Can raped girls abort?

[Rence]

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

It would better help me to understand where you’re coming from if you came up with realistic senarios. I mean, I say that I have a tough time with a specific teaching on a specific example, and your response is to tell me how wrong I am by coming up with senarios that are…out there. But I just can’t relate to the senarios from your last post. They don’t help me at all. It’s not even worth it for me to pick through them. They’re not in any way related to the issue at hand. Sorry…

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?

**If I don’t accept that morality is absolute by your standards I am wrong? and that doesn’t mean you are trying to have dominion over me? I find it difficult to communicate with someone who claims I have no rights and must conform to his thinking.

I am well educated about (or aware of) what you regard is morally absolute in this matter, but I don’t believe that makes me wrong for how I feel about it. On the contrary, I believe you are wrong to say that I must believe as you do, or else I’m wrong. But again, you have the right to your opinion. Though I don’t understand why you’re trying so hard to fight with me. I really don’t want to fight with you.**

 

[hellopeople]

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.

This is why I worded it this way. I said if I KNEW a child would be a murderer and if I KNEW the world would be better without hitler. It is a complete hypothetical situation. I don’t have a time machine or any sort of direct dialogue with God.

I would do things that might not be right if it is for the greater good. What about stealing drugs from a drug addict that has had too much…or alcohol from an alcoholic? That is stealing right, and stealing is wrong, and I am doing something wrong for what I consider a greater good…is it morally wrong to do that?

What about lying? In Buddhism there is a concept of upaya, which is basically lying for the greater good. I completely agree with that as well.

These are the types of things that I am talking about in real life situations. All of the “killing one person to save 100” is always hypothetical and will never really happen.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

I’m sorry, Rence, but you continue to misunderstand me and to misrepresent what I have said (unintentially I’m sure). This makes it very difficult to respond to you. I’m sure you must be frustrated (and I know I am not the only one who has spoken to you in these matters) and I hope that if you think long and hard about why you feel frustrated that you will be ‘encouraged’ to re-evaluate your position.

If morality is absolute to you, your knowledge of this will lead you to teach this truth to others. If you ‘accept’ morality as ‘relative for others’ then you are rejecting the truth of morality for others, and you’re rejecting it for yourself as well, because in such a case (I hope this is more ‘realistic’ for you?) you would hold one ‘truth’ for you and ‘another but completely different truth’ for other people.

And truth does not contradict itself.

 

[Rence]

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.

**I am quite sure that you make loads of sense to you in this argument. And I totally understand that it makes sense to you. But I, OTOH, believe my beliefs make sense to me. I believe that a woman who has been raped should have access to Plan B in the emergency room and that she should be the one to make the choice of either taking it or not taking it. It should be her choice. That’s how I feel about it. And the way the law is written, I not only have the right to my opinion, but I would have the right to exercise it as well. **

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

We’re just going to have to agree to disagree with this one. Because the law does give the woman the choice. And I just don’t see that changing. But you know, you should keep lobbying for that change, if you really feel it’s the right thing. That’s YOUR right. You go out there and lobby.

 

[Rence]

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?

If plan B is taken in the emergency room, immediately after the event, there won’t be a child to abort in the first place as the primary mode of action of Plan B is to prevent conception. The chance that Plan B would prevent an implantation rather than a conception immediately after a rape is very very slim, as it takes up to 36 hours to conceive, it’s not an immediate thing. And for some women, would be worth the gamble. A woman should not be forced to become pregnant after a rape. She has the right to defend herself. If she chooses not to have plan B that’s here choice, but she should be able to choose Plan B if she wants to protect herself. And thankfully, women have that choice.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

OK, Rence, this is a good example.

OK. . .now, we’ll say that a woman has the ‘choice’ (and it is legal) to have an abortion.

Now. . .either an abortion is murder of a child, or it isn’t.

Science has shown that at conception, there is an individual ‘human being’ there.
And in an abortion, that growing human being is killed.

Now **you’re **saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that despite your own ‘personal belief’ that abortion is wrong, any woman should have the ‘freedom of choice’ to decide whether an abortion is ‘right for her.’

And I’m saying that argument is balderdash.

My personal belief is that rape is wrong. But hey, any man should have the ‘freedom of choice’ to decide whether to rape a woman or not, right? Right? I can’t force **my **morality onto him, right?

OK, you’ll say, "but rape is ‘illegal’. And abortion isn’t.

So. . .let’s back up a bit to 1850. My personal belief is that slavery is wrong. But **what if **the law of the land says any individual has the ‘freedom of choice’ to own a slave? Well, in 1850 I’d be perfectly morally and “legally” free to own a slave, right? 15 years later though. . .hush ma mouf, morality has changed! (not really though). . .wait, **legality **has changed! Absolutely the very same action is ‘made’ in 1850 and 1865, but in 1850 it is ‘legal’ and in 1865 it is not.

