Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion

[Felicity]

History tells us you are correct in that assertion, all sarcasm aside.

ummmhmmm...and just like your totally unbiased sources for quotes from a doctor of the Church, your judgement concerning who can speak authoritatively on Church teaching and actions is above reproach.

'scuse me if I think your assessment is unfounded.

 

[jallman]

ummmhmmm...and just like your totally unbiased sources for quotes from a doctor of the Church,

Yes yes yes, because direct quotes are so questionable. Excuse me while I swallow the bile in my mouth from where your blind apologetics made me sick.

 

[Felicity]

Yes yes yes, because direct quotes are so questionable. Excuse me while I swallow the bile in my mouth from where your blind apologetics made me sick.

Context, joey...context.

 

[jallman]

Context, joey...context.

Vomit, dear, vomit. :lol:

I still love you even if I harbor a very liberating hatred for the Church.

 

[Felicity]

Vomit, dear, vomit. :lol:

I still love you even if I harbor a very liberating hatred for the Church.

And I still love you too.

 

[Vader]

Well the vatican came out today to agree with the archbishop.

Vatican backs abortion excommunications | The Courier-Mail

What I don't understand is why the church doesn't also excommunicate the step-daddy diddler. Coming down hard on a pedophile is exactly the kind of PR the Catholic church needs. But instead now they haul out a cardinal from the Vatican who reiterates it was right to excommunicate the mother and he too says nothing about the diddler.

Makes no sense.

It's pure catholic hypocrisy. The catholic church doesn't give a flying fart that an 9 year-old girl was raped. They only care that a 9 year-old girl who could not carry twins to term without dying had an abortion.

The idiots in the Vatican agreed.

An attack on the Brazilian church --- and the Vatican --- IS VERY justified.

Furthermore, excommunicating the mother of the rape victim, outside of her direct facilitation of the act in question, is an abuse of clergical authority. Yet more bad behavior on the part of the catholic aristocrisy.

This case is horrifying and the Catholic church should ashamed of themselves for attempting to sacrifice a rape victim to save the product of a rape.

It's unforgiveable. The Archbishop is a disgrace and so is the Vatican.

 

[Vader]

Right....:roll: It has nothing to do with doing the right thing--it's all about filling Vatican coffers.

If the Catholic church cared about doing the right thing, they would've excommunicated the stepfather and left mother, child, and surgeons alone.

They did otherwise ....

Therefore, Catholic church and "the right thing" do not belong in the same sentence.

 

[Thoreau]

This does not surprise me, radical prolife Catholics believe there is not one case where an abortion is necessary. Not in cases or rape, or incest and or when the mother cannot take the pregnancy to full term. I debated a radical Catholic prolifer on what the Catholics do about ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are when the an embryo is formed outside of the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube but not always. It happens 1 out of every 60 to 1 out of 100 pregnancies. It is usually discovered right away as the woman will feel excruciating abdominal pain. It is treated with an abortifacient pill or if the embryo is to far in its development it is surgically removed. There is no way to successfully bring an ectopic pregnancy to full term.

So the Kosher Catholic approach according to this lady was to wait it out, I kid you not. This exposes the woman to all kinds of pain and complications that can be lethal. After the embryo dies on its own the entire Fallopian tube is removed according to the Catholic. This also puts the woman through unnecessary surgery and the possible resulting complications. It also can severely compromise the woman's fertility in the future. I did not even know what to say, I was baffled at how someone could be so irrational.

 

[danarhea]

You know, there is a solution here. Remember the movie in which people conspired to get the Pope pregnant? :mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

This does not surprise me, radical prolife Catholics believe there is not one case where an abortion is necessary. Not in cases or rape, or incest and or when the mother cannot take the pregnancy to full term.

That's not true--in this case specifically, the threat was not yet imminent and some further development of the babies could have occurred and then their birth induced to protect the girl's life. The objection is that the death of the babies was a goal--not saving the life of the girl. She was 5 months pregnant. A few weeks more, and the babies may have been able to survive.

