News Article: Mormon aversion to the cross due to the anti-Catholicism of their leaders

  • Thread starter Thread starter PaulDupre
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
From what I know of Mormonism, the idea of atonement isn’t as large a part of their theology, and it’s short on grace and love, too. They emphasize the Garden of Gethsemane alot, for a reason that is unclear. In that article the Cross is compared to a guillotine shows a real lack of Christian knowledge (gnosis, in the sense of intuitive understanding), something that I have heard Mormons say before. The fact it can be painful to look at, distasteful, is part of the point. It’s a stumbling block, foolishenss to “this world”.

The Orthodox don’t emphasize the Crucifixion quite as much as Catholics either (they emphasize Christus Victor and the Resurrection moreso)… but they still use the Cross as a symbol.
 
On a more serious note, only a Crucifix truly has any real meaning. A cross is just a cross, it doesn’t have the same meaning. It’s better than nothing, I suppose, but a crucifix is a reminder of the sacrifice Jesus made for us every time we see it.
While I don’t dislike crucifixes (I have one hanging on my wall, actually), I wouldn’t go that far (though I can understand the Roman Catholic origin of the sentiment). For one thing, many historians claim that the artistic depctions shown aren’t necessarily realistic. The only skeleton they’ve found of an actual crucifixion has a nail through the ankle area, not the top of the foot (the foot was turned sideways on the cross).
I'd also point out that crucifixes aren't as ubiquitous in Eastern Christianity, either. With some ancient ideas of what the Cross and Resurrection means, an empty cross might indeed be appropriate, such as Christus Victor. In my own understanding, the Resurrection is just as important as the Crucifixion, if not moreso. Plus, it's not true that the idea of an empty cross is "Protestant", since Anglicans and Lutherans often have crucifixes, too, and the denominations that most emphasize substitutional atonement don't have crucifixes at all (I'd argue that the popular Calvinist/Evangelical Penal Substitution is far less ambiguous than any Roman Catholic views. "God was angry, somebody had to die... better Jesus than you").
 
From what I know of Mormonism, the idea of atonement isn’t as large a part of their theology. They emphasize the Garden of Gethsemane alot, for a reason that is unclear. In that article the Cross is compared to a guillotine shows a real lack of Christian knowledge (gnosis, in the sense of intuitive understanding), something that I have heard Mormons say before. The fact it can be painful to look at, distasteful, is part of the point. It’s a stumbling block, foolishenss to “this world”.

The Orthodox don’t emphasize the Crucifixion quite as much as Catholics either (they emphasize Christus Victor and the Resurrection moreso)… but they still use the Cross as a symbol.
 
From what I know of Mormonism, the idea of atonement isn’t as large a part of their theology, and it’s short on grace and love, too.
Then may I humbly suggest that you don’t know much about Mormonism, if you don’t think that the atonement isn’t a ‘large part of [our] theology?’
They emphasize the Garden of Gethsemane alot, for a reason that is unclear.
It’s clear. We believe that the atonement began in the Garden, and continued through the entire process, ending with His death on the cross.

Think about it; many people were crucified; most of them, according to reports of the process, suffered longer, and more, (at least physically) than did Jesus. As to that, many, MANY people have suffered far more horrendous and painful deaths–some of them at the hands of Christians, come to think about it… We believe that the sacrifice that Christ made in that atonement encompassed everything He suffered on the cross…plus.
In that article the Cross is compared to a guillotine shows a real lack of Christian knowledge (gnosis, in the sense of intuitive understanding), something that I have heard Mormons say before. The fact it can be painful to look at, distasteful, is part of the point. It’s a stumbling block, foolishenss to “this world”.
Actually, you are correct; it SHOULD be painful to look at. Ever heard the phrase 'familiarity breeds contempt?" Now look around you at all the people who wear crosses and don’t think even once about what it represents.

Trust me, Mormons cannot see a cross without that shock of recognition…we know what it represents.
The Orthodox don’t emphasize the Crucifixion quite as much as Catholics either (they emphasize Christus Victor and the Resurrection moreso)… but they still use the Cross as a symbol.
Mormons also emphasize the resurrection. After all, it is His victory over death that is the final resolution of the Atonement, isn’t it?
 
I’ll ‘get over it’ as soon as you do, Jerusha. As long as there are people out there who a: present Joseph’s death as justified, who approve of it, or who call it a shoot-out of a man attempting to escape (oh, yeah, I’ve heard that one too) or who dismiss it as you just did…
:eek:

I was “over it” all my life, until I found out that Brighamites have never gotten “gotten over it.” I am still “over it”-- that is why I prefer to discuss the BOM and present-day LDS culture.

