Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I think we’re going to have to live with the fact, however unpalatable, that the stepfather’s actions are not excommunicable offences.

The Church has no authority over the punishment of this man. It is a case for criminal law.

One does not have to be excommunicated to be in a state of mortal sin and out of sinc with the laws of God.

One thing does not have anything to do with the other. Sure, it was his actions that caused the girl to become pregnant. But it does not reflect on whether or not the abortion was justified. It could never be justified.

 

[chosen_people]

Had the doctors said that the girl’s life was in danger, they could have performed an immediate cesarean section and then done all that was medically possible to save the lives of the twin babies.

This was not done, nor was it even attempted. The grandmother and shopped around for doctors chose to mutilate and suction out the unborn babies.

There is no viability for a fetus under 23 weeks. The “c-section” at four months is termination of pregnancy.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

I have another take on this sad situation.

We consider children a ‘gift from God’. This poor child received this ‘gift’ under violent and totally repugnant circumstances and absolutely against her will. Therefore, the issue(s) of this horrendous crime cannot possibly be considered ‘a gift from God’ - otherwise, God would have been complicit in the crime committed against His child (the 9 year old).
It is perfectly licit for this child and her mother (and/or her biological father) to reject this ‘gift’ regardless of whether or not her life is endangered by carrying this criminally forced pregnancy to term, but especially because competent medical authority has determined her life may indeed be in danger if carried to term.
For the girl and her mother this is a matter of self-defense!
For the Church to excommunicate this child, her mother and/or the doctor - publicly - is the height of idiocy.
The parish priest should have talked to the parents about their options and the Church’s outrageous stance that this girl is expected to sacrifice her life for those of the twins she did not ask for in private!
Then, let the family exercise their free will and commit that girl and her mom to the mercy of God!
The ‘blood’ of the unborn children, whose developing lives are terminated under those circumstances, is on the hands of the demonic person that perpetrated the rape and resulting pregnancy, and no one else!

The same argument could be said by anyone who had sex but didn’t want the child. It does not stand. All life is a gift from God. You have no idea of the worth that this experience could have been for the child/mother and her twins had they not been aborted. You have no idea of the contribution these children could have made on society.

They were created by God. No one had the right or okay to murder them.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

All you are saying is that you should imperil the mother as much as possible to prefer the potential viability of the fetus.

The devil I do, and I take particular exception to the pernicious twisting of my words. The pregnancy is the source of the peril, which has never been denied.

If a “judgment is to be made” to chose between the mother or the child, on what basis do you think that decision should be made? If given in that situation you act to save the mother, than it is clear that you will let the fetus die. By the way, these “judgments” happen all the time, for instance, a mother discovers that she has cancer. If she does not start to receive immediate treatment she will die. If she begins immediate treatment she is likely to be cured. However, the chemotherapy would cause the death of the fetus and the doctors say she must immediately terminate the pregnancy and start treatment.

For starters: What is the risk to each of the parties if a treatment course is undertaken, versus if it is not?

You seem to be morally challenged. “Letting the fetus die” is not murder. Deliberately ending the life of the fetus for the reasons previously discussed is. Can you not differentiate murder from a natural course of events? You seem to need more help than I can give you.

In the cancer case, the primary intent of the treatment could, in a given case, be to save the mother. Harm to the fetus is not the purpose of the treatment. In an abortion, the purpose of the procedure is to kill the baby, plain and simple.

It seems quite clear that you are intent on simply nay saying anything proposed out of enmity for the Church. We have your number.

Gerry

 

[daeve]

1. Caesarian section
2. Now the child’s life is wrecked anyway.

This child’s life was wrecked 3 years ago, when at the age of 6 she was betrayed by the man who was supposed to take care of her.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Well, I don’t think child sexual assault is any less heinous, especially when it forces pregnancy on defenseless victims who have no voice. If the Church will not speak up for these child victims, as it does the victims of abortion, then it is not doing it’s job. Period. I cannot for the life of me see Jesus turning a blind eye to children in such a plight. A case like this really makes me question the Church.