I debated a radical Catholic prolifer on what the Catholics do about ectopic pregnancies. Ectopic pregnancies are when the an embryo is formed outside of the uterus, most commonly in the fallopian tube but not always. It happens 1 out of every 60 to 1 out of 100 pregnancies. It is usually discovered right away as the woman will feel excruciating abdominal pain. It is treated with an abortifacient pill or if the embryo is to far in its development it is surgically removed. There is no way to successfully bring an ectopic pregnancy to full term.

So the Kosher Catholic approach according to this lady was to wait it out, I kid you not. This exposes the woman to all kinds of pain and complications that can be lethal. After the embryo dies on its own the entire Fallopian tube is removed according to the Catholic. This also puts the woman through unnecessary surgery and the possible resulting complications. It also can severely compromise the woman's fertility in the future. I did not even know what to say, I was baffled at how someone could be so irrational.

One can treat a condition that may result in the death of the child. It is a foreseen, but unintended consequence. If the embryo is dead, there is no need to remove the fallopian tube. There is no moral quandary. If the child is still developing, but the mother's life is imminently threatened, then removal of the tube would be the course that would be the moral action.

 

[Thoreau]

That's not true--in this case specifically, the threat was not yet imminent and some further development of the babies could have occurred and then their birth induced to protect the girl's life. The objection is that the death of the babies was a goal--not saving the life of the girl. She was 5 months pregnant. A few weeks more, and the babies may have been able to survive.

Direct relatives conceiving a child generally do not produce the greatest offspring. Plus why should a 9 year suddenly have to be propelled into a life of motherhood that she had no choice in the matter, and take care of the child of a rapist. Certainly this is not going to be good psychologically for both the mother and the child. 9 year-old are neither physically or psychologically mature enough for child bearing.

One can treat a condition that may result in the death of the child. It is a foreseen, but unintended consequence. If the embryo is dead, there is no need to remove the fallopian tube. There is no moral quandary. If the child is still developing, but the mother's life is imminently threatened, then removal of the tube would be the course that would be the moral action.

This is what she said, plus ectopic pregnancies are not exclusive to the fallopian tubes, they can form outside both the tubes and the uterus. In this case "Kosher" surgical options are unavailable and the life of the woman should, take precedent over irrational beliefs. Plus it is not a child, it is an embryo putting pressure on internal organs.

 

[Felicity]

Direct relatives conceiving a child generally do not produce the greatest offspring. Plus why should a 9 year suddenly have to be propelled into a life of motherhood that she had no choice in the matter, and take care of the child of a rapist. Certainly this is not going to be good psychologically for both the mother and the child. 9 year-old are neither physically or psychologically mature enough for child bearing.

The girl was 5 months pregnant--a week or two longer to possibly spare the life of the babies would have been less traumatic than the abortion activists making a public spectacle of the poor girl.

As for producing "great offspring"--there was no indication that there was anything genetically wrong with the babies and the man who impregnated her was a STEP-father, no blood relation.

The babies could have been adopted. There was no additional burden the girl would have to bear.

A five year old Peruvian girl has given birth and lived perfectly fine. Her mother raised the child as her brother.

This is what she said, plus ectopic pregnancies are not exclusive to the fallopian tubes, they can form outside both the tubes and the uterus. In this case "Kosher" surgical options are unavailable and life of the woman should, take precedent over irrational beliefs.

And the woman most certainly has the right to defend her life against a life threatening pregnancy--but at the point that it becomes life threatening--morally, not before.

 

[danarhea]

It's pure catholic hypocrisy. The catholic church doesn't give a flying fart that an 9 year-old girl was raped. They only care that a 9 year-old girl who could not carry twins to term without dying had an abortion.

The idiots in the Vatican agreed.

An attack on the Brazilian church --- and the Vatican --- IS VERY justified.

Furthermore, excommunicating the mother of the rape victim, outside of her direct facilitation of the act in question, is an abuse of clergical authority. Yet more bad behavior on the part of the catholic aristocrisy.

