D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Ah yes, another helpful and charitable post - you also deserve congratulations:thumbsup:
- Status
N
Ne_OrangeKnight
Guest
Then by all means, allow me to be more helpful.
You decry the use of a perceived ad hominem attack, and then proceed to make multiple of them yourself, without actually advancing any sort of argument regarding the topic at hand. This is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Please note that I am not attacking your person, but your method of argument, which is farcical.
Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
You decry the use of a perceived ad hominem attack, and then proceed to make multiple of them yourself, without actually advancing any sort of argument regarding the topic at hand. This is intellectually dishonest and hypocritical. Please note that I am not attacking your person, but your method of argument, which is farcical.
Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
I have advanced the debate inbetween dealing with farcical comment like yours.
Such is the contribution of Catholic intellect
This is a common internet tactic, I know how to deal with it
Step One - ignore the contributors
Such is the contribution of Catholic intellect
This is a common internet tactic, I know how to deal with it
Step One - ignore the contributors
N
Ne_OrangeKnight
Guest
Then would you please be so kind as to sum up, without the personal attacks on my intellect or my religion?
Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
Sam, the Neon Orange Knight
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Quoted by Doc.Such is the contribution of Catholic intellect
Now for somebody who is so quick to condemn people for their ‘ad hominems’ isn’t it just a tad, just a trifle, just a wee sma’ bit ironic that you made such a comment, Doc?
Without malice…OK, let’s look at the evidence.
We have a blind accusation of a fairly heinous action. That seems very malicious.
What else do we have…
Two more sentences, and two more accusations of a fairly malicious nature.
Do I really need to go on?
Agreed. Not only is it unfair, it is a logical fallacy, often called ad hominem
But let us be clear where this is actually coming from.
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Sugar Magnolia:
With the greatest of respect, do you not perceive that your wholesale ‘lumping’ and condemnation of ‘pro-life’ people along with the facile (and erroneous) statement that they only care about ‘what’s in the uterus’ is exactly the sort of blanket generalization and sweeping rhetorical grandstanding that you condemn **them for?
**Once you start boxing people up (and while I’m not saying that some people on ‘both’ sides of the issue are not guilty of that as well --IOW, I am not saying that you ‘only’ are guilty, all right? I’m not putting all the blame on you or making it only the problem of one side, all right?). . .once you start making ‘arguments’ that go beyond defending your personal view and into attacking the character and indeed the soul of those with whom you disagree, you’ve left the field of argument entirely for the field of hurtful ‘preaching to the choir’. This is the case for **either side **but your post, Sugar, was the most recent and I believe the more ‘indicative’ of such.
It doesn’t do any good to make the same old ‘charges’. Sugar, I’ve seen statements like yours hundreds of times–it’s all emotional attack. And I’ve also seen statements from the ‘other side’ that cross the line to emotional attack as well. I have to say that on the WHOLE here, in this particular thread, the emotional attacks have been more on the ‘pro-choice’ side but–important but–they have not been limited to that side, so please don’t anybody try to play the martyr card of "it’s not OUR side.’ I know it’s not your SIDE, but there are people who ‘claim’ a side and who ‘cross the line.’ Sometimes they really believe what they say, sometimes they’re trolls trying to flame, but the point is that we need to be careful.
There is nothing wrong with letting one’s emotions (properly and RESPECTFULLY articulated) into a post. We’re not robots. But some here need to stop internalizing and taking as ‘personal attacks’ posts which are not meant to be such. . .as well as being careful to note posts which really ARE meant as attacks but are proudly trumpeted as "thinking for myself’ or “free speech.” We need well-formed consciences and discriminating judgment. I believe most here are more than capable of such. So let’s let those who are not so capable make their bias and polemics clear while the rest of us really try to maintain civil respectful dialogue.
With the greatest of respect, do you not perceive that your wholesale ‘lumping’ and condemnation of ‘pro-life’ people along with the facile (and erroneous) statement that they only care about ‘what’s in the uterus’ is exactly the sort of blanket generalization and sweeping rhetorical grandstanding that you condemn **them for?
**Once you start boxing people up (and while I’m not saying that some people on ‘both’ sides of the issue are not guilty of that as well --IOW, I am not saying that you ‘only’ are guilty, all right? I’m not putting all the blame on you or making it only the problem of one side, all right?). . .once you start making ‘arguments’ that go beyond defending your personal view and into attacking the character and indeed the soul of those with whom you disagree, you’ve left the field of argument entirely for the field of hurtful ‘preaching to the choir’. This is the case for **either side **but your post, Sugar, was the most recent and I believe the more ‘indicative’ of such.
It doesn’t do any good to make the same old ‘charges’. Sugar, I’ve seen statements like yours hundreds of times–it’s all emotional attack. And I’ve also seen statements from the ‘other side’ that cross the line to emotional attack as well. I have to say that on the WHOLE here, in this particular thread, the emotional attacks have been more on the ‘pro-choice’ side but–important but–they have not been limited to that side, so please don’t anybody try to play the martyr card of "it’s not OUR side.’ I know it’s not your SIDE, but there are people who ‘claim’ a side and who ‘cross the line.’ Sometimes they really believe what they say, sometimes they’re trolls trying to flame, but the point is that we need to be careful.
