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

[otjm]

(continued)

The intent of the operation is to remove that part which, if not removed, will result in the deathof the mother. The intent is not to kill the child, but the result is to kill the child, and yes, contrary to your statement, intent does apply. Your statement:

The wrong act, quite apart from intent, can condemn our course of action.

We are both talking about the same act - the removal of part of the fallopian tube. I have, again, no clue as to how you are twisting what I have said to imply that I approve of abortion. I don’t, and I never have, which was my position long before Roe v. Wade was decided.

The act we are both discussing is the removal of part of the fallopian tube. The surgery is being done to save the life of the mother. Whether that surgery is being done because of cancer there or because the child has embedded there, the intent is the same - to save the life of the mother.

Abortions’ are not done by cutting out part of the fallopian tube; and they are done with the intent to kill the child. Where you are getting the "wrongful act, I have no clue. perhaps you could explain more clearly what I have said to which you take offence.

I understand that many people, including very faithful Catholics, would state that removing part of the fallopian tube in an ectopic pregnancy is an abortion for the reason that the child’s life is lost. That, however, is based on a presumption that because the child’s life is lost, that is the intent of the surgery, It is a result of the surgery, but it is not the intent of the surgery - per the NCBC statement and the Magisterium of the Church.

 

[Rau]

The act we are both discussing is the removal of part of the fallopian tube. The surgery is being done to save the life of the mother. Whether that surgery is being done because of cancer there or because the child has embedded there, the intent is the same - to save the life of the mother.

I stated that this treatment is licit.

But I also point out that your assertion that “a treatment” (which could be anything) that has the intention to save mother is not necessarily licit. The good intention to save mother’s life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the treatment to be licit. The treatment “itself” (its moral object) must be good. There are other treatments for ectopic pregnancy which - while only carried out to save mother - are not licit.

Clearly you do not understand the issue of intent as it applies to moral issues.

Good intentions are not sufficient to make a human act good.

 

[jeannetherese]

It is unfortunate, but we cannot go back and undo our wrongs. Women who have aborted their babies have to carry that reality over the course of their lives and we can hurt for them.
When I think about the just judge, I think that one cannot go back and redo an action, even if we realize that our action had a consequence that wasn’t right.
A friend of mine had an abortion when she was a teen-ager and did not realize that she was killing a child-the nurse told her the child was just a clump of cells and she trusted an authority figure.
Now she knows that her clump of cells was a baby and she hurts and wishes that she could undo her act. As Christians, we are called to love her and pray for her. God can forgive her wrong. We also pray for her child who has died.
We love woman and child.

 

[otjm]

But I also point out that your assertion that “a treatment” (which could be anything) that has the intention to save mother is not necessarily licit. The good intention to save mother’s life is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the treatment to be licit. The treatment “itself” (its moral object) must be good. There are other treatments for ectopic pregnancy which - while only carried out to save mother - are not licit.

Having reviewed my posts, I cannot find where I used the term “the treatment”. I would appreciate if you would quote from the post where you found that. I am aware that you have used the term “the treatment”, but saying that I said that, which appears to be the premise of your “corrections” to me and your questioning if I have studied moral theology appear to ride on that.

 

[mondon111]

I also really cannot accpet the thing that forcing a woman to keep and raise her rapists child is humane. Maybe the church’s teaching should need progress.

 

[Elf01]

I also really cannot accpet the thing that forcing a woman to keep and raise her rapists child is humane.

We’re not forcing her to raise the child, just saying the child cannot be killed.

As I’ve asked, others does she have the right to kill the rapist when he gets out of jail?

 

[mondon111]

But the problem is who should raise the child? You mean that that little baby will not have a dad when he was born, and he will be shamed of his father. All right, these are just my opinon. Sorry.

 

[Elf01]

But the problem is who should raise the child?

Loving adoptive parents if the mother is unable to.

You mean that that little baby will not have a dad when he was born, and he will be shamed of his father. All right, these are just my opinon. Sorry.

I have no idea what you’re trying to say here.

 

[Aulef]

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

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.

So, by “you are to destroy the house of Ahab”, “the whole house of Ahab will perish” and “cut off from Ahab every last male” you think God ordered killing?

 

[JoyfulTune]

JoyfulTune:

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

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.

So, by “you are to destroy the house of Ahab”, “the whole house of Ahab will perish” and “cut off from Ahab every last male” you think God ordered killing?

Yes.

King Ahab married to the priestess of Baal (Jezebel), and had caused the whole Israel worshipped Baal.

Prophet Elisha anointed Jehu to become king of Israel & with the Lord’s word instructing Jehu to wipe out Ahab’s house from Israel.

