Problem with the Catholic Church's teaching on abortion in cases of rape

[Rau]

What I am denying is to make it compulsory for a rape victim to carry it,

It is not possible to make it compulsory. It is possible punish those who break the law though.

it is not her reaponsibility to do so, according to the Law of God.

The law of God says not to kill.

 

[JoyfulTune]

God is perfectly entitled to give and take life. That it the point. It is up to HIM, not other humans, to end the lives of human beings.

I agree.

That’s why abortion is wrong, even in the case of rape.

Not true, if the woman’s life is at risk.
What if she becomes damaged mentally and physically? What if her legitimate family breakes apart because of what happen to her? Does she has the right to defend her life against the fruit of rape that happened to her?

It is evil and unjust and immoral to force the victim of a crime to suffer futher the result of that crime.

 

[JoyfulTune]

The law of God says not to kill.

There are places in the bible where God ordered killing in the name of justice.

 

[Aulef]

Please, cite at least two examples God made this. I would need at least the book and the chapter

 

[Rau]

There are many places in the bible where God ordered killing in the name of justice.

I am not aware of God ordering mothers to kill their children in the present era. What about you?

 

[Rau]

It is evil and unjust and immoral to force the victim of a crime to suffer futher the result of that crime.

Actually, no one is forced to suffer - they may suffer, though, that’s a fact. I can show you where God demands we do not kill. I’m certain he regards any choice we make to kill a child as a grievous and immoral act.

 

[JoyfulTune]

Actually, no one is forced to suffer

Really? If she choose to save herself from the unwanted pregnancy with a rapist, you accuse her being a mother who murder her child intentionally.

I call that a moral law that goes against God’s law.

 

[Elf01]

Rau:

Actually, no one is forced to suffer

Really? If she choose to save herself from the unwanted pregnancy with a rapist, you accuse her being a mother who murder her child intentionally.

I call that a moral law that goes against God’s law.

What if she killed the rapist?

 

[JoyfulTune]

I am not aware of God ordering mothers to kill their children in the present era. What about you?

Even secular courts in places where abortion is illegal would order that abortion is allowed in cases of violent rape.

So yes, I say the voice of Justice is God’s Voice.

 

[jeannetherese]

What I am denying is to make it compulsory for a rape victim to carry it, as if it is her responsibility , when actually it is not her reaponsibility to do so, according to the Law of God.

The law of God says “thou shalt not kill.”

 

[JoyfulTune]

Rau:

The law of God says not to kill.

There are places in the bible where God ordered killing in the name of justice.

Please, cite at least two examples God made this. I would need at least the book and the chapter

For example:

2Kings 9:7-10
Lord, the God of Israel, says: ‘I anoint you king over the Lord’s people Israel. 7 You are to destroy the house of Ahab your master, and I will avenge the blood of my servants the prophets and the blood of all the Lord’s servants shed by Jezebel. 8 The whole house of Ahab will perish. I will cut off from Ahab every last male in Israel—slave or free. 9 I will make the house of Ahab like the house of Jeroboam son of Nebat and like the house of Baasha son of Ahijah. 10 As for Jezebel, dogs will devour her on the plot of ground at Jezreel, and no one will bury her.’”

2Kings 10:30-31
30 The Lord said to Jehu, “Because you have done well in accomplishing what is right in my eyes and have done to the house of Ahab all I had in mind to do, your descendants will sit on the throne of Israel to the fourth generation.” 31 Yet Jehu was not careful to keep the law of the Lord, the God of Israel, with all his heart. He did not turn away from the sins of Jeroboam, which he had caused Israel to commit.

 

[Fauken]

By nature alone, no bad tree can bear good fruit . It is only by God’s Grace, apart from the Law, that something evil can become good.

What if the child grow and become a rapist or serial killer? How do you know that injustice for the woman will not beget something as rotten as the rapist father’s will?

God’s Law disagrees with your opinion. The child inherit the father’s punishment, up to 3rd & 4th generation.

If you’re going to stick with the rotten fruit concept, you ought to be consistent. She’s the granddaughter of a person produced by rape. God’s law, as you say, is clear. She has inherited the punishment of her great-grandfather and is the product of bad fruit. Case closed.

What grace.

 

[JoyfulTune]

What grace

God’s forgiveness. Prayers. She & her family choose out of freewill to forgive. Not because otherwise she commit murder. No. Because even if she choose abortion, in the case of rape, that is not murder. Not all killing is murder. God order killing for evil people.

Just as you cannot force baptism on anyone, eventhough you know baptism is good for all people, people need to choose that out of freewill.

 

[Fauken]

God’s forgiveness. Prayers. She & her family choose out of freewill to forgive. Not because otherwise she commit murder. No.

She need to choose out of her own freewill.

The choice between mortal sin and what is right is never a choice. Free will exists for us to freely choose the good, not to raise sin and evil up to an equally valid and appropriate action.

Quit calling your opinions Catholic. They’re not.

 

[Psalm30]

What if her legitimate family breakes apart because of what happen to her?

I’d argue that in this case, the family is in the wrong and the woman does not need to be defended against the baby but rather against the family members who are treating her unjustly. The innocent child should not have to be punished because his/her mother’s relatives are acting wrongly. While it may be a cultural thing, it is nonetheless horrifying and barbarically wrong to disown and shame your daughter because she was raped.

