Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[vames]

St. Francis, is this what the Church recommends in such cases? A C-section is not a treatment, it’s an obviously bigger physical trauma than an abortion, especially for a malnourished pre-teen girl. If the fetuses really can’t be saved (I mean by performing a cesarean at a time when they are viable), then why the girl should be submitted to such a trauma?
childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10166
webmd.com/baby/tc/cesarean-section-risks-and-complications

I’ve read countless Catholic blogs, searching for answers, because this whole story was and is very disturbing for me for many reasons. Some people said that the fetuses should have been removed by c-section, as you propose, some opposed that, saying that it would have meant killing them anyway, and some proposed therapeutical abortion as a way to spare the girl of additional useless hurt, since the fetuses would have died anyway - somehow like in an ectopic pregnancy where the unborn has no chance to survive.

 

[Apryl]

I dare to doubt that there are too many possibile outcomes for a high-risk gemelar pregnancy, in a pre-teen girl with underdeveloped pelvis, uterus, bones and muscles (and “high-risk” means high risk for the fetuses too, not only for the girl). Of course I can’t pretend to be sure of anything and nobody else can, except for the doctors who have examined the girl. I would have been very happy if at least one of these doctors would have said that there is a chance for the girl to carry the pregnancy until viability or that a possibile C-section may be less risky for her health than an abortion - especially since so many pre-teen girls in Brazil manage to give birth.

… Ok… It’s just that I keep hearing these CLAIMS… but I have NEVER… I repeat: NEVER have heard of a girl dying in child birth because of her age.

I have heard of women dying in child birth, or soon after their child is born… there are a number of people who are not mothers themselves, who had no mother growing up, whose mother died either in childbirth or within hours of the birth… but NONE of these women were ‘young’ when they lost their life.

Just like I’ve heard ‘If first cousins have a baby it will be retarded’. I’ve met and heard of many people who are mentally retarded, have Down’s Syndrome, have Cerebral Palsy and Autism… but none of them were the result of first cousins ‘inbreeding’.

Just like I was always told that if a woman was going through menopause when she conceived, the child will be born ‘old’, age faster than others, have wrinkly skin.

Oh, and if a person is an only child, they will be selfish and incapable of compassion for any one else.

Still, the claims that this girl’s life was threatened, when the DOCTORS who EXAMINED her didn’t see that, I’m stunned - but not surprised - when I hear that people are so sure that a 9 year old just can’t have a baby safely.

Mind you, I’ve heard of girls being pregnant with their second child at the age of 10… they survived TWO child births.

One of my friends from High School: her younger sister was about 16, she decided to not only go without prenatal care, she had NO obstetrician, and she and her boyfriend decided to deliver the baby on their own. My reaction: she’s stupid, and there is no way that kid will survive. That was her first. She’s gone on to have three others. And the last I heard, all six of them are healthy.

Maybe it ‘shouldn’t be’, but it is. And every time we say, ‘unsafe’, or in any other way suggest that a pregnancy is the risk, we’re forgetting where the pregnancy came from, and how many others survived worse situations.

 

[siamesecat]

… Ok… It’s just that I keep hearing these CLAIMS… but I have NEVER… I repeat: NEVER have heard of a girl dying in child birth because of her age.

I have heard of women dying in child birth, or soon after their child is born… there are a number of people who are not mothers themselves, who had no mother growing up, whose mother died either in childbirth or within hours of the birth… but NONE of these women were ‘young’ when they lost their life.

Just like I’ve heard ‘If first cousins have a baby it will be retarded’. I’ve met and heard of many people who are mentally retarded, have Down’s Syndrome, have Cerebral Palsy and Autism… but none of them were the result of first cousins ‘inbreeding’.

Just like I was always told that if a woman was going through menopause when she conceived, the child will be born ‘old’, age faster than others, have wrinkly skin.

Oh, and if a person is an only child, they will be selfish and incapable of compassion for any one else.

Still, the claims that this girl’s life was threatened, when the DOCTORS who EXAMINED her didn’t see that, I’m stunned - but not surprised - when I hear that people are so sure that a 9 year old just can’t have a baby safely.

