Can raped girls abort?

[vz71]

Emergency contraceptive.

Thanks.

 

[jmcrae]

Yes, I have muddied the waters because when I use the terms in their technically correct the “Pro-Lifers” jump down my throat. It’s not a child until it’s born really.

Are you quite sure you have a Doctoral degree? I only got as far as my Bachelors, but I still know that, mathematically, the “child object” is the product of the “parent object” - and the unborn child, regardless of its stage of development, is most certainly the product of its parents - thus, it is a child even if it is only one day old.

 

[vz71]

I value my freedom, and just like I would not tolerate being subject to another religion’s rules and regulations, I will not subject violating another person’s freedom, liberty and autonomy by cramming my religious convictions down their throat. This subject is religious-led. And I value the separation of Church and state and am against laws being made based on religious convictions - any religion’s convictions. And yes, the woman is the one with the right to choose.

What about all of the laws in place already that are based upon Judeo-Christian belief?
Do you likewise believe these to be wrong?
They are in essence forcing people that do not hold Judeo-Christian values to live to those principles. Shouldn’t they be given a choice?

 

[Tantum_ergo]

Now if any subject (including abortion) was only relative and subjective, then it would be perfectly appropriate to consider all opinions as pretty much equal and valid though ‘different’.

But here’s a problem.

Rape, for example, is always a horrible, evil action. That is my opinion, that’s the opinion I believe of most normal people. . .so if a person were to say that “hey, in my opinion rape isn’t all that bad”. . .well, if we’re going to argue that we don’t want to ‘impose’ our opinion onto another, we’d have to ‘tolerate’ his ‘opinion’ if it differed from ours, provided that he kept ‘to the law’.

IOW, he is free to say his ‘opinion’, he’s even free to argue to try to change the law provided he obeys it. . .and we should accept and ‘tolerate’ his opinion just as much as we accept and tolerate the opinion of those who say it’s evil.

People cannot have it both ways and say that they won’t ‘impose’ their opinion on subject A (abortion) and yet insist that their opinion on rape being evil must be ‘imposed’ as fact onto those who disagree. Remember, we aren’t saying the person actually rapes or even advocates for rape–merely that the person’s opinion differs.

(I totally think that rape is morally vile and evil. I also think abortion is vile and evil. I don’t think that the victims of rape OR abortion --that is, the mother/child/ women–are evil and vile. By no means.)

So why is my ‘opinion’ that rape is evil to be ‘imposed’ on everybody, and my ‘opinion’ on abortion not? It can’t be ‘legality’ because rape was once ‘legal’ (as was slavery) and abortion was once illegal.

 

[o_mlly]

Yes, I have muddied the waters because when I use the terms in their technically correct the “Pro-Lifers” jump down my throat. It’s not a child until it’s born really.

I am a pro-life advocate and respecting your position would not jump down your throat.

I understand “birth” to be a process of events. Which birthing event specifically converts a fetus to a child, e.g. crowning of the fetal head, first respiratory movement, clamping of the cord, cutting of the cord, etc?

 

[JReducation]

I am not in favor of abortion, except for cases of rape. I believe that EC should be available for rape victims, without exception, in the ER. I believe a woman has the right to protect herself by having full access without limitations to EC in the ER after a rape. Further action beyond EC in the ER is not an option for me, even if I were to get pregnant because I made my attempt to prevent the pregnancy and in my hypothetical example, it didn’t work. That’s for me.

But when you make the exception for rape, you are violating moral law. The dignity of the unborn cannot be violated, regardless of the circumstance under which the person was conceived. That makes the child a victim of the rape. We do not have the moral right to make an inocent person a victim. We do not have the right to terminate anyone’s life.

If you assume this position, then you place yourself outside of the Catholic Church. One may not call themselves Catholic and find a single exception for abortion. That’s established infallibly by the Church. To go against that, one would have to prove that the Church’s teaching on abortion is not infallible, which cannot be done, because it is based on scripture, Sacred Tradition and natural law. That’s why canon law says that if one holds a position that supports abortion, in any case, then one is automatically excommunicated. You and I cannot change those rules, simply because we don’t believe them any more than we can unilaterally change the law because we don’t believe in it.

