Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

  • Thread starter Thread starter browser1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Belgarion said:
You do everything you can to save the babies.

Plain and simple.

There are risks for certain things, but if the babies die, you were trying to save them.

If an evil act is done for good intentions, then its still evil.
If you give the children the chance to live, it becomes a good act done with good intentions. The end may be unfortunate, but its not evil.

Intent, method, and end. If ANY of these is evil, it becomes immoral.
(Keep in mind, a bad end result that is unforeseen isn’t EVIL, it may be bad, and perhaps a venial sin, but I don’t believe its mortal)
Click to expand...
I can only envy your belief that this is “plain and simple”.

Why, given your opinion, is the life of a nine year old girl, a rape victim, less precious and expendable in relation to two four month non viable feteuses? Why should she be condemned to die when she can easily be saved through a medical procedure? Is it relevant that she did not desire to have relations or become pregnant? Would you feel this way if we were talking about your daughter? Is a doctor who refused to carry out the procedure to save the life of the nine year old girl guilty of malpractice? Should a doctor be allowed to not carry out the procedure to save the girl’s life and be exempt from a civil suit solely on the basis of personal religious or moral beliefs? Should the doctor have the right to decide based on personal beliefs? If the doctor is Jewish and therefore believes that morality demands saving the mother’s life should he be allowed to act according to his beliefs? Does it matter that the girl is carrying twins (two lives as opposed to one)?
 
Belgarion said:
You do everything you can to save the babies.

Plain and simple.

There are risks for certain things, but if the babies die, you were trying to save them.

If an evil act is done for good intentions, then its still evil.
If you give the children the chance to live, it becomes a good act done with good intentions. The end may be unfortunate, but its not evil.

Intent, method, and end. If ANY of these is evil, it becomes immoral.
(Keep in mind, a bad end result that is unforeseen isn’t EVIL, it may be bad, and perhaps a venial sin, but I don’t believe its mortal)
Click to expand...
I can only envy your belief that this is “plain and simple”.

Why, given your opinion, is the life of a nine year old girl, a rape victim, less precious and expendable in relation to two four month non viable fetuses? Why should she be condemned to die when she can easily be saved through a medical procedure? Is it relevant that she did not desire to have relations or become pregnant? Would you feel this way if we were talking about your daughter? Is a doctor who refused to carry out the procedure to save the life of the nine year old girl guilty of malpractice? Should a doctor be allowed to not carry out the procedure to save the girl’s life and be exempt from a civil suit solely on the basis of personal religious or moral beliefs? Should the doctor have the right to decide based on personal beliefs? If the doctor is Jewish and therefore believes that morality demands saving the mother’s life should he be allowed to act according to his beliefs? Does it matter that the girl is carrying twins (two lives as opposed to one)?
 
Apryl said:
Please offer your proof…or at least your anecdotal reasoning - for saying that the pregnacy was a threat to the life of the girl.😦

Pretty please.
Click to expand...
Where did I say that the pregnancy was a threat to the life of the girl? I’m just trying to get at the facts myself. A previous poster alleged that the first doctors said there was no threat to the 9 year-old’s life. I asked for a source and that poster kindly provided me with a Lifesite link. But all that said was that the first doctors ‘reportedly’ said that. I just wanted to know where this ‘reportedly’ stuff came from. Was it perhaps an interview with the doctors and, if so, did the poster know where I could access it?

Is that all right with you?

Please refrain from attributing statements to me that I didn’t make. Pretty please.
 
There’s a lesson emerging in this thread.

If people are content, or determined, to murder babies, they will come up with any excuse, and they will reject anything that counters their determination.

Watch these people very, very closely. If they will murder babies, how safe are you?

Blessings,

Gerry
 
Gerry_Hunter said:
There’s a lesson emerging in this thread.

If people are content, or determined, to murder babies, they will come up with any excuse, and they will reject anything that counters their determination.

Watch these people very, very closely. If they will murder babies, how safe are you?

Blessings,

Gerry
Click to expand...
Ohh, I don’t know, my friend…I have been with you all along on all of your posts, and I agree that the abortions were absolutely wrong, but you have to admit, this is a more difficult case than most. I don’t think we’re dealing with desperate “excuses” on this thread so much as with honest attempts to grapple with the complexities of a rare, and horrific, situation…

No?

