What is the Church's teaching on abortions for victims of incest and rape?

[dje101]

What is the Church’s teaching on abortions for victims of incest and rape?

 

[catharina]

What is the Church’s teaching on abortions for victims of incest and rape?

Totally consistent pro-life teaching:
no abortion for anyone in any situtation.

Meaning: there can be no exceptions.
No to all abortions.

 

[dje101]

Totally consistent pro-life teaching:
no abortion for anyone in any situtation.

Meaning: there can be no exceptions.
No to all abortions.

thats what i figured. i’m completely pro-life, my mother who says she is a christian says that she would never get an abortion and believes that it is wrong, but would never tell another woman what to do with her own body (that argument just rubs me the wrong way ). then when we get onto the abortion debate, she always pulls the “what if i were raped? wouldn’t you want me to get an abortion?” Just wanted to know what the church’s teaching is. thanks so much.

 

[catharina]

thats what i figured. i’m completely pro-life, my mother who says she is a christian says that she would never get an abortion and believes that it is wrong, but would never tell another woman what to do with her own body (that argument just rubs me the wrong way ). then when we get onto the abortion debate, she always pulls the “what if i were raped? wouldn’t you want me to get an abortion?” Just wanted to know what the church’s teaching is. thanks so much.

Totally my privilege to give the answer.
God bless you.

 

[Beth_Cecilia]

“what if i were raped? wouldn’t you want me to get an abortion?”

This argument is common and painful, but it does not actually make sense. If abortion is the deliberate killing of a child, as we claim, it is no less evil in these awful situations. This would be punishing the child, with death, for the sin of his father. Why would anyone want someone to compound the sin of rape with the sin of abortion? Both have deep and lasting psychological effects on the woman. It is a position which is based on feeling, not thought. It is a position which assumes that an abortion will help the woman deal with the violence which has been committed against her, but there is no evidence that it will.

 

[dje101]

“what if i were raped? wouldn’t you want me to get an abortion?”

This argument is common and painful, but it does not actually make sense. If abortion is the deliberate killing of a child, as we claim, it is no less evil in these awful situations. This would be punishing the child, with death, for the sin of his father. Why would anyone want someone to compound the sin of rape with the sin of abortion? Both have deep and lasting psychological effects on the woman. It is a position which is based on feeling, not thought. It is a position which assumes that an abortion will help the woman deal with the violence which has been committed against her, but there is no evidence that it will.

the thing is that my mom doesn’t recognize a baby as a person while in the womb. she sees it as “virtually a parasite that is living off of her body” (her own words, btw) and since the baby cannot live on its own out of her body, then she can do whatever she wants with HER BODY.

it saddens me that she sees life this way, but she won’t really listen to me. sometimes she’ll say “good argument” then walks away, and thats about as far as i get with her.

 

[bluerose]

If my mother had had an abortion after being raped (when she was 16), I wouldn’t have had my big brother and she wouldn’t have had three granddaughters and five great-grandchildren, either!

 

[Maureen1125]

Abortion is a NO NO NO under any circumstance. Fifth Commandment…thou shalt not kill…this applies to ALL human life. Even if that life is still in the womb.

One of my favorite Pro-life bumper stickers is “If it’s not a baby, then you arn’t pregnant”.

In the case of incest or rape and you feel that the child would be a painful reminder and that you would not be able to care for and love that child, Adoption is your answer.

 

[dje101]

Abortion is a NO NO NO under any circumstance. Fifth Commandment…thou shalt not kill…this applies to ALL human life. Even if that life is still in the womb.

yeah but the problem that i have with most pro-choicers is that they don’t concider it a baby at that point. its just a bunch of cells to them.

love that bumper sticker though!

 

[Rence]

What is the Church’s teaching on abortions for victims of incest and rape?

The Church allows the use of the morning after pill, in the case of rape, in the emergency room after a rape, if two conditions are met: 1) the woman must test negative for pregnancy to ensure she wasn’t already pregnant prior to the attack 2) must not have ovulated. The morning after pill when used in this way, is preventing a conception from taking place, not destroying an already-fertilized egg.

If this has not been done, or if it has been done but the woman is pregnant anyway, the Church forbids any further action other than progression of the pregnancy.

catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

The woman who is a victim of rape has the moral right to prevent the pregnancy for the following reasons: First, the rapist (including his sperm) is an unjust aggressor who has violated the woman’s dignity. Second, rape is an act of force and violence, unlike the conjugal love in marriage whereby both spouses give freely of themselves in an act of unitive and procreative love. Third, the woman is not responsible for the action, and thereby has the right to prevent the pregnancy. (Please note that for these three reasons, this guidance does not violate the Church’ s teaching regarding contraception as expressed in Humanae Vitae, which, because of the free-giving between spouses, stated, "Each and every marriage act must remain open to the transmission of life (no. 11).)

In preventing pregnancy, most rape treatment protocols recommend anti-fertility drugs to be administered within 72 hours and over a period of several days. These drugs, such as Ovral, inhibit ovulation. However, some contraceptives may also affect the endometrium of the uterus, causing the expulsion of a conceived ovum. This latter effect is problematical.

