Excommunication result of Brazil Girl's abortion

  • Thread starter Thread starter Flame4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
The child was fine. She had been fairly normal in her health and behavior up until she complained of “pain” (unspecified as to amount or severity) in her stomach area, at which point her mother took her to the doctor where it was discovered that she was pregnant.

She was examined *and released. *The doctors who evaluated her diagnosed her as doing fine with her pregnancy. Brazil has a very strong pre-natal program established esp for poor women.

The bishops declared the excommunication for several reasons, in part because the bishops were convinced that the disclosure of this therapeutic penalty (the excommunication) will do much good to many Catholics, making them avoid this grievous sin. The silence of the Church would be very prejudicial, especially considering that fifty million abortions are being performed every year around the world, and in Brazil alone one million innocent lives are ended. The silence may be interpreted as collusion or complicity.

The rules regarding excommunication were announced the day before the abortion in the hope that the abortion would not take place: We then came up with the desperate idea that, if the press were to disclose the strange removal of the child from the IMIP to an undisclosed location, perhaps the Curumim Group or the doctors dealing with the case would realise what they were doing and heed the Church’s appeal to refrain from carrying out the abortion. For us, that night, the press was the only option left to us to issue a final cry for help in favour of the babies who were about to be murdered.

Once we had contacted the local press (newspapers and television), teams of reporters showed up at the Archbishop’s residence. He told them of the events which had occurred and quoted canon law, to the effect that persons performing or co-operating in an abortion would incur automatic excommunication (Canon 1398). It was almost midnight.

The parents were isolated by social services staff and pressured into consenting to an abortion, despite the fact that the center from which the child had been transferred said that the girl and her two babies were in fine health.

The situation in Brazil is that abortion is legal in cases where the health of the mother is endangered, or in cases of rape or incest. However, there are people working to expand the legality of abortion, and they use cases like this to gain support among the Brazilian people.
 
The point is, the mother’s only responsibility was for her daughter’s welfare. The abortion in this case was not murder. It would have been barbaric to force a young child to go through the physical and psychological trauma of a pregnancy and childbirth which she had no part in creating.
First of all, the mother did not want an abortion, she was pressured into it by the social workers.

Secondly, her concern cannot be for her own child *at the expense of *her grandchild(ren)'s lives–that is absurd. How can concern for her own child translate into justification of killing an innocent person?
 
First of all, the mother did not want an abortion, she was pressured into it by the social workers.
Whether or not that’s true, it was still the mother’s right and responsibility to make that decision.
Secondly, her concern cannot be for her own child *at the expense of *her grandchild(ren)'s lives–that is absurd. How can concern for her own child translate into justification of killing an innocent person?
The cold, sad facts are: the daughter is a living, breathing person. The fetuses are not.

I am not making a generalized argument for legalized abortion, but in this case the mother had an absolute responsibility to do what was best for her child, and her child alone. Killing an innocent person is not always murder.

Here’s an analogy. Suppose that a gang leader was using intimidation, coercion, drugs, etc. to force very young children to commit violent crimes. By any standard, the children would not be morally responsible for their actions. Now suppose that a gang of those children attacked you or your child, and the only defensive measure available to you was lethal force. You would be killing an innocent person. But would you be a murderer? I don’t think so.
 
Whether or not that’s true, it was still the mother’s right and responsibility to make that decision.
I did not put that clearly, altho it was clear in the link: the mother to whom I was referring was the little girl’s mother.

And no mother has the “right” to choose to kill her grandchildren…
The cold, sad facts are: the daughter is a living, breathing person. The fetuses are not.
They are living. The fact that they are not breathing is merely a matter of age.
I am not making a generalized argument for legalized abortion, but in this case the mother had an absolute responsibility to do what was best for her child, and her child alone.
And this woman was lied to and pressured by people who are pushing for broadening the legalization of abortion in Brazil, as was recounted in the article.
Killing an innocent person is not always murder.
True, sometimes it is accidental; however, procured abortion is not one of those cases.
Here’s an analogy. Suppose that a gang leader was using intimidation, coercion, drugs, etc. to force very young children to commit violent crimes. By any standard, the children would not be morally responsible for their actions. Now suppose that a gang of those children attacked you or your child, and the only defensive measure available to you was lethal force. You would be killing an **innocent **person. But would you be a murderer? I don’t think so.
You think that a person who is trying to kill my child is “innocent”? I don’t think that you quite understand the meaning of the word innocent in this context. We are not talking about the legal innocence which is assumed until proof of guilt has been accepted by a jury… we are talking about innocent as in not having done anything to warrant the application of force, much less lethal force.
 
what’s the piont of analogy it doesn’t make an agrument any clearer it only muddy’s the water.Abotion is abortion this is what the excomunication makes clear. it’s up to each individual if they want to follow church teachings or not. Christ said pick up your cross and follow me .don’t deliberate on a situation your not in and where your opinion will change nothing, why risk going down the road of heresy. your time would be better spent praying for all the people involved.
 
The child was fine. She had been fairly normal in her health and behavior up until she complained of “pain” (unspecified as to amount or severity) in her stomach area, at which point her mother took her to the doctor where it was discovered that she was pregnant.

She was examined *and released. *The doctors who evaluated her diagnosed her as doing fine with her pregnancy. Brazil has a very strong pre-natal program established esp for poor women.

The bishops declared the excommunication for several reasons, in part because the bishops were convinced that the disclosure of this therapeutic penalty (the excommunication) will do much good to many Catholics, making them avoid this grievous sin. The silence of the Church would be very prejudicial, especially considering that fifty million abortions are being performed every year around the world, and in Brazil alone one million innocent lives are ended. The silence may be interpreted as collusion or complicity.

