Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[catharina]

The church should have offered her comfort, not public complaint. They had a greater responsibility toward that nine year old rape victim than toward the unborn. But virtually no regard has been shown for the life of this poor child. She was raped by one and reduced to a reproductive agent by many. Does she have no inherent value of her own that would be worth protection? Should the life inside her supersede her own? What is the value of HER life? Because essentially what the bishop is saying is that the nine year old should have died trying to carry and bear the twins to uphold life.
No. YOU are saying that.

The bishop is unqualified to second-guess the medical diagnosis. As a result a lot of assumptions have been made based on hearsay and/or medical ignorance.
Her original doctors said no such thing. The mother of the pregnant 9 yr-old looked for doctors who who recommend and perform abortion. No sup[rise the mother found such doctors.

A nine year old girl whose bones and organs are still developing is physically incapable to carry twins without uterine rupture, pelvic trauma, serious and lasting injury to her bones and to her spine. **In your opinion: also no one ever mentioned the girl would have to carry to full term. ****

An eighty pound still developing body cannot sustain the stress of carrying twins without crippling damage. Again, in your opinion.

While tragic, this was a necessary life-saving procedure. Abortion is never a necessary “life-saving procedure.” Women are not morally obliged to carry a pregnancy that puts their lives in danger, as in the case of an ectopic pregnancy or a life-threatening illness. That too is your opinion. It is not Church teaching.

Is there a man that would fail to grab a weapon to defend his children if their lives were threatened? Hmmmmmmm … How about the rapist who attacked these two sisters, over and over again, over the course of many years? He’s a man.

There are times when taking of a human life is permissible. This was clearly one of them. You might believe that. It is not the teaching of the Catholic Church.

A grave damage has been perpetrated upon the church’s prolife message. A battle that risks losing the war is counterproductive. As the saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intentions… or ignorance. There is a time to speak up and there is a time to keep silent. This should have been one of those times. The Earth moves.

I can only guess you don’t understand the term 'moral absolute.'

 

[St_Francis]

Ectopic pregnancies are not always treated by tubal ligation anymore. If detected early they are treated by injecting a drug that kills the baby. If that doesn’t work, or if the baby is too big, then they use surgery.

Using an injection to directly target the baby, iow, to intentionally kill the baby, would not be permitted by the Church.

 

[catharina]

I have to say, I think you’re being a bit snippish, here.

An opinion - but I guess you NEEDED to express it. (?)

Actually, the part that GeorgiaHunter quoted is near the middle of the page, and I’d say she interpreted it perfectly. **One does not “interpret” Church teaching in any random way. Georgia stated that NA claimed the Church allowed for abortion. Itdoes NOT - ever. **

Funny how all of us have been bickering for pages and pages about whether abortion to save a mother’s life is, or is not, permitted, and none of us ever provided any sources. Well, I would say GeorgiaHunter has come along and cited a pretty expert opinion!

No she has extrapolated from an article on a site. She extrapolated, formed an opinion and declared her OPINION is the teaching. Nope. Ditto for you.

Disappointingly, though, the New Advent article doesn’t cite any papal documents or anything. So there is still the possibility that the NA is wrong – I doubt it, but maybe someone knows of any sources that say the contrary?

You agree with Georgia’s stated OPINION of the meaning/intent - not the fact.

So I’ll say to you what I said to Georgia:

"Enormous error on your part.
The Catholic Church NEVER allows abortion.
In regard to Church teaching, you are most definitely wrong."

That said, I do still disagree with your ultimate point, GeorgiaHunter, if I am understanding you correctly. If an abortion were ever hypothetically necessary to save the girl’s life, then I guess according to NA it could be justified. But the consensus on this board seems to be (I’m not an obstetrician, so I can only assume this is correct) that it would have been possible to wait a little longer, and then if the girl’s life were in danger, to perform a C-section, not an abortion, in the hopes that then the twins would survive.

It is true that the pregnancy must have been traumatic for the little girl, but I offer this thought: already the poor thing has been through Hell…the principle trauma was the rape she suffered. Now she is pregnant – 23 weeks, I think, which means she’s probably gotten used to the idea. Of course anyone would want to spare her as much pain as possible, and as soon as possible, but would waiting just a few weeks longer to monitor the pregnancy have added any more trauma than she’d already suffered? Especially considering that she will have to live with this heat-of-the-moment medical decision for the rest of her life. Basically the alternative is between two surgeries…opening her belly to remove the two babies, or sticking a knife into her womb, killing the babies inside, and taking their bodies out with tongs. Undoubtedly both would sound gruesome to the poor girl, but as she grew older, I’d argue, she’d begin to see the radical difference in intention: under one scenario, her body was used as the site of a rescue mission, a desperate attempt to save two lives, and what a brave girl she would have been to let the doctors try to do that…under the other scenario, her body was used as the site of a mission to destroy those two lives, to remove her own children from her womb as though they were infections, and what a poor child she is to have this violence inflicted on her without her even being able to make the decision by herself.

