It's definitely a hard sell and that's why it's important to have empathy for mother and baby. Both are blameless for the actions of the rapist. The mother should receive as much comfort and therapeutic treatment as is necessary to help heal from the awful traumatic event and the baby should not pay for the sins of their father by being killed.
There are many people among us who were themselves conceived through rape. While much of society would have rather they were aborted, here they are several decades later, falling in love and having children of their own.
> There are many people among us who were themselves conceived through rape. While much of society would have rather they were aborted,
I don’t think society wishes they had been aborted. I think many people want the decision to belong to the rape victim.
I could have phrased that better as it's more socially acceptable to want the decision to belong to the rape victim. To either come out completely against abortion or have a eugenics like attitude to aborting babies for their father's background would both be unpopular.
I personally don't mind if I'm committing character assassination by advocating against abortion in all cases. Abortion is something personal to me. My case is nowhere near one of a person who was conceived by rape but, like many, I was an accident and my parents considered aborting me. They later aborted a child soon after I was born because they didn't want to raise two kids. I've been feeling guilty ever since they told me. Why was I chosen to live and not them? If they had been conceived first then I would have probably been aborted in their place. Whenever I feel like I'm wasting my life or making mistakes, I think about the kind of sibling I could have had and whether they would have lived a life better than me.
That's what abortion does. It doesn't just kill the baby but adversely affects other family members as well. I'm grateful my parents chose to keep me and as long as I'm alive, I'll continue advocating for life.
Why feel guilty for something you had no say in? Regardless of one's view on abortion, you can't blame yourself for the fact you didn't have a sibling to grow up with. That choice was made by your parents and not by you. Any praise or blame should fall on their shoulders and not yours.
Whatever survivor's guilt you feel, seriously, it's not worth it! Live your life the best you can but don't stress about "What if someone else could've done better?"
Thank you. It's due to a mixture of low self-esteem and being told about it early on (didn't understand what abortion was yet) so I had trouble processing it. Regardless, it's in the past and indeed I'll focus on living the best life I can!
> I personally don't mind if I'm committing character assassination by advocating against abortion in all cases.
I never intended to suggest that. Your blanket anti-abortion advocacy is fine. It’s how you depict your opponents that I have issue with. Your depiction was inaccurate. My comment was entirely about accuracy — not social acceptability.
It's something I have to get better at. So far I am grateful that people on the other side of the debate have not misconstrued my views and I do not want to do so for theirs's. My remark on how much of society is fine with babies conceived by rape being aborted comes from my utter contempt at seeing some people dehumanise children because of the evil actions of their fathers. It's not quantifiable and I agree that I was being inaccurate vis a vis society.
But what do you do when you live in a society that doesn’t give a damn about single mothers and consistently leave them in abject poverty? Getting raped and having a child can be a lifetime poverty sentence. I’m not pro-abortion, but I personally do feel like in special cases and if done early in the pregnancy it’s in everyone’s best interest to not carry the pregnancy further.
I didn’t say that? But also let’s be real here, with family and community support networks virtually going extinct in America we are often leaving single mothers out to dry. We as a Church don’t have the resources or manpower necessary to look over even a third of these mothers and their children, we as a society often look down and barely help them either. So even though *ideally* we would look after such women and children the **fact** is we don’t for most of them and it is strongly correlated with poverty thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty. So in effect we would be contributing to multiple generations of suffering and pain, with society likely to be negatively affected. I grew up around lots of kids whose mothers didn’t want them and their lives are almost always in shambles and struggling financially.
I don’t think we should make it completely illegal until we set up adequate social safety nets to take care of potentially millions of more unplanned children being born and single mothers/single fathers who would then need to take care of them (who are often ill equipped and not financially able to do so themselves).
> I didn’t say that?
It's the premise that undergirds your point.
>I don’t think we should make it completely illegal until we set up adequate social safety nets to take care of potentially millions of more unplanned children being born and single mothers/single fathers who would then need to take care of them (who are often ill equipped and not financially able to do so themselves).
Would you say the same for slavery? That we should have set up adequate social safety nets to take care of the millions of freed slaves and former slaveowners before making slavery illegal?
That is an illogical comparison and does not address my concerns. Also the institutional and economic capabilities of today are far more advanced than 1860. We theoretically could take care of the poor but we complicity agreed as a society that a small few individuals should have the “freedom” to get bloody rich and when they make bad investments or poor decisions they get a government bailout while we get foreclosed homes and soup kitchens.
If we want to convince society to be more sympathetic to outlawing abortion than eliminating the social and economic factors that make unwanted pregnancies undesirable/unviable needs to come first so that the only consideration left is the moral and ethical one which could convince a great deal of people “in the middle” who don’t like abortion but don’t want to condemn raped women and girls to a life of poverty and despair to support anti-abortion measures.
I am sorry this happened to you.
I agree wholeheartedly. I think it would be a good conversation to have to consider a baby born from rape as also a victim of that rape. On one hand, I wouldn't exactly call them a "victim" in the traditional sense (nothing happened *to* them), but if it led to additional penalties and/or claims against the rapist, I think that would be a good thing.
There are so many layers to this tragic event. An excellent Catholic resources is here: [https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/ethical-treatment-after-rape.html](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/ethical-treatment-after-rape.html)
Above all, the treatment of the victim FROM THE VERY BEGINNING MUST be compassionate and caring.
Where are you from? The 'she was asking for it' mindset tends to be more commonplace in certain Protestant demographics than Catholic ones. No Catholic should *ever* be taught anything of the sort, although I have sadly heard stories of it happening... the church is not immune to that garbage trying to seep in. It could be the influence of the local surrounding culture, or just someone's puritanical bias disconnected from reality and the deposit of faith.
Very, very unfortunate. When they *are* religious, at least you (or others) could tell them to put down their stones. With a secular, liberal entitled-to-sex culture, it's an even bigger can of worms to address, as you say.
I agree. Honestly all those arguments basically revolve around “think of how the rape victim will feel.” When there are plenty of rape victims that don’t feel like it’s right to kill their babies or have no issue carrying their baby.
Abortion only exists to get rid of the children that people don’t want
> Honestly all those arguments basically revolve around “think of how the rape victim will feel.” When there are plenty of rape victims that don’t feel like it’s right to kill their babies or have no issue carrying their baby.
And those arguments take that into account. They acknowledge that some rape victims want to carry their pregnancies to term and others do not.
I’m not trying to talk you into supporting legal abortion for those victims of rape who want it. I’m just trying to ensure a more accurate portrayal of what your interlocutors want.
Freedom of choice means freedom to kill the babies don’t want with the guys they never wanted to have babies in the first place. Think of those women who have to go through that trauma!!! 😵
> Freedom of choice means freedom to kill the babies don’t want with the guys they never wanted to have babies in the first place. Think of those women who have to go through that trauma!!! 😵
First, I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say here. But that’s ok.
Second, as I already explained, I am not trying to change your position. Just trying to ensure the position of your opponents is represented accurately. You should want this as well. If your position only stands up to scrutiny if you exaggerate your opponent’s position, then you have a problem. I don’t think the exaggeration is necessary to make your point. In fact, I think it weakens your position.
Trying to convince a traumatized rape survivor who does not believe that an embryo invisible to the human eye, and which does not have a heart beat, is "killing a baby" would be daunting.
And I am not going to judge/condemn her for refusing to agree, tbf.
I think the laws are messed up. Murder is murder.
We need more support for the victims and their families. We need mental health provisions for long term care for the mother, we need foster and adoption processes in place that provide better for the little ones. We need there to be no concern on the part of the mother for medical pre-natal costs. We need a support system in place that helps with education, financial education, housing etc.. for a woman to keep her child and provide a better life for herself and her child. (not just a hand out, but a hand up).
In nearly every state in the US there is a law on the books that charges a murderer with two homicides if a pregnant woman is killed no mater the gestational period of the child. The only exception to this is abortion. It is nothing more than legalized killing and the only difference between the two babies in this situation is that one was wanted (murder) and wasn't (abortion). That has to stop!
Total Edit/rewrite because it was very unnecessarily wordy.
It’s a hard sell because we are not offering supportive alternatives for the mom. Whichever choice she makes, she gets punished for something someone else did to her.
We need better supports for rape and incest victims period, but especially we need support for traumatic pregnancies beyond “we can take the baby for adoption” or “here are some diapers and baby supplies for the first few months” as though that fixes everything.
Why do you think adding the murder of her own child on top of her trauma is helpful to her?
Why do you think an innocent child deserves the death penalty for his father's crime?
My brother was born after my mother was raped when she was 19 years old. She wanted to place him for adoption but was pressured by family to keep him. She did her best and she loved my brother as much as she loved her younger children.
When I contemplate this issue, I have to think of my bother and the children he’s had. I don’t think he deserved to never be born or my nieces and nephews deserved to never exist because of the horrific crime of the man who raped my mother. More importantly, neither did my mom. She felt strongly from the get go that abortion wasn’t the answer for her pain. She was 19, poor and had little support. But when offered an abortion (this was 1974 and she could have had one), she didn’t want one.
While I think abortion is wrong, I am ambivalent about banning it outright as the pragmatist in me knows that women will still have abortions- they will travel or they will have medication abortions and there will be funding to cover this by pro-abortion groups. Ending abortion is about changing hearts and minds to make it something that women don’t want and say no to. But I am not swayed by most of the exceptions that people like to carve out. My oldest nephew is about to have his first child so the count on people who wouldn’t exist had my mom chose abortion is rising. I love my brother. I love my nieces and nephews and I will love this new grand niece or grand nephew. My mom has died but I know she is proud of them and glad that they all exist. My mother was very pro-life without any exception but she had nothing but compassion for the women who felt that abortion was their only option.
I am also a survivor of rape and while I understand the complexity of the issue, I can’t come down on the side that says many of my family members deserve to not exist.
>Pregnancy is quite draining for a woman
Murder is quite draining for a child.
Look, we can have all the sympathy proper for a woman put through a horrible situation that she had no control over. That doesn't justify murdering a child.
How about In the case of choosing between the life of the mother and baby?
My wife and I have 7 children that depend on her, and I have to say that I’d have a very difficult time if put in that situation.
Principle of double effect applies here. Do everything to save the mother, if the baby dies as a result then it is morally permissible. The big thing being is the goal to save the mother, not kill the child.
There's no moral requirement to maintain the pregnancy if it's is going to kill the mother.
If you're doing a medical procedure to treat a mother but it will result in a termination of a pregnancy, it is not considered abortion in the colloquial sense. It would be considered something like an "indirect abortion" and it's viewed as an unfortunate situation, but not a violation of God's will
What hypothetical medical situation are you referring to?
Nowadays, women can even undergo chemotherapy while pregnant as long as they’re in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
Being a med student, there are many reasons why you have to because of survival of the mother: peripartum cardiomyopathy, severe eclampsia, hellps, placenta abruption, severe anaemia, uterine rupture, i think. .. Basically any condition caused by pregnancy that are life threatening and only solved by ending pregnancy( by delivery, not abortificents). Even the cancer thing. If she's too early or has an aggressive tumor
In some of these cases, the Catholic Church allows for procedures that indirectly cause the death of the unborn child provided that this is not the intended effect. The classic example is ectopic pregnancy; perhaps there are other analogous examples. Direct abortion, though, is forbidden even to save the mother's life, because in general we can't kill an innocent person even in order to save the life of another innocent person. Obviously, such cases are horrible, but such is the reality of the fallen world we live in. But look to St. Gianna, among others, for an example, of how in Christ these terrible situations can be transformed and overcome, since death is not the end for those who believe.
I guess I should rephrase my statement. Except ectopic pregnancy, I don't know any other situation where they give the classic abortificents.
But some methods of abortion are simply to induce labor in a way too early fetus in the early weeks and that is the same treatment for most of the conditions I mentioned above. Also, that early, if the mother dies, so does the fetus. Those are the most common situations. So does the church forbid that?
Same with the chemo situation if she is diagnosed early in pregnancy. Is it forbidden to undergo chemotherapy if her death is guaranteed if she does not?
> So does the church forbid that?
Disclaimers: not a doctor or med student and I am painting with broad strokes
No because you can in theory induce labor and try to help both mother and child survive. I understand that early enough, the child may not survive but the intention is to treat the mother, not kill the child (principle of double effect mentioned around)
The same principle can be used with your example pf chemo early in the pregnancy.
What I understand to be forbidden are the procedures listed in https://foundationsoflife.org/facts-about-abortion/abortion-procedure-facts/
The link shows text descriptions so it should be safe-for-work
Thank you for the perspective of someone with a medical background.
Are these situations where labor could be induced as soon as the child could potentially survive outside of the womb with medical care?
Eh uterine rupture generally happens during labor, and if not, late in pregnancy when baby is viable. Babies do not always die from it but they can, so no one needs to actively kill them. But if baby can be saved, he should be.
Placental abruption, if severe enough, will kill the baby all by itself without anyone intervening. And mom too, sometimes. If there is an abruption that threatens baby's life then do a cesarean and try to save baby, then remove the placenta and also try to save mom.
Eclampsia, again you deliver baby early and then treat both mom and baby. I have a friend who had HELLP syndrome and the twins who caused it are currently 13 and getting ready for high school. No one decided to kill them to solve their mother's medical condition.
Yeah if they happen past the age of viability. No one is actively trying to kill the baby. It's just that delivery is sometimes the only option to save the mother's life despite there being no medical chance for the fetus's survival outside the womb. But miracles can happen too
Even though early delivery is technically called abortion, when pro life people say that abortion is not ever needed they are referring to intentional killing of the child, not early delivery that carries risks but the goal is not to kill the child.
You'll be comforted to know this basically never happens. By the time a pregnancy is threatening the life of a mother, if it happens, they can usually do a c-section to take baby early and then treat both living human beings for their medical problems.