Joram was Ahab’s son who succeeded his father. Jehu then went to kill Joram & Jezebel. He also instructed to wipe out all Ahab’s sons. Please read the whole story 2Kings chapter 9-10

 

[Rau]

So, by “you are to destroy the house of Ahab”, “the whole house of Ahab will perish” and “cut off from Ahab every last male” you think God ordered killing?

Whether he did or not is in fact irrelevant.

What is certain is that no mother on earth is God, and that God’s commandment to us all is “Thou shall’t not kill”.

 

[Anicette]

But the problem is who should raise the child?

It really depend of the mothers and the culture background.

It can be the mother and her husband
It can be the mother alone
It can be the mother and her birth’s family
It can be the grandparents or another family member

It can be some adoptives parents.

And unfortunately in some culture where adption does not exit, or when the mother don’t abandon him officially but left him, or when social services take the child, he may be raised in less than ideal situation such as institutions or foster care.

If an adoption outside the family is made, with lost relations, it’s possible that this child will not know the circunstances of his birth until a long time, if ever. Shaming seems unlikely.

In some culture, sadly, rape or kidnapping of a girl is a common custom when a man want to marry a girl without asking, or when it would refuse. In these circunstances, the child will be raised by his biological dad and mom.

 

[Monica83]

will be shamed of his father

The child can be ashamed of that person. Doesn’t change the fact they have a right to live and that evil doers make their own choices. It’s not the fault of the child.

 

[Rau]

Yes, all true but those qualifiers add nothing to the rejection of the nonsense being peddled by JoyfulTune.

 

[jeannetherese]

Lots of people have parents who bring them shame, but we don’t advocate kiiling the individual to spare him or her from shame.
Why would we kill someone over someone elses behavior?

 

[JoyfulTune]

Yes, all true but those qualifiers add nothing to the rejection of the nonsense being peddled by JoyfulTune.

Why did the Word of the Lord instructed Jehu to kill “all male in Ahab’s house”?

This include all Ahab’s & Joram’s male descendants not only with Jezebel, but also with their concubines & their other wives too. There were 70 of them (2Kings 10:7).

 

[Johann_du_Toit]

The Church’s teaching on abortion being intrinsically evil in all circumstances hits an emotional nerve, but from a perspective of reason and logic it makes sense. A human life is not somehow worth less based on the way it was conceived.

 

[JoyfulTune]

Leviticus 26:40-42
40 “‘But if they will confess their sins and the sins of their fathers—they will admit their treacheries and their hostility toward me, 41 which made me hostile toward them so that I sent them into the land of their enemies—then when their uncircumcised hearts are humbled and they accept the punishment for their sin. 42 Then I will remember my covenant with Jacob and my covenant with Isaac and my covenant with Abraham, and I will remember the land

Why in the OT God want us to confess the sins of our fathers?

 

[Aulef]

I did read the story. Maybe you should read it again with these key things in mind, since you are not familiar with how the Bible is to be read.

• God forbids murder. This is one of his major Commandments when it comes to neighbor.
• God does not contradict Himself.

Regarding this particular story (Ahab and Jehu).

• God commanded the house of Ahab to be ended (in sum), but not by killing. Read carefuly his words on the passage you quoted.
• Jehu killed neither Ahab nor his descendants (the 70); Ahab’s own servants betrayed him and killed them all and sent Jehu their decapitaded heads. What Jehu did was simply sending a letter. And Ahab himself was killed much later by a random arrow during a fight (not aimed at him).
• Jehu did kill many other people but maybe you forgot (?) to mention that he was a sinful man, which is highlighted many times during the story. However, this has nothing to do with the direct order to end the House of Ahab. Actually, Jehu is criticized for his sins (the killing at Samaria, for instance).
• On that chapter 10 quote, when God says Jehu did what God desired and what was right in His eyes, the author speaks of ending the House of Ahab (that is, ending his dinasty). And remember, in this very particular regard, Jehu did nothing wrong.

Yes.

King Ahab married to the priestess of Baal (Jezebel), and had caused the whole Israel worshipped Baal.

Prophet Elisha anointed Jehu to become king of Israel & with the Lord’s word instructing Jehu to wipe out Ahab’s house from Israel.

Joram was Ahab’s son who succeeded his father. Jehu then went to kill Joram & Jezebel. He also instructed to wipe out all Ahab’s sons. Please read the whole story 2Kings chapter 9-10

 

[JoyfulTune]

I quoted the story of the killing of Ahab’s male descendants to show evidence that:

All male descendants of Ahab & Joram inherit the punishment from Ahab & Joram. They, being males, had potential to become fathers, therefore will pass down the serious sin to their children.

This is to show the weakness of the argument that say “children from a rapist is merely innocent 3rd party who has nothing to do with the sin of the father”. The Law of God does not see them as the innocent 3rd party.