S
- Status
L
LilyM
Guest
Well, nine IS incredibly young. I don’t think any of us are privy to ALL the circumstances of the case, so it is within the bounds of possibility that her body wasn’t yet fully matured and that a pregnancy would’ve killed both her and the baby(s) - or possibly there was something else unusual and wrong about the pregnancy with the same result.
And we know that in cases of, for example, ectopic pregnancy, it is permissible to removed the falopian tube containing the embryo even though the result is that the baby dies.
And we know that in cases of, for example, ectopic pregnancy, it is permissible to removed the falopian tube containing the embryo even though the result is that the baby dies.
C
c659smith
Guest
The article that wrote about the vatican article is anti Catholic and is trying to show division that spoke about the situation in Brazil. It however is a deliberate discussion on the issue to seek the truth on this case as the vatican would in any case brought before it . It is a prelimiary opinion and one sided and does not bring all sides together to discuss the merits.
The doctors and mother were excommunicated till a thorough investigation and finding could be reached.
If one is charged with domestic abuse either side is seperated till many factors have been determined as to it’s validity.
A person who is divorced may excommunicate himself or herself and rightfully until an investigation by the church is conducted to determine if an annulment is granted.
M
mvalves
Guest
OK
Being brazilian and living in Brazil I get give you some info on this situation:
1 _the girl IS 9 years old
As far as I’m concerned the STEPFATHER is the one that should have been excomunicated not the mother or the doctors.
The whole situation reminded me of the film Sophie’s choice…
A tragedy
Brazilian law only allows for abortion in cases of rape and or risk of life. In this case both things had happened…
I don’t believe the law is above our Christian moral standards, but it’s role is to provide some rules that refllect to some degree a common sense of morality.
A grown woman will be in a position (albeit a very hard one) to consult her own conscience in such a situation… BUT A CHILD!!!
It boggles the mind.
Being brazilian and living in Brazil I get give you some info on this situation:
1 _the girl IS 9 years old
- _She had been abused by her stepfather (who confessed to it when shes was found pregnant) since AGE 6…
As far as I’m concerned the STEPFATHER is the one that should have been excomunicated not the mother or the doctors.
The whole situation reminded me of the film Sophie’s choice…
A tragedy
Brazilian law only allows for abortion in cases of rape and or risk of life. In this case both things had happened…
I don’t believe the law is above our Christian moral standards, but it’s role is to provide some rules that refllect to some degree a common sense of morality.
A grown woman will be in a position (albeit a very hard one) to consult her own conscience in such a situation… BUT A CHILD!!!
It boggles the mind.
M
MarieCB
Guest
What a horrible situation, and how terrible the mother must feel. The poor woman is going to feel guilty about this for the rest of her life. (Why? Because we mothers feel guilt when we don’t protect our children, and it was her husband who committed the crime!)
Now, even though I am not Catholic, I am not pro-abortion, certainly not the way many pro-choice people are. It’s a medical procedure, and it’s not one to be done lightly. However, in this case, allowing that poor little girl to bear those twins would have been tantamount to premeditated murder of all three children, IMO.
Now, even though I am not Catholic, I am not pro-abortion, certainly not the way many pro-choice people are. It’s a medical procedure, and it’s not one to be done lightly. However, in this case, allowing that poor little girl to bear those twins would have been tantamount to premeditated murder of all three children, IMO.
C
c659smith
Guest
Again you do not have all the facts.
If indeed the girl’s physical life was in jeopardy then the abortion was the decision to be made by the mother and the doctors and is in concurrence with Catholic teaching.
If the abortion was the lone factor that it was incest or because of the factor of the girls age then the abortion is not in concurrence with Church teaching.
A question to understand is that the life within this girl is an innocent human life. This human life did not committ the crime of rape or incest, the father did. Yet if this is the case a sentence of death was carried out an innocent human life that committed no crime.
If a woman is raped and disgraces the family should we do like the Muslims and stone her
P
pnewton
Guest
Newer technology will always challenge when a direct abortion takes place or when the babies death in the womb is a secondary result of a life saving procedure for the mother. No mother at any age is required to give her life to save her unborn baby, although it is a permissible and heroic act. It sounds like this situation is not what the canon law was designed to cover: that all who have abortions are excommunicated.
M
MarieCB
Guest
I don’t?
Ok … that seems different from everything I’m reading. Catholic Encyclopedia says that it’s acceptable to do life-saving procedures (like cancer treatment, I assume), if the death of the unborn child is a side-effect, and only if it’s the side-effect, and onl if all efforts are made to ensure the life of the child.
