Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion

[Laila]

Roman Catholic archbishop says the abortion of twins carried by a 9-year-old girl who allegedly was raped by her stepfather means excommunication for the girl's mother and her doctors.

Despite the nature of the case, the church had to hold its line against abortion, Archbishop Jose Cardoso Sobrinho said in an interview aired Thursday by Globo television.

"The law of God is higher than any human laws," he said. "When a human law — that is, a law enacted by human legislators — is against the law of God, that law has no value. The adults who approved, who carried out this abortion have incurred excommunication."

What the Mother and Daughter must be going through

FOXNews.com - Brazil Church Excommunicates Mom, Doctors After Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Last time I checked, the appropriate penalty for sin in the Catholic Church was confession and penance.

 

[jallman]

What the Mother and Daughter must be going through

FOXNews.com - Brazil Church Excommunicates Mom, Doctors After Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

That's just stupid on the Catholic Church's part.

 

[prometeus]

Next we will have burnings at the stake to make a stronger point.
Return to the dark ages where compliance had to be enforced by the threat of excommunication from the body of a loving and forgiving God.

 

[DarkWizard12]

What the Mother and Daughter must be going through

FOXNews.com - Brazil Church Excommunicates Mom, Doctors After Raped 9-Year-Old Has Abortion - International News | News of the World | Middle East News | Europe News

BOO HOO! Did the church excommunicate Paul when he killed hundred/thousands of christians? No, they sainted him! This is just another demonstration of the catholic church doing what it does best, giving Christianity a bad name!

That being said, how the heck is a 9 year old even have the ability to carry children? That's not even puberty!

 

[justone]

BOO HOO! Did the church excommunicate Paul when he killed hundred/thousands of christians? No, they sainted him! This is just another demonstration of the catholic church doing what it does best, giving Christianity a bad name!

That being said, how the heck is a 9 year old even have the ability to carry children? That's not even puberty!

This is just another demonstration of the Human Rights Groups doing what they do best, giving Human Rights a bad name!

YouTube - Feminists sued over abortion performed on 9 year-old

 

[Smoke[MaxX]]

I'm fuzzy on my Bible history, but isn't a girl stoned for being unclean or something? Aren't you "unclean" even when raped?

 

[justone]

I'm fuzzy on my Bible history, but isn't a girl stoned for being unclean or something? Aren't you "unclean" even when raped?

You really sound fuzzy, you should take some time off... cold shower may also help.

 

[jallman]

Must....not....feed the...troll. Must....resist.

 

[scourge99]

I wonder what the chances of survival are for the twins and the mother.

 

[jallman]

I wonder what the chances of survival are for the twins and the mother.

Not high enough to discount that the abortion was a lifesaving measure. The Catholic Church and this particular Archbishop can suck a big one over this decision.

 

[justone]

I wonder what the chances of survival are for the twins and the mother.

The sources say that it is a Brasilian law - to evaluate chances and health. So, the laws were followed and doctors did what the law required them to do.

as I gather from Brasilian papers Laws of the catholic church require automatic excommunication, it is not really up to the archbishop, but I don't know, i am not a catholic.

If you don't like you don't have to be a Catholic.

I just wonder of there is a procedure that they can appeal - to the Pope or something>>>?

You really don't have to be a Catholic. For instance, I am not a Catholic. I have no clue how they solve such situations. Clearly, at least for me, the right of life of the mother and the right for life of the children may be in conflict, and in such cases especially invoving rape and the mother-child the right for life of mother will take a priority.

Another question is that raping/having sex with a 9 years old as well as covering such actions is considered a crime by both secular and Catholic laws in Brasil and any other Catholic country.

 

[scourge99]

The sources say that it is a Brasilian law - to evaluate chances and health. So, the laws were followed and doctors did what the law required them to do.

as I gather from Brasilian papers Laws of the catholic church require automatic excommunication, it is not really up to the archbishop, but I don't know, i am not a catholic.

It probably serves as a deterrant.

If you don't like you don't have to be a Catholic.

I disagree. In the case of Catholacism the church is required and is authoritative. If one believes in the divine authority of the church then one cannot simply change their mind.

Likewise I cannot change my mind about my disbelief in God. My beliefs are due to my reasoning and convictions. If these were to change then my beliefs may change. One cannot simply stop being a Catholic because they are excommunicated. It takes a change of beliefs, excommunication does not do such in and of itself.