Mind you, I’ve heard of girls being pregnant with their second child at the age of 10… they survived TWO child births.

One of my friends from High School: her younger sister was about 16, she decided to not only go without prenatal care, she had NO obstetrician, and she and her boyfriend decided to deliver the baby on their own. My reaction: she’s stupid, and there is no way that kid will survive. That was her first. She’s gone on to have three others. And the last I heard, all six of them are healthy.

Maybe it ‘shouldn’t be’, but it is. And every time we say, ‘unsafe’, or in any other way suggest that a pregnancy is the risk, we’re forgetting where the pregnancy came from, and how many others survived worse situations.

Wow, Ive never heard of pregnancy that young - I know it happens, but for you to know 2 people! That’s disturbing. I have heard of girls dying that young in childbirth - older than that, actually. I saw an Oprah on it. In some parts of Africa, girls are married at 11 or 12, and become pregnant from 12-14. Many of them do not have wide enough pelvises to deliver these children, and especially without great medical care, they die. Others have serious damage to internal organs leaving them incontinent and shunned from their communities. It’s definitely a risk, even if it is not guaranteed.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Do agree with you, sad to say. EWTN gave an example of St. Ambrose denying a king entrance into Church because the king or a ceasar had just had 7,000 slaughtered. I was imagining excommunication to be like that where one is barred from the door until he repents. Alas and alack, not so today. Don’t know why.

I can’t imagine a Bishop telling me more than once not to receive Communion. I guess I have a tad more integrity than these politicians.

What was also awesome about the story is that the ceasar/emporer did as the Bishop demanded. At certain times, for months he repented on the steps of the Church. He knew that in all matters heavenly, he was to be led by the Church…and he submitted.

 

[vames]

… Ok… It’s just that I keep hearing these CLAIMS… but I have NEVER… I repeat: NEVER have heard of a girl dying in child birth because of her age.

I have heard of women dying in child birth, or soon after their child is born… there are a number of people who are not mothers themselves, who had no mother growing up, whose mother died either in childbirth or within hours of the birth… but NONE of these women were ‘young’ when they lost their life.

Just because you personally haven’t heard about such cases in the US, in Africa, Latin America or elsewhere doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Just because maternal mortality in girls under 14 is low in Brazil doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Interested in some official data? (not “abortionists”, “media bias” etc)
Source: Ministry of Health of Brazil
tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sim/cnv/matuf.def

Maternal mortality in Brazil - girls aged 5-14 (number of deaths per year)
2006 - 16
2005 – 15
2004 – 17
2003 – 16
2002 – 15
2001 – 12
2000 – 14
1999 – 20
1998 - 19
1997 - 13
1996 – 17
Total - 174

Cause of death*/number of deaths per year – 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996

Pregnancy with abortive outcome - 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1 (total 22)
Oedema, proteinuria and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium - 3, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3, 6, 5, 9, 6, 5 (total 59)
Other maternal disorders predominantly related to pregnancy 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2 (total 7)
Maternal care related to the fetus and amniotic cavity and possible delivery problems 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 (total 9)
Complications of labour and delivery 6, 0, 2, 3, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 5 (total 28)
Complications predominantly related to the puerperium 2, 2, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 0, 2 (total 20)
Other obstetric conditions, not elsewhere classified 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 1, 4, 3, 1, 0 (total 29)

*classification according to WHO
who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/

 

[St_Francis]

St. Francis, is this what the Church recommends in such cases? A C-section is not a treatment, it’s an obviously bigger physical trauma than an abortion, especially for a malnourished pre-teen girl. If the fetuses really can’t be saved (I mean by performing a cesarean at a time when they are viable), then why the girl should be submitted to such a trauma?
childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10166
webmd.com/baby/tc/cesarean-section-risks-and-complications

I’ve read countless Catholic blogs, searching for answers, because this whole story was and is very disturbing for me for many reasons. Some people said that the fetuses should have been removed by c-section, as you propose, some opposed that, saying that it would have meant killing them anyway, and some proposed therapeutical abortion as a way to spare the girl of additional useless hurt, since the fetuses would have died anyway - somehow like in an ectopic pregnancy where the unborn has no chance to survive.