Am I misunderstanding this? Others on this forum appear to agree, because I’ve read threads discussing how an abortion is not even allowable in an ectopic pregnancy. Essentially, the Catholic Church’s teachings are that no actions are allowable if they directly destroy a fetus.
I can see that. Now, if it was her step-father, then I’m not sure it’s technically incest. But I can understand how the church would teach that, if she could safely deliver the babies, she should. Most pro-lifers take the same stand.
Neither did the little girl. This is why I said that it’s a horrible situation, especially for her mother who had to make the decision. If the doctors stated that her life was in danger if the pregnancy progressed, then letting her carry to term would be tantamount, in my opinion, to premeditated murder of not only the little girl but the babies, too. If you do something knowing that it will probably cause the death of another person, you are guilty of first degree murder.
On the other hand, letting the doctors abort the pregnancy was clearly against the mother/grandmother’s ethics.
What a horrible, horrible choice for that woman! Her husband commits a disgusting crime, and leaves her with an impossible choice. Either way, she has to do something that she would consider evil and wrong.
Where did that come from?
C
c659smith
Guest
- your question:
What is needed to be done here is to attempt to save the babies life when removing the babies from the womb. Extroadinary medical means do not have to be done.
C section and check for viability and at 4 to 5 months there could have been.
M
MarieCB
Guest
And this is my understanding of Catholic teaching. The death of the fetus must be a secondary effect, not the primary effect. In this case, they performed an abortion in order to save the little girl’s life. No other procedure. Just an abortion.
An abortion is considered an intrinsically evil act by the Catholic church, and therefore is not allowed under any circumstances, but accidental and unintentional death of a fetus is not considered a sin.
You stated that the Catholic Church allows abortion to save the mother’s life. This is what you said:
I can not see where this is true.
I’m still confused as to the attack. Are you just trying to attack me?
I said that it’s a horrible situation.
I said that I’m NOT pro-abortion. I think that abortion is a sometimes necessary evil at times in order to save the life of a woman who is already alive. Given the choice between the life of a viable already born person and an unborn child, I would choose the viable person. I do not agree with abortion for rape, under most circumstances.
Abortion is not a good thing, yet letting the poor little girl die because of her step-father’s crime is evil, too. NOT because she was raped, but because she’s a tiny little child. She weighs 80 pounds, for heaven’s sake!
I made it clear that I am not Catholic (which means I’m not bound by faith to believe the teachings of the Catholic Church).
I refer to “all three children” because I do believe that there were three children involved in this horrible situation. I think it’s terrible that the unborn children had to die in order to save the life of the nine-year-old child. I can not imagine the anguish felt by the nine-year-old’s mother.
And yet you attack me as not recognizing that the babies were innocent and implying that raped women should be stoned, and you insist that I “again” don’t have all the facts.
Why are you attacking me? What exactly did I say that was so terrible?
G
GodLovesTheSpek
Guest
There is no confusion, abortion is intrinsically evil in all circumstances. The unborn belongs to God, made in the image of God to know and serve God.
P
pnewton
Guest
On etopic pregnancy
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307&highlight=abortion
A prodedure done for the purpose of saving the life of the mother is acceptable, even if it means the loss of the child with within her.
Let us remember that this article is not whether this action was intrinsically evil but whether it was deserving of the excommunications.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=17307&highlight=abortion
A prodedure done for the purpose of saving the life of the mother is acceptable, even if it means the loss of the child with within her.
Let us remember that this article is not whether this action was intrinsically evil but whether it was deserving of the excommunications.
- It may have been gravely sinful and deserving of the excommunications
- It may not have been sinful at all
- It may have been sinful, but not deserving of excommunivation.
C
c659smith
Guest
Who is attacking you? You are correct in your thinking and I do agree with everything you said. I think you are a little sensitve.
The train of thought is the pre-determination of killing the babies which you were correct in is in disagreement with the Catholic Church. If a C section could have been done and an attempt to save the babies rather than to destroy them in the womb is an area I said that would need to have been looked at.
However while the situation may have been handled incorrectly the mother not being a doctor would not have possibly been given this alternative by the doctors and this thinking is an area the Vatican may be looking at in declaring the possible reversal of the excommunication as it relates to the mothers part.
A horrible situation indeed and prayer for this 9 year old child and her mother.
The relationship of the Mulim woman being stoned was a similarity to the children in the womb when a definite decision has been made not to attempt in the least to save the baby in the womb. This was not as a response to any of your opinions but a confirmation of.
