Thread: Hell: She's only nine years old! (abortion thread) Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=001077

Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
I just found this horrible news story:

Raped nine-year-old girl now faces motherhood

I don't give a damn what your views on abortion are. This poor girl was....."brutalized" seems too pleasant a word. And now they're going to make a Nine Year Old Girl give birth! She was raped, for God's sake! And she's just a child herself. According to this article from The Guardian, the girl does not want to carry to term, and the parents didn't want her to, either, but a government medical board now says she is perfectly capable of doing so. So they're forcing her to give birth. A nine year old girl!

[Frown]

{Title to be made clearer.}

[ 02. June 2003, 23:35: Message edited by: Erin ]
 
Posted by Amorya (# 2652) on :
 
That's awful. How can you even consider putting a child that age through something like that?

9 years old???

[Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Amorya
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
It makes one wonder to what degree she is being treated as an obstetrical curiosity, particularly in a country where illegal abortion is probably the most frequently used form of birth control.
 
Posted by Rossweisse (# 2349) on :
 
As the mother of a nine-year-old girl, the subject line caught my attention.

I don't think there are enough flaming smileys in the world to express my outrage over this story.

Rossweisse // normally not a pro-abortion type
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Nothing useful to contribute here, just that I am so upset and angry about this that I am well-nigh speechless.
 
Posted by josephine (# 3899) on :
 
Lord, have mercy.
 
Posted by mother hubbard (# 640) on :
 
this is a sick sick world [Projectile]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
This is spot-on the case where abortion is a necessity. It's a case of trying to cut down the pain and trauma.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I have nothing valuable to contribute, either - I'm literally shaking with the thought of the trauma this child has endured and shall endure! I shivered at the mention of how she neither understands what has happened nor what is ahead.
 
Posted by Dolphy (# 862) on :
 
Ditto here.

When will this kind of abuse stop?

For f***'s sake.. 9 years old? I can not find the words for the total disgust I have for the man who did this to her.
A nine year old child...

For once, I am lost for words...
 
Posted by heathen mama (# 3767) on :
 
My mind is reeling with what this girl has in front of her. The body of a nine-year old having to go through pregnancy and childbirth...it is too horrific to imagine. Should she physically survive this, how on earth does she manage the rest of her life?
fuck.
And no matter what course this poor girl takes, some asshole is going to find a way to make her feel shameful.
 
Posted by Huntress (# 2595) on :
 
According to the story, the Catholic Bishops Conference has said that 'no child can be killed, even if it is to save the life of the mother'. This may only be the case in Costa Rica, but I was under the impression that the Catholic Church had amended this belief to allow for abortion in cases of threat to the mother's life. Or am I wrong here? [Confused]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
You're wrong.

As would an abortion be. The child needs all the love and help in the world, but so does her child.

They're both victims. Why victimise them further?
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
You're wrong.

As would an abortion be. The child needs all the love and help in the world, but so does her child.

They're both victims. Why victimise them further?

And wouldn't forcing her to attempt to deliver the child wouldn't? Or forcing her to put her life at severe risk, in which case both her life and the child's would be lost?
Just as there can be allowances for taking a life in self-defense or in wartime, there must be allowances made for situations like this!!

Sieg
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
You're wrong.

As would an abortion be. The child needs all the love and help in the world, but so does her child.

They're both victims. Why victimise them further?

Under the guise of Christian compassion, this is probably one of the most heartless and chilling statments I have ever read on these threads.
 
Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
From the website of a British pro-life organization :

quote:
Now Nicaragua's special prosecutor for crimes against children has asked the government to appoint a special committee of experts to determine whether an abortion can be carried out on the basis that the mother's life is at risk. However, several experts have insisted that the abortion cannot be justified under the law because the girl has an 85 percent chance of surviving childbirth.
If you really and truly value the lives of children, you don't make light of something that has a 15% chance of killing them.

And I will leave it to our Jesuitical friend's imagination to discern exactly what I think of him right now.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Seigfried,

Taking an innocent life is never justifiable, be it in self-defence or not. If someone, through no fault of their own, was put in a situation where I could only continue to live by taking their life, I would not do so. I'm not a murderer.

And seeing as the probability is that the girl will survive giving birth to her child anyway, I don't see the relevance of the flawed "self-defence" argument anyway.

Arch & Elizabeth Anne,

Have no fear, I find Christian support for abortion equally revolting.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
[Roll Eyes]

Feel free to delete an "anyway" from the above...
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
JL,
To force a little girl who some man has already raped to suffer the
*trauma of the usual ills of pregnancy,
*the trauma of realisation that she "has a baby inside her",
*the trauma of coming to terms with sexual and gynaecological knowledge and awareness beyond her years,
*the trauma of the pain of childbirth, the trauma of 15% possibility of death,
*the trauma of the damage the pregnancy and birth will cause to her body,
*the psychological trauma the physical trauma will cause her,
*the trauma of living with the child after it's born (if it survives)

All that is child abuse of the little girl.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
... And seeing as the probability is that the girl will survive giving birth to her child ... I don't see the relevance of the flawed "self-defence" argument anyway

I deleted an anyway for you. I have no idea if it's the right one ...

But I can honestly say that is one of the most heartless and uncaring comments I have ever read. The press piece states that this poor child has no idea what happened to her so she doesn’t understand that she has been raped and violated … It also states that she has no idea what is ahead of her so she is entering into the whole being experience that is pregnancy having no idea what she has been let in for. And then she gets to undergo child birth as well - again with no idea of what she will be doing.

Pregnancy is hard enough when you do know what’s going on and you do have support from your family and friends.

And she has a 85% chance of surviving the pregency (that’s her surviving JL. They don’t give odds for her body remaining undamaged or for a health delivery).

But that’s okay because making a nine year old child undergo this experience –whatever the potential cost to her – is better than allowing her and her family the option of an abortion. I’m sorry, but I can’t help feeling that this girl is being used to make some kind of sick point … And it seems that some people only care about others when they are unborn. [Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

Tubbs
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
Jesuitical Lad, like Rossweisse I would not normally be found arguing in this kind of corner. Neither am I a utilitarian or a casuist.

However, I equally do not think that one can take a principle and apply it across the board without any kind of sensitivity or nuance to individual circumstances such as this tragic case.

Your comment about being made victims illustrates this. Of course both are victims, nobody doubts that. However, assuming that allowing the girl to have an abortion would only victimise them more fails to take account of the way in which carrying the pregnancy to term would make the girl even more a victim of the rape, to say nothing of the potential effects on the child.

My point is not that abortion in this case would be morally easy in a gung-ho kind of way, and I'm sure very few within the pro-choice group think it is. My point is that there are grave moral considerations on the other side, too.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Oh, dear God. This is outrageous. She's only a little girl, for Chrissake -- read her comment about "not wanting to share [her] toys." I cannot imagine any person in his or her right mind wanting to put a little girl through childbirth.

Sean D said:
quote:
My point is not that abortion in this case would be morally easy in a gung-ho kind of way, and I'm sure very few within the pro-choice group think it is. My point is that there are grave moral considerations on the other side, too.

I am pro-choice but I can assure you that abortion in any case is nothing I would feel "gung-ho" about. In this situation it is clearly, to me at least, the lesser of two evils.

It is also a medical procedure that will be unpleasant and difficult for her -- it isn't a magic wand that just "erases" the pregnancy -- but it is a far better option than having her carry this baby to term.

And then raise it for the rest of her life. My heart aches at the thought of this uncomprehending little girl being told "this is your baby". What will her life be like? She needs help and healing. Now.

JL, I am a Christian and I believe abortion is the right thing to do in this case. If that "revolts" you, so be it.
 
Posted by Sean D (# 2271) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
I am pro-choice but I can assure you that abortion in any case is nothing I would feel "gung-ho" about. In this situation it is clearly, to me at least, the lesser of two evils.

That was my exact point, Mamacita.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
Sean, I'm sorry, my post came off like I was taking issue with you and I wasn't. I was trying to elaborate on your point and didn't do it too clearly. Sorry.
 
Posted by jedijudy (# 1059) on :
 
That poor little girl. That nasty, hormone-controlled filthy scumbag of a rapist needs to be taken care of the way Seminole Indian women take care of that kind of worm-ridden filth.

Let me do it.
 
Posted by melonman (# 4038) on :
 
Ah, so this is what a 'hell' thread looks like...

In this case, abortion is wrong and so is doing nothing, and that's what so gut-wrenchingly bad about the situation: there isn't a good solution, just several bad coping strategies.

Doing nothing is (as always) probably the easier option for the rest of us, but I'm not sure that makes it better for the girl. On the other hand, since she is pregnant, she is obviously more mature than average physically (not that this in any way excuses what has happened or lessens the associated trauma), so maybe carrying the baby to term is a viable option. She is certainly old enough to remember any abortion.

I'm just really glad it isn't my call.
 
Posted by icklejen (# 713) on :
 
shouldn't this be up to the parents of the little girl?
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
No.
 
Posted by Genie (# 3282) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by melonman:
On the other hand, since she is pregnant, she is obviously more mature than average physically (not that this in any way excuses what has happened or lessens the associated trauma), so maybe carrying the baby to term is a viable option.

It is possible to become pregnant as soon as the ovaries begin to release eggs. This typically happens around the age of 10-16 (stage 4), but can occur earlier. However, the ability to give birth depends upon a widening of the hips and a strengthening of pelvic floor muscles. These changes usually happen in stage 5. Ovulation at nine years old is early, but not unbelievably so - I started about that age. At that age, the girl is still physically a child, with the narrow hips that entails. So you will, in nine months, have a child trying to deliver a baby through a pair of hips too narrow for the purpose - which, in all liklihood, will result in physical or mental deformity in the baby due to its head being crushed during birth, if it survives at all. Not to mention agony and severe distress to the 'mother'.

The five stages of puberty in girls
Puberty, pregnancy and sex
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
I am curious. Does the 85% chance of living assessment come from a disinterested, compassionate doctor, or from hack who is interested in his/her relationship to the government? In any event, would it change anyones views if the chance of survival was 50%, 25%, 10%? At what point does the imperative of life end? What if it were a certainty that both mother and child would die during the course of the pregnancy?
 
Posted by FCB (# 1495) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Genie:
So you will, in nine months, have a child trying to deliver a baby through a pair of hips too narrow for the purpose - which, in all liklihood, will result in physical or mental deformity in the baby due to its head being crushed during birth, if it survives at all. Not to mention agony and severe distress to the 'mother'.

Presumably if this is true the doctor will perform a caesarean section (I believe they have them even in Latin America). And why the "scare quotes"? Would she not really be a mother?

I don't think the discussion is going anywhere if we get into the "which choice has the worst consequences" mode, not least because consequantialism is rejected by Roman Catholic moral theology. I get the impression that this may be a case of people talking past each other.

FCB
 
Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by FCB:
I don't think the discussion is going anywhere if we get into the "which choice has the worst consequences" mode, not least because consequantialism is rejected by Roman Catholic moral theology.
FCB

What is the basis for the rejection of consequentialism? Given that all choices have consequences, how can the morality of the choice be separated from the consequence? I would love to see the thinking behind that position. It appears to be the result of the thoughtful consideration of many persons of good will, I just do not understand the basis.

[Preview post is a good habit to get into when starting to post.]

[ 20. February 2003, 19:00: Message edited by: sarkycow ]
 
Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 
The man who did this to her deserves not only to lose the ability to impregnate anyone ever again (castration), but I would advocate total removal of his penis as well. Let him be unmanned in the most horrible way. Let him suffer horribly, as this little girl is going to suffer (and has already).

Whether she is made to keep the baby as our beloved Roman Catholic friends are advocating (all hail the powerful crushing law), or has an abortion - both ways are incomprehensibly horrible.

I suppose the only partial comfort in it is that she might look (as many little girls do on the new baby mummy brings home from hospital) on the child as a live sort of doll... I don't know she could comprehend it better than that until she's older. At least she will have her parents - perhaps they will help in the nurture of the child, sort of adopt their grandchild as their child... I hope at least that her home life is one of love and support.
 
Posted by icklejen (# 713) on :
 
ok,

i didn't explain what i meant earlier - we're debating what the 'church' thinks - but surely, if the parents (knowing their daughter, physically, emotionally, and how mature and traumitised etc she is) say an abortion is what's best,that should be taken into account. or am i just being naive?

ij [Confused]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by icklejen:
shouldn't this be up to the parents of the little girl?

I think they should certainly be involved, but the welfare of the child should be the first priority, and as shown above (the five stages of maturity), the chances of damge due to immaturity as vast.

JL, you said, "No," but why? Is it because you still want to continue with child abuse, or because you are aware that the parents are also fallible?
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Daisymay,

Because I don't think their being her parents legitimises any decision of theirs in favour of killing her unborn child.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Carry on digging your own grave, JL.

Your views are disgusting
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
I'd rather dig my own grave than advocate the disposal of a precious human life.

And Merseymike, lest you should forget:

[Love] You're amazing. [Love]
 
Posted by Fen (# 4052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
JL,
To force a little girl who some man has already raped to suffer the
*trauma of the usual ills of pregnancy,
*the trauma of realisation that she "has a baby inside her",
*the trauma of coming to terms with sexual and gynaecological knowledge and awareness beyond her years,
*the trauma of the pain of childbirth, the trauma of 15% possibility of death,
*the trauma of the damage the pregnancy and birth will cause to her body,
*the psychological trauma the physical trauma will cause her,
*the trauma of living with the child after it's born (if it survives)

All that is child abuse of the little girl.

What if killing the baby is child abuse?

What if the little girl grows up resenting the fact that a decision was made to kill the only thing that might have redeemed all these traumatic experiences she went through?

What about the emotional and physical traumas of abortion, both short-term and long-term?

quote:
posted by Sean D:
carrying the pregnancy to term would make the girl even more a victim of the rape

How so? It might be the only good that comes out of it. I certainly don't see any "good" effect of an abortion. Neither option can bring an end to the trauma that this girl is undergoing; only one of them can bring any kind of positive relief.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I have serious doubts about whether a nine-year-old is physically capable of carrying the baby to term.

Someone has already mentioned the problem that the pelvis is underdeveloped. I suspect that other necessary physical resources are also not available.

I have seen statistics showing the percentage of serious physical complications in the pregnancy of twelve-year-olds. I don't remember the numbers, but they were quite high.

I am concerned that before the girl miscarries her body might suffer permanent damage.

Moo
 
Posted by Panda (# 2951) on :
 
Would it be wrong to pray that she miscarries?
That would seem to be the only option left, and given her (assumed) physical immaturity, a reasonable possibility.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Panda, yes, it occurred to me this would, all round, seem the best option for everyone in many ways.

It's a truely awful situation. I think what we have here is a demonstration of how when God's laws are abandoned, evil breeds more evil.

In the same way that I am not a pacifist, because I believe the evil of men sometimes requires makes the evil of war justifiable, I think we may here have a case of the evil of the rapist making the evil of abortion justifiable.

That doesn't mean I think it is the only right decision, it doesn't mean it's what I necessarily consider the best outcome, but it does mean I accept it's validity as an option on the table in this highly unusual case.

I'm certainly glad it's not my decision on what to do in this case.

As many of you will know, I have advocated a Pro-life view on the purgatory thread. However, what are argue for is for the fetus to be treated with the rights of personhood, and thus the rejection of abortion on demand.

It seems here the little girl is going to be woefully unable to cope physically and or mentally with the actual physical process of giving birth to the child.

Hence, my usual objection of "adoption is always an option" doesn't hold.

As others have said, I have grave doubts about a 9 year old's ability to carry to term.

I would however like to comment on the following:

quote:
That poor little girl. That nasty, hormone-controlled filthy scumbag of a rapist needs to be taken care of the way Seminole Indian women take care of that kind of worm-ridden filth.

Let me do it.

In total sympathy with you of course, and this is hell after all, but surely vengance is the Lords?

matt
 
Posted by Joyeux (# 3851) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
I have serious doubts about whether a nine-year-old is physically capable of carrying the baby to term.<snip>

I know this is Hell, but I have to face this in a level-headed manner.

Granted that the underlying moral issue is a hairy one, can we all at least acknowledge that, not being there with the ability to perform a full physical evaluation, we have no way of knowing what her body can handle? Also, considering the potential physical side effects of an abortion to fully mature women (hemorraging, infertility, etc.), what are the risks for a girl?

I agree that justice (as much as I would love to follow jj's lead) needs to be done to the *&*%$* who did this to her.

How about, instead of praying for miscarriage, we pray that her body can handle the pregnancy (since her government has already intervened and declared that she has to have the baby), that she would not be permanently scarred psychologically, and that the baby would be well, and healthy. Maybe also that someone would adopt it? Would that help the nine-year-old's recovery?

[Mad] toward that &*^%*$, though!
 
Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 
This situation is a pro-lifer's intellectual nightmare. (I only wish this poor girl's nightmare were merely intellectual.) On the one hand, this poor girl has been victimized and brutalized, and all possible steps should be taken to minimize her trauma. On the other hand, we have an unborn child, who had no part in the crime which caused his/her conception. The choice is whether to further traumatize the girl in order to spare the baby, or kill the baby in order to spare the girl further grief. I think Melonman is right; all of the good solutions disappeared when this girl conceived from this rape. I have no answers, only prayers.
 
Posted by Lioba (# 42) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by brodavid:

<snip>
I think Melonman is right; all of the good solutions disappeared when this girl conceived from this rape. I have no answers, only prayers.

Amen, brother.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
JL,
Who do you think ought to make this decision?

Her parents have some idea about the state their little daughter is in; they presumably do know her a bit. They may not be totally perfect about making decisions, but they do have some responsibility, so they should be involved.

