in writing, to condemn use of artificial birth control from the pulpit.

One-third of the priests simply disobeyed the bishop’s instruction.

The other two-thirds reported that hundreds walked-out of church during the homily.

The Bishop’s Office received thousands of letters nastily condemning Contraception Sunday.

The Diocese never did it again.

No Diocese does.

Result: The Church caves-in to, and so implicitly cooperates with, our Society’s contraception ethos, to avoid expensive mass departures of Catholics using contraceptives.

Doing this functionally gives suppirt to the very social force generating the massive demand for abortions.

 

[puzzleannie]

I, Anyone who thinks that a simple, flat out ban on abortion is going to eliminate or even minimize the damage is not living in the real world. Nikolai Ceausescu thought so and it backfired. A basic rule is that whenever you impose a flat-out ban on anything, you surrender control of it. You’d be surprised how many people are talking about acquiring all the full-auto guns, silencers and explosives they can get the day guns are banned completely in the USA, and let’s not forget what happened with the alcohol ban and the ongoing drug war.

.

by this logic there should be no all out ban on anything, in short, no laws at all that prohibit any crimes. Why ban murder? people are going to kill anyhow. Why ban drunk driving? people still do it. Why ban theft? it still happens. This logic leads in only one direction: anarchy, the absence of law.

You will have to frame the argument in another way if you want to make sense.

What will NOT work and has not in the past and never will is compromise with truth and moral absolutes.

 

[Spirithound]

THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PROBLEM: If, say, a newly-pregnant woman has a disease which is always fatal – long before the fetus is viable outside the woman – but the treatment is a drug which always kills the fetus, the choice confronting the mother is saving just her life, or permitting both to die.

Under these circumstances, there is a moral obligation to kill the fetus by taking the drug.

This is not the Lesser of Two Evils Problem, it is the Principle of Double Effect. The intention of taking the drug is not to kill the fetus as you imply by saying “there is a moral obligation to kill the fetus by taking the drug”, the intention is for the mother to be healthy, thus “there is (may be?) a moral obligation to take the drug which has the unfortunate side effect of killing the fetus.”

This is not an abortion.

 

[tobinatorstark]

Hi.

This is not true.

THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PROBLEM: If, say, a newly-pregnant woman has a disease which is always fatal – long before the fetus is viable outside the woman – but the treatment is a drug which always kills the fetus, the choice confronting the mother is saving just her life, or permitting both to die.

Under these circumstances, there is a moral obligation to kill the fetus by taking the drug.

THE SOCIAL COMPACT PROBLEM: Occasionally, a pro-life sniper kills an abortion doctor. Objectively, such murders probably save lives in the immediately sense. The Church condemns murder of abortion doctors. When it does this, the Church is implicitly affirming the right of abortionists to pursue their trade until the power of persuasion results in a change of the law.

THE SUBTLE IMPLICIT SUPPORT FOR ABORTION WITHIN THE CHURCH: It is not an accident that Roe v. Wade approved of abortions when it did. The Pill immensely popularized artificial birth control in Western culture, generating a very, very stubborn, almost-impossible-to-contest demand for “risk-free nookie” in Western culture. This immensely powerful bulldozer-like demand for “risk-free nookie” uses abortion as a “back-stop”: If the sexual promiscuity generated by the “risk-free nookie” ethos results in a pregnancy despite artificial birth control, the disappointed coiuple rush to kill the fetus.

Roe v. Wade comprised a caving-in to the enormous demand to kill offspring resulting from the ethos generated by newly-popular artificial birth control.

The Church quietly caves-in to the demand, exactly the way our society did with Roe v. wade, in another way.

Despite the fact that it has long been known that use of contraceptives ultimately generates the DEMAND for abortions, though just about every Catholic parish has a pro-life budget, almost no parish has an anti-contraception budget, and aside from encouraging Natural Family Planning the church does not actually actively condemn use of contraceptives from the pulpit.

Why not?

Because of a suspicion that the church will go broke if they do.

About 15 years ago, the Camden Diocese sponsored “Contraception Sunday” as an experiment: Every priest in the Diocese was instructed, in writing, to condemn use of artificial birth control from the pulpit.

One-third of the priests simply disobeyed the bishop’s instruction.

