MissyP89 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 From the BBC: [quote]A Brazilian archbishop says all those who helped a child rape victim secure an abortion are to be excommunicated from the Catholic Church. The girl, aged nine, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, became pregnant with twins. It is alleged that she had been sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather. The excommunication applies to the child's mother and the doctors involved in the procedure.[/quote] The full story can be found [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7926694.stm"]here[/url]. I am not going to come down on either side of this issue, but I am interested in hearing the opinions of the pham. Did the bishop make the right decision? Should the nine-year-old have carried the twins to term? Is there really any 100% moral solution in a scenario this extreme? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rkwright Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Why are they so quick to excommunicate people pushing abortion for a rape victim but we're silent on excommunicating "regular" abortions? Why does the fact the victim was raped = excommunications. The other victims here are the twins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The bishop acted in this manner because it became so public. If this had been a pregnancy because of a 12 year old boy friend, it would have been much more private. At 9 with twins, there was a great risk of her having serious complications, but they could have been dealt with. I think everyone involved except the girl have excommunicated themselves. The girl is barely over the age of reason, and I doubt she had much say in what happened either before or after the rape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
homeschoolmom Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1798523' date='Mar 5 2009, 08:28 PM']The girl is barely over the age of reason[/quote] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ardillacid Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 [quote name='MissyP89' post='1798514' date='Mar 5 2009, 08:13 PM']Should the nine-year-old have carried the twins to term? [/quote] Is this a question that really needs to be asked? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 YES the twins should have been taken to term. You cannot kill them, so you have to provide as much medical care as possible to help them survive; I would imagine it would be a good idea to plan for a c-section no matter what. The bishop did not have a choice as to whether or not they were excommunicated. Every person who performs or assists in the performance of an abortion is automatically excommunicated by the code of canon law. Can. 1398 A person who procures a completed abortion incurs a latae sententiae [automatic] excommunication. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggamafu Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 A c-section at 24-28 weeks would have probably happened, regardless. For a nine year old, I imagine that would be risky. I can't even imagine...ugh, poor girl. What a horrible story. Prayers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 What would be the moral implications of inducing labour potentially quite early in a mother so excessively young? Early enough that the babies pose less of a thread to the mother, but risking that they die in delivery? Or is this even a real option? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CatherineM Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 There is a Catholic hospital that is under fire for doing just that with babies that are severely deformed, or have a bad genetic illness. I forget which one, but they were inducing well early, not calling it an abortion, but just an induction for the health of the mother, and then didn't take extra ordinary measures to save the life of the baby. It is a very fine line. It's like taking out a fallopian tube with an ectopic pregnancy. It saves the mother's life, but also causes the death of the embryo. It all depends on intent and primary purpose of the action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nihil Obstat Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 [quote name='CatherineM' post='1798801' date='Mar 6 2009, 12:22 AM']There is a Catholic hospital that is under fire for doing just that with babies that are severely deformed, or have a bad genetic illness. I forget which one, but they were inducing well early, not calling it an abortion, but just an induction for the health of the mother, and then didn't take extra ordinary measures to save the life of the baby. It is a very fine line. It's like taking out a fallopian tube with an ectopic pregnancy. It saves the mother's life, but also causes the death of the embryo. It all depends on intent and primary purpose of the action.[/quote] I was thinking more along the lines of the whole pro abortion argument "what if they mother's life is in danger?" I had ectopic pregnancies in mind... the whole double effect idea. My thought was carry the baby as long as is safe, then induce labour and do everything possible to save the baby. After all, they can survive pretty premature, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MissyP89 Posted March 6, 2009 Author Share Posted March 6, 2009 I was born at 24 weeks. I survived, but am disabled. So it's a mixed bag... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bonkers Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 The right decision was made to abort the twins. It would be immoral to force a little 9 year old girl to endure pregnancy and then become a mother to two children fathered by her own father. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aloysius Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 killing babies is not justified for any reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ziggamafu Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 Babies have survived as early as 22 weeks. One of my daughters was born at ~29 weeks. Since we should always intend to save both the mother and the children, it seems that (as is often the case in emergency medical decisions) a choice would have to be made to induce / c-section as early as possible in the attempt to save both the mother and the child. I would see nothing wrong in removing the baby at about 25-30 weeks in the attempts to minimize risk for both the child and the mother (where their lives are truly in danger). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eagle_eye222001 Posted March 6, 2009 Share Posted March 6, 2009 [quote name='bonkers' post='1798826' date='Mar 6 2009, 03:23 AM']The right decision was made to abort the twins. It would be immoral to force a little 9 year old girl to endure pregnancy and then become a mother to two children fathered by her own father.[/quote] Immoral by whose standards and why? ---------------- Listening to: [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/artist/story+of+the+year/track/wake+up"]Story Of The Year - Wake Up[/url] via [url="http://www.foxytunes.com/signatunes/"]FoxyTunes[/url] 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