Doctors should also be involved, but again, some doctors are wiser than others.

Rigid moralists should have no part in making this decision. It is in no way right that a child should be sexualised in this way. It is in no way right that anyone should pretend that a little nine-year-old girl, a child, is a woman mature enough to bear a child.

She is not mature enough mentally, physically or psychologically. No nine-year-old is. Having to carry this baby to term is child abuse. It is sad, painful, that an unborn baby has to be aborted, killed, but it would be even sadder and more painful to put this child through carrying and giving birth to the baby - if she did.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
This thread just shows how truly warped the 'morality' of the anti-abortion movement is. Thank goodness that they will never succeed in the UK.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
MM,
I totally agree (not the whole thread though) that there is a warped mentality around.

This case would seem to be so clear.... [Frown]
 
Posted by Fen (# 4052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Joyeux:
How about, instead of praying for miscarriage, we pray that her body can handle the pregnancy (since her government has already intervened and declared that she has to have the baby), that she would not be permanently scarred psychologically, and that the baby would be well, and healthy. Maybe also that someone would adopt it?

I will heartily add my amen to that one. [Not worthy!]

I have to keep reminding myself that this is not a hypothetical situation. What a messed-up place this world has become [Frown]

MerseyMike - I don't think it's my sense of morality that is warped... the world is warped, and sometimes morality just doesn't seem to fit alongside it... Which one should I try to bend to accommodate the other? [Confused]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Anyone who seriously thinks there is a genuine case for forcing a nine year old to go through with a pregnancy on the grounds of 'rights of the so-called unborn child' .
What is warped is anti-abortionism and those who value a clump of cells as much as a nine year old child.
Sick. I want nothing of it.
 
Posted by jlg (# 98) on :
 
It sure is easy to guess which shipmates posting here have gone through pregnancy and childbirth [Roll Eyes] as opposed to those who consider it just an intellectual exercise.
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
So, Daisymay, you're advocating the murder of one child over the psychological trauma of another? Since when is murder a lesser evil than psychological trauma? I don't understand you.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
No, because abortion is not murder, and a foetus is not a child. If you believe it is, try allowing it to be born, removed from the mother, and see how long it would survive unaided. The rights of those here should always come before the potential, but in this case, we are talking about a 9 year old. A 9 year old.

I've always thought that we should look towards points of agreement on this issue, but this thread just shows that you can't do that with anti-abortionists. Thus, they should be resolutely opposed.
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
Merseymike--did you see what Daisymay said?
quote:
It is sad, painful, that an unborn baby has to be aborted, killed, but it would be even sadder and more painful to put this child through carrying and giving birth to the baby - if she did.
An unborn baby. Hence my comment. Had the term "fetus" been used in the post, I would have understood the position taken. But it says baby. That's what I don't understand.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Laudate Dominum,
I'm saying that the wicked act of the rapist has caused the impreganation of a child, and that impreganayion must be terminated.

Sometimes we have to do something nasty, even horrible, to obtain a better result than if we left things alone.

Just start imagining the size of the girl - nine years old, so she would be in Year 5 in the UK at the moment. Not big enough or shaped properly to carry a baby and give birth.

Go back to what you were doing at that age. I had just learned to ride a bike. I was struggling with fractions. I was enjoying taking my turn to change the water in the flowers in the classroom. I did know babies grew in their mummies' tummies but I didn't know how they got out (or got in!) and had a thought it was through the belly-button. [Eek!]

No way should anyone make a child have a baby when there are ways to abort it. Yes, cry over and pray for the aborted one, but still do what you can for the child.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
LD,
We've been cross posting and I've been messing up my spelling.

I say "baby" because I don't want you to think that I'm not taking on board the seriousness of the decision (even though I think it's an obvious decision), nor evading the fact that killing of either a potential human or a human needs to take place. At three months, it's already more than a bunch of cells, but still, the child needs to be rescued from carrying on with this pregnancy.

Those responsible for her need to grit their teeth and get on asap with the abortion.
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
All right, Daisymay, I think I see what you mean. I can't say that I understand your position, because the way I think about these issues makes your statements seem illogical to me, but I don't think there's anything more we could say to each other that would have any effect.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
My position is this:

little girls are not designed to have sex

little girls are not designed to have babies

When they have been violated in one way, we are responsible to prevent them being violated in another way.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I agree Daisy - and if that does mean saying clearly that a 9 year old girl is more important and should take priority over a foetus, then I for one am happy to say it - and say it loud
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Spot-on, MM.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
It sure is easy to guess which shipmates posting here have gone through pregnancy and childbirth [Roll Eyes] as opposed to those who consider it just an intellectual exercise.

Amen. My son is nine, and I just thought of one of the girls in his third grade class, and imagined her pregnant and forced to go through it. There is no way to express the inability of a nine-year old to grasp any of this, and how small they are. I think the death rate from childbirth at that age alone justifies the abortion. It is an obscenity to put her through all that. At her age, an abortion at 12 weeks is far less likely to cause permanent damage to her body. I can't believe the hard-line position being applied to her situation. It's cruel, that's what it is.
 
Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
The rape of this little girl is nothing less than--literally--a God-damned tragedy, in every sense of the word.

I can't imagine the anguish the girl, her parents are going through, as well as how their friends and other family members are feeling.

This is a horrible, horrible decision to have to make, and I, for one, am glad I don't have to make it. I don't think anyone here would envy the parents.

Is aborting the girl's fetus more or less of a wrong than allowing the girl to bring the fetus to term and giving birth via C-section?

Some Shipmates clearly think it more, others think it less. Someone argued the girl, at age 9, is too physically undeveloped to carry the fetus to term and deliver vaginally. I would agree with this, but I wonder about the possibility and practicality of a C-section birth.

While I oppose all abortion except in the cases of life-threatening danger to the mother, as I understand the argument for the abortion presented in this thread based on medical necessity, posters have indicated a real possibility of threat.

quote:

""From three months into the pregnancy, the law does not allow for abortions, and in any case it would not be prudent," said Henry Troper, one of her paediatricians...."

I have a question about something Dr. Troper said: He states an abortion would be neither legal nor prudent, so I wonder what the grounds are for his opinion that the abortion would be imprudent?

There are no easy answers in this scenario, it's something that everyone, regardless of opinion on abortion, hopes they'll never have to encounter.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
kenwritez,
You asked,
quote:
I wonder about the possibility and practicality of a C-section birth.
A Caesarian is a major abdominal operation. You would choose to put a child through this? Ask those who have had to have such an operation if they have any pain, can easily move around after it, have a scar, have a uterus that is as strong and healthy as before?

And those who have caesareans are grown women who have had to put up with this operation.

Again, this is child abuse of the small girl.
 
Posted by melonman (# 4038) on :
 
A couple of points:

1: I think there is an assumption in 'forcing the girl to go through with the pregnancy'. Several people have mentioned the weight of the opinion of the parents, which is obviously right, but I would say that the girl should have some say too. She obviously isn't going to be able to decide on her own, but I would feel quite strongly that she should be involved in the decision-making process as far as possible. And she or may not favour the abortion option. Having either option forced on her without consultation makes here more of a victim.

2: I read the other week that at least 2 8 year-olds have given birth in the UK in the last 12 months, so it is obviously possible, and I would be very surprised if this wasn't by caesarian. Whather it is possible in this girl's case is something I would have no idea about, even if I had all the details.
 
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
A few thoughts/responses on this.

Merseymike, I wonder if you'd care to restate what you mean when you say that the feotus wouldn't survive outside the womb, therefore is not life. would a newly born child survive if left unaided?

A few people have mentioned the burden of this child rearing a child. Is adoption an option.

This is a crap world we live in, and crap things happen. Abortion is no easy cure-all. What about the chances of this child having children in later life, they may well be radically reduced by the perfomance of an abortion.

You can see I thin abortion would be wrong, but don't think for a moment that i think having the baby would be easy.

I do think that having the baby would be the least worst of two terrible options.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I don't believe that rights shouuld be afforded to humans until birth. That does not mean that we do not have some responsibility to the foetus, but I do not believe that it is life unless it can breathe unaided. Before you ask, no, I'm not in favour of keeping premature babies alive at all costs. Sometimes - usually - it may be best to let them go. The problem with a lot of these issues is that medical science has moved far further in its ability to preserve life than when a simple ' keep people alive at all costs' message was ethically paramount. I am consistent on this one, as I also believe in voluntary euthanasia, and I have completed a living will - I just don't buy the 'pro-life' propaganda, full stop. And I fully accept that many Christians have totally different views on this one from mke. Its the main reason why I could never be a Roman Catholic.

So, this is , to me, far less of an 'issue' than it may be for those who afford human status to a foetus. I see it as potential, not actual, so there is no moral dilemma in this decision for me at all. The 9 year old comes first. Always, without exception.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I don't believe that rights shouuld be afforded to humans until birth.

Why? This makes no sense, especially given that birth happens at different times for different babies. Or would a child prematurely born still be viable for extermination until 9 months had elapsed?

How the changed location of a child can affect whether or not it has rights is a mystery to me.

quote:
That does not mean that we do not have some responsibility to the foetus, but I do not believe that it is life unless it can breathe unaided.
So our criterion for life is now whether someone can breathe unaided? A lot of babies AFTER birth can't breathe unaided. Can we kill them with impunity?

quote:
Before you ask, no, I'm not in favour of keeping premature babies alive at all costs. Sometimes - usually - it may be best to let them go.
I'm not concerned that you'd be overzealous about keeping them alive. I'm more concerned that you're setting up a system which seems to make it legitimate to kill them.

quote:
The problem with a lot of these issues is that medical science has moved far further in its ability to preserve life than when a simple ' keep people alive at all costs' message was ethically paramount. I am consistent on this one, as I also believe in voluntary euthanasia, and I have completed a living will - I just don't buy the 'pro-life' propaganda, full stop.
There's a big difference between saying "don't keep people alive at all costs" and saying "X, Y and Z members of society can legitimately have their lives terminated by others".

quote:
And I fully accept that many Christians have totally different views on this one from mke. Its the main reason why I could never be a Roman Catholic.
You could be a Catholic if you changed your views.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
You could be a Catholic if you changed your views.
JL, he could be a Catholic regardless - there are plenty of Catholics who don't follow the official church line on lots of issues including the ones that MM mentioned.

Tubbs
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Melonman,
quote:
I read the other week that at least 2 8 year-olds have given birth in the UK in the last 12 months, so it is obviously possible, and I would be very surprised if this wasn't by caesarian.
Any idea where you read this?

And do you think it's OK? The fact that it's possible doesn't make it any the less traumatic. The fact that it is possible for a man to have penetrative sex with a child doesn't mean that it should happen.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
In the same way that the fact that it's possible to end the life of an unborn doesn't mean that it should happen.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
But I am not going to change my views, JL, because I believe that I am right, and you are wrong.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
That doesn't really follow. When I went through an agnostic blip I thought that I was right to doubt the existence of God, and that those who asserted it were wrong.

My views changed.
 
Posted by Mrs Tubbs (# 440) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
In the same way that the fact that it's possible to end the life of an unborn doesn't mean that it should happen.

There is a world of difference between "abortion on demand" and "abortion as the lesser of two evils". This is exactly the kind of situation that most country's abortion laws are designed to help with.

Tubbs
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Well,mine aren't going to, JL - not in your direction, anyway.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Merseymike,

I find Matthew 19:26 to be instructive on this point.
 
Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
No, because abortion is not murder, and a foetus is not a child. If you believe it is, try allowing it to be born, removed from the mother, and see how long it would survive unaided.

And exactly how long would a newborn baby "survive unaided"? I believe God made babies helpless so that adults would have to form long-term families to care for them. It is tragic that so many adults have abdicated this responsibility, and abortion as birth control is just another example of that abdication.

Let's all set aside our ideologies long enough to admit that this little girl's situation stinks, no matter how it's treated. I certainly hope those around her are acting out of compassion, rather than ideology. I would also suggest that if you want to enter a broader discussion of abortion in general, you see the thread in Purgatory.
 
Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 
Another thing, Merseymike: You seem to have all pro-lifers (or anti-abortionists, if you must) caricatured and stereotyped. You rant against the extremist pro-life position, but never seem to acknowledge that most pro-lifers hold less extreme views. I, for example, consider myself strongly pro-life. I believe that it should be illegal to use abortion as birth control, period. However, I consider an abortion to save the mother's life to be morally justified, and I believe that abortion should be allowed, although perhaps not condoned, in cases of rape or incest. In this case, a life-threatening pregnancy is the result of a rape; therefore, the abortion is a moral option. As I have already said, I don't know how to say whether or not it's the best option available.

Perhaps the reason that you haven't been able to have discussions with pro-lifers is that you haven't been listening to them. We're not the enemy; we just disagree.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Merseymike,

I find Matthew 19:26 to be instructive on this point.

quote:
Matthew 19:26But Jesus beheld [them], and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.
You really are a pompous ass, JL.
And your aside after your .sig reads to me as saying you're only this discussion because of a personal issue with MerseyMike. Not the best reason, but then, your arguments are also not the best quality, so I suppose it's a wash.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
You really are a pompous ass, JL.

If God is Truth, and I think someone is in error - and the person whom I consider to be in error says their views will never change - then I look to him as the solution to the problem.

Doesn't seem that pompous to me. I think saying your opinions on something will never change is fairly pompous, but I'd better not get into that.

quote:
And your aside after your .sig reads to me as saying you're only this discussion because of a personal issue with MerseyMike.
Which is why I posted on this thread before MM even turned up.

[Roll Eyes]

quote:
Not the best reason, but then, your arguments are also not the best quality, so I suppose it's a wash.
This is Hell. I was expressing an opinion contrary to that of the OP, not mounting a philosophical defence of the pro-life position. When I do the latter, I'll be sure to PM you.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
JL,
I too believe that with God all things are possible, yet God does not always do these possible things, and leaves the responsibility of sorting out the messes to us.

To chose to further abuse a small child is wicked.

To chose to abort the baby/foetus is to help her - painful and difficult as that may be.

It's the similar difficult choice that has to be made when a grown woman is going to die in childbirth unless measures are taken that will kill the baby, whether deliberately or incidentally. The choice has to be made. If we don't make that choice, we are condemning both.

Can't you understand, JL, the trauma this child is going through? Why do you want to make it worse? This is not about pro-life or pro-choice; it's about trying to help an abused child.

brodavid,
I agree with this;
quote:
Let's all set aside our ideologies long enough to admit that this little girl's situation stinks, no matter how it's treated.
Whatever happens from now on, this child has been put through horror.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
But I am not going to change my views, JL, because I believe that I am right, and you are wrong.

OK, we have heard you. So, why not just shut up. You are probably the most intolerant person I have had the displeasure of having to read on the ship. Why can't you have an opinion on something without belittling people with different opinions?

I probably am as pro-life as anyone on the ship. I believe that abortion is murder.

That being said, this is one case where, if I had any say in the matter (and I do not, just like the rest of you), abortion would be one of several options which I would prayerfully consider. My daughter will soon be 8. What a horrible thing this is that has happened.

Why would I consider it? Because I don't have all the answers - but I believe God does. I would not want to exclude a "solution" if that should turn out to be the best one. I have not seen any "solution" that I could describe as being good.

Whatever happens, I pray that God will be merciful to all concerned.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Daisymay,

I understand what you're saying. But the assumption in your account is that the unborn child has no right to live, and can be dispensed with when circumstances make its continued existence an inconvenience. Pro-life people don't accept that - they hold the unborn child to be a person with all the value that any other person has, albeit in a more vulnerable state.

That's why I think agreement between pro-choice and pro-life people on cases like this one is unlikely. We're working with totally different beliefs.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I'm quite happy for you to hold whatever view you wish on this issue, and to live your life to that belief. When you try and impose those views on others who differ with you and do not share your belief, that is another matter.
Which is what has happened here.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
The whole "don't apply your morals to me" argument is poor. It especially makes no sense to a pro-lifer who thinks that in choosing abortion, a person imposes their inhuman morals on the unborn child. It may just about cover questions of the bedroom if you're talking to a utilitarian, but otherwise it's useless.
 
Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I'm quite happy for you to hold whatever view you wish on this issue, and to live your life to that belief. When you try and impose those views on others who differ with you and do not share your belief, that is another matter.
Which is what has happened here.

Actually, you do not seem to be happy about anybody holding opinions other than your own. Further, you try and impose your beliefs on others as much as anyone else.

[rhetorical question]How about letting up a bit? [/rhetorical question]
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
If it had not already occurred to me that Mersey Mike and Jesuitical Lad were male and that neither was a parent, I would be sure of it after this exchange. If only they would use what sympathetic imagination they have just a bit more!

Now I am beginning to wonder if in fact they are live-in partners who like to spar in public.

And, Melonman, I sincerely doubt your story of two child-bearing 8 year-olds in the UK this year. It would have certainly transmigrated from your sleazy French tabloid to one of the inside pages of my Torygraph.
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Amos:
Now I am beginning to wonder if in fact they are live-in partners who like to spar in public.

[Eek!]
 
Posted by Stephen (# 40) on :
 
You mean the neighbours have complained? [Two face] [Snigger]
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I haven't seen a photo, so I don't know if he's my type or not ! [Devil]
 
Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 
I have decided to bail out of this thread. It is simply sliding downhill at an unsafe speed. [Roll Eyes] [Eek!]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Daisymay,

I understand what you're saying. But the assumption in your account is that the unborn child has no right to live, and can be dispensed with when circumstances make its continued existence an inconvenience. Pro-life people don't accept that - they hold the unborn child to be a person with all the value that any other person has, albeit in a more vulnerable state.

