Did she understand the risks involved in pregnancy, and the pain of childbirth? And yes, she was enduring medical risk, as would be the case in any pregnancy. Her desire to keep one baby “to play with”, while endearing, doesn’t reflect a mature understanding of the situation.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.
Yes, it will be a horrible experience. I’m not minimizing that at all. But she will have been spared the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.Of course now that someone is going to have to tell her that her babies have been killed she will undergo a horrible experience.
I still don’t understand your comment. The Church was providing help and support to a family in a serious crisis, and you are calling that meddling?My apologies; I didn’t realize you were quoting someone else and that the “we” didn’t refer to you.
She should have trusted the Church, regardless if this is the case she can petition for the Excommunication to be lifted and see where that goes.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.
…and you’re an expert in OB/GYN are you? If not, then your opinion means nowt!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.
Nice straw man argument there……and you’re an expert in OB/GYN are you? If not, then your opinion means nowt!
Amazing how people’s credulity stretches to accomodate that which fits with their moral views.
No, the Church - by its own admission - was capitalizing on that very unfortunate situation to make a broader point. Quoting from the Archdiocese of Recife’s statement:I still don’t understand your comment. The Church was providing help and support to a family in a serious crisis, and you are calling that meddling?
This punishment was not uniquely choosen for these individuals… Everywhere in the world out side of NA, where the Bishops have petitioned Rome for and received an exception, the penalty for abortion is Automatic Excommunication. This was true even here until not all to long ago.No, the Church - by its own admission - was capitalizing on that very unfortunate situation to make a broader point. Quoting from the Archdiocese of Recife’s statement:
"We are 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. "
What does all this have to do with what “Holly3278” said about the girl being 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…
Did you read my post?What does all this have to do with what “Holly3278” said about the girl being excommunicated?
Because of the particular care in Brazil given to those who are pregnant and 14 or under, the risks of pregnancy are actually *less *than for older mothers.Did she understand the risks involved in pregnancy, and the pain of childbirth? And yes, she was enduring medical risk, as would be the case in any pregnancy. Her desire to keep one baby “to play with”, while endearing, doesn’t reflect a mature understanding of the situation.
What risk? You do not seem to understand that *there was no risk. *She was doing fine until the let’s get abortion legal for everyone everywhere crowd jumped in, took her parents away from all their support systems, lied to them, and got them to sign off on the abortion.Yes, it will be a horrible experience. I’m not minimizing that at all. But she will have been spared the risks of pregnancy and childbirth.
Yes, and I’m still trying to figure out what is has to do with my question,Did you read my post?
… Who said the girl was excommunicated?
…and you’re an expert in OB/GYN are you? If not, then your opinion means nowt!
Amazing how people’s credulity stretches to accomodate that which fits with their moral views.
The doctors *who actually examined the little girl *said that she was fine.I am in agreement with those who question the ability of the very young girl to bring a child to term without causing serious health risks to herself or even dying as a result.
She may have been fine at that particular time. However, I suspect that the real danger to her health (and her life) would have been as she continued to term.The doctors *who actually examined the little girl *said that she was fine.
That’s not what I heard.The doctors *who actually examined the little girl *said that she was fine.
Apparently you misread it… My statement “she wasn’t excommunicated” buttresses a point made, she wasn’t excommunicated. It’s not a rebuttle which you seem to think it is. The rest of my post is pure commentary on the hipcaracy involved in this case on the side of pro-choicers.Yes, and I’m still trying to figure out what is has to do with my question,
The doctors would not offer such a bad and weak answer, if she was fine she was fine to go to term. In fact there have been (as I have shown) many childerend about the age of (just below and above in age) who have carried childeren to term and lived long lifes afterwards.She may have been fine at that particular time. However, I suspect that the real danger to her health (and her life) would have been as she continued to term.
Which is precisely why the doctors were keeping an eye on her.She may have been fine at that particular time. However, I suspect that the real danger to her health (and her life) would have been as she continued to term.
Evidence?That’s not what I heard.
Did you present any?Evidence?
There are also examples of pre-teen mothers who have suffered severe health complications and even death, and whose children have suffered health complications and stillborn deaths as well. The dangers for pre-teen mothers and their children is vastly increased.The doctors would not offer such a bad and weak answer, if she was fine she was fine to go to term. In fact there have been (as I have shown) many childerend about the age of (just below and above in age) who have carried childeren to term and lived long lifes afterwards.