Can raped girls abort?

[Tantum_ergo]

Medical science has made some things possible today which were not possible decades ago. If a procedure which would have invariably resulted in the death of the mother or child in, say 1650 is now (through use of minimally invasive instruments, anesthesia etc.) something which does NOT result in death of either, that does not make the Church “wrong” to have mandated against the procedure back when it would have had fatal results, simply because today it would NOT have fatal results.

So arguing that the Church did not ‘permit’ a procedure in year X needs to be viewed with the procedure as it would have ‘been’ in year X and not year AD 2010.

Let’s think of it this way. In I believe 1923, the young son of President Calvin Coolidge died of blood poisoning. Had he been stricken only a few years later, after the discovery and wide availability of penicillin, he would in all likelihood have survived. But. . .we cannot then say, “The doctors in 1923 were negligent in not giving penicillin which is the correct procedure for today”. . .can we?

 

[jmcrae]

Hope this isn’t going too much off the point, but for Tantum Ergo and jmcrae (and anyone else that wishes to answer of course):
should the Catholic Church prove that its doctrines are correct?
giving reasons why it should or shouldn’t?

Shouldn’t everyone be able to explain why they believe what they believe?

The teachings of the Church, together with how the Church came to know these teachings, is found in the Universal Catechism.

If you haven’t read it, you should.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Shouldn’t everyone be able to explain why they believe what they believe?

The teachings of the Church, together with how the Church came to know these teachings, is found in the Universal Catechism.

If you haven’t read it, you should.

Well I certainly believe most people should be able to give some sort of explanation. But when I speak of the Catholic Church, the Church doesn’t believe, only individual Catholics believe. Again I’m coming back to formal philosophical arguments.

The reason I asked is that it’s so frequent that people who ask for proof of the correctness of Catholic doctrines are so often attacked. That suggests to me that it is considered wrong in some way.

 

[Doc_Keele]

TE - the reason for the change in policy wasn’t medical technology, but the application of the doctrine of double effect by Bouscaren on the erroneous basis that the salpinx is the seat of the pathology.

 

[jmcrae]

Well I certainly believe most people should be able to give some sort of explanation. But when I speak of the Catholic Church, the Church doesn’t believe, only individual Catholics believe.

The Catholic Church is different than other Churches in that, in our case, the Church as a spiritual entity has a fixed set of beliefs.

If individual Catholics share in those beliefs then they are thinking with the mind of the Church, but if not, then what they believe is not “what the Church believes,” but rather, it is their own personal opinion, which the Church does not share.

Other churches, since they are not spiritual entities, but rather, are just assemblies of persons, are the aggregate of whatever the membership happens to believe, but not so with the Catholic Church.

Again I’m coming back to formal philosophical arguments.

And again, you can find those in the Catechism.

The reason I asked is that it’s so frequent that people who ask for proof of the correctness of Catholic doctrines are so often attacked. That suggests to me that it is considered wrong in some way.

The proof is that Christ said to the Church, “What you bind on earth is bound in Heaven, and what you loose on earth is loosed in Heaven,” and “The gates of Hell shall not prevail against you.”

 

[Doc_Keele]

I don’t see how an organisation can believe. Belief is a human activity. The Church doesn’t have a mind.

The Catechism doesn’t actually have much in the way of formal argument actually:thumbsup:

 

[jmcrae]

I don’t see how an organisation can believe. Belief is a human activity. The Church doesn’t have a mind.

The Catechism doesn’t actually have much in the way of formal argument actually:thumbsup:

Check the footnotes; they will lead you to the philosophical writings (written by actual philosophers; not by housewives killing time on the Internet while the washing machine is running) that show the basis for the teachings.

 

[Doc_Keele]

That may be the case for some sections (I can’t claim to have read the entire thing), but in the relevant sections it links to Vatican documents like Donum Vitae which don’t have the depth of argument I need.

 

[jmcrae]

That may be the case for some sections (I can’t claim to have read the entire thing), but in the relevant sections it links to Vatican documents like Donum Vitae which don’t have the depth of argument I need.

What is “Donum Vitae”? Did you mean to say “Humanae Vitae”? Have you read the related documents, such as Veritatis Splendor, Evangelium Vitae and Familiaris Consortio?

 

[Doc_Keele]

No, Donum Vitae - vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_19870222_respect-for-human-life_en.html.
I have looked through all those documents except the last one.