Jl,
I did not say anything about "inconvenience" This is not about the unborn being "an inconvenience" - this is about making a decision to save another child from great horror and trauma. What makes you use that word? Do you think a little girl of nine is merely "inconvenienced" by being raped and made pregnant?

The unborn is even less aware of what's going on than the child who was raped. If you believe the unborn is a whole human being then they will be straight off into the arms of the Father. The abortion option is the least of several evils - and the sooner the better. A decision should have been taken asap to do the abortion.

Dr. Helen Roseveare who was a missionary doctor in the Congo records in her diary the necessity of killing a baby to save the life of the mother in childbirth. She hated doing it, felt awful. But she did it to save a physical life.

This pregnant child is in danger physically and emotionally and intellectually. She needs rescuing from what is in store for her.

And I neither assumed nor said that the unborn had no right to live. However, sometimes one freedom or right impinges upon another. The choice here is to save the girl, and I do not believe that can be done by deliberately abusing her further.
 
Posted by kittylou (# 4036) on :
 
Just an observation...I am curious as to why some folks seem to believe that life and the rights of the unborn child are more important than those of the already-born child.
 
Posted by Siegfried (# 29) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
You really are a pompous ass, JL.

If God is Truth, and I think someone is in error - and the person whom I consider to be in error says their views will never change - then I look to him as the solution to the problem.

Doesn't seem that pompous to me. I think saying your opinions on something will never change is fairly pompous, but I'd better not get into that.

Presuming that your opinion on a subject is God's view, where Christians obviously disagree, that is pompous. And tossing a Bible verse at someone that way is as well.
quote:

quote:
And your aside after your .sig reads to me as saying you're only this discussion because of a personal issue with MerseyMike.
Which is why I posted on this thread before MM even turned up.

[Roll Eyes]

Interesting that the comment is now missing. Changed your signature did you?
quote:

quote:
Not the best reason, but then, your arguments are also not the best quality, so I suppose it's a wash.
This is Hell. I was expressing an opinion contrary to that of the OP, not mounting a philosophical defence of the pro-life position. When I do the latter, I'll be sure to PM you.
Oh please do! I can hardly wait. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
The unborn is even less aware of what's going on than the child who was raped. If you believe the unborn is a whole human being then they will be straight off into the arms of the Father. The abortion option is the least of several evils - and the sooner the better. A decision should have been taken asap to do the abortion.

So if someone's definitely going to Heaven, their life is more expendible? "Blessed assurance" suddenly sounds rather unfortunate - better let the Protestants know.

Anyway, I'm not sure it will go straight off into the arms of the Father. It's an opinion, but not necessarily a correct one - especially in light of Jesus' words about the necessity of baptism.

quote:
Dr. Helen Roseveare who was a missionary doctor in the Congo records in her diary the necessity of killing a baby to save the life of the mother in childbirth. She hated doing it, felt awful. But she did it to save a physical life.
Thank God she felt awful; at least she's retained certain basic impulses with regard to the immorality of murder.

quote:
This pregnant child is in danger physically and emotionally and intellectually. She needs rescuing from what is in store for her.
The time for rescues is gone. To force her to undergo an abortion would entail the killing of an innocent, the traumatising of a young girl, and various other forms of endangerment to the girl's future health.

quote:
And I neither assumed nor said that the unborn had no right to live. However, sometimes one freedom or right impinges upon another. The choice here is to save the girl, and I do not believe that can be done by deliberately abusing her further.
I agree. Save the girl. But don't do it by killing her unborn child, and abusing her further by making her a secondary victim of an abortion.

Oh, and Merseymike, could you put the kettle on? I'm dying for a cup of tea.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
Presuming that your opinion on a subject is God's view, where Christians obviously disagree, that is pompous. And tossing a Bible verse at someone that way is as well.

One of the reasons I hold the opinion is because I think it is in accordance with God's will. So it's not really a presumption. If you want to add "IMO" to the start of every sentence I type, feel free. But I think it's fairly obvious where I'm speaking my opinion as opposed, say, to Merseymike's.

There have been Christians endorsing atrocities since the start of Christianity. I'm not going to sit back and say "oh dear, there seems to be a divergence of opinion, it would be pompous to assume that God doesn't actually rather like the idea of X, Y and Z."

quote:
Interesting that the comment is now missing. Changed your signature did you?
No, a horde of ninja fairies invaded my profile and replaced my previous signature with something more palatable.

Seriously, I changed the signature for two reasons:

1. It was petty.
2. I don't want people to assume I'm a member of Opus Dei.

Not that changing my signature had anything to do with whether or not your original allegation about me wanting a tiff with Merseymike was true. It remains untrue.

quote:
Oh please do! I can hardly wait. [Roll Eyes]
I will do.
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
Has anyone read Sherri Tepper's The Fresco, in which a number of men are made pregnant by kindly aliens who choose them as hosts because they are so pro-life? They scream blue murder because they claim they have been raped and thus should be allowed to abort.

Now admittedly this is propaganda of a particularly blatant kind, but you chaps, JL and MM, please consider your positions in light of such a situation. What if it was your body? And don't tell me it's an impossible situation - it's very personal for the person in the situation.

I can only say that I support women's rights to abortion in general, but I'd be very hesitant to have an abortion. But then I've never been raped or faced the possibility of a severely disabled child. Neither do I have a husband who refuses any kind of contraception in a situation where I already have seven children. These are real life situations for people here in NZ, and I'm presuming that its pretty much the same in most developed countries. And JL, adoption is considered to be as bad as abortion by some.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
JL:
quote:
So if someone's definitely going to Heaven, their life is more expendible? "
No, but I thought you might believe that and it might make you feel better. My take on God is that he would have open arms.

quote:
Thank God she felt awful; at least she's retained certain basic impulses with regard to the immorality of murder.
If she hadn't done it, both would have died, so she would have been responsible for the mother's death. No-one in the caring professions enjoys having to make such decisions and carry them out. Such things have to be done. And it was not murder.

quote:
The time for rescues is gone. To force her to undergo an abortion would entail the killing of an innocent, the traumatising of a young girl, and various other forms of endangerment to the girl's future health.

I do know about all that stuff - I work in the post-abortion field. However, we are talking about a child here and the lesser trauma would be the abortion. Her future health is already endangered. She is already traumatised. An abortion is a safer option.

We are talking about a child who had no choice about the rape or the pregnancy. I would hope that in the future, there would be sensible people on hand to explain why it was necessary to do the abortion. There is no reason for her to feel any guilt and proper care can help her to avoid that.

kitylou said:
quote:
Just an observation...I am curious as to why some folks seem to believe that life and the rights of the unborn child are more important than those of the already-born child.
Any answer to that?
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Arabella,

I hope I wouldn't want to abort if I were in those circumstances. Frankly, though, whether or not I would want to abort is entirely irrelevant. If I were a sociopath, I might want to go on a blood-drenched rampage. But it would still be wrong, regardless of my wishes - since I'd be working under incorrect assumptions about the worthlessness of human life.

Those who consider adoption as bad as abortion are, frankly, fools.

Daisymay,

The missionary would not have been responsible for the mother's death, unless she engineered the situation in the first place. As for the rights issue - perhaps the language of rights isn't helpful. I think the pro-life position can be summarised thus:

1. The deliberate killing of an innocent is always wrong, and there are no circumstances which would justify resorting to such a wrong.
2. Abortion constitutes the deliberate killing of an innocent.
3. Abortion can never be justified.

This applies even in those tragic cases where the chances are that both lives will be lost. The situation must be accepted "as is", without recourse to immoral pseudo-remedies.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
If that's the "pro-life stance" then they are several planks short of a floor.

Sounds like rigid fundamentalism rather than intelligent thought process.

That's the kind of idea that persistently fosters abuse of human beings.

It is totally separate from real, grounded life, just up in the air theory from idiots who don't get into real situations. No true practical compassion.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
I thought we were having a sensible discussion. Apparently not.

Love you too, dear.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
A "sensible discussion" that still hasn't impacted enough on you about the vulnerability and preciousness of the raped child. So I'm getting furious because she is not ready to have a child and you don't seem to understand it.

Most pro-lifers I know would find some flexibilty to allow them to save a little girl from such pain, even if it meant them taking responsibility for doing something they regarded as wrong, because not to do it would create a greater wrong.

Couldn't you bear the burden of guilt to help her?

Again, do you realise how young, small and vulnerable this pregnant child is?

I have friends who were married at fourteen and pregnant immediately. They all say they were too immature to have a baby. It was shocking to them even within their culture.

This is a child who has been raped and made pregnant. God never IMO expects children to bear children. Their bodies, minds and psyches are not ready for this.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
I hereby nominate Merseymike and Jesuitical Lad for the title of Ship's Biggest Pains in the ______. (Shipmates can choose which part of the anatomy is most appropriate.)

You two are making it extremely difficult for other shipmates to discuss this topic.

Please start a thread of your own where you can fight it out. With luck, neither of you will survive.

Moo
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
This applies even in those tragic cases where the chances are that both lives will be lost. The situation must be accepted "as is", without recourse to immoral pseudo-remedies.

Holy crap. That's possibly the scariest thing I've ever read here.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
an innocent
Here's the crux of JL's argument, pick a crappy emotive term for a 12 week unborn baby and take it from there.

The term is meaningless when applied to things which are basically non-sentient.

To apply it to a 12 week pregnancy and say that that makes the unborn potential child more important than the prodigious suffering of a nine year old actual child carrying it, is just crap and double speak.

Your mileage may vary, but I'm not impressed. This sort of thing just ends up making pro-life advocates seem as dopey and fanatical as the animal rights idiots who think planting incendiary bombs is justified in the cause of their 'innocent' lab rats. A pox on all your houses.

L.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Arabella : I'm a bit disturbed that you seem to be bracketing me alongside JL. I do not support the anti-abortion movement. Like most people, I support alternatives to abortion, but I believe in the legal availability of abortion. JL thoroughly disagrees with me on this matter.

However, in this instance we are talking about a nine year old child, which I think casts a particular light on the matter at hand - JL doesn't think this is a significant factor.
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
Laura and Daisymay,

Jesuitical Lad was correct in his statement of the pro-life position. What frightens you about this? Our consistency in logic? Consider what we believe about the life of the unborn child. His statement logically follows from that belief. It is not compassionless. Sometimes it must be accepted that there is no right path, there is nothing we can do. The case of both the lives of the mother and child being threatened is a situation which, following our reasoning, nothing can be done about. You simply cannot murder a person to save another person.

(Please do not be like Merseymike and shout out "it's not a person" because that is unlikely to have any effect--it's just as bad as the pro-lifers who scream "it's a child" over and over and never say anything else. Yes, I know I sometimes do this too, but I'm working on it.)

We do care about the life and mental health of this poor girl, but with what we believe about the baby she carries, we cannot in good conscience give one preference over the other. You say that not to perform an abortion is to prefer the life of the baby to life of the girl, and we say that to perform an abortion is to prefer the life of the girl to the life of the baby. My conclusion is that there is no good solution, and we should pray that everything comes out as well as is possible.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Frankly, though, whether or not I would want to abort is entirely irrelevant. If I were a sociopath, I might want to go on a blood-drenched rampage. But it would still be wrong, regardless of my wishes - since I'd be working under incorrect assumptions about the worthlessness of human life.

I do not know why I even have followed this thread, with how irate your arrogance (and Merseymike's responses) have made me. This statement was the one that made me want to shout "Enough!!!" Defend the pro-life position all you want, to to the gates of hell for it if you wish, but (and you are far too intelligent for me to assume that this was not deliberate) knowing your fellow Christians disagree with you and thereby classing them with sociopaths by implication is a disgrace.

I recall your mentioning that you are not a Jesuit - but, considering your 'name,' do you want to be a priest? What sort of effect do you think you would have on people, making statements of this type - classing those who are torn at the thought of a little child who has been faced with horrible trauma now facing childbirth with the likes of Jack the Ripper?! I am not suggesting you compromise your beliefs, but you will send people running away not only from yourself but possibly from Christ's Church (and, yes, I know I define that differently than you would) if you continue to act like a self-righteous street fighter. And, to top it off, you give others the idea that, were an unbaptised child to die, God would not welcome the child to intimacy with him!

Anger, calumny, whatever, can all too easily masquerade as zeal. When you first began posting on these boards, I was very impressed by your knowledge, historical perspective, and inclination towards scholarship. But, quite frankly, much of what has followed recently sounds like a hate fest - and it seems very far from Jesus of Nazareth. If you believe someone is in sin or error, certainly pray for him - but one is in dangerous waters indeed when one thinks, let alone says, that others would agree with oneself if one could only see the light (or anything to that effect.)

This is not any apologia - but is a brief explanation before JL's postings give the impression that moral theologians who have debated matters such as this treated them with such arrogance and pomposity. Especially in the days when Caesarian sections could not be done in emergencies, one standard procedure to save the life of the mother was that the baby's skull (wedged in the birth canal) would be crushed. The moralists' position was that, if one died as the result of childbirth, it would be a natural death - where, if the child's skull were deliberately crushed, it would be a murder. (And I'm sure that they had enough pastoral experience to realise that most fathers, faced with that decision, were more worried about a living wife and mother than a dead baby. I'm not saying that to be cruel - I'm just reminding you that all the dogma on earth is worthless without pastoral sensitivity.)

I hope everyone will excuse my going on in this fashion. It is by no means my habit to reprove others, but this was an absolute disgrace.
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
I’m fascinated with the focus on the idea of “innocence” in the whole equation.

Surely sinfulness is part and parcel of being human. Maybe if I were fascinated with theoretical concerns, I could concoct a seemingly logical argument that if a human life is truly “innocent” it is therefore not human, since “it is written” that all have sinned.

JLs views make me shudder.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I'm sorry if I offended you, Newman. JL's views made me angry, and I should not have responded in a flippant way, I think I found it hard to countenance what he was saying.

Apologies.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I do not know why I even have followed this thread, with how irate your arrogance (and Merseymike's responses) have made me. This statement was the one that made me want to shout "Enough!!!" Defend the pro-life position all you want, to to the gates of hell for it if you wish, but (and you are far too intelligent for me to assume that this was not deliberate) knowing your fellow Christians disagree with you and thereby classing them with sociopaths by implication is a disgrace.

Although we disagree on a lot of issues all over the place, and I know my tact in recent posts has been rather limited, I really do think you missed my point here. I promise you I was NOT trying to imply that pro-choice Christians belong in the same bracket as sociopaths. What I was trying to show is that a person's wishes with regard to a particular scenario are entirely irrelevant to the morality of the situation; the sociopath was just the first example that popped into my head. I would say they belong in different categories, because as far as I can see pro-choice Christians are speaking from a position of ignorance with regard to the status of the unborn, or a failure to consistently apply certain principles they might otherwise hold, whereas the sociopath is operating from wishes arising from mental disorder. Once again, I assure you that it was not my intention to imply a connection between sociopathology and pro-choice Christianity.

quote:
I recall your mentioning that you are not a Jesuit - but, considering your 'name,' do you want to be a priest? What sort of effect do you think you would have on people, making statements of this type - classing those who are torn at the thought of a little child who has been faced with horrible trauma now facing childbirth with the likes of Jack the Ripper?!
Like I said, that was never my intention.

quote:
I am not suggesting you compromise your beliefs, but you will send people running away not only from yourself but possibly from Christ's Church (and, yes, I know I define that differently than you would) if you continue to act like a self-righteous street fighter. And, to top it off, you give others the idea that, were an unbaptised child to die, God would not welcome the child to intimacy with him!
I did not give that idea. I simply pointed out that I'm not sure that the fate of unbaptised children is a settled matter; if it is settled, I'm not sure it's settled in favour of the idea that God welcomes them to his intimacy.

quote:
Anger, calumny, whatever, can all too easily If you believe someone is in sin or error, certainly pray for him - but one is in dangerous waters indeed when one thinks, let alone says, that others would agree with oneself if one could only see the light (or anything to that effect.)
But don't we think this about non-Christians all the time? I would not hold the beliefs that I do if I did not think they were true.

quote:
This is not any apologia - but is a brief explanation before JL's postings give the impression that moral theologians who have debated matters such as this treated them with such arrogance and pomposity.
I'm sorry for the arrogance and pomposity.

quote:
Especially in the days when Caesarian sections could not be done in emergencies, one standard procedure to save the life of the mother was that the baby's skull (wedged in the birth canal) would be crushed. The moralists' position was that, if one died as the result of childbirth, it would be a natural death - where, if the child's skull were deliberately crushed, it would be a murder. (And I'm sure that they had enough pastoral experience to realise that most fathers, faced with that decision, were more worried about a living wife and mother than a dead baby. I'm not saying that to be cruel - I'm just reminding you that all the dogma on earth is worthless without pastoral sensitivity.)
Agreed. But pastoral sensitivity entails combining truth with comfort. Not buckling to the clouded judgment of those who are directly involved in the situation, and may fail to recognise the principles involved. (In the example you cite, the moralists were, I think, right.)

quote:
I hope everyone will excuse my going on in this fashion. It is by no means my habit to reprove others, but this was an absolute disgrace.
I agree that some of my posts in this thread have had an almost zero charity quotient. The fact that I find pro-choice Christianity very difficult to deal with explains why, but it doesn't excuse those posts. For them, I apologise - and a special apology to Merseymike for hurling abuse at him, however repugnant his views on certain issues may strike me as being. I didn't mean the sociopath example to be seen as implying any parallel, but if sloppy wording or phrasing - or a culpable failure to think about how it would come across to others - led it to then I'm sorry for that too.

Louise,

I don't see what murderous animal rights campaigners have to do with this. I haven't recommended the deliberate taking of life anywhere in this thread - rather, I've argued against it.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
[JARRING CHORD]

[The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain [Laudate Dominum] enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles [Jesuitical Lad] has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang [a recently suspended poster] is just Cardinal Fang.

