Vatican Official Defends Child's Abortion

[mapleoak]

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.

No. An abortion for ANY reason whatsoever, is NEVER in concurrence with Catholic teaching.
In fact the direct killing of innocent human life for any reason is a grave and intrinsic evil, even if a good effect is that which is sought.

 

[mapleoak]

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.

Actually, we are not to consider anyones life as more precious or valuable than anyone elses.

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.

This is correct. A procedure can only be deemed morally permissable so long as no action is taken to directly end either the mother’s or the child’s life. Removing a developing baby (whether by killing or dismembering it first first and then removing it, or simply removing it and letting it die) is an example of taking direct action against life.

 

[magdelaine]

Actually, we are not to consider anyones life as more precious or valuable than anyone elses.

This is correct. A procedure can only be deemed morally permissable so long as no action is taken to directly end either the mother’s or the child’s life. Removing a developing baby (whether by killing or dismembering it first first and then removing it, or simply removing it and letting it die) is an example of taking direct action against life.

I don’t think “removing” it, in the case of early induction to save the mother’s life, is impermissible. However it does seem that the Church teaches that removal of the baby directly, and not removal of the tube, is immoral in the case of ectopic pregnancy. I wonder, though, about truly ectopic pregnancies that occur outside the tube *and *the womb? If the placenta implants in the liver, for example, this can be life-threatening. The only “treatment” is the removal of the fetus. Yet at least one of the criteria of the Principle of Double Effect is not met in this instance.

Hmmmm.

 

[mapleoak]

I don’t think “removing” it, in the case of early induction to save the mother’s life, is impermissible. However it does seem that the Church teaches that removal of the baby directly, and not removal of the tube, is immoral in the case of ectopic pregnancy. I wonder, though, about truly ectopic pregnancies that occur outside the tube *and *the womb? If the placenta implants in the liver, for example, this can be life-threatening. The only “treatment” is the removal of the fetus. Yet at least one of the criteria of the Principle of Double Effect is not met in this instance.

Hmmmm.

There is a serious problem with ectopic surgery performed in the name of preventative treatment with the consequence of a human life being extinguished. Preventative, meaning the mother might be at risk of complications not precluding those which could progress to that of imminent death. The only certainty in such situations is that if a preventative procedure is performed, one person will die. The sure death of the child is a consequence of treatment to which a proportionate benefit is not realized in the name of mere preventative surgury. If emergency treatment is required to save the mother’s life, means of treatment may be employed which may have an indirect potential that results in the loss of the childs life. For example if a C-section is performed on a 9 year who has come to term but is incapable of delivering, an unintended consequence may be the death of the child. The death of the child can never be willed or directly induced, rather every effort to save both the life of the mother and the child, even though such efforts may be futile. An abortion may not be performed and the fact that she is 9 years old does not justify such abortion, even if it is foreseen that she may have life threatening complications down the road.

 

[magdelaine]

There is a serious problem with ectopic surgery performed in the name of preventative treatment with the consequence of a human life being extinguished. Preventative, meaning the mother might be at risk of complications not precluding those which could progress to that of imminent death. The only certainty in such situations is that if a preventative procedure is performed, one person will die. The sure death of the child is a consequence of treatment to which a proportionate benefit is not realized in the name of mere preventative surgury. If emergency treatment is required to save the mother’s life, means of treatment may be employed which may have an indirect potential that results in the loss of the childs life. For example if a C-section is performed on a 9 year who has come to term but is incapable of delivering, an unintended consequence may be the death of the child. The death of the child can never be willed or directly induced, rather every effort to save both the life of the mother and the child, even though such efforts may be futile. An abortion may not be performed and the fact that she is 9 years old does not justify such abortion, even if it is foreseen that she may have life threatening complications down the road.

Ok, I understand what you are saying, but it is my understanding that a baby may be delivered early if the life of the mother is in danger.

Likewise, in the situation that I just illustrated, it wouldn’t be a case of “the mother’s life may be in danger” but a case of “the mother will die if the fetus and placenta are allowed to grow”. Wouldn’t early delivery, even if there was no hope of the baby surviving, be justified in this case?