It was as ‘wrong’ to own a slave in 1850 as it would be in 1865. But it was ‘legal’ in 1850.

In 1960, it was **illegal **to have an abortion, Rence.

In 2010, it is legal.

**Is **the legality an argument for an action’s morality? I don’t think so.

Your argument appears to be on very thin and shaky ground that the current ‘legality’ of an action makes it **permissible morally.

**Now, are you really saying that based on ‘legality’ that you think any woman has the ‘right’ to choose to kill a helpless baby? And that this choice is a good and ‘moral’ one for them?

 

[Rence]

OK, Rence, this is a good example.
OK. . .now, we’ll say that a woman has the ‘choice’ (and it is legal) to have an abortion.
Now. . .either an abortion is murder of a child, or it isn’t.
Science has shown that at conception, there is an individual ‘human being’ there.
And in an abortion, that growing human being is killed.
Now **you’re **saying (correct me if I’m wrong) that despite your own ‘personal belief’ that abortion is wrong, any woman should have the ‘freedom of choice’ to decide whether an abortion is ‘right for her.’

**I believe that abortion is wrong for me, but I don’t believe women should be denied access to Plan B if they were raped and I feel very strongly about that. I believe very strongly that women have the right to prevent a pregnancy in the case of rape: it was not their choice, it was forced upon them, and they should be able to defend themselves from further harm. I honestly don’t care what you say about it. I care about my right to defend myself from further harm. And I believe other women have the right to defend themselves from further harm.

There are some women out there who might be able to handle a pregnancy after they’ve been raped, and that’s great for them. There are others who could not. And they should not be forced. It should be their choice.

My belief that abortion is wrong for me is based on the teachings of the CC only. There is no denying that there is “life” at the moment of conception, but we don’t even know when a soul reaches that life. I don’t expect someone who doesn’t share those beliefs to be subject to my beliefs. I’m sorry that you can’t understand that. That’s how I feel about it. I would not want to be subject to others’ beliefs and I don’t force my beliefs on others**

And I’m saying that argument is balderdash.

But you have the right to your opinion and I support your right to your opinion.

Your argument appears to be on very thin and shaky ground that the current ‘legality’ of an action makes it **permissible morally.

**Of course you think my arguement is on very thin and shaky ground, you don’t even allow me the right to have my own opinion. Your position regarding abortion, plan B and rape is absolute and gives no one an inch to disagree with you. I get that. I understand that. Therefore, nothing I say in contrast to your belief is going to make sense or be anything else but thin and shaky. I would still believe it if plan B were outlawed and taken out of emegency rooms. ****

**Look, the above is how I feel about abortion and plan b in the event of rape. You can criticize me all you want, that’s your right. But I, OTOH, have the right to my opinion as well. I have the right to live my life the way I choose. If Heaven Forbid, I ever got raped, I’d do all I could to prevent from being pregnant immediately. The rest of the abortion argument doesn’t apply to me because it’s not a choice for me. I doubt anything you say will change my mind, any more than anything I have said will change your mind. But I really don’t want to drag this out to 50+ pages of how your right and I’m wrong. We’re going to have to agree to disagree. I feel very strongly about this and I know you do too. I know very well how you feel about this matter, and I know you know how I feel about it. I’m sorry that you can’t respect my rights. But know that I respect your opinion and your rights. **

 

[estesbob]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rence

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.

Which is exactly what happened when the USSCC forced their beliefs on abortion on the rest of us. We should NOT tolerate this and should do everything legal in our power to stop this abomination.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

The only thing that I’m going to say in regard to your last post Rence is this: You keep on saying that you ‘respect me’ and you’re ‘sorry that I don’t respect you.’ With respect, this claim of yours doesn’t hold water.

Where you got the idea that because I disagree with you I am not ‘respecting you’, I do not know. Where you get the idea that I don’t ‘permit you to hold your own opinion’, I do not know.

I have not, ever, ‘disrespected you’ in any way, shape or form. The fact that I disagree with you (as you disagree with me) does not equate to my not ‘respecting you.’

I trust that you will have a pleasant evening.

 

[Rence]

The only thing that I’m going to say in regard to your last post Rence is this: You keep on saying that you ‘respect me’ and you’re ‘sorry that I don’t respect you.’ With respect, this claim of yours doesn’t hold water.

Where you got the idea that because I disagree with you I am not ‘respecting you’, I do not know. Where you get the idea that I don’t ‘permit you to hold your own opinion’, I do not know.

I have not, ever, ‘disrespected you’ in any way, shape or form. The fact that I disagree with you (as you disagree with me) does not equate to my not ‘respecting you.’

I trust that you will have a pleasant evening.

