Can raped girls abort?

[Holly3278]

***No! *** Tell me, what wrong did the unborn child do that was conceived out of rape. I have said it before and I will say it again. Abortion is never morally right!

 

[Jermosh]

Perhaps I misunderstood, the link you provided is for the following: Fact Sheet: Emergency Contraception and Treatment of Victims of Sexual Assault.
This does not mean that the Church approves the use of emergency BC for anyone who is not married. They were simply defining their position on whether they can provide emergency BC in the case of rape.

Yes and that my point, if ABC is a universal intrinsic evil, why would they allow it in some cases?

The Church has only spoken about contraception within a marriage because, the assumption is that no one is having sex outside of marriage. It would be pointless to state if/when it’s ok to use contraception outside of marriage when
a) it’s never ok to use, and
b) you shouldn’t be involved in a sexual relationship anyway.

a) is not true, see above.
b) agree, but this is the actual sin of the act.

Your comment reminds me of a preacher who said that because the bible doesn’t say that women can’t get an abortion, it must be ok.

Are you thinking that it should be ok for someone who had sex outside of marriage to use and emergency contraceptive, because it is supposed to prevent implantation? It’s in important point and I appreciate the discussion. Let me know if I’m misunderstanding something here, ok?

In the case of rape I think its certainly the moral choice if conception has not taken place, which can be hours if not days after the act. This was not an consensual act, she did not take an oath to be open to life. Now if life is present, that’s a different story.

That said, do you think its a double sin to have sex outside of marriage and use a condom? That’s pretty illogical on many levels, in fact you could state that not using a condom is a sin in case since you are putting yourself and partner in harms way. I agree this is a catch22, on one hand we cannot promote illicit sex, but stating that ABCs is an universal intrinsic evil is only going to promote confusion.

I really would wish the Church would give us a desicive answer on these types of issues, I remember having this debate with a poster who was adamate that if a woman took the “pill” for theraputic issues and was raped, she would be in mortal sin.

 

[Fidelis_Unus]

Yes and that my point, if ABC is a universal intrinsic evil, why would they allow it in some cases?
a) is not true, see above.
b) agree, but this is the actual sin of the act.

It is my understanding that “a” IS true. What the USCCB page is saying is that you may use emergency contraception in the case where a woman has been raped, provided others precautions are taken to ensure that an abortion doesn’t take place (determining the victim’s cycle or preventing ovulation). They are also quite specific in the type that his used (not using Preven for example, because while it is portrayed as contraceptive, it is actually more abortifacient.

This is how we got from abortion in the case of rape, health of the mother to abortion on demand. Now, you are doing the same thing with the emergency contraception. The Church knew this would happen this minute the said anything about the rape issue and were very, very careful in their statements.

In the case of rape I think its certainly the moral choice if conception has not taken place, which can be hours if not days after the act. This was not an consensual act, she did not take an oath to be open to life. Now if life is present, that’s a different story.

Ending the life of an innocent human being THAT GOD CREATED is never the moral choice. Oath doesn’t have anything to do with it, the simple fact is that God created that life and we have no right to kill another human being.

That said, do you think its a double sin to have sex outside of marriage and use a condom? That’s pretty illogical on many levels, in fact you could state that not using a condom is a sin in case since you are putting yourself and partner in harms way. I agree this is a catch22, on one hand we cannot promote illicit sex, but stating that ABCs is an universal intrinsic evil is only going to promote confusion.

Its a bit confusing to vaccilate back and forth between rape and extramarital sex. In terms of this question they are two different sins. Double? I wouldn’t know, I don’t think God deals in our terms like this. I leave culpability up to Him, otherwise I become to scrupulous myself.

Remember sin is separation from God. Any choice against God’s will draws us further from Him. Your comment about condoms is less than ideal. If you were not having sex outside of marriage, you would not be exposing yourself to STD’s. I do not see the confusion. The Church has always been clear and it is in intrinsic evil. It is a tool designed specifically to subvert the will of God.

I really would wish the Church would give us a desicive answer on these types of issues, I remember having this debate with a poster who was adamate that if a woman took the “pill” for theraputic issues and was raped, she would be in mortal sin.

and I think that they have, repeatedly. The issue is that people are extrapolating their decisive comments to mean things that were not said or inferred. Honestly, while it seems unkind, the other poster is likely right. That sin is mitigated, of course, and it is up to God to sort out, but I refuse to get into that whole discussion. It’s done ad nauseum elsewhere. The woman who posted is most likely concerned about the woman’s soul. By allowing abortion afer rape, we’re taking a victim and separating her from God when she most needs Him.

