First, Akins’ remarks were on a TV interview show, not a radio show in St.Louis. Second, he later stated he “misspoke”. Saying the Arch is in Kansas City, not St. Louis, is misspeaking. Third, Akin is an evangelical, not a Catholic, and in this state, I ASSURE you, there is a wide gulf between the two.
As it is, in the Republican primary, Akin was only three percentage points ahead of his second place opponent, Sarah Steeleman. Steeleman and John Bruner the third candidate, amassed 52% of the primary vote total.Akin didn’t receive a ringing endorsement in the primary.
Are we closer to gaining a Republican conservative majority in Washington after this incident? Akins’ poor judgement and ignorance has pretty much handed the election to incumbent Clare McCaskill.

The debate is this simple, is there enough love left in this desert of a country to help these women in need?

What’s this about Ryan supporting abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger? That’s against Church teaching, too. We may NEVER directly kill the child! We can treat the mother, and if the child dies as a result the treatment, it’s a secondary effect. Or, the child can be delivered as soon as possible and treated like any other premie. In other words, try to save them both, but never directly kill the child OR the mother so that the other may live.

This incident once again demonstrates how the culture of death rules our society.  Regardless of what punishment the justice system gives the the rapist, the child receives the death penalty.  Also, everyone misses the point that the child is a child of God.

I can’t believe what Adkins said.  He should have said it’s not the baby’s fault who the father is and that there are many people alive today that were conceived by rape.  Are their lives less significant than any one else’s?

For someone to call a woman carrying her rapist’s child “stupid” is, in itself, stupid.

I don’t think Catholic’s understand that it is not for anyone to judge another’s plight. It is not for anytone to decide what is right for each individual woman. This isn’t about ‘sacrifice’, what a simple little word to use for something you cannot possibly comprehend.  This is about torture.

If a woman decides to abort, that is HER decision.

If a woman decides to carry and raise the child, that is HER decision.

If a woman decides to carry and place the child for adoption, that is HER decision.

YOUR religion doesn’t get to dictate the laws of our country. Follow your own moral compass and let the rest of us do the same.

@Ellen: Perhaps he is referring to conditions such as an ectopic pregnancy, which directly threatens the life of the mother.

I am 61 years old. I grew up in the Catholic church. Catholic grade scool and a Jesuit hs. St. Xavier HS, Cincinnati, ohio.
This was in the 60’s. Has the Catholic Church changed it’s teachings (FLIP FLOP)
I was TAUGHT BY THE JESUITS THAT ABORTION WAS OKAY IN THREE CASES.
RAPE
INCEST
HARM TO THE MOTHER
Have these now changed ???
The President of St. Louis University was my teacher in High School.
It was the Jesuit’s TEACHINGS !
Did they change their minds ??????????

It is a shame that TRUE Catholic teaching on this issue of abortion is so misunderstood and distorted by the media…If they would take the time to study the entire issue they would realize how healing and caring our Catholic stance is…This is a clear attempt by democrats to discredit a candidate who was running double digits ahead of his democratic opponent…I believe the worst is yet to come…Their mantra ??? Anything to divert attention away from the real issues…Jobs, the economy, large and intrusive government, The abominable health care law, and artificial redistribution of wealth…!!! Last ditch efforts may shock us even more than the current crises…!!!

  .Here’s the dirty little secret.  The Democrat party is completely pro-abortion.  The Republican Party is partially pro-abortion.  The “Country-Club” section of the Republican Party is terribly embarrassed by Todd Akin because he is much more pro-life than the rest of the Republican Party, with its obligatory “rape, incest, life-or-health-of-the-mother” exceptions.
    These exceptions are required by the Republican Party because the Party leadership is too cowardly to have a completely pro-life platform.  They think that it appears more “compassionate” to allow abortions in some circumstances. 
    Of course, since a baby is actually killed in the abortion, it’s really not logically consistent or compassionate to punish the baby for the crime of the rapist. 
    The media can see right through this hypocrisy and will use it to embarrass any candidate.  Todd Akin IS pro-life, much more so than the “country club” types.  The interviewer wanted him to say it on the air so as to make Akin appear insensitive to victims of rape. 
    Any Republican candidate knows that swallowing the “rape, incest, life-of-the-mother” exceptions is the price of admission to support from the party bosses. 
    Let’s not jump all over Todd Akin.  He’s one of the most pro-life members of Congress.  In fact, Planned Parenthood labels him as one of their “Toxic Ten”. 
      There is a lot more to this story than meets the eye.  Watch the actual interview.  This definitely smells like a trap.  Before the primary election, Claire McCaskill was running ads that appeared actually complimentary to Akin, highlighting his positions.  You actually thought it was one of Todd’s ads.  At the end, the ad would say something like:  “See how EXTREME he is!”
  The interview with Akin was clearly a set-up.  Now the pro-abortion, disobedient Catholic-in-name-only McCaskill can pretend to be the “reasonable, moderate” one, while Akin’s words can be twisted out of context so he can appear “mean”. 
    Also there is the concept of “legitimate rape”.  There is something to what Akin said, although it was not discussed in detail in the interview.                                          .  A forcible rape is psychologically traumatic.  There are instances where psychological trauma can inhibit ovulation, thereby lowering the chance of pregnancy.  This would not be the case if the woman had already ovulated.  This may be what he was referring to.  I can’t be sure.  It was a brief interview.                                    Prior to our “hook-up” culture, all rapes were forcible.  Now, any later-regretted encounter can qualify as a date-rape, and qualify for an “exception” if a pregnancy results, and anyone who doesn’t agree is a Mean Neanderthal Fundamentalist who is at war with women!  Wow, you would have thought he did something REALLY horrible, like eating at Chick Fil-A.
    The left-leaning media got what they wanted, a chance to blow a sound-byte out of proportion.  McCaskill got a chance to appear moderate, and the RINOs got a chance to throw a true pro-life leader under the bus. This was very orchestrated.     
    Pray for Todd Akin and his family, and remember the Beatitudes.

Ellen, I think that in many cases people who support “abortion in cases where the mother’s life is in danger” actually mean what you say - saving the mother’s life even if doing so causes the undesired but unavoidable death of her unborn child.  On the other hand, I also think that some people take a broader view of this “exception” and use it to excuse abortion in cases where a pregnancy may seriously impact a mother’s health but doesn’t necessarily threaten her life.  It is good to seek clarification on what people mean by these terms whenever possible.

I’ve heard the anti-abortion under any circumstances rant before, but why would you want a politician that has no clue about women’s physiology and reproductive system? Where did he “learn” that women’s bodies have ways to prevent pregnancy from a rape?
.
I’m OK with anti-abortion morals, but he revealed his stupidity on a key political subject and is a shame to any political party.

I certainly wouldn’t be looking to Dr. Janet Smith’s statements about abortion following rape/incest, and the needs for sacrifice on the part of the woman.  Why do I say this?  Primarily, because Dr. Smith is a single woman who has no idea of the impact of rape on a woman, it’s consequent trauma and a possible resulting pregnancy.  Unless someone was walked the talk, I don’t place much confidence in what they have to say.

I am not saying that I approve of abortion for a rape victim.  But, I’m right on board with the Commenter, Bruce, in what we do, each one of us, to provide the money and support to women in this tough, tough situation.  We need to be persons of the ‘rubber meeting the road’ and sacrificing ourselves for our neighbor.  We don’t need persons who know the Catechism of the Catholic Church, or can spout off what the Church says about this or that, we need persons who ‘do’ the Gospel.

Good Article.
@Ellen - thank you
@Bruce - the question is simple, do you kill an innocent child because they, through no fault of their own, were conceived by a violent act? The answer is no. The woman needs help through support, counselling and financial support, not being told that she should kill a baby. If you care, please donate to pregnancy support services or consider adopting.

As a Catholic, I am absolutely certain that I have no idea if an aborted embryo suffers more or less than a woman forced to endure a rape, a painful childbirth, the stares of her fellow church goers, explaining to her other children why their sibling was given up for adoption, and generally re-experience the trauma of rape every time an ignoramus like Akin opens his mouth.

I can only say that it that it’s just too darn easy for politicians to impose rules on other people that they will never have to follow themselves.

Here’s an article on “LifeNews.com” with a response from 2 pro-life groups: http://www.lifenews.com/2012/08/20/pro-life-groups-attacks-on-akin-hide-obama-mccaskills-abortion-record/

It’s not a sacrifice for a woman to carry the child of her rapist to term if the law (or lack of money) prevent her from making the choice NOT to carry the child to term. It’s just taking away her option no to be sacrificial. It’s as virtuous as a Lenten decision enforced by law. That is what pro-lifers want. They don’t want to allow a wonan to choose to make a sacrifice. They want the raped woman who gets pregnant to be forced to make her rapist a father. Now, what would the conscripted mother have to do to terminate the father’s rights? Would her rape have to be successfully prosecuted to a conviction? In what percentage of rapes does that happen?

it’s not a sacrifice

@JannaM
1) If an unborn child is a human then to kill them is murder, period.  Even if no religion existed it would be wrong and illegal.
2) You say: “I don’t think Catholic’s understand that it is not for anyone to judge another’s plight.”
- Of course it is for us to judge another’s plight - the baby’s.  We judge what is right for the defenseless child - we will not turn a blind eye.
3) You say: “This is about torture. If a woman decides to abort, that is HER decision. If a woman decides to carry and raise the child, that is HER decision. If a woman decides to carry and place the child for adoption, that is HER decision.”
- Rape was the rapist’s decision, it was not right and it was not legal.
- Murder is the murderer’s decision, it is not right and it is not legal.
- Killing a baby is a decision, but it is not right and it should not be legal.
—-
Rape is horrible and should be punished. The victim should be supported. But the baby does not deserve a death sentence. The baby is innocent and deserves your love and your mercy.