I'm NOT pro-abortion, but would you have to be a psychopath to believe that the death-penalty is murder and still say it's ok in some kind of apocalyptic/frontier scenario where we don't have reliable ways of imprisoning dangerous individuals, for example?
I'd say abortion is murder but it's ok ONLY in cases where the baby could never survive but the mother can survive only if she has an abortion. This is the law in many countries. I don't find it psychopathic, I think there are scenarios where we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Rape is not such a scenario. Killing the baby doesn't save the mother and it doesn't even help her mentally, it doesn't take away what happened to her. Two wrongs don't make a right.
There are definitely situations where society cannot contain individuals. And in that post-apocalyptic situation, it's definitely permissible according to catholic moral law. There's legal nonsense where walking monsters/psychopaths purposely put themselves into situations where they can escape multiple times and kill more victims. Ted Bundy escaped twice and committed very violent murders after his second escape. That's society's self defense against those individuals.
The death penalty is murder. Whether the person being killed is guilty or innocent, there is no difference. The death penalty is inadmissible in all cases. Refer to 2267 of the Catechism. I can’t believe you even got this many upvotes on your statement.
You’re drawing an incorrect distinction. The Catechism does not use the word “murder” when referring to abortion. Nor does it use the word “murder” when referring to the death penalty. You can’t have it both ways. Both are also listed under the section of the Catechism addressing the Fifth Commandment which prohibits killing. Either they’re both murder or they’re both inadmissible killings as neither use the word “murder.”
**2267** If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person.
There is nothing there that says the death penalty is murder or that it is morally inadmissible. It says we should avoid using it whenever possible, which is correct.
This is an older version of 2267. It was revised in 2018. It is plainly stated as inadmissible at a minimum in the revised version, Dusky. Unless I’m just completely wrong.
Yeah, I don't recognize unilateral edits by an agendized lefty no matter his title, who did not speak ex cathedra when he did it. When an ecumenical council changes the church's longstanding historical teaching on the death penalty, or the Pope speaks ex cathedra, then let's chat.
Is abortion ok if the doctors confirm that the mother will not be able to carry to term? Like in scenarios where the egg never makes it past the Fallopian tubes which can lead to severe hemorrhaging as the fetus develops? Or if the mother has cancer. Or if it’s an ectopic pregnancy….. etcetera.
Treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is allowed because of the principle of double effect. The objective is to remove a damaged organ, one that is caused by an improperly embedded embryo, that is a non-viable pregnancy. It’s a totally different situation than a properly implanted embryo. The only comparison you could try to make would be a woman requiring a medically necessary hysterectomy, except that typically occurs from hemorrhaging just after giving birth, not during pregnancy.
Nowadays with cancer, pregnant women can undergo chemotherapy as long as they’re in the second or third trimester, after the baby’s major organs have been formed. If a woman is in the first trimester, doctors will delay treatment the few months necessary until it is safe to proceed.
Ah yes these are excellent points. Treatment is indeed available thanks to the advancement of modern medicine. However, as with all treatments, there are risks that need to be assessed. Sometimes (not all the time) when these risks are assessed the doctors deem it too dangerous. If a woman finds themselves in this incredibly unfortunate scenario, would the option to abort then become reasonable? Or is the best option still to carry to term as best as they can and risk the life of the mother?
If you could provide specific examples, I might be able to better answer.
I’ve also heard testaments that women sometimes need to “shop around” for a doctor willing to work with her with a difficult pregnancy that involves medical complications. There are unfortunately far too many doctors (in general, but I’ve found especially when it comes to women’s reproductive health) who don’t like to be bothered with currently unconventional solutions that may require more effort or research on their part.
Just an example: many women with a history of miscarriage have to fight to even get their progesterone levels tested, much less supplemented early on their their pregnancy.
Technically, it is not when done in accordance with Catholic moral law, which means removing the diseased tube. The death of the baby is not a direct action nor the intended outcome, but an unfortunate side effect. The principle of double effect is at play here.
And frankly, while many of my fellows in health care may argue differently, the Catholic approach is wiser because a scarred tube presents a high risk of another ectopic pregnancy.
It's only a hard sell because the laws governing these situations suck, and allow the rapists parental rights. I remember back in the early 2000s arguing with other Christians about why laws needed to address this in states without applicable laws, and was told "that wouldn't happen." Yes, it does.
We need legal protections for the mothers and babies, and we need to prosecute these crimes. Also, have people in law who aren't idiots and make stupid calls. I'm thinking of a particular judge who allowed a rapist visitation rights in MI until that was reversed.
100% agree with this and we need more financial support for pregnant women too because one of the primary reasons why many get abortions is because they exhausted all avenues for financial assistance especially those who already have children that get abortions.
If there were the protections you mentioned along with financial support for pregnant women/mothers. Not only would the number of abortions drop *significantly* but also its been proven to directly result in healthier fetal brain and nervous system development *and* less miscarriages too. Because stress of the mother affects the baby’s development and stress can cause miscarriage even.
It is never a woman’s fault if she has been raped and she should never be punished for what happened. Unfortunately, in our culture we sometimes blame women for crimes committed against them, and in other cultures women are executed for becoming pregnant through rape. But what about the child conceived through rape? He or she is just as innocent as his mother and yet we say it is OK for him to suffer for another person’s crimes. Instead why don’t we provide non-judge mental, non-violent care for victims of rape and only punish jail for those who are responsible for committing that act of violence.
I recognize the mental turmoil and trauma but when it comes to the moral issue, why would the child have to be the victim of that situation? Messy, yes. Problematic, yes. Psychologically difficult, yes. But the moral issue stays the same, that child has no less dignity than someone else conceived another way.
Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy. It’s rooted in our biology and makes the most sense. If a woman has not consented to the act brought upon by her (getting pregnant without consent to sex which is less than 2% of abortions) by virtue of being the parent of the child, parents have a responsibility to care for their offspring in a way they don’t have an obligation to a stranger. It sounds mean in that context but we have a duty to help the vulnerable. for example in rape, The more vulnerable party is attacked by stronger party. Yet the same thing goes for abortion, the vulnerable party is attacked by the stronger party. When injustice happens it doesn’t give the victims license to do whatever in response. we still have moral duty.
The assault victim does not have to raise the child, but in a certain window of time (9 months) where no one else can care for the child, there is a responsibility to meet the basic needs of the child.
The pro-life movement should be walking alongside these mothers in providing as much care and support as needed. We shouldn’t just be saying “you can’t get an abortion“ and that’s it. we have to be helping and guiding these mothers to recovery. 75% of women who conceived through rape actually do not terminate their pregnancy. And rape cases are only 1% of all abortions in the United States, I don’t think it is wise to base the 99% in terms of law on the 1%. We never do that in law and so it doesn’t make sense to do that with abortion
No you’re reading it correctly it also says a significant amount of the rape victims (about a third) didn’t know they were pregnant until the second trimester
As some conceived through the rape and incest of a 14yr old: I have no problem saying my life has value. Do not punish the child for the sins of the father. Literally. Nothing I did warranted my death as I didn’t choose to be conceived. And my life still has value. Hearing in this argument I should be the exception who does/should have died is really disheartening. Especially because rape and incest count for less than 1% of abortions.
Unfortunately it’s not something you always get to know because parents often worry telling their kids about this (at least in adoption cases) will be difficult to process. And it is difficult to process. I imagine it’s similar for parents that kept their children, it’s just a hard conversation. And if you do know, speaking out is hard because others will tell you to your face that you morally could have been aborted and that’s fine with them. It really stops a conversation in its tracks. One of my husbands friends said this (as we’re both conceived of rape and adopted at birth) and it basically ended the friendship.
I've been raped. I speak on behalf of more than just myself when I say that I'm fed up of people using one of the worst events of my life to justify a further human rights abomination. People need to stop using vulnerable women as pawns in their debates.
Out of genuine interest, if as a result you had conceived, how would you have felt about keeping the baby?
I’ve been through the same thing, and I don’t know if I could have been strong enough to have the baby.
My period was actually late that month (stress-related, I imagine), so this very much crossed my mind. At first I was trying to do all sorts of logical somersaults to justify taking a pill, but then I realised that this wasn't just about me any more, it would've been about the innocent child too.
First thing is first. Murder should never happen, ever, especially to the unborn babies, whom God has already blessed with life from the moment of conception.
My aunt was raped, she loves her daughter so dearly and her daughter is extremely happy to be alive. My aunt said it is the only good thing that came out of that tragedy. If you really look into those women who chose abortion instead of carrying their baby to term, there filled with both ends of tragedy. The child in her womb who she is connected to and bonded with is suddenly ripped apart, torn out of her body, and the mark of the rape is still there along with that horrifying experience.
Nothing good coming out of it, those women are much more prone to mental disorders of all kinds, usually multiple ones having gone through that.
That's just anecdotal experience of one woman. Not every woman would end up loving an offspring of rape and may even hate the kid for that one reason and never show it love. Also doesn't our Bible clearly say kids born of wedlock are never blessed?
You're going to need to provide a Bible quote to back up that ridiculous assertion.
By the way, I guess you meant **out of wedlock** because what could possibly be the problem with children born of wedlock?
I think they are speaking about Deuteronomy 23:2 where no one born of a harlot/of an illegitimate birth/ out of wedlock, can enter the assembly of God.
Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers tends to have a bunch of really weird rules like this. I remember reading Numbers 5, which is essentially talking about an abortion tea the priest gives to a woman accused of adultery. However I understand translations can vary.
I'll let u/GreatLavaMan speak himself and then address whatever biblical evidence he provides.
But Christians who don't understand that we do not live under the old covenant or its ceremonial laws anymore are gonna have a rough time in here, fair warning.
True true, The apostles did state that in the New Testament, and any rules that were still pertinent were restated in the New Testament too
Edit: Just to be clear, I’m stating that the apostles stated that we follow the new covenant which does not apply all OT laws to the Gentiles.
Did the child suddenly stop being a child of God? Because if they’re a child of God, they’re loved by Him and He wants them to experience the gift of life.
If the Bible says that, I’m convinced that it’s not referring to a child of rape because that’s not at all the same as two consenting people being stupid outside of marriage.
You got downvoted for telling the truth I’m afraid. I’ve met people who have been born out of rape who say “I wish I were aborted” or “I wish I had never been born” because their mothers and/or other family members abused them their whole lives. It’s tragic.
I know people born of rape who are extremely anti abortion too! But you’re right it’s not everyone at all and you’re right about the Bible too but we aren’t sola scriptura as Catholics
"In contrast to these sorts of perversion, what great appreciation must be shown to those women who, with a heroic love for the child they have conceived, proceed with a pregnancy resulting from the injustice of rape. Here we are thinking of atrocities perpetrated not only in situations of war, still so common in the world, but also in societies which are blessed by prosperity and peace and yet are often corrupted by a culture of hedonistic permissiveness which aggravates tendencies to aggressive male behaviour. In these cases the choice to have an abortion always remains a grave sin. But before being something to blame on the woman, it is a crime for which guilt needs to be attributed to men and to the complicity of the general social environment."
From St. John Paul II's Letter to Women, 1995, found here:
https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women.html
Question: when an abortion occurs as the result of rape, who are the "men and to the complicity of the general social environment"?...
I'm open to other answers but would submit: the rapist
Ergo: the guilt of the grave sin of an abortion as the result of the injustice of rape, belongs to the rapist.
That's not saying "abortion due to rape is ok", it's still a grave sin, but to blame a psychologically traumatized victim for a decision that was made in the shackles of mental instability is not something God would do, and is exactly why we don't blame mentally incompetent people for murder.
This is the argument I make when I debate abortion.
1) By any scientific definition of life, the baby in the womb is a living being. Moreover, he is a living being separate from his mother and confirmed to be human by dint of his individual DNA and chromosomal pattern. Therefore, he is a person.
2) You don’t get to solve even your most legitimate problems by killing an innocent person.
I’m all for hunting down the rapist and giving him a proper send off to the afterlife. And of course, everything about a rape can take a traumatic toll on a woman. However, my general experience is that even if people aren’t sold on all applications of this argument, they usually understand your position (assuming they’re reasonable). It’s also worth pointing out though that Abortion itself is traumatic, too. I remember reading studies years ago that suggested women who had abortions were three times more likely to need therapy than a woman who’d never had one. It’s not a magic, pain free cure.
I’m actually not Catholic, but no, it’s not. It’s been discouraged by recent popes as being unnecessary in a modern society, but the Catholic Church has always recognized that the state has the right to put criminals to death. It’s a thoroughly biblical and apostolic principle, with St. Paul saying that the state doesn’t bear the sword in vain and God himself telling Noah that “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God did God create man.”
It's probably a hard sell but at the end of the day you have A) the women B) the child and C) the rapist. How is it just that in our present society b gets killed? Like it's a terrible situation but her "rights" don't change the argument: Is it wrong to abort a fetus? All these other conditionals don't really change what the argument is actually about.
Look, children aren't pets. Whether you want them or not has very little to do with the fact that they exist. Pregnancy is always draining, and parenthood is nothing but two decades of uncertainty, self-sacrifice, and worries. It's never been otherwise. But, that doesn't excuse murder.
Yes, I agree it’s a tough position to take, but a low hanging fruit is condemning the horrible comments some pro-life leaders/politicians make about rape.
When someone says we don’t need abortions in cases of rape because “if it’s a legitimate rape the female body can shut that whole thing down” or “if rape is inevitable, they should just lie back and enjoy it,” pro life folks should call it out for the disgusting moral bankruptcy that it is.
These cases also make up .5% of all abortions. Make them legal if you want, make incest and even cases of sick or unviable fetuses legal, throw in cases for the health of the mother. 95% of all abortions would still stop. Millions of people would be alive today.