There were deaths on both sides. If you were Jeff Davis’s wife, the civil war would still be going on. :rolleyes:

Oh well-- no use attempting to talk to someone who lives in the past.
 
Then may I humbly suggest that you don’t know much about Mormonism, if you don’t think that the atonement isn’t a ‘large part of [our] theology?’
Mormonism has changed so much… how could I know about it? Depending on what prophet is in charge, it is a completely different religion.
Think about it; many people were crucified; most of them, according to reports of the process, suffered longer, and more, (at least physically) than did Jesus. As to that, many, MANY people have suffered far more horrendous and painful deaths–some of them at the hands of Christians, come to think about it… We believe that the sacrifice that Christ made in that atonement encompassed everything He suffered on the cross…
Code:
Many people suffered more  painful deaths, but none were more innocent.   Jesus death is so meaningful to me, I cannot put it in words fully what it means exactly.   I think that the idea that a person would claim to be Christian and flee from this holy symbol, is deeply disturbing.
I also wouldn’t underrated the potential pain and/or suffering of scourging and crucifixion. Being without food, dehydrated, bleeding profusely, wearing a crown of thorns that dig into your skull… then to be crucified. Not to be taken lightly.

But the thing that Mormons miss… Jesus is asking us to come and die with him. Mormons completely miss that, most Mormons I know are spiritual materialists. It’s all about having that big family in the celestial kingdom. Completely different than traditional Christian piety which is about sacrifice, kenosis (emptying), love.
 
I understand the Catholic position. I wrote my post to elicit this precise response explaining it.

Now here is my response to that; it is sophistry.

Those of us who face this issue with our eyes wide open don’t deceive ourselves;a medical procedure that must be done to save the life of the mother that would not have been necessary if the mother were not pregnant is an abortion. the life of the child is ended in order to save the life of the mother. It is a tragedy. It should only be done if there is no hope of survival for either if the life of the child is not ended.

there is no slight of language here; no 'medical procedure that will save the life of the mother is fine–even if one of the unfortunate side effects is the death of the fetus."

The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is acceptable in Catholic views…***but the procedure would not be necessary if it were not a pregnancy. ***

I prefer to see the situation head on and acknowledge the tragedy and the grief, not to hide behind tricksy verbiage in order to pharisee my way out of reality.
Dianiad-you continue to be unclear on the differences in the Catholic Church’s position on abortion vs the lds position; let’s try a different approach, shall we?
The Catholic Church would like to see the tools used in an abortion destroyed, the lds would like to keep them around–just in case.
No use of “tricksy verbiage” here, though I suspect you’ll employ some mormonisicously tricksy verbiage to pharisee outta this one.
 
Those of us who face this issue with our eyes wide open don’t deceive ourselves;a medical procedure that must be done to save the life of the mother that would not have been necessary if the mother were not pregnant is an abortion. the life of the child is ended in order to save the life of the mother. It is a tragedy. It should only be done if there is no hope of survival for either if the life of the child is not ended.
Yes and no. An abortion occurred, but one wasn’t performed. You are confusing abortions with induced abortions. Abortions happen, and that is a fact. Many are spontaneous and no fault of anyone, and others are complications of otherwise necessary treatments. However, the Church condemns sin, not events. If you kill a baby, on purpose and for that reason, you are engaging in the act of abortion. If a baby dies in the womb before viability it is abortion too, but it is not the same thing as “getting an abortion.” You are only responsible for murder if you intentionally end a person’s life.

Let us consider the situation more closely. A woman is pregnant and is experiencing life-threatening complications. The only way to save her life is to end the pregnancy. That could be acheived by removing the baby, which they do. But, first they remove the baby’s brains and then remove him from the uterus. I ask you. Were the baby’s brains hurting the mother, or the pregnancy? What did the removal of the brains before removing the baby acheive for the mother medically? How was this action therapeutic? It prolonged the duration of the surgery, and increase the chance of further complication, but we are to believe that the removal of the brains saved her life. Do you agree?
 
Good evening Daedelus76! It is good to meet you. I’m Finrock. 🙂
Mormonism has changed so much… how could I know about it? Depending on what prophet is in charge, it is a completely different religion.
If I understand your comment here correctly, you seem to be indicating that the importance of the Atonement in Mormonism has changed along with other things so you weren’t aware of it.