I think that that’s what the two alternatives look like in my mind and in the minds of many people on this forum…and that’s one of the reasons why we think that letting the pregnancy progress would have been so much better not just for the twins, but for the poor young mother’s long-term physical and emotional health.

Finally, to the posters who have joined the discussion and are new to CAF, welcome!

Peace,
+AMDG+

Now thanks to the large bolded red above, Georgia can feel "not alone."

 

[catharina]

I think you may be right…and that seems to be what the New Advent article was talking about.

I was just looking through some Q&A postings on this forum, and the consensus among the professional Catholic apologists seems to be that “abortion is not allowed even to save the life of the mother.”

**Interesting maybe - but you needn’t have bothered. **
**It has ALWAYS been Church Teaching that abortion is forbidden. **
(No qualifiers or exceptions.)

They made their case, most powerfully, by citing St. Gianna Beretta Molla, who died of a ruptured ovarian cyst after giving birth knowing that the only way to avoid that would have been to have an abortion. But to the extent that I could see, none of the posts went into the differences between direct and indirect abortions.

So I guess the question is: is an “indirect abortion” really an abortion? Under the category of indirect abortion would seem to fall something like the removal of a Fallopian tube in the case of an ectopic pregnancy. But that seems not to be an actual abortion, since it’s targeting the tube rather than the infant.

When I think about it that way, I have some serious questions. The reasoning seems to be that even though it is a foregone conclusion that the baby will die when the tube is removed, since it is not being killed under a knife or something, it is permissible because the baby could hypothetically survive. Here’s what I find problematic: one of the Q&A posts asked whether the Church condoned the injection of a chemical (I forget which one, but apparently it is a valid medical procedure) that kills an ectopic pregnancy without necessitating the removal of a Fallopian tube. The answer was no, simply on the grounds that that injection would target the baby. But the baby will die in a tube removal too – or are we supposed to base certain rare medical decisions on a faith in miracles? (And that would be dangerous, because frankly, there is a far better chance that a baby will survive a botched abortion – it happens all the time – than that a baby will survive a successful Fallopian tube removal.)

Or…the most problematic scenario was this: a pregnant woman was diagnosed with cancer and given only weeks to live if she did not undergo chemotherapy right away. Chemo would have killed the baby, and yet if the mother succumbed to cancer, then the baby would have died, all the same. The answer was that the woman must not undergo chemo because it would kill the baby.

My questions:

1. Why is chemo forbidden here? Why do we assume that it falls under the category of “direct abortion” rather than “indirect abortion” like an ectopic removal? After all, it is not targeted at the infant…
2. If C-sections are not an option, and there are no secret avenues out of the problem that are not contained in the above formulation, then why can’t we accept that the baby will die either way and act so as to save the life of the mother? Is it only because we are waiting for a “miracle,” so-called (i.e., the hope that the doctors’ opinion on her life expectancy is wrong)?

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Sorry, I guess I am straying off-topic, but I would be interested in opening a new thread if people have thoughts on the matter…

Peace,
+AMDG+

I hope that you have a very wise, very knowledgable and very experienced spiritual director who is extremely well-educated in the issue of pro-life teachings. You could use some serious guidance about all of this.

 

[catharina]

In terms of pathology:

If the girl had stomach pains then she may have been experiencing a rupturing uterus.

**YET - she wasn’t! None of the doctors who examined her indicated your idea. **

This can happen - and sometimes does to women who have had a c-section or where the uterus is incapable of stretching far enought to accommodate the foetus(es). If it occurs there is a very high death rate due to the large volume of blood loss and shock.

In addition, she may have gone into heart failure and or pther types of organ failure or compromised function due to the enlarging uterus and the space that it would take up with a mutliple pregnancy.

It’s as likely (even far more likely) that the girl was experiencing braxton-hicks contractions since they come with almost every pregnancy, begininng at any point and completely harmless.

 

[catharina]

Well let me state for the record that I have already conceded the fact that in this specific case I was proven wrong. I was led to beleive that the little girl was in immenent danger and had to have the abortion. I was given new facts by other forum members, and have changed my stance on this girls case. Thank you one and all.

As for how I think her life would have been enhanced, the fact that she would live and not die would have been my first and only point. But seeing as how she is not going to die (or never was) the point is mute.