The CCC, 1750, says: The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, or goal, of abortion, is the death of the unborn child. Consider the circumstances of a very late abortion: at 8.5 months, a woman can have an abortion. She could have a c-section and the child would most likely survive, but if she chooses an abortion, the baby will die. That’s because the object of the act is to kill the unborn baby. And that is the object or goal of *all *abortions: the death of the unborn child.

Consider an ectopic pregnancy, wherein it is permissible to remove that part of the tube in which the baby has implanted. The goal there is not to kill the child, the death of the child is not desired. If by some chance the baby were to survive, everyone would be very happy, not upset or angry.

It is the fact that the object of abortion is to kill the child is what makes it wrong. The death of the child is not a side-effect of treatment but the goal of the action.

 

[St_Francis]

Just because you personally haven’t heard about such cases in the US, in Africa, Latin America or elsewhere doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Just because maternal mortality in girls under 14 is low in Brazil doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

Interested in some official data? (not “abortionists”, “media bias” etc)
Source: Ministry of Health of Brazil
tabnet.datasus.gov.br/cgi/deftohtm.exe?sim/cnv/matuf.def

Maternal mortality in Brazil - girls aged 5-14 (number of deaths per year)
2006 - 16
2005 – 15
2004 – 17
2003 – 16
2002 – 15
2001 – 12
2000 – 14
1999 – 20
1998 - 19
1997 - 13
1996 – 17
Total - 174

Cause of death*/number of deaths per year – 2006, 2005, 2004, 2003, 2002, 2001, 2000, 1999, 1998, 1997, 1996

Pregnancy with abortive outcome - 1, 3, 2, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 4, 1 (total 22)
Oedema, proteinuria and hypertensive disorders in pregnancy, childbirth and the puerperium - 3, 6, 6, 5, 5, 3, 6, 5, 9, 6, 5 (total 59)
Other maternal disorders predominantly related to pregnancy 1, 1, 1, 0, 1, 0, 1, 0, 0, 0, 2 (total 7)
Maternal care related to the fetus and amniotic cavity and possible delivery problems 0, 0, 1, 0, 0, 2, 1, 1, 1, 1, 2 (total 9)
Complications of labour and delivery 6, 0, 2, 3, 3, 1, 1, 4, 2, 1, 5 (total 28)
Complications predominantly related to the puerperium 2, 2, 1, 4, 1, 1, 2, 3, 2, 0, 2 (total 20)
Other obstetric conditions, not elsewhere classified 3, 3, 4, 3, 4, 3, 1, 4, 3, 1, 0 (total 29)

*classification according to WHO
who.int/classifications/apps/icd/icd10online/

I believe that someone posted an article in this thread which explained that pregnancy outcomes in teenagers in Brazil were actually better than for older women because they are so carefully monitored. IIRC, the numbers were 55 per thousand for teenaged mothers, and 75/1000 for older mothers.

All the problems listed above are problems which older mothers also experience.

 

[St_Francis]

Wow, Ive never heard of pregnancy that young - I know it happens, but for you to know 2 people! That’s disturbing. I have heard of girls dying that young in childbirth - older than that, actually. I saw an Oprah on it. In some parts of Africa, girls are married at 11 or 12, and become pregnant from 12-14. Many of them do not have wide enough pelvises to deliver these children, and especially without great medical care, they die. Others have serious damage to internal organs leaving them incontinent and shunned from their communities. It’s definitely a risk, even if it is not guaranteed.

What you are saying about problems that very young mothers in Africa have is correct; however, they are due to complete lack of medical care. Problems with too-narrow pelvises or incorrect presentation of the baby are treated with c-sections unavailable to these girls in Africa. When there is no medical intervention during an extended labor, an obstetrical fistula can occur. It is a terrible condition, but one which is both easily avoided and easily repaired. The occurrence of these problems in Africa is due entirely to lack of medical care.

The situation in Africa is very sad, but not applicable to the situation in Brazil.

 

[Apryl]

Wow, Ive never heard of pregnancy that young - I know it happens, but for you to know 2 people! That’s disturbing. I have heard of girls dying that young in childbirth - older than that, actually. I saw an Oprah on it. In some parts of Africa, girls are married at 11 or 12, and become pregnant from 12-14. Many of them do not have wide enough pelvises to deliver these children, and especially without great medical care, they die. Others have serious damage to internal organs leaving them incontinent and shunned from their communities. It’s definitely a risk, even if it is not guaranteed.