The Gospel of Matthew tells us that Jesus said “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.

Jesus frequently admonished the religious leaders of his time for their harsh interpretation of the Law.  A law enforced without love, or without compassion has no place for those who want to follow him.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church and the way we sometimes interpret the Bible may be helpful tools to help us find our way.  However, if we do not consider the matter without our hearts (the place where God resides) we are merely robots judging according to the letter of the law instead of the heart of the law.
For more on abortion see: http://whenreligionfails.blogspot.ca/2010/06/sex-crisis-in-church.html

@Motherboard
As a Catholic I’m pretty sure that you forgot to include the moments of joy. The first time the woman breast feeds her baby, the laugh when her baby pees on her when she is changing her diaper, the joy of that first smile when her baby looks in her eyes, the joy of their hugs, their quite moments rocking in a chair, the first story book she reads to him, the tears they share after the 1st scraped knee, the tears of joy as she thanks God for the immeasurable gift of life…
God is with us in our pain and he is in our moments of joy.

Rep. Akin gave a HUGE election-year gift to the Obama campaign. Personally, he is a part of the “war on women.” However, is this true of the entire GOP? No. Is it being used as a scare tactic by the Dems? Yes. Most abortions do not occur because of rape, incest, or the life of the mother being in danger. These instances are used by pro-choicers as the primary reasons for most abortions, and to keep abortion legal. To overturn Roe v. Wade, the U.S. needs to adopt a policy like Hungary has, which outlaws abortion except in those rare cases. This could save many innocent lives.

Todd Akin is pro-life.  There’s much more to this story than meets the eye.  I have helped work on Todd’s campaigns in the past, and I know him to be a man of integrity.  There is much hysteria in the media over this.  I am especially disappointed with the Republican “leadership” of our state who are jumping on the bandwagon to make Todd Akin a scapegoat.  What a bunch of cowards!
By the way, google “ovulation suppressed by stress” and you’ll be surprised at what you find.

Nick Banks,

You were taught to listen to the dictates of the heart as well as to observe the primacy of your conscience. This is well illustrated in the popular ‘A New Catechism’ (1967)which was based on the compassionate teachings of Vatican II. It concludes “There are always cases where the commandment [thou shall not kill] must be fulfilled in its truest sense by the verdict of a personal decision of conscience”.
While ethics and morals cannot be dictated; today’s Catholic Catechism(1992) resembles Canon Law (1983)with its very legalistic style and wording by stating issues in strict and absolute terms - and thereby becomes devoid of Jesus’ understanding and compassion.
See also my comments about this topic above.

Just to be clear, Paul Ryan is a cafeteria Catholic. He ignores the Church’s teaching on social justice and taking care of the poor. His budget is pure evil. We need to pray for his true conversion to Christ, especially if, God forbid, he is elected VP.

Janna M…The laws of our country have often been immoral. Slavery had support of the courts, Discrimination aginst women (voting,property rights etc)  had support of the courts,The Holacaust had support of German courts and perpetrators had to be prosecuted for ” Crimes against humanity”. Read Martin Luther Kings “Letter from Birmingham Jail”  for a fuller expose of unjust laws and appeal to a “Higher Authority”. Science (DNA< MRI etc)  confirms that an embryo is an innocent human being , not some other Genus, Species or Stuff.According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR)  civilized societies should not kill innocent human beings. Rape is a crime and the rapist is a criminal(even if it is the boy next door). You dont kill an innocent human being for your convenience or because its father was a criminal.

Strange, when I was studying bioethics, more than one leading ob/gyn told us exactly what Todd Aiken said about rape,, that it didn’t usually result in pregnancy.. they told us it never did. Rape is not rape…. this affair is surely another smear campaign,, the man did nothing wrong and he over extended himself in his very thorough and sincere apology. I’m so glad though that abortion is an issue in the US.. In most countries it’s sadly a forgone conclusion. I am appalled at how pro abortion your president he is!..he’s a light weight. God bless America. from Toronto

Mary MacGregor: Robert, there is more. I am carrying a child and I do not know who is the father.
Robert Roy MacGregor: Ach, Mary…
Mary MacGregor: I could not kill it, husband.
Robert Roy MacGregor: It’s not the child that needs killing.

Rob Roy (1995)

To take something out of the Catechism from Paragraph 2273, “The moment a positive law deprives a category of human beings of the protection which civil legislation ought to accord them, the state is denying the equality of all before the law.”

I know the need for the spirit of the law and all that, but as humans, as creatures with hearts and souls dealing out the death penalty to an innocent victim is monstrous. What is more is now the Women is being violated twice, we should do what we can to support Women who were forcibly raped and have found to be so. It is not justice when instead of doing what we need to bring the rapist to justice while he gets to rot in a cell and innocent life had no chance to see God’s earth.

@ Nick Band…Sorry to say but the Jesuits, known for their teachings
of “situation ethics”, were wrong, wrong, wrong in all these instances as to what the Church really teaches.  I would NEVER send our kids to be taught by the current Jesuits…they are in many instances, promoters of Modernism, condemned by the late Pope Pius X.

Am I correct in stating that whenever a rape occurs, that woman goes to the hospital where they automatically do a procedure to flush out anything in case of disease? Would that not prevent the possibility of pregnancy in itself before conception could take place?
Just curious.

Nick: “This was in the 60’s. Has the Catholic Church changed it’s teachings (FLIP FLOP)
I was TAUGHT BY THE JESUITS THAT ABORTION WAS OKAY IN THREE CASES.
RAPE
INCEST
HARM TO THE MOTHER”

You were misinformed. The decade in which you were being taught, the 60’s, children were receiving the worst possible catechesis, watered down teachings and complete falsehoods.

“It was the Jesuit’s TEACHINGS !”

But it was not Jesus’s teachings nor the Church’s. While there are many good Jesuits out there (Fr. Mitch Pacwa, is one of them), the Jesuits have been known to be major dissenters of the Church, especially back 40, 50 years ago.

The Catechism states: ““Since the first century, the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable.” Para. 2271.
What part of “since the 1st century” and “teaching has not changed” do you not understand? Don’t just rely on priests to tell you correct church teaching, many don’t know or know and dissent from it. Look up for yourself what the Church teaches.

JannaM,

Please troll elsewhere with your narcissistic, Godless commentary. I am sure it would we welcomed in Planned unParenthood forums or radical feminist sites.

Bravo, Patty Bennett!  It has really jumped out at me in this scenario that no one is asking the question “Is it true?”  Yes,what he said was true! (He may not have said it well but it is true about ovulation shutting during trauma.) Whether it was TRUE or not isn’t even being discussed.  Your comment explains why.  Thank you.

Make no mistake:

Pro-choice is the choice a woman wants to murder her unborn child who is denied choice and the right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.  It is a power issue. 

The media hasn’t focused on the Catholic teaching aspect around these Chicago parts, and his own apology was completely empty of content. Why didn’t he just say, how is the baby responsible for the rape? Why should a child die for the sin of its father?

Rape happens in war. There is no record of women killing the offspring so conceived, as a group, justifying it. Love for the child formed in the womb has usually trumped hatred for the act of rape.

But not a word of it.

The subject of pregnancy after rape reminds me of the very priest I was watching on TV just before making this comment - Fr. Mitch Pacwa, SJ.

A couple of years ago, on one of his call-in radio programs, a young woman asked him HOW he could be in favor of forcing a woman who’d been raped and who’s pregnant as a result of that rape, to bear the child of this rapist, and that this child would always be a reminder of the rape, even if she gave the baby up for adoption.

He asked her to consider the rapist - what punishment should he get?  Maybe because of the violence of the crime, he should have his arms and legs ripped off and then his body chopped into pieces as his punishment (I’m paraphrasing, but you get the idea).  Would that be fitting?

She replied, “NO.”

He asked, in words to this effect, “then WHY do you want this to happen to the innocent baby that was conceived?”

The caller had no reply.

I remember this as one of my favorite “Pacwaisms.”

What I think is important is the response of Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. That they are okay with abortion in cases of rape. This bothered me the most because of the legal implication of holding this position. Roe v Wade was based on the argument of the rape/incest exception in TX state law. If a child conceived in rape is not a person, neither is any other child in the womb a person. If you allow abortion in cases of rape, you have to allow abortion in all cases. I expected this out of Romney but was surprised that Ryan now advocates this position. Ryan is Catholic and Catholics don’t have rape exceptions. We believe in the personhood of the unborn. A lot of Faux Catholics will probably remain silent on this and treat it as no big deal.

First of all Todd Akin did appolgizid for his statement, only pro lifers will except that but those who chose a death of a baby would not. 
whether he should step down I don’t know what to say about that except if it should lose the seat in the senate for the republicans, then I think he should step down. The life of the baby should always be first.  Many years ago someone I once knew was raped by a black man and got pregnant but chose to save the baby, she put it out for adoption and today if that person is still alive, I know they are still thanking thier mother for giving them life over thier own self.  Pro choice people are (to me ) selfish people.  GOD will reward those women who chose life instead of death of a child.

To echo Nick Bank’s comment, my CCD classes in the 70’s and 80’s taught the same three reasons or situations when abortion was permissible in the eyes of the Church.  Did the rules change in the last 10 or 20 years or were we just taught incorrectly on this subject?

McCaskill is a pro choice Democrat.  I agree with @Mike: Senator McCaskill had no opposition in her primary.  Therefore, large numbers of her supporters voted in the Republican Primary for Akin.  He received 36%, Brunner got 30%, Steelman for whom I voted 29%. In 2006, poor Claire received 350K votes total in the primary.  The total for the entire Republican primary was 325K (source Mo Secr of State).  In 2012, she received 290K unopposed. The entire Republican vote was 603K. Akin is claiming that he has a mandate. McCaskill released ads just before the primary supporting Akin. Akin severely misspoke and the media jumped all over it. Unfortunately, he needs to withdraw and has until September 25 now to use the courts for that purpose and to pay for ballot reprinting.

