Brazil Church condemns abortion of twins

[Ailina]

The bishop did what was correct. I pray that more bishops step up to the plate and begin catechizing the faithful…and upholding the laws of the Church in a much more public manner…beginning with so called Catholic pro abortion politicians.

Well, according to that statement, Jesus should have condemned the adulterous woman who was caught red-handed, rather than forgive her. You know, rules are rules. Adultery = Stoning. Oh wait…don’t judge and show mercy…isn’t that what Jesus did? So why isn’t the archbishop in this terrible case?

There is a time for the Church to speak up, but this wasn’t one of them. I can bet this news story has driven more people away from the church, rather than drawing them in.

As for justice for the step-dad, sadly most rapists spend very little time in jail, if at all. To me, the crime added to the one of abortion, is the apparent minimizing of child abuse and sex abuse. For some reason, this is treated as a minor issue. It should NOT be, or the cycle will continue (and does, everywhere in the world).

 

[Ailina]

**QUOTE=Layman;4929058]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.**

Well, except in this case, the child was NON_CONSENTING and was raped from the time she was six years old.

And meh on older women having children…my grandmother (and those from her generation) had children from the time they were fifteen until menopause. Which meant pregnancy at ALL ages was considered normal. I didn’t get started as soon as my grandmother did, but was well within her time frame of having kids. My three were conceived when I was in my 30s. They’re perfectly fine. As are most kids who are conceived and born anytime between 12 and 52!

 

[Layman]

1. You are arguing from your particular case to the general. I am making a general point, full stop. ‘Your mileage may vary’, as they say.

2. My point was made in counter-point to one argument for aborting the girl’s child; that she was so young.

I now offer a particular example from my own experience, which is also an illustration, and proves nothing definitively, but is interesting:

A relative of mine had a baby at 30+. She was in hospital for two weeks afterwards. In the bed beside there was a 16-year-old girl. She had a baby also, and was up and out of the hospital the next day.

I’ve read that older women having kids have increased risk of having Downs Syndrome children. I have also read that pregnancy and labour are more likely to be difficult. It’s a matter of odds, probability; it won’t happen to everyone, obviously.

I certainly wish that I now had the energy and vigour I had as a teenager e.g. walking up a mountain for the fun of it!

 

[catharina]

quote=Ailina;4927028]**

Reports seem to indicate that the mother looked for an “opinion” that suited her.

**

Other reports state that the handicapped (14 yr-old) sister was also a victim.

Only because I worked with abused children, usually girls, for 30 to 40 yrs, I’ll say what hasn’t been said yet: where has the mother been for so many yrs? Considering what happened on ‘her watch’ including the rapes of a small child as a 6 yr-old, 7 yr-old, 8 yr-old and 9 yr-old, it’s very late to consider the mother capable of making any wise and caring choices about her children. A pregnancy could have been supported and handled in a way that did not re-victimize the 9 yr-old girl. Instead, the decision was pursued by a mother who seems to have abandoned ship (home) years ago.

**It’s really difficult for me to work up much sympathy for this mother in this situation. **
Sympathy for her children? Yes, absolutely.
Sympathy for the Church? Yes, absolutely.

**I very much disagree with you on these points. As somebody who WAS sexually abused as a child, I can tell you a lot can go on under peoples noses and those people would not have a clue. That is why sexual abuse of children is so easy, even in this so called enlightened society we live in. **

I DO have compassion for that mother, who no doubt has to deal with the tremendous guilt of what has occurred. This case is horrific on so many levels. I’m not saying that the abortions were okay, but that I take exception to the singling out of the mother but not calling the step-father to task for the terrible abuse he subjected those kids to in the first place. The Church is judging the mother but not the perpetrator of the crime. I find that extremely offensive. She gets singled out and he does not. That is just so sick.

I hope you’ll accept my sympathy regarding the abuse you suffered as a child.
Abuse of children should NEVER happen but we know it does.

Is it difficult for me to work up much sympathy for this mother?
I repeat: YES. It’s possible that she’s as innocent and ignorant as one can be.
It’s also just as possible that for whatever reason, she forgot to notice that at least two of her daughters, both entirely helpless, were being continuously sexually abused in her home by her husband. Would I trust THIS mother to protect her daughters? No.

Do I trust that she would make the best possible decisions for them? NO.

The husband/step-father is being charged with a horrific crime. He’ll get his.
Shall the Church pretend the mother has made a great decision. No, 'cuz she hasn’t.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, according to that statement, Jesus should have condemned the adulterous woman who was caught red-handed, rather than forgive her. You know, rules are rules. Adultery = Stoning. Oh wait…don’t judge and show mercy…isn’t that what Jesus did? So why isn’t the archbishop in this terrible case?