It’s not that uncommon! I have relatives who were pre-teens when they gave birth to their first chid. Some married, some not.

It’s not an issue.

But now, you’re saying that on Oprah, they were saying these girls died… from the pregnancy and because of their youth? Or was it because of some other issues?

I was always taught that once a girl reaches the point where she can menstruate, she can conceive and give birth. At one time, most girls began to menstruate around 12 or 13 … but there were many who were younger or older, that was just the typical age. Now, the age for the onset of menstruation is younger.

Plase point me to some substantial link (other than a post on a message board where someone made the claim) where a person died because they were too young to give birth.

 

[Apryl]

Just because you personally haven’t heard about such cases in the US, in Africa, Latin America or elsewhere doesn’t mean that they don’t exist.
Just because maternal mortality in girls under 14 is low in Brazil doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist.

And you’ll notice that I never said that they don’t exist.

I did, however, REPEAT, that I never heard of such things.

Thanks for posting the link. I need to see how these numbers (girls under age 14) compared to others.

Besides, for the purposes of this discussion, I was curious how the age of this girl (whether she be in America or Brazil, or the moon) would mean that a pregnancy was a death sentence.

You see, you posted a lot of ‘information’, but nothing you posted tells me that pregnancy is a death sentence, or suggests that abortion is the only hope of saving the life of the girl.

 

[vames]

Apryl,
Since you were so vehement to say that you haven’t ever heard of any underage maternal death, stopping short of saying that to fall pregnant very early would be safer for one’s health, I tried to search for some data; I was curious too about the exact causes of death and how the numbers compare. Maternal mortality under 14 years old in Brazil is very, very low, and St.Francis reminded correctly the reason why it is so low – the risks are naturally higher in this age group and therefore the pregnancies are more carefully monitored.

Nobody has pretended that pregnancy is a death sentence for a certain age group as a whole (again, the causes of death listed above are common to all age groups) or that any 9-year old girl would be killed by a pregnancy. But I doubt that any doctor would ever say that a gemelar pregnancy can be safe and healthy for a child who happens to have a small, skinny body even for her age. Being neither an adult, nor a well-built girl, her own physical development is literally competing with the development of two fetuses, and that’s what reduces the possible outcomes to either miscarriage or health problems that would at some point threaten either the girl’s life or the fetuses’ life or both.

Now for the c-section – if there comes a moment where removing the fetuses would be the only way to preserve the girl’s life and that moment occurs BEFORE 23-24 weeks of pregnancy, I wondered what medical reasons could be invoked to choose a c-section instead of abortion. Given that the unviable fetuses would die anyway, what’s the medical reason to prefer a procedure that slices open the girl’s body instead of choosing to let her body intact? IMHO opting for a c-section when the unborn is not yet viable would be unnecesary cruelty that would only compound the rape and pregnancy trauma.

PS: I don’t know why you write ‘information’ (as in “so-called information”).

 

[panoikei]

I’m afraid that you missed the fact that had that been my daughter I’d be on trial for at least 2 or 3 murders thus raising the death toll to around 5 or 6. My daughter’s life would mean more up front and not having answers on the twins. My first instinctive reaction would be to save the life of my daughter. I can see the temptation to save the life of the child you physically see and love…not seeing the human persons within the child’s womb as important as the walking - breathing child. I’d probably make the wrong decission and repent for it the rest of my life so that my daughter wouldn’t have to be cursed with a life of pain and misery if not death. In other words I might have allowed an abortion in this situation to save the life of my daughter. But it would not come without a price - shame.

It’s the lack of information that makes this case difficult. The excommunicated parents can regain their status of being in communion with the Church if they repent and confess it to the bishop. There may be a waiting period but what is a couple of years compared to eternity? Yes. It is sad that 2 of the 3 babies died. I’m just glad that the 3rd child survives. We should be praying for the girls psychological recovery. Shame of the mother, who probably saw the signs on the wall. But even there we do not konw culpability. This sin is not unforgiveable and we do not know the culpability in spite of how smart we really may be.