This case is horrifying and the Catholic church should ashamed of themselves for attempting to sacrifice a rape victim to save the product of a rape.

It's unforgiveable. The Archbishop is a disgrace and so is the Vatican.

The Catholic Church can excommunicate all they want, but only God makes the determination of who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. In the end, I bet we will see a lot of the excommunicated in Heaven, and a lot of the most holy sacred finger pointers in Hell.

 

[ADK_Forever]

The girl was 5 months pregnant--a week or two longer to possibly spare the life of the babies would have been less traumatic than the abortion activists making a public spectacle of the poor girl.

As for producing "great offspring"--there was no indication that there was anything genetically wrong with the babies and the man who impregnated her was a STEP-father, no blood relation.

The babies could have been adopted. There was no additional burden the girl would have to bear.

A five year old Peruvian girl has given birth and lived perfectly fine. Her mother raised the child as her brother.

Underwhelming compassion. :roll:

And the woman most certainly has the right to defend her life against a life threatening pregnancy--but at the point that it becomes life threatening--morally, not before.

Morally? According to whom? You? She also has the right to "not" carry the babies to term. Doesn't matter what you think. Case closed.

 

[Felicity]

Underwhelming compassion. :roll:

and as you say "according to whom?" Where is your comapssion for the two lives killed when weeks could make a difference between viable or not?

Morally? According to whom? You? She also has the right to "not" carry the babies to term. Doesn't matter what you think. Case closed.

The Catholic Church. The whole problem is with the chosen religion of the girl's family and doctors. If they don't care what thge Church teaches concerning such things, excommunication (in their opinion) would be meaningless.

 

[ADK_Forever]

and as you say "according to whom?" Where is your comapssion for the two lives killed when weeks could make a difference between viable or not?

My compassion is first and foremost with the 9 year old who was raped.

The Catholic Church. The whole problem is with the chosen religion of the girl's family and doctors. If they don't care what thge Church teaches concerning such things, excommunication (in their opinion) would be meaningless.

Screw the church. Most people of any religion act as hypocrits, cherry picking which rules they will follow when it pleases them. Any religion that says it's a sin to use contraception, for a simple example, isn't worth following.

And just why does the religion of her doctors matter at all?

 

[Objective Voice]

The girl was 5 months pregnant--a week or two longer to possibly spare the life of the babies would have been less traumatic than the abortion activists making a public spectacle of the poor girl.

As for producing "great offspring"--there was no indication that there was anything genetically wrong with the babies and the man who impregnated her was a STEP-father, no blood relation.

The babies could have been adopted. There was no additional burden the girl would have to bear.

A five year old Peruvian girl has given birth and lived perfectly fine. Her mother raised the child as her brother.


And the woman most certainly has the right to defend her life against a life threatening pregnancy--but at the point that it becomes life threatening--morally, not before.

You don't find anything morally wrong with this? The fact that the 9-yr old girl addressed in the original post would have given birth to her own step-brother? Or that a 5-yr old girl gave birth in and of itself?

I know -- different part of the world, different culture, but that doesn't erase the moral question associated with children birthing children. And no matter how it's rationalized, I seriously doubt this is what God intended procreation to be like - children baring children.

It's morally, ethically and spiritually WRONG!

 

[ADK_Forever]

The article said:

Doctors said the girl was 15 weeks pregnant when the abortion was performed Wednesday in the northeastern city of Recife, where Sobrinho is archbishop. Health officials said the life of the girl — who weighs 80 pounds — was in danger.

Since when is 15 weeks = 5 months?!?!?! :roll: That's not even 4 months, by the calendar hanging on my wall! What calendar do you use? :lol:

And the poor girl weighed a whopping 80 pounds!!!! Anyone who thinks an 80 pound 9 year old, or woman!, can carry a baby to term, let alone 2!, is not grounded in reality!

I wonder what your decision would be if she were your daughter.

And for the church to come down on her is a perfect example of why the Catholic church has **** for brains. :mrgreen:

 

[Felicity]

The article said:


Since when is 15 weeks = 5 months?!?!?!