God Bless.

God bless you too, Georgia, especially for keeping your mind open to learning.

 

[Zsuzsa]

I can only guess you don’t understand the term 'moral absolute.'

No, I just prefer the graded type; it is more responsible and more intelligent than moral absolutism. When there is a conflict between absolutes, as they often arise, the duty is to obey the higher one – which then negates the lower one. Example, telling the truth to murderers – in which case saving a life supersedes telling the truth. Life is not simply black and white, and to operate as if it were is what fundamentalists do. And just to avoid confusion, graded absolutism is not, I repeat, NOT relativism. There are some really good books on Christian ethics. PS. Some of your information about the case is inaccurate. Bye.

 

[St_Francis]

No, I just prefer the graded type; it is more responsible and more intelligent than moral absolutism. When there is a conflict between absolutes, as they often arise, the duty is to obey the higher one – which then negates the lower one. Example, telling the truth to murderers – in which case saving a life supersedes telling the truth. Life is not simply black and white, and to operate as if it were is what fundamentalists do. And just to avoid confusion, graded absolutism is not, I repeat, NOT relativism. There are some really good books on Christian ethics. PS. Some of your information about the case is inaccurate. Bye.

Perhaps you could go into more detail about the information we are missing?

Abortion is always and everywhere wrong–that is perennial Church teaching-the Church has always taught this.

Imagine this: a man who holding a hostage as a shield in front of him is shooting at you. You see this on TV all the time, and the police or whoever are always trying to shoot the *gunman, *not the hostage, altho if they shot the hostage then they could easily shoot the criminal.

The same applies to abortion: the baby may be shielding the condition the mother has, but we cannot *directly *kill the baby, just as we cannot *directly *kill the hostage.

 

[St_Francis]

No, I just prefer the graded type; it is more responsible and more intelligent than moral absolutism. When there is a conflict between absolutes, as they often arise, the duty is to obey the higher one – which then negates the lower one. Example, telling the truth to murderers – in which case saving a life supersedes telling the truth. Life is not simply black and white, and to operate as if it were is what fundamentalists do. And just to avoid confusion, graded absolutism is not, I repeat, NOT relativism. There are some really good books on Christian ethics. PS. Some of your information about the case is inaccurate. Bye.

Additionally, I don’t know what “books on Christian ethics” you are reading, but I don’t think they are Catholic. Lying, even to a murderer, is a perversion of the gift of speech. You can misdirect but you cannot lie.

Evil is an absence or perversion of good–it does not exist in itself, so you can see that any lie would be wrong.

 

[catharina]

No, I just prefer the graded type; it is more responsible and more intelligent than moral absolutism. When there is a conflict between absolutes, as they often arise, the duty is to obey the higher one – which then negates the lower one. Example, telling the truth to murderers – in which case saving a life supersedes telling the truth. Life is not simply black and white, and to operate as if it were is what fundamentalists do. And just to avoid confusion, graded absolutism is not, I repeat, NOT relativism. There are some really good books on Christian ethics. PS. Some of your information about the case is inaccurate. Bye.

How odd that you argue that an absolute is relative.
(That IS your argument despite your denial.)

FYI:
dictionary.reference.com/browse/absolute

Christian Ethics? Not Catholic, I’m guessing.
Your religion is not stated. Maybe it clarifies your opinion.

This line: “PS. Some of your information about the case is inaccurate. Bye.”
Too funny. Vague accusation and then you exit? That’s almost silly.

 

[Zsuzsa]

no. but continuing with THIS discussion would be silly.
i am very much an RC.
and i leave you with a prayer.
may your lives never be so difficult that you are forced to choose between absolutes with tragic outcomes.

 

[catharina]

no. but continuing with THIS discussion would be silly.
i am very much an RC.
and i leave you with a prayer.
may your lives never be so difficult that you are forced to choose between absolutes with tragic outcomes.

It’s hard to understand that you say you’re a RC, yet do not believe in moral absolutes.
In other words, you’re willing to “decide” that abortion can be allowed at times.
There is nothing in Church Teaching that can lead any to that conclusion.

You joined this site, entered only this thread and posted three comments.
It seems you might have your own agenda related to abortion.

I promise that I’ll keep you in my prayers.

PS - As to my life, you know nothing about my life - remember?

 

[catharina]

Abortion is always and everywhere wrong–that is perennial Church teaching-the Church has always taught this.

sf, thank you for mentioning this again.

I’ll add this.
The Hippocratic Oath existed for nearly all doctors from 400BC until 1970AD.
For more than 2000 years, it stood as the standard for those practicing medicine.