These two situations do not at all correlate.

First of all, the woman caught in adultery was about to be punished by the law and stoned for her sin; here we have a case in which nothing at all would happen to the grandmother or the doctors under the law.

Secondly, Christ *saw into the hearts of all those there. *He knew a lot more about the situation than we or the bishops possibly can.

The Church had previously tried to take this to the courts; it’s not as if they did nothing and then bang! excommunicated the *adult Catholics *involved after the aboritons occurred.

There is a time for the Church to speak up, but this wasn’t one of them.

The Church has been speaking out about abortion for quite some time now.

I can bet this news story has driven more people away from the church, rather than drawing them in.

So we should just compromise our principles because others might leave the Church instead of trying to grapple with the issue and understand the Church’s position?

As for justice for the step-dad, sadly most rapists spend very little time in jail, if at all. To me, the crime added to the one of abortion, is the apparent minimizing of child abuse and sex abuse. For some reason, this is treated as a minor issue. It should NOT be, or the cycle will continue (and does, everywhere in the world).

And do you honestly think that it is the Church’s fault that sex offenders against children are given so little prison time?

 

[Ailina]

These two situations do not at all correlate.

F

The Church has been speaking out about abortion for quite some time now.

So we should just compromise our principles because others might leave the Church instead of trying to grapple with the issue and understand the Church’s position?

And do you honestly think that it is the Church’s fault that sex offenders against children are given so little prison time?

If the Church was as vocal about child sexual abuse as it is about abortion, it would certainly attract many more people to the faith.

 

[Ailina]

I certainly wish that I now had the energy and vigour I had as a teenager e.g. walking up a mountain for the fun of it!

I DO still walk (and ski and snow shoe) up mountains for the fun of it! Having had children when I was in my 30s has kept me young in my late 40s! I know the risks of complications are higher as a woman gets older. But a woman’s body is still perfectly capable of having babies until menopause, and always has been. You’re not suggesting that women go on the pill after they’ve passed their 30s, are you? My mother (who had four children before me) was also in her 30s, when she had me, as was her mother when she had her.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

Well, according to that statement, Jesus should have condemned the adulterous woman who was caught red-handed, rather than forgive her. You know, rules are rules. Adultery = Stoning. Oh wait…don’t judge and show mercy…isn’t that what Jesus did? So why isn’t the archbishop in this terrible case?

There is a time for the Church to speak up, but this wasn’t one of them. I can bet this news story has driven more people away from the church, rather than drawing them in.

As for justice for the step-dad, sadly most rapists spend very little time in jail, if at all. To me, the crime added to the one of abortion, is the apparent minimizing of child abuse and sex abuse. For some reason, this is treated as a minor issue. It should NOT be, or the cycle will continue (and does, everywhere in the world).

You seem to forget that Jesus also destroyed the money making schemes in the synagague using a whip and very harsh words. He called a sin a sin. He never told the adulterous woman that she had done nothing wrong. He simply told her to go and sin no more. No, He did not wish her to be stoned to death because He held to the sanctity of life.

So your example does not fit your point. It is imperative that the Truth be told, whether it is comfortable to our emotions or not.

And the Church has nothing to do with secular law. The Church could not condemn the man to jail for his lifetime.
You are mixing up religious law with secular law.

 

[Jesus_N_Cherie]

1. You are arguing from your particular case to the general. I am making a general point, full stop. ‘Your mileage may vary’, as they say.

2. My point was made in counter-point to one argument for aborting the girl’s child; that she was so young.

I now offer a particular example from my own experience, which is also an illustration, and proves nothing definitively, but is interesting:

A relative of mine had a baby at 30+. She was in hospital for two weeks afterwards. In the bed beside there was a 16-year-old girl. She had a baby also, and was up and out of the hospital the next day.

I’ve read that older women having kids have increased risk of having Downs Syndrome children. I have also read that pregnancy and labour are more likely to be difficult. It’s a matter of odds, probability; it won’t happen to everyone, obviously.

I certainly wish that I now had the energy and vigour I had as a teenager e.g. walking up a mountain for the fun of it!

This is totally correct. I had a baby at 30 yrs old. My sister in law, at 18 had a baby 3 weeks later. She recovered a lot more quickly than myself. And she also had a lot more energy in taking care of her children than I did.