Since when does the Church not speak out for victims of rape? You act as though the Church condones rape of either children or adults. That is absurd. You are being slanderous and totally untruthful. The Church does not stand with rapists. And when the secrets of the priest rapists came out, the Church did everything to extend it’s healing hands to the victims. And to prosecute the offenders.

 

[StAnastasia]

Had they performed a cesarean section at 4 months of gestation, the babies would have stood a chance of survival. And there was no danger to the mother at 4 months gestation according to the specialists. So she could have carried the babies as long as she was physically able to healthwise…then had cesarean section. Then both babies and mother would have been alive and well. Had the babies not survived in this way, it would have been God’s decision…not a human beings.

This was told to the grandmother. She didn’t want this. She wanted the pregnancy terminated and her grandchildren murdered.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Point 1. In my church, Father is often letting women who have had an abortion know that they are urged to confess and be made right with the church. In other words, they are in the state of mortal sin (fixable), not excommunicated.
Point 2. I always thought that if a mother’s life was in serious danger, termination was allowed. Am I in error in this? Shouldn’t a medical doctor be the one to make this determination?
Point 3. Why is this family excommunicated, while our dear Pelosi and Biden are merely warned, and still allowed to recieve communion?
I am avidly Pro-Life, but I think this reasoning by the Brazilian Church is insane.

First, by going to Confession and repenting of the sin, you are removed from the excommunication.

The Church has said that abortion is intrinsically evil. It is NEVER allowed. However, in the case of the life of the mother, a cesarean section can be performed to save the life of the mother, and then all that is medically possible to save the life of the child is required. That is not abortion. It is not voluntarily ending the life of the child. It is doing all possible to save both the life of the child and the mother.
There is a big difference between this and abortion.

Third, the reason you think that what happened in Brazil is insane is that the Church does not usually stand up and make such a declaration. Rather than it being insane and rare, it should be done much more often so that people will understand how serious and horrible abortion and other such immoral acts are.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

So says you…

And Jesus, the Catholic Church, and all faithful Catholics, all faithful Christians of other denominations and all faithful Jews.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Case: Your daughter, a minor, is raped. She becomes pregnant. She will die if the pregnancy is not terminated. According to many of the posters, her parents should let her die rather than terminate the pregnancy. Or am I missing something?

Case: You are wrong. The daughter’s life was not in danger. She was not dying. Cesarean section would have been available if the situation changed. Her life was not in danger. Yet the doctors murdered her children.

Absolute wrong. Absolute evil. You cannot change the circumstances to suit what you want them to be. Saying something does not make it TRUTH.

Had the child’s life been in danger, they would have done an immediate cesarean section to begin with.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

All you are saying is that you should imperil the mother as much as possible to prefer the potential viability of the fetus. If a “judgment is to be made” to chose between the mother or the child, on what basis do you think that decision should be made? If given in that situation you act to save the mother, than it is clear that you will let the fetus die. By the way, these “judgments” happen all the time, for instance, a mother discovers that she has cancer. If she does not start to receive immediate treatment she will die. If she begins immediate treatment she is likely to be cured. However, the chemotherapy would cause the death of the fetus and the doctors say she must immediately terminate the pregnancy and start treatment.

And there have been many such cases where the pregnancy was not terminated and both mother and child lived.

It is NEVER permissable to attack the life of the unborn child. I resent your use of the word fetus rather than child as though he/she has less value simply because he/she is not yet born.

And with medicine in today’s world, it isn’t an either/or problem. The child can be delivered by cesarean section if the mother is in acute, critical condition…and then all that is medically possible can be done to save the life of the baby. An abortion is more traumatic to a woman’s body than a cesarean section.