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Pro-life Inquisition! Our chief weapon is logic!...logic and consistency ...consistency and logic.... Our two weapons are logic and consistency...and a total lack of compassion.... dammit! Our *three* weapons are logic, consistency, and a total lack of compassion...and an almost fanatical devotion to 12 week fetuses as opposed to nine year old girls.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as logic, consistency.... I'll come in again.

[The cardinals burst in again]

Ximinez: NOBODY expects the Pro-Life Inquisition! Amongst our weaponry are such diverse elements as: logic, consistency, a total lack of compassion, an almost fanatical devotion to the fetus, and nice red uniforms - Oh damn!

[the strange moaning and knocking sound is everyone else on the thread banging their heads repeatedly off their keyboards and wailing aloud]
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laudate Dominum:
Laura and Daisymay,

Jesuitical Lad was correct in his statement of the pro-life position. What frightens you about this? Our consistency in logic? Consider what we believe about the life of the unborn child. His statement logically follows from that belief. It is not compassionless. Sometimes it must be accepted that there is no right path, there is nothing we can do. The case of both the lives of the mother and child being threatened is a situation which, following our reasoning, nothing can be done about. You simply cannot murder a person to save another person.

Not "the consistency of logic" but the refusal to sully yourselves with the necessary painful duty of making a decision and carrying it out to make a horrible position a bit less horrible.

And to call choosing between a mother and child in order to save one "murder" is ridiculous. There is no vindictiveness to the unborn, just the necessity of helping the little girl - and it is a necessity.

Unless you are willing to help her, you are not showing compassion. You are sticking rigidly by rules.

As to praying that things will work out as well as possible, that is avoiding the responsibility we have to actively protect children.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
JL,
quote:
as far as I can see pro-choice Christians are speaking from a position of ignorance with regard to the status of the unborn, or a failure to consistently apply certain principles they might otherwise hold, whereas the sociopath is operating from wishes arising from mental disorder. Once again, I assure you that it was not my intention to imply a connection between sociopathology and pro-choice Christianity.

What makes you think we are speaking in ignorance (and what makes you think we are pro-choice?) It is perfectly possible to believe an unborn baby is a human being and make a compassionate choice to sacrifice that life because it is necessary to save another's.

And if you're still worried about whether God will accept the aborted one, then a quick baptism through the belly of the child carrying him/her would be in order. God does not work to rigid rules. God works through compassion.

There are all sorts of things wrong in this world, and we are, as gracia said, none of us innocent. But we are supposed to work to improve people's lives, not avoid helping in case we dirty our hands.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
It seems to me that many "pro-life" people have a fundamental problem with how the world really is. Some seem to live in a state of denial that death exists, and worse seem to elevate the importance of some insensate clusters of cells with human DNA to ridiculous levels.
 
Posted by Gracia (# 1812) on :
 
from JL:
quote:

Not buckling to the clouded judgment of those directly involved in the situation , and may fail to recognise the principles involved. (In the example you cite, the moralists were, I think, right.)

the moralists JL refers to think they have the right to take away from the parties directly involved (father & mother) the right to decide to save the mother's life - even if that means taking the life of a fetus or baby.

JL, I happen to be directly involved in every single decision i make - who should i get to make my decisions for me, since my vision is inevitably clouded??? Because it's very important to me that i always make, the ONE, RIGHT choice!

Words fail me, they really do. I don't know what world you live in - don't existing lives and relationships take precedence over your vaunted principles?
What good is a principle, if it doesn't value existing human lives and relationships and dignity?
And Louise, did you think you were being rhetorical when you mentioned shipmates letting out a moan???? That's exactly what i did when i read the words i quoted above.
I am in a state of shock, I really am.
 
Posted by Zeke (# 3271) on :
 
Sure, sure, let 'em both die, it would be the will of God, wouldn't it? How could we presume to interfere?
[Mad]
 
Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
[JARRING CHORD]

[The door flies open and Cardinal Ximinez of Spain [Laudate Dominum] enters, flanked by two junior cardinals. Cardinal Biggles [Jesuitical Lad] has goggles pushed over his forehead. Cardinal Fang [a recently suspended poster] is just Cardinal Fang. <snip>

[Not worthy!] [Killing me] [Not worthy!] [Killing me] [Snigger]

Laura, kudos to you for one of the funniest posts I've ever read! Woohoo!

I think this post is hilarious. [Killing me] (Totally wrong about the pro-life position, of course, but hilarious nonetheless.)
 
Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Louise:
[JARRING CHORD]
NOBODY expects the Pro-life Inquisition! Our chief weapon is logic!...logic and consistency ...consistency and logic.... Our two weapons are logic and consistency...and a total lack of compassion.... dammit! Our *three* weapons are logic, consistency, and a total lack of compassion...and an almost fanatical devotion to 12 week fetuses as opposed to nine year old girls....

[Not worthy!] That was great! And very true, I think.
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
Louise, I appreciate your sense of humor--I love Monty Python.

But I dare you to come tell me I have a total lack of compassion. Tell me this when I am playing piano for my friends at the nursing home and answering the same questions I answered last week, because they don't remember they asked them. Tell me this when I am reading Scripture with kids my own age who are in juvenile hall. Tell me I have no compassion when I am helping to organize a 24-hour fast to raise money to buy food for people who are starving.

The pro-life group I belong to here does most of their work in helping single mothers to care for their children. We raise money, organize donations of clothing and baby items, and babysit for some of the students and professors here who are single parents. I dare you to come here and tell me to my face that I have no compassion.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Well fine, and I dare JL or anyone else to say that my position in favor of legal access to abortion is not well-thought-out. Bloody hell. I just disagree with you. If my nine year-old daughter were pregnant, I'd fly her anywhere necessary to have that abortion -- it's simply not open to debate. Further, I'd give her no say in it whatsoever. As a parent, my obligation would be clear. That obligation is to do my best to ensure the health and well-being of my child.

But then, as I've said elsewhere, I believe the fetus is a human being with no rights at all as against a born being. I don't understand the so-called pro-life position that says no abortion if the mother would die at all. Catholic theologians have justified war, and justified killing in self-defense. What's the difference?
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
Laura, your position is well-thought-out. So is mine. We started from different premises, that's all. And I think the thread for that discussion is in Purgatory.
 
Posted by The Mid (# 1559) on :
 
I wonder what JL would do if he had a nine year old daughter who was raped and impregnated. Would you keep the baby and live with it - a constant reminder of the brutality and horror and consequences of rape, or would you come down off your high horse and use a bit of common sense? I wonder how your sick disgusting views would hold up then?

You never ever want to wish something like this on someone, but in this case I almost do....
 
Posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom (# 3434) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Those who consider adoption as bad as abortion are, frankly, fools.

Are you adopted? There was a huge stink in mental health circles a few years ago regarding adoption, with the end result that adoption is hardly recommended any more in NZ. The trauma experienced by adoptees was considered to be too great.

That said, I personally would agree that adoption is a better option than abortion, and in many cases it does work out. But in a system where children are bringing up children because the state thinks it's better for them than having older, more settled parents, abortion is often more of a sensible option for those pregnant teenagers or overstressed wives of arrogant fathers who think the number of children they have is a great reflection on their virility.
 
Posted by Gracie (# 3870) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Laudate Dominum:
Sometimes it must be accepted that there is no right path, there is nothing we can do. The case of both the lives of the mother and child being threatened is a situation which, following our reasoning, nothing can be done about. You simply cannot murder a person to save another person...
We do care about the life and mental health of this poor girl, but with what we believe about the baby she carries, we cannot in good conscience give one preference over the other. You say that not to perform an abortion is to prefer the life of the baby to life of the girl, and we say that to perform an abortion is to prefer the life of the girl to the life of the baby. My conclusion is that there is no good solution, and we should pray that everything comes out as well as is possible.

LD and JL both seem to think that it's wrong to choose to save one life over another, when in fact if the life of a pregnant mother is in danger, the lives of both the mother and the unborn baby will be lost. It seems to me that sometimes difficult choices have to be made to minimise loss of life. For example, after serious accidents or disasters, I think that triage is done to decide which patients are going to receive priority and be treated and therefore live. Others die who if they had suffered similar injuries in another context would have been saved.

Laudate Dominum and Jesuitical Lad, can you see any situation where you might choose to save one life rather than lose them all?

Gracie
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Louise....Superb post earlier..all I can say in response is "NI NI NI!!!!!!!" [Not worthy!]

Mike said:
quote:
What is warped is anti-abortionism and those who value a clump of cells as much as a nine year old child.
A theme in many of Mike's posts on this subject is his "clump of cells" argument. The problem with it is that surely the 9 year old girl (or any of us) is just a "clump of cells"?? Sure, she's a bigger clump.

Now, of course, I understand what Mike is getting at, but I think he believes something to be very simple which is in fact not. If one starts to pin him down on what emergent quality of being raises an entity from "clump of cells" he will have trouble explaining it. I predict he will, because no philosopher since Decarte attempted to define man from beast has come up with a satisfactory separation.

quote:
I don't believe that rights shouuld be afforded to humans until birth. That does not mean that we do not have some responsibility to the foetus, but I do not believe that it is life unless it can breathe unaided.
This will cause some head scratching amongst ethicists Mike. It's an axiom of ethics that if X has a responsibility to Y, then Y has a reciprocating expectation of responsibilty from X...commonly called a "right".

quote:
Before you ask, no, I'm not in favour of keeping premature babies alive at all costs. Sometimes - usually - it may be best to let them go.
I find it strange how certain people on this board can chuck out a statement like this with profound ethical and moral consequences for all of us and the same group of people who would normally be throwing their hands up in horror about "inhumanity" can fail to bat an eyelid at this comment.

Mike, would you like to come down to the Special Care Baby Unit at my hospital with me, and explain to the parents in there, explain to the dedicated doctors and nurses there (SCBU staff are by far the most dedicated of any hospital staff I have ever met), explain to them why, if you had your way, you'd pull the plug on the department?

Louise said:
quote:
The term is meaningless when applied to things which are basically non-sentient.
Again, we have this same fallicy creeping in. The idea that sentience and conciousness (the two are different) can be easily determined is profoundly flawed.

No doubt Louise is being sucked in by the "clump of cells" idea, unfortunately there is no philosophical weight behind the idea that complexity is in any way a correlation to sentience.

For example, few philosophers believe that computers will ever be sentient. They may come to mimick humans perfectly, but in reality they will be "dark inside".

My wrist watch is a dumb beast, So is a Cray supercomputer. No amount of adding additional transistors or components will ever make computers sentient, because sentience is a qualitatively different property, not a quantatitvely different one.

Hence, to believe that sentience is a property that arises out of the developing complexity of a fetus, while it is a superficially attractive idea, is in fact extremely doubtful.

Finally, on the whole question of "God's will" in all this, I assume that where ever we are on the Christian spectrum we would all agree we want to see God's will done?

I would also assume that nearly all of us believe a human being has both a physical aspect and a Spiritual aspect to their being (a soul)?

Now, we are all aware that the physical aspect of creation of a new life may very well lie outside of God's control. Two people may have sexual intercourse that God did not intend, and that intercourse may lead to the physical fertilisation of an ovum with a sperm.

However, as Christians, we presumably all believe that somewhere along the line (Whether at conception, implantation, development or Birth) an additional, God ordained act of "ensoulment" occurs (or "Spiritual fertilization" if you will).

Now, while in the case of the first type of fertilisation, this may or may not be God's will, (because God does not deterministically control every physical event), the second act is surely entirely under God's control??

Given that an act of physical fertilisation has occurred, presumably, whether or not God spiritually fertilizes that zygote is entirely in his hands?

If every act of physical fertilisation led to an ensouled being, then one might argue that for some reason God was compelled to perform a Spiritual act of ensoulment once a physical act of fertilization had taken place, (even though I can see no good reason for this).

However, we know that is not the case because such a thing as natural miscarriage and failed implantation can occur.

This leads me to the conclusion that the act of ensoulment must surely be entirely in God's hands as to whether he performs it or not? If he doesn't want to, then presumably the zygote/fetus will miscarry (hence no need for an abortion) and if he does, then who are we to interfere?

This is not at all the same thing as arguing that in the general case we shouldn't intervene in any situation because "God's will be done". In general day to day events, God presumably cannot always directly intervene without damaging the continuity of physical cause and effect.

However, in the case of conception of an ensouled human being, it seems to me we have an entirely supernatural element (if you like, Miraculous act) occurring in every case. Every act of creation of an ensouled human being requires an intervention into the natural cause/effect paradigm by God.

It seems fairly straightforward, that if human beigns are what we are because we are not merely flesh and blood animals, but in fact have a soul, that at some point, an entirely supernatural, wholly God ordained, event took place and that the physical act of conception no more forces that event to occur than any other physical act can force a particular miracle to occur against God's will. Hence any time it does occur, it must be because God intended it.

matt
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
So God oredained a nine year old to become pregnant, Matt.
Funny sort of God. There are plenty of things which happen which have nothing directly to do with God ; one of the best things I ever realised was that the view of a God which directs and controls everyday life is a myth and all evidence confounds it.

I should clarify that I was referring to premature babies who have little chance of either recovery or good health if kept alive at all costs. I do have some personal connection with this ; which I can't really talk about here, but my conclusions are, as you would expect, very different to yours.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
You can all celebrate now.

God help the children.
 
Posted by coffee jim (# 3510) on :
 
Don't think anyone's celebrating, JL, although I for one am relieved.
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
Jesuitical Lad, I have a question for you.

What do you think would have happened to the soul of the unborn child if the girl had died during the pregnancy because her body couldn't handle it?

Moo
 
Posted by Arch- (# 982) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
You can all celebrate now.

God help the children.

The fact that you can speak of celebrating about anything to do with this absolutely tragic event and the fact that you believe those with whom you disagree are celebrating, makes me sad, bewildered and ultimately completely unable to understand your perspective or even wish to understand it. God help us if this is the kind of dialogue that purports to be an honest and respectful exchange of christian views. [Disappointed] [Disappointed] [Disappointed]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Arch,

Those who thought abortion in this case was a moral imperative will surely be glad to see that it has been carried out. And to be lectured on tone, after someone saw fit to turn this thread into a Monty Python pastiche, is truly bewildering.

You can [Disappointed] all you want.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
Jesuitical Lad, I have a question for you.

What do you think would have happened to the soul of the unborn child if the girl had died during the pregnancy because her body couldn't handle it?

Moo

I don't know.
 
Posted by Tom Day (# 3630) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
Arch,

Those who thought abortion in this case was a moral imperative will surely be glad to see that it has been carried out. And to be lectured on tone, after someone saw fit to turn this thread into a Monty Python pastiche, is truly bewildering.

You can [Disappointed] all you want.

People were not, at the beginning, trying to turn this into a moral debate - there are two of those going on at the moment in Purg. Abortion was not a moral imperative - it was a necessary option to save the life of an innocent girl.

Noone will be celebrating the fact that there had to be an abortion - however, as that news report said the girl is fine, and people will be happy she has surived the ordeal.

The girls life has been saved, and yes, she will be scarred for life because of what happened - so noone will celebrate that.

I think, as christians, whatever our viewpoint, our moral and spiritual imerative is to pray for the girl and the girls family.

Tom
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Well, I'm celebrating that there were three doctors with the guts skill and compassion to take the initiative to help the girl. And that her parents were wise and strong enough to keep asking for that help. And for the people with banners who were supporting them to get it.
 
Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
I hardly think anyone's celebrating. But I'm just relieved. Somewhat. It's not over for her by any stretch of the imagination, but at least now she won't have to go through a life-threatening labor at nine years old.
 
Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
You can all celebrate now.

God help the children.

JL,

That's a truly crappy thing to say. Have you been listening to the emotional content of this thread AT ALL??!!!

In 1997 my niece was hospitalized for a period of about 20 days. She had one heart attack while in the hospital, and was throwing clots into her lungs one after another. As it turns out, she has a somewhat rare blood disorder. When she became pregnant whe went into a medical crisis. It was a near thing, and we almost lost her. Medical opinion was that the pregnancy would kill her. Reluctantly, she consented to an abortion. After the pregnancy was terminated, her system stabilized, and a few days later she was able to be discharged from hospital.

There was no celebration, JL. She and her husband had been trying for years to conceive. My niece grieved for months.

Personally, I am grateful that she is alive and has been able to adopt a little girl and enjoy the family life she has always wanted.

So think what you will, JL, but don't be shocked at the lack of sympathy for your tone of arrogance.

Lou
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Lou,

Is it really?

quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Well, I'm celebrating that there were three doctors with the guts skill and compassion to take the initiative to help the girl. And that her parents were wise and strong enough to keep asking for that help. And for the people with banners who were supporting them to get it.

Since the OP's story has now come to its conclusion, I'm not sure there's much else left to say.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Other than that common sense has prevailed, and the militant anti-abortion lobby has revealed itself in its true colours on here,perhaps not.
 
Posted by melonman (# 4038) on :
 
Believe it or not, I actually feel less in favour of abortion at the end of this discussion than at the beginning.

At the start, I was working on the basis that the anti-abortionists had an inflexible and legalistic approach to pastoral decisions, and the discussion appears to have borne this out.

What I wasn't expecting was so many people talking as if abortion is some kind of life-enriching experience and/or something that must be practised at all costs. I always thought that the opposite to pro-life was pro-choice, not pro-abortion, but now I'm not so sure [Confused] .