There is nothing wrong with letting one’s emotions (properly and RESPECTFULLY articulated) into a post. We’re not robots. But some here need to stop internalizing and taking as ‘personal attacks’ posts which are not meant to be such. . .as well as being careful to note posts which really ARE meant as attacks but are proudly trumpeted as "thinking for myself’ or “free speech.” We need well-formed consciences and discriminating judgment. I believe most here are more than capable of such. So let’s let those who are not so capable make their bias and polemics clear while the rest of us really try to maintain civil respectful dialogue.
K
kage_ar
Guest
Your link is to an article by a priest, not a Bishop.The following excerpt was from the first article:
catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html
**Therefore, before administering contraceptives to a rape victim, health care providers must ascertain first her medical history (including menstrual history, recent sexual activity, and contraceptive usage). A pregnancy test should be performed. If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.
Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum. **
I can’t tell you how much resistance I got to the above from some pro-lifers on this forum, when in fact, it came from the Bishops.
And I admit, it makes me feel a whole lot better.
The bold quote you give is not from the USCCB document, but is the PRIEST’s personal opinion.
You are really grasping for straws - why the desire to justify abortion?
N
Ne_OrangeKnight
Guest
J
Janet1983
Guest
I’m sorry that I am a little late in this thread and that I didn’t read through all of the pages before posting, but I would like to say something to this question.
From what I have heard about official practices within the Catholic Church it is not okay for a girl that has been raped to have an abortion performed.
I say that because I have heard of a case in Brazil where a 9-year old girl was raped by her stepfather. was pregnant with twins and then had an abortion. Everybody who participated in that abortion incurred an excommunication because of it.
Apart from this very harsh treatment of somebody who has already suffered incredible harm (which I do not agree with), I agree with the Church’s point of view. An abortion for someone who has been raped is nothing less than the death penalty for a child because of his / her father’s crime. This child might have been conceived in a rape, but it is not his or her fault. The fact that the father is a rapist does not make it legitimate to kill the child for his crime. It is about as legitimate to kill the baby in the womb as it would be to kill the baby after the birth (which would then be infanticide and certainly illegal). Instead of punishing the child (and making him or her another victim) we should support the mother to cope with the trauma, live through the pregnancy and have the child in whichever way best for her (which would be a c-section in the case of a 9-year old mother). We should encourage the family of the mother in this endeavor to preserve the mother’s and the child’s life. An abortion inflicts harm upon the mother and causes the death of the child.
May the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, so that you will abound in hope by the power of the Holy Spirit.
Your sister in Christ,
Janet
H
hellopeople
Guest
I don’t think I could ever judge a rape victim for getting an abortion. Honestly, I am sure there are a few women in this thread that are arguing against it that might go that route if the situation arose.
D
Doc_Keele
Guest
Janet, the issue with that Brazilian girl was that her physical development precluded carrying the child - so not as “cut and dry” as you make out. Should a 9 year old die carrying a child that had next to little chance of surviving which was conceived through a heinous act of violation?
A
Apryl
Guest
Which is WHY you talk about tough situations before they arise.
This gives you a chance to think of the pros and cons, and also to strengthen your resolve to do what is right, when it may not be the easiest path to follow when in that situation.
I’m sure that if I was married, my husband and I was financially strong, the dog was house broken, and I learned I was pregnant, there could be a moment when I would think, ‘Ooh, should I do this now? Can I end the pregnancy?’, but because the OTHER side has been considered, the thought is less likely, and would last less time.
I don’t think any one would want to say, ‘you’re a horrible person for thinking of doing’ whatever. But we also should know right from wrong ,and why the right is the right, and the wrong is the wrong.
Besides, how many people have judged women for NOT having an abortion after being raped? ‘How could she NOT get rid of that rapist’s baby’ or ‘I could see her doing that. It makes sense to me’. It’s also a judgement.
The difference is, God, through the church, has TOLD us that ALL life is sacred.
What we have to prevent doing is making any one less than a human because of some circumstance.
A child is not less human because the father was a violent criminal. The child is not less human because the sexual encounter was not consensual. The child is not less human because the chances of it being ‘cute’ is reduced. The child is not less human because it may have some medical condition.
If we go down that road, why have kids who may be unpopular in school
A
Apryl
Guest
And what physical development precluded carrying a child?
(I can’t wait for this one)
R
Rence
Guest
Hi Janet
I’m sorry that I am a little late in this thread and that I didn’t read through all of the pages before posting, but I would like to say something to this question.
From what I have heard about official practices within the Catholic Church it is not okay for a girl that has been raped to have an abortion performed.