Not true, if the woman’s life is at risk.

There are certain provisions for this in Catholic moral teaching. In an ectopic pregnancy, for instance, the fallopian tube containing the fetus may be surgically removed to save the mother’s life. The child dies as a foreseen but unintended side effect of the procedure.

What if she becomes damaged mentally and physically?

I feel for this. I do. It’s a hard teaching to accept. And the woman in question must be approached with utmost Christian charity and care. But the response is to support the mother, loving both her and the child. The response is not to kill the innocent child who did nothing wrong.

It is evil and unjust and immoral to force the victim of a crime to suffer futher the result of that crime.

This is your belief. It does not line up with Catholic beliefs. As you are not Catholic, we agree to disagree.

 

[JoyfulTune]

Let me give an example :

THE DILEMMA OF THE MORAL JUDGE

A woman is beaten and robbed by a man. He took $1000 from her wallet. The judge found out that the woman is extremely wealthy. Surely $1000. means nothing for her. OTOH, the robber is an extremely poor homeless man who need insuline injections which he cannot pay.

So the judge ordered that the woman forgive the beating and let go the money too. The judge believe that it is a moral way to resolve the case.

So, when the woman one night walked on the same road again, another homeless man beat her up again and took $1000 from her wallet. This homeless man has a child who has cardiac problem.

But this time the judge realize he has a big dilemma to solve. He realize he has made the wrong decision in the first case.

Do you know what dilemma the moral judge have now?

 

[stpurl]

Wait, does this mean you don’t accept infant baptism? Infants do not choose to be baptized, their parents choose for them.

For heaven’s sake, the more you speak, the less your views make any sense at all.

You imply that any ‘fruit of a rapist’ is automatically cursed by God and evil therefore it is fine for a woman to abort the child.

You make claims that God speaks against Himself by saying that His command regarding not killing are automatically ‘revoked’ in the case of a ‘rapist’s fruit’ if the woman ‘chooses’.

You cherry pick Scripture and then, while claiming that you ‘don’t speak for God’, present the cherry picked Scriptures, make your ‘interpretation’ and then claim that the interpreted Scripture IS God speaking, not you.

I agree with the many others who have said this: You are making up things, attributing them to “God’s Law’, and presenting them as authentic teachings, and what you claim as such are actually totally against God and are in fact calls to destroy innocent lives—the children in the womb, and their parents, mother and father.

That’s abominable.

 

[Rau]

There are places in the bible where God ordered killing in the name of justice.

“God ordered…”?

Is that the same as Mum deciding herself to kill?

 

[Psalm30]

Let me give an example :

THE DILEMMA OF THE MORAL JUDGE

A woman is beaten and robbed by a man. He took $1000 from her wallet. The judge found out that the woman is extremely wealthy. Surely $1000. means nothing for her. OTOH, the robber is an extremely poor homeless man who need insuline injections which he cannot pay.

So the judge ordered that the woman forgive the beating and let go the money too. The judge believe that it is a moral way to resolve the case.

So, when the woman one night walked on the same road again, another homeless man beat her up again and took $1000 from her wallet. This homeless man has a child who has cardiac problem.

But this time the judge realize he has a big dilemma to solve. He realize he has made the wrong decision in the first case.

Do you know what dilemma the moral judge have now?

I don’t know what dilemma the moral judge has now, but my first thought is that this story illustrates exactly why the Catholic Church doesn’t make exceptions for when abortion is allowed and when it isn’t. It’s a flat out “NO” across the board except in instances of double effect, such as the ectopic pregnancy example I cited earlier. If you start making exceptions, you eventually will be able to justify anything. So…I’m not sure exactly what you were trying to prove with this, but for me, it further validates Catholic moral teaching.

 

[otjm]

Clearly you have not examined the subject widely

Clearly you do not understand the issue of intent as it applies to moral issues. The NCBC states the Church’s position.

I am not trying to give you a hard time; this is an extremely difficult issue for people to understand, but it is a clear part of ethics as the Church approaches the matter.

Have you studied moral theology?

Yes I have studied moral theology, but I do not have a degree in it; my degree is in Philosophy. However, the NCBC is, I would submit, an arm of the Magisterium. The current president, who was named by Pope Benedict XVI in June 2010 as a member of the Pontifical Academy for Life, is John M. Haas, Ph.D.

If you want to argue with what I have presented, you will have to take it up with someone in the Magisterium.

Welcome to difficult moral questions. I understand, as I have noted above, that many if not most Catholics have a difficult time understanding the difference between intent and result.

The licit treatment is to remove the section of tube involved. The child surely dies, but the object of the act (& “object” is not a reference to intention) is not the death of the child, though death is an inevitable consequence.

You and I are saying the same thing, as is the NCBC. I have reviewed my posts; I have absolutely no clue as to what part of my posts you are taking offense with.

If I recall that document, you’ll read elsewhere that directly killing the child is never permitted, no matter circumstance or intention.

And I have said nothing to the contrary.

Go back and read what I have said; and then quote it in your reply for whatever you are taking as a statement by me that one can intentionally kill a child.

(continued)