 

[limerick]

1. your question:

in the case of abortion, an abortion can never be done because “abortion” means the “termination of a pregnancy”. BUT, another medical procedure can be performed as long as the intention is to save the mother’s life, even if the procedure will kill the child. The death of the child is foreseen but not willed, and in an abortion the death of the child is willed.
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.

“Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in the extrauterine environment… There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable or beyond which survival is assured, but experience has shown that it is rare for a baby to survive whose weight is less than 500 gm or whose fertilization age is less than 22 weeks. Even fetuses born between 26 and 28 weeks have difficulty surviving, mainly because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated… If given expert postnatal care, some fetuses weighing less than 500 gm may survive; they are referred to as extremely low birth weight or immature infants… Prematurity is one of the most common causes of morbidity and perinatal death.” ~ Moore, Keith and Persaud, T. “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,” page 103 (Saunders 2003).

Why the special dispensation for the nine-year-old? Rules is rules is rules. Life is life, right? Doesn’t Catholicism teach that life should be preserved and abortion is never right?

" C section and check for viability and at 4 to 5 months there could have been." - what does this mean? Exploratory surgery?

Limerick

 

[elts1956]

No. An abortion for ANY reason whatsoever, is NEVER in concurrence with Catholic teaching.
In fact the direct killing of innocent human life for any reason is a grave and intrinsic evil, even if a good effect is that which is sought.

I wish I had noted my source, but I didn’t. BUT I did read that the medical personnel at the hospital, or clinic wherever the abortion took place, admitted the little girl’s life was not in danger. Also. the mother who is illiterate was coerced into signing a document which she could not read. She signed with an x. The person giving her the document to sign read it to her. It was very confusing.

If this was so, then hopefully the mother’s excommunication will be lifted as she stated she HAD NOT consented to the abortion.

 

[elts1956]

No. An abortion for ANY reason whatsoever, is NEVER in concurrence with Catholic teaching.
In fact the direct killing of innocent human life for any reason is a grave and intrinsic evil, even if a good effect is that which is sought.

“Viability is defined as the ability of fetuses to survive in the extrauterine environment… There is no sharp limit of development, age, or weight at which a fetus automatically becomes viable or beyond which survival is assured, but experience has shown that it is rare for a baby to survive whose weight is less than 500 gm or whose fertilization age is less than 22 weeks. Even fetuses born between 26 and 28 weeks have difficulty surviving, mainly because the respiratory system and the central nervous system are not completely differentiated… If given expert postnatal care, some fetuses weighing less than 500 gm may survive; they are referred to as extremely low birth weight or immature infants… Prematurity is one of the most common causes of morbidity and perinatal death.” ~ Moore, Keith and Persaud, T. “The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology,” page 103 (Saunders 2003).

Why the special dispensation for the nine-year-old? Rules is rules is rules. Life is life, right? Doesn’t Catholicism teach that life should be preserved and abortion is never right? The abortion must be with the FULL consent of the one having the abortion. Do you think she knew what was happening?
" C section and check for viability and at 4 to 5 months there could have been." - what does this mean? Exploratory surgery?I did not read anything about exploratory surgery. But have you not seen the picture of an unborn baby grasping the finger of the doctor who is performing a life saving procedure while the child is still in it’s mother’s womb? The child was undergoing exploratory surgery, presumably with the mother having a C section like procedure. I am not a Dr., but I did see the picture.

Limerick

What I read about this (source?) is that if the little girl could have carried the babies another couple of weeks, they would have had a better chance of survival. They would have been delivered C Section.

What nine year old child understands what an abortion is if she has not been made familiar with it previously? You could probably ask 90% of nine year olds here in the US what abortion is and get a blank stare in return. Thank goodness.

 

[limerick]

At the very least, a girl’s first period signals a mother (or father, in the absence of a mother) to fully educate the child about sexuality, consequences and options. I believe that a surprising number of American nine-year-olds could explain with some degree of accuracy what an abortion entails.

Do I think this girl knew what was happening? Mine is the opinion on this matter that does not count. What did the medical personnel think? What did the mother think? It’s just another occasion where women cannot or will not "just say ‘no’ ". And where do doctors actually perform a caesarean just to check for fetal viability? A viability check is not the same thing as fetal heart surgery or repair of a cervical teratoma which blocks the fetal airway. These circumstances call for open fetal surgery. If these folks had wanted to know if the fetuses would survive they should have allowed the child to carry them as long and as far as she was able.