I'm sorry--you're right--it was 16 weeks in some articles and 15 in others...It was 4 months. Still the pregnancy was not yet physically burdensome.

And the poor girl weighed a whopping 80 pounds!!!! Anyone who thinks an 80 pound 9 year old, or woman!, can carry a baby to term, let alone 2!, is not grounded in reality!

snopes.com: Youngest Mother

No one said about the girl carrying to term--just until it became medically necessary to deliver the babies. If they died as a result of being under developed, that would be tragic, but it would not be intentionally killing them.

I wonder what your decision would be if she were your daughter.

I would wait until it became medically necessary to deliver. But I'd also probably be in jail for castrating my pedophile bastard husband and feeding his balls to our pet cat.

And for the church to come down on her is a perfect example of why the Catholic church has **** for brains. :mrgreen:

...says more about you than it does the Church.

 

[Felicity]

You don't find anything morally wrong with this? The fact that the 9-yr old girl addressed in the original post would have given birth to her own step-brother? Or that a 5-yr old girl gave birth in and of itself?

Of course it's horrific! Doesn't give one the moral authority to kill babies, though. It's not their fault they were conceived in such a way. The crime was committed against them as well! They are double victims to be executed for being made to come into existence.

 

[Objective Voice]

Of course it's horrific! Doesn't give one the moral authority to kill babies, though. It's not their fault they were conceived in such a way. The crime was committed against them as well! They are double victims to be executed for being made to come into existence.

But it's a child!!!

Forget the pro-life argument long enough for your humanitariasm to come to fore. I'm more pro-choice than I am pro-life, and I'm that way for a reason.

I do believe that under the right Biblical and moral conditions, i.e., marriage at a consenting age, baring children, i.e., procreating the species, IS what we - man and woman - were put on this Earth to do. However, I also believe that there are situations where certain people, be they married, single, mentally unstable, or financially unable, or certain situations, i.e., incest to include step-parents, non-consentual sexual encounters (i.e., rape), or when the health and well-being of the mother and/or the fetus is in mortal jeapordy, such pregnancies should be given strong consideration for termination. Mind you, abortion wouldn't be my first choice; adoption is aways the first option. But I'm not so rigid in my thinking that an abortion should be taken off the table as it were. (No pun intended.)

The step-father was WRONG!

The Vadican is WRONG!

IMO, allowing the pregnancy of a 9-yr old girl regardless of her cultural upbringing is morally wrong!

Now, that said, considering that she was raped I'd give more consideration towards terminating the pregnancy than I would allow it to go to term. However, if the child's life or that of the fetus weren't in mortal jeapordy AND the pregnancy hadn't gone to the "point of no return" AND the attending OB/GYN was competent enough to determine that the child could deliver her baby with little to no risk of complications during birth AND the child's family (parents, or in this case the child's mother) was in agreement to either raise her grand-child as her own OR arrangements had been made to give the (grand)child up for adoption, then YES I'd be fully supportive of a child giving birth to a child despite the fact that such pregnancies go against my moral and spiritual beliefs.

I'm not too rigid in my thinking that there's no room for other alternatives to bad situations such as this. That said, I do believe that IF the parent of the minor (non-teen) child (in this country in particular) under the circumstances that this 9-yr old is under had choosen an abortion for the sake of her daughter, I'd be 100% in her corner.

 

[Objective Voice]

Sidenote: I believe the argument of "aborting a fetus" is in itself conceptually flawed.

Genenis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Until the fetus is outside the womb and is able to breath "sustainable" life-giving air on its own, it's is and remains a fetus, a life-form in development. As miraculous as that living organism may be, it's not alive yet, IMHO. That's NOT to say I'm in favor of partial-birth abortions. However, terminating a pregnacy via an abortion under the circumstances I've outlined in my previous post, IMO, is permissable.

 

[Felicity]

But it's a child!!!

Forget the pro-life argument long enough for your humanitariasm to come to fore. I'm more pro-choice than I am pro-life, and I'm that way for a reason.