 

[ExtraEspresso]

Oh my gosh, everything about this story is awful. Someone here posted the process-It sounds absolutely horrible. Isn’t a baby at four months able to live, anyway? I also feel so, so sorry for the mom, I hope she gets all the counseling and help she deserves after three years of that. I’ll be praying for her, and for the twins as well.

 

[chosen_people]

The devil I do, and I take particular exception to the pernicious twisting of my words. The pregnancy is the source of the peril, which has never been denied.

For starters: What is the risk to each of the parties if a treatment course is undertaken, versus if it is not?

You seem to be morally challenged. “Letting the fetus die” is not murder. Deliberately ending the life of the fetus for the reasons previously discussed is. Can you not differentiate murder from a natural course of events? You seem to need more help than I can give you.

In the cancer case, the primary intent of the treatment could, in a given case, be to save the mother. Harm to the fetus is not the purpose of the treatment. In an abortion, the purpose of the procedure is to kill the baby, plain and simple.

It seems quite clear that you are intent on simply nay saying anything proposed out of enmity for the Church. We have your number.

Gerry

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Both from a legal and a logical point of view taking an action whose natural consequence is a particular result is merely closing one’s eyes to that result and does not absolve one from responsibility for the outcome. Taking actions knowingly that will lead to the death of the fetus is termination of the pregnancy. Allowing chemotherapy will kill the fetus and it is not letting nature take its course but making a conscious decision to save the life of the mother at the expense of the fetus.

In the same way that a doctor would cut off a gangrenous limb from a person to save that person’s life or a person being pursued by someone who would kill them may take actions of self defense, so the mother has a right to her life, which is no less precious than the life growing within her, a life that will kill her if not terminated. The life of a four month fetus, still only a potential life not viable outside of the womb, is secondary to the life of the actual living human being who will die if the pregnancy is not terminated.

That incidentally is the “morally challenged” position of Judaism and Torah in the case of the woman in danger of dying if she does not terminate her pregnancy and I assure you that it is not formulated with the “intent on simply nay saying anything proposed out of enmity for the Church” as you put it.

As for “having my number” during your next visit to Israel you are cordially invited to my house where the whole family will let you feel our horns.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

There is no viability for a fetus under 23 weeks. The “c-section” at four months is termination of pregnancy.

The girls life was not in immediate danger. They could have watched her under observation until her life was in immediate danger…which could have been the whole 40 weeks of gestation. Then they could have taken the children by Cesarean section.

If her life at 22 weeks of gestation would have been in immediate danger, they could still have performed the cesarean section and done all that was possible to save the lives of the twins. It would not have been an abortion, done to intentionally end the lives of the babies.

Do you not see the difference. With God, all things are possible. These twins could have set the new record for youngest born to survive. Now we will never know.

 

[Layman]

Side issue: if a girl is able to conceive a child, she’s actually a woman.

I understand in some parts of the world puberty is starting earlier, I think due to better diet.

I’d imagine if you’ve got the equipment to bear a child, you can carry it through to birthing it, especially with all the medical help available today.

It’s only in the decadent West that waiting until you’re 40(!) (and need IVF!) to have a kid is considered normal.

30 is actually considered ‘past it’ in medical terms, I’ve read. More likely for there to be problems.

 

[St_Francis]

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Both from a legal and a logical point of view taking an action whose natural consequence is a particular result is merely closing one’s eyes to that result and does not absolve one from responsibility for the outcome. Taking actions knowingly that will lead to the death of the fetus is termination of the pregnancy. Allowing chemotherapy will kill the fetus and it is not letting nature take its course but making a conscious decision to save the life of the mother at the expense of the fetus.

You cannot see the difference between a doctor’s performing an abortion and killing the child and a doctor’s performing chemotherapy on someone and as a side-effect killing a child?

In the same way that a doctor would cut off a gangrenous limb from a person to save that person’s life or a person being pursued by someone who would kill them may take actions of self defense, so the mother has a right to her life, **which is no less precious than the life growing within her, **a life that will kill her if not terminated. The life of a four month fetus, still only a potential life not viable outside of the womb, is secondary to the life of the actual living human being who will die if the pregnancy is not terminated.