…

The Ethical and Religious Directives for Catholic Health Facilities state, “Abortion, that is the directly intended termination of pregnancy before viability, is never permitted nor is the directly intended destruction of a viable fetus. Every procedure whose sole immediate effect is the termination of pregnancy before viability is an abortion, which, in its moral context, includes the interval between conception and implantation of the embryo” (no. 12). Therefore, abortifacients — those drugs which would cause the expulsion of a conceived ovum — are morally wrong.

Therefore, before administering contraceptives to a rape victim, health care providers must ascertain first her medical history (including menstrual history, recent sexual activity, and contraceptive usage). A pregnancy test should be performed. If she is not pregnant but her medical history suggests the possibility that ovulation may have occurred, then health care providers ought to administer a Luteinizing Hormone urine dip test or a progesterone blood level test. These tests would indicate if ovulation has indeed occurred and thereby a child was possibly conceived. If these tests are not available in a timely way or at all, treatment should proceed as long as there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has occurred.

Here again is a key point. If there is a reasonable doubt that ovulation has taken place, the right of the woman to prevent the pregnancy should be favored, even if this unknowingly and unintentionally expels a conceived ovum. However, if there is certainty that ovulation has occurred and conception may have taken place, then the child has the right to life and the mother must not risk an abortion from the antifertility drugs.

 

[larsenl1]

the thing is that my mom doesn’t recognize a baby as a person while in the womb. she sees it as “virtually a parasite that is living off of her body” (her own words, btw) and since the baby cannot live on its own out of her body, then she can do whatever she wants with HER BODY.

it saddens me that she sees life this way, but she won’t really listen to me. sometimes she’ll say “good argument” then walks away, and thats about as far as i get with her.

I would ask your mother if she considered you a parasite and let her reflect on that. It seems she is degrading the value of your life.

I will pray for you.

 

[CatholicBoy1957]

This is what is referred to as a “moral absolute”, in case you care to research the subject.

 

[dje101]

I would ask your mother if she considered you a parasite and let her reflect on that. It seems she is degrading the value of your life.

I will pray for you.

i don’t know. my sister is pregnant and from day one my mom was saying “the baby this” and “the baby that”. so she recognized it from day 1 as a baby and not just a bunch of cells. i think i’m going to get that book “Unplanned” for my mom. its about about that Planned Parenthood director who became pro-life.

when we discuss social issues, she is always opposite of me. i’m pro-life, she’s pro-choice. i voted against same sex marriage, she voted for it. i don’t believe that homosexual relationships should be allowed to adopt, she does. then when my sister finds out and gets in on the conversation, and at times has told me that my views are ****** (but used a more explicit word for it). ugh i’ll just keep praying to God that he’ll reach them.

 

[catsrus]

dje 101, you can argue with, instruct, prove, etc. till you are blue and may never change their minds. All those whom I love are ALL pro-choice/abortion. (except one grandaughter) I have shown them all the evidence and they still will not hear the truth of life. They will not hear because they do not want to hear.
You give them the information and then spend what seems like forever praying for them.
Bottom line is that faith is a gift from God and one’s heart must crack open at least a tiny bit for Christ to enter in.
So, just keep them in your prayers and stress not!

 

[puzzleannie]

please ask your friends who support abortion for women who conceive as the result of rape or incest how they expect a second violent assault to heal the first one? and also why they imagine the deliberate murder of the rape victim’s innocent child will assist her own healing in any way.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

yeah but the problem that i have with most pro-choicers is that they don’t concider it a baby at that point. its just a bunch of cells to them.

love that bumper sticker though!

They are Deceived by The Devil to devalue life. It is part of a larger plan to deceive us to devalue the entirety of human life (which is well underway). If we devalue the entirety of human life, we risk losing Hope (the desire for Heaven).

The Pro-Abortionists are blinded, a false solution to imagined problems. Many children have been and will be killed. Has thirty-five years of legalized USA Abortion really solved any of society’s ills (remember those ills are of our making)? No, not a one. Perversely, the pro-abortionists keep championing the killing of children. How many children must be killed to solve the imagined problems, the real problems? What if all were killed? Would we still have societies’ ills, evil, starvation, promiscuity, racism, murder and all the others? Yes.

How was the world saved? By Mary saying “Yes” to Life – in the face of everything that today’s society would say would be a valid “choice” for Death.

It is a Lie by Satan that we “save ourselves” by killing God’s children.

 

[vera_dicere]

the thing is that my mom doesn’t recognize a baby as a person while in the womb. she sees it as “virtually a parasite that is living off of her body” (her own words, btw) and since the baby cannot live on its own out of her body, then she can do whatever she wants with HER BODY.

it saddens me that she sees life this way, but she won’t really listen to me. sometimes she’ll say “good argument” then walks away, and thats about as far as i get with her.

Not to nit pick, but the zygote/embryo/foetus can’t be a parasite, as a parasite is something of a different species to the host.

We have all been in that situation, a zef mooching off our mother’s resources, in fact, some of us are still mooching off our mother’s resources.