I don't know if JL has a young daughter, but I do, and I spent a while thinking about what we would do if our family was faced with this situation. And, while the arguments for an abortion carry a lot of weight, and would prove decisive if my daughter's long-term health was in danger, I think we would at least look at the option of keeping the baby. Sure, that would mean that we couldn't forget what had happened (like the child in question is really going to forget anyway), but, equally, I think any 9 year-old is going to understand what abortion means, and that isn't a great thing to live with either.

I suspect that, long term, the hardest thing to live with would be the reactions of ideologues from both ends, the pro-lifers who are more comfortable with the theory of valuing life than with the practice of dealing with 9 year-old motherhood, and the pro-choicers who, in practice, seem to consider that only one choice is valid.

The gospel is about grace. It seems to me that 'grace' is quite close to 'inconsistent' in meaning. People who can boil human tragedy down to a simple black and white statement worry me, whether or not I happen to agree with their conclusions.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
You can all celebrate now.

God help the children.

There was never anything to celebrate here, whichever way the decision went.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Melonman,
I have not been arguing pro-abortion. I have been arguing against the idea that abortion is never right, never to be considered, never is the least of two evils. It is not something I reckon should be done at all costs without serious thought.

I do not believe that we are to live our lives by a set of rigid, immoveable rules. Nor are we to force others to do so. That is a distortion of truth and justice.

This was about a little girl and her parents who were being controlled and not given a choice, in appalling circumstances.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
jedijudy,
quote:
That poor little girl. That nasty, hormone-controlled filthy scumbag of a rapist needs to be taken care of the way Seminole Indian women take care of that kind of worm-ridden filth.
Let me do it.

What would they do? I might like to help.
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by melonman:
What I wasn't expecting was so many people talking as if abortion is some kind of life-enriching experience and/or something that must be practised at all costs. I always thought that the opposite to pro-life was pro-choice, not pro-abortion, but now I'm not so sure [Confused] .

Point out one post on this thread that portrayed abortion as a life-enriching experience. Point out one post that claimed abortion must be practiced at all costs.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Thanks, Ruth, I meant to pick that up, too. Noone here has said that abortion is life-enriching. What ridiculous nonsense. Further, as someone who supports legal access to abortion, I can see where it's gotten out of hand, in countries where it has become the primary method of birth control. Apparently, as jusr reported in the Washington Post, many Russian women are finding themselves sterile from repeated abortions, and Russia's birth rate is suffering. In Russia's case, this has to do with crappy birth control and the way the Church and the State have handled the issue made the situation worse. Russians feel abortion's complications
 
Posted by Fen (# 4052) on :
 
quote:
The Mid:
a constant reminder of the brutality and horror and consequences of rape

Or a constant reminder of how God can actually bring life and goodness out of the most utterly screwed-up circumstances? But there's no chance of that happening now.

This girl will be scarred for life by that brutality and horror anyway. Or will she?

quote:
From the BBC article:
"She is happy. She is in an excellent state of health. (The parents) are very happy also to have this situation resolved."

It's just so much neater and nicer and tidier now she's not pregnant anymore, isn't it? We don't have to worry about it, and that's good.

Wow, abortion is so great! I can't believe I ever thought it was a bad idea!

[Mad]
 
Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
Other than that common sense has prevailed, and the militant anti-abortion lobby has revealed itself in its true colours on here,perhaps not.

You're a piece of work, MM. You never stop twisting the knife, do you?
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
So God oredained a nine year old to become pregnant, Matt.
No, I think you'll find "getting pregnant" is a physical act, and, as I said, God does not necessarily ordain all physical acts. I think if you read my post, you'll see I said that.

quote:
Funny sort of God. There are plenty of things which happen which have nothing directly to do with God ; one of the best things I ever realised was that the view of a God which directs and controls everyday life is a myth and all evidence confounds it.
Funnily enough this is what I said in my post??

The point is that, while I entirely agree with you Mike, that God doesn't necessarily directly intervene in every single physical event, one cannot put the total 9 month process of conception to birth of a human being entirely in the catagory of "physical event".

Now, we may argue for different positions on which parts of the process we see as being merely physical, (mere clumps of cells as you would say), and which parts are in some way spiritually ordained, but I assume we would all agree that by the time a baby has been born into the world God has ordained it's life?

You may like to despiritualise the moment of conception and say that no "ensoulment" takes place at that moment, but unless you are saying you do not believe human beings have souls at all, you are merely passing the buck further down the 9 month line from conception to Birth.

In nearly any form of Christianity bar a kind of Christianized atheistic materialism, a spiritual event of God creating and inserting a spiritual life-form into the physical life-form is seen as intrinsic and necessary to the process of forming a human being.(note: The preposition "inserting...into" is crude, but need only be metaphorical)

While God may not ordain the physical act which started the ball rolling,(in this case a rape) you can't say God does not ordain the spiritual aspect without essentially chucking the doctrine of each person being an individual, unique, intentioned act of creation by God.

Maybe that's a doctrine you're willing to ditch, I'd rather not. Hence, for me, (and any Christian who believes God made them as an individual) the creation of a soul is not something that "just happens" blindly out of the natural consequences of the physical events, it is an active intervention into the process by God, without which, no living human baby will come into existence.

I admit this leaves us with a disturbing proposition to face:

In most physical events, we can say God has "power of veto", which he may choose to exercise, but may not.

So for example, God could have sent down a thunderbolt to kill the man who was about to rape that little girl just before he committed the act. In that sense, God has power of veto over our physical actions.

However, there are any number of reasons, as I'm sure you are aware, (freewill etc) why God will not exercise this veto in every case.

However, in the creation of a life, which requires active input from God, we have precisely the opposite state of affairs to the "veto" situation. It is not us proposing a action for God to either allow or oppose, rather the action originates from God himself in the first place.

Unless God directly acts, a life will not be created.

Asking God for the girl to miscarry is not asking God to perform an act. it is doing the precise opposite. It is asking God not to act. It is asking not for his intervention in the creative process, but rather his withdrawl.

It is asking God not to create an ensouled spiritual/physical being out of the "clump of cells" currently in the girls womb. It is asking, not for an exception to the rule, but for the rule itself. It is asking for the default state of affairs rather than the miraculous one.

The deception comes that the creation of life is truely an "everyday miracle". It is the single exception to the general rule that miracles are rare.

This is, philosophically, a whole new ball game. Where God is essentially passive (ie. Not sending down the thunderbolt), that need not exclude the possibilty of it being his will for us to be active.

eg. Suppose I see someone about to rape this girl, and pray for God to send down a thunderbolt on the rapist. No thunderbolt comes. God has been passive. That doesn't necessarily mean it is wrong for me to pull a gun from my pocket and shoot the bastard. It may in fact be a sign that it is God's will that I should be his tool.

However, when God is demonstrably active to act in active contrast to his actions surely cannot be in accordance with his will?

matt
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Fen,
You said,
quote:
Or a constant reminder of how God can actually bring life and goodness out of the most utterly screwed-up circumstances? But there's no chance of that happening now.
This girl will be scarred for life by that brutality and horror anyway. Or will she?

When a child has been abused, if she can have sensible and helpful adults around her, helping her to get over the sexual asault and the physical consequences, she has more of a chance of recovery.

I think God has had those people (three doctors getting together to make the abortion possible [Not worthy!] ) helping to bring life and goodness out of these terrible circumstances by removing from her what the rapist put inside her. And hopefully, the governments and legislators who think they can stop abortions or other sensible resolutions from happening will change their mind, so great was the support for the parents of the girl.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Matt ; sorry, but I don't accept any of that. I'm a theistic evolutionist, and I don't believe in that sort of view of personal creation by God, at all.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
Matt ; sorry, but I don't accept any of that. I'm a theistic evolutionist, and I don't believe in that sort of view of personal creation by God, at all.
Well, Mike, in that case, your view is entirely consistent with your worldview. I can't fault your consistency or integrity.

I would only ask what exactly the "Theistic" bit can possibly mean, if it doesn't mean believing human beings are individually intentionally created by God?

There doesn't seem to be very much for God to do in your worldview, and even less for him to care about.

Either you choose to believe in individuals created by God uniquely or you choose to believe abortion is ok. But you cannot do both.

Quite reasonably, you have chosen the latter, I wonder how many of the other pro-choice individuals on the thread are that clear cut, and how many are fence sitters?

I assume you agree with me then that the two are mutually exclusive alternatives?

matt
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
You can all celebrate now.

God help the children.

and from Melonman's post:
quote:
What I wasn't expecting was so many people talking as if abortion is some kind of life-enriching experience and/or something that must be practised at all costs.
How dare you. Either of you.

What evidence is there that anyone posting here, who hoped to have some compassion shown to this little girl, would even think of rejoicing? Or that the abortion would be a "life-enriching experience for her?" (If you look back to my posting on page one, I said the abortion would be a difficult thing for her to go through, just not as difficult as giving birth to, and raising, a baby at this age.)

I was encouraged at the beginning of this thread because it looked like, for once, there was intelligent, respectful, and compassionate dialog going on between people who had differing views on a subject where there's normally little room for negotiation. I was genuinely moved by those of you who take a pro-life position but who could say "maybe...." I found myself trying to think through adoption as a genuine option here, but couldn't get past the thought of this little girl in labor (or having a C-section -- don't get me started, I've had two!). I saw careful wording and listening, and reminders of God's love for us in our human brokenness. And then the thread got hijacked by extremists. Sad.

Let us all pray for the physical, mental, and emotional healing of this little girl, and that her baby is resting in God's arms.

daisymay, [Not worthy!] thank you for your well-written arguments. You said everything I wanted to and then some.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
I'd also like to say here, something in addition to my previous post.

My philosophical arguement laid out above would imply that if it were my daughter I would consider it wrong to have an abortion.

The practicality is that I would choose abortion for my own daughter.

And yes, this means my philosophy does not tally with the practicality. Is that hypocrasy? I don't know.

One thing I do know, is that to change one's philosophy to match one's actions is a low way to beat hypocrasy. It's like say you "beat" the high jump...but did so, not by jumping higher, but merely by lowering the bar.

I believe it would be, for want of a better word, sinful, for me to choose abortion were it my own daughter. Yet, I would look God in the face and choose abortion. Open definance.

For me, it would be a situation much like that Abraham was faced with over sacrificing Isaac.

However, barring special grace from God, I know I would be less faithful to God than Abraham was.

I cannot imagine anything more obscenely hateful than having to see my 9 year old daughter go through labour. On the other hand, I can't imagine anything more obscenely hateful than being in Abraham's position with Isaac.

However, in that case, God revealed his true nature in the moment that Abraham showed his faithfulness. I can only imagine that in some way we can not even comprehend, God might have done the same in this circumstance. We will never know. I don't blame anybody, if it were me, I'd have done the same. I'd have defied God. I'd have have openly committed an intentional sin. Then I'd have had to go before God and ask his forgiveness.

That's what grace is for. Bought at the price of another event which, superfically, seemed obscene.

matt
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Dear Mamacita,
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
How dare you. Either of you.

Please read:
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
Well, I'm celebrating that there were three doctors with the guts skill and compassion to take the initiative to help the girl. And that her parents were wise and strong enough to keep asking for that help. And for the people with banners who were supporting them to get it.

Thanks.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
JL, you and I are clearly seeing different things in daisymay's comment. Please look at it in its original context and consider the following:

What I believe she is "celebrating" (and please see my comment below about that choice of word) is that some people who cared about this little girl took the initiative to help her, to come to her rescue. There is a subtle, but very important, difference between "celebrating" the courage of caring adults and "celebrating" the fact that an abortion has taken place. I see nothing in any of daisymay's other comments that suggest she would find an abortion something to be joyous about -- quite the opposite, in fact; she said that several times.
I suspect her use of "celebrating" was a rhetorical device, responding in kind to your post which you have to admit was accusatory in tone.

I repeat: I -- and I believe the other people on this thread who supported this girl having an abortion in this situation -- see the tragedy in the situation and are simply relieved. Again, let us all pray that she can heal and that the baby conceived in this tragic circumstance is resting with God.
 
Posted by The Mid (# 1559) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Fen:
quote:
The Mid:
a constant reminder of the brutality and horror and consequences of rape

Or a constant reminder of how God can actually bring life and goodness out of the most utterly screwed-up circumstances?
I did think of that when I was posting, however the thread hadn't really put me in a "glass-half-full" kind of mood.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Matt the Mad Medic,

Respect! I appreciate your honesty.

I've always wondered if Abraham was so imbued with the culture of his age, which said that you had to sacrifice your first-born to your god, that he would have felt he was doing wrong by not sacrificing Isaac.

So God intervened by going along with that conscience of his, and then intervened further by providing the angel and the ram, thus teaching Abraham and all who have followed him, that child sacrifice is out of order, an abomination to the Lord.

Later on in Leviticus, God again makes sure that babies are not sacrificed by providing a sacrifice and redemption payment law instead.

Mamacita, spot on.
quote:
What I believe she is "celebrating" (and please see my comment below about that choice of word) is that some people who cared about this little girl took the initiative to help her, to come to her rescue. There is a subtle, but very important, difference between "celebrating" the courage of caring adults and "celebrating" the fact that an abortion has taken place. I see nothing in any of daisymay's other comments that suggest she would find an abortion something to be joyous about -- quite the opposite, in fact; she said that several times.
I suspect her use of "celebrating" was a rhetorical device, responding in kind to your post which you have to admit was accusatory in tone.


 
Posted by mimsey (# 3757) on :
 
I just can't get over the fact that this baby was aborted after four months. It's not that I disagree that this was the best course of action, or that I would have made the girl go through with childbirth. What makes me mad is the sheer amount of faffing that went on before it was finally done, while the situation got steadily worse and worse, so that instead of aborting the baby when it really was scarcely more than the "lump of cells" some people have been referring to, they waited until it had fingernails. And eyelashes. And could probably recognise its mother's voice.

Sorry for succumbing to the whole emotive thing; I realise it isn't effective argument. It just makes me livid, and very, very sad.
 
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
Mamacita, why were you surprised/shocked/upset/disappointed by extreme opinions being expressed on this thread?

Maybe you should read what hell is all about.

If it's reasoned discussion you're after (and for a Hell thread this has been incredibly reasoned, and noticably lacking in extreme vitriol...) go to Purgatory. people here need space to get mad with each other.
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Yes Mimsey, I agree the whole thing was a complete unmitigated disaster from beginning to end. The fact it ended up being a 2nd trimester abortion just adds to the overall horribleness of the whole incident.

Bottom line is...I can't look at the situation from any angle and say "Well, yeah, in this aspect..God's will was done". This particular cloud just really doesn't have any kind of silver lining does it?

matt
 
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
Forgive the double post, but a word for those who think adoption is a worse option than abortion.

Please leave the planet now.
 
Posted by Martin PC not (# 368) on :
 
What stupid, evil, bastards.

And I'm pro-life!
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Matrix.
It can be. I'm adopted, and may adoption was A1 OK. But that isn't always the case. Again, if you start from the 'life at all costs' position, I can understandf why you would draw this conclusion, but if you want to persue that position, someone really ought to tell the medical profession to stop advances that prolong length but not quality of life. Whilst we are at it, we can actually face up to the implications of this for the moral and theological questions which such advances make even more difficult.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I agree with Merseymike about the position that prolonging life (for those terminallly ill), concentrating on length rather than quality, is quite wrong. Nonetheless, I could never say adoption is as bad or worse than abortion. I've known many people (not necessarily adopted!) who have had all sorts of sufferings in their lives, and most of them would not at all have wanted to never live at all!

Here I am not referring to abortion, but am speaking in general terms -
For all that I believe in an afterlife, I think we need to be very careful about assuming that death is better than life. (I am not referring to those terminally ill - I am speaking of believing someone is better off never having lived than being adopted - or that, for example, someone who is disabled has it 'worse than death,' a position I have heard.) We have nothing solid about death against which to measure this.
 
Posted by Little Green Alien (# 1722) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
You're wrong.

As would an abortion be. The child needs all the love and help in the world, but so does her child.

They're both victims. Why victimise them further?

NO.
You are wrong. I am a Catholic myself, and strongly against abortion. But the catholic church definately allows an abortion in cases where pregnancy and childbirth threaten the life of the mother. See this essay at religioustolerance.org for an example. (It's all I could dig up quickly)
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
Newman ; I think though, that to present universal adoption as the panacea and solution , should legal abortion be abolished, is extremely foolish, and very probably inaccurate in terms of what actually would happen. My own feeling is that child abuse and neglect would be a more likely outcome.
And I do hope that those who believe this should be the legal change which takes place are prepared to pay for it in terms of the necessary welfare benefits and the subsequent tax rises. The votes of anti-abortion MP's with regard to the last round of cuts in single parent benefits didn't suggest that.
 
Posted by Fen (# 4052) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
When a child has been abused, if she can have sensible and helpful adults around her, helping her to get over the sexual asault and the physical consequences, she has more of a chance of recovery.

I hope this will be the case, of course.

I would disagree that they've started in the right way, but it's too late to change that now.

The Mid - fair enough. It could just as easily have ended up that way, too.
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
Little Green Alien,
The Catholic Church does not allow abortion if abortion is defined as the direct and intentional termination of the growth and development of the fetus. It allows procedures of which the death of the fetus is a "side effect." I don't know if this is what you meant or not, but I didn't find your statement very clear.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Laudate, that is about as clear as mud.

If what you say is so, then the church policy-makers are (yet again) fudging the facts. Termination of pregnancy causes the death of the foetus, irrespective of the ways or means.

I presume that the procedures to which you refer you refer would be the removal of an unruptured tubal pregnancy so as to prevent the mother from suffering catastrophic internal blood loss from a ruptured ectopic, or else removal of a pregnant uterus for cervical cancer.