For JannaM’s remarks above:

The Christian religion forbids abortion as does that of our Elders the Hebrews and those close to us in the belief of one True God, the Muslims.

Your comments are not founded on moral grounds.

First, once fertilization occuers, a new life is the as teh DNA of the child is different from the mother, unlike a finger or toe which has teh same DNA.

Second, violence to defend oneself is only acceptable against an “unjust aggressor.” An unborn child can never be an unjust aggressor.

Christians have always been agaisnt abortion and used to take in children left to die in the ancient world. Any Christian who claims differntly today, especially today, even a Catholic, does not know their faith or have introduced man-made tradtions that were not taught by our Lord. The earliest Christian document speaks on theis subject is named “the Didache” and is from 50 AD.

Christ commissioned all of us to proclaim the Good News. We will never stop. Please understand that murder is against God’s law, natural law ansd the laws of this country. If abortions were shown on TV, there would be such an outcry, not one clinic would be in business.

Consider this, if most of us went back in our family tree, we would discover that one of our ancestors were the victims of a tragic rape. However, that mother in our past generations gave birth adn we are her today because of her.

Know that Christ can and will help all heal in these heinous circumstances. Part of the healing is to give love by giving life. Mother Teresa saw Christ in everyone she wanted to help. Can you not see Christ in the unboirn child too?

Take a look at this website before any of you say that it is OK to abort in cases of rape. Rebecca is a woman whose mother tried to abort her but it was illegal in her state. She was born and given up for adoption. She later found her biological mother and learned that she was to be aborted because of conception by rape. There began a whirlwind of sadness,anger and finally by the grace of God a person who is a face for “abortion is wrong except for….” Rebecca is the “...” who is beautiful,articulate and a gift from God. Think about it. http://www.rebeccakiessling.com/index.html

I will not repeat at great length what several people have brought out above: as the Church teaches, abortion in cases of rape is not morally permissible.  The Church sides with the trolls that rape is unmitigatedly evil, but the trolls can’t quite understand the Church’s truth that the killing of the child is an even greater evil.  The discussion has also brought to light the fact that Akin’s statement was not completely incorrect.  Some sources indicate that “Excessive stress can result in suppression of a woman’s menstrual period.”
But the liberal media have made a field day out of it, and have dragged down practically the entire conservative establishment, until Paul Ryan is siding with the most outrageous liberals.  Were we glad to have a ‘conservative Catholic’ as Moderate Mitt’s running mate?  Sure.  So what does he say the first time Mitt’s moderation conflicts with (what should be) his conservatism?  “Mitt Romney is the top of the ticket and Mitt Romney will be president and he will set the policy of the Romney administration.”  Thanks for the show of backbone there, Paul.  Now we know how much we can count on you to support conservative values.

From where I sit, Romney and Ryan are pro-choice. Romney’s decision to turn pro-life recently disturbs me because it smells of trickery to get votes.  He has promised on You Tube that he would never go against Roe vs. Wade and has proven that by his statewide healthcare program that is drenched with the death culture. Then, Ryan’s past voting record has been a far cry from a conservative’s perspective.  Actions speak louder than words. 

Do not Vote in November or write in a vote for Dr. Ron Paul, a pro-lifer who has delivered many babies for the poor at no charge, who is a constitutionalist meaning that he will protect our rights under the Constitution, who is an economist, who will boost the economy and create jobs, who is willing to throw Obamacare out, who is willing to overturn Roe vs. Wade (Unconstitutional to vote on abortion) who is willing to audit the most dangerous private banking system in our country known as the Federal Reserve and who is a PEACE LOVING man who will bring our sons and daughters back from Afghanistan and the rest of the world.  He is a man of good character and should be strongly considered in this race that will determine the future existance of the USA. 

Vote God’s Way for LIFE, i.e., if the election is not postponed by the declaration of Martial Law by the underhanded trickery of the radical left. PAY ATTENTION!

AMH and Nick.  The Church never changed her mind. The Jesuits and many in the wake of the secular ‘spirit of Vatican II’ taught all sorts of things.  Prior to the council, these groups had already made up their minds about what the council would and would not support and change.  When doctrine did not change, they simply decided to ignore the documents and written arguments and create their own in the name of that confounded spirit…you see they never say, the Holy Spirit, do they?  It is always ‘the spirit of Vatican II’.  The HS protected Church teaching on everything, including abortion (if you want to know what the Catechism is referring to by ‘since the 1st Century’, see the Didache. Also know as the Didache of the Apostles.

The institutional Church on earth is where the faith given by Christ and passed on by his Apostles, is housed and protected if you will, for we humans.  Unfortunately, we are all sinners, laity and clergy alike.  We are subject to earthly desires and earthly sentiments.  The Church of Jesus Christ doesn’t change because Christ never changes.  That is a real trial for some who want to be in control; who forget who IS in control.

The bottom line: what was being taught in the 60s and 70s, and even now through feminisim and progressive politicians is no different than the doubt and desire the serpent stirred up in Eve, and by way of silence in Adam, when he asked: ‘Did God really say[you would die if you ate of the tree of life]?’  He went on to say, “You won’t die!  You will be made like Him…”  Whenever the fulfillment of our human desire for control is dangled in front of us, we jump.  It is, sadly, our heritage and it is the role of the Church, as repository of the Truth and administrator of Christ’s sacraments, to help us stand firm against our own hubris and accept the joy of the freedom that comes from following the will of God

Darn few rapes result in pregnancies and most abortions are by married women who simply do not want the baby.  Go figure glad God doesn’t feel that way about us.

Sadly, Todd Akin tripped himself up with his dumb remark. His opponent is a fanatic abortionist and is squarely behind Obama on everything including the HHS Mandate.  Akin is not stepping down however, Obama and his Democrat minions should not get a single Catholic Vote.

jannaM:  Ok you follow your moral compass BUT how about letting us Christians / Catholics follow ours!  And why don’t you have any consideration for the innocent child?  No mother has the right to kill her child because she has been harmed.  One of these days if we keep going down this road we’ll allow mothers to slap a child if her husband slaps her; or shot a child if her husband shoots her etc etc.  How wrong is that?  And Nick:  I wouldn’t count on our beloved Jesuits to have it right all the time on what the Church teaches.

Seriously, what does a raped woman who gives birth to her rapist’s child have to do to terminate the father’s rights? Does her rape have to be successfully prosecuted to a conviction? What if it can’t be proven? Does Daddy get visitation rights and the right to keep Mommy from moving to another state with the child? Can he withhold consent to have the child adopted? This sould be a prime concern of people who want to force every raped woman to carry a resulting pregnancy to term by depriving her of any other options.

Instead pro-lifers like Akin blather on pretending that urban legends about pregnancy and rape are true. Yep, all she needs to do is douche. That will clean out her plumbing. Why did women ever abandon douching for HBC?

But then why is there all that controversy about giving the Morning-After-Pill to rape victims at Cayholic hospitals if women can shut down their fallopian tubes against rapist sperm? There can be no pregnancy to terminate. Moral problem solved.

A wise Priest once told his congregation that the difference between Christianity and all other religions was FORGIVENESS. Akin made a stupid comment- he misspoke- he apologized. Is he a bad man, a criminal, did he break the law?  From what I have read about him, he was a good man before he made this comment- a man of integrity. Where is the FORGIVENESS in America? Why can’t we FORGIVE a silly and uneducated comment? Which one of us has never made a stupid comment? This lack of forgiveness scares me.

Paul Ryan is against abortion in all cases.  He is not the presidential
candidate but is on the GOP presidential ticket.  That’s not peanuts.
But he can only try to influence the platform.  Someday, God willing, he will be the President.  His orthodoxy will then hold sway.  Patience.

Akin being set up or not I believe reveals the true problem we are contending with today.  You can’t have a little evil running around.  These exceptions open the door and once the culture of death get’s a foothold, it’s obviously hear to stay.

Paul Ryan, when pressed on the issue, punted it to Romney.  It was at that moment I determined that the best we can hope for with this ticket is the status quo.  I agree with the commentator that said the GOP is abortion tolerant.

ABC caught lying again. What Paul said was he was “proud of his (Ryan’s) record on abortion”. He goes on to say that Mitt Romney as president would set policy and Romney’s position is exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother”. He goes on to say that it’s a good step in the right direction (for Romney). Paul Ryan’s personal feelings about abortion remain the same. His personal position is the Catholic Church position. I love the way the liberals trying to misrepresent what someone says. He will still be grilled over this. I think he’ll stick to his guns. By the way no exceptions to abortion is the official GOP position.

This is exactly what happened four years ago with Sarah Palin. McCain was for selective abortion, just like the RINOs always are, but Sarah Palin was against rape and incest exceptions. I think she did have the life of the mother exception, which never happens in the first place.

I have not heard from any individual who was the product of rape on this case; however, of those I have heard at other times, none of them wished that were dead rather than alive.

Hi, to those who are concerned about Paul Ryan’s position on abortion…I think we have no reason to believe he is out of step with Catholic teaching. He has an essay on his House.gov web page referencing the dignity of all life and never mentions exceptions, but instead goes on record as saying things to the effect of, I’m the most pro-life guy you’ll find.

He has supported legislation to limit abortions with exceptions because unfortunately, many today believe that the Catholic position of no exceptions, protect human life, is unreasonable so this legislation usually comes with exceptions. So, he has basically voted to limit abortions as far as he is possible to do.