While I would not choose abortion for myself, I DO NOT force my opinion down the throats of non-catholics, non-christians, non-compliant catholics, athiests or whatever the case my be with these women. I believe it’s a personal choice of the woman, especially in the case of rape. I am not sympathetic to women who have abortions and then suffer from it because they are well informed in all aspects, and the risk is worth it to them. Therefore they live with the consequences. Just like any other thing in life. However, Not everyone is Catholic, and this is most definitely not a catholic country. People are not slaves to the Church regardless of what the Church thinks, for if one is not Catholic, one gives not a hoot about it’s rules and regulations.

The rules about the dignity of life are not Catholic. They are about justice. Justice is universal. No one can justifiably terminate the life of an unborn child. Secondly, the freedom that God gives us is not intenteded to allow evil in the name of diversity. Evil is evil, regardless of who does it and what they believe. If something is evil, we have a moral obligation to challenge it until it goes away. To tolerate it, in the name of diversity, is contrary to Divine Revelation. Jesus did not tolerate the beliefs of the pagan Romans or the Pharisees, because they were entitled to their belief. He condemned their beliefs. Throughout scripture we see God constantly condemning the beliefs of those who are wrong. He is very intolerant of those beliefs. God does not care whether the person gives a hoot or not.

The Church does not believe that anyone is its slave. I’m assuming that when you use the term “church” you’re referring to the hierarchy. Because you and I are part of the Church. The Church is 2 billion people. But the hierarchy has a mission and a command from Christ himself to teach the truth. Your statement about the Church is in conflict with the mission that Christ gave the Church. Christ told the apostles to proclaim the truth and now you want them to limit their proclamation to Catholics only. But that’s not what Christ said. He said, “Go and make disciples of the whole world.” The command was very clear that his truth was for everyone and that the Church was to proclaim it to everyone. In addition, the apostles did not tolerate dissention among their ranks and their disciples. Why should the bishops, who are the successors of the apostles tolerate what the apostles never tolerated? Basically, you’re expecting the entire apostolic tradition to change. This cannot happen, because the Holy Spirit will not allow it to happen. The successors of the apostles will continue to teach the truth and demand that those who join the Church adhere to it or be anathema. This has been in place since the time of Peter. How can you expect that to change now?

You have to think in terms of the scriptures and Divine Revelation. What did Christ command? To whom did he give the command? For whom was the message? Do I, as a believer, have a duty to carry that message to the world of those who don’t believe and don’t give a hoot? If I, living in a democratic society where I can promote changes in immoral laws, fail to do so, can I still say that I am fulfilling the mission that Christ gave me?

These are not my or your values and beliefs. These are the values and beliefs of Jesus Christ. All we do is live by them. Jesus does not give us much of a choice. He was very clear that one cannot be luke warm. He damanded that those who followed him be with him 100% or not at all.

If you do not believe that this is the mission that Christ gave you, then you should not go to Holy Communion, because you are not in communion with the Church. If you do believe that this is the mission that Christ gave you, then you have the duty to use your legal rights as a citizen to struggle to abolish an immoral law.

We can’t receive communion and be out of communion with Christ and the apostles. We are blaspheming the Eucharist.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Doc_Keele]

I am a pro-life advocate and respecting your position would not jump down your throat.

I understand “birth” to be a process of events. Which birthing event specifically converts a fetus to a child, e.g. crowning of the fetal head, first respiratory movement, clamping of the cord, cutting of the cord, etc?

Dunno, and the legal answer may be different from the medical answer.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

*Yes, I have muddied the waters because when I use the terms in their technically correct the “Pro-Lifers” jump down my throat. It’s not a child until it’s born really. *

What were you in your mother’s womb? A frog? A snake? A chicken? Or a human being?

Huh?

 

[Doc_Keele]

Doc Keele

*Yes, I have muddied the waters because when I use the terms in their technically correct the “Pro-Lifers” jump down my throat. It’s not a child until it’s born really. *

What were you in your mother’s womb? A frog? A snake? A chicken? Or a human being?

Huh?

Yes, the predicted response right on cue

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Doc Keele

Sounds like you’re getting bored. Maybe if you’d throw in some new arguments, you’d get some new answers?

 

[SugarMagnolia]

That makes as much sense as someone raping me, so in order to get back to him, I go to some surgical, seedy office, and pay some one to suck my guts out, then pray that I don’t develop a nasty infection that would cause me to not be able to have children later on, or kill me this week. Then, in the years to come, I’m going to wonder if I have to deal with an increased risk of Breast Cancer, then wind up with a mastectomy and chemotherapy… while the rapist has forgotten the incident.