The other two-thirds reported that hundreds walked-out of church during the homily.

The Bishop’s Office received thousands of letters nastily condemning Contraception Sunday.

The Diocese never did it again.

No Diocese does.

Result: The Church caves-in to, and so implicitly cooperates with, our Society’s contraception ethos, to avoid expensive mass departures of Catholics using contraceptives.

Doing this functionally gives suppirt to the very social force generating the massive demand for abortions.

have you read Humanae Vitae??? What did Humanae Vitae say about contraception. No Contraceptive. Abortion is never an exception in any circumstance.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

This is not the Lesser of Two Evils Problem, it is the Principle of Double Effect. The intention of taking the drug is not to kill the fetus as you imply by saying “there is a moral obligation to kill the fetus by taking the drug”, the intention is for the mother to be healthy, thus “there is (may be?) a moral obligation to take the drug which has the unfortunate side effect of killing the fetus.”

This is not an abortion.

Call it whatever you want, it’s an abortion. That’s why such drugs are call “abortifacients” – because one effect is to abort.

The Pill, itself, has been found to be an abortifacient – one-third of its effect arises from its role as an abortifacient.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

have you read Humanae Vitae??? What did Humanae Vitae say about contraception. No Contraceptive. Abortion is never an exception in any circumstance.

Hi, Toby.

I don’t understand your comment.

I think that you misunderstood mine.

Point #3 in my post up above is that the enormous demand for abortions in the Western world arises from regular use of contraceptives, which generates a society-wide habit of expecting ready access to sex without risk of pregnancy.

Thus, the reason why the demand for abortions exploded is that people got into the habit of expecting to have access to contraceptives.

So, whenever, in the context of this habitual expectation, a baby is accidentally conceived, couples much, much, much more frequently have homicidal intent – because that mental habit of entitlement to sexual pleasure and sexual release without risk is frustrated by pregnancy, couples decide to kill.

(So, when pro-choicers argue, “Catholics, if you don’t like abortion, support use of contraception!,” they are actually making a recommendation which in practice drastically increases abortion.)

My point was that the Church drastically minimizes opposition to use of contraception, for fear of shutting itself down, despite the fact that use of contraceptives is the “knock-down, drag-out” chief cause of abortions.

Instead, the Catholic parishes of the United States have pro-life budgets.

They oppose the effect, not the functional real cause.

In effect, they are “spitting into the wind” – planning to fail. Our pro-life activities are mostly just window dressing.

One federally-financed study of religion in America, done in the early 1990’s, I think, found that something like 72.5% of church-going Catholics believe in and make regular use of contraceptives.

These are the ones who would stop supporting the Church if the Church valiantly opposed the cause of abortions – contraceptive use.

I’m aware of HV. I read it, top to bottom.

How many Catholics have ever read all 6,900+ words? I think that I am only one of less than 100 or so, perhaps in the world.

How much more frequently does one hear the Church publicly oppose abortion than contraceptive use?

About 100 times more frequently?

Functionally, our own Church “sells out” on the issue, probably to avoid collapse.

 

[JRKH]

Hi.

This is not true.

THE LESSER OF TWO EVILS PROBLEM:

But of course the lesser of two evils always leaves you in the grips of an evil. But I don’t really think that your analogy works.

If, say, a newly-pregnant woman has a disease which is always fatal – long before the fetus is viable outside the woman – but the treatment is a drug which always kills the fetus, the choice confronting the mother is saving just her life, or permitting both to die.

Under these circumstances, there is a moral obligation to kill the fetus by taking the drug.

You say here that there is a “moral obligation to kill the fetus” here. I would disagree. While the fetus may indeed die due to the use of the drug such death is not “Killing”. The fetus need not be abandoned to death any more than the mother is abandoned to death.
If teh mother consents to taking the drug, and the family and medical staff do all they can to save the baby - by experimental therapies, prayer, etc. then the Child, if ti dies, is not “Killed” but rather dies a natural death. AND the experiments conducted in connection with the case may lead to better therapies in the future to save other babies.

You see - It has to do with intent. In your scenerio the family does not wish to lose the baby, but recognizes that they are in a very difficult life and death situation and does everything possible to save both patients. The loss of the one is not intentional.
In the case given in the OP, the situation is not “Life or Death” The mother is in no danger of death from carrying the child to full term and, regardless of whether she aborts or not, she will likely need professional spiritual and emotional help with the trauma of the rape.