 

[Layman]

I am not suggesting that women 30+ go on the pill. I think it’s good to have them full stop. I’ve read not having kids can cause things like ovarian cysts, for example.

It’s a bugbear of mine: That the idea is being promoted in our culture to put off having children at all until you are well-secured financially. That it’s normal to do so.

A young man in a company I worked for had a few kids by the time he was 25. A nice chap, doing well for himself. The older unmarried women hovering around 30 in the same company were … non-plussed by this.

The general result of delaying marriage and children, in my opinion; fewer children, maybe sicker, maybe none at all. I know the sociological reasons for it, but I think it’s wicked to promote to women, via media b.s., that this is OK, even desirable.

Perhaps it’s just increased wealth + contraception. We’re behaving like decadent Romans or the upper class of any wealthy society; indulging ourselves to extinction, perhaps.

 

[chosen_people]

Sorry, I misread that.

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.

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.

But I am sure that she would mourn inside.

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.

If you or anyone else is interested in the difference between motive and intent, intent as opposed to wanton recklessness, “closing ones eyes” to natural consequences, malpractice, or informed consent I will be happy to discuss these issues in the context of the examples in this thread, either openly or through private messaging.

I assure you that I clearly understand your attempt to make a distinction between a doctor who terminates a pregnancy without any danger to the mother or fetus and a doctor who causes the death of the fetus and the termination of the pregnancy due to the administration of chemotherapy to a mother ill with cancer. However in both cases, both the mother and the doctor are aware that their actions will lead to the termination of the pregnancy and death of the fetus. The latter case also requires a conscious decision whether to prefer the welfare and life of the mother or the life and welfare of the fetus.

As for the “innocence” of the child, the main reason in my opinion for the unbending stance of Catholics here is rooted in their dogma of “original sin” which leads to a stance that all abortion is forbidden in every case just as a woman’s feminist group would take the opposite stance that all abortion should be allowed in every case by the mother’s choice. Jewish law, like all law, recognizes and balances opposing rights and the conflict between them. It may also be said that the mother is “innocent” of the medical necessity to terminate the pregnancy and is devastated by having to choose.

It was interesting that you asked at what point a Jewish doctor would say that the danger exists rather than ask at what point would a rabbi believe that the termination of the pregnancy is permissible under Jewish law. The rabbi would make his determination based on the medical opinion that to to continue the pregnancy would seriously endanger the life of the mother. That medical opinion should not be based on the religious beliefs of the doctor but on a purely medical basis. This of course brings up the other problem of a Catholic doctor wrestling with his personal moral imperatives and his responsibility as a doctor and his obligations under his country’s law.

 

[chosen_people]

If you or anyone else is interested in the difference between motive and intent, intent as opposed to wanton recklessness, “closing ones eyes” to natural consequences, malpractice, or informed consent I will be happy to discuss these issues in the context of the examples in this thread, either openly or through private messaging.

I assure you that I clearly understand your attempt to make a distinction between a doctor who terminates a pregnancy without any danger to the mother or fetus and a doctor who causes the death of the fetus and the termination of the pregnancy due to the administration of chemotherapy to a mother ill with cancer. However in both cases, both the mother and the doctor are aware that their actions will lead to the termination of the pregnancy and death of the fetus. The latter case also requires a conscious decision whether to prefer the welfare and life of the mother or the life and welfare of the fetus.

As for the “innocence” of the child, the main reason in my opinion for the unbending stance of Catholics here is rooted in their dogma of “original sin” which leads to a stance that all abortion is forbidden in every case just as a woman’s feminist group would take the opposite stance that all abortion should be allowed in every case by the mother’s choice. Jewish law, like all law, recognizes and balances opposing rights and the conflict between them. It may also be said that the mother is “innocent” of the medical necessity to terminate the pregnancy and is devastated by having to choose.

It was interesting that you asked at what point a Jewish doctor would say that the danger exists rather than ask at what point would a rabbi believe that the termination of the pregnancy is permissible under Jewish law. The rabbi would make his determination based on the medical opinion that to to continue the pregnancy would seriously endanger the life of the mother. That medical opinion should not be based on the religious beliefs of the doctor but on a purely medical basis. This of course brings up the other problem of a Catholic doctor wrestling with his personal moral imperatives and his responsibility as a doctor and his obligations under his country’s law.

 

[St_Francis]

If you or anyone else is interested in the difference between motive and intent, intent as opposed to wanton recklessness, “closing ones eyes” to natural consequences, malpractice, or informed consent I will be happy to discuss these issues in the context of the examples in this thread, either openly or through private messaging.