I just wonder of there is a procedure that they can appeal - to the Pope or something>>>?

good question

 

[prometeus]

While excommunication for abortion is automatic, after confession and penance the sinner is reinstated and forgiven. So much for real damnation.

 

[Pinu7]

I don't want to be the A-hole of the thread but
I may agree with archbishop.

Unless both the twins and the mother's life were surely in danger.

However only the nine year old was in danger. Too my knowledge the twins life were not in immediate danger after the birth.

The life of a baby is as important than the life of its mother(maybe more so since the baby is pure and the mother is not(*with the exception of Mary))

Therefore two babies is a LOT more important than one mother. This the killing of multiple innocents for one person. How you could you all say this is not evil?

Of course, if the twins were definitely going to die anyway, I see no reason to abort them. In a utilitarian perspective.

 

[scourge99]

The life of a baby is as important than the life of its mother(maybe more so since the baby is pure and the mother is not(*with the exception of Mary))

Therefore two babies is a LOT more important than one mother. This the killing of multiple innocents for one person. How you could you all say this is not evil?

You assume that a person must give up their own life for the sake of another. This is admirable but not required of anyone.

For example, if someone could have saved 100 people by sacrificing their own life we do not prosecute that person if they choose not to sacrifice themself. We may chastise that person for selfishly cherishing their own life over the lives of many others but we do not require a self sacrifice of one person for the sake of others. Moreover, such an expectation is diminished if the 100 people got themselves into the situation on their own accord rather than being as a result of the action of the single person. That is, the outcome is the problem of the 100 people who got themselves into the situation and thus the one person is under no obligation to sacrifice himself for the errors of others.

Simple: everyone is responsible for their own well being. While we look admirably upon people who help others, only those who harm others are punished.

Of course, if the twins were definitely going to die anyway, I see no reason to abort them. In a utilitarian perspective.

I'm not a doctor. I wish I knew more about the chances so we could better discuss the punishment rendered by the Catholic Church.

 

[Pinu7]

You assume that a person must give up their own life for the sake of another. This is admirable but not required of anyone.

For example, if someone could have saved 100 people by sacrificing their own life we do not prosecute that person if they choose not to sacrifice themself.

This is not a political or legal debate(I am not sure why it is on DP,anyway). It is a moral and perhaps a religious one.

Anyone that would value his or life over 100 other people's lives are evil. Putting your own interests above the interest of the community is also evil.

I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I knew I killed someone for myself.

Whether or not the person deserves to be in a bad situation is irrelevant.

 

[Dezaad]

You assume that a person must give up their own life for the sake of another. This is admirable but not required of anyone.

For example, if someone could have saved 100 people by sacrificing their own life we do not prosecute that person if they choose not to sacrifice themself. We may chastise that person for selfishly cherishing their own life over the lives of many others but we do not require a self sacrifice of one person for the sake of others. Moreover, such an expectation is diminished if the 100 people got themselves into the situation on their own accord rather than being as a result of the action of the single person. That is, the outcome is the problem of the 100 people who got themselves into the situation and thus the one person is under no obligation to sacrifice himself for the errors of others.

Simple: everyone is responsible for their own well being. While we look admirably upon people who help others, only those who harm others are punished.

I'm not a doctor. I wish I knew more about the chances so we could better discuss the punishment rendered by the Catholic Church.

Pinu brings in some good points that you ignore. Pinu is addressing the issue from certain aspects of belief that are a big part of Christianity, which is appropriate since we are dealing with Christian actions. Your analysis is from an entirely philosophical perspective. I see nothing in it that extends from Christian theology.

Pinu points out that there are two innocent persons who have "lost their lives", while this 9 year old who is already "steeped in sin" gets to live. This perspective calls into question whether the mother ought to be able to choose not to sacrifice her life for them.

Now, for the record, I am not a Christian, nor do I believe that the twins are persons. I am simply drawing attention to Pinu's theological perspective, and that you never addressed his most important points.

 

[Vader]

Last time I checked, the appropriate penalty for sin in the Catholic Church was confession and penance.

That was before a former nazi became Pope.

Now ... it carries a heavier penalty.