Why are so many posters here co-dependent on what the institution or someone else has to say about their questions, concerns, fears, worries, etc.,?  Why settle for second-hand information when God is as close as your heart?  Do Catholics not need to take personal responsibility to discern the voice of ‘the God within’ and others.  How can anyone listening to God with the ‘ears of their heart’ be found disobeying an institution?  Where and when did we learn that the Holy Spirit only speaks with one official voice?  Is the role of any religious institution not to build up the people it serves (as God does)  - and not the other way around?  When did we first begin to think that matters of life and death can be anticipated and must be compartmentalized, institutionalized, politicized and legalized in abstract and absolute terms?  Is all of God’s creation not in constant and direct need of the free gift of unconditional love and salvation?.  Would the claiming /acceptance of this gift not completely avoid the damaging effect of so many of today’s divisive attitudes? Just wondering.

For a woman who is ‘raped’ and has to carry a child in her womb for long 280 days and then care after birth of the child, the woman has to take the full responsibility. What about the rapist? If he be punished, will this child be helped? How much capacity does this victim woman has to bring up this child? Do we have to use our conscious or religion? Do any male understand what is to carry a child in the womb for long 280 days and do any male understand labour pain? In most cases I have experienced after raping when the woman is pregnant, the man denies the child or his crime.
It should up to the women who has been raped to decide as per her conscious whether to keep the child or abort.
If a woman decides to abort, that is HER decision.
If a woman decides to carry and raise the child, that is HER decision.
If a woman decides to carry and place the child for adoption, that is HER decision.
YOUR religion doesn’t get to dictate the laws of our country. Follow your own moral compass and let the rest of us do the same.
And she will be ultimately accountable to God for her action. Who are we to judge her when we cannot take the responsibility or can share the burden of carrying and bringing out a child?

Why Obama Really Voted For Infanticide-

There wasn’t any question about what was happening. The abortions were going wrong. The babies weren’t cooperating. They wouldn’t die as planned. Or, as Illinois state senator Barack Obama so touchingly put it, there was “movement or some indication that, in fact, they’re not just coming out limp and dead.”

No, Senator. They wouldn’t go along with the program. They wouldn’t just come out limp and dead.

They were coming out alive. Born alive. Babies. Vulnerable human beings Obama, in his detached pomposity, might otherwise include among “the least of my brothers.” But of course, an abortion extremist can’t very well be invoking Saint Matthew, can he? So, for Obama, the shunning of these least of our brothers and sisters — millions of them — is somehow not among America’s greatest moral failings.

Please read the entire article from August 22, 2008, just a few months before Obama was elected. This story reveals a cruel and morally bankrupt man who must not be given another opportunity to dictate his ideology to our great country.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/225404/why-obama-really-voted-infanticide/andrew-c-mccarthy

What part of “THOU SHALL NOT KILL” don’t you understand.

Cowalker,
Your logical thinking about the legal repercussions of forcing rape victims to give birth is lost on the one-note zealots here. I doubt any here would invite the man who raped their daughter in for a snack when he pops over to pick up their grandchild for the weekend. Best to just ignore these inconvenient facts and cling to statements like those of Charles who amazingly claims that pregnancy never threatens the life of the mother. Soon we’ll have a true theocracy in our country like some fanatical regimes in the middle east, but even worse, the USA will be the only place on earth where abortion is illegal for any reason. We’ll still execute more prisoners and kill and orphan more children through endless war than anywhere else though, as long as the Republicans are in the White House.

A Statement of Rights
A woman has the right over her body.
A mother has the right not to kill her child.
A child has the right to life.
Abortion does not speak of a woman,
it speaks of a Mother and her Child.

cowalker… is RAPE a *major* reason for your disbelief in a God and your apparent negative feelings towards men?

Just wondering…

In any case… you’re in my prayers.

Zeke and Cowalker, would the criminal/rapist/‘sperm donor’ have any legal rights to a child conceived in that manner to begin with? That is the question to consider.

cowalker and Zeke, if the concern about children conceived in rape is the father’s potential involvement in the child’s/mother’s life after birth, certainly we can do whatever is legally necessary to address those concerns.  It is hardly such a conundrum that it warrants killing an innocent person to avoid it!

Rosaline Costa….you are wrong , if a woman decides to kill an innocent human being,  she violates common decency and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which sets the standards for a civilized society. SAD

Zeke, Once in a bluemoon does a pregnancy result in death of a mother so the child can live.  That’s just fact. Look it up.  By the way it’s impossible to be a Catholic and vote for Obama, so if you are, or if anyone else is, I would suggest the Episcopalian Church, where they have no problem with murdering the unborn on demand and sodomite marriage.

Zeke ,
You bring up an interesting scenario for discussion but many children conceived through rape-statutory & otherwise-are alive today & the legal complications of paternal vistation/custody have already been dealt with.
Domestic abuse victims with children also encounter problematic legal issues if the abusive parent wishes contact.The outcome can be troubling but I don’t think anyone would conclude that the children involved should be killed to prevent further conflict or pain.
Biology often sucks for women.Ditto for the court system.But life is sacred no matter what the circumstances of conception.Killing one’s own offspring should not be seen as a progressive option for women, just more violence heaped upon women.

ADOPTIONS ADOPTION ADOPTION is the alternative to taking care of a child born out of rape and it hardly ever EVER happens.  No woman has to raise that child; there are thousands of people waiting to adopt babies.  Please??  Get real and understand that the baby is NOT the problem.

Joanp62, from what I understand about parental rights, if the mother leaves the “father” field blank on the birth certificate, then the father (rapist) would have to demand DNA testing to prove that he’s the father of the child. The only way I can see that happening is if the rape is in the context of longer-term abusive relationship, which means there are bigger problems to be worrying about. For stranger-rape, I highly doubt the rapist would come forward to claim parentage of a child. This DOES, however, negate the possibility of child support, so it’s important that there be support for the mother from her family or community.

@Rob

I believe God IS with us always…but would he want us to turn rape victims into criminals for seeking an abortion?  Apparently, some members of the Republican Party think he would…

Obviously, sacrificing oneself for another person is the highest value.  The question here is not what the most moral choice would be; it is whether civil law should compel a rape victim to make it against her will—and punish her if she if she refuses.

Blessings,
MB

I think Todd Akin was absolutely right and his only mistake was apologizing.

1. There are situations where people allow themselves to be raped (as oppposed to St. Maria Goretti who didn’t).

2. There is no proof that actual rape results in pregnancy just as much as permitted intercourse.

3. Of all the reasons women have abortions rape is practically not even listed among them, the numbers are so low.

4. Considering the extreme care taken by professionals who perform artificial insemination to ensure a successful pregnancy, it’s a wonder anybody ever gets pregnant at all…much less a rape victim.

5. The simple fact alone that extreme stress can cause a delay in a cycle which in itself would postpone the tiny window of fertility beyond the duration of sperm’s effectiveness should suffice to validate Mr. Akin’s words…that a truly unwanted penetration, forced beyond the ability to resist, could possibly lessen the chance of a pregnancy.

6. If a baby is conceived, even considering killing him or her is much more barbaric than any error Todd Akin could possibly have said regarding rape or pregnancy.

    My congratulations to Mr. Akin for at least trying to articulate the position that abortion even in the case of incest is morally wrong. This is a difficult issue and I’m not suprised that he may have not defined his words real well or that he is flustered when they attack him.

    Shame on the GOP establishiment for asking Mr. Akin to get out of the race without a fair discussion of the topic.

    Shame on the Catholic leaders for not trying to articulate the correct language to clarify the whole issue.

    Shame on all the Democrats and their lackeys in the press for persecuting the righteous.

Andrew Goddard ,
No, to #1 through #5.
Yes, to #6.
I’ve heard a lot of really bizarre statements recently, including Mr. Akin’s, but the bottom line is that all human life is sacred.The circumstances of conception do not negate that.Nor do lame remarks.

Colleen: “his DOES, however, negate the possibility of child support, so it’s important that there be support for the mother from her family or community.” 

Of course. Or else there is always adoption.

NAPOLITANO: Akin absurdity aside, rape never justifies abortion
Life should be cherished, not extinguished

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/aug/22/akin-absurdity-aside-rape-never-justifies-abortion/

I don’t generally recommend CNN as a news source but here’s a very good article written about firsthand experience by a victim who kept her child conceived through rape & the custody issues she faced:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/22/opinion/prewitt-rapist-visitation-rights/index.html?hpt=hp_bn7

Hi Kathleen,
As usual, you are the solo serene voice in the chorous. Kudos for calling out intolerant idiots like Andrew, who I’d wager is as unfamiliar with biology as he is with the touch of a woman. They clearly don’t represent Catholic thought. On this topic though, can you really not imagine a scenario (surely there have been numerous ones) where a child incest victim was so young that carrying a child to viability would result in her death? What if it was your daughter? What if it was an atheist parent who doesn’t buy into the completely unprovable tenet that life begins at conception? We’ve exchanged words more than a few times, and I find it hard to believe that you would permit a young girl to die in this way. 
-
Porter,
I agree, once in a very blue moon, which is not never. So why not make an exception for it?

Let’s be honest guys, about the most that is going to happen with abortion if Romney is elected is a reversal of the Mexico City policy.  Honesty, I think they crafted that policy (instead of legislating it) to have something they said they did in regards to abortion (they always play a back and forth game with it).

Almost every pundit and campaign consultant has universally agreed that they do not want to be talking about this.  Of course they don’t.  But at the end of the day we get passionate, they take our votes and get a pass for doing nothing.  If only the unborn were as important as defense spending, tax cuts or social programs.  Abortion would be gone a long time ago.

zEKE
YOU ARE CREATING AN UNREASONABLE SCENARIO. eVERY EFFORTshould BE MADE TO SAVE THE LIFE OF A YOUNG MOTHER EVEN IF IT CAUSED THE DEATH OF THE FOETUS.Second , we are in the   twenty first century,  we have the scientific means to determine   life ,  genus , species and to distinguish it from other Stuff.DNA, MRI SONOGRAMS , do not lie and can be counted on.Life beginning at conception is a completely PROVABLE tenet, even for Aethiists. This is more than a Catholic issue.  The Universal Declaration of Human Rights forbids killing innocent human beings

Raymond, below is a link to the story of a 9 year old raped by her stepfather and became pregnant with twins. To save her life, they had to abort the twins. Sad as that was, it got sadder when the Church excommunicated the mother but not the rapist.
-
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/brazil-rocked-by-abortion-for-9yearold-rape-victim-1640165.html
-
The UN Declaration says no such thing. It declares that everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person. It does not apply to the unborn, nor do our constitutional rights.