This was going on for how many years? And the mother knew nothing? I’m sorry, I have a hard time believing that. I believe that’s her story. I just don’t believe that’s the truth.

Why is it a good thing that kids don’t know what abortion is? Ignorance, obviously, is not bliss.

Limerick

 

[elts1956]

At the very least, a girl’s first period signals a mother (or father, in the absence of a mother) to fully educate the child about sexuality, consequences and options. I believe that a surprising number of American nine-year-olds could explain with some degree of accuracy what an abortion entails.

Do I think this girl knew what was happening? Mine is the opinion on this matter that does not count. What did the medical personnel think? What did the mother think? It’s just another occasion where women cannot or will not "just say ‘no’ ". And where do doctors actually perform a caesarean just to check for fetal viability? A viability check is not the same thing as fetal heart surgery or repair of a cervical teratoma which blocks the fetal airway. These circumstances call for open fetal surgery. If these folks had wanted to know if the fetuses would survive they should have allowed the child to carry them as long and as far as she was able.

This was going on for how many years? And the mother knew nothing? I’m sorry, I have a hard time believing that. I believe that’s her story. I just don’t believe that’s the truth.

Why is it a good thing that kids don’t know what abortion is? Ignorance, obviously, is not bliss.

Limerick

Have you seen pictures of aborted babies? That is what abortion IS. I would NOT show those to a nine year old. Most pro abortion people don’t want to see any of them. We pro life people look at them ONLY when we HAVE to.

 

[elts1956]

SedesDomi;

VATICAN CITY – The Vatican’s top bioethics official said the two Brazilian doctors who performed an abortion on a 9-year-old rape victim do not merit excommunication, because they acted to save her life.

The statement, by Archbishop Rino Fisichella, president of the Pontifical Academy for Life, appeared as the lead article in last Sunday’s issue of the official Vatican newspaper, L’Osservatore Romano.

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031904.html

Brazilian Medical Expert Counters Statements by Vatican Official Defending Abortion for Nine-Year-Old Girl

Says unnecessary abortion is part of strategy by international groups to legitimize the practice in Brazil

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

SAO PAULO, March 19, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - A Brazilian priest and medical expert is denouncing statements made recently by a Vatican official who defended an abortion given to a nine-year-old girl, supposedly to save her life.

Fr. Berardo Graz of the Diocese of Guarulhos has issued a statement asserting that “if Msgr. Fisichella had received more correct and detailed information about what happened in the case he would not have written what he wrote.” Graz is on the board of directors of Stela Maris Hospital in Sao Paulo, and was trained as a physician in Italy.

Fischella, the President of the Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, made headlines recently when he denounced the decision of Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho of the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife to announce the excommunication of doctors and others who assisted in the abortion of an unnamed nine-year-old girl (see

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09031811. html

Fr. Graz writes that Archbishop Fisichella was seriously misled about the case, and said that in fact the girl’s life was not in danger, which was publicly admitted by the hospital that was treating her.

“It isn’t true!” writes Graz. “Even IMIP (Child Maternity Institute of Pernambuco), after the intervention of Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, Archbishop of Recife, declared that the child ran no risk of death and for that reason permitted her to be transferred. The risk would rise at the end of the pregnancy, but it is for that reason that the birth … would be by cesarean section, as happens in the vast majority of the almost 30,000 pregnancies … in adolescents younger than 14 years old, every year in Brazil.”

Responding to Fisichella’s assertion that the girl “should have been defended in the first place,” Graz points out that Archbishop Sobrinho strove vigorously in the days before the abortion to prevent it from happening.

“This is exactly, and effectively, what Dom Jose did, because he required the director of IMIP to reveal the truth regarding the false risk of death to the child, a lie through which [pro-abortion groups] were seeking to capture public opinion, in its great majority opposed to abortion, so that it would favorably receive this crime against life,” writes Graz.