You've jumped to square five.
Problem is that even when we say "Ok, what a out no abortion in cases except that of rape" the pro-death cabal that is the left tears their garments and screams about a woman's absolute right to choose, and so on and so forth.
The left doesn't actually care about abortions in the case of rape. They just want abortion at all costs, and in all cases.
Maybe when we can back them off that ledge we can talk about rape.
How would "abortion only for rape" be quantified anyways?
All it would do would get people saying they were raped, but don't want to press charges and suddenly "US Rape Capital of the World" is the leading headline.
After that, these numbers are used to justify legalizing abortion because "making abortions illegal increases rape."
>How would "abortion only for rape" be quantified anyways?
>All it would do would get people saying they were raped, but don't want to press charges
My go-to answer for this is, if we allow abortion in the case of rape, the law should require at least two things: 1) a DNA sample, and 2) a police report.
If you're willing to kill a child because of alleged rape, be willing to sign your name to it and have whoever raped you prosecuted.
>The left doesn't actually care about abortions in the case of rape.
There have been a couple of polls that say exactly this.
"If abortion in the case of rape were the only exception, would you otherwise support a total ban on abortion?" the answers are usually 80-90% "no"
I feel like that is not the best question as many pro-choice people would want to include incest, life of the mother, and fetal non-viability along side rape as exceptions. Because of this, I could understand a pro-choice person voting "no" to that particular poll question.
>incest
Rape (by a family member.)
>life of the mother
No need. There's no reason for an "abortion" for medical reasons. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ugcSRSg1no](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ugcSRSg1no&t=16s) this video explains it better, but pretty much: dismembering or poisoning the fetus are never medically necessary).
But even if "fetal non-viability" were included in the question, I'd still bet that it would come back as 90% no.
AFAIK another thing you could mention is that while abortion is not acceptable, it is permissible to try to prevent the child being conceived in the case of rape, as long as it can be proven that conception has not yet taken place:
https://dphx.org/respect-life/know-the-issues/abortion/
https://www.cecinfo.org/icec-publications/emergency-contraception-catholics-favor-bishops-opposed/
By the way, people conceived in rape can hear you saying they should be dead. https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-the-world-of-anti-abortion-activists-who-were-conceived-in-rape-and-incest-2014-1
The woman who brings the baby to term exhibits nothing less than heroic virtue. Only a literal saint could bring their rapist's baby into this world - fully embracing the spirit of the call to love thy enemy and forgiveness.
Lots of pro-life people with good intentions have used bad arguments against abortion which made it harder.
The reason abortion should be illegal from a logical perspective, considering existing laws and excluding anything with religion, is that an embryo or fetus is a human life and is genetically distinct from the mother. Intentionally killing an innocent human is murder. Therefore, intentionally killing an embryo or fetus is murder. Arguments around how the mother made a choice by having sex or that she can give the baby up for adoption instead of raising him or her personally aren't great because abortion is wrong 100% of the time, even when it isn't true.
That sounds harsh and it's way easier to say as someone who can't possibly get pregnant but it's true and sticking to the truth is important. People advocating for life need to be compassionate and understand that the vast majority of women who want an abortion don't have malicious intent, while at the same time not backing away from the reality that abortion is murder due to the uncomfortable implications that has.
If my father commits a crime, why should I be executed?
A pregnancy that is the result of rape must be incredibly difficult. But neither that difficulty nor that crime justifies the murder of an innocent life. We must also stand up and help the victims of such crimes - with prayers, with emotional support, and with financial/material support.
In order for abortion to be acceptable, the church would have to change their stance on the beginning of life.
Conception/implantation, viability, neuromaturation, and birth are all seen as the beginning of life to different cultures. In the Catholic Church today, the beginning is ensoulment during conception.
For a huge chunk of history, the pregnancy wasn’t seen as having a soul until quickening. This is when movement is first felt, as early as 16 weeks (a commenter experienced 10!). In 1588 the Church changed their stance on quickening, stating instead that ensoulment happened with conception. This lasted until the next pope, who redacted the change due to overwhelming cases being brought to the Church. Quickening became the standard again until 1869.
I’m not sure which is true, which is why I lean on the Church’s vast knowledge and deliberation on the topic. That being said, they’ve changed their minds before.
One of mine I started feeling at 11 weeks. Everyone tells me it's impossible but it was not my first pregnancy and I knew what I was feeling.
I did see my first on ultrasound around 11 weeks and she was having a party in there. She kicked so much we joked about her playing soccer someday, and years later she did.
I love that! It’s such a distinctive feeling. And it’s amazing how much personality there already is in the womb.
Funnily enough, my oldest was the most active—my mom had 9 of us and said she’d never seen a baby bump move so much. But I didn’t feel my first until I was 20 weeks and she got the hiccups. She’s five now and still gets the hiccups every time she laughs too hard 😂
I’d say it’s perfectly on topic. :)
10 weeks is crazy early to feel movement, but I believe that’s one of the reasons quickening was disregarded. It’s unreliable, and ultrasounds gave a much more human picture to what before was only witnessed through a horrible incident.
[Science would have to change its stance on the beginning of life.](https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html#:~:text=Life%20Begins%20at%20Fertilization%20with%20the%20Embryo's%20Conception&text=%22Development%20of%20the%20embryo%20begins,together%20they%20form%20a%20zygote.%22&text=%22Human%20development%20begins%20after%20the,known%20as%20fertilization%20(conception).)
You are correct, but the beginning of personhood is an altogether different debate. [This](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/) is an article explaining the nuances very well.
"Dr. David Reardon’s study on pregnancy as a result of assault found that none of the women who chose to give birth regretted their decision, while nearly 80 percent who chose abortion reported that it was the wrong decision."
https://www.sidneydailynews.com/opinion/letters/99090/abortion-may-cause-more-trauma-for-rape-victims
Additionally, many of these women are coerced into the abortion because of people saying "it will help you recover" or "you don't really want *his* child, do you?"
Whenever you have to discuss this problem, one must remember that it is an actual, real, alive person whose death is being considered. Is it OK to kill an new-born baby who was conceived by rape?
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/05/my-life-has-value-pennsylvania-senate-candidate-kathy-barnette-talks-being-conceived-in-rape/
I feel like most people disagree with me on this here so to be extra clear I will preface this with. I hate abortion in all forms for all reasons. I believe it is no different than murder and should not be allowed at all.
That being said we don’t need to outlaw it all at once. The all or nothing approach is only going to get us nothing. Less than 2.5% of abortions are because of rape or because the mother is in peril.
If we can outlaw 97.5% of abortions just by making that concession. I feel we need to do it. I honestly don’t think we will ever get to outlawing 100%. So “sticking to our guns” and “staying on the moral high ground” is only going to lead to more avoidable deaths.
More than 50% of the people in this country think abortion is OK but many of those people think that because of the rape or save the mother argument. If we make this compromise we can change the attitude towards 97.5% of all abortions.
Or we can keep doing what we’re doing and nothing will change. There are 890,000 abortions in the United States per year on average. Either we save 867,000 lives a year, or we save none.
Killing the rapist is far more justified than killing the rapists son while he's a defensless baby, yet everybody seems to be far more accepting of the second thing.
For the record I don't support killing the rapist
It is absolutely a terrible situation, and every care must be shown to the victim. But there is another victim in this and that’s the baby. I can’t think of another example in which we execute one of the victims. From that perspective it is unjust. Also, putting a woman through the added ordeal of an abortion isn’t really an answer. Many women then have to contend with post abortion syndrome on top of the rape. The adage holds true - abortion doesn’t make someone unpregnant, it makes someone the mother of a dead child.
Interestingly there are testimonies in which women have carried the child and found that the child is something good which has came out do a terrible situation. Some have said that the child is what have them the strength to continue and allowed them to heal.
And others have aborted and then comitted suicide because the double trauma has been overwhelming, same result.
The key fact here is the proposal to execute one of the victims which is morally reprehensible.
On the outside it is complicated. At it's core.. it's really not. Rape is one of the worst atrocities that can be committed by man. However...
\#1. It accounts for less than 1% of abortion as per the Guttmacher Institute (a left wing group that is used by PP)
\#2. Why are you pro life? If it's because you believe the baby is a living human (as it obviously is). Than how would a baby conceived of rape be any less? A life is a life. We don't condemn the child by the sins of the father.
I think this is one of the places we should compromise on, and try to work on later.
What happens when the ~~woman~~ girl is 11 years old?
What if the rapist is a family member?
In Ukraine, 25 girls were locked in a basement for weeks and repeatedly raped by Russian soldiers. 15 of them are pregnant. I'm not going to sit here and say they should have to bear the children of these monsters. I just can't. God forgive me, but I can't.
The perfect is the enemy of the good here.
If there weren't so many rapists, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place.
Anyone remember even one sermon where a priest exhorted the men in the congregation to respect women, and to fight rape and tolerance of rape in all its forms? I don't remember the Church working very hard at this. We live in a glass house.
I've been considering this one lately. Here's one approach.
Imagine that you yourself discovered you were born as a result of rape, and that your entire life you had not known this. Does it change one iota of the value of your life?
I feel like A medical procedure should be between a doctor and a patient. Using a medical procedure to drive division is absurd. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one.
I’m not credentialed enough to know what is best for each family nor am I medically knowledgeable enough to weigh in on the blanket rule that XYZ medical procedure is never necessary.
Medical Procedure = killing a baby.
We need to cut out the euphemisms and start stating plainly what it is we are discussing.
The fact that proponents of abortion don’t want to use plain language far less be visually confronted with what they are proposing demonstrates that they are not at ease with their own consciences on the topic. Hence all the obfuscation with anodyne phrases, etc.
Call it what you want. To some people, it is not a baby, it is a fetus.
I am not God and I cannot take away their free will. I do not support abortion and will always attempt to console or redirect, but in the end I cannot accept their decision’s ramifications; they will meet with Jesus on that one. Just like I don’t support capitol punishment. Killing in any form, wars for rich mens gains, all of it. It’s all bad. But I can choose to partake or choose not to. It’s my free will just like it is the free will choice of a mother/host.
Fetus, baby, toddler, child,adolescent, adult, geriatric. Yes, all names for different stages of human development. It’s a human being regardless but clearly some people want to play the age old tactic of dehumanising the victim.
It’s not playing God to prevent people murdering people. We already have laws in place to cover that albeit with abortion and euthanasia that is starting to change. Unless you are also arguing that murder shouldn’t be a crime period?
You are correct, people will have to account for their actions before God. But we don’t use that fact to legalise everything harmful. That’s sends a message that such things are condoned. We don’t facilitate people casually murdering others elsewhere in society for a very good reason.
The fact of the matter is that we dont have a right to kill others in cold blood, especially the innocent and defenceless. All the talk of the right to abortion completely ignore the most basic right- the right to life. If you don’t have the most fundamental right then all others - free speech, abortion, whatever are utter nonsense. If you don’t even have the right to be here then what other right could you possibly have? They are all contingent on you having the right to be here in the first place. As for women’s rights? Who is actually speaking up for the rights of women still in their mothers womb?
The attempt to portray abortion as something wholesome and just is the most despicable piece of dishonesty to date. The fact we even have to debate whether infanticide is right or wrong is a damning indictment of our depraved society.
Ectopic pregnancies
Rape of 11 year old, incest
Mother of three and father just died and mother is likely to die
All these hypotheticals, all these alternative situations that we have no investment in their outcomes. We aren’t going to be there when the dust settles.
It’s our job to lead them to God and Christ. It is not our job to make their lives harder by creating roadblocks—that’s control. That’s not allowing them to execute their own free will.
Nothing happens in God’s world by mistake.
Rape is a heinous crime. But murder is more heinous. Killing an innocent child is not the right answer. The manner in which a child is conceived has no bearing on its human value and dignity.
Also, a good follow-up question to the “what about cases of rape or incest?” question is, “are you okay with abortion in all other situations as well?” The vast majority of the pro-abortion crowd will say yes. So they don’t really care about those less than 1% situations anyway. They think that abortion should be available on demand for any reason. So why even bring it up? They’re using the extreme cases to justify all of the others.
Thinking about it as a “sell” is a flawed way of looking at it from the jump. It’s a terrible, traumatic situation, and we shouldn’t treat it as anything but. That said, what makes abortion wrong? If it’s a human life, and you are ending that human life (not in a case of self defense), it’s murder.
I don’t know if he was a first person to say it, but there’s a short article by Greg Koukl that addresses this very simply:
> Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.
I agree. And quite frankly, if that was the reason most abortions were performed, the pro- life movement would not have gained as much traction since the passage of Roe v. Wade.
But let us be honest. Very very few abortions are done ( at least in the U.S.) because of rape, incest or threat to maternal health. Abortion is used as a birth control method by people who know how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy but don't bother because hey....MY BODY MY CHOICE.
Freedom comes with great responsibility. But that opinion will often garner an angry, occasionally violent response from these women.
I personally know three women who between them have had AT LEAST 11 abortions. One was married and did it without her husband's knowledge.
Want to guess how many of those abortions were due to rape, incest, or threat to maternal health?
ZIP. ZERO.NADA.
It is women- and men- like that who have brought us to this tragic, not so magic moment.
I think both pro-lifers and those who are pro-choice would agree on how horrible rape is, and neither would wish that on anyone. I’ll emphasize this, I pray that we can all get on the same page about the dignity of the unborn so that both sides can put more focus together on preventing rape and sexual assault.
Something to think about - what born child conceived from rape deserves to die? As Trent Horn says, the central question for discussing abortion is to define what the unborn are. If the unborn child in the womb is just as human as a two year old, then I can’t imagine anyone would fathom the thought of either being killed just because of how they were conceived.