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
Jordan_Francis said:
Why is the rapist father not ex-communicated? We need a more comprehensible policy for ex-communication. This makes the Church look pathological over the abortion question and callous to a young child’s grave predicament. There would have been no attempt at an abortion had the father not raped his step- daughter. IMO, he should bear more guilt than anyone else.
Click to expand...
Yes, many people on other websites have jumped on the church and have used that very fact. They are wondering why the father was not allso called out on the mater. The problem is that it could just be the failure of the media.

go to this link and see what people are saying. Some good Catholic Apologists are needed here. (hint)
cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html
 
JamesG said:
Yes, many people on other websites have jumped on the church and have used that very fact. They are wondering why the father was not allso called out on the mater. The problem is that it could just be the failure of the media.

go to this link and see what people are saying. Some good Catholic Apologists are needed here. (hint)
cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html
Click to expand...
I think we’re going to have to live with the fact, however unpalatable, that the stepfather’s actions are not excommunicable offences.
 
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!
 
"I think we’re going to have to live with the fact, however unpalatable, that the stepfather’s actions are not excommunicable offences. "

Really, do we have to live with this as a fact? Why would that be? Had that step-father not repeatedly raped his step-daughter from the age of six years old, this horrific situation would never have come to be. So perhaps the Church needs to examine why the rape and subsequent pregnancy of a young child is not worthy of excommunication in the first place, if it’s not an excommunicable offense, then the Church is not acknowledging a great evil here. A six year old child is every bit as defenseless as her unborn babies were. That man’s evil is at the root of this whole situation, and I find it offensive that the Church does not acknowledge that.

I am not in favour of abortion, but this case is more than a black and white issue. Let’s say the girl DID carry the twins to term, and gave birth to two daughters. Would those daughters be safe from their father’s lust, do you think, considering the Church is not condemning the step-dad in the first place??? I would think they would have been in as much danger as their none year old mother, considering he is a pedophile. Perhaps it is a good thing those twins went directly to God than stay in such a horrible situaiton, where it appears the Church is turning a blind eye to the step-father’s transgressions.

Yet it insists on punishing the mother of the girl, a mother who is no doubt traumatized as well. As the mother of a 12 year old daughter, I know I would not be thinking straight in such a situation. It is horrific, and the Church has added to it. Why not go after other targets, say politicians who declare that abortion is okay? Oh right, because those polititians have more power than these two mothers ever did. And does this case make people want to turn to the Church? I think it has driven people away, because of the perception of all judgement and no mercy.
 
rcballi46 said:
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!
Click to expand...
An interesting perspective, and welcome to the Forum!

…But…when we say “gift from God,” we don’t mean a gift like a book or a DVD or a box of chocolates that one can reject “licitly.” It’s a human life (in this case, two). “Gift from God” is a good way to suggest the light that can come into a family’s life when they choose life, but that’s not the whole picture: a pregnancy is also, at the same time, a responsibility, because the two young children are depending upon their mother for life. The Church is simply insisting that it’s wrong to say to those two children, “No, sorry, I didn’t ask for any gift, I’m the fine the way I am, so…I’m just going to have to return you to your sender.”

Of course, the girl was not responsible, and was not excommunicated. And of course the father is the person the most responsible for the whole situation, but it was the girl’s mother’s responsibility not to answer violence with more violence…

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
tuviskazinai said:
Ohh, I don’t know, my friend…I have been with you all along on all of your posts, and I agree that the abortions were absolutely wrong, but you have to admit, this is a more difficult case than most. I don’t think we’re dealing with desperate “excuses” on this thread so much as with honest attempts to grapple with the complexities of a rare, and horrific, situation…

No?

Peace,
+AMDG+
Click to expand...
Abortions ARE absolutely wrong and
that includes ALL abortions for any reason.

A moral absolute is absolute.

No one ever said this girl would die by carrying the pregnancy.
Many have argued she COULD die and MIGHT die - but not that she WOULD die.
If a time came when her very life was in danger, then action could be evaluated.
It could address the health issues of mother and babies.

Her condition (pregnant) was NOT life-threatening
and no one can prove the opposite.

With modern medicine available (as it surely would have been in this case),
any pretense that the pregnancy could kill is and was - a PRETENSE.
 
Ailina said:
"I think we’re going to have to live with the fact, however unpalatable, that the stepfather’s actions are not excommunicable offences. "

Really, do we have to live with this as a fact? Why would that be? .
Click to expand...
Yes, sadly, I think we do. Why? because the Church says that abortion is a more heinous crime than molestation and that its fitting penalty is excommunication. It makes no such determination about the rape of children. And I doubt that that’s about to change anytime soon.