 

[St_Francis]

…Now for the c-section – if there comes a moment where removing the fetuses would be the only way to preserve the girl’s life and that moment occurs BEFORE 23-24 weeks of pregnancy, I wondered what medical reasons could be invoked to choose a c-section instead of abortion. Given that the unviable fetuses would die anyway, what’s the medical reason to prefer a procedure that slices open the girl’s body instead of choosing to let her body intact? IMHO opting for a c-section when the unborn is not yet viable would be unnecesary cruelty that would only compound the rape and pregnancy trauma…

I guess you missed my post where I showed the answer from the CCC (Number 541) Here it is again:

The CCC, 1750, says: The morality of human acts depends on:

• the object chosen;
• the end in view or the intention;
• the circumstances of the action.

The object, or goal, of abortion, is the death of the unborn child. Consider the circumstances of a very late abortion: at 8.5 months, a woman can have an abortion. She could have a c-section and the child would most likely survive, but if she chooses an abortion, the baby will die. That’s because the object of the act is to kill the unborn baby. And that is the object or goal of *all *abortions: the death of the unborn child.

Consider an ectopic pregnancy, wherein it is permissible to remove that part of the tube in which the baby has implanted. The goal there is not to kill the child, the death of the child is not desired. If by some chance the baby were to survive, everyone would be very happy, not upset or angry.

It is the fact that the object of abortion is to kill the child is what makes it wrong. The death of the child is not a side-effect of treatment but the goal of the action.

Look at it this way: a woman has a daughter who needs a heart transplant. Does she have the right to kill her elderly relative who is an exact match in order to save her daughter’s life?

 

[vames]

I didn’t miss your post. I wasn’t talking here about the c-section that has **saved **so many lives of underage mothers and their babies and neither about **choosing **between a mother and her child. I asked what reasons could be invoked in **this **girl’s situation to prefer an indirect abortion **even **if/when the fetus can’t be saved (I use the term “fetus” just to indicate pre-viability).
A grown-up woman can opt for an indirect abortion instead of a direct one, for religious reasons, if she can’t keep the pregnancy until the fetus becomes viable. Nobody would find her decision horrific, although you won’t find a doctor who can say that an indirect abortion to remove an unviable fetus (be it by c-section, removing the fallopian tube, hysterectomy) is safer and less invasive for a mother’s body than a direct abortion. But the patient here is a child, unable to decide for herself, who was raped since she was 6 years old and with a traumatic pregnancy (remember how the pregnancy was discovered – she was in pain and her mother took her to the clinic). Hence the outrage expressed by many at the thought that others could force her to have a c-section, that is to be sliced open, EVEN if that could not save the fetuses. Don’t these circumstances count? Aren’t these “the circumstances of the action” that should be considered?

 

[St_Francis]

I didn’t miss your post. I wasn’t talking here about the c-section that has **saved **so many lives of underage mothers and their babies and neither about **choosing **between a mother and her child. I asked what reasons could be invoked in **this **girl’s situation to prefer an indirect abortion **even **if/when the fetus can’t be saved (I use the term “fetus” just to indicate pre-viability).

You are looking at the outcome and saying that since the outcome is the same, the action is morally the same. But what the Church teaches is that just because the outcome is the same doesn’t mean that morally the actions are the same.

The circumstances of the little girl’s pregnancy are indeed very sad, but that has no effect on the *nature *of the act of abortion. The nature of the act is in and of itself completely immoral, “always and everywhere.” The aim, the goal of the act of abortion is to kill, to take innocent human life. No circumstances can get around that fact.

When a pregnant woman is sufficiently endangered, a c-sectionis performed as a treatment; when the baby dies, that is an unfortunate side-effect: it is not the intention nor the aim of the medical treatment.

A grown-up woman can opt for an indirect abortion instead of a direct one, for religious reasons, if she can’t keep the pregnancy until the fetus becomes viable. Nobody would find her decision horrific, although you won’t find a doctor who can say that an indirect abortion to remove an unviable fetus (be it by c-section, removing the fallopian tube, hysterectomy) is safer and less invasive for a mother’s body than a direct abortion.