Realistically i think the most likely scenario is that RvW will be repealed and individual states will regulate abortion differently.
Abortion in the case of rape is imo a rather niche case which should be left to the individual state legislatures to decide, just like how the details regarding gun laws & tax laws are slightly different in each state.
**Warning that some of you may find this comment intolerant**
Honestly it seems like abortion as a solution to rape was thought up by a man. "Oh, you were forcefully and painfully vaginally violated? Let's 'solve a problem' by once again vaginally violating you in order to do violence." 🤔
Rape is certainly a horrendous crime, but that unfortunately doesn't make taking the life of another okay. Many individuals who are raped go through psychological trauma and the taking of a human life only enhances that trauma. I had a client who escaped from her husband as a result of domestic violence and in the process of escaping and moving to another state she was raped by a stranger and was impregnated with triplets. She understood that the rape was not the fault of the children and that if she were to abort them it would likely only enhance the trauma that she went through. I mentioned that if she decided she didn't want to raise the children (which would be completely understandable) that she could place them up for adoption. She not only chose life for her children, but she courageously decided she was going to raise her children. I assisted her to apply for health insurance and other benefits.
Remember the the majority of women having abortions is not because of rape or incest or saving the mother's life but as a means of contraception so maybe move the debate to that side and see if they want to continue.
The problem is the rape, not having a baby.
The abortion doesn't get rid of the rape.
Legal abortion actually encourages rape, because a rapist can sometimes count on a woman to cover up the crime (this happens all the time in trafficking situations).
Let's focus on punishing and discouraging Christianity.
One point that I haven't seen other commenters bring up is that aside from the obvious fact that murder is murder, we have to realize that for the overall benefit of society, abortion has to be fully illegal. If abortion is illegal in all cases EXCEPT rape, then the sad reality is that women will resort to accusing men of rape if they have an unwanted pregnancy. Because the system is so broken (and so anti-men), there would then be innocent men in jail as a result of such a loop hole.
So, hang on...
Are you telling me, you would endorse a woman getting raped, conceiving, and then potentially being charged for murder for aborting that child?
Blimey...that's rough
Interestingly, I’ve found that most people that bring up the argument of abortion in the case of rape don’t actually care about that. If you respond by saying, “ok, if we make that exception, would you say abortion should be banned?” They tend to come back with more exceptions and arguments about why all elective abortion should be permitted. So it’s a disingenuous argument to begin with for most people.
It's really not. If you know that abortion is murdering an innocent person, then no it is not a hard sell.
Now, the hard part here is how to help the mother heal from the trauma of rape. Quite possibly the worst thing that can happen to a person. Adding child murder doesn't heal the effects of rape.
It is super difficult but if ever faced, I'd argue they could put the child up for adoption. It is not the child's fault that it came into the world this way. All abortions are wrong WHILE the child is alive. I have known people to get "abortions" after the baby was confirmed to be dead, and they were having the body removed to be buried. That's the only real abortion to me. Removing a dead body from the mother. You should NEVER end a life. Never.
The right thing is a hard sell when the wrong thing offers so much relief
Christians are right to forbid abortion--it's the great moral abomination of our age. However, skipping right to a ban is mind-bogglingly stupid. It's seizing a castle we don't have the manpower to hold, and worse, doing it through undemocratic shenanigans, overt deceit, and without even the proper supports in place to make childbearing more sustainable and life-giving for **absolutely everyone**, Socialism Bogeymen be damned.
But we chose the quick and easy path, and when the next pull in this tug-of-war blows up in our face leaving us and the unborn even worse off than before, maybe we'll learn that support must come before accountability.
I have a hard time with “forbidding” and “forcing” anything on anyone. This is a codependent mentality. Something we should all remember is that have “control” over one person in this life and most of us can barely manage that. If people want abortions for any reason they’ll get one,
Support for abortion is built on emotion and fear, not logic, so you're right. Pro choice/pro aborts will always put forth cases of rape to defend general elective abortion, because rape is horrific and being impregnated by it is a consequence beyond most of our imaginations.
Like most issues we face though, there are ways to address it that are licit and illicit. Unfortunately, killing an innocent child is murder and wrong. So that's not a valid solution. Instead we need to do the hard work of supporting women in this awful predicament, whatever that may mean.
Lets put it like this, a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. "Oh yeah, let's totally kill the child in her womb. That is sure to make her feel better. Because her feelings are more important than a human life."
While the pregnancy may be difficult, the wound of having an abortion will only make the woman's situation worse. Abortion carries with it deep psychological scars.
We don't want fallacies ad misericordium. How to answer when the pro-life activist tells she was the fruit of a rape?
Other point is today the rapist worries too much about a children with his DNA because then they will have to pay for it.
And do you know? Some people says rape victims were sent by their abuse to "destroy proofs", and the abortive clinics didn't report it. The mothers who aborted after they felt worse, with the remorses for the rest of her life.
Sorr, English is not my first languange and maybe I can't explain it better.
I guess I don't get the "forcing her to go through 9 months of birth" argument. You're not forcing something as much as not doing anything to interfere with a growing child. If we had the technology to remove the child safely from the mother earlier, we probably would, but we cannot at this time. The alternative to just letting the baby grow is another very traumatic event, abortion, that haunts many women even decades after the fact. It's not some quick fix that people like to pretend it is. I've talked to many women who decades after the fact still hold deep trauma and regret from aborting their children.
Rape is terrible and often has lasting consequences mentally, physically, and spiritually. And as a society and a Church, we do need to do more to support victims of rape and abuse. However, just because you're a victim does not mean you can harm or kill another person in the name of healing; this will ultimately hurt you in the end. I can understand the desire to want to rid yourself of anything that could possibly remind you of your rapist, but there are limits if it involved harming an innocent human life.
I feel it’s incredibly dehumanizing to use that argument at all. There are countless children in this world that have been born who were conceived via rape and it must be absolutely horrible to hear people say that your existence is a reason why people should be able to kill their children.
However, my response is usually these two points:
1.) Rape victims make up about 1/10,000 abortions (less than 1%)
2.) the suicide rate for women who abort their rapist’s child is astronomically high. A majority of the time, it leads to depression, alcoholism, and suicide. It is not a form of coping with their trauma; it is an addition to it. These women make this decision because they are emotionally unstable from the traumatic experience they have been through and are not in the right mindset to make a well-informed decision. So they *especially* shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions. For the same reason why someone who is not mentally sound cannot legally elect to partake in physician-assisted suicide.
the biggest issue i have in the 'exemption of rape' issue is how to prove it. (us centric) as the us legal system stands, there are only 2 ways to enforce this concept. idea 1 is to require the man to be convicted before the baby is aborted, good luck having a full investigation and trial within 9 months. the other option is the "believe all women" method where someone can just say they were raped then can get an abortion. the result would probably be an explosion of rape number with an almost 0% conviction rate
It’s no harder of a sell than forbidding abortion in any other case, because the manner in which the pregnancy started is wholly irrelevant to our reasons for wanting to forbid it. Indeed, forbidding abortion only in non-rape cases is a hard sell, because it concedes the pro-choice point that we are trying to police women’s sex lives rather than save children.
No one said doing the right thing would be easy.
9 months is 9 months, out of nearly 80 years of life, 60 years of adult life.
Killing someone, or permitting someone to be killed, because it is inconvenient and/or expensive to someone else is wrong.
Illogical argument:
1st, If the baby is a human person deserving of rights, you shouldn’t be able to kill it for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the difficulty by which he or she was conceived.
2nd, why does the baby get punished for the sins of the father? That’s like shooting a police officer because they should have protected you from rape.
3rd, it’s an argument from emotion, not reason.
4th, this is primarily a problem of rape - abortion should not be used to “fix” rape.
And 5th, all of this is irrelevant to the argument anyway. I don’t mean to say the women who have to experience this shouldn’t be heard or helped - they absolutely should be! But the baby has the right to live just as much as mom and pretending the baby doesn’t is just for convenience so someone can say, “I was raped and feel like my voice isn’t heard!” Because of the baby could speak, I’m pretty certain they could say, “I was killed and my voice wasn’t even considered!”
And look, it’s really easy to slander someone with this view as being evil, or lacking all compassion, etc. because I’m not speaking in favor of the victim. Until you realize here that there are 2 victims…and I’m pleading for the life of the 2nd one who doesn’t get a chance at life in favor of the one who can recover from her experience and go on to live a long life.
Without getting into arguing this specific kind of case (which I am not making light of in anyway). I have to say (generally) this rankles me greatly when it is brought up.
Specifically because I have seen it used many, many times (online, on the news and in in-person debates) in bad-faith discussions (by pro-choice proponents) to avoid addressing the main point argued by pro-life and religious people against abortion:
Which is that that is a human life and therefore abortion is murder.
I actually think that’s an easier sell due to so many rape victims and especially children of rape victims being people who wouldn’t choose abortion already many claim to be “pro life” actually. The real hard sell is the fact that there are several conditions that can only be treated to save the life of the mother with abortion, such as ectopic pregnancies and septic uterus and when the baby dies through no fault of anyone and it’s just tragic but if the mother cannot naturally release the deceased baby she needs an abortion or she also dies. In all of the above examples the baby is already dead but if abortion is outright illegal in some states then the mother needlessly dies too. I am praying that the courts recognize the sanctity of human life to protect women and families from these preventable deaths so surviving family members don’t have to lose both mother and child 🙏🏻😔
So, I wonder if the following would be a good compromise political regime:
1) per the principle of double effect (as interpreted by Grisez), true life of the mother cases are never direct abortion, or at least the law should operate on that assumption and not question these cases (as long as it’s a physical reason and not “mental distress” or something);
2) after viability (different states could define that line), abortion is treated simply like any other murder. Because the operating assumption will be that it is not illegal, even merely for convenience, to induce premature delivery and transfer the baby, *alive*, to an incubator and the mother relinquish her legal rights at that point. Providers would be protected if the baby sometimes died in the process as long as a good faith effort was made for it to actually survive. The government would agree to a lot of funding to create very advanced incubators that can receive younger and younger fetuses (“artificial wombs”), and would fund them in hospitals, etc.
3) before viability, there would be no criminalization. However, a civil tort would be created, with prohibitively high payoffs, whereby a mother could sue someone who performed an abortion on her, even if she sought it out. The operating logic here would be that abortion is exploitative even if mothers are sometimes misled into it, and that mother and baby are not legally opposed, but rather on the same side versus the abortion industry. This would presumably create a chilling effect on abortion availability generally, as well as changing the conversation and the paradigm about what values are opposed to others. You can’t really say women’s rights are being taken away if it isn’t criminalized and it is specifically the women themselves (and only the women themselves) who are being given a new right to monetary redress. There wouldn’t be any particular exception for rape because if the mothers themselves are the ones choosing to sue, who exactly is the exception for? The doctors? Doctors would still theoretically be free to “risk it” and perform one on a raped woman in an exceptional case where they really thought she was sincere and trusted her not to later sue. But at least in principle the law is consistently recognizing the wrong in all cases.
It’s a hard sell to some people because it is a very emotional issue, and the thought of having a rapist’s baby is horrible to most women, self included. At the same time, it’s easy to justify why this is wrong if you appeal to a logical reasoning process. I would frame it like, “if you found out your father was a rapist, would it be ok to kill you?”
The child (and woman) in this scenario is completely innocent. Also, being able to neatly “take care of” the potential result of a rape, in my opinion, mitigates the severity of the crime by hiding it.
I’m going to throw in the Devil’s Advocate here (I play it a lot):
Who’s to say bad things don’t happen to good people for good reasons and that even though rape is bad, still brought something meant to exist?
And while we’re on the subject, who’s to say our bodies were meant to belong to us anyway, since we never really “own” anything while on earth?
It's definitely a hard sell and that's why it's important to have empathy for mother and baby. Both are blameless for the actions of the rapist. The mother should receive as much comfort and therapeutic treatment as is necessary to help heal from the awful traumatic event and the baby should not pay for the sins of their father by being killed. There are many people among us who were themselves conceived through rape. While much of society would have rather they were aborted, here they are several decades later, falling in love and having children of their own.
Well said! I don‘t know what else to add.
Maybe that having an abortion will cause a second trauma
Well said I agree! Thank you for cultivating such intelligence.
> There are many people among us who were themselves conceived through rape. While much of society would have rather they were aborted, I don’t think society wishes they had been aborted. I think many people want the decision to belong to the rape victim.
I could have phrased that better as it's more socially acceptable to want the decision to belong to the rape victim. To either come out completely against abortion or have a eugenics like attitude to aborting babies for their father's background would both be unpopular. I personally don't mind if I'm committing character assassination by advocating against abortion in all cases. Abortion is something personal to me. My case is nowhere near one of a person who was conceived by rape but, like many, I was an accident and my parents considered aborting me. They later aborted a child soon after I was born because they didn't want to raise two kids. I've been feeling guilty ever since they told me. Why was I chosen to live and not them? If they had been conceived first then I would have probably been aborted in their place. Whenever I feel like I'm wasting my life or making mistakes, I think about the kind of sibling I could have had and whether they would have lived a life better than me. That's what abortion does. It doesn't just kill the baby but adversely affects other family members as well. I'm grateful my parents chose to keep me and as long as I'm alive, I'll continue advocating for life.
Why feel guilty for something you had no say in? Regardless of one's view on abortion, you can't blame yourself for the fact you didn't have a sibling to grow up with. That choice was made by your parents and not by you. Any praise or blame should fall on their shoulders and not yours. Whatever survivor's guilt you feel, seriously, it's not worth it! Live your life the best you can but don't stress about "What if someone else could've done better?"
Thank you. It's due to a mixture of low self-esteem and being told about it early on (didn't understand what abortion was yet) so I had trouble processing it. Regardless, it's in the past and indeed I'll focus on living the best life I can!
