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

[JoyfulTune]

Do you think God is pleased when a child is killed?

No.

I don’t think God is pleased in punishing. But it is His will that Justice is upheld.

 

[goout]

goout:

Do you think God is pleased when a child is killed?

No.

I don’t think God is pleased in punishing. But it is His will that Justice is upheld.

So you believe that killing a child satisfies God’s idea of justice?
Please tell us more about this god.

 

[Rau]

You do not concern for the welfare of the mother whenever you deny her right to defend herself from those who intrude to her property (her body/ her privacy).

Of course we do. We help her to accept what has happened, to get past it and to avoid doing a terrible thing.

 

[stpurl]

I said it earlier —Moloch.

Maybe JT forgot that God is both infinitely just and infinitely merciful.

Especially to little innocent children who are not ‘heirs’ to the individual father’s individual sins, but rather who are all touched with the original sin of Adam and Eve.

 

[JoyfulTune]

So you believe that killing a child satisfies God’s idea of justice?

Please read the story of Bathsheba’s child whom God killed, because of his father sin (David’s sin).

Does God’s Justice satisfied that the child died? I do not know the answer to this. All I know is, that is written in the bible.

How about God rewarded Jehu for killing 70 of Ahab’s males? Did that satisfy His will to avenge the blood of the prophets shed by Jezebel? (2Kings 9:7,10:30)

Does forcing a raped woman to carry and give birth the heir of the person who rape her please God? Does it satisfy moral value to do so?

Even secular people has better formed conscience than forcing a raped woman to carry the rapist child.

When a woman carry a chlid, it takes the most deep intimate part of her to carry that child. Pregnancy is not the same as carrying a bag or just impersonal detached heavy work. It is so deeply personal that it is inhuman to force it on a rape victim.

The Moral Theology satisfy to God & the one we should teach is this: “Thou shall NOT commit adultery”

Forcing women to carry children of adultery is settle-for-less morality. Forcing raped victim to carry rapist child is immorality.

 

[JoyfulTune]

Moloch.

Throughout the history of Israel, there is always story of idolatry. What makes it impossible that we are in the middle of it now?

And I am refering to the church, not the secular world out there.

 

[JoyfulTune]

JoyfulTune:

as compared to the good samaritan who has compassion for the crime victim

WE are compassionate for both victims, the woman and her preborn child. Indeed, Catholics are compelled to also feel compassion for the rapist, even as we denounce the act of rape. Every person is special to God and in need of our love and prayers.
May God bless you.
Amen.

Our God is not a god who is impersonal. His choice is not indifference.

He is a Jealous God, who Favor the ones who believe Him. And He demand faithfulness too.

Being kind to all people (including rapists and adulterers) is humanity approach. This approach is part of discipline of the church and human ethics. We as believers should conduct our behavior this way. This is, however, not exactly Theology neither it is the Law. It is how we should behave, communicate, living communal with all people.

JoyfulTune:

justice principles in crime cases.

It seems to me that you are confusing secular law with the ten commandments which is God’s law…

What’s written in the bible, is God reveal Himself in human history. We try to understand Him (Theology).

God not only reveal Himself, He also works in the world. Regardless how the church (or any other religion) understand or misunderstand Him, He continue working. God works even through secular law and science too. As long as it is justice, I believe it is also God’s way working in this world.

 

[Rau]

Does forcing a raped woman to carry and give birth the heir of the person who rape her please God? Does it satisfy moral value to do so?

Actually, there is no way to force or compel that outcome. The most we can do is punish those who kill the unborn.

Does a mother (not God, but a mother) deciding to kill her unborn please God?

It is so deeply personal that it is inhuman to force it on a rape victim.

Of course, this never happens. No one is “forced”, confined, perhaps strapped to a bed. Hopefully what happens is the decent thing - aid and comfort and support is provided to the woman who struggles with their pregnancy; we do not hand them a deadly cocktail so they may kill the innocent child.

 

[Jen7]

and she must give birth to and raise the fruit of this act of violence and violation

I haven’t read all the replies, so forgive me if this has already been said… but it’s not “fruit of an act of violence.” It’s a baby. A cute little Squish with coos and smiles and fuzzy hair and that newborn baby smell. Unexpectedly pregnancy can be a logistical nightmare. Mom’s need serious help making sure the practical details are squared away so they can enjoy their babies and nurture them. THAT is what I think all moms, including women who are Mom’s through rape, need. Then I think most of the time they will quite naturally fall in love with the tiny human. If they don’t, it’s not the baby’s fault. He doesn’t deserve to die. It’s some other issue “out there” like lack of emotional support, money, housing, work, etc. Outside of marriage it’s hard for Mom’s to meet all those needs, but the community can at least put forth a mighty effort to help. Offering her abortion is not really helpful.

In the case of a mother dying. I dunno. I’d feel pretty gross for the rest of my life if I said “kill the baby so I can live longer!” Do Mom’s really WANT that or is it just politics?

 

[stpurl]

You keep on with this ‘forced’ and ‘inhuman’. . . and as for God and the child of David and Bathsheba, it was God who ‘called the child home’ -as it is with any pregnancy that fails naturally (miscarriage) and which is NOT a judgment on the parents.