There is not “indirect” and “direct” abortion. If a woman wanted to kill her baby and used a c-section instead of a D&C (or whatever), she would be just as culpable because her aim was the same, to kill the baby. A C-section is used as a medical treatment for a problem; it is not an action with only one possible outcome.

But the patient here is a child, unable to decide for herself, who was raped since she was 6 years old and with a traumatic pregnancy (remember how the pregnancy was discovered – she was in pain and her mother took her to the clinic).

There are many forms of discomfort which occur in a normal pregnancy and which do not indicate that there is anything wrong. Yes, the child experienced something which was described as “pain,” but which may not have indicated any danger and would have be considered normal if it had been known that she was pregnant. The first hospital released her–they would not have done that if she had been in any danger.

Hence the outrage expressed by many at the thought that others could force her to have a c-section, that is to be sliced open, EVEN if that could not save the fetuses.

First of all, no one was forcing her to have a c-section either. The c-section would have been the treatment *if *a problem had arisen. Had the pregnancy proceeded normally, there would have been no need for a c-section. The only reason that c-sections were mentioned was in response to the exclusion of the normal medical treatment in a danger in pregnacy in the train of thought that the killing of the babies was somehow justified by the potential danger to the little girl.

Hence the outrage expressed by many at the thought that others could force her to have a c-section, that is to be sliced open, EVEN if that could not save the fetuses. Don’t these circumstances count? Aren’t these “the circumstances of the action” that should be considered?

No, these are not circumstances which can “count.” If someone was shooting at you and you shot him to stop him and killed him, that would be a circumstance which would differentiate your act from that of your shooting an unarmed person. If your brakes failed and you ran someone over and killed him, that would differentiate what happened from your simply using a car to murder someone.

Yes, a c-section does involve “slicing open;” I’ve had one and I know. But first of all, she was not in any danger at the time of the abortion–where is the outrage that her body was invaded (yet again!) for no reason? The crux of the matter is that an action which has no other aim than to kill was performed; an action which has always, since the first century, been considered completely wrong by the Church.

You mention the outrage because she has to have an operation–children get operations every day all over the world. They have operations which are much more difficult to fix their hearts or brains, they have operations when they are younger: one operation was performed on a baby still in the womb.

But where is your outrage that an action was taken which had no other aim than to snuff out the lives of two completely innocent babies?

This is a picture of a baby at 16 weeks, right around the gestational age of the little girl’s babies

http://health.state.ga.us/wrtk/images/n16weeks.jpg

 

[Havard]

Regina vs Dudley and Stephens, an English legal case, asked the question: is necessity a defense to murder?

A few English sailors were stranded on a lifeboat, far from land, and dying of starvation and dehydration. They drew straws to decide which of them would be eaten, and accordingly killed and cannibalized the drawer of the shortest straw. They were picked up by a German ship a few days later, taken home, and tried for murder.

The case is seminal in this area of the law, because the outcome established a precedent throughout the Common Law world (of which the U.S. is a part) that necessity is not a defense to murder.

Now, if abortion is indeed murder, then one must conclude that the Dudley and Stephens case is analogous to the abortion in Brazil. If it is okay to perform an abortion in this instance, one must also conclude that killing a person outside of the womb is also acceptable for purposes of self-preservation.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

The father did not consent to the abortion [how do you know this???]
That “father” lost any rights in the matter of this child when he violated her…why is there any mention of HIS rights?

More contempt for women I have *never ever *seen. :crying:

The lack of research or just plain reading from DarkSlateBlue amazes me. Had you read the thread, you would have realized that the “father” in question is the girls biological father…who is totally innocent of the charges you just levied against him. The girl’s STEPFATHER is the one who raped and impregnated her.

THERE IS NO CONTEMPT FOR WOMEN.

More contempt for Roman Catholicism I have never seen!!!

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

St. Francis, is this what the Church recommends in such cases? A C-section is not a treatment, it’s an obviously bigger physical trauma than an abortion, especially for a malnourished pre-teen girl. If the fetuses really can’t be saved (I mean by performing a cesarean at a time when they are viable), then why the girl should be submitted to such a trauma?
childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10166
webmd.com/baby/tc/cesarean-section-risks-and-complications

You obviously have no medical, psychological or physiological information about abortion procedures and/or their impact on the mental health of the mother.