M
magdelaine
Guest
Why does the argument have to be either/or? Either abortion by dismemberment or carrying to term?
Since the youngest person to bear a full term, healthy infant was 5 years old, why couldn’t she have been carefully monitored so that her health was the first consideration? She was already 16 weeks. Another 8 weeks and the twins would have been in viable territory. If her life was truly in danger, then the babies could be delivered, intact and either allowed to expire with all the dignity that they deserved as human beings if too young or they could have been given the help that is given to premature infants around the world if they were old enough to have had a chance to survive. **Why did they have to be dismembered and extracted from this poor child’s womb?
**
I think it was because the family did not want such messy evidence of the crime, the constant reminder of the rape, to live and breath. I think their destruction was desired. Why? Because, as I’ve outlined above, other choices were available in this situation, regardless of arguments about the mother’s health.
Since the youngest person to bear a full term, healthy infant was 5 years old, why couldn’t she have been carefully monitored so that her health was the first consideration? She was already 16 weeks. Another 8 weeks and the twins would have been in viable territory. If her life was truly in danger, then the babies could be delivered, intact and either allowed to expire with all the dignity that they deserved as human beings if too young or they could have been given the help that is given to premature infants around the world if they were old enough to have had a chance to survive. **Why did they have to be dismembered and extracted from this poor child’s womb?
**
I think it was because the family did not want such messy evidence of the crime, the constant reminder of the rape, to live and breath. I think their destruction was desired. Why? Because, as I’ve outlined above, other choices were available in this situation, regardless of arguments about the mother’s health.
E
elts1956
Guest
Whoa! I have always thought there was no choice involved in saving a mother’s life, that is, that the life of the mother is more precious than that of the child. A doctor tries to save both, but depending on the medical procedure, one or the other may die. But the INTENT is to save both if at all possible. So clarify your stance for me, okay? Thanks.
P
pnewton
Guest
The mother can chose to give her life for the baby. If however the child must be removed to save her life, it may be done, even if it is known that the child is not viable. Whether that was the case here, I lack the medical knowledge to know. In such cases, I give the benefit of the doubt to the doctors and the authoritative official who made the decision that excommunication was not merited.
M
magdelaine
Guest
I get what you are saying, but why did it have to be **abortion **as opposed to induction? Abortion is actually more dangerous for the mother.
L
Leopard
Guest
Not more. Just as.
M
Mark77
Guest
**Catholic teaching has never, never, never permitted abortion!
**
Why do we fall for the lies and immediately condone murdering innocent babies in order to save a mother?
Why don’t we try to save both the mother and the babies?
With today’s medical technology, premature babies can survive outside the mother as early as 4 months old (the age of the babies in this case).
The life of the mother is sacred. If the babies die, despite the efforts of the medical experts who are trying to save them, while trying to save the mother, then that is horrible, but it is never acceptable to take the easy way out and murder the babies.
I’m sure it is often easier and sometimes safer for doctors to abort the babies (think malpractice law suits $$$$$).
The 9 year old child is the victim of a horrible rapist, but by aborting the babies, she has been victimized again by other adults who should know better, due to their murder of the babies.
As an adult father of 3, I would never put my life ahead of the lives of my children. If I was in a car wreck with my 3 children and the firefighters told me they could cut me out but my children would die, I would insist that my children were cut out first, no matter what the odds of their or my survival were.
I could not live with myself, knowing that I had to cause my childrens’ deaths in order for me to live.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
Mark
**
Why do we fall for the lies and immediately condone murdering innocent babies in order to save a mother?
Why don’t we try to save both the mother and the babies?
With today’s medical technology, premature babies can survive outside the mother as early as 4 months old (the age of the babies in this case).
The life of the mother is sacred. If the babies die, despite the efforts of the medical experts who are trying to save them, while trying to save the mother, then that is horrible, but it is never acceptable to take the easy way out and murder the babies.
I’m sure it is often easier and sometimes safer for doctors to abort the babies (think malpractice law suits $$$$$).
The 9 year old child is the victim of a horrible rapist, but by aborting the babies, she has been victimized again by other adults who should know better, due to their murder of the babies.
As an adult father of 3, I would never put my life ahead of the lives of my children. If I was in a car wreck with my 3 children and the firefighters told me they could cut me out but my children would die, I would insist that my children were cut out first, no matter what the odds of their or my survival were.
I could not live with myself, knowing that I had to cause my childrens’ deaths in order for me to live.
Sancta Maria, Mater Dei, Ora Pro Nobis Peccatoribus!
Mark
M
magdelaine
Guest
- Status