Some women come out of abortuaries to find that they’ve actually been given hysterectomies, because of the amount of damage done to them during the abortion.

On the other end of the scale, sometimes abortionists are too cautious - I was speaking to a young woman a few weeks ago who was traumatized when she got home to find that she was giving birth to half of her child - they hadn’t gotten all the pieces out, and when she got home, she went into labour, and gave birth to the head, chest, and arms of her dead child.

She was in therapy for a year after that - longer than she would have been pregnant for, and she still lost all of her schooling not only for that year, but for the following year, as well.

Seriously, where do you guys live?! You can make up funny words like “abortuaries” all you want, but there’s nothing “seedy” about the average women’s medical center. If you actually believe all this stuff, you’ve been misinformed by propagnda. I’m sure you can dig up a few authentic malpractice cases, but that would be true of every operation, including childbirth. I could cite the obstetrician who literally carved his initials into his patient after performing her c-section. Women’s medical centers are subject to all the same policies and procedures as all physicians who perform in-office surgeries. Women’s medical centers also offer a full range of gynecologist services, abortion being just one. Maybe you have a private gynecologist, but many women do not and receive all their gynecological care (pap smears, sonograms, breast exams, etc.) in women’s health centers.

As for the operation itself, abortions do not “suck my guts out.” “Guts” is an informal word for intestines. I don’t know how you think the embryo gets into your “guts.” It is the uterine lining that is removed. Antibiotics are prescribed to eliminate any possibility of infection. Furthermore, women who give birth are also subject to the possibility of infection. And breast cancer?! Where’d you come up with that? Another anatomy lesson: The embryo isn’t located in your breasts either. A vaccuum aspiration abortion doesn’t go anywhere near the breasts; it doesn’t involve any chemicals whatsoever. (If you’re referring to that video posted on another thread, it was balony. It was about The Pill, not surgical abortion.) And as for the girl giving birth to a head etc., it sounds like an urban legend to me. But even if it was one of the extremely rare malpractice cases, rest assured that nearly ninety percent of abortions occur in the first trimester. There are no “pieces.”

 

[Rence]

But when you make the exception for rape, you are violating moral law.

Whose brand of moral law are we talking about? Not mine, that’s for sure.

If you assume this position, then you place yourself outside of the Catholic Church. One may not call themselves Catholic and find a single exception for abortion. That’s established infallibly by the Church. To go against that, one would have to prove that the Church’s teaching on abortion is not infallible, which cannot be done, because it is based on scripture, Sacred Tradition and natural law. That’s why canon law says that if one holds a position that supports abortion, in any case, then one is automatically excommunicated. You and I cannot change those rules, simply because we don’t believe them any more than we can unilaterally change the law because we don’t believe in it.

**The Catholic Church considers a baptized Catholic to be Catholic unless they formally petition to withdrawl from the Church and it has to be approved by the Bishop. Sorry, but you have no authority to claim I am not Catholic just because I don’t agree with imposing Catholic views on the masses. **

The rules about the dignity of life are not Catholic. They are about justice. Justice is universal. No one can justifiably terminate the life of an unborn child.
**
Apparently they can. **

 

[Rence]

What about all of the laws in place already that are based upon Judeo-Christian belief?
Do you likewise believe these to be wrong?
They are in essence forcing people that do not hold Judeo-Christian values to live to those principles. Shouldn’t they be given a choice?

I don’t have issue with any laws that govern our country that I know of. Which laws violate the rights of citizens? You may be thinking of something specific, but sorry at the moment, I can’t. Usually laws protect citizens’ rights and their right to autonomy. Laws protect one’s person and one’s property from violation of another. One person’s rights end where another person’s begins. There could be, but I don’t know of any laws that I would have issue with.

 

[Rence]

Now if any subject (including abortion) was only relative and subjective, then it would be perfectly appropriate to consider all opinions as pretty much equal and valid though ‘different’.

But here’s a problem.

Rape, for example, is always a horrible, evil action. That is my opinion, that’s the opinion I believe of most normal people. . .so if a person were to say that “hey, in my opinion rape isn’t all that bad”. . .well, if we’re going to argue that we don’t want to ‘impose’ our opinion onto another, we’d have to ‘tolerate’ his ‘opinion’ if it differed from ours, provided that he kept ‘to the law’.