The comments by the Jesuit educated person really blow my mind.  The Church has NEVER taught that abortion is right for the reasons they said. Some misguided Priest have possible told the this kind of wrong teaching and it is just the way we Catholics get so screwed up about our Faith.  We have the Magisterium, we have the Catachism now and we have Scripture so we have no excuses to plea ignorant or uninformed.  Most of us who have good informed conciences know without a doubt what is right and what Our Lord would want us to do in almost all cases.  We do not need excuses to sin.  The problem as I see it is the two generations of uninformed Catholics who have adopted the Worlds materialistic phylosophy and that has hurt us and will continue to until we come to repentance and conversion again.  Let all stop kibbitzing and pray for the repentance and conversion of our people.  Jesus will do the rest.

Kudos to Andrew Goodard for understanding the Truth. All we needed to do was forgive Mr. Akin and then pray for the world to come to Our Lord.  Amen?

ZEKE…The   Universal Declaration of Human Rights(UDHR)protects all human BEINGS.not just some sexes, races or classes,as was the   case under American Law.Embryos are innocent Human Beings ,  proven by DNA,MRI ETC>  to   be Human ,not some other Genus,Species or Stuff,as abortion advocaes proclaim., The case of the young mother is a tough one, however ,the Church had expert evidence that the pregnancy would proceed satisfactotily and abortion was not necessary to save the mothers life.That was the reason abortion was opposed.Gratefully we don’t have many cases like this one,  where I agree the child was put at risk (but not a lethal risk)

Thanks Zeke, it made my day to see you insult both me and Catholic teaching in the same post. Delightful.

Mr. Akins might in fact be wrong but nobody seems to be able to prove it. All they can do is claim how wrong he is. But how does my own experience have anything to do with this?  I think you’re just as wrong in what you say as you are incapable of saying it without insults - as if that makes you any more credible.

Zeke said,

What if it was an atheist parent who doesn’t buy into the completely unprovable tenet that life begins at conception?

 
I don’t know that I’ve ever seen so many contradictions wrapped into one sentence.  First of all, whether life, as in human life, begins at conception is a matter of science, not faith.  Either it does begin at conception, or it doesn’t, or science has not progressed far enough to provide an answer.  It is certainly not “unprovable,” unless you find science to be much more limited than I do.  Second, an atheist is no more or less likely than a Catholic to accept what science says, and correct me if you think I’m wrong, but I believe that science has progressed far enough to answer this question.

Kevin, exactly. We know that at the moment of conception that it 1) is alive or else the cells would not be able to divide and grow, and 2) it is human because human beings can only conceive human beings.

These facts ARE scientifically proven, so I don’t know what being an atheist would make a person NOT believe that human life begins at conception.

Zeke ,
I’ve repeatedly seen the story cited about the young girl in Brazil.I’m not a dr. but know the Catholic medical approach is to treat all patients,both mother & child(ren) & to try & save all patients if possible.Age & circumstance does not dictate the validity of human life but they can certainly complicate it.
I’m here because an illiterate great grandmother married at the age of 12 & bore 9 children.I’m descended from her oldest daughter.

Raymond,
No arguments from me - embryos are indeed human beings, and they are alive. The fact is, legally, they do not have the same rights as we do until they are viable, generally accepted as about 24 to 28 weeks. This is not only firmly established American law and the basis for Roe v. Wade, but also the intent of the UDHR. If abortion was a contravention of the UDHR, virtually the entire developed world would be non-compliant with it, as you surely must know.
-
Before you go around championing the UDHR as supporting your convictions on abortion, you should know that the related UN documents on women’s reproductive rights declares that among these rights are access to contraceptives and safe abortions, something that the Church declares sinful.

Raymond,
No arguments from me - embryos are indeed human beings, and they are alive. The fact is, legally, they do not have the same rights as we do until they are viable, generally accepted as about 24 to 28 weeks. This is not only firmly established American law and the basis for Roe v. Wade, but also the intent of the UDHR. If abortion was a contravention of the UDHR, virtually the entire developed world would be non-compliant with it, as you surely must know.
-
Before you go around championing the UDHR as supporting your convictions on abortion, you should know that the related UN documents on women’s reproductive rights declares that among these rights are access to contraceptives and safe abortions, something that the Church declares sinful.

Andrew,
I assure you that I am quite capable of making my point without insults, but sometimes it just feels good to call someone an idiot when the term is completely appropriate. Tens of thousands annually in the US alone, depending on the study, become pregnant by rape. Doubtless more become pregnant this way in war-ravaged third world countries. A third-grader with an internet connection can prove Akin (and you) wrong. Women sometimes allow themselves to be raped? Isn’t that otherwise called “having sex”? Is the likelihood of conception lower in times of trauma? What the hell does that matter? You exhibit the same medieval thinking that believed that women had to experience pleasure for conception to occur. Unless she somehow “enjoyed it”, she would not become pregnant. Similarly in some Islamic cultures, pregnancy is grounds for dismissal of a rape accusation.
-
Akin did not “mis-speak” as he claims. He unwisely revealed to us the dark side of religious reasoning. He is a product of the fundamentalist mindset that even Catholics renounce. You are both complete idiots.

Kevin & Joan,
You are correct, I am wrong. I was mistaken for me to write that, and it wasn’t until after I posted it that I realized it. I meant to assert is that there is no evidence that a small mass of reproducing cells deserves the same treatment and rights as a fully developed and born baby, but it came out all wrong. Now I’m sure you take issue with that statement as well, but nonetheless that’s what I was attempting to say, not that I feel that there is not “life” present after conception. Sorry.
-
Of course abortion makes me squeamish. Nobody is pro-abortion in the sense that they consider it good wholesome family fun, or even something to take lightly. On the other extreme, the Church makes the outrageous claim that using artificial contraceptives that prevent the implantation of fertilized eggs is not substantially different than murder. Those of us that don’t buy into these claims should not be subject to the particular religious thinking that would deny abortions for any reason. You both seem to have complete moral certainty that your daughter should be permitted to die before your eyes for sake of an abortion, as this is somehow God’s plan.
-
PS: Hi Joan, good chatting with you again!

Zeke   When are Human beings viable?  African americans were not fully human.according to Firmly Establisshe Ameican Law.It took a civil war to end this injustice. It took 200 years for established American Law to recognize that women were human enough to get voting, family and property rights. You could learn about this if you read Martin Luther Kings “Letter from Birmingham Jail”  when he lectured his cohorts about “Firmly Established American Law and Higher Authority” UDHR was nessecary to prosecute violatore of human rights after WWII. Established German law permitted all the attrocities that grew outof the Margaret Sanger /Hitler Eugenics philosophy of eliminaation of the mentally an physical (and socially) unfit.The UDHR does not permit abortion despite   the efforts of the   Abortion Lobby,  with the support of Hillary Clinton. You are right however that the Abortion Lobby has worked its way into sevral agencies. The lobby pays the expenses of staff to attend global an regional conferences in exchange for votes ( at th expense of our taxpayers)  ......this will continue until MHilary Clinto   and Obama are retired

Zeke,
 
Despite the wording of Roe v. Wade, in practice “viability” means nothing in this country as regards the protection of the unborn - abortion is legal throughout all nine months of pregnancy for effectively any reason.  In fact, if you examine the decision itself, it’s clear that “viability” is a purely arbitrary point in time at which to assign rights, anyway.  To know the real basis of Roe v. Wade, you only have to recognize that the entire decision is predicated on a wholly manufactured lack of “consensus” as to “when life begins.”  This supposed lack of consensus was constructed as part of the case, and was only possible by considering religious and philosophical positions on abortion that predate modern medical knowledge.  In other words, Roe v. Wade is built on ancient ignorance.
 
As regards Akin, if the facts are stacked against him, then why is it so hard to find a news story that refers to the facts of the matter at all?  Most of them are entirely devoid of facts and appear to be just an attempt to get mileage for the media and/or Akin’s political opponents by making a sensation of the situation.  In fact, it’s difficult to find references to studies that either support or refute what he’s saying.  For those who seem to have difficulty understanding just what it is he was talking about, I would describe it as, “an encounter that is traumatic for the woman from at least the first moment of non-casual contact with the rapist.”
 
In any case, while such an encounter could be nothing but harrowing for a woman, a child conceived in such a situation is just as much of a complete, distinct, living, unconditionally viable and fully human being as one conceived in love, and deserves no less consideration from the rest of us.

When the US Supreme Court made murder legal this country
started down the slippery slope to being just another European
country where communists and leftists rule the roost.  Legalizing
sodomy with homosexual “marriage” will be the next big decision
to come from the court.  Obama is trying his best to destroy
Christianity and if this marxist is put back in power, the
country that our Founding Fathers fought and died for will
be all but finished. “A nation that murders his own its not fit to
be called a nation”. ~ Pat Buchanan

Raymond,
Well this is a are development, a right-wing Christian Republican who favors UN law over American law. Refreshing to hear a different opinion coming from the “let’s de-fund the evil UN” crowd.
-
The fact remains that only a small handful of countries have made abortion illegal under any circumstances. They are overwhelmingly backwards, impoverished, religiously superstitious societies with only a passing regard for human rights.
-
As the medical community will attest, human fetuses are generally viable sometime between 24 and 28 weeks. This has nothing to do with the unfortunate past legal status of African Americans, Native Americans, Margaret Sanger or Hitler.