I assure you that I clearly understand your attempt to make a distinction between a doctor who terminates a pregnancy without any danger to the mother or fetus and a doctor who causes the death of the fetus and the termination of the pregnancy due to the administration of chemotherapy to a mother ill with cancer. However in both cases, both the mother and the doctor are aware that their actions will lead to the termination of the pregnancy and death of the fetus. The latter case also requires a conscious decision whether to prefer the welfare and life of the mother or the life and welfare of the fetus.

As for the “innocence” of the child, the main reason in my opinion for the unbending stance of Catholics here is rooted in their dogma of “original sin” which leads to a stance that all abortion is forbidden in every case just as a woman’s feminist group would take the opposite stance that all abortion should be allowed in every case by the mother’s choice. Jewish law, like all law, recognizes and balances opposing rights and the conflict between them. It may also be said that the mother is “innocent” of the medical necessity to terminate the pregnancy and is devastated by having to choose.

I am assuming you are Jewish (!), and so you do not understand the nature of Church teaching, which is that it is not merely “law,” but God’s law. You have the commandment from God “Thou shalt not kill,” and this, at least to us, means not to take an action with the intent of taking an innocent life.

One aspect of this is that doctors can be wrong. To kill the unborn child on the word of the doctor that something *might *or even probably would happen would be wrong, because there is always a chance that the danger will not happen.

The baby’s dying during treatment is therefore an entirely different thing.

It was interesting that you asked at what point a Jewish doctor would say that the danger exists rather than ask at what point would a rabbi believe that the termination of the pregnancy is permissible under Jewish law. The rabbi would make his determination based on the medical opinion that to to continue the pregnancy would seriously endanger the life of the mother. That medical opinion should not be based on the religious beliefs of the doctor but on a purely medical basis. This of course brings up the other problem of a Catholic doctor wrestling with his personal moral imperatives and his responsibility as a doctor and his obligations under his country’s law.

Oh, I’m sorry I didn’t put that right, did I? What I meant was, if a woman is told at 2 months along that danger would most likely occur *later *in the pregnancy, would the rabbi saiy, yes, the danger *currently *exists, or would the rabbi say, wait until the danger actually exists? Because the Mishna seemed to be discussing cases in which the mother was *in *the danger rather than when the mother had a medical opinion that she would be in danger at some point in the future.

And, as I said, the examples were such as have been rectified by medical science.

 

[savienu]

Well, according to that statement, Jesus should have condemned the adulterous woman who was caught red-handed, rather than forgive her. You know, rules are rules. Adultery = Stoning. Oh wait…don’t judge and show mercy…isn’t that what Jesus did? So why isn’t the archbishop in this terrible case?

There is a time for the Church to speak up, but this wasn’t one of them. I can bet this news story has driven more people away from the church, rather than drawing them in.

As for justice for the step-dad, sadly most rapists spend very little time in jail, if at all. To me, the crime added to the one of abortion, is the apparent minimizing of child abuse and sex abuse. For some reason, this is treated as a minor issue. It should NOT be, or the cycle will continue (and does, everywhere in the world).

An excommunication IS merciful, because it lets the person know they are grave danger of losing their soul and need to repent. Why does every seem to be seeing excommunication as a death sentence/condemnation to Hell?

 

[St_Francis]

If the Church was as vocal about child sexual abuse as it is about abortion, it would certainly attract many more people to the faith.

The Church does not need to be “vocal” about child abuse: we all recognize child abuse as a terrible wrong.

However, the child abuse of permitting the killing of a child simply because that child is not yet born is *not *recognized by a huge contingent of western society, and so the Church is vocal about *that. *

The Catholic Church is not some sort of company trying to “attract” people to its “product.” It is the teacher of God’s truths: people can either accept or reject them, but the Church will never change her teachings, much less change them in order to “attract” people.

 

[Ailina]

The Church does not need to be “vocal” about child abuse: we all recognize child abuse as a terrible wrong.

However, the child abuse of permitting the killing of a child simply because that child is not yet born is *not *recognized by a huge contingent of western society, and so the Church is vocal about *that. *

The Catholic Church is not some sort of company trying to “attract” people to its “product.” It is the teacher of God’s truths: people can either accept or reject them, but the Church will never change her teachings, much less change them in order to “attract” people.

Well, actually, the Church has NOT been vocal enough concerning the issue of child abuse, to judge by the way it protected the few pedophile priests in it’s ranks for so many years. That is my point. The Church ALSO needs to be as vocal about child abuse, including sex abuse, as it is about abortion, and it has not been. Children who suffer such abuse are permanently damaged, and carry that damage forward to the next generation.

