Adam S Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Does no-one else see a massive massive problem in forcing a raped, vulnerable woman to have a baby she has done nothing to be burdened with???? Ive spoken to a few Catholics on this and they acknowledge this (as i do) as a very difficult issue. But everyone seems to have it clear cut here. Is it because you hide behind Church documents and bits of rules, is it pure ideology and judgement, or is it some great truth that i am somehow missing out on, because i dont get how it can be so clear cut to so many people. It seems positively heartless - i know its also heartless to kill the child, but can no-one see the immense difficulties and minefields this creates????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 i see the difficulty, but i also see how ABORTION would be WORSE for the woman than giving bith to the baby and either keeping him or giving him away in adoption Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam S Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 (edited) Yeah, i agree, for certain women. So for those women, they need the counselling e.t.c to show that its better to have the kid HOWEVER i have a real problem, although i can acknowledge its wrong e.t..c, saying to a rape victim, who it might be better FOR HER not to have the kid in the long term, "sorry but abortion is banned [color=red][edited by Ice Princess: inappropriate, vulgar phrase][/color] You see where im coming from, its not the morality, its the idea of banning it.... Edited October 9, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 the problem is that it is NEVER better for the woman to not have the kid in the long run. why? the BODY has already been convinced there is a baby there, the hormonal levels are up and the brain knows there is a baby in it, the body moves into a sort of "marternal mode" so to speak. when the baby disappears, the hormonal levels are not naturaly lowed (in a birth, the hormonal levels go through a natural process to lower), and in miscarriages, the pregnancy ALWAYS has a low hormonal level. but in a normal pregnancy, the hormonal level is up, and if the baby is killed the body recognizes the death of a baby. it is psychologically devestating. maybe not today or tomarrow, but it ALWAYS comes back to haunt them. why? very solid psychology. not to mention the increased danger of breast cancer that comes from the unnatural ending of a pregnancy (hormone levels left over unable to naturally lower) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 (edited) No one has denied the fact that rape is a difficult issue. You seem to have a problem with the fact that ABORTION is not a difficult issue. It IS morally clear cut. Apparently you are missing out on the great truth about the value of EVERY human life, born and unborn. There are thousands upon thousands of couples out there on waiting lists to adopt. No one is forced to keep a child once they give birth, or even when they find out they are pregnant. My aunt and uncle have adopted 2 boys--one of whom they paid for all the prenatal care for (the other boy was a little older when he was adopted). Many couples pay for the doctor bills for the pregnant woman who's child they are adopting. As soon as someone discovers she is pregnant she can seek adoptive parents for her baby. I don't see how you have such a big problem with the fact that abortion is never admissable. If its never admissable it SHOULD BE banned. The banning and morality issue are intricately connected. If abortion were morally neutral there would be no reason to ban it. Abortion is [b]morally evil[/b] so there is every reason for banning. Edited October 9, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JeffCR07 Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 [quote]Does no-one else see a massive massive problem in forcing a raped, vulnerable woman to have a baby she has done nothing to be burdened with????[/quote] Adam, I believe you are attempting to write heartlessness into our responses that simply does not exist. We ALL acknowledge the horrors of rape, and we all take it seriously. What you are suggesting, however, is that on top of the horror of the poor, raped, vulnerable woman we should tack on the horror of a poor, innocent, slaughtered child. To murder the innocent is always evil. Ultimately, the "massive massive problem" is the idea that a child should be killed in order to prevent another person from more trouble or hardship. Yes, the woman has undegone terrible hardship, but as followers of Christ, cold murder is never an option. - Your Brother In Christ, Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam S Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I am no longer continuing this debate. While most answers have been reasonable, well thought out and educational, Ice princess has decided to warn me out of sheer ignorance. Ice Princess - the phrase i used is an English term (I would like to post it again so other Brits could support me, but i dont want to get another warning hit.) and is more of a nursery rhyme type phrase as opposed to the breast attachment you put on it. Another example which has a similar meaning is "So there with knobs on" This relates to a simple childs term once again, and so should not be banned just because knob can be another word for an area of the male anatomy. I suspect in fact you are well aware of this, simply do not like my point of view and have decided to get a petty 1-0. It is a shame that you would resort to an immature and childish thing, and make this an unpleasant place for me to post