Look, questioning is important, but the bottom line is that we are to defer to the Magisterium in all things Catholic. Time and time again, I questioned things, and every single time, the more I read, the more I understand, I discovered that I agree with the teaching.

Regards,

 

[Jermosh]

It is my understanding that “a” IS true. What the USCCB page is saying is that you may use emergency contraception in the case where a woman has been raped, provided others precautions are taken to ensure that an abortion doesn’t take place (determining the victim’s cycle or preventing ovulation). They are also quite specific in the type that his used (not using Preven for example, because while it is portrayed as contraceptive, it is actually more abortifacient.

No its spoke of specifically for its contraceptive use, not the abortifacient use.

This is how we got from abortion in the case of rape, health of the mother to abortion on demand. Now, you are doing the same thing with the emergency contraception. The Church knew this would happen this minute the said anything about the rape issue and were very, very careful in their statements.

I am stating that ABC are not a universal intrinsic evil, if they were they would never state its ok under certain circumstances. We are also not speaking of therapeutic use either, its specifically speaks of its contraceptive use.

Ending the life of an innocent human being THAT GOD CREATED is never the moral choice. Oath doesn’t have anything to do with it, the simple fact is that God created that life and we have no right to kill another human being.

This is not the case with contraceptive use, if all precautions are taken, then it is morally correct to stop fertilization from happening, the link is crystal clear on this. So why bring this up?

Its a bit confusing to vaccilate back and forth between rape and extramarital sex. In terms of this question they are two different sins. Double? I wouldn’t know, I don’t think God deals in our terms like this. I leave culpability up to Him, otherwise I become to scrupulous myself.

Then why is it wrong? I mean do you really think that people are just going to stop having sex outside of marriage?

Remember sin is separation from God. Any choice against God’s will draws us further from Him. Your comment about condoms is less than ideal. If you were not having sex outside of marriage, you would not be exposing yourself to STD’s. I do not see the confusion. The Church has always been clear and it is in intrinsic evil. It is a tool designed specifically to subvert the will of God.

So as again, why is it being allowed in this case and still being called an intrinsic evil.

Also there are a number of ways to contract STDs from the past and from non sexual means as well. Either there are exceptions or there are not, absolutes do not have exceptions.

and I think that they have, repeatedly. The issue is that people are extrapolating their decisive comments to mean things that were not said or inferred. Honestly, while it seems unkind, the other poster is likely right. That sin is mitigated, of course, and it is up to God to sort out, but I refuse to get into that whole discussion. It’s done ad nauseum elsewhere. The woman who posted is most likely concerned about the woman’s soul. By allowing abortion afer rape, we’re taking a victim and separating her from God when she most needs Him.

Look, questioning is important, but the bottom line is that we are to defer to the Magisterium in all things Catholic. Time and time again, I questioned things, and every single time, the more I read, the more I understand, I discovered that I agree with the teaching.

Regards,

They have not, if they did we would not have large majority of Catholics using them, or ordained priest and even bishops speaking of moral use in certain cases. The Church is actually quite silent on this.

I am also not speaking or stating about abortion after rape as well, or any abortion for that matter. I think direct abortion is a crime of humanity, I also think people having children that they did not want nor can take care of is one as well, more minor of course.

 

[Rence]

In the case of rape I think its certainly the moral choice if conception has not taken place, which can be hours if not days after the act. This was not an consensual act, she did not take an oath to be open to life. Now if life is present, that’s a different story.

That’s definitely a big stumbling block for me, I admit it. I think it’s very difficult for a lot of people.

I really would wish the Church would give us a desicive answer on these types of issues

I don’t think they can. Can you imagine the result of that? Even, if in mercy or compassion they stated that Plan B was acceptable in the case of rape and gave specific time guidelines and such, you’d have all kinds of people taking advantage of it. But I do too wish they would address it and give a decisive answer. Because I agree with you, being raped and consenting to sex are entirely different and should be treated differently.

I remember having this debate with a poster who was adamate that if a woman took the “pill” for theraputic issues and was raped, she would be in mortal sin.

Well that’s just not a teaching of the Church, don’t even worry about that.

 

[Apryl]

Because I agree with you, being raped and consenting to sex are entirely different and should be treated differently.

I disagree!

Life is life, no matter HOW it got to be. I think the point of those who say that abortion does not become acceptable when the mother was raped because the child that is the product of that rape is still a child. Still the child of that mother. Still a human life with a soul.

We are not God,and should not act as if we think we are gods who get to say when a life begins or ends.