Unfortunately the church policy-makers might know their theology but generally they can't make a clear decision about reproductive matters because the vast majority are even more ignorant than the rest of us.

I suspect that they receive advice from "good Catholic" doctors who might not always be the best qualified to dispense it.

Just my 2 bob's worth,

m
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Intentional killing of the unborn child is never permitted. Procedures which may result in the death of an unborn child as an undesired side-effect are permitted if the procedure is being undertaken in order to save the mother's life (this is the principle of double-effect.)

But if the only way to save the mother is to effect an abortion, then no, it is not permitted.

Hope that clears things up.
 
Posted by The Mid (# 1559) on :
 
I don't know if this question will be actually possible, but,

What if a woman was pregnant and for whatever reason the pregnancy threatened her life. If she doesn't have an abortion she will die. The doctors also know 100% that the baby will be still born (even though it is currently "alive"). Now, to go through with the birth results in a dead mother and a dead baby. To go through with an abortion results in a living mother. I know that this is probably an impossible theoretical question, however, JL and LD - what would your Catholic church do in this situation?
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
The Mid,

The deliberate killing of a person - regardless of how long they have left to live in this world - is impermissible. To deliberately kill the child in order to save the mother, even if the child will die anyway, is not permitted.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Which is why at momemts like these, we consult obstetricians, not priests.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
By "we", I'll assume you mean those who reject Catholic teaching.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
No, mate. All women who are able to, will do so. The second best is the local wise woman. The last and worst is the witch doctor; they traditionally aren't much good at female conditions.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Just an overall question, JL - and I'm truly asking, not baiting. (As you know, I am hardly any abortion advocate - though I think that there could be serious problems that would result from legal prohibitions.)

I have some very old RC moral theology books which, though not speaking of the specific situation of abortion, do allow for cases where killing is possible if (and only if) death is inevitable. For example, if one were trapped under a burning vehicle, one could morally (though not legally, as far as I know!) shoot him to avoid his having the agony of being burnt alive. Though I don't think there would be too many situations today where a child who is alive in the womb would be guaranteed to be stillborn, is this a similar case?

What if someone taking fertility drugs were to conceive ten children at once? There is no chance for ten to survive in the womb. Would it be permissible to remove some of them in order that some may live?

It seems to me that cases such as those are the very ones which may be 'covered' by the Church of England's allowance for some individual cases where there is no choice.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
And now for the double post-even Victoria Gillick.
 
Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
Um, excuse me for a moment, but perhaps I might recount and recast some of the previous dialogue in order to move this discussion away from the usual direction this sort of conversation usually tends?

This is a nine-year-old child. A little girl. She has suffered unspeakable violence, and by virtue of her age perhaps she more than more mature women is going to suffer even more violence regardless of what eventually happens to her.

It is staggering that a child that age would have reached menarche in the first place. My God, what a terrible concatenation of events that such a young child would be visited by such viciousness.

If a child that age carries a baby to term, then delivery will most likely be by cesarian section. Anasthesia. Major surgery. Cutting of abdominal muscles because her pelvis won't be developed enough to deliver the child. God only knows what health problems she will suffer later in life because she carried a child to term while she herself was still a child.

Terminating the pregnancy would be equally invasive for the mother--not to mention that it would kill the life (or potential life) she is carrying. Violence and more violence. Misery at every turn.

This strikes me as one of those terrible moral theology debates where all solutions to the dilemma have the nature of sin. The outcome of the debate, therefore, is a display of our rhetorical abilities to exacerbate or mitigate the implications of our actions as opposed to being able to discover the mind of God.

I suspect that regardless of what we do, the only possible moral outcome will be to cover our faces with our hands and pray with all our hearts, "My God, have mercy!"

Some things are not fixable. Some things just have to be covered by infinite mercy, because it is impossible to discover justice. Some decisions require courage in the face of God. I don't think God takes any particular satisfaction in setting us tests that have no answer and that tear our souls to shreds.

If I were in a more frivolous mood, I might observe that I planned to add this dilemma to my "What Were You Thinking?" list of things to Ask God. But this is too horrible, too terrible, for that.
 
Posted by Laudate Dominum (# 3104) on :
 
Well said, Tomb.

I cannot participate in this discussion any longer. I cry every time I read this thread, and I hope and pray this situation never occurs again. I don't think I can say anything more.
 
Posted by multipara (# 2918) on :
 
Well said, tomb.

You might be pleased to note that I have heard exactly the same said by a priest of my denomination and a Jesuit at that. I was enormously pleased.

The most foolish and counter-productive by-product of this thread has been the tendency of certain posters to make an inappropriate judgement on the morality and Christianity of those who do not accept a particular party line.

cheers,

m

I hope this thread dies a natural death and soon.
 
Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :
 
I find myself wishing I could find an excuse to abort this thread, even though it's in the fourth page-mester.

Jesuitical Lad: It may well be that you've backed your moral heinie into a corner, at least from the vantage point of this observer. I suggest that you give up on ranting about your theological moral imperatives, stop rising to the logic-baits that cleverer posters are using on you, and just start using some insults.

Matt the Mad Medic: Do you get called "moron" very often?
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by tomb:

If a child that age carries a baby to term, then delivery will most likely be by cesarian section. Anasthesia. Major surgery. Cutting of abdominal muscles because her pelvis won't be developed enough to deliver the child. God only knows what health problems she will suffer later in life because she carried a child to term while she herself was still a child.

Terminating the pregnancy would be equally invasive for the mother--not to mention that it would kill the life (or potential life) she is carrying. Violence and more violence. Misery at every turn.

Misery, yes, totally agreed.

An abortion at twelve weeks is not so invasive, not nearly so invasive as a caesarean. It would be invasive, but more along the lines of a D&C. It would do less damage to a child physically and psychologically than a caesarean.

And here I'm beginning to believe more and more that moral theologians and dogmatists are not the ones to consult in cases like this. I'd go for a multipara, someone sensible and sensitive, not oversensitive and weepy. Not a head-in-the-air academic, someone who lives in the real world. Someone who is willing to get their hands dirty and get on with the necessary job.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Newman's Own:
I have some very old RC moral theology books which, though not speaking of the specific situation of abortion, do allow for cases where killing is possible if (and only if) death is inevitable. For example, if one were trapped under a burning vehicle, one could morally (though not legally, as far as I know!) shoot him to avoid his having the agony of being burnt alive. Though I don't think there would be too many situations today where a child who is alive in the womb would be guaranteed to be stillborn, is this a similar case?

It's a similar case, but the books sound as if they're in error. After all, if one can legitimately kill a person to prevent them from experiencing suffering, then you have a Catholic endorsement of euthanasia.

Do you know which book the claim appears in? I'd be curious to find out more.

quote:
What if someone taking fertility drugs were to conceive ten children at once? There is no chance for ten to survive in the womb. Would it be permissible to remove some of them in order that some may live?
Again, there is nothing which can justify the deliberate killing of an innocent.

Tomb,

I agree.

RooK,

Thanks for the concern.
 
Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Arabella Purity Winterbottom:
And JL, adoption is considered to be as bad as abortion by some.

WHAT?!! [Eek!] [Eek!] [Eek!]

On what basis?
 
Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

Daisymay,

The missionary would not have been responsible for the mother's death, unless she engineered the situation in the first place. As for the rights issue - perhaps the language of rights isn't helpful. I think the pro-life position can be summarised thus:

1. The deliberate killing of an innocent is always wrong, and there are no circumstances which would justify resorting to such a wrong.
2. Abortion constitutes the deliberate killing of an innocent.
3. Abortion can never be justified.

This applies even in those tragic cases where the chances are that both lives will be lost. The situation must be accepted "as is", without recourse to immoral pseudo-remedies.

JL, I consider myself a strong pro-lifer, and I hereby deny you permission to speak for me. What you have described is the extremist, no-exceptions pro-life position, which most pro-lifers do NOT support.
 
Posted by brodavid (# 460) on :
 
What a train wreck, both in the poor girl's life and in this thread. [Disappointed]

JL, your "celebration" comment was out of line, and did much to nullify your previous apologies.

MerseyMike, I think the most constructive thing you could do right now would be to just shut up and let this thread fade away.

JL and Laudate Dominum:

For a woman to carry a pregnancy that threatens her life is an act of heroism, on par with running into a burning building to rescue a child. You don't mandate heroism. A little advice, quoted from a friend of mine, "You only get crucified once; choose your cross wisely." Wrong cross.

Don't bother replying; I will not be back. I humbly suggest that the hosts kill this one.
 
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
I find myself wishing I could find an excuse to abort this thread, even though it's in the fourth page-mester.

Rook, you tasteless "used to be Canadian". [Razz] I say the local Canadian trade office revoke your maple leaf icon for being such a twit. [Razz] If this is your attempt at humour, it failed...grossly. [Razz]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Brodavid,

Did I claim to speak for you? I don't recall doing so. I merely outlined what I hold to be an authentic pro-life position (call it "extremist", if it makes you feel better.) If you want to state circumstances in which you think procuring an abortion would be right/good/necessary/legitimate then no-one's stopping you. And you'd have plenty of company on this thread.
 
Posted by mimsey (# 3757) on :
 
But JL, in a case where either mother and child must die together, or child must die and mother be saved, surely and abortion is not so much killing one as saving one?

What about that case a while ago, where siamese twins were born? The weaker one was sapping the strength of the stronger so that, unseparated, both would die. If they were separated, the weaker one (who was also brain-damaged) would certainly die, and the other would live. There again, surely to separate the twins was not to "kill" one, but to save the other? Or would you have left them both to die?
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Mimsey,

It's killing one to save the other. And I don't think the ends (the saving of one life) justify the means (murder) under any circumstances.
quote:
The weaker one was sapping the strength of the stronger so that, unseparated, both would die. If they were separated, the weaker one (who was also brain-damaged) would certainly die, and the other would live. There again, surely to separate the twins was not to "kill" one, but to save the other? Or would you have left them both to die?
First of all, a note about language. "The weaker one was sapping the strength of the stronger one" - we're talking about a human being here, not some parasite. The situation was tragic, but you'll recall that the Catholic parents - with the support of the Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor - wanted the children to be allowed to continue to live as long as possible, but die natural deaths without recourse to murder of one to save the life of the other. I think the State's interference, ordering the killing of one child, was criminal.
 
Posted by mimsey (# 3757) on :
 
Well, the state going against the wishes of the parents was criminal, yes. But I think that's not what you meant.

I take it, then, that you would be in favour of euthanasia, which is after all letting someone die a natural death rather than prolonging their life with the use of a machine if you have the chance to do so? It's just that a few posts ago, you seemed to imply that turning off a life support machine was murder, so now I'm confused.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
I don't quite follow why I should be in favour of euthanasia... could you explain?
 
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
....... The situation was tragic, but you'll recall that the Catholic parents - with the support of the Cormac Cardinal Murphy-O'Connor - wanted the children to be allowed to continue to live as long as possible, but die natural deaths without recourse to murder of one to save the life of the other. I think the State's interference, ordering the killing of one child, was criminal.

As against the criminal allowing of one to die for the sake of one who would die as well. [Roll Eyes] [Mad] That's f**king state assisted suicide for religious reasons. [Mad] [Mad]

[Proper Canadians, as the intellectual examples for the rest of the world, should always use Preview post - no matter how angry they are when they're posting.]

[ 25. February 2003, 02:29: Message edited by: RooK ]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
OgtheDim,

Taking your endorsement of the principle that the ends justify the means for granted, I can't quite see how it would be state-assisted suicide. Could you explain? I don't think the little girl in question was asked whether she was willing to be killed so that her sister might live.
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
Jesuit Lad is talking about Gracie Attard (pictured here) and her sister, Rosie, the conjoined twins whose Catholic parents, backed by pro-life groups, initially went to court to stop the twins being separated.

A surgical separation was the only way to give Gracie a chance to live, but meant that her twin died as a result of the operation. ( both twins would have died of heart failure in months if the operation had not gone ahead.)

It's interesting to note what the parents say now

quote:
Despite their initial opposition, the couple have told newspapers they are relieved the judges stopped them from letting nature take its course, condemning both girls to death.
Mr Attard said

quote:
"My wife Rina and I didn't want to separate them ever. It was against our strong religious beliefs.

"Of course we're now happy that we still have Gracie - this is the greatest Father's Day gift I could ever have wished for."

It's funny how when people start sticking 'logically' to a belief, and demanding consistency come hell or high water, how it starts to have cruel, ridiculous and contradictory effects. Like trying to enforce that a little girl dies of heart failure along with her sister because you're 'pro-life'.

L.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
The surgical "separation" entailed killing the weaker child, Louise - you twist the ethics of the case by misrepresenting it, since death was not a consequence of separation but a necessary precursor to it.

Of course the parents are happy to have a living daughter. Who wouldn't be? They're not culpable for the crime of killing their other daughter, and the conclusion one should draw is that God allows good to come out of the worst of human evils; not that deliberately killing innocents is somehow ethically justifiable because the parents now delight in their living daughter.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
JL,
You said,
quote:
I think the State's interference, ordering the killing of one child, was criminal.

We have child protection laws in this country that require us to act to save children's lives. They have been put in place by sensible legislators. That is why parents are not allowed to "allow a child to die" when she could be saved. They did not order the killing of one child; she was going to die soon anyway - they ordered the saving of the other child's life.
 
Posted by OgtheDim (# 3200) on :
 
Apologies to JL - I did not see the thread change. I thought you were discussing the abortion situation. Missed a post.

But...you really should let us know what sort of cheese you want with your periodic imbibing about the amount of people on here who disagree with you.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
We have child protection laws in this country that require us to act to save children's lives. They have been put in place by sensible legislators. That is why parents are not allowed to "allow a child to die" when she could be saved. They did not order the killing of one child; she was going to die soon anyway - they ordered the saving of the other child's life.

She may well have been going to "die soon anyway" (like a lot of people in our society; does their right to life become negotiable too?) but the order was quite specific that one child should be killed so that the other could live longer than she would have done otherwise.

We are yet another step along the road to Nineteen Eighty-Four when "child protection laws" are invoked to defend the state's ordering of the killing of children.

OgtheDim,

I like Red Leicester, but I have never "whined" about people disagreeing with me. I've tried to show people why I think they're wrong - is that not allowed? Perhaps there's some Freedom of Speech law that requires I remain silent when I have dissenting opinions...
 
Posted by Louise (# 30) on :
 
quote:
The surgical "separation" entailed killing the weaker child, Louise - you twist the ethics of the case by misrepresenting it, since death was not a consequence of separation but a necessary precursor to it.
Um if you separate a baby with no functioning heart and lungs from the baby whose heart and lungs it is dependent on (and whose heart and lungs its needs were ultimately causing to fail) then it dies. You can also call that killing it. It doesn't alter the fact that it was right to do so, as it was the only way to save any life in that tragic case.

If the groups associated with your beliefs had had their way, Gracie would also be dead, but why let a little thing like that spoil your beautiful logic and high moral dudgeon, eh?

That's precisely what's wrong with the whole 'pro-life' thing when taken to extremes. It can turn legalistic and cruel. It can end up taking life and causing suffering. At that point surely, you have to ask yourself what has gone wrong and whether you have taken it too far.

L.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
There is a refinement of Jung's concept of "masculine" and "feminine" (not male and female) which talks about the "static masculine". This type of character, at its most creative and compassionate, is the sort that founds orphanages, or societies and support groups to help groups of people, not individuals. It really feels for justice and truth, but in a detached sort of way.

The hellish distortion is when this character is so wedded to immoveable truth that they see no latitude for flexibility. Rigidity takes over and abuse takes place instead of loving care.

The cardinals of the inquisition move in. They mouth platitudes without comprehension, because they have lost the ability to think; their brains have fossilized.

Very scarey. It takes a lot to dissolve the brain cells and revitalize them.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
It'll take more than ad hominem efforts like that, certainly.
 
Posted by mimsey (# 3757) on :
 
Louise said:
quote:
Um if you separate a baby with no functioning heart and lungs from the baby whose heart and lungs it is dependent on (and whose heart and lungs its needs were ultimately causing to fail) then it dies. You can also call that killing it.
Quite. And if you leave a baby to die while in possession of medical help that could save it, you could also call that killing it.

Which is why I made my earlier comment about euthanasia, JL. I assume you would let nature take its course rather than keeping someone alive for as long as possible. Otherwise you would have conflicting views, I think.

Personally I don't think there is a lot of difference between sitting back and watching a baby die, and killing it. If a mother left her baby in a bin, for example, and it died, I reckon that should count as murder. So the siamese twins case, put bluntly, was a choice between two murders. Except that one of the "murders" killed a child that would have died anyway, while the other killed a child that could have lived.
 
Posted by Tiffer (# 3073) on :
 
Hello all - it's me again!

I don't really have much of an opinion on this, I used to be all for abortion but since I became a Christian the Holy Spirit must have been at work in me, because I have certainly become more pro-life without much outside interference or persuasion at all. But there is no concreteness as of yet.

I would like so say that I admire JL for taking his views to extremes, I think all too often we decide that we know something but fold the moment things start becoming slightly confusing. I dont think he is correct however, and I have noticed a distinct lack of God in his arguments.

I wish I was wise enough to know what the bible says, I think somewhere it says that "all life is sacred", and that means all life, so the decision to end it should never be taken lightly (pretty obvious really) but to be crude about it; if one course of action kills one and saves the other and another course kills both, I think that considering the sacredness of life the one that preserves it most will glorify God, and I dont think that God is too far away when the surgeons do a successful job.

But then again I put knowing Christ above living, so that would anul me from this debate anyhow!

Tiffer xx
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Mimsey,

My opposition is to the deliberate termination of innocent life, not the use of medical procedures. There is no contradiction involved.