There is some truth to the idea, because we do believe in continuing revelation and we believe that God can yet reveal new things to the Church, through His prophet. However, the idea that we have a completely different religion, based on who is the prophet, simply isn’t true. The core doctrines and gospel message of the Church have stayed essentially the same through-out it’s history. There have been some big revelations, such as ones that ended the practice of plural marriage and extended the priesthood to all male members (in the past African-Americans could not hold the priesthood). But, at the core, the Church has remained consistent.

One thing that is absolute in the Church is the preeminence of Jesus Christ and His atonement in all that we do, say, or teach. Indeed, “…we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins” (2 Ne. 25:26). Joseph Smith taught that “…[t]he fundamental principles of our religion are the testimony of the Apostles and Prophets, concerning Jesus Christ, that He died, was buried, and rose again the third day, and ascended into heaven; and all other things which pertain to our religion are only appendages to it.” From the beginning and to this day, Jesus Christ and His atonement lay at the center of our religion.

We believe that in the Garden of Gethsemane is where Jesus actually suffered the pains of all the sins of all of mankind, but not only their sins, but also their infirmities and their weaknesses. So great was the suffering that it caused “…even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit” (D&C 19:18). But, this wasn’t the end of Jesus’ suffering. From the hands of the Romans and finally to the cross, Jesus suffered. The LDS church does not take the suffering on the cross lightly. In a recent speech, one of our apostles, Elder Holland, speaking of the events on the cross had this to say about the last moments of Jesus’ life. Please excuse the lengthy quote, but I think it is needful:

"*Now I speak very carefully, even reverently, of what may have been the most difficult moment in all of this solitary journey to Atonement. I speak of those final moments for which Jesus must have been prepared intellectually and physically but which He may not have fully anticipated emotionally and spiritually—that concluding descent into the paralyzing despair of divine withdrawal when He cries in ultimate loneliness, “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?”

The loss of mortal support He had anticipated, but apparently He had not comprehended this. Had He not said to His disciples, “Behold, the hour . . . is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me” and “The Father hath not left me alone; for I do always those things that please him”?

With all the conviction of my soul I testify that He did please His Father perfectly and that a perfect Father did not forsake His Son in that hour. Indeed, it is my personal belief that in all of Christ’s mortal ministry the Father may never have been closer to His Son than in these agonizing final moments of suffering. Nevertheless, that the supreme sacrifice of His Son might be as complete as it was voluntary and solitary, the Father briefly withdrew from Jesus the comfort of His Spirit, the support of His personal presence. It was required; indeed it was central to the significance of the Atonement, that this perfect Son who had never spoken ill nor done wrong nor touched an unclean thing had to know how the rest of humankind—us, all of us—would feel when we did commit such sins. For His Atonement to be infinite and eternal, He had to feel what it was like to die not only physically but spiritually, to sense what it was like to have the divine Spirit withdraw, leaving one feeling totally, abjectly, hopelessly alone.

But Jesus held on. He pressed on. The goodness in Him allowed faith to triumph even in a state of complete anguish. The trust He lived by told Him in spite of His feelings that divine compassion is never absent, that God is always faithful, that He never flees nor fails us. When the uttermost farthing had then been paid, when Christ’s determination to be faithful was as obvious as it was utterly invincible, finally and mercifully, it was “finished.” Against all odds and with none to help or uphold Him, Jesus of Nazareth, the living Son of the living God, restored physical life where death had held sway and brought joyful, spiritual redemption out of sin, hellish darkness and despair. With faith in the God He knew was there, He could say in triumph, “Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit*” (Holland, None Were With Him).

I’ve run out of characters, so I will comment on the last part of your post separately.

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
Gottle of Geer,
In case you check back here later, I wanted to let you know that I posted a longer response to the questions you had asked on the thread about the Jaredite barges.

For the record here, I have no “aversion to the cross” at all. Finrock’s post previous to mine is very meaningful about Christ’s atonement, on the cross and in Gethsemane.

I think those who really find Jesus in their lives find peace in their inner souls, and that peace flourishes in how they interact with others even on difficult topics or when carrying on discussions wherein there are disagreements. Christ becomes a part of all of their relationships, just as He promised.
 
Ok…

Your wife is pregnant and there is no chance that if the baby is born now that it will live.

She has just been hit with a car and needs major surgery–but if it is done the fetus will die. If it is not done she will die.

What do you do?

Is it now all that black and white? One member of your family is about to die–one, or both. What do you choose to do?
I understand the Catholic position. I wrote my post to elicit this precise response explaining it.