PERIOD

That is like me saying that you should never have been born as your father never gave your mother a dozen long stemmed roses… or because your mother hadn’t totally gotten over her previous boyfriend… or because had you been born two months earlier you would have graduated High School a year earlier

Do you believe any of those reasons to be valid to end a life? I’m not talking of a very young (unborn) person, but supposing I walked into a school and started just picking off kids because their mother and father hadn’t dated for six months before they were married, and then been married for another six months before they started their family.

The point I’m trying to make is that the circumstances of the conception don’t alter that their was a conception.

Life is at the discretion of God. If you try to make it at your discretion, you are trying to be god.

 

[hellopeople]

I’ve wondered if the next scientist to cure cancer was aborted by a confused woman who needed help to understand what she was about to do. Or needed practical help to carry on with the birth.

Makes you think.

And imagine what would have happened if hitler’s mother got an abortion…this argument goes both ways.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

And imagine what would have happened if hitler’s mother got an abortion…this argument goes both ways.

No it doesn’t. One may never do an evil even if a ‘purported’ good is the object. No matter how evil Herr Hitler was, ‘aborting him’ would never be the correct moral answer.

Evil is always evil.

 

[hellopeople]

No it doesn’t. One may never do an evil even if a ‘purported’ good is the object. No matter how evil Herr Hitler was, ‘aborting him’ would never be the correct moral answer.

Evil is always evil.

I disagree with this. If I had to punch a baby in the stomach to save 10 lives, there is no doubt in my mind that I would do it. It would be horrible, but I would do it. I am more of a utilitarian when it comes to morality. I believe that if something is evil, but produces a greater good, then you should do it. If I could go back and kill hitler, knowing it would produce a much better world now, I would no doubt do it. I think that if you knew a child was going to grow up and become a mass murderer by some sort of divine revelation, you should kill that child.

 

[st_lucy]

I disagree with this. If I had to punch a baby in the stomach to save 10 lives, there is no doubt in my mind that I would do it. It would be horrible, but I would do it. I am more of a utilitarian when it comes to morality. I believe that if something is evil, but produces a greater good, then you should do it. If I could go back and kill hitler, knowing it would produce a much better world now, I would no doubt do it. I think that if you knew a child was going to grow up and become a mass murderer by some sort of divine revelation, you should kill that child.

SICK!

Please don’t do us any favors.

 

[Rence]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence
Because I agree with you, being raped and consenting to sex are entirely different and should be treated differently.

I disagree!

I support the right to your opinion. You have the right to disagree with me. But I have the right to my beliefs, feelings and opinions as well. I would never impose my beliefs, feelings and opinions on you, or anyone else. And I won’t tolerate anyone trying to stomp on me by trying to force their beliefs, feelings and opinions on me. With God’s Grace, may we both never even have to worry about that situation to begin with.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I disagree with this. If I had to punch a baby in the stomach to save 10 lives, there is no doubt in my mind that I would do it. It would be horrible, but I would do it. I am more of a utilitarian when it comes to morality. I believe that if something is evil, but produces a greater good, then you should do it. If I could go back and kill hitler, knowing it would produce a much better world now, I would no doubt do it. I think that if you knew a child was going to grow up and become a mass murderer by some sort of divine revelation, you should kill that child.

And how do you know it would be ‘divine’ revelation?

I pity you. . .you have really bought into the idea of moral relativism.

Also, how do you know the world would have been better ‘without Hitler?’

Bad as he was, if he had not ‘been there’, what if there had been someone worse? It’s always a mistake to do the ‘hindsight history’ and assume that if you just had done one action ‘differently’ you’d have wound up all sunshine and flowers and rainbows. For example, I can tell you that Germany was working on the A bomb before we were. If Hitler had not come to power, with the U.S. in the Depression still at the end of the 1930s, and with a lot of people already looking toward a policy of communism, you’d have run the risk that rather than WW2 as it happened, you’d have wound up with a nasty attempted communist takeover of the U.S. in the late 1940s or 1950s, possibly with atomic warfare as Germany, Russia and China would have aligned together. Bad as the holocaust was, it might have paled if global atomic war had come to pass, which it might well have if the world had NOT experienced WW2 instead.

So you’d be willing to do something totally ‘awful’ if the ‘rewards’ were good enough? That really doesn’t speak well for your morality. I’m sorry to say it and again I feel sorry for you and will pray for you. If you really think that you can do unspeakable things --even murder–just because you think if you do you’ll get some kind of reward, even a really ‘good’ reward like 'saving lives–you’re a very confused person and in great spiritual danger.

 

[Apryl]

And imagine what would have happened if hitler’s mother got an abortion…this argument goes both ways.