BTW I do not disagree with you that child rape SHOULD be a formal excommunicable offence, but, as the Church hasn’t added it to that list in the face of the clerical child abuse scandal, I doubt very much that it is about to do so now.
 
Yellow_Belle said:
Yes, sadly, I think we do. Why? because the Church says that abortion is a more heinous crime than molestation and that its fitting penalty is excommunication. It makes no such determination about the rape of children. And I doubt that that’s about to change anytime soon.

BTW I do not disagree with you that child rape SHOULD be a formal excommunicable offence, but, as the Church hasn’t added it to that list in the face of the clerical child abuse scandal, I doubt very much that it is about to do so now.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Ailina said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don’t think you are alone in these views.
 
I think if you announced you were a cat killer you’d be in much more trouble these days than if you announced you were a doctor who was content to do abortions.

Anyone who thinks abortion is ok should toddle along to a local clinic and help out. Have the courage of your convictions. If you’re right, you’ll have done nothing wrong. You’ll even have saved some poor girls from the trial of … motherhood.

If you’re wrong, you’ll have damned yourself.

Help out today. Push the plunger of the syringe. Get the forceps or whatever they use and pull out the bloody remains. It’ll be nasty the first few times, but they say you can get used to anything. In the bin with it. If it’s still breathing, let it die on a shelf.

Frankly, I can’t think of anything more Satanic.
 
First, wrt the excommunication: there are certain actions which call for an automatic excommunication, and abortion is one of these actions. Consecrating someone a bishop without the approval of the Vatican is another. (I am not sure what the others are.)

Now all that an excommunication is is a canonical (legal) finding of the Church that you are not in a state worthy of receiving the Eucharist. Ex-communicates are still supposed to attend Mass, they are just not allowed to receive the Eucharist. The perpetrator of the crime is in mortal sin and also not supposed to receive the Eucharist, but the Church does not have the necessary resources to find out who the perpetrators of crimes are and so do not have automatic ex-communications for them.

So all that the Church was doing was reiterating a principle lost in the secular legal system, that intentionally killing unborn babies is always and everywhere mortally sinful.

Second, wrt to the abortion: everyone is saying, she had a small pelvis, etc. Wow, does no one here know about C-sections? The child was between 16 and 20 weeks pregnant when her pregnancy was discovered. A baby survived being born at 22 weeks in 2007.

They did not need to kill the poor girl’s babies to save her life; they could have simply waited til her life was endangered then delivered them by c-section.

The unborn babies had done nothing wrong, that is why it was wrong to kill them. Would it have been all right to kill them if the situation had not been discovered until after they were born? Why then was it all right in your view to kill them before they were born?
 
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.
 
peapie60 said:
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.
Click to expand...
Point 1. Yes, every woman who has (or arranges) an abortion is excommunicated.
That is true for the Catholic Church everywhere, not only in Brazil. Most of these excommunications are never “announced” because the act of abortion is usually not made public - but in fact, the woman has excommunicated herself. Going to confession can end the excommunication. The situation in Brazil was very public so the excommunication of the (Catholic) mother and doctors was announced in public.

Point 2. Abortion is never allowed by the Catholic Church. (Your belief was mistaken.)

Point 3. The issue is slightly different. They are not arranging or providing abortions. Yet one Catholic governor who supports abortion and was WARNED has now been banned from the reception of the Eucharist.
 
catharina said:
Abortions ARE absolutely wrong and
that includes ALL abortions for any reason.

A moral absolute is absolute.

No one ever said this girl would die by carrying the pregnancy.
Many have argued she COULD die and MIGHT die - but not that she WOULD die.
If a time came when her very life was in danger, then action could be evaluated.
It could address the health issues of mother and babies.

Her condition (pregnant) was NOT life-threatening
and no one can prove the opposite.

With modern medicine available (as it surely would have been in this case),
any pretense that the pregnancy could kill is and was - a PRETENSE.
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with you; I wasn’t arguing that because the case is tragic, the abortion is “less wrong.” But we have to have a heart. The mother did not have the benefit that we have of being in a situation where she could stand back and clearly weigh all of the facts in a detached manner. It’s easy for us to say that the condition was not life-threatening, but doubtless she had doctors telling her the opposite, etc.

Again, I agree with you, what the mother did was wrong…but Christianity is more than about being “right,” it is also about compassion, and so I think we should be able to say, firmly, that the abortion was wrong while also understanding the mother’s predicament and listening to our fellow Catholics’ doubts rather than scolding them. Com-passion is “suffering with,” and not only on condition that people agree with us on every morally agonizing decision.

Peace,
+AMDG+
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top