THE SOCIAL COMPACT PROBLEM: Occasionally, a pro-life sniper kills an abortion doctor. Objectively, such murders probably save lives in the immediately sense. The Church condemns murder of abortion doctors. When it does this, the Church is implicitly affirming the right of abortionists to pursue their trade until the power of persuasion results in a change of the law.

And by so doing the Church affirms the fact that “The Lesser of Two Evils” is not a valid argument.

THE SUBTLE IMPLICIT SUPPORT FOR ABORTION WITHIN THE CHURCH: It is not an accident that Roe v. Wade approved of abortions when it did. The Pill immensely popularized artificial birth control in Western culture, generating a very, very stubborn, almost-impossible-to-contest demand for “risk-free nookie” in Western culture. This immensely powerful bulldozer-like demand for “risk-free nookie” uses abortion as a “back-stop”: If the sexual promiscuity generated by the “risk-free nookie” ethos results in a pregnancy despite artificial birth control, the disappointed coiuple rush to kill the fetus.

Roe v. Wade comprised a caving-in to the enormous demand to kill offspring resulting from the ethos generated by newly-popular artificial birth control.

The Church quietly caves-in to the demand, exactly the way our society did with Roe v. wade, in another way.

Despite the fact that it has long been known that use of contraceptives ultimately generates the DEMAND for abortions, though just about every Catholic parish has a pro-life budget, almost no parish has an anti-contraception budget, and aside from encouraging Natural Family Planning the church does not actually actively condemn use of contraceptives from the pulpit.

Why not?

Because of a suspicion that the church will go broke if they do.

About 15 years ago, the Camden Diocese sponsored “Contraception Sunday” as an experiment: Every priest in the Diocese was instructed, in writing, to condemn use of artificial birth control from the pulpit.

One-third of the priests simply disobeyed the bishop’s instruction.

The other two-thirds reported that hundreds walked-out of church during the homily.

The Bishop’s Office received thousands of letters nastily condemning Contraception Sunday.

The Diocese never did it again.

No Diocese does.

Result: The Church caves-in to, and so implicitly cooperates with, our Society’s contraception ethos, to avoid expensive mass departures of Catholics using contraceptives.

Doing this functionally gives suppirt to the very social force generating the massive demand for abortions.

In general the case above has more issues than are appropriate for this thread. May I suggest using this to start a new thread on the Church’s “complicity” as you see it? I think it would make an interesting thread topic.
In this case the Diocese is wrong for “caving in”. The Church does and will continue to teach that Contraception is wrong. The fact that catholics use it anyway does not change the Church’s teaching on it. Hopefully the Church will soon recognize that, the stronger it teaches the truth the fuller will be the pews and the stronger will be the catholics in those pews. Yes there will be an exchange of persons, some will leave but some will return.
Pray for our Bishops and Priests to have the courage of conviction in the teachings of the Magisterium.

Peace
James

 

[Peter_Dawson]

But of course the lesser of two evils always leaves you in the grips of an evil. But I don’t really think that your analogy works.

The choice of the lesser of two evils is not some rarely-encountered dilemma. We actually bump into it constantly, in an imperfect world.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

You say here that there is a “moral obligation to kill the fetus” here. I would disagree. While the fetus may indeed die due to the use of the drug such death is not “Killing”.

Hi, friend.

I think that you really are deceiving yourself.

 

[Peter_Dawson]

In this case the Diocese is wrong for “caving in”. The Church does and will continue to teach that Contraception is wrong. The fact that catholics use it anyway does not change the Church’s teaching on it. Hopefully the Church will soon recognize that, the stronger it teaches the truth the fuller will be the pews and the stronger will be the catholics in those pews. Yes there will be an exchange of persons, some will leave but some will return.
Pray for our Bishops and Priests to have the courage of conviction in the teachings of the Magisterium.

Peace
James

I used to be on Church Council in our Parish. When I suggested that we actually build an anti-contraception item into the budget, I was politely ignored.

In effect, the Church cooperates with the cause of the demand for abortions. It really does.

Suggest to your pastor that he regularly condemn contraceptive use from the pulpit, and watch his reaction.