your rapist is forgiven, your mother goes to hell!

[bara]

As Captain Picard so correctly put it: "There can be no justice so long as laws are absolute!"

Laws that are absolute aren't meant to protect nor serve justice.

They are meant to control.

[Nekojin]

2) The Arch Bishop of that region did not excommunicate them. He declared that they were automatically excommunicated when the abortion took place.

This is, at best, semantic quibbling. If he never made that declaration, would anyone (particularly her local church) have treated her as excommunicated?

The Church's stance was to have the girl carry the twins for as long as she could and then deliver through C-Section and to have them all hospitalized until they were safe to go home.

Which flies completely in the face of reality. For the fetuses to NOT endanger her life, they would have to have been removed early enough that there's no practical way for them to have survived. At less than 24 weeks of gestation, there is no real chance for them to survive, even with artificial support; in other words, prior to the third trimester, a baby born (either of miscarriage or cesarean section) will simply die. It still requires too much from the mother for artificial means to work. Any pregnancy that a 9-year-old can carry would become too much of a burden on her system long before the third trimester.

Therefore, we have an untenable situation, and the most practical answer is to abort the pregnancies as soon as possible for the greatest welfare of the would-be mother, not wait for as long as possible, risking the health (and even life) of the would-be mother, and hope to have all three live. Believing that the latter is even possible goes against rational thought.

Regardless of it all though, cases like this are what shake up and wake up closed minds and promote change.

One can only hope.

[Rageaholic]

Absolute rules or laws are just as stupid as zero tolerance policies. They never take into account the situations. By the same rationalization, a man who shoots a robber to protect his family will recieve the same punishment as the cold blooded serial killer who kills for thrills.

[Hyena Dandy]

Saying "Okay, because this happened, he was automatically excommunicated" is fine.

But then you should go on to say, "But because of extenuating circumstances..."

[HYHYBT]

Someone will please correct me if I've misunderstood, but *within Catholic belief* it's not at all "semantic quibbling.* It's akin to the difference between your doctor causing your high cholesterol or just breaking the bad news. Such excommunication is a state of being which exists whether the person in question acts on it or their local church even knows of it... and, therefore, NOT to tell her, and therefore to allow her to carry on as if her relation with the church were undamaged, would make her less likely to take appropriate steps to mend that relationship and, therefore, would further endanger her soul.

Again, within that framework and assuming the bishop's statement to be correct. I'm explicitly NOT arguing for either. But it's reasonable to assume that Catholic officials are speaking from within it and making their decisions accordingly.

[lineswine]

Bollocks to all the Catholic dogma, just relive the sick rapist bastard of his testicles.
End. Of.

[Hyena Dandy]

Someone will please correct me if I've misunderstood, but *within Catholic belief* it's not at all "semantic quibbling.* It's akin to the difference between your doctor causing your high cholesterol or just breaking the bad news. Such excommunication is a state of being which exists whether the person in question acts on it or their local church even knows of it... and, therefore, NOT to tell her, and therefore to allow her to carry on as if her relation with the church were undamaged, would make her less likely to take appropriate steps to mend that relationship and, therefore, would further endanger her soul.

Again, within that framework and assuming the bishop's statement to be correct. I'm explicitly NOT arguing for either. But it's reasonable to assume that Catholic officials are speaking from within it and making their decisions accordingly.

You're right, it's not semantic quibbling. What I was stating was that, due to the extenuating circumstances, he should have then continued by, well, re-communicating her. Or petitioning the Pope to recommunicate her. Whichever is proper.

[Silverharp]

And people wonder why I'm pagan.....

[Seifer]

How about the fact that it's the girl's body? Just because some asshole decided to rape her doesn't mean she has to be forced to bear the children, even if she wasn't likely to die. No woman should have to give birth if they don't want to. Sorry, but pregnancy and birth can irreparably damage a woman's body and should only be done if the woman understands and accepts the consequences.

I wish government and religion would just STFU and stay out of everyone's business. What a woman chooses to do with her body is her own business.

[bara]

I wish government and religion would just STFU and stay out of everyone's business. What a woman chooses to do with her body is her own business.

This is exactly why government should have no religion in it. The founding fathers knew that but we always seems to have these idiots who want to force their beliefs on the rest of us.

[Rebel]

The WORD is easy. Applying it to abortion is not. What constitutes "necessary"?

I use the word necessary because women need to have that choice available.
You can try to make abortion illegal, but then all that's going to happen is that the women who have made their minds up will look for any alternative, be it legal or otherwise. And that's the point. The decision to abort isn't something that a woman decides on on a whim. It's not like if they want a latte or a tea. People who resort to abortion have already thought through all their options.

In a perfect world, abortion would not be needed. I wish it wasn't needed.

Right now, we have contraception that isn't always effective or available and poor sex education.
We also have churches forcing their opinion into politics and trying to have contraception harder to access and sex education nearly non-existant.
Then they have the gall to attack women who seek abortions for being irresponsible about sex.
It's a vicious cycle.

In the case in the OP, the church is 100% in the wrong. I don't care what they believe.

Women have only just recently been accepted as full human beings, instead of property of the men in their lives.
One of the most important things to keep this equality is for women to have control over their bodies, and have to ability to decide when and if to become pregnant.
You take away that choice, you take away their equality.
Hell, even now if a woman knows that she never wants to have a child ever doctors won't let you get sterilized until you're about 35 years old, or if you already have a couple of children. Because women should always want babies. Because god

If you really hate abortions, don't have one.