**I supppose you’re right about that Tantum. One can’t change the way other people think. However, as long as they keep their thoughts in their minds and not in their actions, what can one do about it? **

IOW, he is free to say his ‘opinion’, he’s even free to argue to try to change the law provided he obeys it. . .and we should accept and ‘tolerate’ his opinion just as much as we accept and tolerate the opinion of those who say it’s evil.

Yep, I suppose you’re right about that. However, one can think he’s crazy and sick. But you’re right, he can try to lobby for a law that says rape is okay. It won’t be passed though.

People cannot have it both ways and say that they won’t ‘impose’ their opinion on subject A (abortion) and yet insist that their opinion on rape being evil must be ‘imposed’ as fact onto those who disagree. Remember, we aren’t saying the person actually rapes or even advocates for rape–merely that the person’s opinion differs.

(I totally think that rape is morally vile and evil. I also think abortion is vile and evil. I don’t think that the victims of rape OR abortion --that is, the mother/child/ women–are evil and vile. By no means.)

So why is my ‘opinion’ that rape is evil to be ‘imposed’ on everybody, and my ‘opinion’ on abortion not? It can’t be ‘legality’ because rape was once ‘legal’ (as was slavery) and abortion was once illegal.

Your opinion can’t be ‘imposed’ on everybody. And you can’t ‘impose’ someone agreeing or disagreeing with them. One can be of the opinion that rape is okay, and someone else can think that person is nuts. I’m not sure what you’re asking, but one can’t MAKE someone believe something is right or wrong, but you can make them follow the laws (or of course, own the consequences). Not sure what you’ve been exposed to in your life, but I’m sure it can’t possibly come as a surprise to you that some men don’t think rape is evil or wrong. That’s the problem, isn’t it? It’s no surprise that there are men out there that regard women as objects, and beneath them, or there wouldn’t be a problem with women being domestically abused, or raped, or otherwise taken advantage of. You can’t make them believe they’re wrong, but you can make them behave themselves by enforcing the laws on them.

 

[bluelake]

As a victim of rape, this really struck a nerve. I can tell you that it’s not that easy. Rapists hardly are ever jailed, unless they already have been convicted of several violent offenses. The justice system favors the criminal. I went to Hell and back making sure my rapist paid half of what he should have. He was 3 months away from being 18 at the time of the assault (I was 16 years old), so he got off easy because he was just a juvenile. He’s a registered sex offender and has to take some “healthy sexuality” classes. He’s on probation for a year. That’s it.

I did not get pregnant as a result. I do, however, know how heart wrenching and horrible it is, waiting to find find out if you are or not. Should the victim of rape really have to carry a child that she didn’t want in the first place? Especially if she’s underage? Should an innocent girl have to become a mother (or be pregnant for nine months) when she had just reached the age to get her driver’s license that year? No.

Being raped is bad enough, then there’s the tie to the rapist and nine months of disgrace. I know you’re going to say that you shouldn’t worry about “disgrace” and things like that, but do you have any idea how hard it was to even make it through the day after being violated? Add carrying a child on top of that. It’d be near impossible to survive.

I am Catholic and I would have aborted had I gotten pregnant as a result. Just my opinion.

“Thou Shall not Kill.” A Commandment.
This tragic act had nothing to do with the child .
This is the same when a mothers life is in danger when giving birth.
To chose which shall live, the child or the mother is difficult , but again “thou shall not kill.”
God choses who will die.

bluelake

 

[bluelake]

Rence:
It is what the Lord commands us to do.?
Does anyone here agree with killing a child in the womb?

“thou shall not kill” Said the Lord God, to Moses.

bluelake

 

[JReducation]

Rence:

Whose brand of moral law are we talking about? Not mine, that’s for sure.

I realize that it’s not your own, nor is it mine. It is God’s. This is an infallible teaching. Truth does not change because we disagree with it. That would be a non-truth.

**Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 57: “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.” **

The Catholic Church considers a baptized Catholic to be Catholic unless they formally petition to withdrawl from the Church and it has to be approved by the Bishop. Sorry, but you have no authority to claim I am not Catholic just because I don’t agree with imposing Catholic views on the masses.