on. Thank you to all who have posted sensibly, you have made me rethink various issues, but according to Ice princess, you can only get into a debate if you agree with her, or change your mind soon after. God Bless Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 I am sure Iceprincess was unaware. I had a conversation with her via PM, she was asking if she came accross too "snooty" in that last post especially after having to edit/warn you. She told me the phrase she edited, and I thought she was right. We're just ignorant Americans sometimes when it comes to that stuff. Please understand that it was a complete misunderstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 [quote name='popestpiusx' date='Oct 8 2004, 10:59 AM'] This point is irrelevant. There is no way that we can be the judge of what kind of life someone may have, nor can we justify any act of preventing that life based on our speculation. I know a girl who is the product of a rape. I think she have serious issues with anyone who attempted to justify contraception on this basis. Furthermore, this is the same sort of argument the pro-aborts use to justify aborting the Children concieved during a rape, or anyone else that they deem may "have a rough life ahead of them." I'm not accusing you of those same sympathies. That would be rediculous as you are obviously a good Catholic. I am simply making the point that this is a dangerous argument to use and could easily be used against us. Your other points are good and I will think about it more before I post a reply to them. One last thing though, even if in theory you are correct, I still do not know of any drug contraceptive drug that does also act as an abortifacient. [/quote] The first point is indeed only relevant because it requires honest though on the subject, but does not really affect the conclusion of my thoughts, at least in the terms I stated them in. The Church always does the does loving thing. Also to become a little graphic but not inappropriate, physically removing the sperm from inside the women is possible and would severely less the chance for pregnancy. But you do make a good point about not knowing of a drug that could do this, because neither do I. However I wonder about some external means pf destroying the egg in tube through ultra sound, similar to the way they break up scar tissue? Also, the immediacy of the action would also help prevent the destruction of life. Anyhow, thank you for your humility and Charity. [quote]Double effect can't apply in abortion for one reason, it's a direct act on the child. Double effect really only takes place when you're not acting directly on the child's life. [/quote] Thanks qfnol31 for the quote and the a principle which always must be kept in mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam S Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 [quote name='Aluigi' date='Oct 9 2004, 08:29 AM']I am sure Iceprincess was unaware. I had a conversation with her via PM, she was asking if she came accross too "snooty" in that last post especially after having to edit/warn you. She told me the phrase she edited, and I thought she was right. We're just ignorant Americans sometimes when it comes to that stuff. Please understand that it was a complete misunderstanding.[/quote] Fair dues. I apologise then for my rant God Bless Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Aluigi Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 it's understandable considering the circumstances... anyway, back to the subject at hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IcePrincessKRS Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 (edited) I apologize for editing what you deemed an innocent phrase, Adam, but I *have* heard the same phrase used here in the States used in a vulgar fashion. I had never heard it used in the manner you described in your previous post (clearly, since I'm not Brit). I would not EVER edit or warn someone just because I disagreed with them. I am here to uphold dUSt's rules to the best of my ability and when I edit I'm just doing the job he gave me. Edited October 9, 2004 by IcePrincessKRS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 [quote]The Church always does the does loving thing.[/quote] I must add: She also demands the most loving actions from us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cmotherofpirl Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 [quote name='Adam S' date='Oct 8 2004, 10:16 PM'] Does no-one else see a massive massive problem in forcing a raped, vulnerable woman to have a baby she has done nothing to be burdened with???? Ive spoken to a few Catholics on this and they acknowledge this (as i do) as a very difficult issue. But everyone seems to have it clear cut here. Is it because you hide behind Church documents and bits of rules, is it pure ideology and judgement, or is it some great truth that i am somehow missing out on, because i dont get how it can be so clear cut to so many people. It seems positively heartless - i know its also heartless to kill the child, but can no-one see the immense difficulties and minefields this creates????? [/quote] Do you see the massive problem of killing another human being because they are a burden or inconvenient? Do you think those are good criteria for murder? Should I kill for convenience? Do you punish the innocent to get back at the guilty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Theoketos Posted October 9, 2004 Share Posted October 9, 2004 Abortion is not the issue here, take it too another thread... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now