Now here is my response to that; it is sophistry.

Those of us who face this issue with our eyes wide open don’t deceive ourselves;a medical procedure that must be done to save the life of the mother that would not have been necessary if the mother were not pregnant is an abortion. the life of the child is ended in order to save the life of the mother. It is a tragedy. It should only be done if there is no hope of survival for either if the life of the child is not ended.

there is no slight of language here; no 'medical procedure that will save the life of the mother is fine–even if one of the unfortunate side effects is the death of the fetus."

The removal of an ectopic pregnancy is acceptable in Catholic views…***but the procedure would not be necessary if it were not a pregnancy. ***

I prefer to see the situation head on and acknowledge the tragedy and the grief, not to hide behind tricksy verbiage in order to pharisee my way out of reality.
Since no where in your scenario post was the bolded part hinted at it seems that this little exercise, is nothing more than sophistry on your part. Others have explained “intent” you understand it as sophistry:shrug: But the LDS position on abortion of pregnancy that’s a result of rape or incest is straight up condoning murder. The mother is allowed to kill her child because she doesn’t want to carry it to term.
 
Hi Daedelus! Here is the rest of my response. Sorry that I couldn’t keep it all on one post.
But the thing that Mormons miss… Jesus is asking us to come and die with him. Mormons completely miss that, most Mormons I know are spiritual materialists. It’s all about having that big family in the celestial kingdom. Completely different than traditional Christian piety which is about sacrifice, kenosis (emptying), love.
Family is very important in Mormon religion, you are right, but there is more to it than just that. Eternal Life, or Celestial glory, isn’t attained by merely wishing for it. The path of the disciple of Jesus Christ is one that starts with faith in Jesus Christ. As our faith in Jesus increases, we begin to see and understand our “…own nothingness, and his goodness and long-suffering towards [us], unworthy creatures…” And as we “…humble [ourselves] even in the depths of humility…” we are lead to repentance (Mosiah 4:11). Having repented, we must then be baptized by immersion for the remission of our sins, which baptism is also a symbol and a covenant of our rebirth in Christ, taking upon us His name (Alma 7:15). This means that we no longer live for ourselves, but for Christ. We try to emulate Him. We covenant to obey Him, despite our trials or circumstances in life. We promise to bear one another’s burdens and to do good to others. We promise to filled our hearts with the love of God, which is charity (Mosiah 4). Once we are baptized, we can then receive the Gift of the Holy Ghost, which is the promise of having the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost, if we keep ourselves worthy, through obedience and sacrifice. And, it is through the Gift of the Holy Ghost that we can be sanctified, that our hearts can be made pure. But, this is not all, we must endure to the end, constantly repeating the cycle of increasing our faith in Jesus Christ, repenting of our sins, and rebaptizing for the remission of sins (through partaking of the sacrament).

“Wherefore, [we] must press forward with a steadfastness in Christ, having a perfect brightness of hope, and a love of God and of all men. Wherefore, if [we] shall press forward, feasting upon the word of Christ, and endure to the end, behold, thus saith the Father: [we] shall have eternal life” (2 Ne. 31:20). To inherit the Celestial Kingdom, we will need to be able to “…look up to God at that day with a pure heart and clean hands…having the image of God engraven upon [our] countenances” (Alma 5:19).

Thanks for your post and for giving me an opportunity to clarify some misunderstandings that you might have or that someone else reading this thread my have had.

Kind Regards,
Finrock
 
:eek:

I was “over it” all my life, until I found out that Brighamites have never gotten “gotten over it.” I am still “over it”-- that is why I prefer to discuss the BOM and present-day LDS culture.

There were deaths on both sides. If you were Jeff Davis’s wife, the civil war would still be going on. :rolleyes:

Oh well-- no use attempting to talk to someone who lives in the past.
Y’know, Jerusha, it’s not the death of Joseph Smith that I need to ‘get over.’ It is the present day comments of those who represent it as something it is not that I object to. As long as there are people who justify the violence, or continue to misrepresent what happened, then I will not ‘get over it.’

As well, I think you might want to consider the words of George Santayana regarding those who refuse to learn the lessons of the past.
 
Mormonism has changed so much… how could I know about it? Depending on what prophet is in charge, it is a completely different religion.
standard slur noted.