[Rebel]

You mean to tell me that you've never heard of a Dilation and Extraction procedure, aka the Partial Birth Abortion? There is also the process where they inject drugs into the baby's heart to get it to stop beating prior to performing the D&X or a C-Section to remove it. Who's the uneducated one here?

And it is not a straw man argument. You keep stating that women have the right to abort a baby at any point and you continue to dodge the question of what you define life to be. So I simply asked if an abortion at 37 weeks is still just a "mass of cells" or if it's a life.

I'm well aware of those procedures.
D&E is used in about 0.17% of all abortion procedures.
But D&E is done through a vacuum removal of the tissue after dilating the cervix, then forceps are used to remove any remaining tissue. Anti-Choice people like to paint the picture of a fully formed baby for this procedure, but it simply isn't true
This is the safest option for women with troubled pregnancies.

Until the fetus is viable outside of the woman's body, it still counts as being a part of her body. It is technically a parasite as it relies completely on the woman's body to survive.
You have no right to dictate what any other person does to their body or to the organs and parasites within..

Wait... I thought late term pregnancies were hypothetical? Isn't that what you just accused me of making up?

Late term pregnancies?
I'm going to assume you mean abortion.
Late term abortion, that is abortion that happens after 20 weeks, accounts for about 1.5% of all abortion.

Nope, I said that women don't have late term abortion 'just coz they feel like it'. I said that they were used to save the mothers life or to allow the unviable fetus to not have to die in agony while a distraught parent watches. Often it is used to give the parents a body to bury.

The idea of a woman who gets a late term abortion with a healthy fetus on a whim is a hypothetical, it's not a reality.
Hell, Canada has no legal restrictions on abortion. Theoretically, a woman could have an abortion any day up to and including the birth day. And it would be protected by law.
Doesn't happen though.
Because abortion is a decision a woman makes after looking at all the possibilities.
To say that there are women out there having late-term abortions willy-nilly is an insult to both your intelligence and mine.

I place upon you the onus to show where I have ever said that I don't value women very highly. Give me one single example where I have made a comment to show me as a misogynist.

You don't agree with abortion unless it's on your terms as decided by your views.
If the women don't live up to your preconceived idea of when abortion should be allowed, then they should be forbidden from having an abortion.
Women aren't morons who need a mans help to make decisions for them.
To decide that they need to have their choices restricted because of your feelings as a man is misogynistic.

Oh really? Do you have empirical evidence of it? How do you do which women have wanted and not wanted to be pregnant? Can you read minds? Can you read the minds of people that have been long dead for centuries? See, I can turn that mind reading thing around on you too.

History books.
Abortion was, and still is, performed by the eating and insertion of certain toxic plants.
The Roman Empire used abortion the restrict the sizes of families and it was the most successful form of birth control at the time.
Even animals in the wild induce miscarriage, so that does prove my 'sentient' idea wrong.

And as an Atheist, your opinion on Church doctrine doesn't matter either.

It matters when it's trying to restrict my rights.

[Jaden]

You don't agree with abortion unless it's on your terms as decided by your views.
If the women don't live up to your preconceived idea of when abortion should be allowed, then they should be forbidden from having an abortion.
Women aren't morons who need a mans help to make decisions for them.
To decide that they need to have their choices restricted because of your feelings as a man is misogynistic.

Ok, now you're literally saying that because Crash disagrees with abortion, that makes him a misogynist, and I can only assume you think the same about me.

It has nothing to do with my "feelings as a man", it has to do with my feelings as a person. I see the fetus as a living being on its own - one dependent on another person's body, yes, but a living being nonetheless. All we're saying is that the decision to remove that life should only be allowed under specific circumstances.

Nobody ever said or even implied that women were "morons who need a man's help to make their decisions for them." It has nothing to do with you being a woman. It may for some people who actually are misogynists, but don't try to label us as that - if you abuse such a word, it loses its meaning and those who deserve it won't get the sting they should.

If men could get pregnant, I'd be just as against abortion as I am now.

[siead_lietrathua]

It has nothing to do with my "feelings as a man", it has to do with my feelings as a person. I see the fetus as a living being on its own - one dependent on another person's body, yes, but a living being nonetheless. All we're saying is that the decision to remove that life should only be allowed under specific circumstances.

this always kinda has me wonder (and again, just my rambling mind)
what about people born with parasitic twins?
i mean, a parasitic twin is still a life. it still would have an independant "soul" from conception. yet, by not removing and, to put it bluntly, killing the parasitic twin, both will usually die.
same with some types of conjoined twins. seperating could save one but being joined could kill both.

i know, its kinda OT, but it kinda isnt. these are examples of things that happen, but i dont see the RAGE assosiated with it that i do with (nessesary, life-saving) abortions.

also, what can be considered specific circumstances. many have mentioned nessesary medical procedure, not on-a-whim abortions and there is still argument against it.

[AdminAssistant]

By opposing a woman's right to an abortion, you're placing limits on a woman's right to medical care. That's it. That's all. Roe v. Wade decided that a woman and her doctor had the right to make certain decisions regarding her medical care without the government's intervention.

A friend confessed to me that she had an abortion a year ago. It was a hard decision for her and her husband to make. But their birth control failed. They couldn't provide for a child and academia is a hard enough place for a woman to be without throwing pregnancy in the mix. I would have made the same decision. You may think that I'm unethical, but I think it's far more unethical to bring unwanted children into this world.