The rules regarding excommunication were announced the day before the abortion in the hope that the abortion would not take place: We then came up with the desperate idea that, if the press were to disclose the strange removal of the child from the IMIP to an undisclosed location, perhaps the Curumim Group or the doctors dealing with the case would realise what they were doing and heed the Church’s appeal to refrain from carrying out the abortion. For us, that night, the press was the only option left to us to issue a final cry for help in favour of the babies who were about to be murdered.

Once we had contacted the local press (newspapers and television), teams of reporters showed up at the Archbishop’s residence. He told them of the events which had occurred and quoted canon law, to the effect that persons performing or co-operating in an abortion would incur automatic excommunication (Canon 1398). It was almost midnight.

The parents were isolated by social services staff and pressured into consenting to an abortion, despite the fact that the center from which the child had been transferred said that the girl and her two babies were in fine health.

The situation in Brazil is that abortion is legal in cases where the health of the mother is endangered, or in cases of rape or incest. However, there are people working to expand the legality of abortion, and they use cases like this to gain support among the Brazilian people.
In other words, your meddling was responsible for stirring up this unfortunate situation.
 
…and this 7 year old was physically capable of carrying the pregnancy to term without serious risk to her life?
If a 5, 8, 9 & 10 year old could with out dieing, there’s no reason to believe a 7 year old couldn’t. Particularly in this day and age of modern medicine when a cicerian section can be performed to reduce the risk during child birth.
 
Some time ago a 7 year old girl recieved an abortion and her mother and the doctor were excommunicated.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/07/catholic-abortion.html

Now the girl was raped by her step father. I know someone challenging me on this saying the Church is not punishing the right people (the father.) I was a bit shocked and couldn’t get the right words out. What can I say? Abortion is murder. What is worse:rape or murder? I don’t like to say stuff like that b/c i don’t want to undermine the pain of rape victims, but I don’t know what else to say.

Please Help

Happy Easter
Abortion is far worse that Rape, particularly since it’s considered to be “socially acceptable”. This is the reason, coupled with the fact that it’s infanticide, that it earns automatic excommunication.

The rapist is in danger of Hell. Isn’t that bad enough?
 
If a 5, 8, 9 & 10 year old could with out dieing, there’s no reason to believe a 7 year old couldn’t. Particularly in this day and age of modern medicine when a cicerian section can be performed to reduce the risk during child birth.
But the point is, she shouldn’t have to. It’s unconscionable to force a child to endure a pregnancy and childbirth that she’s in no way responsible for. There is absolutely no moral right for anyone to do so.
 
But the point is, she shouldn’t have to. It’s unconscionable to force a child to endure a pregnancy and childbirth that she’s in no way responsible for. There is absolutely no moral right for anyone to do so.
Well I can only agree in so far as she shouldn’t have been raped in the first place. But once the egg is firtalized it’s fully living, and fully human. There for one can not punish the child with a death sentance for the crimes of the father.

Think of it this way, would you consider this fair?

Your father rapes someone… So I take a gun and blow off your head.
 
That’s what I like: people who take one data point and extrapolate a whole universe. Who said the girl was excommunicated?
The 7 year old girl, in fact was not excommunicated. She is a victem in this, she had no choice.

This is what I find really ironic about this, and I think it shows the true mentality of so called “pro-choicers”. “A baby is defined as living only if the Mother decalers it to be so”… Well do you really believe this 7 year old girl had a choice? Certainly not, she was forced to have an abortion by her Mother.

So whatever happened to the so called “rights of the Mother”. She wasn’t given any more choice by her mother, and this doctor than you accuse the Church of giving her. Think about it…
 
But the point is, she shouldn’t have to. It’s unconscionable to force a child to endure a pregnancy and childbirth that she’s in no way responsible for. There is absolutely no moral right for anyone to do so.
Pregnancy and childbirth are not horrible experiences to be endured.
 
Pregnancy and childbirth are not horrible experiences to be endured.
They are if they’re forced on an unwilling minor child. The mother would have been negligent in her responsibility if she had allowed her daughter to undergo the pain and risk when the daugher had no responsibility for the pregnancy.
 
The 7 year old girl, in fact was not excommunicated. She is a victem in this, she had no choice.

This is what I find really ironic about this, and I think it shows the true mentality of so called “pro-choicers”. “A baby is defined as living only if the Mother decalers it to be so”… Well do you really believe this 7 year old girl had a choice? Certainly not, she was forced to have an abortion by her Mother.

So whatever happened to the so called “rights of the Mother”. She wasn’t given any more choice by her mother, and this doctor than you accuse the Church of giving her. Think about it…
Parents are responsible for making decisions for the welfare of their minor children; this is well established.
 
Parents are responsible for making decisions for the welfare of their minor children; this is well established.
Perhaps mom should have taken that responcibility a little more seriously, rather than forcing her grand child to be killed.
 
They are if they’re forced on an unwilling minor child. The mother would have been negligent in her responsibility if she had allowed her daughter to undergo the pain and risk when the daugher had no responsibility for the pregnancy.
The little girl wanted the babies. She was going to “give” one to a relative, and have the other “to play with.” She was not in any way “enduring” a horrible experience.

Of course now that someone is going to have to tell her that her babies have been killed she will undergo a horrible experience.
 
People!!! Take it easy on the mother of the little girl. She was illiterate and fast-talked into putting her thumbprint on the paper giving permission after the pro-abortion people isolated her from other, then lied to her and told her her own child would die without the abortion.

Let’s save the invective for those who deserve it, those who tried to use this case to further their own interests.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top