I’ve read countless Catholic blogs, searching for answers, because this whole story was and is very disturbing for me for many reasons. Some people said that the fetuses should have been removed by c-section, as you propose, some opposed that, saying that it would have meant killing them anyway, and some proposed therapeutical abortion as a way to spare the girl of additional useless hurt, since the fetuses would have died anyway - somehow like in an ectopic pregnancy where the unborn has no chance to survive.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Wow, Ive never heard of pregnancy that young - I know it happens, but for you to know 2 people! That’s disturbing. I have heard of girls dying that young in childbirth - older than that, actually. I saw an Oprah on it. In some parts of Africa, girls are married at 11 or 12, and become pregnant from 12-14. Many of them do not have wide enough pelvises to deliver these children, and especially without great medical care, they die. Others have serious damage to internal organs leaving them incontinent and shunned from their communities. It’s definitely a risk, even if it is not guaranteed.

I was 32, 5’3 and 160 pounds at 7 1/2 months gestation…and my pelvis and internal organs were just fine. With the birth of my son, I became incontinent. This is a normal occurance.
So, should women not have babies because their bladders sometimes fall somewhat and they become incontinant?
It was not SERIOUS damage.

The Blessed Mother Mary was only 14…which meant that this was absolutely normal in society.

Why are people so gung ho that the babies HAD to be MURDERED?

 

[St_Francis]

St. Francis, is this what the Church recommends in such cases? A C-section is not a treatment, it’s an obviously bigger physical trauma than an abortion, especially for a malnourished pre-teen girl. If the fetuses really can’t be saved (I mean by performing a cesarean at a time when they are viable), then why the girl should be submitted to such a trauma?
childbirthconnection.org/article.asp?ck=10166
webmd.com/baby/tc/cesarean-section-risks-and-complications

YOu do not seem to understandthe difference between a treatment and an abortion. A medical treatment is a response to a medical problem which has as its goal fixing the problem. An abortion is an action which has as its goal killing a baby. Abortion is *not *an alternative to a c-section; it is an alternative to a vaginal birth.

A c-section would be used in certain circumstances where the outcome of a vaginal birth seems likely to cause more problems than the c-section. For example, in cases where the mother’s pelvis is too small and the baby’s head to big, in cases of dangerous presentation of the baby (breech, etc.), and in cases in which the labor lasts too long. So you can see how c-section are used: in cases where there is a problem as an alternative to vaginal birth for one reason or another.

This is not the case with abortion.

I’ve read countless Catholic blogs, searching for answers, because this whole story was and is very disturbing for me for many reasons. Some people said that the fetuses should have been removed by c-section, as you propose, some opposed that, saying that it would have meant killing them anyway, and some proposed therapeutical abortion as a way to spare the girl of additional useless hurt, since the fetuses would have died anyway - somehow like in an ectopic pregnancy where the unborn has no chance to survive.

Those bloggers knew as much or less than you or I. Moreover, some of those Catholics are not sufficiently cognizant of the depth of evil inherent in abortion. Their compassion was admirable but misdirected.

The reality is that the little girl was *not in danger!!! *That seems to be a point missed by many people, that the danger did not yet exist. Had the danger come into existence, which was probable but not definite, then the *problem *could have been addressed. If she had gone into early labor, there are meds which will stop it. If she had shown signs of one of the many problems which occur in pregnancy, medical treatment according to the problem could have been administered. And had the pregnancy posed such a danger to her, then a c-section could have been performed as an alternative to waiting or to a vaginal birth.

If you look at the articles you posted, they are contrasting c-sections with vaginal birth. There are women who want a c-section instead of giving birth vaginally, and this is addressed to them. There is no mention of abortion in them: a c-section is not being presented as an alternative to an abortion.

It is not that abortion is usually wrong, it is that abortion is *always *wrong. It is not that abortion is all right in certain circumstances; it is that there are *no *circumstances which justify the act. Abortion simply is not one option among many, just as killing your boss if he won’t give you a raise is not an option.