 

[Vader]

Last time I checked, the appropriate penalty for sin in the Catholic Church was confession and penance.

Clearly, the archbishop has his head up his ass.

I would be putting pressure on the Roman Catholic Church to remove him from his post.

 

[Vader]

Pinu brings in some good points that you ignore. Pinu is addressing the issue from certain aspects of belief that are a big part of Christianity, which is appropriate since we are dealing with Christian actions. Your analysis is from an entirely philosophical perspective. I see nothing in it that extends from Christian theology.

Pinu points out that there are two innocent persons who have "lost their lives", while this 9 year old who is already "steeped in sin" gets to live. This perspective calls into question whether the mother ought to be able to choose not to sacrifice her life for them.

Now, for the record, I am not a Christian, nor do I believe that the twins are persons. I am simply drawing attention to Pinu's theological perspective, and that you never addressed his most important points.

The girl is a rape victim. A nine year-old should not be having children ... or even sex for that matter. She is NOT steeped in sin. That is bull****. You are blaming the child for the sins of her stepfather and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.


She isn't physically mature enough to carry a child --- let alone a set of twins -- to term. If she did, what would happen after she gave birth? Is a child supposed to raise children on her own?

The Catholic church should be ashamed of themselves. They are wrong and they are now on my "Most Dispicable Persons" list. The Catholic church is wrong in this instance and it is punishing the innocent.

The Archbishop is an unbelievable asshat and he deserves to be booted out of his position.

 

[Jerry]

I'm fuzzy on my Bible history, but isn't a girl stoned for being unclean or something? Aren't you "unclean" even when raped?

Either way, it doesn't effect you at all, so who cares.

 

[Dezaad]

The girl is a rape victim. A nine year-old should not be having children ... or even sex for that matter. She is NOT steeped in sin. That is bull****. You are blaming the child for the sins of her stepfather and you should be ashamed of yourself for it.

If I was the one doing the blaming, I would choose now to feel ashamed. But, I am not. It is Christianity and those who adhere to it that does the blaming. It's not my fault that Christianity is a primitive belief system that modern believers are trying to shoehorn into modern, more enlightened, understandings.

She isn't physically mature enough to carry a child --- let alone a set of twins -- to term. If she did, what would happen after she gave birth? Is a child supposed to raise children on her own?

None of which addresses why it is ok to end a person's life. While I don't believe the twins were persons, the Catholic Church does. Do you believe that they were not persons, or do you believe that even though they were persons, their rights are superceded by the girl's rights? More importantly, why?

The Catholic church should be ashamed of themselves. They are wrong and they are now on my "Most Dispicable Persons" list. The Catholic church is wrong in this instance and it is punishing the innocent.

The Archbishop is an unbelievable asshat and he deserves to be booted out of his position.

Agreed, I think. I think the Bible supports the archbishop's position. However, the Bible is a shameful document.

Although the Archbishop is a jerk, his beliefs are consistent with the Bible.

 

[Vader]

If I was the one doing the blaming, I would choose now to feel ashamed. But, I am not. It is Christianity and those who adhere to it that does the blaming. It's not my fault that Christianity is a primitive belief system that modern believers are trying to shoehorn into modern, more enlightened, understandings.

Catholics are not Christians. Blame the Catholics NOT THE CHRISTIANS.

None of which addresses why it is ok to end a person's life. While I don't believe the twins were persons, the Catholic Church does. Do you believe that they were not persons, or do you believe that even though they were persons, their rights are superceded by the girl's rights? More importantly, why?

The Catholic church is simply punishing those who prevented a 9 year-old rape victim from having to carry two babies to term so that their retarded value system was upheld.

We're not talking about an adult who made a choice to open her legs. We're talking about a 9 year-old girl was raped by a pervert. There is a vast difference and the Catholic church is failing to recognize that.

Making an 80 pound child carry two babies to term is medically unsound. In all likelihood, the girl would have died during the third trimester or during the birthing process.

Why should a rape victim be forced to sacrifice her life to bare the children of a pervert rapist?

The Catholic church is out of line and should be ashamed of themselves.

Of course, the Catholic church is led by a Nazi so I am not the least bit surprised.

 

[Thorgasm]

I'm curious, does the Catholic Church excommunicate rapists?

The Church screwed up on this one. They put dogma before common sense.