Which is the reason WE don’t get to be god and say which babies get to be born, and which are not.

Besides, once Hitler was born, his environment had some impact on the life and legacy he was to leave. When he was born, he could have been raised in a two parent household and loved and taught tolerance and… you get the idea.

Look in your own families. I’m sure that there are some folx that when it’s time for the Holiday Meal, we think how nice it would be if they were not there (it could be ourselves) and then the next meal, we could be grateful that one is there, and wonder about the others who may or may not be there.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence
Because I agree with you, being raped and consenting to sex are entirely different and should be treated differently.

I support the right to your opinion. You have the right to disagree with me. But I have the right to my beliefs, feelings and opinions as well. I would never impose my beliefs, feelings and opinions on you, or anyone else. And I won’t tolerate anyone trying to stomp on me by trying to force their beliefs, feelings and opinions on me. With God’s Grace, may we both never even have to worry about that situation to begin with.

“Force beliefs?”

Not really.

Suppose, Rence, that I insisted that moral belief required me to destroy your church every month or so (because your ‘statues’ totally went against MY religious beliefs of iconoclasty). You’d point out (quite correctly) that the ‘law’ protected your property.

Right there you have an example of the state ‘forcing’ its beliefs on private property onto people who might not ‘accept’ those beliefs. You aren’t complaining, are you?

The state ‘forces’ its beliefs on speed limits, quiet on hospital zones, taxes, etc. onto people and while people sometimes disobey, if they’re caught they ‘pay a penalty’.

Why is it that you assume that there are ‘different moralities’? What example have we ever seen in ANY society or human experience that has ever shown that, for example, "stealing’ is perfectly acceptable by old ladies, but not for young men? Or that arson is acceptable if it is done by a virgin at the full moon, but not at any other time? Or that drunkenness is acceptable but ONLY if you’re Irish?

Human experience is that ‘morality’ is ABSOLUTE, not relative. A moral good is good all the time and for everybody- a moral evil is evil all the time and for everybody.

It is only in the last 40 or 50 years or so in Western civilization that we have had the nihilists, and anarchists, come up with the crazy idea that morality is ‘relative’ and that it can ‘change’ according to person and situation.

 

[Rence]

“Force beliefs?”

Not really.

Suppose, Rence, that I insisted that moral belief required me to destroy your church every month or so (because your ‘statues’ totally went against MY religious beliefs of iconoclasty). You’d point out (quite correctly) that the ‘law’ protected your property.

Right there you have an example of the state ‘forcing’ its beliefs on private property onto people who might not ‘accept’ those beliefs. You aren’t complaining, are you?

The state ‘forces’ its beliefs on speed limits, quiet on hospital zones, taxes, etc. onto people and while people sometimes disobey, if they’re caught they ‘pay a penalty’.

Why is it that you assume that there are ‘different moralities’? What example have we ever seen in ANY society or human experience that has ever shown that, for example, "stealing’ is perfectly acceptable by old ladies, but not for young men? Or that arson is acceptable if it is done by a virgin at the full moon, but not at any other time? Or that drunkenness is acceptable but ONLY if you’re Irish?

Human experience is that ‘morality’ is ABSOLUTE, not relative. A moral good is good all the time and for everybody- a moral evil is evil all the time and for everybody.

It is only in the last 40 or 50 years or so in Western civilization that we have had the nihilists, and anarchists, come up with the crazy idea that morality is ‘relative’ and that it can ‘change’ according to person and situation.

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to upset you further, but I don’t understand how all the above craziness proves that you’re right and I’m wrong and that you should have dominion over me? or that your crazy senarios prove that I have to adopt your views as my own. I just don’t get it. I guess it really doesn’t matter does it? Because at the end of the day, you’ll still have your views and I’ll still have mine. And again, even though we differ, I respect the rights you have to your opinions.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m sorry, I don’t mean to upset you further, but I don’t understand how all the above craziness proves that you’re right and I’m wrong and that you should have dominion over me? or that your crazy senarios prove that I have to adopt your views as my own. I just don’t get it. I guess it really doesn’t matter does it? Because at the end of the day, you’ll still have your views and I’ll still have mine. And again, even though we differ, I respect the rights you have to your opinions.

You’re not upsetting me though calling my scenarios ‘crazy’ isn’t really the best way to engage in dialogue IMO. . .

I’m not trying to have ‘dominion over you.’ If you don’t accept that morality is absolute you’re wrong but I can’t ‘force’ you to be right; I can only attempt to educate you. At least you should know the truth in order to accept–or reject it, right?