 

[jmcrae]

No, Donum Vitae. I have looked through all those documents except the last one.

Well, if the greatest philosophers and theologians in the world can’t help you, then I don’t know what I can do for you.

 

[Doc_Keele]

I’m sure they could help me - but in fairness these documents aren’t intended to present formal arguments I imagine. I have found a useful article in a medical ethics journal.

 

[Apryl]

What gets me is:

If you as many women today if they would abort a child if they were raped, it’s pretty easy for them to say ‘yes’

But these women don’t have a lurking figure poised over them… no one is walking up behind them. … nothing has been said to threaten them… but sitting in the safetly of their real world environment, they say they would kill their unborn child.

Why?

What did kid ever do them? Nothing. But they don’t want a reminder of the rape. Oh, so if there is an abortion, they will never think of it again.



I don’t get why there is no thought of a woman having to deal with not only being raped by some criminal, but by having an abortion, esp at their own request.

No one threatens you, but you’re buffering yourself up to be able to have a hard heart and kill your unborn child who has done NOTHING to you.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

The Church differentiates between different treatments, and considers some of them to constitute “direct” abortion and therefore forbidden - in fact any treatment was forbidden in the 19th century/early 20th I believe.

Just trying to clarify, Doc. You said earlier: I know of medical procedures where killing the child is of benefit to the mother eg in ectopic pregnancy. Just pointing out that the Church does not consider that an abortion any more than Chemo would be. Goes to intent, the inent must always be for life to prevail at it fullest. IMO

Probably true. Science has brought us more knowledge, allowing better judgment in these issues: however, just the idea of killing a child in utero was unimaginable by many until recent history…

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

What gets me is:

If you as many women today if they would abort a child if they were raped, it’s pretty easy for them to say ‘yes’

But these women don’t have a lurking figure poised over them… no one is walking up behind them. … nothing has been said to threaten them… but sitting in the safetly of their real world environment, they say they would kill their unborn child.

Why?

What did kid ever do them? Nothing. But they don’t want a reminder of the rape. Oh, so if there is an abortion, they will never think of it again.



I don’t get why there is no thought of a woman having to deal with not only being raped by some criminal, but by having an abortion, esp at their own request.

No one threatens you, but you’re buffering yourself up to be able to have a hard heart and kill your unborn child who has done NOTHING to you.

I sure hear your frustration Apryl.

What I’ve seen is that Everyone’s knee jerk reaction now is that they should get an abortion. This wasn’t the case before, but we’ve been told this over and over since the 70’s. I wish that the victims of rape and abortion who are speaking out would get more press. (afterabortion.org/maintest.html). Their stories are the real stories, but congress wouldn’t even listen to them. It breaks my heart, knowing that women don’t get all the information when they make the decision, and only find out when it’s too late what the negatives consequences are.

The expectation now is to prevent or end the pregnancy.

I often have to remind myself that God loves these little babies more than we possibly could and they are safe with Him.

 

[Doc_Keele]

Just trying to clarify, Doc. You said earlier: I know of medical procedures where killing the child is of benefit to the mother eg in ectopic pregnancy. Just pointing out that the Church does not consider that an abortion any more than Chemo would be

There are different opinions on the ethicality of different methods of treatment for ectopic pregnancy, but the majority of Catholic commentators consider only one, salpingectomy not a direct abortion and therefore licit

Goes to intent, the inent must always be for life to prevail at it fullest. IMO

I agree wholeheartedly, and that view is fine by virtue ethics, rule utilitarianism or consequentialism - but the Church doesn’t subscribe to any of of these positions.

 

[Newbie2]

I agree wholeheartedly, and that view is fine by virtue ethics, rule utilitarianism or consequentialism - but the Church doesn’t subscribe to any of of these positions.

Yet she subscribes to the viewpoint that espouses that life must be preserved, in a sense to its fullest. Does that viewpoint bother you or is it more the way the Church comes to that conclusion?

 

[Doc_Keele]

You believe that the Church puts the preservation of life as its highest priority?
That is not the case.
The Church would mandate that a pregnant mother with serious medical problems must die rather than have an abortion.

 

[kage_ar]

You believe that the Church puts the preservation of life as its highest priority?
That is not the case.
The Church would mandate that a pregnant mother with serious medical problems must die rather than have an abortion.

The Church will never permit the direct killing of mother OR child.

 

[Doc_Keele]

The Church will never permit the direct killing of mother OR child.

Which is begging the question.