Tiffer,

I don't tend to explicitly bring God into discussions on abortion, because a lot of the time I'm talking to people who don't believe in God - and even if they won't accept Him, I think they can be brought to accept the wrongness of abortion. On the Ship one is dealing with a vast range of views which fall under the Christian umbrella, including many which do not consider Scripture or my own Church's teaching authoritative. If I remember rightly, you're an evangelical - in that case, you may find this Scriptural summary, from the people at Priests For Life, interesting/useful.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I wonder if anyone here has been swayed by JL's contribution ? In my case, it has simply made me mopre sceptical than before about the motives and thinking of the anti-abortion and the rest of the so called 'pro-life' (enforced imposition of their morals on those who do not agree with them)movement.

The 'life at all costs' mentality was fine when medical science was at a stage when the vast majority of people would die anyway, if treated. It now no longer makes sense, and that is why change and situational ethics are the only sort which make any logical sense.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Merseymike,

You talk about enforcing morals as if it's a bad thing. There are some morals I want to see enforced - as I'm sure you do too. Moral prohibitions on rape, for instance, or on genocide. Enforcing moral prohibitions isn't necessarily a bad thing. What we need to decide is whether or not the killing of the unborn is immoral. Those who think it isn't enforce their judgement on the unborn just as much as pro-life societies enforce their judgement on those who wish to kill certain unborn children by preventing them from doing so.

Please also note that I have been gracious enough to use the label pro-choice for those who support access to abortion, without recourse to derogatory speech marks or alternatives which I would personally consider to be more accurate descriptions of those who subscribe to such beliefs.
 
Posted by Laura (# 10) on :
 
Actually, JL, I think "pro-choice" is as crappily simplistic and inapt a euphemism as "pro-life", so you don't have to go to any trouble on my behalf. Pro-what-choice? Pro-whose-life?
 
Posted by Moo (# 107) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I wonder if anyone here has been swayed by JL's contribution ? In my case, it has simply made me mopre sceptical than before about the motives and thinking of the anti-abortion and the rest of the so called 'pro-life' (enforced imposition of their morals on those who do not agree with them)movement.

The other question is whether anyone has been swayed by your contribution.

Moo
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I'm not trying to sway anyone, Moo. Frankly, I'm far too appalled by what I have seen written here to try and offer reasoned explanations for why a nine year old child who has been raped should not be forced to go through a pregnancy.

I think its blatantly obvious, and any philosophy wish places those not born on the same moral footing as those who are 9 years old is, to me , simply morally bankrupt.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
There are some morals I want to see enforced - as I'm sure you do too. Moral prohibitions on rape, for instance, or on genocide. Enforcing moral prohibitions isn't necessarily a bad thing.

So how would you enforce a prohibition on rape? What would you do to the rapist who attacked this child in the first place?

And would you have preferred him to use a condom?
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:

Please also note that I have been gracious enough to use the label pro-choice for those who support access to abortion, without recourse to derogatory speech marks or alternatives which I would personally consider to be more accurate descriptions of those who subscribe to such beliefs.

You have been gracious?
 
Posted by mimsey (# 3757) on :
 
I'm quite glad we've had both Merseymike and JL on this thread. They've kind of outlined the two absurd extremes that I would otherwise have thought impossible, and kept the rest of us balancing around in the middle.

I'm bailing out of this thread now, not because I've run out of things to say, but because the incidents we were talking about have both passed, and because no-one is going to persuade anyone else to change their views about either; and also because it's just too depressing.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
So how would you enforce a prohibition on rape?

Effective punishment for those who commit such abhorrent crimes, and an education programme which teaches young males to view women as persons of integrity who command respect, not the next source of sexual gratification.

quote:
What would you do to the rapist who attacked this child in the first place?
In what context? And do you mean if I was acting according to my reason, or my instincts?

quote:
And would you have preferred him to use a condom?
With all due respect, what a stupid question. That's like asking an environmentalist "if I were to club you to death, would you rather I did it with a piece of mahogany or a steel bar"?

quote:
You have been gracious?
I said "gracious enough to...", not that I have been generally gracious. I am well aware that several of my posts on this thread have been sinful, and I apologise for them.

I do not apologise for the beliefs behind them, however.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
I wouldn't have said my expressed views were very different from the majority of people who had an opinion, Mimsey.
 
Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Merseymike:
I wonder if anyone here has been swayed by JL's contribution ? In my case, it has simply made me mopre sceptical than before about the motives and thinking of the anti-abortion and the rest of the so called 'pro-life' (enforced imposition of their morals on those who do not agree with them)movement.

The 'life at all costs' mentality was fine when medical science was at a stage when the vast majority of people would die anyway, if treated. It now no longer makes sense, and that is why change and situational ethics are the only sort which make any logical sense.

Do not governments enforce morals on their citizens in the form of laws?

The State is in the business of enforcing morality: Speed limits, contract law, child welfare, fraud investigation, et al. Voters get to choose leaders who (we hope) create and enforce laws we think just and moral. Laws that forbid discrimination againt homosexuals are based on a morality.

I imagine Ku Klux Klan members feel the government has enforced an alien morality on them by punishing them for beating or killing Latins, blacks or gays, for example.

No doubt those criminals who shoot abortionists or bomb the clinics would love to see a morality which would oppose them cease from being enacted by the State.

As for situational ethics? They're fine if you've decided 'right' and 'wrong' are merely convenient cultural labels which have no universal foundation and which stop outside of our own skins.
 
Posted by Merseymike (# 3022) on :
 
All of those things are about people harming other people. A foetus is not, legally, a person, and so such laws are trying to control what a woman does with what remains part of her body. Or in this case, what a 9 year old girl should be forced to go through.
There may be a case for restriction of abortion, hence the laws which currently exist, although I think there should be abortion on demand for the first 14 weeks which would discourage late abortions. However, my prority is and always will be, those who are here already, not those who might be but are not at the moment. If you choose yourself to believe that the foetus is life at conception - fine - but I don't accept that, and see no reason why that view should be forced on those who do not believe it, given the consequences - which would not be the same in any of the other examples you give.
 
Posted by tomb (# 174) on :
 
[tomb mumbles to himself and counts his toes. 10? Thank God. He hasn't completely lost his mind. Only his thumbs. Oh, well.]

This is a nine figgin' year old little girl, people. This is not a General discussion about abortion. This is a Particular case.

Jesus, I wish the world were so serene that the General always informed the Particular, but it doesn't.

JL, I'm so so glad you agreed with my earlier post, but your subsequent posts prove that you still don't get it: people who enforce theological absolutes DO VIOLENCE.

Let me repeat myself: YOU are HURTING PEOPLE. You. Personal. Not people who think like you. Not people who support your position. Not people who have written encyclicals. YOU.

Go to confession.

Even if your ethico-moral position never obtained, the fact that you could possibly hold it in the demonstrable face of TERRIBLE HUMAN MISERY effectively NAILS YOU TO THE WALL.

My God man, we're talking about a little nine year old girl! We're not talking about general principles here. We're talking about the specifics of a terrible act that would make Jesus weep.

Your certitude is staggering! And sickening! I bet you're one of those assholes who thinks he knows why the sun comes up in the morning.

There is no theological or ethical principal that will cut through this dilemma. Your life-at-all-costs bullshit effectively will kill the life of a child.

Ordinarily, JL, I respect and admire your posts and positions. But in this case, you're so full of shit I'm sure it's brown when you blow your nose.
 
Posted by Mamacita (# 3659) on :
 
quote:
We're talking about the specifics of a terrible act that would make Jesus weep.

Bravo, Tomb, and thank you.

Would it be impertinent for me to suggest that you apply a hostly padlock to this thread?
 
Posted by MatrixUK (# 3452) on :
 
Hhmmmm, what's that i hear?

Clip-clop...BANG!
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
I disagree. No one is required to visit a thread. As long as people continue to express themselves, let threads remain. I for one am rather sick of "so I'm closing the thread."
 
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Mamacita:
quote:
We're talking about the specifics of a terrible act that would make Jesus weep.

Bravo, Tomb, and thank you.

Would it be impertinent for me to suggest that you apply a hostly padlock to this thread?

No, just useless - tomb is hellhost emeritus, with all of the glory and none of the power.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Agreed, NO. I am still,feeling angry over the whole situation.

And I appreciated your posting about the changes of policy re helping people to get out of horrible situations.
 
Posted by sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by MatrixUK:
Hhmmmm, what's that i hear?

Clip-clop...BANG!

You know, you really should learn what is a Dead Horse topic, and what isn't. I'll give you a clue: topics which have been repeatedly argued about on these boards, where there are at least two opposing, untractable and unconcililatory positions. Threads about child abuse do not fall into this category generally.

Viki, hellhost
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
quote:
1. The deliberate killing of an innocent is always wrong, and there are no circumstances which would justify resorting to such a wrong.
2. Abortion constitutes the deliberate killing of an innocent.
3. Abortion can never be justified.

JL, this is probably the clearest statement you have made of your argument.

The problem lies in point (1)

Some of us, (eg. Mersey mike) disagree that "an innocent [person]" is being killed at all.....hence, the rest of your argument.

Some of us, (eg. me) agree that an innocent person is being killed, BUT disagree that the killing of an innocent is always wrong.

Some example situations would include warfare, for example, in which the benefit of many innocents may depend upon the loss of some innocents.

Another example might include a situation of a madman with a gun running down a street. Yes, he may be morally "innocent" as he is out of his mind, and therefore not morally responsible. However, if it was the only possible course of action, I would shoot him to protect the other innocents he might kill.

Another example might be someone who is acting on false information and is thus about to commit some terrible act in good faith that they are doing the right thing. Again, here, killing of a morally innocent being may be necessary.

Of course, in all these cases, the killing of an innocent is done reluctantly, as a last resort. Whether it is sin, I honestly do not know. If faced with any of these situations I would no doubt find myself needing to ask forgiveness afterwards.

I think in the case of the 9 year old, we may well be faced with that last resort.

Is the abortion sin? Yes. I think it is, but sin has momentum to it. When the rapist raped that girl, he started a train of sinful events in motion. Sin breeds sin.

This is why we say we live in a sinful world. The sin has soaked into the very material of the world we live in...so we have droughts and earthquakes and volcanos.

While at every opportunity we should seek to follow a course of action which is consistent with God's perfect sinless standards, sometimes there simply is no available course of action which is fit to bear that title.

In the case of this girl, abortion was not the "better of two options" (and I refuse to believe abortion ever can be the better of two options), but rather it was the only option. It was a hobson's choice...death of an innocent and suffering...or...death of an innocent and suffering.

matt
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
So what can we do to the rapist?

Tie him up and visit him with a huge monster who pokes him violently with a hollow steel shaft full of shit which leaves a deposit which grows painfully into a kicking struggling creature which eventually cuts, tears, rips its way put? And then devours him.

How about that?
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
"out" not "put"

Can't see any Freudian slip there...
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
How do deal with the rapist?

Hmm..well, my favored method would be to make a big bundle of razor wire, strip him naked...throw him on it with his hands and feet tied.

Then pass a low voltage current through the razorwire, causing his body to spasm. As it spasms he will of course move over the razorwire cutting himself.

Over the course of the next 30minutes or so he should die from loss of blood. It's known as "the death of a thousand cuts"

Apparently it's one of the most painful ways to die.

matt
 
Posted by ChastMastr (# 716) on :
 
I want to scream now. Thankfully, this is Hell, so I can.

I'm very anti-abortion. [Eek!] I have not yet been convinced that even horrible, extreme cases like this one would justify it. [Eek!] [Eek!]

But DAMMIT, hello, Bueller? is anyone listening? not noticing that this is a really horrible case, and even if it is true that it would be wrong to abort the child, that it is a very difficult case to handle, and that even if it is still wrong (to abort the infant in question) it can seem justified to do so, to good, intelligent people, is mind-numbingly insensitive and heartless. [Mad] [Mad] [Mad]

JL, I have the greatest sympathy and probably agreement with your technical doctrinal position on abortion. But it's times like this which make me say (and unlike certain other issues I have no expectation that my position will change) that if I based my beliefs on the actions and apparent attitudes of the people who hold them, then I'd probably be so "pro-choice" it'd make your head swim. [Mad]

Sometimes it's embarrassing to be anti-abortion (I refuse to use what I see as a euphemistic, even propagandistic phrase, "pro-life"). JL -- I am sorry to say this -- but when you post the way you do sometimes, you are not helping. [Embarrassed]

God have mercy, God have mercy, God have mercy. What a horrible situation.

David
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
Sounds great, Matt the Mad Medic. [Devil]

Do we get to take turns pressing the button to cause the electric shocks? [Devil]

I'm still waiting to hear what the Seminole women would do. [Devil]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
David,

I have apologised for the lack of sensitivity, and I'll do so again. However, I remain convinced that there would have been no justification for an abortion in this case, and can't help feeling that some of the accusations of insensitivity (not all, mind; I deserved most) stem from a fear of moral certainty, or simple disagreement with the pro-life position, more than anything else.
 
Posted by Lou Poulain (# 1587) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Jesuitical Lad:
...and can't help feeling that some of the accusations of insensitivity (not all, mind; I deserved most) stem from a fear of moral certainty, or simple disagreement with the pro-life position, more than anything else.

Really?

It must be nice to have the certainty of an absolute moral principle that can be applied in every instance without exception.

I offer grudging admiration for your willingness to take your lumps for expressing your absolutism. Do you get the same level of criticism when expressing your strict pacifist views about war?

Lou
 
Posted by Matt the Mad Medic (# 1675) on :
 
Just wanna say, I totally agree with Chastmaster's position on this.

He seems to be, (along with myself) the only person here able to grasp a seperation of theoretical morality from the horrific practicality.

JL...YES...I think you are RIGHT. It's wrong to abort, but hello...this is the real world..S**T HAPPENS!

So I don't see a problem is saying "I think abortion in this case is quite possibly morally wrong in the highest sense, but totally understandable"

As I said, if it were my daughter, I would choose abortion...then ask forgiveness. Yes. It's inconsistent. Sometimes life is JL. If your life never has inconsistency like this, then can we swap please?

matt
 
Posted by Lucy H (# 3570) on :
 
I'm very anti abortion and very sure this little girl needs one and should have one. In fact I would send money to any lawyer who would sue for child abuse. j.L. her own life may very well be lost but I suppose that matters less than being theologically correct[ 'letter of the law kills' ring a bell? ] in your own eyes. Please go and ' be right' somewhere by yourself where you can't do any more harm. As usual with the sanctimonious, consequences of your self righteousness are to be born by someone else.
Praying for a miscarriage is just washing our hands like Pilate as far as I can see.
J. L. may you feel what you inflict. I've seen your posts elsewhere and they are never imbued with the least compassion. I hope you grow out of it . Go to your room [ or anywhere the f=== away] and don't come out until you have.If I'd met you first I wouldnt have allowed myself to be called christian.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lou Poulain:
Do you get the same level of criticism when expressing your strict pacifist views about war?

I don't have strict pacifist views. I also don't think there's any inconsistency there (despite your implication that there is,) insomuch as I'd hold the Just War approach which prohibits violence against civilian non-combatants and only justifies its use where the war is defensive. If someone is serving in an aggressive army waging a campaign against your homeland, then they're not an innocent, and you are entitled to use proportionate means to protect the common good.

quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
So I don't see a problem is saying "I think abortion in this case is quite possibly morally wrong in the highest sense, but totally understandable"

I can understand why people might want the girl to have an abortion. I can understand why relatives of murder victims sometimes want to do horrific things to the perpetrators. I can understand why mobs screamed for the blood of the Bulger killers. But in every case I think they're wrong to do (or have done) so, and I have a serious problem with the idea that Christianity legitimises aiming lower than the best we can do - which in this case would have been not to procure an abortion, and thereby terminate the life of an innocent.

quote:
Originally posted by Lucy H:
that matters less than being theologically correct

Actually, a minor point - this isn't about being theologically correct. I would expect an enlightened, noble pagan to be just as opposed to abortion as any pro-lifer. There are pro-life atheists, pro-life feminists, pro-life Jews, pro-life Muslims, pro-life gays. It's a question of morality, not theology. I think there's a strong theological case too, but like I said to Tiffer, unless one is talking to people with similar theological foundations, it's not worth making since it's more likely to alienate than convince.

And thanks for the rest of your comments. I'll think about them.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
C'mon, Matt the Mad Medic,
What makes you think you and CM are the only ones to be aware of, and agonised by, the whole idea of having to do something against what you usually reckon fits with your conscience?

The fact that you would, in this case, shows your real, sufficiently flexible value system. Similar to the rest of us?

JL,
That is how we have to behave and belong in this world - we are aliens and wanderers at the moment - and the world is global, circular, not lots of tiny square blocks and cages. Anyone who tries to lock us up in these cages is being spiritually abusive and anyone who lives in one needs to grow out of it.
 
Posted by Atlanta (# 2659) on :
 
How would any of you feel if that 9yr old was related to you?????

I know how I would feel Rightly or Wrongly.

We are in 2003, should this still be happening to children( or anyone)?

This is too close to home for me to make any rational comments.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
There was a report on Woman's Hour today giving an update on what was happening.
BBC

The interview was from Managua, and said that the medical panel had said her life was at risk. Apparently, this is the only reason that one may have an abortion legally, but there are many back-street and private abortions being performed. The women's groups are saying that "the law is extreme" and are the ones who helped and supported the family.

The father said that he was relieved that his daughter could begin to get back to being a little girl again, and that she would obviously still need psychological help. He said that he and his wife were taking responsibility for beginning to sort things out for their daughter. [Smile] Good for them.

