How is rape by step-father not rape?
Why in the world would you conclude this? Do you believe that the RCC has some tenet that says all deceased human life must be buried, or something like that?
I’m confused. It is rape. And no exception was granted. So the answer to your question appears to be ‘no,’ unless I have misunderstood.
The fate of infants who die without baptism must be briefly considered here. The Catholic teaching is uncompromising on this point, that all who depart this life without baptism, be it of water, or blood, or desire, are perpetually excluded from the vision of God.
I specifically asked if the RCC church made an exception in the case of rape or incest. Perhaps you missed the word rape there and focused on the word incest. I was asking if the RCC, as certain other denominations do, permitted abortion in the case of a pregnancy resulting from a rape.
Do you know what kind of danger a pregnancy for an 11-year-old girl is? It’s not like for a grown woman (where a normal pregnancy has low health risk), she’s still growing up and her body isn’t equipped to handle a pregnancy on top of that. It’s not a “disruption” of her life, it can cause serious, life-long damage to her organs, or have other serious health consequences.
The answer is still no. She was raped. A pregnancy developed. There was no exception granted. It was also incest, after a fashion. Still no exception granted.
I don’t believe the RCC teaches that unbaptized children are “damned,” and I’ll try to find a cite. That being said, how does this support the notion that, “To be consistent, the Church would have to make it a policy to examine the menstrual products of every woman to insure that a fetus was not present”? More generally, how would this be different than the RCC’s policy on an unbaptized toddler–IOW, why does this seem to be an inconsistency as it relates to this particular case?
Okay, I’m fully aware that in this case, no exception was made. So, let’s try this again, and try to answer this question and this question alone: in general, does the RCC make exceptions in the case of rape or incest to their usual policy against abortion?
The cite is upthread in post #35.
The inconsistency comes from the insistence that a fetus is a human, and therefore deserving of all the protection that that status conveys. If such is the case, why do they allow 20% of their adherents’ children to die unbaptized, and therefore to fall from God’s grace? Why do they not even acknowledge those children’s existence?
Thanks. I’ll have to check the 2nd link tomorrow, though. It’s blocked here at the Internet Cafe.
I want to believe you’re whooshing us, but sadly I suspect you’re not.
Sarahfeena’s cite indicates that the RCC considers a dead fetus to be a dead human and worthy of all the ceremony of any other human, namely funeral, services etc. That is a consistent position.
The same cite mentioned that most unintended abortions happen in the first trimester and therefore there is little discernable “body” evident to capture and bury. Nonetheless, it appears from that cite-----fully developed fetus or not------that the RCC considers it a loss of life and worthy of grieving, ceremony etc.
Yet from all of this you would have the RCC A) Inspect menstral discharge every single month to ensure that there was “loss of life”, and B) Baptize dead fetuses.
This isn’t just inane reasoning. It’s childish.
So…to get back to the OP…
The group of silly hat wearers says intelligent people can’t join their little club of make believe, is that what I am reading here? Where’s Gulliver when you need him…sheesh.
What the raindog said.
First, that was never Catholic dogma. They were thought of a having gone to Limbo, which is only “Hell” inasmuch as it was a place eternally out of communion
with God, but still it was considered to be a pleasant place.
Second, the Church has recently conceded that God’s plan for the unbaptized infants may be more gracious than had previously been assumed.
Now to the OP, MOST people who consider themselves “Pro-Life”, myself included,
would allow abortion for rape or incest, so enough of this nonsense about how awful all pro-lifers are- especially from the venom-filled religion-haters who harp about how much we pro-lifers hate women. I do think the Roman Church needs to adjust on some things, not to keep up with the times, but because they are in error on those things. A church that changes JUST to keep up with the times isn’t a church with any substance whatsoever.
Finally, JC & Biblical religion is humanistic in the sense that humans are cherished as (potential) children of God with personal worth, basic rights & amazing potential. But humans are also recognized as morally flawed & in need of forgiveness & redemption. The Secularists stole the noble term “humanism” and
used it as the name for their own anti-God religion.
It’s an honor to us humans that God loves us enough that His Word became flesh to redeem us. It’s a shame to us humans that it took The Divine Word’s torturous death to redeem us.
How will they know whether to perform such ceremonies?
I wouldn’t have them do anything at all. I don’t believe that a zygote is human being. I am merely pointing out inconsistent doctrine.
Either the fetus is fully human or it is not. The RCC says it is. The RCC has doctrine that decrees that unbaptized babies are witheld from God’s grace. What they really should be doing is conducting monthly pregnancy tests in order to baptize the fetuses, so as to insure their union with God.
Yes, it sounds silly. Yes, it sounds inane. But it is not my reasoning, it is theirs. Instead of tossing about insults, why don’t you show me exactly where* my* reasoning breaks down?
In the RCC church, you cannot baptize dead people. In addition, there is no requirement for a funeral of any sort in order to get to heaven. So, there is no NECESSITY to obtain the fetal tissue in order to baptize & bury it. As far as abortion is concerned, you can’t baptize an in-utero baby at all, because it is a physical exercise of pouring water. This is why it is imperative that babies be allowed to be born…so they CAN be baptized.
I have never mentioned baptizing dead people, or whether a funeal is required for entrance into heaven. What I have pointed out is that, in general, 20% of Catholic babies die without any recognition at all. If the death of just one baby, as mentioned in the OP is so offensive to Catholics, why do they make no effort whatsoever to even verify the existence of this multitude of children? If one toddler is lost in the woods, hundreds of people will send thousands of hours looking for her. Yet thousands and thousands of children are deposited into the sewers every year with nary a Catholic feather ruffled. It is inconsistent to claim that they are fully human and yet do nothing to discern their fate. If a school group went on an outing and 20% of the children failed to return would that be ignored? Of course not. Why are these other children ignored?
I am not sure which babies you mean. What I am saying is that if a baby dies without being baptized, there is nothing the church needs to do about it, anyway. The baby cannot be baptized at that point, and it doesn’t REQUIRE a Catholic funeral. So, what am I missing here? It is the responsibility of the PARENTS to be sure the baby is baptized. The Church doesn’t go around knocking on doors to see if there are any unbaptized babies to take care of.
And when you say “deposited into sewers,” it sure sounds like you are talking about miscarriages. What is the Church supposed to do about that? I am not sure I am following you at all. What I was trying to say is that in these cases, it is too late for baptism, and it is difficult if not impossible to provide a funeral. So…what is your suggestion as to what the Church should do about these miscarried babies?
Oh, and, incidentally, none of these babies are “ignored.” The Church does for them the best thing they can do under the circumstances, which is to pray for them. Perhaps not individually, since, as you point out, they are not even aware of them, but as a group.
I’m sorry, but I just don’t understand this. If the pro-life stance is about the baby, why should it matter how it was concieved? Abortion is acceptable when the mother is innocent of consensual sexual activity?
I can see how some people would see this as anti-woman (or misunderstand it as such) because it seems to make an exception for those who didn’t want to have sex. The “slut” must bear the consequences of her actions while the outraged virgin gets a pass.