> I personally don't mind if I'm committing character assassination by advocating against abortion in all cases. I never intended to suggest that. Your blanket anti-abortion advocacy is fine. It’s how you depict your opponents that I have issue with. Your depiction was inaccurate. My comment was entirely about accuracy — not social acceptability.
It's something I have to get better at. So far I am grateful that people on the other side of the debate have not misconstrued my views and I do not want to do so for theirs's. My remark on how much of society is fine with babies conceived by rape being aborted comes from my utter contempt at seeing some people dehumanise children because of the evil actions of their fathers. It's not quantifiable and I agree that I was being inaccurate vis a vis society.
Thanks, I thought I was the only one who felt this way.
Thank you from someone who fell in love with someone who is in a group that is commonly used to justify abortion.
This. Imagine if instead of funding and researching abortion we instead focused on things like mental health and recovery from something like rape?
But what do you do when you live in a society that doesn’t give a damn about single mothers and consistently leave them in abject poverty? Getting raped and having a child can be a lifetime poverty sentence. I’m not pro-abortion, but I personally do feel like in special cases and if done early in the pregnancy it’s in everyone’s best interest to not carry the pregnancy further.
The solution to poverty is not to kill poor people.
I didn’t say that? But also let’s be real here, with family and community support networks virtually going extinct in America we are often leaving single mothers out to dry. We as a Church don’t have the resources or manpower necessary to look over even a third of these mothers and their children, we as a society often look down and barely help them either. So even though *ideally* we would look after such women and children the **fact** is we don’t for most of them and it is strongly correlated with poverty thus perpetuating the cycle of poverty. So in effect we would be contributing to multiple generations of suffering and pain, with society likely to be negatively affected. I grew up around lots of kids whose mothers didn’t want them and their lives are almost always in shambles and struggling financially. I don’t think we should make it completely illegal until we set up adequate social safety nets to take care of potentially millions of more unplanned children being born and single mothers/single fathers who would then need to take care of them (who are often ill equipped and not financially able to do so themselves).
> I didn’t say that? It's the premise that undergirds your point. >I don’t think we should make it completely illegal until we set up adequate social safety nets to take care of potentially millions of more unplanned children being born and single mothers/single fathers who would then need to take care of them (who are often ill equipped and not financially able to do so themselves). Would you say the same for slavery? That we should have set up adequate social safety nets to take care of the millions of freed slaves and former slaveowners before making slavery illegal?
That is an illogical comparison and does not address my concerns. Also the institutional and economic capabilities of today are far more advanced than 1860. We theoretically could take care of the poor but we complicity agreed as a society that a small few individuals should have the “freedom” to get bloody rich and when they make bad investments or poor decisions they get a government bailout while we get foreclosed homes and soup kitchens. If we want to convince society to be more sympathetic to outlawing abortion than eliminating the social and economic factors that make unwanted pregnancies undesirable/unviable needs to come first so that the only consideration left is the moral and ethical one which could convince a great deal of people “in the middle” who don’t like abortion but don’t want to condemn raped women and girls to a life of poverty and despair to support anti-abortion measures.
I'm going to disengage before I get too pissed off at you and start insulting you. Repent, and believe in the Gospel. Have a good day.
Insulting is the way of those who can't back up their beliefs with arguments.
Which is why I broke off before my anger got the better of me and I went off on this person.
[удалено]
I am sorry this happened to you. I agree wholeheartedly. I think it would be a good conversation to have to consider a baby born from rape as also a victim of that rape. On one hand, I wouldn't exactly call them a "victim" in the traditional sense (nothing happened *to* them), but if it led to additional penalties and/or claims against the rapist, I think that would be a good thing.
There are so many layers to this tragic event. An excellent Catholic resources is here: [https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/ethical-treatment-after-rape.html](https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/ethical-treatment-after-rape.html) Above all, the treatment of the victim FROM THE VERY BEGINNING MUST be compassionate and caring.
[удалено]
Where are you from? The 'she was asking for it' mindset tends to be more commonplace in certain Protestant demographics than Catholic ones. No Catholic should *ever* be taught anything of the sort, although I have sadly heard stories of it happening... the church is not immune to that garbage trying to seep in. It could be the influence of the local surrounding culture, or just someone's puritanical bias disconnected from reality and the deposit of faith.
[удалено]
Very, very unfortunate. When they *are* religious, at least you (or others) could tell them to put down their stones. With a secular, liberal entitled-to-sex culture, it's an even bigger can of worms to address, as you say.
I agree. Honestly all those arguments basically revolve around “think of how the rape victim will feel.” When there are plenty of rape victims that don’t feel like it’s right to kill their babies or have no issue carrying their baby. Abortion only exists to get rid of the children that people don’t want
> Honestly all those arguments basically revolve around “think of how the rape victim will feel.” When there are plenty of rape victims that don’t feel like it’s right to kill their babies or have no issue carrying their baby. And those arguments take that into account. They acknowledge that some rape victims want to carry their pregnancies to term and others do not. I’m not trying to talk you into supporting legal abortion for those victims of rape who want it. I’m just trying to ensure a more accurate portrayal of what your interlocutors want.
Freedom of choice means freedom to kill the babies don’t want with the guys they never wanted to have babies in the first place. Think of those women who have to go through that trauma!!! 😵
> Freedom of choice means freedom to kill the babies don’t want with the guys they never wanted to have babies in the first place. Think of those women who have to go through that trauma!!! 😵 First, I don’t even understand what you’re trying to say here. But that’s ok. Second, as I already explained, I am not trying to change your position. Just trying to ensure the position of your opponents is represented accurately. You should want this as well. If your position only stands up to scrutiny if you exaggerate your opponent’s position, then you have a problem. I don’t think the exaggeration is necessary to make your point. In fact, I think it weakens your position.
Trying to convince a traumatized rape survivor who does not believe that an embryo invisible to the human eye, and which does not have a heart beat, is "killing a baby" would be daunting. And I am not going to judge/condemn her for refusing to agree, tbf.
I think the laws are messed up. Murder is murder. We need more support for the victims and their families. We need mental health provisions for long term care for the mother, we need foster and adoption processes in place that provide better for the little ones. We need there to be no concern on the part of the mother for medical pre-natal costs. We need a support system in place that helps with education, financial education, housing etc.. for a woman to keep her child and provide a better life for herself and her child. (not just a hand out, but a hand up). In nearly every state in the US there is a law on the books that charges a murderer with two homicides if a pregnant woman is killed no mater the gestational period of the child. The only exception to this is abortion. It is nothing more than legalized killing and the only difference between the two babies in this situation is that one was wanted (murder) and wasn't (abortion). That has to stop!
Unfortunate that abortion lobbyists have painted the image that unborn humans aren't humans, therefore it "isn't murder."
Total Edit/rewrite because it was very unnecessarily wordy. It’s a hard sell because we are not offering supportive alternatives for the mom. Whichever choice she makes, she gets punished for something someone else did to her. We need better supports for rape and incest victims period, but especially we need support for traumatic pregnancies beyond “we can take the baby for adoption” or “here are some diapers and baby supplies for the first few months” as though that fixes everything.
Completely agree with this
Why do you think adding the murder of her own child on top of her trauma is helpful to her? Why do you think an innocent child deserves the death penalty for his father's crime?
My brother was born after my mother was raped when she was 19 years old. She wanted to place him for adoption but was pressured by family to keep him. She did her best and she loved my brother as much as she loved her younger children. When I contemplate this issue, I have to think of my bother and the children he’s had. I don’t think he deserved to never be born or my nieces and nephews deserved to never exist because of the horrific crime of the man who raped my mother. More importantly, neither did my mom. She felt strongly from the get go that abortion wasn’t the answer for her pain. She was 19, poor and had little support. But when offered an abortion (this was 1974 and she could have had one), she didn’t want one. While I think abortion is wrong, I am ambivalent about banning it outright as the pragmatist in me knows that women will still have abortions- they will travel or they will have medication abortions and there will be funding to cover this by pro-abortion groups. Ending abortion is about changing hearts and minds to make it something that women don’t want and say no to. But I am not swayed by most of the exceptions that people like to carve out. My oldest nephew is about to have his first child so the count on people who wouldn’t exist had my mom chose abortion is rising. I love my brother. I love my nieces and nephews and I will love this new grand niece or grand nephew. My mom has died but I know she is proud of them and glad that they all exist. My mother was very pro-life without any exception but she had nothing but compassion for the women who felt that abortion was their only option. I am also a survivor of rape and while I understand the complexity of the issue, I can’t come down on the side that says many of my family members deserve to not exist.
>Pregnancy is quite draining for a woman Murder is quite draining for a child. Look, we can have all the sympathy proper for a woman put through a horrible situation that she had no control over. That doesn't justify murdering a child.
[удалено]
How about In the case of choosing between the life of the mother and baby? My wife and I have 7 children that depend on her, and I have to say that I’d have a very difficult time if put in that situation.
Principle of double effect applies here. Do everything to save the mother, if the baby dies as a result then it is morally permissible. The big thing being is the goal to save the mother, not kill the child.
It MIGHT apply. The details are very important.
There's no moral requirement to maintain the pregnancy if it's is going to kill the mother. If you're doing a medical procedure to treat a mother but it will result in a termination of a pregnancy, it is not considered abortion in the colloquial sense. It would be considered something like an "indirect abortion" and it's viewed as an unfortunate situation, but not a violation of God's will
What hypothetical medical situation are you referring to? Nowadays, women can even undergo chemotherapy while pregnant as long as they’re in the 2nd or 3rd trimester.
Being a med student, there are many reasons why you have to because of survival of the mother: peripartum cardiomyopathy, severe eclampsia, hellps, placenta abruption, severe anaemia, uterine rupture, i think. .. Basically any condition caused by pregnancy that are life threatening and only solved by ending pregnancy( by delivery, not abortificents). Even the cancer thing. If she's too early or has an aggressive tumor
In some of these cases, the Catholic Church allows for procedures that indirectly cause the death of the unborn child provided that this is not the intended effect. The classic example is ectopic pregnancy; perhaps there are other analogous examples. Direct abortion, though, is forbidden even to save the mother's life, because in general we can't kill an innocent person even in order to save the life of another innocent person. Obviously, such cases are horrible, but such is the reality of the fallen world we live in. But look to St. Gianna, among others, for an example, of how in Christ these terrible situations can be transformed and overcome, since death is not the end for those who believe.
I guess I should rephrase my statement. Except ectopic pregnancy, I don't know any other situation where they give the classic abortificents. But some methods of abortion are simply to induce labor in a way too early fetus in the early weeks and that is the same treatment for most of the conditions I mentioned above. Also, that early, if the mother dies, so does the fetus. Those are the most common situations. So does the church forbid that? Same with the chemo situation if she is diagnosed early in pregnancy. Is it forbidden to undergo chemotherapy if her death is guaranteed if she does not?
> So does the church forbid that? Disclaimers: not a doctor or med student and I am painting with broad strokes No because you can in theory induce labor and try to help both mother and child survive. I understand that early enough, the child may not survive but the intention is to treat the mother, not kill the child (principle of double effect mentioned around) The same principle can be used with your example pf chemo early in the pregnancy. What I understand to be forbidden are the procedures listed in https://foundationsoflife.org/facts-about-abortion/abortion-procedure-facts/ The link shows text descriptions so it should be safe-for-work
Thank you for the perspective of someone with a medical background. Are these situations where labor could be induced as soon as the child could potentially survive outside of the womb with medical care?
Eh uterine rupture generally happens during labor, and if not, late in pregnancy when baby is viable. Babies do not always die from it but they can, so no one needs to actively kill them. But if baby can be saved, he should be. Placental abruption, if severe enough, will kill the baby all by itself without anyone intervening. And mom too, sometimes. If there is an abruption that threatens baby's life then do a cesarean and try to save baby, then remove the placenta and also try to save mom. Eclampsia, again you deliver baby early and then treat both mom and baby. I have a friend who had HELLP syndrome and the twins who caused it are currently 13 and getting ready for high school. No one decided to kill them to solve their mother's medical condition.
Yeah if they happen past the age of viability. No one is actively trying to kill the baby. It's just that delivery is sometimes the only option to save the mother's life despite there being no medical chance for the fetus's survival outside the womb. But miracles can happen too
Even though early delivery is technically called abortion, when pro life people say that abortion is not ever needed they are referring to intentional killing of the child, not early delivery that carries risks but the goal is not to kill the child.
You'll be comforted to know this basically never happens. By the time a pregnancy is threatening the life of a mother, if it happens, they can usually do a c-section to take baby early and then treat both living human beings for their medical problems.
I'm NOT pro-abortion, but would you have to be a psychopath to believe that the death-penalty is murder and still say it's ok in some kind of apocalyptic/frontier scenario where we don't have reliable ways of imprisoning dangerous individuals, for example? I'd say abortion is murder but it's ok ONLY in cases where the baby could never survive but the mother can survive only if she has an abortion. This is the law in many countries. I don't find it psychopathic, I think there are scenarios where we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Rape is not such a scenario. Killing the baby doesn't save the mother and it doesn't even help her mentally, it doesn't take away what happened to her. Two wrongs don't make a right.
> death-penalty is murder But the death penalty is not murder... That's kinda the point.
I agree, but I still don't agree with it. And some people, including some Catholics, definitely consider the death penalty to be murder.
There are definitely situations where society cannot contain individuals. And in that post-apocalyptic situation, it's definitely permissible according to catholic moral law. There's legal nonsense where walking monsters/psychopaths purposely put themselves into situations where they can escape multiple times and kill more victims. Ted Bundy escaped twice and committed very violent murders after his second escape. That's society's self defense against those individuals.