1. You are contradicting yourself when you say that the life of the unborn child is “no less precious” than the mother’s when you turn around and say that the child can be deliberately killed. Obviously in your opinion the child’s life is much less precious than hers.
2. There is a difference both morally and legally between killing someone who is pursuing you to kill you and killing someone who will only potentially kill you. Can you understand that difference?

And there is an additional difference between someone who is intentionally out to kill you and a person who is doing nothing at all wrt to killing you

1. And as I posted before in answer to you, there are no circumstances in which an abortion is medically necessary. There may be times when treating the mother will result in the death of her unborn child, but the death of the child was not the intent of the action, and treating the woman under these circumstances is not immoral. However, taking an action the only purpose of which is to kill the child is immoral.
2. A woman who is 4 months pregnant has only a few weeks before her baby reaches the age at which children have been born and survived. If she is not in immediate danger, she needs no treatment. Should she become endangered by the pregnancy, she can then *be treated * and have a c-section; the point is that to pre-emptively kill the baby to avoid the *possible *harm to her health is immoral.
3. You call the baby only a “potential life,” how does that work for you? Is the baby not yet alive? Is the baby not yet human? Is the baby not yet individual?

That incidentally is the “morally challenged” position of Judaism and Torah in the case of the woman in danger of dying if she does not terminate her pregnancy …

As I understand it, the laws of Judaism and the Torah on this subject were made centuries ago, when medical knowledge had not advanced to our current point. Serious Jewish literature on the point, such as the Mishna, indicates that the rules were made before knowledge of c-sections. Now, I can understand that when medical knowledge was low that people were been able to think to this position, not having the scientific understanding of what was happening during pregnancy and the medical capacities that we have now, but given that so much more can be done when a woman is in a high-risk pregnancy and so much more is known about pregnancy, that position is really unacceptable, *especially *considering that the life of the mother is never in the same kind of danger that once existed.

Which may be why Orthodox Jews tend to be pro-life.

 

[Gerry_Hunter]

Please refrain from personal attacks.
…

I didn’t twist your words.

As for the rest of your post, you have been well answered. Kudos to St. Francis!

Blessings,

Gerry

 

[chosen_people]

You cannot see the difference between a doctor’s performing an abortion and killing the child and a doctor’s performing chemotherapy on someone and as a side-effect killing a child?

1. You are contradicting yourself when you say that the life of the unborn child is “no less precious” than the mother’s when you turn around and say that the child can be deliberately killed. Obviously in your opinion the child’s life is much less precious than hers.
2. There is a difference both morally and legally between killing someone who is pursuing you to kill you and killing someone who will only potentially kill you. Can you understand that difference?

And there is an additional difference between someone who is intentionally out to kill you and a person who is doing nothing at all wrt to killing you

1. And as I posted before in answer to you, there are no circumstances in which an abortion is medically necessary. There may be times when treating the mother will result in the death of her unborn child, but the death of the child was not the intent of the action, and treating the woman under these circumstances is not immoral. However, taking an action the only purpose of which is to kill the child is immoral.
2. A woman who is 4 months pregnant has only a few weeks before her baby reaches the age at which children have been born and survived. If she is not in immediate danger, she needs no treatment. Should she become endangered by the pregnancy, she can then *be treated * and have a c-section; the point is that to pre-emptively kill the baby to avoid the *possible *harm to her health is immoral.
3. You call the baby only a “potential life,” how does that work for you? Is the baby not yet alive? Is the baby not yet human? Is the baby not yet individual?