Odd, though, I’ve been a Mormon through nine Presidents and prophets of the church, and I haven’t noticed a ‘completely different’ religion coming from each one.
Many people suffered more painful deaths, but none were more innocent. Jesus death is so meaningful to me, I cannot put it in words fully what it means exactly.
I agree fully with the above…
I think that the idea that a person would claim to be Christian and flee from this holy symbol, is deeply disturbing.
We do not flee. We deeply respect. We don’t wear jewelry made into crosses.
I also wouldn’t underrated the potential pain and/or suffering of scourging and crucifixion. Being without food, dehydrated, bleeding profusely, wearing a crown of thorns that dig into your skull… then to be crucified. Not to be taken lightly.
Where was I taking it lightly, sir? What part of “the atonement began in the garden and ended on the cross” does NOT include everything that happened in between?
But the thing that Mormons miss… Jesus is asking us to come and die with him. Mormons completely miss that, most Mormons I know are spiritual materialists. It’s all about having that big family in the celestial kingdom. Completely different than traditional Christian piety which is about sacrifice, kenosis (emptying), love.
your opinion is your opinion…and you are certainly entitled to it. However, given that you began this post with an inaccurate and rather snarky slam…
 
The article is interesting. Thanks for posting it.

Robert Millet, former Dean of Religious Education at BYU, has given an explanation for Mormon’s attitudes toward the cross that I find illuminating. In Claiming Christ, he writes:

“It appears that crosses were seldom if ever placed on our meetinghouses. Inasmuch as many of our early converts came from a Puritan background, they, like the Puritans, were essentially anti-ceremonial, which included not using crosses.” (100).

So according to Millet, it’s nothing more than tradition (and yes, there is anti-catholocism in some Mormon writings, particularly at the turn of the 20th century and in the works of certain Mormon leaders).

Mormons are showing signs of getting over their aversion to the cross, though.
 
Dianiad-you continue to be unclear on the differences in the Catholic Church’s position on abortion vs the lds position; let’s try a different approach, shall we?
The Catholic Church would like to see the tools used in an abortion destroyed, the lds would like to keep them around–just in case.
No use of “tricksy verbiage” here, though I suspect you’ll employ some mormonisicously tricksy verbiage to pharisee outta this one.
“The tools used in an abortion…” What tools would those be? Tools that are not used for any other purpose?

What I am having problems with is this; Mormons are considered to be one of the most pro-life groups on the planet, and for good reason; it’s harder to get a church approved abortion than it is for a Catholic to get a church approved divorce.

We do not support, for any reason, a ‘late term abortion,’ the purpose of which is the death of the baby. We do not support abortion for any reason OTHER THAN the imminent death of the mother AND baby if the abortion is not performed. Abortion in the case of rape/incest is taken on a case by case basis, and that basis is the spiritual and physical health of the MOTHER.

In fact, the only difference between the Catholic position on abortion and the Mormon position on abortion is that we don’t weasel out of calling it one when one is required. YOU might call it ‘a necessary medical procedure to save the life of the mother that incidentally results in the death of the fetus,’ but when that medical procedure is required specifically because the woman is pregnant and her life is endangered BY that pregnancy, then there is no getting around the fact that we are ending one life in order to save another one.

I purely dislike such tiptoeing around facts, just as I dislike the current pro-abortion tactics of trying to find different times to say that a baby becomes a baby–other than at the moment DNA from two donors combines to make a new and unique human life.

To characterize the CoJCoLDS as pro-abortion is jaw-dropping astounding, in fact–and it would cause any truly ‘pro-choice’ person to collapse in hysterical laughter–and purest glee at the division in ranks here.

True, there are Catholic women who endanger their lives in order to give their babies a fighting chance; Mormon women do the same thing.

But we aren’t talking about that when we talk about abortion; we are talking about instances where the choice is; the pregnancy ends now and the mother lives, or the pregnancy ends in a day or two naturally—and both die. Either way, the baby has no chance of survival.

I know that Catholic doctors and hospitals, in that situation, perform the medical procedures that will allow the mother to live. The only difference here is that MORMONS recognize the tragic reality, and you take comfort in the round about description of what needs to be done.
 
Yes and no. An abortion occurred, but one wasn’t performed. You are confusing abortions with induced abortions. Abortions happen, and that is a fact. Many are spontaneous and no fault of anyone, and others are complications of otherwise necessary treatments. However, the Church condemns sin, not events. If you kill a baby, on purpose and for that reason, you are engaging in the act of abortion. If a baby dies in the womb before viability it is abortion too, but it is not the same thing as “getting an abortion.” You are only responsible for murder if you intentionally end a person’s life.