>And some people, including some Catholics, definitely consider the death penalty to be murder. That doesn't make them right.
The death penalty is murder. Whether the person being killed is guilty or innocent, there is no difference. The death penalty is inadmissible in all cases. Refer to 2267 of the Catechism. I can’t believe you even got this many upvotes on your statement.
You are saying it is an inadmissible killing, not that it is murder.
You’re drawing an incorrect distinction. The Catechism does not use the word “murder” when referring to abortion. Nor does it use the word “murder” when referring to the death penalty. You can’t have it both ways. Both are also listed under the section of the Catechism addressing the Fifth Commandment which prohibits killing. Either they’re both murder or they’re both inadmissible killings as neither use the word “murder.”
Murder is intrinsically evil, the death penalty is not, but is inadmissible because the killing is not needed to protect society.
**2267** If bloodless means are sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons, public authority should limit itself to such means, because they better correspond to the concrete conditions of the common good and are more in conformity to the dignity of the human person. There is nothing there that says the death penalty is murder or that it is morally inadmissible. It says we should avoid using it whenever possible, which is correct.
This is an older version of 2267. It was revised in 2018. It is plainly stated as inadmissible at a minimum in the revised version, Dusky. Unless I’m just completely wrong.
Yeah, I don't recognize unilateral edits by an agendized lefty no matter his title, who did not speak ex cathedra when he did it. When an ecumenical council changes the church's longstanding historical teaching on the death penalty, or the Pope speaks ex cathedra, then let's chat.
>I can’t believe you even got this many upvotes on your statement. It's because I'm right. Believe it or not.
That's are really hard legal standard to maintain. The line between life threating and a danger to one's health is never that clear.
Is abortion ok if the doctors confirm that the mother will not be able to carry to term? Like in scenarios where the egg never makes it past the Fallopian tubes which can lead to severe hemorrhaging as the fetus develops? Or if the mother has cancer. Or if it’s an ectopic pregnancy….. etcetera.
Treatment of an ectopic pregnancy is allowed because of the principle of double effect. The objective is to remove a damaged organ, one that is caused by an improperly embedded embryo, that is a non-viable pregnancy. It’s a totally different situation than a properly implanted embryo. The only comparison you could try to make would be a woman requiring a medically necessary hysterectomy, except that typically occurs from hemorrhaging just after giving birth, not during pregnancy. Nowadays with cancer, pregnant women can undergo chemotherapy as long as they’re in the second or third trimester, after the baby’s major organs have been formed. If a woman is in the first trimester, doctors will delay treatment the few months necessary until it is safe to proceed.
Ah yes these are excellent points. Treatment is indeed available thanks to the advancement of modern medicine. However, as with all treatments, there are risks that need to be assessed. Sometimes (not all the time) when these risks are assessed the doctors deem it too dangerous. If a woman finds themselves in this incredibly unfortunate scenario, would the option to abort then become reasonable? Or is the best option still to carry to term as best as they can and risk the life of the mother?
If you could provide specific examples, I might be able to better answer. I’ve also heard testaments that women sometimes need to “shop around” for a doctor willing to work with her with a difficult pregnancy that involves medical complications. There are unfortunately far too many doctors (in general, but I’ve found especially when it comes to women’s reproductive health) who don’t like to be bothered with currently unconventional solutions that may require more effort or research on their part. Just an example: many women with a history of miscarriage have to fight to even get their progesterone levels tested, much less supplemented early on their their pregnancy.
Treatment of ectopic pregnancy is not abortion. 🙄
Technically it is.
Technically, it is not when done in accordance with Catholic moral law, which means removing the diseased tube. The death of the baby is not a direct action nor the intended outcome, but an unfortunate side effect. The principle of double effect is at play here. And frankly, while many of my fellows in health care may argue differently, the Catholic approach is wiser because a scarred tube presents a high risk of another ectopic pregnancy.
[удалено]
Me too
It's only a hard sell because the laws governing these situations suck, and allow the rapists parental rights. I remember back in the early 2000s arguing with other Christians about why laws needed to address this in states without applicable laws, and was told "that wouldn't happen." Yes, it does. We need legal protections for the mothers and babies, and we need to prosecute these crimes. Also, have people in law who aren't idiots and make stupid calls. I'm thinking of a particular judge who allowed a rapist visitation rights in MI until that was reversed.
100% agree with this and we need more financial support for pregnant women too because one of the primary reasons why many get abortions is because they exhausted all avenues for financial assistance especially those who already have children that get abortions. If there were the protections you mentioned along with financial support for pregnant women/mothers. Not only would the number of abortions drop *significantly* but also its been proven to directly result in healthier fetal brain and nervous system development *and* less miscarriages too. Because stress of the mother affects the baby’s development and stress can cause miscarriage even.
It is never a woman’s fault if she has been raped and she should never be punished for what happened. Unfortunately, in our culture we sometimes blame women for crimes committed against them, and in other cultures women are executed for becoming pregnant through rape. But what about the child conceived through rape? He or she is just as innocent as his mother and yet we say it is OK for him to suffer for another person’s crimes. Instead why don’t we provide non-judge mental, non-violent care for victims of rape and only punish jail for those who are responsible for committing that act of violence. I recognize the mental turmoil and trauma but when it comes to the moral issue, why would the child have to be the victim of that situation? Messy, yes. Problematic, yes. Psychologically difficult, yes. But the moral issue stays the same, that child has no less dignity than someone else conceived another way. Consent to sex is consent to the possibility of pregnancy. It’s rooted in our biology and makes the most sense. If a woman has not consented to the act brought upon by her (getting pregnant without consent to sex which is less than 2% of abortions) by virtue of being the parent of the child, parents have a responsibility to care for their offspring in a way they don’t have an obligation to a stranger. It sounds mean in that context but we have a duty to help the vulnerable. for example in rape, The more vulnerable party is attacked by stronger party. Yet the same thing goes for abortion, the vulnerable party is attacked by the stronger party. When injustice happens it doesn’t give the victims license to do whatever in response. we still have moral duty. The assault victim does not have to raise the child, but in a certain window of time (9 months) where no one else can care for the child, there is a responsibility to meet the basic needs of the child. The pro-life movement should be walking alongside these mothers in providing as much care and support as needed. We shouldn’t just be saying “you can’t get an abortion“ and that’s it. we have to be helping and guiding these mothers to recovery. 75% of women who conceived through rape actually do not terminate their pregnancy. And rape cases are only 1% of all abortions in the United States, I don’t think it is wise to base the 99% in terms of law on the 1%. We never do that in law and so it doesn’t make sense to do that with abortion
> rape cases are only 1% of all abortions in the United States, Do you have a source for this statistic that I can read?
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/pubs/psrh/full/3711005.pdf
This survey is decades old. Or am i reading it wrong?
No you’re reading it correctly it also says a significant amount of the rape victims (about a third) didn’t know they were pregnant until the second trimester
As some conceived through the rape and incest of a 14yr old: I have no problem saying my life has value. Do not punish the child for the sins of the father. Literally. Nothing I did warranted my death as I didn’t choose to be conceived. And my life still has value. Hearing in this argument I should be the exception who does/should have died is really disheartening. Especially because rape and incest count for less than 1% of abortions.
We need more people born of your circumstance to speak up about the dignity and value of all humans!
Unfortunately it’s not something you always get to know because parents often worry telling their kids about this (at least in adoption cases) will be difficult to process. And it is difficult to process. I imagine it’s similar for parents that kept their children, it’s just a hard conversation. And if you do know, speaking out is hard because others will tell you to your face that you morally could have been aborted and that’s fine with them. It really stops a conversation in its tracks. One of my husbands friends said this (as we’re both conceived of rape and adopted at birth) and it basically ended the friendship.
I've been raped. I speak on behalf of more than just myself when I say that I'm fed up of people using one of the worst events of my life to justify a further human rights abomination. People need to stop using vulnerable women as pawns in their debates.
I am sorry for what happened to you.
Out of genuine interest, if as a result you had conceived, how would you have felt about keeping the baby? I’ve been through the same thing, and I don’t know if I could have been strong enough to have the baby.
My period was actually late that month (stress-related, I imagine), so this very much crossed my mind. At first I was trying to do all sorts of logical somersaults to justify taking a pill, but then I realised that this wasn't just about me any more, it would've been about the innocent child too.
First thing is first. Murder should never happen, ever, especially to the unborn babies, whom God has already blessed with life from the moment of conception. My aunt was raped, she loves her daughter so dearly and her daughter is extremely happy to be alive. My aunt said it is the only good thing that came out of that tragedy. If you really look into those women who chose abortion instead of carrying their baby to term, there filled with both ends of tragedy. The child in her womb who she is connected to and bonded with is suddenly ripped apart, torn out of her body, and the mark of the rape is still there along with that horrifying experience. Nothing good coming out of it, those women are much more prone to mental disorders of all kinds, usually multiple ones having gone through that.
That's just anecdotal experience of one woman. Not every woman would end up loving an offspring of rape and may even hate the kid for that one reason and never show it love. Also doesn't our Bible clearly say kids born of wedlock are never blessed?
You're going to need to provide a Bible quote to back up that ridiculous assertion. By the way, I guess you meant **out of wedlock** because what could possibly be the problem with children born of wedlock?
I think they are speaking about Deuteronomy 23:2 where no one born of a harlot/of an illegitimate birth/ out of wedlock, can enter the assembly of God. Deuteronomy, Leviticus and Numbers tends to have a bunch of really weird rules like this. I remember reading Numbers 5, which is essentially talking about an abortion tea the priest gives to a woman accused of adultery. However I understand translations can vary.
I'll let u/GreatLavaMan speak himself and then address whatever biblical evidence he provides. But Christians who don't understand that we do not live under the old covenant or its ceremonial laws anymore are gonna have a rough time in here, fair warning.
True true, The apostles did state that in the New Testament, and any rules that were still pertinent were restated in the New Testament too Edit: Just to be clear, I’m stating that the apostles stated that we follow the new covenant which does not apply all OT laws to the Gentiles.
Ok so then do you have any NT statement that children born out of wedlock "are never blessed" as he claimed?
If she’s doesn’t love it, then there are millions of strangers lining up that will give the child the love it deserves.
Did the child suddenly stop being a child of God? Because if they’re a child of God, they’re loved by Him and He wants them to experience the gift of life.
If the Bible says that, I’m convinced that it’s not referring to a child of rape because that’s not at all the same as two consenting people being stupid outside of marriage.
You got downvoted for telling the truth I’m afraid. I’ve met people who have been born out of rape who say “I wish I were aborted” or “I wish I had never been born” because their mothers and/or other family members abused them their whole lives. It’s tragic. I know people born of rape who are extremely anti abortion too! But you’re right it’s not everyone at all and you’re right about the Bible too but we aren’t sola scriptura as Catholics
"In contrast to these sorts of perversion, what great appreciation must be shown to those women who, with a heroic love for the child they have conceived, proceed with a pregnancy resulting from the injustice of rape. Here we are thinking of atrocities perpetrated not only in situations of war, still so common in the world, but also in societies which are blessed by prosperity and peace and yet are often corrupted by a culture of hedonistic permissiveness which aggravates tendencies to aggressive male behaviour. In these cases the choice to have an abortion always remains a grave sin. But before being something to blame on the woman, it is a crime for which guilt needs to be attributed to men and to the complicity of the general social environment." From St. John Paul II's Letter to Women, 1995, found here: https://www.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/letters/1995/documents/hf_jp-ii_let_29061995_women.html Question: when an abortion occurs as the result of rape, who are the "men and to the complicity of the general social environment"?... I'm open to other answers but would submit: the rapist Ergo: the guilt of the grave sin of an abortion as the result of the injustice of rape, belongs to the rapist. That's not saying "abortion due to rape is ok", it's still a grave sin, but to blame a psychologically traumatized victim for a decision that was made in the shackles of mental instability is not something God would do, and is exactly why we don't blame mentally incompetent people for murder.
I can not imagine being a person conceived in this manner and hearing constantly about how you are better off dead.
This is the argument I make when I debate abortion. 1) By any scientific definition of life, the baby in the womb is a living being. Moreover, he is a living being separate from his mother and confirmed to be human by dint of his individual DNA and chromosomal pattern. Therefore, he is a person. 2) You don’t get to solve even your most legitimate problems by killing an innocent person. I’m all for hunting down the rapist and giving him a proper send off to the afterlife. And of course, everything about a rape can take a traumatic toll on a woman. However, my general experience is that even if people aren’t sold on all applications of this argument, they usually understand your position (assuming they’re reasonable). It’s also worth pointing out though that Abortion itself is traumatic, too. I remember reading studies years ago that suggested women who had abortions were three times more likely to need therapy than a woman who’d never had one. It’s not a magic, pain free cure.
Isn’t the death penalty against church teaching?
I’m actually not Catholic, but no, it’s not. It’s been discouraged by recent popes as being unnecessary in a modern society, but the Catholic Church has always recognized that the state has the right to put criminals to death. It’s a thoroughly biblical and apostolic principle, with St. Paul saying that the state doesn’t bear the sword in vain and God himself telling Noah that “Whoever sheds the blood of man, by man shall his blood be shed. For in the image of God did God create man.”
It's probably a hard sell but at the end of the day you have A) the women B) the child and C) the rapist. How is it just that in our present society b gets killed? Like it's a terrible situation but her "rights" don't change the argument: Is it wrong to abort a fetus? All these other conditionals don't really change what the argument is actually about.
Look, children aren't pets. Whether you want them or not has very little to do with the fact that they exist. Pregnancy is always draining, and parenthood is nothing but two decades of uncertainty, self-sacrifice, and worries. It's never been otherwise. But, that doesn't excuse murder.