Among its tenets:
"do no harm … cause no abortion … "
(Yes, I’m paraphrasing.)

That modern man (and woman) desired the “convenience and expedience” of abortion was the hallmark leading to changes in the oath. Since then euthanasia has also become acceptable, outright killing of “born” adults and children.

Who can imagine this to be medical progress?

 

[Christiano]

L’Osservatore Romano published an article written by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontific Academy for Life, criticising the excommunication of the people involved in the abortion of the twins (the doctors and the mother). The title of the article is “Dalla parte della bambina brasiliana” (From the part of the Brazilian girl, according to the Babelfish online translator). It can be read here (PDF file, in italian). I don’t speak Italian, but I’m hopping someone on the board could translate the article into English.

According to a report by the Ansa news agency, Mr. Fisichella says that, before thinking about the excommunication of the people involved in the abortion of the 9-year-od girl, “it would be necessary and urgent to safeguard her innocent life, giving back to her a level of humanity.”

“The terrible story of daily violence” of which the girl was victim, suferring frequent abuses by her stepfather, “would have escaped people’s notice with the intervention made by the archbishop,” he says.

For Mr. Fisichella, the Brazilian girl “should have been defended before anything”, but “this wasn’t done, lamentably, damaging the credibility of our institutions that, for many, seem marked by insensibility, lack of understanding and of mercy.”

The girl, he says, “took inside of her other lives, as innocent as hers, although they were fruit of violence, and which have been supressed, but this wasn’t enough to pass on a judgement that weighs like an axe.”

The news agency also says that the repercussion of the case worlwide was bigger because of the position of the church in a laic country, directly interfering on judicial decisions and because the stepfather, who was accused of abusing the girl and her 14-year-old sister, wasn’t excommunicated.

Last weekend, Italian basic ecclesial community also criticised the Brazilian archbishop showed, “once more, the sense of remoteness between the “Church of Power” and human tragedies.”

In a press release at the time, the communities had also criticised the Vatican for its position because the Holy See would have supported the Brazilian archbishop’s decision to excommunicate the doctors and the doctors (and not to do so, in the case of the stepfather).

 

[Amolibri]

Well, help me understand.

If doctors say a girl this young will not live through the pregnancy or die at the point of giving birth then is this not one situation where abortion may be permitted?

That’s the impression I am getting from this article. Unfortunately, it’s not very detailed, but we shouldn’t undermine the knowledge of the doctor.

Last weekend, Italian basic ecclesial community also criticised the Brazilian archbishop showed, "once more, the sense of remoteness between the “Church of Power” and human tragedies."

EXACTLY. Where is the compassion for this poor violated child???

 

[tuviskazinai]

L’Osservatore Romano published an article written by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontific Academy for Life, criticising the excommunication of the people involved in the abortion of the twins (the doctors and the mother). The title of the article is “Dalla parte della bambina brasiliana” (From the part of the Brazilian girl, according to the Babelfish online translator). It can be read here (PDF file, in italian). I don’t speak Italian, but I’m hopping someone on the board could translate the article into English.

According to a report by the Ansa news agency, Mr. Fisichella says that, before thinking about the excommunication of the people involved in the abortion of the 9-year-od girl, “it would be necessary and urgent to safeguard her innocent life, giving back to her a level of humanity.”

“The terrible story of daily violence” of which the girl was victim, suferring frequent abuses by her stepfather, “would have escaped people’s notice with the intervention made by the archbishop,” he says.

For Mr. Fisichella, the Brazilian girl “should have been defended before anything”, but “this wasn’t done, lamentably, damaging the credibility of our institutions that, for many, seem marked by insensibility, lack of understanding and of mercy.”

The girl, he says, “took inside of her other lives, as innocent as hers, although they were fruit of violence, and which have been supressed, but this wasn’t enough to pass on a judgement that weighs like an axe.”

The news agency also says that the repercussion of the case worlwide was bigger because of the position of the church in a laic country, directly interfering on judicial decisions and because the stepfather, who was accused of abusing the girl and her 14-year-old sister, wasn’t excommunicated.

Last weekend, Italian basic ecclesial community also criticised the Brazilian archbishop showed, “once more, the sense of remoteness between the “Church of Power” and human tragedies.”

In a press release at the time, the communities had also criticised the Vatican for its position because the Holy See would have supported the Brazilian archbishop’s decision to excommunicate the doctors and the doctors (and not to do so, in the case of the stepfather).

This is indeed an interesting article…thank you for showing us!