“This lie continues to dominate the media, and through it the population in general, so that soon the vast majority will agree with abortion during adolescent pregnancy, because it carries the risk of death,” he added.
“These are the strategies of the pro-abortion movement that for fifty years has been internationally influencing all governments, so that by 2015 abortion will be legalized in all counties and practiced as a human right, with the support of the United Nations Organization. This is the climate that has existed in Brazil in recent years, thanks principally to the current government, which is complicit and a collaborator in these strategies.”

 

[elts1956]

Monday March 9, 2009

Vatican Backs Bishop Who Excommunicated Doctor and Family Involved in Abortion

Rebukes Brazilian government, joined by national bishops conference

By Matthew Cullinan Hoffman

VATICAN CITY, March 8, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Vatican has expressed approval for the excommunication announced last week in Brazil against a doctor who performed an abortion on a young girl pregnant with twins, as well as those family members who gave permission for the procedure (see LifeSiteNews coverage at

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09030601.html.

“It’s a sad case, but the real problem is that the twins conceived were two innocent persons, who had the right to live and could not be eliminated,” said Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re in an interview with the Italian newspaper La Stampa.

Responding to attacks on the Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, who announced the excommunications, Battista Re said, “Life must always be protected, the attack on the Brazilian Church is unjustified.”
Archbishop José Cardoso Sobrinho has been denounced by Brazil’s pro-abortion President Luiz Lula for the excommunication, as well as the nation’s health minister Jose Gomes Temporao. However, he has refused to recant, telling one newspaper, “I’m not sorry. What I did was to declare the excommunication. It is my obligation to alert the people, so that they may fear the laws of God.”

The leadership of the National Conference of Brazilian Bishops (CNBB) has also issued a statement of support for Cardoso Sobrinho.
“The Church, in fidelity to the Gospel, positions itself always in favor of life, in an unequivocal condemnation of all violence done against the dignity of the human person,” they wrote, adding that “in the face of the complexity of the case, we lament that has not been faced with serenity, tranquility, and the necessary time that the situation demanded. Furthermore, we do not agree with the final outcome of eliminating the life of defenseless human beings.”

The girl, who has not been identified by the Brazilian media, was found to be pregnant with twins at the age of nine. Her stepfather has confessed to sexually abusing her for several years and is now in police custody. Her mother decided to authorize an abortion despite the fact that her health was not immediately threatened by the pregnancy.

Abortion is illegal under Brazilian law, but is not penalized in cases of rape or danger to the life of the mother.

Related LifeSiteNews coverage:

lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/mar/09030903.html

 

[KingTheoden]

What a terrible situation. That little girl deserves our prayers.

 

[phoebe3029]

I had heard about this awhile back. The thing is, how much did this child understand? Did she know she was pregnant? Did she know she was having an abortion? I have a 10-year-old niece, I like to think she is still innocent and naive about this kind of thing, but I also want to know she knows she can say NO to someone trying to inappropriately touch her. I don’t know how I feel about this situation. What would be more traumatic to a 9-year-old child, carrying a child to term that comes from being raped, or undergoing an abortion? She’s already experienced more trauma than she ever should, either option will further traumatize her. I can’t say what is right or wrong here, I don’t know, but that’s just my opinion.

 

[Drawmack]

[This post is talking to the Catholics involved in the conversation. Certainly, others are welcome to read it, but the intended audience is Catholics.]

I have refrained from commenting on this situation and will return to that position after this post.

My take on this is that we, the laity, should stop talking about it; there are multiple reasons for this.

First, we are laity.
As laity we are called to assent to the magisterium of the Church on faith and morals. Thus, we assent to their decision: whatever it is. If you, as a member of the laity, are having trouble accepting their authority in this, or any, situation you should talk to your spiritual advisor and not the public at large.

Second, we (at least I) are not doctors.
The doctors involved were privy to both more knowledge and more information that I have, or can, possess. If you are not a doctor than you are not qualified to make determinations on the necessity of an invasive medical procedure. You are also not qualified to suggest alternative procedures. It is rather presumptuous of any one who is not a doctor to think they know better than the medical professionals involved.