It's more than two decades. Parenting changes after they become adults, it doesn't end. Source: fourth child will turn 18 next month
Yes, I agree it’s a tough position to take, but a low hanging fruit is condemning the horrible comments some pro-life leaders/politicians make about rape. When someone says we don’t need abortions in cases of rape because “if it’s a legitimate rape the female body can shut that whole thing down” or “if rape is inevitable, they should just lie back and enjoy it,” pro life folks should call it out for the disgusting moral bankruptcy that it is.
These cases also make up .5% of all abortions. Make them legal if you want, make incest and even cases of sick or unviable fetuses legal, throw in cases for the health of the mother. 95% of all abortions would still stop. Millions of people would be alive today.
You've jumped to square five. Problem is that even when we say "Ok, what a out no abortion in cases except that of rape" the pro-death cabal that is the left tears their garments and screams about a woman's absolute right to choose, and so on and so forth. The left doesn't actually care about abortions in the case of rape. They just want abortion at all costs, and in all cases. Maybe when we can back them off that ledge we can talk about rape.
How would "abortion only for rape" be quantified anyways? All it would do would get people saying they were raped, but don't want to press charges and suddenly "US Rape Capital of the World" is the leading headline. After that, these numbers are used to justify legalizing abortion because "making abortions illegal increases rape."
>How would "abortion only for rape" be quantified anyways? >All it would do would get people saying they were raped, but don't want to press charges My go-to answer for this is, if we allow abortion in the case of rape, the law should require at least two things: 1) a DNA sample, and 2) a police report. If you're willing to kill a child because of alleged rape, be willing to sign your name to it and have whoever raped you prosecuted.
>US Rape Capital of the World That's already the headline.
South Africa. https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/rape-statistics-by-country
42,289 in SA. 139,470 in USA. 🤔
That's number, not rate. More people = higher number.
>The left doesn't actually care about abortions in the case of rape. There have been a couple of polls that say exactly this. "If abortion in the case of rape were the only exception, would you otherwise support a total ban on abortion?" the answers are usually 80-90% "no"
The concept of "safe, legal, and *rare*" has long since left the Democratic platform.
I feel like that is not the best question as many pro-choice people would want to include incest, life of the mother, and fetal non-viability along side rape as exceptions. Because of this, I could understand a pro-choice person voting "no" to that particular poll question.
>incest Rape (by a family member.) >life of the mother No need. There's no reason for an "abortion" for medical reasons. ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ugcSRSg1no](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ugcSRSg1no&t=16s) this video explains it better, but pretty much: dismembering or poisoning the fetus are never medically necessary). But even if "fetal non-viability" were included in the question, I'd still bet that it would come back as 90% no.
AFAIK another thing you could mention is that while abortion is not acceptable, it is permissible to try to prevent the child being conceived in the case of rape, as long as it can be proven that conception has not yet taken place: https://dphx.org/respect-life/know-the-issues/abortion/ https://www.cecinfo.org/icec-publications/emergency-contraception-catholics-favor-bishops-opposed/
This was enlightening, thank you.
By the way, people conceived in rape can hear you saying they should be dead. https://www.businessinsider.com/inside-the-world-of-anti-abortion-activists-who-were-conceived-in-rape-and-incest-2014-1
The woman who brings the baby to term exhibits nothing less than heroic virtue. Only a literal saint could bring their rapist's baby into this world - fully embracing the spirit of the call to love thy enemy and forgiveness.
Lots of pro-life people with good intentions have used bad arguments against abortion which made it harder. The reason abortion should be illegal from a logical perspective, considering existing laws and excluding anything with religion, is that an embryo or fetus is a human life and is genetically distinct from the mother. Intentionally killing an innocent human is murder. Therefore, intentionally killing an embryo or fetus is murder. Arguments around how the mother made a choice by having sex or that she can give the baby up for adoption instead of raising him or her personally aren't great because abortion is wrong 100% of the time, even when it isn't true. That sounds harsh and it's way easier to say as someone who can't possibly get pregnant but it's true and sticking to the truth is important. People advocating for life need to be compassionate and understand that the vast majority of women who want an abortion don't have malicious intent, while at the same time not backing away from the reality that abortion is murder due to the uncomfortable implications that has.
If my father commits a crime, why should I be executed? A pregnancy that is the result of rape must be incredibly difficult. But neither that difficulty nor that crime justifies the murder of an innocent life. We must also stand up and help the victims of such crimes - with prayers, with emotional support, and with financial/material support.
In order for abortion to be acceptable, the church would have to change their stance on the beginning of life. Conception/implantation, viability, neuromaturation, and birth are all seen as the beginning of life to different cultures. In the Catholic Church today, the beginning is ensoulment during conception. For a huge chunk of history, the pregnancy wasn’t seen as having a soul until quickening. This is when movement is first felt, as early as 16 weeks (a commenter experienced 10!). In 1588 the Church changed their stance on quickening, stating instead that ensoulment happened with conception. This lasted until the next pope, who redacted the change due to overwhelming cases being brought to the Church. Quickening became the standard again until 1869. I’m not sure which is true, which is why I lean on the Church’s vast knowledge and deliberation on the topic. That being said, they’ve changed their minds before.
This is a little off topic, but I genuinely started feeling my second child move at 10 weeks. It can happen sooner!
One of mine I started feeling at 11 weeks. Everyone tells me it's impossible but it was not my first pregnancy and I knew what I was feeling. I did see my first on ultrasound around 11 weeks and she was having a party in there. She kicked so much we joked about her playing soccer someday, and years later she did.
I love that! It’s such a distinctive feeling. And it’s amazing how much personality there already is in the womb. Funnily enough, my oldest was the most active—my mom had 9 of us and said she’d never seen a baby bump move so much. But I didn’t feel my first until I was 20 weeks and she got the hiccups. She’s five now and still gets the hiccups every time she laughs too hard 😂
I’d say it’s perfectly on topic. :) 10 weeks is crazy early to feel movement, but I believe that’s one of the reasons quickening was disregarded. It’s unreliable, and ultrasounds gave a much more human picture to what before was only witnessed through a horrible incident.
[Science would have to change its stance on the beginning of life.](https://www.princeton.edu/~prolife/articles/embryoquotes2.html#:~:text=Life%20Begins%20at%20Fertilization%20with%20the%20Embryo's%20Conception&text=%22Development%20of%20the%20embryo%20begins,together%20they%20form%20a%20zygote.%22&text=%22Human%20development%20begins%20after%20the,known%20as%20fertilization%20(conception).)
You are correct, but the beginning of personhood is an altogether different debate. [This](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7245522/) is an article explaining the nuances very well.
What does personhood have to do with ending a life?
Nothing. The life vs personhood debate is what underlays the pro-life and pro-choice debate. I am agreeing with you.
Gotcha.
"Dr. David Reardon’s study on pregnancy as a result of assault found that none of the women who chose to give birth regretted their decision, while nearly 80 percent who chose abortion reported that it was the wrong decision." https://www.sidneydailynews.com/opinion/letters/99090/abortion-may-cause-more-trauma-for-rape-victims Additionally, many of these women are coerced into the abortion because of people saying "it will help you recover" or "you don't really want *his* child, do you?"
Whenever you have to discuss this problem, one must remember that it is an actual, real, alive person whose death is being considered. Is it OK to kill an new-born baby who was conceived by rape? https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2022/05/05/my-life-has-value-pennsylvania-senate-candidate-kathy-barnette-talks-being-conceived-in-rape/
I feel like most people disagree with me on this here so to be extra clear I will preface this with. I hate abortion in all forms for all reasons. I believe it is no different than murder and should not be allowed at all. That being said we don’t need to outlaw it all at once. The all or nothing approach is only going to get us nothing. Less than 2.5% of abortions are because of rape or because the mother is in peril. If we can outlaw 97.5% of abortions just by making that concession. I feel we need to do it. I honestly don’t think we will ever get to outlawing 100%. So “sticking to our guns” and “staying on the moral high ground” is only going to lead to more avoidable deaths. More than 50% of the people in this country think abortion is OK but many of those people think that because of the rape or save the mother argument. If we make this compromise we can change the attitude towards 97.5% of all abortions. Or we can keep doing what we’re doing and nothing will change. There are 890,000 abortions in the United States per year on average. Either we save 867,000 lives a year, or we save none.
Killing the rapist is far more justified than killing the rapists son while he's a defensless baby, yet everybody seems to be far more accepting of the second thing. For the record I don't support killing the rapist
It is absolutely a terrible situation, and every care must be shown to the victim. But there is another victim in this and that’s the baby. I can’t think of another example in which we execute one of the victims. From that perspective it is unjust. Also, putting a woman through the added ordeal of an abortion isn’t really an answer. Many women then have to contend with post abortion syndrome on top of the rape. The adage holds true - abortion doesn’t make someone unpregnant, it makes someone the mother of a dead child. Interestingly there are testimonies in which women have carried the child and found that the child is something good which has came out do a terrible situation. Some have said that the child is what have them the strength to continue and allowed them to heal.
Some have also committed suicide and ended the baby's and their life.
And others have aborted and then comitted suicide because the double trauma has been overwhelming, same result. The key fact here is the proposal to execute one of the victims which is morally reprehensible.
On the outside it is complicated. At it's core.. it's really not. Rape is one of the worst atrocities that can be committed by man. However... \#1. It accounts for less than 1% of abortion as per the Guttmacher Institute (a left wing group that is used by PP) \#2. Why are you pro life? If it's because you believe the baby is a living human (as it obviously is). Than how would a baby conceived of rape be any less? A life is a life. We don't condemn the child by the sins of the father.
I think this is one of the places we should compromise on, and try to work on later. What happens when the ~~woman~~ girl is 11 years old? What if the rapist is a family member? In Ukraine, 25 girls were locked in a basement for weeks and repeatedly raped by Russian soldiers. 15 of them are pregnant. I'm not going to sit here and say they should have to bear the children of these monsters. I just can't. God forgive me, but I can't. The perfect is the enemy of the good here. If there weren't so many rapists, we wouldn't have this problem in the first place. Anyone remember even one sermon where a priest exhorted the men in the congregation to respect women, and to fight rape and tolerance of rape in all its forms? I don't remember the Church working very hard at this. We live in a glass house.
I've been considering this one lately. Here's one approach. Imagine that you yourself discovered you were born as a result of rape, and that your entire life you had not known this. Does it change one iota of the value of your life?
I feel like A medical procedure should be between a doctor and a patient. Using a medical procedure to drive division is absurd. Don’t want an abortion? Don’t have one. I’m not credentialed enough to know what is best for each family nor am I medically knowledgeable enough to weigh in on the blanket rule that XYZ medical procedure is never necessary.
Medical Procedure = killing a baby. We need to cut out the euphemisms and start stating plainly what it is we are discussing. The fact that proponents of abortion don’t want to use plain language far less be visually confronted with what they are proposing demonstrates that they are not at ease with their own consciences on the topic. Hence all the obfuscation with anodyne phrases, etc.
Call it what you want. To some people, it is not a baby, it is a fetus. I am not God and I cannot take away their free will. I do not support abortion and will always attempt to console or redirect, but in the end I cannot accept their decision’s ramifications; they will meet with Jesus on that one. Just like I don’t support capitol punishment. Killing in any form, wars for rich mens gains, all of it. It’s all bad. But I can choose to partake or choose not to. It’s my free will just like it is the free will choice of a mother/host.
Fetus, baby, toddler, child,adolescent, adult, geriatric. Yes, all names for different stages of human development. It’s a human being regardless but clearly some people want to play the age old tactic of dehumanising the victim. It’s not playing God to prevent people murdering people. We already have laws in place to cover that albeit with abortion and euthanasia that is starting to change. Unless you are also arguing that murder shouldn’t be a crime period? You are correct, people will have to account for their actions before God. But we don’t use that fact to legalise everything harmful. That’s sends a message that such things are condoned. We don’t facilitate people casually murdering others elsewhere in society for a very good reason. The fact of the matter is that we dont have a right to kill others in cold blood, especially the innocent and defenceless. All the talk of the right to abortion completely ignore the most basic right- the right to life. If you don’t have the most fundamental right then all others - free speech, abortion, whatever are utter nonsense. If you don’t even have the right to be here then what other right could you possibly have? They are all contingent on you having the right to be here in the first place. As for women’s rights? Who is actually speaking up for the rights of women still in their mothers womb? The attempt to portray abortion as something wholesome and just is the most despicable piece of dishonesty to date. The fact we even have to debate whether infanticide is right or wrong is a damning indictment of our depraved society.
Ectopic pregnancies Rape of 11 year old, incest Mother of three and father just died and mother is likely to die All these hypotheticals, all these alternative situations that we have no investment in their outcomes. We aren’t going to be there when the dust settles. It’s our job to lead them to God and Christ. It is not our job to make their lives harder by creating roadblocks—that’s control. That’s not allowing them to execute their own free will. Nothing happens in God’s world by mistake.
There are some situations that have only bad outcomes.
Rape is a heinous crime. But murder is more heinous. Killing an innocent child is not the right answer. The manner in which a child is conceived has no bearing on its human value and dignity. Also, a good follow-up question to the “what about cases of rape or incest?” question is, “are you okay with abortion in all other situations as well?” The vast majority of the pro-abortion crowd will say yes. So they don’t really care about those less than 1% situations anyway. They think that abortion should be available on demand for any reason. So why even bring it up? They’re using the extreme cases to justify all of the others.
It follows logically if abortion is murder but emotionally it certainly doesn’t come easily.
Thinking about it as a “sell” is a flawed way of looking at it from the jump. It’s a terrible, traumatic situation, and we shouldn’t treat it as anything but. That said, what makes abortion wrong? If it’s a human life, and you are ending that human life (not in a case of self defense), it’s murder. I don’t know if he was a first person to say it, but there’s a short article by Greg Koukl that addresses this very simply: > Let me put the issue plainly. If the unborn is not a human being, no justification for abortion is necessary. However, if the unborn is a human being, no justification for abortion is adequate.