“Is the likelihood of conception lower in times of trauma? What the hell does that matter?”—What does this matter? Seriously? This entire conversation is about this…and it has nothing to do with religion or that some women do actually get pregnant from rape, or what Muslims do.

I refuse to stoop down to your level of calling people I disagree with idiots, by the Latin, Greek or English definition of the word, but this question of yours certainly makes me wonder not only about you but also the need to continue this discussion.

Hi Zeke! Once again you are very gracious and I appreciate that.

With regard to the 9 year old girl, that is a difficult situation, however, as far as I know, there was no evidence that the girl would die if she carried the baby to term. Maybe this is ignorance on my part, but if the 9 y/o was already menstruating, it’s quite possible that she was physically able to carry a child. When I was a kid, it seemed that the girls who started earliest, were also the ones who were bigger and more physically mature as well. Nine years old does not necessarily mean small and frail. That being said, if it was my daughter and the doctors could give strong evidence that she could die, I would consult with the Church and also see what the chances were of her carrying the child for as long as possible, then deliver the baby early and provide neonatal care to the baby. But, I would still be horribly angst ridden for my daughter. Other than that, no one really can say for sure what they would do until they were in that situation. 

In this country society and the media are sexing up(?) our children at younger and younger ages. I see 6 and 7 year olds dressed in provocative ways, sex seems to be everywhere, and then we are surprised if we hear of children having sex and getting pregnant and demanding that they have an abortion because they’re too young to have a baby! Well, they are too young to be exposed to all this sex! I know the incident was in Africa and the girl was raped, but I wonder when we will start to see more incidents of pre-teen girls getting pregnant from ‘experimenting’, due to all this sex that is flaunted around them. And the answer to that is kill the unborn baby? No, we have to change our ways and attitudes, but I don’t see that happening any time soon.

So, Roe v. Wade made abortion legal. But legal does not by any means guarantee that a practice is moral or ethical or even beneficial. It just means that the government will allow it and even guarantee it. If it were known that an adult were the child of a rapist and his victim, would it make that adult person any less human? The nine-year-old is a heartbreaking situation, and thankfully an exceptional one. However, killing the child will not change the fact that the girl was raped by her stepfather. “Pregnant by rape” doesn’t necessarily mean the girl was raped once and then became pregnant.  How long did the abuse continue?  Was the mother aware of the abuse before the pregnancy? Was she excommunicated because of the abortion or for other reasons as well (such as doing nothing to protect her daughter)? Life is not a fairy tale, and abortion does not mean this young girl will live “happily ever after.” Whether or not abortion follows a rape, the trauma of the event will last a lifetime. Abortion may be a clinically sanitized procedure for a woman, but it’s a violent termination of life for the child. And the child may be female—Where’s her choice? The real obstacle for recognition of human status for the pre-born is not science (i.e.viability) but politics—the pre-born don’t get to vote. By the way, is the stepfather in jail at least?

Kathleen,
That’s very interesting about your great-grandmother, and I’m certainly pleased that you are here today to tell the story, but I’m not sure how that relates to the raped child in Brazil. I assume that she was willingly married and none of her children were born as a result of rape. However, even if that was true, it does not change the fact that millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions could have saved their lives.
-
I don’t think we were talking about the validity of human life here (if there even is such a concept), but we can discuss it in this context. We have a 9 year old girl pregnant with twins, raped by her stepfather. The mother chose to abort the twins to save the life of her daughter. The Archbishop claims that the little girl’s life was not in immediate danger, and the better option was to wait until they were viable (the twins were only 4 months) and then remove them. So we have conflicting information, and it at first seemed to me that the Archbishop was being quite reasonable. But there’s a subsequent interview with the Archbishop, who was asked the hypothetical:
-
Q: Would your Excellency have reacted differently if the little girl had really been in danger of dying?
A: No, not at all. We know that even when there is danger of death abortion is never permitted. That is God’s law, as the Church proclaims it.
-
Let that sink in. This asserts that God and the Church would prefer that a raped and abused 9 year old Catholic girl, certain to die in agony and take the twins with her, should not receive the only medical procedure that would prevent this outcome. From a pure validity of life approach, wouldn’t everyone (God included) wish to see at least the little girl survive this ordeal, since the twins could not? This is dogma run amok to me, and it is appalling. Is there any doubt that the secular approach is more pro-life than the Church in this (admittedly extreme) example?
-
Abortion should not be taken lightly, but neither should it be subject to the moral absolutes of religions that would sanction this type of atrocity. But such is the problem with God-given moral absolutes; there is no room for negotiation. I think even most non-Christians can understand the Church position on abortion, and many can even agree with it without believing in the Christian God. What drives people away and leaves them shaking their head is the approach that abortion should be illegal at all times and THERE CAN BE NO EXCEPTIONS, when there are clear cases where an exception is the most reasonable, humane, and indeed moral solution.

According to the article from Brazil about rape, the 23-year-old stepfather has been abusing the 9 year old girl since she was 6. That’s three years! Investigators also believe he was abusing the girl’s 14 year-old handicapped sister for years. Did mom have any inkling? A look at the math raises another question: how old is the mother of these girls? There is a 14 year old daughter, a 23 year old stepfather—did mom have any sense of an obligation to protect her daughters? How old was mom when she had her eldest daughter? Was there no indication in this woman’s life that suggested to her there might be a problem in her family? If the stepfather is convicted, he could serve up to (only) 14 years in jail, so the Courts don’t seem to be taking this very seriously. Yet all the reporter can say is “The Church has a PR problem.” Therefore, life is not the issue, and sex is never the issue—religion is. Todd Akin, you lose.

Zeke said,

millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions could have saved their lives

 
Would these abortions have saved their lives if performed at the point in time where a doctor would have been able to determine that a woman’s life was in danger?  Or was it possible to determine that these womens’ lives would be in danger, and distinguish them from women whose pregnancies would not endanger their lives, earlier in their pregnancy?  If the answer to both of these questions is “no,” then your argument is no argument at all, for it presumes a more general application of abortion than it implies would be necessary.
 

What drives people away and leaves them shaking their head is the approach that abortion should be illegal at all times and THERE CAN BE NO EXCEPTIONS, when there are clear cases where an exception is the most reasonable, humane, and indeed moral solution.

 
If such clear cases have actually existed, then why don’t we pick one and continue the discussion around it, rather than the case of the 9-year-old Brazilian girl, whose life it has already been admitted was not in danger when her twins were aborted?

Kevin,
Let’s cut the crap, his remarks were clearly not about whether a child conceived of rape was any less worthy of life than another. His point is, specifically, that there is no need to have laws that permit abortion in cases of rape because, quote: “From what I understand from doctors, it’s really rare. If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut the whole thing down.” Are you really unable to find “the facts of the matter” Kevin? If you look hard enough, you can even find this…
-
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/hal-herzog/why-are-rape-victims-more_b_1823152.html
-
…that suggests that women are MORE likely to become pregnant through rape. As I wrote to your medieval colleague Andrew, the roots of (and indeed only support for) this ridiculous and medically unproven notion is Christianity, whose preoccupation with chastity and virginity reasoned a moral woman would not become pregnant unless she somehow enjoyed it. Just what is “legitimate rape” anyways?
-
The reason Akin is so laughably bonkers is not because he feels that abortion should be outlawed for any reason. It’s because he’s trotting out 500 year old scientific theories from medical quacks (any doubt that the doctors Akin talked to are also anti-abortion evangelical zealots?) to support his religious convictions.

Camille,
Yes, you seem to have the facts correct, but I don’t know what the questions about the mother that “the math raises” has to do with this poor girl. The PR problem is that the mother helped the daughter to get a legal abortion, and the Church punished the mother and the doctors, while the rapist remains free to enjoy God’s loving embrace.
-
Since the raped child’s body didn’t “shut the whole thing down”, Akin would have us conclude this wasn’t “legitimate rape”. That damn Brazilian tramp was asking for it.

The Church’s teaching is always assumed to be correct here, since this is in fact the National CATHOLIC Register. So questions should be answered in an effort to help people understand what the Church teaches, but never in the sense that the Church could ever possibly be wrong.

Zeke said,

his [Akin’s] remarks were clearly not about whether a child conceived of rape was any less worthy of life than another

 
I never implied that they were.
 

Are you really unable to find “the facts of the matter” Kevin? If you look hard enough, you can even find this…

 
Congratulations.  But there are plenty of articles regarding this matter (in fact, probably most of them) in the mainstream media that, as I claimed, are indeed entirely devoid of such facts, including these:
 
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/08/stabenow_hoekstra_michigan_sen.html
 
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/19/romney-and-ryan-disagree-with-akin-rape-remark-says-campaign/
 
http://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2012/08/pete_hoekstra_among_republican.html
 
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2012/08/20/nexus-legitimate-rape-and-macaca
 

Just what is “legitimate rape” anyways?

 
I’ve already offered a pretty specific definition of what I believe Akin meant.  But no one who opposes Akin really wants to distinguish between “an encounter that is traumatic for the woman from at least the first moment of non-casual contact with the rapist” and other encounters they call rape.

Kevin,
Here’s the quote from the medical director at the Brazilian hospital:
-
“She is very small. Her uterus doesn’t have the ability to hold one, let alone two children.”
-
It is only the Archbishop who claims the girl’s life was not in any danger. You choose to believe an Archbishop with zero medical expertise over the director of the hospital. This is all irrelevant anyways, since the Archbishop confirms that regardless of the girl’s situation, abortion is never permitted, and she should be allowed to die. Are you are arguing that the Church would rule differently in a “clear case”? Or is it simply, like Akin, you don’t want to admit that such situations deserve serious consideration, because they never really happen anyways?
-
It is also worthy of note that in Brazil, the most populous Catholic country on earth, abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or danger to the mother. Yet an estimated 1 million women there have one each year. The Ministry of Health’s official figures show that 200,000 women are treated in public hospitals for complications arising from illegal abortions. Why would you expect it to be any different in our country?