Third, we cannot obtain all the information.
We simply cannot obtain this information. It is not available to us. I have read a ton of articles on this and I have not read one where the doctors, or hospital, involved made the full medical records of the 9 year old available. We also do not possess the full information on the mother of the 9 year old. Did she know about the abuse? I don’t know. I can’t know. And, neither can you. Did she understand what she was signing? I don’t know. I can’t know. And, neither can you. We simply cannot obtain all the information. The media is calling this an abortion, but how do any of you know if they didn’t first attempt some other means of extraction and the children died and since they were already dead the doctors simply aborted them? I am not saying this did happen, I’m saying how do you know it did not? How do you know that the term abortion isn’t simply being used to invoke emotions and cause a scandal when it isn’t the appropriate term for the procedure performed?

Fourth, this is causing scandal which we are not supposed to do.
While I would never question a Bishop on matters of faith and morals I often question them on matters of public relations. Church teaching is that those involved with abortion (performing or granting) incur latæ sententiæ excommunication. This means that the excommunication was automatic and no further action, on the Church’s part, is needed. Thus, if these people incurred this type of excommunication the Bishop could have made a quiet announcement to the necessary peoples. A simple letter stating that the people could no longer receive communion, the reasons for such, and asking the spiritual directors of the doctors and mother of the 9 year old to counsel with them would have been sufficient. Why did he make a public statement in the papers? Why couldn’t he have simply said no comment? I am sure that many of you will tell me he was right to make the announcement public because we have to fight against this intrinsic evil. But, did he really? We already know the Brazilian press is liberal and pro-abortion so it is reasonable to assume that any statement made to them about this will be blown out of proportion. So, I think that we should stop talking about this. Stop giving it this attention.

Finally, no one can be sure that, in the mother of the 9 year old’s place you would have acted any different.
I read an earlier post about how this man would do anything to save the lives of his three children. Well, I would do anything to save the life of my daughter as well. Does this extend to getting her an abortion if she had gotten pregnant at 9? I don’t know. I was not placed in this situation. God did not give me the cross of this horrible situation to bear, and I thank Him for that, so I do not know how I would have born it. I don’t think that anyone who has not been placed in this situation can, with certainty, know how they would react. Therefore, we should cut the sanctimony and stop claiming we would have acted any differently than this woman did.

In summation
It boils down to this. We are called to assent to the magisterium. So, we should shut up and let them do their job. Furthermore most, if not all, of us on this thread lack the medical expertise to fully appreciate the doctor’s or child’s position. So, we should withhold comment. This situation serves only to divide and cause controversy: thus we should stay out of it.

I would like everyone to note a couple things about this post so that others cannot put words into my mouth. I did not say the doctors were right. I did not say that the mother was right. I did not say that the Bishop was wrong about faith and morals. I made no statement on these things and one should not be inferred from this post.

Can we all keep the 9 year old, her mother, the doctors, and the aborted babies in our prayers and stop talking about the situation, please?

This is all I have to say about this and I will not respond further to this thread.

 

[system]

The general tone of the posts on this thread remind me just why I am now a lapsed catholic. Catholics looking to find ways to justify the hideous treatment of a 9 year old girl’s mother and whatever medical staff were involved in doing what was the only right thing to do.

And I have seen scant mention of the real villian of the piece - the child rapist adult male.

Come on catholic church - you keep scoring in your own net. I would have thought “adult male child rapist” would have alerted someone to the fact that something here is not right.

And sweeping under carpets only shows a lack of moral standards.

 

[pnewton]

Come on catholic church - you keep scoring in your own net. I would have thought “adult male child rapist” would have alerted someone to the fact that something here is not right.

And sweeping under carpets only shows a lack of moral standards.

I do not think anything was mentioned about the perpetrator. This article sweeps nothing under the carpet. It is just limited in scope to the abortion, not the initial crime.

 

[magdelaine]

The general tone of the posts on this thread remind me just why I am now a lapsed catholic. Catholics looking to find ways to justify the hideous treatment of a 9 year old girl’s mother and whatever medical staff were involved in doing what was the only right thing to do.

And I have seen scant mention of the real villian of the piece - the child rapist adult male.

Come on catholic church - you keep scoring in your own net. I would have thought “adult male child rapist” would have alerted someone to the fact that something here is not right.

And sweeping under carpets only shows a lack of moral standards.

Welcome Flamenco!

I pray that you do not limit yourself to looking at individual members of the Church, groups in the Church, or even some clergy and hierarchy to determine the whole of what the Body of Christ actually is. The Church is not a hotel for saints but a hospital for sinners, as it is often said.