Let us consider the situation more closely. A woman is pregnant and is experiencing life-threatening complications. The only way to save her life is to end the pregnancy. That could be acheived by removing the baby, which they do. But, first they remove the baby’s brains and then remove him from the uterus. I ask you. Were the baby’s brains hurting the mother, or the pregnancy? What did the removal of the brains before removing the baby acheive for the mother medically? How was this action therapeutic? It prolonged the duration of the surgery, and increase the chance of further complication, but we are to believe that the removal of the brains saved her life. Do you agree?
I have no idea why such would be considered a medical necessity. From what little I do know, the only time such a thing is done is during a late term ‘partial birth’ abortion, and the purpose is to make it easier to expel the fetus.

No LDS doctor would do this; if the child is large enough to require this in order to be expelled from the birth canal, then it is large enough to be given a chance to live. I know of no instance where a C-section would need to include such a procedure.

So…what part of ‘we don’t agree with late term abortions’ or ‘partial birth abortions’ seems to be unclear?
 
:eek:

I was “over it” all my life, until I found out that Brighamites have never gotten “gotten over it.” I am still “over it”-- that is why I prefer to discuss the BOM and present-day LDS culture.

There were deaths on both sides.
I just noticed this. Would you care to show me what deaths were on the OTHER side in this incident? Say, within a decade on either side of the mob attack on Carthage Jail?
If you were Jeff Davis’s wife, the civil war would still be going on. :rolleyes:

Oh well-- no use attempting to talk to someone who lives in the past.
 
What I am having problems with is this; Mormons are considered to be one of the most pro-life groups on the planet, and for good reason; it’s harder to get a church approved abortion than it is for a Catholic to get a church approved divorce.
This is actually a misunderstanding on your part. Catholics do NOT get a “church approved divorce.”

A declaration of nullity (I believe is the correct term) is what is granted when it has been determined that there was no marriage to begin with.

i.e.There was never a marriage to begin with. So that means that no divorce is being “granted.” The “divorce,” when applying for this declaration, is a civil divorce, i.e. a legal divorce in the eyes of the law. Not church law.

How that is determined is is dependent on each case. Regardless, it looks as if you have your own misconceptions and misunderstandings about the Catholic church. 😉
 
Since no where in your scenario post was the bolded part hinted at it seems that this little exercise, is nothing more than sophistry on your part. Others have explained “intent” you understand it as sophistry:shrug: But the LDS position on abortion of pregnancy that’s a result of rape or incest is straight up condoning murder. The mother is allowed to kill her child because she doesn’t want to carry it to term.
I think that when such women/children are counseled, and an abortion is allowed, it’s not because she doesn’t WANT to. It’s because she CAN’T.

you haven’t been in their situation. I don’t think I would abort a child conceived by rape, and I would certainly do everything in my power to encourage my daughters in their decision to not abort.

However, I know the mother of a girl who was raped when she was twelve. It was a brutal, violent and horrific act, and the girl was hospitalized for nearly six weeks as a result. For some reason her pregnancy test didn’t show positive for nearly three weeks after she got out of the hospital.

Here is a twelve year old girl, permanently scarred both physically and emotionally, and she’s pregnant. She is so mentally and emotionally damaged that she had to be sedated in order to allow any male near her, even her doctors. When she found out she was pregnant, she started having nightmares and hallucinations about her rapist living in her body, trying to claw his way out and kill her. She began to stab herself with anything she could get her hands on; she didn’t dare kill her rapist (the baby inside) because she was afraid that he would kill her parents and siblings. However, she thought that if she could kill HERSELF, that the rapist wouldn’t go after her family.

Between the trauma of the kidnap/rape, her young body and the pregnancy, there was absolutely no choice. Because of the physical damage that the actual rape caused and her mental state he may well not have lived long enough to bear that child, and if she HAD, she may never have been sane again.

So…the pregnancy was aborted. The girl took a very long time to recuperate, but she eventually got her life back. She is now a young college graduate with a loving husband and two daughters—whose births were extremely difficult for her. She can’t have more children…and the only reason she could have THOSE was because the pregnancy caused by the rape was terminated.

She mourns the loss of that first baby now…but she understands, as do her parents and the church, that there was no choice at the time—and the sin is on the head of the rapist.

this is not ‘condoning murder.’ It is…placing the blame of the murder on the head of the one who is responsible; the rapist.

had the girl been older, and had she been physically and mentally better able to deal with it, she would have been given the counseling and aid she needed to KEEP the baby.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top