First of all, I don’t believe that Akin intended to imply that women who are “legitimately” raped never get pregnant.  He was only suggesting that it’s less likely to happen in that case than in other instances of intercourse.  (I personally take no position on whether that assertion is correct or not, so don’t beat me up on that.  I’m only trying to be clear about what he meant.)
 
 

“She is very small. Her uterus doesn’t have the ability to hold one, let alone two children.”

 
Pardon me if I’d need more of an explanation than that to be convinced that there was a serious danger.  It’s not difficult to find anecdotal accounts of very small (e.g. 4’ 9”, 100lb.) adult women who had children and even delivered them vaginally.
 
 

in Brazil… abortion is illegal except in cases of rape or danger to the mother. Yet an estimated 1 million women there have one each year.

 
Aggravated assault is illegal in the United States, yet about 800,000 aggravated assaults occur here each year.  I’m not sure how many there would be if they were legal.

Kevin, there seems to be significant delays between my comments being submitted and getting posted here, so forgive me that it seems like I’m ignoring your most recent post and addressing the previous one. My last post shows it was 12:21 today when I actually posted it early this morning. Oh well.
-
OK, we both agree that Akin’s remarks are not about whether a child conceived of rape was any less worthy of life than another. Also, if you are saying that it is difficult to find a “news story” that factually recounts what Akin said, but doesn’t refute his outrageous claims about female biology, I will also agree. If this is your only point - that most media articles don’t make the effort to cite the appropriate rape statistics - well, you are technically correct. But surely this should not come as a surprise, and furthermore fails to address the issue of whether Akin’s remarks deserve scorn.
-
So let’s stop splitting hairs and agree that anyone with an internet connection can google “pregnancy by rape” and verify that thousands of women become pregnant through rape every year, and that there is no evidence that the odds of a woman becoming pregnant from rape is no different than if that woman had consensual sex with a loving partner.
-
So we have your definition of legitimate rape as “an encounter that is traumatic for the woman from at least the first moment of non-casual contact with the rapist”. What is illegitimate rape then? I’m no mind-reader, but I will hazard a guess that it hinges on the phrase “first moment”. Furthermore, since it wasn’t “traumatic” from the first moment, she somehow must want it, so her body fails to “shut the whole thing down”. The women that get pregnant through these encounters were not legitimately raped. Whew, I’ll bet that’s a relief for them.

I wouldn’t argue that Akin didn’t utilize a poor choice of words - I certainly wouldn’t have used the term “legitimate rape” myself to describe what he was talking about.
 
From my perspective, there is no distinction between “legitimate” rape and any other sort.  I suggest that rape can even occur between married couples.  But then again, also from my perspective, any expectation or invitation of intimate contact of any sort between couples who’ve not at least been courting each other for a long time is a serious matter that invites trouble.  In fact, I would strongly suggest waiting until marriage for any such activity.
 
I will admit though that I am still trying to figure out how to process the situation of a rape that occurs when neither party is - at the moment at least - committed to chastity.  While the man is certainly guilty, and the woman couldn’t be as guilty as the man if she at least expressed her undesire for the act in time for him to stop it, I have a difficult time describing either of them as truly innocent.  Perhaps that is an even truer test of whether a rape constitutes the type that Todd Akin was talking about.

Consider Maria Goretti. She had a choice: let herself be raped or be killed. She chose death. Not every victim has this choice to make, of course. But she chose death and now her soul is in heaven. She is also set up as an example, setting the standard for all of us to follow.  If she had chosen rape to save her life I do not think that’s the kind of rape Mr. Akins was refering to. I think a “legitimate” rape is when the victim has no choice.

Posted by Zeke on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 3:32 PM (EST): However, even if that was true, it does not change the fact that millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions could have saved their lives.”
**
Zeke,
Outside of ectopic pregancies,which are a different matter & don’t involve conventional abortion procedures, I’m not sure what you’re referring to.
Again, in each pregnancy there are two individual lives & Catholic medical ethics teach that there are two separate patients, each to be treated with dignity.

Zeke,
  The child became pregnant as the result of molestation that had been going on for years. This mother’s lack of diligence as a parent to both her daughters suggests she is not blameless here. We all need to accept some responsibility for the choices we make in life. One doctor’s opinion was that the girl would die in childbirth, but that was an opinion, not a fact. So should the mother be praised for supposedly saving the child’s life through abortion, or should the mother be condemned for failing to protect her daughter from the trauma of being repeatedly raped over a three year period? Of course, I am sure you are not implying that no woman has ever died as the result of a “legal” abortion, because that would be inaccurate.
  As far as excommunication goes, we are all free to enjoy God’s loving embrace if we seek forgiveness for our moral failings and offenses. Even murderers and rapists can be reconciled with God if they seek Him out and sincerely desire to change.  That does not mean we are not all held accountable for what we have done and failed to do.
  “Moral absolutes,” which we used to call “principles,” may not be able to undo every consequence of evil or human folly, but they go a long way further in respect for human dignity than the relativity that has taken over today’s thinking. Your claim that “millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions coud have saved their lives” makes on wonder how civilizations has managed to endure.  With those statistics, we should be as extinct as dinosaurs. Again, how many women have died as a result of “safe and legal” abortions?

Zeke said: “However, even if that was true, it does not change the fact that millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions could have saved their lives.”
—-
Here is where the devil hopes to take you in. He tries to distract you from the murder of the baby and apply your sympathy toward the mother in the most cynical way possible.  Of course we care for the mother, the devil does not. He uses the tragedy of the mother.
—-
Zeke is not a bleeding heart that cannot see that he is multiplying the evil of rape or incest by adding abortion, he knows that he is manipulation you with a one on a billion story that still does not justify trying to kill the baby. He knows that the vast majority of abortions have nothing to do with victims.  He wants you to condone the first murder as a first step in leading you astray.
—-
We know that even in the worst of circumstances, that the goal of the mother and the doctor should ALWAYS be to try to save both lives.  There should NEVER be an abortion, there should only ever be procedures intended to try to save both the mother and the child.
—-
Look at the proponents of “mother’s rights”.  They like Obama are talking about exceptions, but they vote every time to allow the murder of babies as they are being born. Please open your eyes and realize these are not bleeding hearts, they are evil hearts.

Kathleen & Camille,
Rather than cite the medical evidence that “millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions could have saved their lives”, let me be clear. I am of course referring to women in countries where abortion is illegal, so women are forced into dangerous alternatives that often result in their deaths. Do women die during legal abortions? Certainly, yes, but as with any safe procedure, there are always tragedies. You seem to want to assert that cases where the mother will die unless the pregnancy is terminated are fictitious. Really? And if they never happen, why the objection to making an exception?
-
Camille, your willingness to blame the mother of the 9-year old rape victim is repulsive and a poor example of Christian (or even secular)values. And it’s besides the point. We don’t know her situation - she may have been abused as well. We don’t even know if she agonized over her choice to heed the advice of medical professionals over her Catholic faith. Let’s assume that the doctors were correct - the little girl would die without an abortion. You give the impression that the decision is ridiculously easy and in fact, not even a decision at all - just let everyone die as the Church teaches and let God sort ‘em out.
-
So the rapist, as well as murderers, serial killers, slave-traffickers, child pornographers, and all manner of human scum, can desire change and reconcile with God. But the mother of the little girl has been excommunicated, and has no such option. Or have I got that wrong?

Zeke: “So the rapist, as well as murderers, serial killers, slave-traffickers, child pornographers, and all manner of human scum, can desire change and reconcile with God. But the mother of the little girl has been excommunicated, and has no such option. Or have I got that wrong?”

Yes, you do have it wrong. Someone who is excommunicated is not forever banned from receiving communion as long as they have a change of heart and seek to reconcile (and do) with the God and His Church.

Zeke said,

Rather than cite the medical evidence that “millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions could have saved their lives”, let me be clear. I am of course referring to women in countries where abortion is illegal, so women are forced into dangerous alternatives that often result in their deaths.

 
In the case of each woman, there are really only two possibilities:
 
1)  The country’s law would not permit doctors to administer treatment to save a woman’s life if it might endanger the life of her unborn baby.  This wouldn’t be properly called an abortion because ending the life of the baby isn’t the primary objective - saving his/her mother’s life is.  While we don’t know how many of these women might have chosen to heroically forgo treatment for their own condition for the sake of their baby, the fact is that the Catholic Church finds administering such treatment morally licit (and probably even imperative if there is little to no chance of the mother otherwise surviving long enough for the baby to develop to the point where they can live outside the womb).  In other words, if saving the maximum number of lives is the goal, we should strive to promote a more Catholic sense of morality in countries with such laws.
 
2)  The mother’s particular condition or complication of pregnancy may or may not become life-threatening.  If her case doesn’t fall into category 1) (i.e. by the time anyone realizes her life is in danger, it’s too late to do anything about it), then the only way to have avoided her death would have been to abort her baby at the first sign of the complication or condition, which suggests that every pregnant woman with the same complication or condition should undergo an abortion.  Not only would this be barbaric, especially for conditions that are often treatable or manageable, but I would bet that a great number - probably even the majority - of the “millions of women” you speak of would have refused it.  Not to mention the tragedy of aborting additional millions of babies where mother and child would have survived just fine until birth.
 
