Christians, do you think the Church is doing the will of God (abortion)

A girl, nine years old, had been sexually abused by her stepfather over a period of years. She was taken to the hospital when she complained of stomach pains and was discovered to be carrying twins. The doctors felt that the pregnancy endangered her life so they in cooperation with her mother arranged for her to have an abortion. The doctors and the mother have been excommunicated by the Catholic Church. The article I have read does not relate if the stepfather was excommunicated, but since he apparently did not assist in the abortion, why would they? Why does the step father get a pass? Is it because he might be repenting between and after each act of abuse, or is his sin just not to the level of assisting with an abortion?

Do you think that the church is doing God’s will when they excommunicate people in a situation like this? Do you think they have made the best choice to support God’s will in choosing to speak out about legal abortion above any other moral issues which affect people today?

A bishop has asked that Sebelius not receive communion due to her support of legalized abortion. She has worked to reduce the number of abortions, by advocating for providing expanded prenatal care and increasing adoption incentives. She has publicly stated that she thinks abortion is wrong.

Why is it so important that abortion not be legal in all cases even when the life of the mother is in danger? Why isn’t speaking out against it and looking for ways to reduce the actual number of abortions enough? Why is a doctor who chooses the life of a 9 year old over that of her unborn twins not worthy of communion?

Not just the Church, but all of society, has failed way before that poor kid got pregnant. The situation shouldn’t ever have come up in the first place :frowning:

I’m a Catholic and a pro-life pro-choicer from a country with socialized medicine. To me abortion is something that should be a last resource, both abortion and delivery should be free, neither those who choose to carry an unexpected pregnancy to term nor those who choose to terminate it can be judged by me, but I do have a negative opinion both of people whose first anti-baby measure is abortion and of those who think it’s OK to game family-protection systems.

What’s a “family protection system?”

What do you mean by “game family protection systems”?

I just can’t understand the Christian’s take on abortion. It is not forbidden in scripture in fact I believe their are passages in the bible instructing a woman accused in adultery to drink a potion that will cause an abortion if she is guilty.

God created in human women an pregnancy error correcting system called miscarriage. This system by God’s design in used to kill up to 50% of babies when there is any manner of problems with the developing fetus. If it’s good enough for God’s design why the hysterical opposition?

BTW the girl is nine and the age of reason is seven, should she not be excommunicated as well?

Are you talking about Numbers 5? If so, then I think you’re mistaken. That passage does not prescribe inducing an abortion. In fact, that particular passage says nothing about the woman being pregnant, so it’s a real stretch to say that it instructs women to abort.

The issue of excommunication isn’t a broad “Christian” issue because many sects don’t use the tool to control their followers.

Wow, really? You can’t see a difference between the spontaneous miscarriage of a most often non-viable embryo (since most miscarriages occur before eight weeks, this mostly happens at the embryo stage) and deliberately aborting a most often healthy older embryo (sugical abortion isn’t done before five weeks) or fetus?

And where in the bible is the passage you’ve recalled?

I’m a 95% pro-lifer. This case falls in the other 5%. I’m not RCC & I don’t agree with the Church’s decision on this case.

Re the Biblical “abortion potion”- the “ordeal” a wife whose husband accused her of adultery was to undergo was drink “holy water” mixed with dust from the floor of the Tabernacle. There was nothing intrinsic to it that would cause anything to happen. Any result was seen as an “act of God”.

One theory behind that passage- a Biblical-era judge has to deal with a husband accusing his wife. He wonders “What will get this guy off my back & get him to stop distrusting his wife?” and either thinks up or is inspired to concoct this stuff that does nothing at all. The woman is vindicated, the husband is silenced & the judge can get back to doing real work.

But does not the verse say it will cause her thighs to rot? Is it not a mistranslation which could just as easily mean that what is in the womb will rot.

He’s thinking of Numbers, elfkin, and the Ordeal of Bitter Water I think. However, there is ample evidence in the Bible that fetuses are not considered alive or as valuable as the pro-life folks would want us to beleive.

No. We are talking about God’s will against all abortion for any reason. A non-viable embryo is ejected by God’s spontaneous abortion system. A choice not permitted even to save the life of the nine year old, if the choice is made by the woman or the girl in question. If God is so opposed to all abortions he never would have invented miscarriages which are in some cases “designed” to save the woman’s life from a fatal pregnancy.

“Family protection systems” are things like paid maternity leave (1), tax reductions for children , food coupons, etc.
(1) the mother of my cousin’s first daughter refused to let him recognize the kid, even though they were living together, because she had the right to two years paid leave for being a single mother; he realized what a waste of space she was when she wanted him to make her pregnant again in time to get two more years paid leave (apparently the German government loses its patience after two kids). That is what I mean by “gaming the system.”

I’m a Catholic, but IANAP (I am not a pope). I don’t think the church is serving anyone’s will except their own in this case. If it were God’s will, as we are generally taught to think of it, the abuse, recrimination, and “righteous wrath” should be directed at the S.O.B. father who created the situation. I know what the “official church policy” is, but “official policies” have been known to change, or to be “selectively ignored” when the situation calls for it. This is one of those situations.

Let’s use some circular logic, just so I can make a point.

*God gives commands and orders, all of which are for our benefit (in one way or another).
The “holy men” advise and teach, so we can better understand those commands and live accordingly.
These teachings eventually become a law unto themselves, a dogma.
If the dogma becomes an obstacle to living well, as God intended,

The dogma needs to be altered or gotten rid of, because you can’t “delete” God.*

The logic I gave is sloppy and faulty, but hopefully it shows my main point. When a dogma or law becomes THE problem, it’s time to change or remove it.

I don’t think it is the will of God to ex-com them, using the standard of WWJD (what would Jesus do), I would think He would try to befriend them, not push away sinners. Using the standards against the pharisees He may even call that bishop a son of the devil.

To me abortion is the single biggest sin against humanity (but God is above all that, and the only unforgivable sin is blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which is a sin against God, not humanity). Most people IMHO aborting their child (I have to say it that way), and the people preforming the abortion I suspect are not intentionally sacrificing human life, and as such are deceived into this act. If they are deceived, they need the truth, which comes from God. So the act a excommunication is not something that God is doing to them, but the men of the church (though God does allow it). The excommunication is between that person and the people in the RCC, and has no effect, and no authority on that person’s relationship with God.

The fact that God allows it means He will use it for His glory.

I see no way this is pertinent to this thread.

What do you think guides the Church’s will in this case? What purpose are they serving by condemning those involved in securing and performing the abortion over and above condemning the one who caused the pregnancy in the child?

The thighs are not the same as the womb. And even if it were, you’re still inserting presumption into this argument. That’s eisegesis, not exegesis.

Again, I’d like to emphasize that the passage in question says nothing about the woman being pregnant. That should be a pretty big clue that it’s not about abortion.

Who knows? I don’t see the logic in condemning the victim and not condemning the perpetrator. I don’t see the justice in it.

What would Jesus do? If the money lenders in the temple are any example, he might forgive the girl, and then beat the snot out of daddy and a few bishops?

With this, and perhaps this sentence alone, I agree with you.

For as long as it has exsisted, religion has propped itself up as a barrier to faith. There is a difference in believing in a religion and believing in a God.

I thought the Roman Catholic position was that abortion could be OK to save the life of the mother. I wonder if there might be something more to the story than presented.

If not, I don’t see the Church’s objection.

Regards,
Shodan