I’m not going to go back and read all my posts, but I didn’t mean to imply that you’ve been treating me without respect, but I think we can both agree that you don’t hold my opinion or the right to my opinion in any regard, that is, with any respect - simply by the nature of your belief in absolute truths and absolute morals. However, I just wanted you to know that though we disagree, that I respect you and, and your opinion, your right to your beliefs. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings because if you are as Catholic as you present youself to be, I know you don’t have any bad feelings towards me as a person, but only about my views. And I hope you have a GREAT evening as well

 

[Apryl]

I’m not going to go back and read all my posts, but I didn’t mean to imply that you’ve been treating me without respect, but I think we can both agree that you don’t hold my opinion or the right to my opinion in any regard, that is, with any respect - simply by the nature of your belief in absolute truths and absolute morals. However, I just wanted you to know that though we disagree, that I respect you and, and your opinion, your right to your beliefs. I hope that clears up any misunderstandings because if you are as Catholic as you present youself to be, I know you don’t have any bad feelings towards me as a person, but only about my views. And I hope you have a GREAT evening as well

Rence, I get the impression that you use the words ‘disrespect’ when you really mean, ‘don’t agree with me’ or 'won’t let me keep saying what I’m saying without challenge

Is that what’s happening?

Just want to make sure we’re speaking the same language. I’m sure you aren’t trying to offend.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Thanks, Apryl, I think that’s a good point.

No Rence, I have no animus against you and wish you well --but I am troubled by your saying that my holding of an ‘absolute’ position somehow is disrespectful of your position. How can that be so?

The thing is, by your own position that ‘I accept all kinds of positions, even contradictory, as acceptable’, you’re making as ‘absolute’ a claim for the truth of your stance as you imply that I make for mine.

IOW, your position is as ‘absolute’ a claim as mine in that you think that you are correct. . . .but you’re also trying to argue a bunch of contradictory claims as ‘equally valid’.

It’s as though you were saying, “Ok people. 2 +2 is 4. . .well, except for this group who thinks it is 5, and this group who thinks it’s 3, and well, we can’t forget this other group who thinks it is 17. . .you’re all good. I accept all of your answers as being the right ones for you.”

And then I pop up and say, “but 2 +2 really only equals 4” and you say, “But now you are not respecting the people who say it’s 5, 3, 17 or whatever. Must you be so intolerant and absolute? Don’t you have any flexibility for people who look at this 'differently?”

 

[Apryl]

IOW, your position is as ‘absolute’ a claim as mine in that you think that you are correct. . . .but you’re also trying to argue a bunch of contradictory claims as ‘equally valid’.

It’s as though you were saying, “Ok people. 2 +2 is 4. . .well, except for this group who thinks it is 5, and this group who thinks it’s 3, and well, we can’t forget this other group who thinks it is 17. . .you’re all good. I accept all of your answers as being the right ones for you.”

The other thing that I’ve noticed (and I apologize in advance if I’m linking Rence with some other poster… I have a strange headache) is that this discussion is about ABORTION (which by definition is the ending of a human life, whether surgically or spontaneously) and Rence keeps bringing up the Morning After Pill (again, I apologize. I know this is not the correct term. I’m speaking of the emergency method APPROVED by the church) as acceptable.

The REASON why the MAP* is approved by the church is that it means the PREVENTION of a pregnancy, not the ending of a pregnancy. Again, jumping into a different pond when we’re all swimming in this one

BTW: If it means that I’m disrespectful towards any one by stating that human life (in all its forms) is PRECIOUS, so be it. If you see my valuing your life as disrespectful, I just need to know that’s how you use that word.

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Oh, that’s another good point. It could be that Rence thinks that I’m objecting to something which the Church allows (even though I keep saying abortion specifically).

Oh Apryl, I started with a headache when I got up yesterday at 5 a.m. (not by choice) and it turned into a 48 hour bug that’s been going ‘south’ ever since. All I can say is the only thing that helps is sleep. The headache lasted for about 16 hours and then went to a stomach ache; still with me. Try to get plenty of rest and fluid if you can take it.

 

[Rence]

No Rence, I have no animus against you and wish you well --but I am troubled by your saying that my holding of an ‘absolute’ position somehow is disrespectful of your position. How can that be so?

To respect something means to esteem or to honor, and you made it clear that you don’t believe that I have a right to my position because yours is the correct and only one. Therefore you don’t respect my position…right? Or do you respect my opinion? I was under the impression you did not. It would be great if you did

I disagree with your position that yours is the correct and only one. However, I don’t want to take your position away from you. However, I want the freedom to have mine. There’s a difference between imposing your views on someone and allowing them to keep their position, while one holds their own position.

It could be that Rence thinks that I’m objecting to something which the Church allows (even though I keep saying abortion specifically).