I do believe that under the right Biblical and moral conditions, i.e., marriage at a consenting age, baring children, i.e., procreating the species, IS what we - man and woman - were put on this Earth to do. However, I also believe that there are situations where certain people, be they married, single, mentally unstable, or financially unable, or certain situations, i.e., incest to include step-parents, non-consentual sexual encounters (i.e., rape), or when the health and well-being of the mother and/or the fetus is in mortal jeapordy, such pregnancies should be given strong consideration for termination. Mind you, abortion wouldn't be my first choice; adoption is aways the first option. But I'm not so rigid in my thinking that an abortion should be taken off the table as it were. (No pun intended.)

The step-father was WRONG!

The Vadican is WRONG!

IMO, allowing the pregnancy of a 9-yr old girl regardless of her cultural upbringing is morally wrong!

Now, that said, considering that she was raped I'd give more consideration towards terminating the pregnancy than I would allow it to go to term. However, if the child's life or that of the fetus weren't in mortal jeapordy AND the pregnancy hadn't gone to the "point of no return" AND the attending OB/GYN was competent enough to determine that the child could deliver her baby with little to no risk of complications during birth AND the child's family (parents, or in this case the child's mother) was in agreement to either raise her grand-child as her own OR arrangements had been made to give the (grand)child up for adoption, then YES I'd be fully supportive of a child giving birth to a child despite the fact that such pregnancies go against my moral and spiritual beliefs.

I'm not too rigid in my thinking that there's no room for other alternatives to bad situations such as this. That said, I do believe that IF the parent of the minor (non-teen) child (in this country in particular) under the circumstances that this 9-yr old is under had choosen an abortion for the sake of her daughter, I'd be 100% in her corner.

You're just rationalizing why it's permissible to kill human beings simply because another person was traumatized and harmed. If you were robbed, it doesn't give you a free pass to go vandalize your neighbor's house who had nothing to do with the crime committed against you. You can't "un-rape" the girl--so why compound the crime by executing two more victims?

Your "feelings" of mercy cloud what is objectively justice. (which is ironic considering your screen name :shrug

 

[Felicity]

Sidenote: I believe the argument of "aborting a fetus" is in itself conceptually flawed.



Until the fetus is outside the womb and is able to breath "sustainable" life-giving air on its own, it's is and remains a fetus, a life-form in development. As miraculous as that living organism may be, it's not alive yet, IMHO. That's NOT to say I'm in favor of partial-birth abortions. However, terminating a pregnacy via an abortion under the circumstances I've outlined in my previous post, IMO, is permissable.

...as for Bible verses...

Jeremiah 1:5
"Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; Before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations."

 

[Objective Voice]

Sidenote: I believe the argument of "aborting a fetus" is in itself conceptually flawed.



Until the fetus is outside the womb and is able to breath "sustainable" life-giving air on its own, it's is and remains a fetus, a life-form in development. As miraculous as that living organism may be, it's not alive yet, IMHO. That's NOT to say I'm in favor of partial-birth abortions. However, terminating a pregnacy via an abortion under the circumstances I've outlined in my previous post, IMO, is permissable.

Again, as I said, abortion wouldn't be my first choice. However, I do believe that in certain situations abortion may be a viable option. I won't attempt to necessarily rationalize it because clearly no matter how logical the argument most people will still view abortion as wrong. Nonetheless, I don't believe that every situation is an absolute. There are some situations that are clear cut, i.e., hanus crimes such as premeditated murder (which some would even argue abortion is), and there are others that aren't so cut and dry, i.e., theft, e.g., did one steal because they were homeless, starving and no one would help them to obtain a meal despite their constant pleas or did the individual steal food simply because he/she believed they could get away with it?

IMHO, I don't think the abortion issue will ever be resolved on the side of pro-lifers for one simple reason: the genie was let out of the bottle almost a century ago. Once out, explored and used at the descretion of the party who believes it was in her best interest, it is extremely difficult to put the genie back in.