I say that because I have heard of a case in Brazil where a 9-year old girl was raped by her stepfather. was pregnant with twins and then had an abortion. Everybody who participated in that abortion incurred an excommunication because of it.
Apart from this very harsh treatment of somebody who has already suffered incredible harm (which I do not agree with), I agree with the Church’s point of view.
**But keep in mind, that each of these who were excommunicated can make a good confession and be in good standing with the Church.
Also, how did they excommunicate a 9 year old? Anyway, she too can go to confession and be reconciled with the Church and be in good standing.
It’s not as if the Church abandoned all involved. They took an opportunity to point out how grave the sins were, and gave them the opportunity to make amends and come back to the Church.**
An abortion for someone who has been raped is nothing less than the death penalty for a child because of his / her father’s crime. This child might have been conceived in a rape, but it is not his or her fault. The fact that the father is a rapist does not make it legitimate to kill the child for his crime. It is about as legitimate to kill the baby in the womb as it would be to kill the baby after the birth (which would then be infanticide and certainly illegal). Instead of punishing the child (and making him or her another victim) we should support the mother to cope with the trauma, live through the pregnancy and have the child in whichever way best for her (which would be a c-section in the case of a 9-year old mother). We should encourage the family of the mother in this endeavor to preserve the mother’s and the child’s life. An abortion inflicts harm upon the mother and causes the death of the child.
**
I’m sure the child’s family would have appreciated your gentle counsel
J
Janet1983
Guest
You do realize that she could have carried, but that the problem would have been giving birth due to her physique, right? That was the main reason why the CC did not have an issue with excommunicating her, because there was the possibility of a c-section for the birth.
She was indeed capable of getting pregnant and carrying the children.
Your sister in Christ,
Janet
J
Janet1983
Guest
How would you know whether any of us were ever violated or not? Let me go out on a limb… I admit that I did not get pregnant like the girl did (though I wasn’t sure), but I would have never thought of an abortion had it been so.
It’s been years, but still that thought would have never crossed my mind.
Your sister in Christ,
Janet
J
Janet1983
Guest
Excommunication is the penalty for all who get an abortion or are involved in abortions. The CC does not exclude rape victims here.Hi Janet
But keep in mind, that each of these who were excommunicated can make a good confession and be in good standing with the Church.
Excommunication is very severe. It is the principal and severest censure that the CC can impose on her members. It is a medicinal, spiritual penalty that deprives the guilty Christian of all participation in the common blessings of ecclesiastical society. Being a penalty, it supposes guilt; and being the most serious penalty that the Church can inflict, it naturally supposes a very grave offence.
Excommunication does exclude the guilty from all sacraments including reconciliation. To be reconciled after excommunication one has to get the excommunication lifted by a jurisdictional absolution first before going to confession and receiving sacramental absolution. For deeply spiritual people like most Catholics in South America that is the worst that can happen to them and a traumatic experience.
Here is what the Catholic Encyclopedia has to say on the topic of absolution from excommunication:
If I understand the last few sentences right, then the excommunication that is incurred privately and without the knowledge of others (occult) can be absolved in foro interno, by any priest one chooses to confess to without denouncing oneself to a judge. A public excommunication in foro externo however needs to be publicly removed by a judge.
Due to the involvement of several people and the public notice I doubt that this was an occult excommunication.
Please tell me if I am mistaken. I am very much open for correction in this.
Your sister in Christ,
Janet
F
Fidelis_Unus
Guest
Kage, while Rence has linked to the opinion of a priest, whose opinion is quite sought after, btw. The document that she is referring to is put out by the USCCB. She is not grasping at straws. While she and I disagree, we are having a good discussion here.
At issue, in terms of the document itself, is whether the US guildelines are in line with the Vatican. Without a specific respectable source stating that they are not, my thought is that if this were in opposition to the Vatican they would have addressed this directly since this is not a recent document. It does seem to fit my understanding of Humane Vitae and Pope John Paul II’s comments. Not quoting it as the voice of the Magisterium, but it is an important document. I would love to hear from someone who has more information about this.
In terms of ‘justifying abortion’, Rence has been clear that her stance has changed directly because of prolife people’s intolerance and lack of kindness. I do not think (Rence, please correct me here if I’m wrong) … I do not think that Rence is trying to justify abortion, only acknowledge the suffering and pain of women who believe that need to have one and the anger at a perception that they are being judged or spoken cruelly to. If we are unkind and not helping them, who are we to tell them anything. I know, it’s not that simple. but I do understand the frustration when seeing others suffer.
Sadly, I find more and more that she is right. Doesn’t change my mind about abortion being legal or the baby’s right to life, but it sure is starting to make me see the term Christian in a different light.
F
Fidelis_Unus
Guest
Honestly, I believe this is an presumption with nothing to indicate that this is even plausible. It is, a best, a guess and certainly an unfair statement. IMO
In terms of judging, I have not heard anyone here JUDGE a rape victim.
- Status