At the end of the day, I’ll still have truth–because there is such a thing as truth and it is absolute, not relative.

There is no ‘Rence’s truth’ here, and "Tantum’s truth’ there, with everybody all Panglossian in the best of all possible worlds taking whatever ‘truth’ they want and not being ‘forced’ into another’s mean old truth against their will.’

There is God’s truth. God’s truth is for Rence, and for Tantum, and for everybody, everywhere.

At the end of the day. . .we accept God’s truth or we reject it.

 

[Apryl]

I disagree with this. If I had to punch a baby in the stomach to save 10 lives, there is no doubt in my mind that I would do it. It would be horrible, but I would do it. I am more of a utilitarian when it comes to morality. I believe that if something is evil, but produces a greater good, then you should do it. If I could go back and kill hitler, knowing it would produce a much better world now, I would no doubt do it. I think that if you knew a child was going to grow up and become a mass murderer by some sort of divine revelation, you should kill that child.

… and if you knew that he was going to be a mass murderer, you could PREVENT him from BECOMING that mass murderer!

Get the kid into therapy (in the 1920s, that was like sending him to camp or on an organized team for sports) and influence him in ways to prevent his becoming that horrible monster.

How did he become that monster? Did you ever read the book ( Or see the movie) Marathon Man? This is fictional, but it still talks about the factors that led to the monster he became?

And it may sound silly… but even if you could go back in time (yeah, right) you can’t KNOW that little Al would grow up to be the monster, as elements of time and other such things would change that. Heck, maybe it was all because Mariam Sue didn’t accept his proposal for a date…and it was on a day when his dog got sick and died, if Mariam Sue goes out with him, and if his dog was taken to a vet all this could change.

 

[Apryl]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence
Because I agree with you, being raped and consenting to sex are entirely different and should be treated differently.

I support the right to your opinion. You have the right to disagree with me. But I have the right to my beliefs, feelings and opinions as well. I would never impose my beliefs, feelings and opinions on you, or anyone else. And I won’t tolerate anyone trying to stomp on me by trying to force their beliefs, feelings and opinions on me. With God’s Grace, may we both never even have to worry about that situation to begin with.

(I normally trim out the extra… but there IS no extra this time. I don’t have the patience to re-add the stuff that didn’t copy)

… and just HOW is my saying that I disagree become any more of a stomping or forcing than what you’ve said?

Look… if I’m bending you may way, just accept it! Don’t say that I’m imposing or stomping. I can see how I make loads of sense in this argument.

The real point is that this is a discussion forum. Some things, I’ll agree with, some things you will agree with, and still others we’ll both agree with.

But I wasn’t trying to impose… just pointing out the validity of my arguments

 

[LittleBits]

The way the child was conceived has nothing 2 do with aborting him/her. A women who has been rape needs 2 carry the child 2 term and either raise and love him/her, or put the baby up 4 adoption. A child doesn’t deserve 2 b punished 4 the crimes/sins of their parent. We don’t execute children of murderes, so y execute children of rapists?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

At the risk of beating a dead horse:

How can anybody claim that abortion is wrong. . .but only for those who ‘think’ it is?

It’s like saying rape is wrong. . but only if you think it is.

How can people say that abortion is ever justified?

Is rape ever justified? Really? EVER? If rape isn’t justifiable, how can abortion be justifiable?

If an action is wrong, (like rape), and can’t be justified, why is abortion, also a wrong, considered justifiable under certain circumstances, which are changeable?

I just cannot understand people who argue that ‘if you don’t believe something is wrong, you shouldn’t be held ‘accountable’ like somebody who DOES believe it’s wrong.’

Because something doesn’t become true–or not true–based on individual BELIEF, but on inherent ‘esse’ whether the thing is really true to begin with.

If something is true, it doesn’t become ‘false’ just because somebody doesn’t believe it’s true.

Furthermore, I have yet to see people claim that abortion is ‘good’. Virtually all people agree that it is not a ‘good’ thing. What they argue is that the RESULTS of the abortion will be ‘good’ or bad’. And they argue that if the mother has ‘bad results’ from a pregnancy, she should be allowed to have the abortion, even if the abortion itself is ‘not a good thing’, in order to get ‘good results’ of having no baby to raise.

So it isn’t really people saying ‘abortion is good’. It’s all in the attempts to ‘justify’ an evil action by claiming that the ‘end result’ is a happier, healthier MOTHER. (As for the infant who is KILLED, well, it’s ‘better’ that they DIE rather than have an ‘awful life’). Yeah, I suppose to the jaded materialist angst-ridden product of the 21st century, ‘being dead’ beats being, oh, say, poor.