The rapist also gave her two venereal diseases.. (Matt TMM, have you any medical tortures for him? Aren't some old-fashioned treatments for VD agonising? [Devil] )

The doctors and parents have been excommunicated. The Roman Catholic Church there has said that "they excommunicated themselves". Good for them! Some of the Conservative Right politicians are leaguing up together ti try and change the law to totally outlaw abortions! [brick wall]

Now for the most awesome news. We have on this board a woman with both Prophetic and Word of Knowledge gifting; a cardinal is regularly preaching at mass on Sundays for both political and religious total banning of abortion!!! [Mad] However, the general population don't seem afraid of him, nor take excomunication seriously. [Big Grin]
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daisymay:
The doctors and parents have been excommunicated. The Roman Catholic Church there has said that "they excommunicated themselves". Good for them! Some of the Conservative Right politicians are leaguing up together to try and change the law to totally outlaw abortions! [brick wall]

[Roll Eyes] How wonderful... when people are going through what must be the worst agony of their lives, what better way to draw them closer to Christ and his church than an excommunication? I know the RC Church cannot condone the action, but why could they not be quiet!?

It infuriates me all the more to think that this family are being used as pawns to further political positions.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
From the Catechism:
quote:
Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offence. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, by the very commission of the offence, and subject to the conditions provided be Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society.
By acting as they did, they excommunicated themselves. By honestly confessing what they did as a sin and undertaking proper penance, they will have the excommunication lifted.

Because I have no desire to start Lent in a bad mood, that's all I'm going to say at this point.
 
Posted by silverfran (# 3549) on :
 
I am feeling a lot of the same feelings that have been expressed at this terrible event. I too am lost for words at what has happened to this poor, innocent child.

I do not want her to go through any more pain or trauma, and yet I cannot help but feel for her unborn child. Regardless of the circumstances it was conceived it is still a being who has a right to life. Who are we to decide who is allowed to have life, at all, let alone based on the circumstances of their conception.
That to me is just as horrific as the thing this girl has gone through.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
silverfran said,

quote:
Who are we to decide who is allowed to have life, at all, let alone based on the circumstances of their conception.
That's the responsibility God has given us. We are not passive beings, we are designed to make choices.
 
Posted by silverfran (# 3549) on :
 
I'm not debating that. My point is life is a gift given to us by God. SUrely by deciding who is able to have life we are elevating the status of our role in this world to God's.

i.e. no matter what I think of what the poor girl has suffered and will suffer surely our first responsibility is to keep God's statutes and commands??

People are right to question which is the most loving approach, because love is never easy. It is not the easy option or a way out, neither is abortion. That presents its own set of problems and traumas which she will have to endure.
 
Posted by Lucy H (# 3570) on :
 
if an ectopic pregnancy occurs [ the foetus lodges in the fallopian tube ] the tube will rupture killing mother and baby.That this foetus was lodged in a nine years old womb was likely to have taken both their lives too .The choice was always between two evils not between right and wrong.All condemnation should pertain to the rapist alone.
Apart from that to be heaped on the church that has added to their burdens while 'they themselves do not lift a finger to help.'Let those with no history of child abuse , no turning of a blind eye to Hitlers treatment of the jews
do the excommunicating -to say nothing of the inquistion.I would they all cut themselves off....while they're about it.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Lucy H,

It's probably for the best that you didn't say anything about the Inquisition, given your ignorance of history with regard to the Church's involvement on the Holocaust. Here are some useful articles to help you avoid bearing false witness in the future:

Sir Martin Gilbert: Pius XII & the Holocaust
Rabbi David Dalin: Pius XII was a Righteous Gentile

I'm struggling to see the relevance of the child abuse scandals. The Church teaches the profound immorality of child abuse as well as abortion. The fact that clerics have failed to live up to the teaching of their Church by committing abhorrent crimes is a source of misery to all people of good will and right reason.

But then, dare I say it, so is abortion.
 
Posted by kenwritez (# 3238) on :
 
Let me preface my comments by saying anyone who's read my exchanges between Fr. G, JL and myself on the "Are Other Christians Really Christian?" thread will see I hold no love for the Orthodox/RCC hierarchy, politics or the majority of their exclusionary doctrines.

I'd also preface by saying emotions on this thread are running very high, therefore calm, rational discussion is much more difficult to come by in this kind of environment.

JL might be a lot of things, but as someone who has read many of his posts, I disagree that he's self-righteous.

Yes, he's firm in his convictions about abortion and yes, his convictions are extreme by many people's standards here. That being said, the unpopularity of his convictions doesn't automatically mean they're wrong, nor does it guarantee they're right.

Because of his length of time as a Shipmate and tenor of his posts, I believe he's earned the common respect to have his opinions listened to (and disagreed with when necessary), as have we all, and I would ask that if you disagree with them, you do so without killing him. Please offer him the same consideration you would want from someone disagreeing with you.
 
Posted by Lucy H (# 3570) on :
 
J.L. have lookd up the links you graciously provided. My information came from a bbc documentary , tho I cant provide the reference. My point I think [ through a haze of maternal rage ] was that I believe Hitler was counted as a Roman Catholic and never out rightly condemned.Along with all manner of other miscreants who are not or were not excommunicated.But the references you provided are enlightening.I still think the choice was between two evils and not right and wrong.
Thanks to Kenwritez for your moderating influence. some of the emotion is stuffed back in its box.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Both Hitler and Mussolini had been baptised Roman Catholic - though, obviously, they were far from any such beliefs when they came to power. I understand that Pius XII had some advice to formally excommunicate them (a different matter than that which JL previously explained), but, under consideration, decided it would do no good and possibly much harm. Excommunication (which basically involves being barred from the sacraments and, for priests, suspension of faculties for active ministry - not condemnation to hell or the like) is intended to lead the person to repentance - which was not going to happen with those two - and, especially considering both that Hitler would love to have taken the Vatican, and to have all the more reason to begin a full scale persecution of Catholics, for Pius to issue an excommunication could have been fuel for a Fascist/Nazi fire.

Most members of the Italian armed forces were at least nominally Catholic... and a much earlier Pius had seen what can happen when the head of state is excommunicated (even allowing for that English nationalism of the time of Pius V exceeded the norm for Italy.) I don't know if this was required of those serving in the military, but an elderly friend of mine, German and old enough to remember the Holocaust, informed me that at least some within the Nazi regime were required to swear to being "believers in God" - to form a contrast to godless communism. To have been Christian would both involve the possibility of ethics at odds with 'duty,' and of professing belief in a Son of God who was Jewish. There could have been implications for an all out war with the Vatican had an excommunication been issued.

This is not an apologia - but I am adding it because it can appear, quite wrongly, that moralists (which I am not - nor am I RC) are seeking to torture people, when, in truth, some of them are extremely pastoral.

I am familiar with the sort of excommunication which JL mentioned, yet, regardless of one's views about the actions of the girl's parents, it is most unfortunate that the hierarchy can be quoted regarding an excommunication in the media. Speaking in general (not in relation to this issue), very few people are aware that such an excommunication is intended as a spur to repentance, and that those in such a predicament are supposed to have pastoral care. The most solid RC moralist on earth could possibly see circumstances here that would decrease (for example) the parents' use of the will here, their ability to act with 'reflection and consent' in the instance of such psychological torture, etc. I cannot say how many people I have known who, rightly or wrongly, assumed they were excommunicated and that this meant there was 'no turning back' to the Church! Quite honestly, this media report makes it appear that the Church casts out people during their time of greatest agony.

I disagree with JL on various matters, but believe that, if there is one thing we share, it is the tendency to assume that others naturally know all of the details about matters we set forth.
 
Posted by daisymay (# 1480) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by kenwritez:

I'd also preface by saying emotions on this thread are running very high, therefore calm, rational discussion is much more difficult to come by in this kind of environment.

So hell encourages calm rational discussion? I think not. [Disappointed]

Even in real life, there are times when we have to rush in and rapidly engage in something urgently and emotively - spontaneous action and words are often necessary.

I'm not killing JL, only the rapist and the cardinal and his political side-kick today.

Let them have nightmares of the rape, experiencing the violation of their bodies, the disgusting penetration of sperm, yuckiness and filthy germs. Let them wake up sweating and paralysed with fear. Let them feel the powerlessness.

Since they're not excommunicated, let them have flashbacks whenever they see blood. [Mad]
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Thanks Ken. Much appreciated.

Daisymay,

What you wrote would have made a lot more sense if the Church had sought to justify the rape. It did not. The rape was condemned. No-one's denying the horror of rape. What is being denied is the idea that deliberately killing an innocent can improve an already dreadful situation.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
I can't remember this detail from my Moral Theology lectures: does a rapist automatically excommunicate himself by virtue of his actions?
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Dear Jesuitical Lad,
In all honesty I have sometimes wondered as to your motives for your exposition of Catholicism on these boards. What is special about April 1?

Confronted with this scandal of evil in the rape of this nine year old girl your answer has repeatedly been:
quote:
My opposition is to the deliberate termination of innocent life

The deliberate killing of an innocent is always wrong, and there are no circumstances which would justify resorting to such a wrong

The deliberate killing of a person - regardless of how long they have left to live in this world - is impermissible

From the beginning, this thread was about the scandal of evil, not the morals of abortion
quote:
OP, originally posted by Elizabeth Anne:
I just found this horrible news story:

Raped nine-year-old girl now faces motherhood

I don't give a damn what your views on abortion are.

In the face of outrage at the existence of evil, you have answered with simple morality lessons. Perhaps, initially you thought people were seeking advice on the morality of abortion. However, you obviously glimpsed at the deeper problems involved when you said
quote:
the conclusion one should draw is that God allows good to come out of the worst of human evils; not that deliberately killing innocents is somehow ethically justifiable
A shame you didn't pursue this line of thinking further.
Mother Church wisely points out the inadequacies of quick answers to difficult problems:

quote:
Providence and the scandal of evil
309. If God the Father almighty, the Creator of the ordered and good world, cares for all his creatures, why does evil exist? To this question, as pressing as it is unavoidable and as painful as it is mysterious, no quick answer will suffice. Only Christian faith as a whole constitutes the answer to this question...


 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Ley Druid,

Actually, I think you need to re-read the OP, especially the last section of it. The complaint was that the girl was being told to go through with the pregnancy, rather than taking the allegedly more humane, easier option of abortion.

But thanks for your comments, all the same.
 
Posted by Big Yellow Taxi (# 2869) on :
 
Unfortunately I haven't had time to read all the posts here. But having gone through 2 planned pregancies in my 30s, and knowing what it's done to me - no 9 year old should have to go through this (at least in these circumstances). I hate the thought of abortion (once you have a small being inside you, you realise just how quickly it becomes a child to you), but she's only a child herself. Who is having her childhood cruelly torn away from her. Not to mention the tremendous impact on the rest of her life. [Mad]
 
Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
Originally posted by Amos:

quote:
I can't remember this detail from my Moral Theology lectures: does a rapist automatically excommunicate himself by virtue of his actions?
Not according to the Catechism of the Roman Catholic Church (at least, not under the chapter dealing with the 6th Commandment). Nor does murder, from what I could make out. So Peter Sutcliffe didn't automatically excommunicate himself but the parents of a raped nine year old who decide that an abortion is the best thing to be done in a horrible situation do. Of course, these things are, properly, condemned in the strongest terms by the Holy See - but the rapist and mass murderer apparently warrant more pastoral sensitivity than the concerned parents.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
CODE OF CANON LAW: BOOK VI
Sanctions in the Church


PART I: OFFENCES AND PUNISHMENTS IN GENERAL
PART II: PENALTIES FOR PARTICULAR OFFENCES

Might be useful for those who like to be informed before working themselves into a righteous froth.
 
Posted by Trevor (# 3644) on :
 
Thanks for the info, JL.
I'm not trying to attack anyone, but I would like my ignorance relieved, because I'm really confused. I thought that the whole point of opposing abortion is that the zygote, embryo, or fetus human being has the same value and "person" status as an already-born human being. The links say that someone can be excommunicated for killing not-born people, but not for offing the born.

My brain has started to hurt, because this seems to place a greater value on those persons who are not yet born as compared to those who are. Again, this is a sincere request for explanation.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Trevor,

One thought which occurs to me is that the Church can still rely - for the time being - on the State to deal with those who murder humans outside the womb. Those whose victims are not yet born, however, often have full State approval for their actions; thus one might argue that the Church needs to emphasise the gravity of the crime in a situation where the State too often instead offers applause.

That's my take on the affair, anyway. And excommunication is an option in cases of murder where the victim is born - it's just not automatically incurred.
 
Posted by Ley Druid (# 3246) on :
 
Dear Jesuitical Lad,

I will be very disappointed if you evade my question:
When someone confronts the scandal of evil, do you feel the Church suggests that it is sufficient to expound upon the wrongness of the evil?
 
Posted by Professor Yaffle (# 525) on :
 
If Jesuitical Lad had any sense of irony, he might appreciate that linking to not one, but two collections of canon law as a response to the complaint that the Roman Church is, in this instance, behaving somewhat legalistically was perhaps not the response best calculated to answer the complaint. The relevant passage would appear to be:

quote:
Can. 1397 One who commits murder, or who by force or by fraud abducts, imprisons, mutilates or gravely wounds a person, is to be punished, according to the gravity of the offence, with the deprivations and prohibitions mentioned in can. 1336. In the case of the murder of one of those persons mentioned in can. 1370, the offender is punished with the penalties there prescribed.

Can. 1398 A person who actually procures an abortion incurs a latae sententiae excommunication.

Which implies that excommunication is not automatic in the case of murder or rape but is in the case of procuring an abortion, even if the person whom the abortion is procured for is a nine year old girl who has been subject to a horrifying and degrading assault*. Which is, I believe, what I said the first time round. So nice of you to back my point up JL.

The point that you appear to be missing is that, whatever one's views on the licitness of abortion, and my position is closer to yours than it is to the classic pro-choice stance, in the case of a nine year old the situation is deeply tragic. Given the reality of the situation confronted by two parents one would imagine that a degree of pastoral sensitivity would be appropriate. "By the way, you've just tripped the automatic excommunication switch" especially when murder (and the argument is abortion=murder right?) does not trip the automatic excommunication switch. On this reading there are sometimes mitigating reasons where murder takes place, but never when an abortion takes place? Not even in these circumstances? One doesn't expect the Canon Lawyers to start handing out planned parenthood leaflets at the beginning of Mass, but some recognition of the traumas undergone by the nine year old girl and her parents would be reasonably appropriate in giving some kind of account of the ethical issues at stake here.

*If you think that this is righteous froth as opposed to a reasonably accurate account of what took place may I suggest that rejoining the human species is in order before commenting on their affairs.
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
Thank you, Professor Yaffle.

JL, I have a question (and this is because I genuinely do not know - it is not 'bait.') I realise that matters of canon law, specifically those related to excommunication, usually developed because a particular practise (selling indulgences, violence towards the clergy, false accusations, violating the confessional seal) had serious effects on the church at large at the time the legal point was addressed (and perhaps continuously.)

Would you know why abortion, specifically, was made a condition for this automatic excommunication? I realise, of course, that one guilty of murder, rape, or assault would not be able to partake of the sacraments - but why are those who have committed such crimes not been subjected to excommunication if those who procure abortion are? It would not seem to be because of criminal law not dealing with abortionists, given that it is only in the 20th century that abortion became legal.

I believe I recall reading, a few years ago, that absolution of those who procured abortion still was reserved to the bishop, though many bishops chose to give their priests delegated authority in this area. Would murderers and rapists be able to be absolved directly by priests, with no special authority?

Little trivia note, for anyone interested: Until the modern era, people guilty of very grave sins often were penanced for extended periods, and may have had to do such penance for a long time before being re-admitted to communion. The mediaeval penitentiaries set this forth. However, except for cases involving excommunication reserved to bishops or to the Holy See, I believe such penance was at the discretion of the confessor.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Ley Druid,

No, I don't.

Professor Yaffle & Newman's Own,

I may be wrong - and I'm sure you'll tell me if I am! - but I think my response to Trevor should answer your queries.
 
Posted by Elizabeth Anne (# 3555) on :
 
Enough! Everyone's shown their true colors here. Just let the thread die already, please.
 
Posted by Amos (# 44) on :
 
Thanks to Prof. Yaffle, Newman's Own, and JL for unfolding the implications of my question.

JL--when I studied Moral Theology, it was in a class, with other students (Jesuit Scholastics, mostly) and a teacher (SJ). It occasionally seems to me as if you have studied Moral Theology on your own, enthusiastically, with a stack of books. When you do things this way, one of the dangers is to miss nuances and truly problematic points, not to mention the Church's own internal discussion over the years on these points. IMO the dialogic method is better!
 
Posted by Newman's Own (# 420) on :
 
No one is forced to read this or any thread - if people want to make comments, they have no obligation to make a thread die.

I am not a moralist, of course, JL, but my own instruction in moral theology was in a setting similar to that of Amos. Perhaps you do not intend this, but you are arguing from a seeming standpoint (in relation to the canons) of 'it is the law because it is in the law.' The response you gave to Trevor does not seem adequate, and the links provide no explanation of the history of or reasoning behind that on which I requested your response.

My own studies were before the new Code was issued. Just borrowing a similar situation, related to killing, those who participated in a duel were automatically excommunicated, though not those who killed another under most under circumstances. (And this despite that one who killed another with pistol or sabre tended to be violating the penal code in any case.) There always are reasons why particular situations are singled out in forming just about any form of law.
 
Posted by Jesuitical Lad (# 2575) on :
 
Well, it seems that the best approach might be to ask a canon lawyer then, because I simply don't know. All I can offer are guesses, and those clearly aren't what's wanted.

Apologies.
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0