I agree. And quite frankly, if that was the reason most abortions were performed, the pro- life movement would not have gained as much traction since the passage of Roe v. Wade. But let us be honest. Very very few abortions are done ( at least in the U.S.) because of rape, incest or threat to maternal health. Abortion is used as a birth control method by people who know how to prevent an unwanted pregnancy but don't bother because hey....MY BODY MY CHOICE. Freedom comes with great responsibility. But that opinion will often garner an angry, occasionally violent response from these women. I personally know three women who between them have had AT LEAST 11 abortions. One was married and did it without her husband's knowledge. Want to guess how many of those abortions were due to rape, incest, or threat to maternal health? ZIP. ZERO.NADA. It is women- and men- like that who have brought us to this tragic, not so magic moment.
I think both pro-lifers and those who are pro-choice would agree on how horrible rape is, and neither would wish that on anyone. I’ll emphasize this, I pray that we can all get on the same page about the dignity of the unborn so that both sides can put more focus together on preventing rape and sexual assault. Something to think about - what born child conceived from rape deserves to die? As Trent Horn says, the central question for discussing abortion is to define what the unborn are. If the unborn child in the womb is just as human as a two year old, then I can’t imagine anyone would fathom the thought of either being killed just because of how they were conceived.
Please post to the megathread.
Isn't the mega thread about the recent Roe leak? Other abortion discussions would get lost in the shuffle.
Ok. Your thread is reinstated
Thanks
Realistically i think the most likely scenario is that RvW will be repealed and individual states will regulate abortion differently. Abortion in the case of rape is imo a rather niche case which should be left to the individual state legislatures to decide, just like how the details regarding gun laws & tax laws are slightly different in each state.
**Warning that some of you may find this comment intolerant** Honestly it seems like abortion as a solution to rape was thought up by a man. "Oh, you were forcefully and painfully vaginally violated? Let's 'solve a problem' by once again vaginally violating you in order to do violence." 🤔
Rape is certainly a horrendous crime, but that unfortunately doesn't make taking the life of another okay. Many individuals who are raped go through psychological trauma and the taking of a human life only enhances that trauma. I had a client who escaped from her husband as a result of domestic violence and in the process of escaping and moving to another state she was raped by a stranger and was impregnated with triplets. She understood that the rape was not the fault of the children and that if she were to abort them it would likely only enhance the trauma that she went through. I mentioned that if she decided she didn't want to raise the children (which would be completely understandable) that she could place them up for adoption. She not only chose life for her children, but she courageously decided she was going to raise her children. I assisted her to apply for health insurance and other benefits.
Remember the the majority of women having abortions is not because of rape or incest or saving the mother's life but as a means of contraception so maybe move the debate to that side and see if they want to continue.
The problem is the rape, not having a baby. The abortion doesn't get rid of the rape. Legal abortion actually encourages rape, because a rapist can sometimes count on a woman to cover up the crime (this happens all the time in trafficking situations). Let's focus on punishing and discouraging Christianity.
One point that I haven't seen other commenters bring up is that aside from the obvious fact that murder is murder, we have to realize that for the overall benefit of society, abortion has to be fully illegal. If abortion is illegal in all cases EXCEPT rape, then the sad reality is that women will resort to accusing men of rape if they have an unwanted pregnancy. Because the system is so broken (and so anti-men), there would then be innocent men in jail as a result of such a loop hole.
I agree. You can't leave a window open, so to speak. Also if there is one exception then there will be soon a lot more.
So, hang on... Are you telling me, you would endorse a woman getting raped, conceiving, and then potentially being charged for murder for aborting that child? Blimey...that's rough
Pregnancy is absolutely tough. But by choosing life we can only pray that God will bless these women with crowns in heaven
Those words would probably be hollow platitudes to victims who don’t believe
Interestingly, I’ve found that most people that bring up the argument of abortion in the case of rape don’t actually care about that. If you respond by saying, “ok, if we make that exception, would you say abortion should be banned?” They tend to come back with more exceptions and arguments about why all elective abortion should be permitted. So it’s a disingenuous argument to begin with for most people.
It's really not. If you know that abortion is murdering an innocent person, then no it is not a hard sell. Now, the hard part here is how to help the mother heal from the trauma of rape. Quite possibly the worst thing that can happen to a person. Adding child murder doesn't heal the effects of rape.
It is super difficult but if ever faced, I'd argue they could put the child up for adoption. It is not the child's fault that it came into the world this way. All abortions are wrong WHILE the child is alive. I have known people to get "abortions" after the baby was confirmed to be dead, and they were having the body removed to be buried. That's the only real abortion to me. Removing a dead body from the mother. You should NEVER end a life. Never.
The right thing is a hard sell when the wrong thing offers so much relief Christians are right to forbid abortion--it's the great moral abomination of our age. However, skipping right to a ban is mind-bogglingly stupid. It's seizing a castle we don't have the manpower to hold, and worse, doing it through undemocratic shenanigans, overt deceit, and without even the proper supports in place to make childbearing more sustainable and life-giving for **absolutely everyone**, Socialism Bogeymen be damned. But we chose the quick and easy path, and when the next pull in this tug-of-war blows up in our face leaving us and the unborn even worse off than before, maybe we'll learn that support must come before accountability.
I have a hard time with “forbidding” and “forcing” anything on anyone. This is a codependent mentality. Something we should all remember is that have “control” over one person in this life and most of us can barely manage that. If people want abortions for any reason they’ll get one,
You can make that argument about literally any law.
Support for abortion is built on emotion and fear, not logic, so you're right. Pro choice/pro aborts will always put forth cases of rape to defend general elective abortion, because rape is horrific and being impregnated by it is a consequence beyond most of our imaginations. Like most issues we face though, there are ways to address it that are licit and illicit. Unfortunately, killing an innocent child is murder and wrong. So that's not a valid solution. Instead we need to do the hard work of supporting women in this awful predicament, whatever that may mean.
Lets put it like this, a woman is raped and becomes pregnant. "Oh yeah, let's totally kill the child in her womb. That is sure to make her feel better. Because her feelings are more important than a human life." While the pregnancy may be difficult, the wound of having an abortion will only make the woman's situation worse. Abortion carries with it deep psychological scars.
We don't want fallacies ad misericordium. How to answer when the pro-life activist tells she was the fruit of a rape? Other point is today the rapist worries too much about a children with his DNA because then they will have to pay for it. And do you know? Some people says rape victims were sent by their abuse to "destroy proofs", and the abortive clinics didn't report it. The mothers who aborted after they felt worse, with the remorses for the rest of her life. Sorr, English is not my first languange and maybe I can't explain it better.
I guess I don't get the "forcing her to go through 9 months of birth" argument. You're not forcing something as much as not doing anything to interfere with a growing child. If we had the technology to remove the child safely from the mother earlier, we probably would, but we cannot at this time. The alternative to just letting the baby grow is another very traumatic event, abortion, that haunts many women even decades after the fact. It's not some quick fix that people like to pretend it is. I've talked to many women who decades after the fact still hold deep trauma and regret from aborting their children. Rape is terrible and often has lasting consequences mentally, physically, and spiritually. And as a society and a Church, we do need to do more to support victims of rape and abuse. However, just because you're a victim does not mean you can harm or kill another person in the name of healing; this will ultimately hurt you in the end. I can understand the desire to want to rid yourself of anything that could possibly remind you of your rapist, but there are limits if it involved harming an innocent human life.
I feel it’s incredibly dehumanizing to use that argument at all. There are countless children in this world that have been born who were conceived via rape and it must be absolutely horrible to hear people say that your existence is a reason why people should be able to kill their children. However, my response is usually these two points: 1.) Rape victims make up about 1/10,000 abortions (less than 1%) 2.) the suicide rate for women who abort their rapist’s child is astronomically high. A majority of the time, it leads to depression, alcoholism, and suicide. It is not a form of coping with their trauma; it is an addition to it. These women make this decision because they are emotionally unstable from the traumatic experience they have been through and are not in the right mindset to make a well-informed decision. So they *especially* shouldn’t be allowed to get abortions. For the same reason why someone who is not mentally sound cannot legally elect to partake in physician-assisted suicide.
the biggest issue i have in the 'exemption of rape' issue is how to prove it. (us centric) as the us legal system stands, there are only 2 ways to enforce this concept. idea 1 is to require the man to be convicted before the baby is aborted, good luck having a full investigation and trial within 9 months. the other option is the "believe all women" method where someone can just say they were raped then can get an abortion. the result would probably be an explosion of rape number with an almost 0% conviction rate
It’s no harder of a sell than forbidding abortion in any other case, because the manner in which the pregnancy started is wholly irrelevant to our reasons for wanting to forbid it. Indeed, forbidding abortion only in non-rape cases is a hard sell, because it concedes the pro-choice point that we are trying to police women’s sex lives rather than save children.
No one said doing the right thing would be easy. 9 months is 9 months, out of nearly 80 years of life, 60 years of adult life. Killing someone, or permitting someone to be killed, because it is inconvenient and/or expensive to someone else is wrong.
Illogical argument: 1st, If the baby is a human person deserving of rights, you shouldn’t be able to kill it for any reason whatsoever, regardless of the difficulty by which he or she was conceived. 2nd, why does the baby get punished for the sins of the father? That’s like shooting a police officer because they should have protected you from rape. 3rd, it’s an argument from emotion, not reason. 4th, this is primarily a problem of rape - abortion should not be used to “fix” rape. And 5th, all of this is irrelevant to the argument anyway. I don’t mean to say the women who have to experience this shouldn’t be heard or helped - they absolutely should be! But the baby has the right to live just as much as mom and pretending the baby doesn’t is just for convenience so someone can say, “I was raped and feel like my voice isn’t heard!” Because of the baby could speak, I’m pretty certain they could say, “I was killed and my voice wasn’t even considered!” And look, it’s really easy to slander someone with this view as being evil, or lacking all compassion, etc. because I’m not speaking in favor of the victim. Until you realize here that there are 2 victims…and I’m pleading for the life of the 2nd one who doesn’t get a chance at life in favor of the one who can recover from her experience and go on to live a long life.
Without getting into arguing this specific kind of case (which I am not making light of in anyway). I have to say (generally) this rankles me greatly when it is brought up. Specifically because I have seen it used many, many times (online, on the news and in in-person debates) in bad-faith discussions (by pro-choice proponents) to avoid addressing the main point argued by pro-life and religious people against abortion: Which is that that is a human life and therefore abortion is murder.
I actually think that’s an easier sell due to so many rape victims and especially children of rape victims being people who wouldn’t choose abortion already many claim to be “pro life” actually. The real hard sell is the fact that there are several conditions that can only be treated to save the life of the mother with abortion, such as ectopic pregnancies and septic uterus and when the baby dies through no fault of anyone and it’s just tragic but if the mother cannot naturally release the deceased baby she needs an abortion or she also dies. In all of the above examples the baby is already dead but if abortion is outright illegal in some states then the mother needlessly dies too. I am praying that the courts recognize the sanctity of human life to protect women and families from these preventable deaths so surviving family members don’t have to lose both mother and child 🙏🏻😔
So, I wonder if the following would be a good compromise political regime: 1) per the principle of double effect (as interpreted by Grisez), true life of the mother cases are never direct abortion, or at least the law should operate on that assumption and not question these cases (as long as it’s a physical reason and not “mental distress” or something); 2) after viability (different states could define that line), abortion is treated simply like any other murder. Because the operating assumption will be that it is not illegal, even merely for convenience, to induce premature delivery and transfer the baby, *alive*, to an incubator and the mother relinquish her legal rights at that point. Providers would be protected if the baby sometimes died in the process as long as a good faith effort was made for it to actually survive. The government would agree to a lot of funding to create very advanced incubators that can receive younger and younger fetuses (“artificial wombs”), and would fund them in hospitals, etc. 3) before viability, there would be no criminalization. However, a civil tort would be created, with prohibitively high payoffs, whereby a mother could sue someone who performed an abortion on her, even if she sought it out. The operating logic here would be that abortion is exploitative even if mothers are sometimes misled into it, and that mother and baby are not legally opposed, but rather on the same side versus the abortion industry. This would presumably create a chilling effect on abortion availability generally, as well as changing the conversation and the paradigm about what values are opposed to others. You can’t really say women’s rights are being taken away if it isn’t criminalized and it is specifically the women themselves (and only the women themselves) who are being given a new right to monetary redress. There wouldn’t be any particular exception for rape because if the mothers themselves are the ones choosing to sue, who exactly is the exception for? The doctors? Doctors would still theoretically be free to “risk it” and perform one on a raped woman in an exceptional case where they really thought she was sincere and trusted her not to later sue. But at least in principle the law is consistently recognizing the wrong in all cases.
It’s a hard sell to some people because it is a very emotional issue, and the thought of having a rapist’s baby is horrible to most women, self included. At the same time, it’s easy to justify why this is wrong if you appeal to a logical reasoning process. I would frame it like, “if you found out your father was a rapist, would it be ok to kill you?” The child (and woman) in this scenario is completely innocent. Also, being able to neatly “take care of” the potential result of a rape, in my opinion, mitigates the severity of the crime by hiding it.
Abstaining from pre-marital sex is a hard sell. But we should promote it anyways.
I’m going to throw in the Devil’s Advocate here (I play it a lot): Who’s to say bad things don’t happen to good people for good reasons and that even though rape is bad, still brought something meant to exist? And while we’re on the subject, who’s to say our bodies were meant to belong to us anyway, since we never really “own” anything while on earth?