Did God say, “Oh David and Bathsheba. You have sinned. I will now have Bathsheba report to the nearest Planned Parenthood so that she may have the child doused in saline and then ripped bo pieces by medical personnel”. . .

I think not.

Of course the good news is that you’ll never need yoga. The stretching of Bible passages you do in an attempt to make them fit your personal interpretation must be of Olympic caliber—even though with all your tries you’ve never managed to get them to fit, and never will.

 

[stpurl]

I still cannot wrap my head around how ‘kind’ we are to kill innocent unborn children in the womb because the father raped the mother. Yep, real kindness there.

If we are supposed to be kind even to the wicked, why do you promote the unkindness of murder, especially of an innocent young child, the ones whom Jesus said, “of such are the Kingdom of Heaven?”

 

[jeannetherese]

Even secular people has better formed conscience than forcing a raped woman to carry the rapist child.

Now let’s neither broadbrush nor disrespect secular people. Opposition to abortion can be found amongst secular people as well as amongst those who are religious.

 

[Anicette]

Rape is a traumatism. A pregnancy during this condition will often be very difficult.

But even if you “get rid of this pregnancy” does not mean you will be cured. Another pregnancy after can lead to a resurgence of the traumatism that will makes it very difficult too.

Abortion is not a real solution of a traumatism. The only argument is that a child may be in the middle of this, with a mother who does not function well, and not behave normally with him. So killing him will maybe spared him difficulties and added difficulties to his mother. It may prevent the child behing remoove from custody, sometimes.
Life is not fair.

But an abortion will add anther physical traumatism to her traumatism. It’s a vicious circle. A woman does not need to have a baby a her side to remember non stop the injust thing that happened.

 

[Elf01]

If she decide to abort, she is not condemned as murderer. It is not biblical to say that.

Where, in the bible, does it condem killing the child after birth?

 

[stpurl]

According to which Bible? The Bible does not say that it is permissible for a woman to abort a child ‘if the child is conceived due to rape.’ There is no Christian teaching from AD 33 to today that says “the Bible permits a woman to abort a child if the child is conceived due to rape.’

There is only one voice using a private interpretation of Scripture and presenting her own not-so-Joyful ‘tune’ and Claiming the Bible says this.

Sorry, I’ll go with authentic Scriptural teaching and ignore somebody’s ‘out of tune’ take on it.

 

[JoyfulTune]

Sorry, I’ll go with authentic Scriptural teaching and ignore somebody’s ‘out of tune’ take on it

Your authentic scripture ignore God’s Law that say “Thou shall not rape any women”.

Oh well, probably that commandment does not exist in scriptures anyway

 

[Elf01]

It’s useless if you are not looking for the truth. You only look for winning a debate with strawman arguments.

Every passage you have cited can be used to justify killing the child after birth. You admit that is wrong. Why?

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Oh well, probably that commandment does not exist in scriptures anyway

You ignore the commandment to not kill kids for their fathers sins.

 

[Fauken]

You ignore the commandment to not kill kids for their fathers sins.

John 9:

“9:1 And Jesus passing by, saw a man who was blind from his birth.
9:2 And his disciples asked him: Rabbi, who hath sinned, this man or his parents, that he should be born blind?
9:3 Jesus answered: Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents; but that the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

The Catena Aurea:

“AUG. Was he then born without original sin, or had he never added to it by actual sin? Both this man and his parents had sinned, but that sin was not the reason why he was born blind. Our Lord gives the reason; viz. That the works of God should be made manifest in him.”

“CHRYS. He is not to be understood as meaning that others had become blind, in consequence of their parents’ sins: for one man cannot be punished for the sin of another. But had the man therefore suffered unjustly? Rather I should say that that blindness was a benefit to him: for by it he was brought to see with the inward eye. At any rate He who brought him into being out of nothing, had the power to make him in the event no loser by it. Some too say, that the that here, is expressive not of the cause, but of the event, as in the passage in Romans, The law entered that sin might abound, the effect in this case being, you our Lord by opening the closed eye, and healing other natural infirmities, demonstrated His own power.”

“GREG. One stroke falls on the sinner, for punishment only, not conversion; another for correction; another not for correction of past sins, but prevention of future; another neither for correcting past, nor preventing future sins, but by the unexpected deliverance following the blow, to excite more ardent love of the Savior’s goodness.”

I don’t see anything there about children needing nor deserving to die because they’re the products of a sinful father. Not in Jesus’ words, nor the Early Church Fathers.

 

[goout]

Elf01:

JoyfulTune:

If she decide to abort, she is not condemned as murderer. It is not biblical to say that.

Where, in the bible, does it condem killing the child after birth?

I am not the only person who read the bible. Those who read it are quiet now.

You on the other hand try strawman arguments because you do not read your bible.

It’s useless if you are not looking for the truth. You only look for winning a debate with strawman arguments.

You’ve been asked to show biblical evidence that killing a child provides justice for a victimized mother. You aren’t able to do that. The evidence is not there.

So you are left with sentiment and compassion. Those are laudable certainly. But compassion for one person never justifies killing another and it’s not biblical.