What are the Churh's teaching on abortion when the pregancy is the result of rape?

[estesbob]

I was debating abortion with my friend recently, I am anti abortion. He said “what if a 16 year old girl gets raped by a catholic priest, should she not be allowed to live a normal life, go to school, college etc” Its difficult to respond to statements like that when you are put on the spot.

Why should the occuapation of the Rapist have any relevance? The response is very simple. We do not punish people for the sins of their father. Although there is no doubt that what the woman wnet thorugh was terrible killing the child can not undo what was done to her.

 

[EvelynEVF]

I have no opinion about non-abortifacient contraceptives for non-married couples. This thread asked about avoiding conception when a woman is raped, so that’s what I responded to.

To the poster who was concerned about the morality of heading off a potential life, ie letting a rapist’s sperm fertilize a woman’s egg when it could be avoided without harming a baby–lots of eggs get shed without ever being fertilized, and it isn’t a moral problem. Happens every month in continent women, and married women have no obligation to try to fertilize an egg every month. In fact, when reasons are serious, married couples are permitted to abstain and let that egg go unfertilized. I would think it is a serious reason, to consider the possibility of carrying a child due to rape. If the baby is already there, we have the obligation to let it live, but letting an egg go does not carry the same moral weight by any stretch.

 

[Young_Thinker]

Why should the occuapation of the Rapist have any relevance? The response is very simple. We do not punish people for the sins of their father. Although there is no doubt that what the woman wnet thorugh was terrible killing the child can not undo what was done to her.

Indeed. If a lady has been forcibly impregnated, it would still no excuse for her to have it killed within her womb. If she really does not want her child, she always put it up for adoption, which, in any case, is better than having it murdered by a sick person who claims to be a man of medicine.

 

[Memorare777]

Not permitted. Such is murder

(not the childs fault…are we going to murder a mans 2 year old too cause he beats up the child’s mother? no of course not…you are correct it is not allowed)

Hmm, what if the woman will die from the birth? Let’s say she has diabetes (my aunt almost died in birth because of her diabetes).

Or what if the mother and the child will die at birth? Is it better for both to die at birth than just the baby?

I’m completely pro-life. I’m just playing devil’s advocate.

 

[EvelynEVF]

If we kill the baby, we know the baby dies. If we think mom and baby are both in danger, we are playing the odds, but it isn’t ever 100% that both will die, unless we kill one of them.

It feels awful even to write that.

 

[estesbob]

Hmm, what if the woman will die from the birth? Let’s say she has diabetes (my aunt almost died in birth because of her diabetes).

Or what if the mother and the child will die at birth? Is it better for both to die at birth than just the baby?

I’m completely pro-life. I’m just playing devil’s advocate.

You can never directly kill the child. If standard medical procedures performed to save the life of the mother result in the unborn child dying it is licit under the principle of double effect. For this reason a woman who had advanced cancer could undergo chemotherapy even if it could result in her unborn child is dying. The truth is cases where a choice has to be made between the life of the mother and life of the child are extremely rare.

 

[LCMS_No_More]

I don’t know. I wish they would clarify. Like with the example the Pope gave the couple having sex outside of marriage is already committing egregious sin. Does their sex act not being open to life as egregious as it would be for married couple?

What we do know is that condoms are not in and of themselves evil. For instance a person who suffers from wet dreams can licitly wear a condom to bed to avoid soiling the sheets. Likewise a woman can take the pill to relieve medical problems as long as she is not taking it for contraceptive purposes. In both cases the intent is the determining factor as to whether the action is sinful

I’m curious as to how one would keep a condom on while they slept. Maybe I’m just too small down there, but I don’t see how it can be done.

 

[EvelynEVF]

There was an item in the news recently about the principle of double effect. A woman with a suspected tubal pregnancy was given some drug which would kill the baby without the tube having to be removed. It was shortly thereafter discovered that the pregnancy was indeed inside the uterus, and the woman immediately was given an antidote. The baby was born with significant defects due to the original drug.

If killing the baby wasn’t the first line of treatment, exploratory surgery to save the tube would have made the situation clear without damaging the baby. Caveat–I just read the story online but don’t have a citation, and of course I don’t know all the details. It just really struck me that since killing the baby was seen as the solution, the actual problem was completely overlooked.

Killing the baby is never the answer.

 

[Curious_Hobbit]

Here’s a Pro life speaker named Rebecca Kiessling who was conceived by rape. She came to my college last year and gave a powerful talk about it. She’s great!

rebeccakiessling.com/