The question is, despite Her very human faults, whether the Church is that which Jesus founded when he said “Thou art Peter and upon this rock I will build my Church”? Does She (not individual members) teach truth? Does Jesus live in the bread and wine upon the altar, or not?

Blessings.

 

[system]

I do not think anything was mentioned about the perpetrator. This article sweeps nothing under the carpet. It is just limited in scope to the abortion, not the initial crime.

That’s exactly my point, pnewton.

I would have thought that the first item on the agenda would be the excommunication of the adult child rapist. But no - a number of attempts to excuse the church’s hideous behaviour going for the child’s poor mother and the medical staff.

Perhaps you still don’t get it - one of the reasons I lost my faith was the stomach turning sight (and sound) of catholics trying to somehow excuse the inexcusable. And this case is simply the latest.

Some of my friends are catholic and very dear friends they are too. They have never excused this sort of thing in the church’s behaviour so, for me, there is still hope for them.

Magdelaine - thank you for your welcome. I tend to judge what is going on by looking at what is going on. The reason I have lost my faith is looking and listening to countless individuals (clergy, laity, hierachy, individual members and groups) within the church. (As well as personal experience of abusive clergy and laity in a catholic boarding school).

As for the church that Jesus founded - it is now my opinion that if he were to appear right here, right now he would be incandescent with rage at some of the things the catholic church does and has done in his name. (Just ask how this particular episode would have appeared in the Bible - who would have been taken to task and who would have been comforted?)

I don’t expect that to be a widely shared view and I don’t state it to simply be provocative - but since losing my faith I have done more and more thinking for myself… and there are somethings that just stare you in the face.

 

[St_Francis]

The general tone of the posts on this thread remind me just why I am now a lapsed catholic. Catholics looking to find ways to justify the hideous treatment of a 9 year old girl’s mother and whatever medical staff were involved in doing what was the only right thing to do.

I read that (but cannot now find the source) that as more information about the case became available, it was clear that the mother had been manipulated and coerced into signing the papers, and her excommunication was lifted without her having to do anything.

And I have seen scant mention of the real villian of the piece - the child rapist adult male.

Come on catholic church - you keep scoring in your own net. I would have thought “adult male child rapist” would have alerted someone to the fact that something here is not right…

When I complained about the fact that the US media was going nuts over the (illegal and prosecuted) events at Abu Ghraib while totally ignoring kidnappings and beheadings on the part of Moslem terrorists, I was told that everyone understands that the latter are wrong so the newspapers don’t really have to go on and on about it. Liberal defenders of the media were the ones who told me this.

In the same way, I think it is very clear to everyone that what the stepfather did was horribly *wrong. *No one denies it, tries to justify it, uses the situation to promote their own poltical agenda, or in any way tries to mitigate the utter horror of the acts he committed.

Automatic excommunication is reserved for acts which are somewhat ambiguous in the public’s eyes. It is very clear that the stepfather is in a sense excommunicated, he is not permitted to receive the Eucharist until he goes to Confession; but among the public, it is less clear that those who collude in the murder of innocent unborn babies must *also *refrain from receiving the Eucharist until they have been to confession (In some cases to the bishop); hence the more public penalty of excommunication.

And sweeping under carpets only shows a lack of moral standards.

What sweeping under the rug? This all became a world-wide cause celebre.

If your problem with the Church is that She is and has always been against killing unborn human beings in their mothers’ wombs, then you have a difficulty accepting the reality of abortion. Your idea on abortion differs from that of the Church.

The child-mother was in no danger from her pregnancy at the time the abortion was performed. The mother/grandmother was conned into signing the papers by those who regularly perform abortions in Brazil and who were at that time also advocating passage of a law which would have liberalized abortion.

The whole thing was a manipulated crime on the part of those who believe themselves to be more enlightened than the Catholic Church because they believe that cutting up unborn babies is somehow less barbaric than helping mothers to see the wonder and gift from God which is growing in their wombs, and convincing potential mothers to delay sexual activity until such time (such as after they are married) as they are ready to care for the consequences of sexual activity.

And I notice you had to go back a long way to find something suitable to rail against the Church about.