Its a natural stage of human development.

Regarding your mother, it really is about making little steps, I’ve been in discussions with rabid pro-aborts and its taken me years of constant, but gentle facts and discussion to get them to start to turn their opinions around.

pray for your mum.

As for "person’, its a legal term, has no basis in biology, the foetus in the womb is a human being, that’s what should gain her rights, not a legally determined term that can be applied to anyone or anything and removed from anyone or anything. It was removed from the jews and look how that turned out, and strangely enough, in America there are some companies that are legally "persons’. If a giant company can be a "person’ then why can’t a human foetus doing what she’s meant to be doing?

When it comes to the OP’s question, women who are raped and pregnant do not need abortions, and the stats show they’re not seeking them, they need our love and support, they need our compassion and assistance, abortion only serves those around the rape victim, aborting that pregnancy won’t make the rape go away, it won’t make that woman sit up and say “oh, I’m not raped any more!” It only serves to allow thsoe around her to avoid the dicey uncomfortable situation.

the "abortion for rape’ argument is just more proof the pro-abortion movement is not pro-woman.

 

[jamanne]

I know abortion is wrong ,but a woman or child pregnant by rape can easily descend into mental illness.the physical manifestations endured by a a pregnant body change for nine months are emotional enough for a loving relationship ,I can hardly imagine the daily horror of watching and feeling my body change and go through the trauma of childbirth after a violent rape.I’m not saying abortion is the answer as i know it;s wrong but I can understand a woman being being driven to it , you have to walk in someone else’s shoes and not cast the first stone ,the world isn’t as merciful as it should be to all it’s victims of violence and a lot of women (many) don’t have the support required to get through a traumatic pregnancy,God bless us all in our efforts and judgements

 

[Rence]

I know abortion is wrong ,but a woman or child pregnant by rape can easily descend into mental illness.the physical manifestations endured by a a pregnant body change for nine months are emotional enough for a loving relationship ,I can hardly imagine the daily horror of watching and feeling my body change and go through the trauma of childbirth after a violent rape.I’m not saying abortion is the answer as i know it;s wrong but I can understand a woman being being driven to it , you have to walk in someone else’s shoes and not cast the first stone ,the world isn’t as merciful as it should be to all it’s victims of violence and a lot of women (many) don’t have the support required to get through a traumatic pregnancy,God bless us all in our efforts and judgements

I agree with the above. I’ve seen it go both ways. I’ve seen rape victims carry their child, and keep the child. I’ve even seen the fact that a child resulted from the rape actually send a rapist to jail. However, I’ve seen the above senario too. What it boils down to is that not everyone handles the same stressors the same way. We know that trauma affects different people different ways. You can’t make a blanket statement about how everyone can handle the same thing the same way. It’s not possible. At least the US Bishops know this, and have stated that rape victims can use the morning after pill to protect themselves. But after that, if it doesn’t work, the Church forbids any other actions.

 

[Tigg]

The Church allows the use of the morning after pill, in the case of rape, in the emergency room after a rape, if two conditions are met: 1) the woman must test negative for pregnancy to ensure she wasn’t already pregnant prior to the attack 2) must not have ovulated. The morning after pill when used in this way, is preventing a conception from taking place, not destroying an already-fertilized egg.

If this has not been done, or if it has been done but the woman is pregnant anyway, the Church forbids any further action other than progression of the pregnancy.catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0566.html

Rence: Thank you for again posting this. I’m sincerely trying to understand these particulars as it pertains to the Vatican statement released in response to Italian legislation passed in 2000, which said:

1. The morning-after pill is a hormone-based preparation (it can contain oestrogens, oestrogen/progestogens or only progestogens) which, within and no later than 72 hours after a presumably fertile act of sexual intercourse, has a predominantly “anti-implantation” function, i.e., it prevents a possible fertilized ovum (which is a human embryo), by now in the blastocyst stage of its development (fifth to sixth day after fertilization), from being implanted in the uterine wall by a process of altering the wall itself.

The final result will thus be the expulsion and loss of this embryo.

Only if this pill were to be taken several days before the moment of ovulation could it sometimes act to prevent the latter (in this case it would function as a typical “contraceptive”).

However, the woman who uses this kind of pill does so in the fear that she may be in her fertile period and therefore intends to cause the expulsion of a possible new conceptus; above all, it would be unrealistic to think that a woman, finding herself in the situation of wanting to use an emergency contraceptive, would be able to know exactly and opportunely her current state of fertility.

It is clear, therefore, that the proven “anti-implantation” action of the morning-after pill is really nothing other than a chemically induced abortion. It is neither intellectually consistent nor scientifically justifiable to say that we are not dealing with the same thing.

More here:

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_academies/acdlife/documents/rc_pa_acdlife_doc_20001031_pillola-giorno-dopo_en.html

Can anyone tell me if this statement from the Vatican was revised or clarified at a later date? The way I’m understanding it, the Catholic Health Facilities (and the USCCB) are in direct opposition to Rome regarding this interpretation. Help me to understand if I am wrong.