As I understand it, the laws of Judaism and the Torah on this subject were made centuries ago, when medical knowledge had not advanced to our current point. Serious Jewish literature on the point, such as the Mishna, indicates that the rules were made before knowledge of c-sections. Now, I can understand that when medical knowledge was low that people were been able to think to this position, not having the scientific understanding of what was happening during pregnancy and the medical capacities that we have now, but given that so much more can be done when a woman is in a high-risk pregnancy and so much more is known about pregnancy, that position is really unacceptable, *especially *considering that the life of the mother is never in the same kind of danger that once existed.

Which may be why Orthodox Jews tend to be pro-life.

I stated that the life of the Mother is no less precious

Terminating a fetus by chemotherapy or by a D&C has the exact same result. You are viewing the moral position of the doctor carrying out the act and not the result.

The “intentions” of the fetus are irrelevant to the discussion.

A fetus becomes a human being, in Judaism, when its head shows. A non viable fetus is not a human being but a potential life. If the woman would miscarry she would not sit in mourning for the loss of her child.

I would argue the validity of the claim that there is no point where an abortion is medically necessary. The case of a woman discovering she has cancer a few weeks into her pregnancy is one clear example. You avoid this by saying the medical procedure which will kill the fetus is not the “intent” . At any rate, the termination of the pregnancy is based on the danger to the Mother, if no danger exists, then there can be no termination.

 

[savienu]

I stated that the life of the Mother is no less precious

Terminating a fetus by chemotherapy or by a D&C has the exact same result. You are viewing the moral position of the doctor carrying out the act and not the result.

The “intentions” of the fetus are irrelevant to the discussion.

A fetus becomes a human being, in Judaism, when its head shows. A non viable fetus is not a human being but a potential life. If the woman would miscarry she would not sit in mourning for the loss of her child.

I would argue the validity of the claim that there is no point where an abortion is medically necessary. The case of a woman discovering she has cancer a few weeks into her pregnancy is one clear example. You avoid this by saying the medical procedure which will kill the fetus is not the “intent” . At any rate, the termination of the pregnancy is based on the danger to the Mother, if no danger exists, then there can be no termination.

I’m not Jewish, but I sat in mourning the loss of my miscarried child. And that was BEFORE I was pro-life.

 

[St_Francis]

I stated that the life of the Mother is no less precious

Sorry, I misread that.

Terminating a fetus by chemotherapy or by a D&C has the exact same result. You are viewing the moral position of the doctor carrying out the act and not the result.

Yes, precisely. There are three aspects to the morality of a situation: intent is one of them. The *intention *of the doctor performing chemotherapy is to cure the patient with cancer; the death (which may or may not occur) of the unborn baby is *not *his intention. However, the intention of the aboritonist *is *to kill the unborn child.

If I decided to run someone over because he was inconvenient in my life, I would be judged differently than if I ran him over by accident, wouldn’t I? Because the *intent *was different in each case. and yet the outcome of the event woudl be the same in either case.

The “intentions” of the fetus are irrelevant to the discussion.

Not at all, firstly because the unborn baby is innocent as a result of the lack of intention to harm. The child is innocent. So there is no reason to deliberately kill the baby.

A fetus becomes a human being, in Judaism, when its head shows. A non viable fetus is not a human being but a potential life. If the woman would miscarry she would not sit in mourning for the loss of her child.

But I am sure that she would mourn inside.

I would argue the validity of the claim that there is no point where an abortion is medically necessary. The case of a woman discovering she has cancer a few weeks into her pregnancy is one clear example. You avoid this by saying the medical procedure which will kill the fetus is not the “intent” . At any rate, the termination of the pregnancy is based on the danger to the Mother, if no danger exists, then there can be no termination.

So, if no danger exists, there can be no abortion. At what point would a Jewish doctor say that the danger exists? The example given in the Mishna is that of a woman struggling to give birth under circumstances which would now be treated by a c-section; elsewhere, the Mishna says that if amputation of a limb of the fetus would save the life of the mother, then killing the baby would not be permitted. All of which seems to indicate, moreover, that the rules were formulated with the idea that the danger would be in the process of occurring rather than a prediction, however educated.