Ok, let’s take this step by step so that any confusion can be cleared up:

I was told the Church did NOT allow the morning after pill after rape. This is a teaching that is a very big stumbling block for me, and is a very sensitive issue for me, which is what I said in post #163, to which I thought Tantum was replying. If the Church forbids Plan B in the case of rape, then Rence knows Tantum is not objecting to something which the Church allows. And therefore Rence is not confused. Rence already said it was a stumbling block.

However, if the Church allows the morning after pill after rape, then Rence will not have a problem anymore and there will be no stumbling block regarding women protecting themselves from further injury in the case of rape.

 

[Apryl]

Oh Apryl, I started with a headache when I got up yesterday at 5 a.m. (not by choice) and it turned into a 48 hour bug that’s been going ‘south’ ever since. All I can say is the only thing that helps is sleep. The headache lasted for about 16 hours and then went to a stomach ache; still with me. Try to get plenty of rest and fluid if you can take it.

Thanks.

I was lacking in sleep all day, and I took a 30 min power nap. It helped, but I bet you’re right: I need sleep, rest, liquids and some more sleep.

It doesn’t help that I like to keep going on the discussion relating to abortion. It just makes it all make so much MORE sense to me!

 

[Apryl]

To respect something means to esteem or to honor, and you made it clear that you don’t believe that I have a right to my position because yours is the correct and only one. Therefore you don’t respect my position…right?

ahem… Rence

Does this mean that you respect the opinion of others? Those who believe that abortion is no more right when the mother was raped than otherwise?

If you have respect for those of us with this other opinion, how does that differ from our disagreeing with your stance?

 

[Rence]

ahem… Rence

Does this mean that you respect the opinion of others? Those who believe that abortion is no more right when the mother was raped than otherwise?

Absolutely. If one doesn’t want to use ABCs, get an abortion or take Plan B after a rape, that’s their perogative. They should have that choice. They don’t have to use ABCs or take Plan B after a rape if it goes against their grain. As a matter of fact, I don’t care whether they do or don’t. However, if someone wants to take ABCs or take plan B after a rape they absolutely should have that choice. You don’t have to agree with someone for them to have the right to make decisions for themselves based on their beliefs and values.

If you have respect for those of us with this other opinion, how does that differ from our disagreeing with your stance?

Because my choice is trying to be taken away from me. This is the difference. I’m sorry if it doesn’t make sense to you. But not agreeing with someone doesn’t mean taking away their right when you don’t agree with them. Having the freedom to make the choice for yourself is important, and others having the freedom to make their choice for themselves is important.

 

[Apryl]

I was told the Church did NOT allow the morning after pill after rape. This is a teaching that is a very big stumbling block for me, and is a very sensitive issue for me, which is what I said in post #163, to which I thought Tantum was replying. If the Church forbids Plan B in the case of rape, then Rence knows Tantum is not objecting to something which the Church allows. And therefore Rence is not confused. Rence already said it was a stumbling block.

However, if the Church allows the morning after pill after rape, then Rence will not have a problem anymore and there will be no stumbling block regarding women protecting themselves from further injury in the case of rape.

That’s it: I’m confused

Let me type as slowly as possible.

1. If the church does not allow the MAP (the regular one, that may or may not prevent the pregnancy) why is that a stumbling block for you?
2. I believe that Tantum Ergo (and I’m pretty sure the church) does object to the MAP, on the grounds that it may not actually prevent a pregnancy, but in fact, would terminate a pregnancy (that is: KILL THE INNOCENT BABY)

Again: why is killing an innocent baby a stumbling block?

1. We are still discussing ABORTION. That is, the termination of a pregnancy. In particular, the type that is done in a doctor’s office (not a spontaneous abortion, also known as a miscarriage, which I don’t believe that a woman can control).

Do you or do you not agree with the willful abortion of an unborn child?

Now… do me a favor, since I’ve already acknowledged a headache and confusion, and let’s not discuss the use of, approval of, disagreement with, or the idea of a MAP or any other artificial contraception.

So, to reiterate: do you or do you not agree with the willful termination of a pregnancy in the case of a child that is the product of an abortion?

 

[Rence]

The other thing that I’ve noticed (and I apologize in advance if I’m linking Rence with some other poster… I have a strange headache) is that this discussion is about ABORTION (which by definition is the ending of a human life, whether surgically or spontaneously) and Rence keeps bringing up the Morning After Pill (again, I apologize. I know this is not the correct term. I’m speaking of the emergency method APPROVED by the church) as acceptable.

**Ahem…Apryl? that’s incorrect. The Church does NOT allow the MAP after a rape. **

The REASON why the MAP* is approved by the church is that it means the PREVENTION of a pregnancy, not the ending of a pregnancy. Again, jumping into a different pond when we’re all swimming in this one

Uh Apryl? Its not approved by the Church…

**If it were allowed, perhaps maybe more people would be anti-abortion instead of pro-choice. **