Of course, I think matters like this are normally under the jurisdiction of the local bishop, so we still have an obligation to try, charitably, to understand the bishop’s reasoning and decision and recognize his good intentions…but at the same time, it’s good to see that a reasonable diversity of opinions can exist within the Church on certain matters. This is something bishops and cardinals and popes have said time and again…so thank you for sharing this valuable point of view, which is very close to what a lot of good Catholics and honest skeptics have felt throughout this thread…

Peace,
+AMDG+

 

[catharina]

L’Osservatore Romano published an article written by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontific Academy for Life, criticising the excommunication of the people involved in the abortion of the twins (the doctors and the mother). etc…

My hope is that this archbishop, Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, finds a new job for himself very very soon. Any position that involves shepherding goats rather than lambs could suit him in every way…

 

[catharina]

Following is from secular source but it seems likely to be accurate:

france24.com/en/20090314-bishops-admit-mistake-annul-excommunication-abortion-row-minor-rape-brazil

**"AFP - **Brazilian bishops have said the excommunication of the mother and doctors of a nine-year-old girl who had an abortion after being raped was wrong and would not be applied.

The National Conference of Bishops of Brazil (CNBB) decided Thursday that the child’s mother acted “under pressure from the doctors” who said the girl, pregnant with twins, would die if she carried the babies to term.

The body’s secretary-general, Dimas Lara Barbosa, told reporters the mother therefore could not be excommunicated. “We must take the circumstances into consideration,” he said.

As for the doctors, there was no clear case that they should be expelled from the church either, he said contrary to the position taken by archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, who last week announced the excommunications.

Barbosa said only doctors who “systematically” conduct abortions are thrown out of the Roman Catholic Chuch.

The case of the young girl, allegedly raped by her stepfather in the Brazilian state of Pernambuco, has sparked a firestorm in Brazil.

Sobrinho’s position that the abortion “was more serious” than the rape prompted much public debate, with many denouncing his lack of compassion.

But the archbishop had support in principle from the Vatican.

Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, the head of the Roman Catholic Church’s Congregation for Bishops, told the Italian daily La Stampa the twins had had a right to live and that the attacks on Sobrinho were “unjustified.”

In an effort to mitigate Sobrinho’s declarations, CNBB president Geraldo Lyra Rocha said his colleague had been misinterpreted.

“Archbishop Sobrinho did not excommunicate anyone. I am sure he did not mean to harm anyone but rather wanted to draw attention to a certain permissiveness” over abortions, he said.

Abortion is illegal in Brazil except in cases of rape or if the woman’s health is in danger.

But a million women still seek clandestine abortions in operations that kill thousands each year, according to officials.

The girl, who was not identified because she is a minor, was found to be four months’ pregnant after being taken to a hospital suffering stomach pains.

Officials said she told them she had been abused by her stepfather since the age of six. Police said the 23-year-old stepfather also allegedly sexually abused the girl’s physically handicapped 14-year-old sister.

He was arrested a week ago and is being kept in protective custody. If convicted, he faces up to 15 years in prison."

Reasoning given: mother acted under grave duress.

 

[catharina]

Same/similar news story found on site for Radio New Zealand:

radionz.co.nz/news/stories/2009/03/14/1245a40abd9e

and the Taipei Times:

taipeitimes.com/News/world/archives/2009/03/16/2003438611

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

The two issues are intertwined in this case, which is why I am disturbed. I am not Catholic Church bashing, but have to wonder at why the abuse that is at the root of this problem is NOT addressed by the Church. It is not “totally irrelevant to this thread”, but very much a part of it.

Maybe that man didn’t know he was standing outside of the Church’s Sacraments because of the abuse that has gone on within the Church, abuse that was hushed up and the priests shuffled off to another parish.
You cannot deny that happened. So maybe this man thought what he was doing was acceptable because the Church has only acted upon this very recently, after realizing that the truth about pedophiles in it’s ranks can no longer be suppressed.

That is totally absurd!!! And how can you say that you are not Catholic Church bashing? To say that the Church has not condemned the actions of some priests and those that allowed them to get away with molesting children is TOTALLY OFF BASE!!!
And child molestation is not only obviously against God’s laws, but against the laws of the State. To claim that the perpetrator and the public does not know this is at least a warped mindset, and at most a deliberate lie.

What makes you think the mother did not know that abortion was a sin? That is no surprise to anyone who has been listening to the Church for the past millenium. It is always in the news. I AM glad that the Church is standing against abortion, because very few others certainly are. But I also think it needs to be much more vocal than it has been about child abuse.

I hear some Catholics…even on this forum…who don’t believe that abortion is a sin. Catholic politicians and many in the Church are afraid of being politically incorrect. That keeps the Church from properly catechizing the world. Why do you claim to be ignorant of this fact?