This issue of a raped child’s mother being publicly condemned for the abortion, but not the man that perfomed such brutal actions that led to this point, is what people are mainly protesting. The Church should have been as public in it’s condemnation of him as it is of the mother, because his actions also have also caused permanent damage to that child. THAT has been my point all along.

 

[St_Francis]

Well, actually, the Church has NOT been vocal enough concerning the issue of child abuse, to judge by the way it protected the few pedophile priests in it’s ranks for so many years. That is my point. The Church ALSO needs to be as vocal about child abuse, including sex abuse, as it is about abortion, and it has not been. Children who suffer such abuse are permanently damaged, and carry that damage forward to the next generation.

The men in the Church handled that situation in the wrong way, it’s true, and the Church as a whole is now suffering for those really stupid decisions. And no one is denying that. Catholics were as horrified as everyone else.

This issue of a raped child’s mother being publicly condemned for the abortion, but not the man that perfomed such brutal actions that led to this point, is what people are mainly protesting. The Church should have been as public in it’s condemnation of him as it is of the mother, because his actions also have also caused permanent damage to that child. THAT has been my point all along.

The bishop did say that the man’s action were heinous.

Look, child abuse is totally, wrong, no one is denying that. But look at it from the Church’s point of view: murder is more wrong even than child abuse. And child abuse is illegal all over the world, but abortion is not. So the Church is focusing on where society is going wrong, not on where society has it right.

I went to a site with this as a news item, and you should have seen the comments: the abortion supporters were unconcerned about the abortion, of course, but even people who said they were pro-life said they thought *this *abortion was all right.

The Church is not trying to condemn anyone, the Church is trying to get us to *think. *

 

[catharina]

I’m pretty sure that Jesus had a few things to say about mercy and forgiveness as well. I would think that this situation would call for mercy and forgiveness for the family who had to make a decision that we all pray none of us will ever be faced with. Instead the bishop chose excommunication of the family. He chose to add to their pain.

Mercy and forgiveness are available and will be granted as soon as the principals reject the error of their actions (repent) and ask for forgiveness. The family and doctors chose excommunication for themselves and so it stands.

 

[catharina]

If you or anyone else is interested in the difference between motive and intent, intent as opposed to wanton recklessness, “closing ones eyes” to natural consequences, malpractice, or informed consent I will be happy to discuss these issues in the context of the examples in this thread, either openly or through private messaging.

I assure you that I clearly understand your attempt to make a distinction between a doctor who terminates a pregnancy without any danger to the mother or fetus and a doctor who causes the death of the fetus and the termination of the pregnancy due to the administration of chemotherapy to a mother ill with cancer. However in both cases, both the mother and the doctor are aware that their actions will lead to the termination of the pregnancy and death of the fetus. The latter case also requires a conscious decision whether to prefer the welfare and life of the mother or the life and welfare of the fetus.

As for the “innocence” of the child, the main reason in my opinion for the unbending stance of Catholics here is rooted in their dogma of “original sin” which leads to a stance that all abortion is forbidden in every case just as a woman’s feminist group would take the opposite stance that all abortion should be allowed in every case by the mother’s choice. Jewish law, like all law, recognizes and balances opposing rights and the conflict between them. It may also be said that the mother is “innocent” of the medical necessity to terminate the pregnancy and is devastated by having to choose.

It was interesting that you asked at what point a Jewish doctor would say that the danger exists rather than ask at what point would a rabbi believe that the termination of the pregnancy is permissible under Jewish law. The rabbi would make his determination based on the medical opinion that to to continue the pregnancy would seriously endanger the life of the mother. That medical opinion should not be based on the religious beliefs of the doctor but on a purely medical basis. This of course brings up the other problem of a Catholic doctor wrestling with his personal moral imperatives and his responsibility as a doctor and his obligations under his country’s law.

Actually not, to the best of my knowledge. I’ve never heard Church Teaching opposing abortion related to the doctrine of original sin. Rather it is related to the absolute that God Alone is the Author of life and life begins at conception. In earlier days (centuries ago) there were questions as to when life began: at quickening? at “showing?” Nancy Pelosi and her crew like to pretend the matter is still being questioned. It is not. Church Teaching is that life begins at conception; the law is that life is protected from the instant of conception.

Jewish law (like any law) can declare otherwise. That doesn’t make it so.

 

[fix]

It seems the basic problem is that many fail to see abortion for the grave evil that it is. That does not excuse other sins, but it does expalin why so many just don’t get it.