The Catholic Church also has a canon, in canon law that says that any baptized Catholic who has an abortion or supports abortioin is excommunicated, thus placing himsef/herself outside of the Catholic Church. It is not me making a law for you. I’m just pointing it out to you. Now, you can argue with the law, if you wish. There is a tribunal at the Vatican where these laws can be challenged. If you disagree with the canon, you can file a petition to hear your case heard. Everyone has that right. What we cannot do is deny that the canon exists. Denying its existence will not make it go away.

Those Catholics who promote abortion are automatically excommunicated for two reasons. First, they have fallen into the sin of heresy by believing that abortion is not always gravely immoral **(canons 751 and 1364). **Second, these Catholics are providing substantial assistance for women to obtain abortions by influencing public policy to make abortions legal, and to keep abortions legal, and to broaden access to abortion. Those who provide such substantial assistance commit a mortal sin and incur a sentence of automatic excommunication (canon 1398).

Apparently they can.

They can terminate a life. But it remains unjustifiable. Peter has already stated that above, “It is gravely sinful.” Grave sin is never justifiable, otherwise it would not be sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

 

[Apryl]

Antibiotics are prescribed to eliminate any possibility of infection.

And how many rapists have needed to take anything to prevent any possibility of infection when the woman he raped had an abortion?

You can even use round numbers!

And breast cancer?! Where’d you come up with that?

From some PRO-Abortion group that happened to have done a study and it was reported on NPR Radio on more than one occassion. Women who have abortions are 300% more likely to develop breast cancer. If you have some evidence to repute it, go for it. I never claimed to be an authority, but I’ve heard of this from more than one source, and I am also looking at the number and age of many of the women today who are surviving breast cancer.

While the extreme cases may be rare, they do happen. The fact that they happen in a ‘civilized’ society is also shocking.

It does happen.

 

[Rence]

I realize that it’s not your own, nor is it mine. It is God’s. This is an infallible teaching. Truth does not change because we disagree with it. That would be a non-truth.

**Pope John Paul II, Evangelium Vitae, n. 57: “Therefore, by the authority which Christ conferred upon Peter and his Successors, and in communion with the Bishops of the Catholic Church, I confirm that the direct and voluntary killing of an innocent human being is always gravely immoral. **This doctrine, based upon that unwritten law which man, in the light of reason, finds in his own heart (cf. Rom 2:14-15), is reaffirmed by Sacred Scripture, transmitted by the Tradition of the Church and taught by the ordinary and universal Magisterium.”

The Catholic Church also has a canon, in canon law that says that any baptized Catholic who has an abortion or supports abortioin is excommunicated, thus placing himsef/herself outside of the Catholic Church. It is not me making a law for you. I’m just pointing it out to you. Now, you can argue with the law, if you wish. There is a tribunal at the Vatican where these laws can be challenged. If you disagree with the canon, you can file a petition to hear your case heard. Everyone has that right. What we cannot do is deny that the canon exists. Denying its existence will not make it go away.

Those Catholics who promote abortion are automatically excommunicated for two reasons. First, they have fallen into the sin of heresy by believing that abortion is not always gravely immoral **(canons 751 and 1364). **Second, these Catholics are providing substantial assistance for women to obtain abortions by influencing public policy to make abortions legal, and to keep abortions legal, and to broaden access to abortion. Those who provide such substantial assistance commit a mortal sin and incur a sentence of automatic excommunication (canon 1398).

They can terminate a life. But it remains unjustifiable. Peter has already stated that above, “It is gravely sinful.” Grave sin is never justifiable, otherwise it would not be sin.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF

So why can’t a rape victim, who has taken emergency contraception in the emergency room immediately after the rape, go to confession, and be reconciled?

 

[JReducation]

To put this in the light of faith, for the benefit of Catholics, I would pose this question. How can we believe that bread and wine cease to be bread and wine at the moment of consecration and become the ACTUAL body and blood of Christ, the same body and blood that was sacrificed at Calvary, but we disbelieve the Church’s teaching on the dignity of human life from conception to natural death?

If the Church’s faith in the dignity of human life from conception to death is faulty, how do we know that her faith in the physical change of bread and wine is not faulty?

It is much easier to believe in the dignity of life, than it is to believe that a host is the same God who created life.

Fraternally,

Br. JR, OSF