While tragic situations can never be entirely avoided (as you acknowledge is the case even with abortion), the idea that legalizing abortion will save millions of women’s lives is utterly unsupportable.  Even in this country where abortion laws are more liberal than almost anywhere, practically no one claims that they procured an abortion to save their life.  Only 2.8% even claim it was out of concern for the mother’s health, which we know can run the gamut from legitimate medical conditions to the “mental” health of the mother.

I meant to write with God, not with THE God. Oops.

Zeke: Excommunication is a Church-imposed sanction, not a civil penalty. It is not irreversible. For someone who chooses not to follow Church teaching in the first place, excommunication may seem inconsequential since it has no legal repercussions. If a doctor or patient is comfortable with the abortion procedure, he or she might not care about excommuication at all. With reference to “human scum,” Christianity demands that we hate the sin but love the sinner.

As far as my “repulsive willingness” to blame the mother of the 9-year-old, I can only say that my sympathies are with the children. Both the girl and her sister endured years of sexual abuse in their own home. As a woman and a parent,I find it difficult to believe the mother had no clue.

With regard to exceptions, let’s consider the fact that in many cases, both in the US and worldwide, infants are aborted just because they are female.  I don’t see how that protects or defends women. But maybe the pro-choice folks will consider an exception to the absolute abortion-on-demand mandate in the case of gender-based abortions.

Recognizing that the concept of death is inherent in life itself is not the same as saying “let them all die.” Millions of men and women have died in wars, in accidents, and even in job-related injuries, many while trying to support and protect their families. Pregnancy is not a disease in search of a cure.  Children are not the plague of the twenty-first century. “Ask not for whom the bell tolls,” even when it’s tolling for an unborn child.

Joan,
Thanks for the correction on excommunication. It still seems somewhat odd to me that a murderer isn’t punished by the Church, yet someone procuring an abortion (which the Church also considers murder) is. What’s that all about?
****************
Kevin,
I think you’re missing my point here, since you seem to be confining your comments to scenarios where the mother’s health is at risk, real or perceived. Yes, only a small percentage of abortions are performed for such reasons, and certainly there are not millions of women dying for lack of an abortion. Yet the fact remains (which is easily verified) that about 70,000 women die each year for lack of legal, safe abortions, and millions more suffer complications. So to say that “the idea of legalizing abortion will save millions of women’s lives is utterly unsupportable” defies all the recent medical studies and common sense. Since we’ve been talking about Brazil, the most populous Catholic country, their Ministry of Health estimates that up to 1,000,000 illegal abortions occur each year. 200,000 women are admitted to hospital each year for complications from abortion, at a cost of about $10 billion. 25 percent of maternal deaths in Brazil are a result of illegal abortions, the 4th leading cause of maternal death.
-
Banning alcohol last century didn’t eliminate (and barely even put a dent in) alcohol consumption. We have conducted a trillion dollar war on drugs with the same results. Declaring firetrucks illegal won’t eliminate or even reduce fires. Wherever abortion is declared illegal, pregnancies still occur at largely the same rate, and women will still seek out ways to abort them. The difference is that many more of them will die. So what will this accomplish? We’ll have more children and families without mothers, and more families with children they don’t want or can’t afford. You can’t legislate your particular interpretation of God’s wishes, it’s unconstitutional and un-American.
*****************
Camille,
Sorry to keep beating this dead horse, but so what if the mother had a clue about the abuse? This changes nothing about the facts of the case. She was told by the medical staff that she was too young and small to give birth to twins, and arranged for a safe and legal abortion. You continue to distract from the main issue by assigning blame for the pregnancy to the mother, or imagining that the medical staff provided a faulty diagnosis because the Archbishop claims otherwise. As if the Church holds the high moral ground when it comes to concern for sexually abused children….
-
Your imagined excuses are irrelevant Camille, since very clearly the Archbishop stated that it MADE NO DIFFERENCE if the 9 year old’s life was in imminent danger; the Church would not allow the abortion and sentence this poor abused girl to suffer and die. If you want to ban abortions for any reason whatsoever – rape, incest, severe birth defects, health of the mother – fine, go ahead and say that you favor it due to the particular religious dogma to which you cling. Just don’t try to justify it by using Todd Akinesque arguments that the girl wouldn’t have become pregnant if she was “legitimately raped” or that the cases where this actually happens are so exceedingly rare that an exception for them is not even worth thinking about. It’s embarrassing to see Christians attempt to reconcile the impact of establishing a theocracy in America with how it affects all its citizens. I realize this “ban abortion for any reason” plays well with the fire and brimstone crowd, but surely you know that it will never, ever happen here.

Posted by Zeke on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 4:21 PM (EST):Kathleen & Camille,
Rather than cite the medical evidence that “millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions could have saved their lives”, let me be clear. I am of course referring to women in countries where abortion is illegal, so women are forced into dangerous alternatives that often result in their deaths. Do women die during legal abortions? Certainly, yes, but as with any safe procedure, there are always tragedies. You seem to want to assert that cases where the mother will die unless the pregnancy is terminated are fictitious. Really? And if they never happen, why the objection to making an exception?”
*************
Zeke,
If you want to make the statement that you believe women die due to illegal abortions, that’s fair enough. But to declare that “millions” die needs citation.
Recent data from Chile, where abortion, thankfully,is still restricted, does not back up the premise that legal protection of unborn children equals higher maternal mortality.
I haven’t figured out how to provide working links for these comment boxes, but I’m sure if you google around you can locate that data from Chile.The understanding that came out from that data was that education is more linked to increased maternal health.
If you do not believe an unborn child deserves human rights, then there’s really no arguement to follow regarding restricting abortion-it’s an open field. If you believe that both mother & child deserve legal protection of civil rights & medical care, then it follows you would wish the best outcome for both.As does the Catholic Church.

Zeke said,

Wherever abortion is declared illegal, pregnancies still occur at largely the same rate, and women will still seek out ways to abort them. The difference is that many more of them will die. So what will this accomplish?

 
Your original assertion was, “millions of young women have died as a result of pregnancy where safe abortions could have saved their lives,” which is what I was answering.  There is a big difference between dying as a result of pregnancy and dying as a result of a botched abortion (ignoring the fact that someone dies as a result of every successful abortion as well).
 
Even though except in cases of rape or incest it never happens accidentally, I don’t necessarily disagree with a government helping a woman who finds herself pregnant when she would prefer not to be.  I only disagree that helping her kill her baby actually helps her.  In fact, my own position is quite consistent with yours, which is that letting someone die doesn’t accomplish anything.  Only to me that reasonably applies whether they died accidentally or at the hands of someone else, and whether they were already born, or weren’t born yet.

Millions of people die trying to kill other people.
This happens in war, on the streets of Chicago and during botched home invasions and bank robberies.
-
Should we legalize murder to protect the murderer?  You could select your enemy and have them legally killed so you do not risk getting hurt in the process.  We can have doctors perform the murder so that it is clean and certain death.
-
No, legalizing murder is not moral or just, it is sick.
And yet murder goes on, with many of those murderers getting hurt, maimed or killed.  Should we be mourning the 9/11 terrorists? Lamenting over how they could have murdered without sacrificing their own lives?
-
As noted above, Zeke has skillfully ignored the murder of the innocent as he provides false tears for the mother. 
-
The devil is reaping millions of lives through abortion, but he wants your support and your soul as well.

Zeke, that is a good question and I have been searching the internet for a clear answer. This link: http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=321964

is a forum/question and answer thread on this very subject. You may find some answers there, after just reading a few posts. Apparently, due to the fact that an unborn child is the most innocent of all human beings, and the rate at which it occurs, over 40 million dead since Roe v Wade, and the fact that it is not consider a civil crime with it’s own punishments, abortion is an excommunicable offense.

The Church does hold the high moral ground.
Also, you CAN legislate your particular interpretation of God’s wishes; it’s quite constitutional AND American. Just vote on it.

@zeke
Your assertion that abortion numbers would be the same whether it is illegal or not is just NOT held by the facts.
-
1) In the US, abortions in the 1970 after abortion became legal were .6 and .7 million.  This doubled within a decade to 1.2 and 1.6 million.
- Why did abortions double between the 1970s and 1980s?
- BTW a few state including CA, the largest abortion state, have refused to report abortion data to the CDC in the last several years creating an illusion of falling abortion rates.
2) Although there is no hard data, estimates before abortion was legal are .2 million - this is supported by the Guttmacher “institute” which is pro-abortion and funded by pro-abortion groups.
3) Before Roe v Wade 8% of all children born in the US were available for adoption, the number fell to 4% in the 1970 and 2% by the 1980.
4) During the past few decades US adoption of foreign children has skyrocketed due to the LACK of live babies in the US available for adoption by qualified parents.
-
So in the US abortions tripled the year it became available and increased to 8x by the 1980 after the legalization of abortion.
-

Zeke: You directed readers to an article about the rape of a nine-year-old girl whose Archbishop would have denied her an abortion.  The first line of the article dealt not with the rape but with the reporter stating that “the Church has a PR problem.” Why drop this on the door of the Church? There were many other troubling issues involved in the case. It was a horrific situation all around. You ask, “So what if the mother knew about the rape?” Well, that would be a crime as well as a sin, but apparently it wasn’t considered either newsworthy or politically correct enough to bother reporting.  All the reporter gleaned from the tragedy was a chance to bash the Church, which is essentially the strongest voice speaking against abortion today. The article, like the Todd Akin story, was an example of sensationalized and biased “journalism” that attempted to take the onus off the termination of life through abortion. In no way does the mother’s knowledge constitute an excuse for anything, as the Church does not need an excuse for objecting to murder. Nor in any way is it a claim that the rape was not “legitimate.”  I hope that clarification allows the poor dead horse at least to rest in peace.       
  As far as the “safe and legal” abortion goes, the fact is that somebody—actually two people—died, so it was safe and legal for the young girl, but it was only legal and not safe for her twins. That is the real issue. Proponents of abortion fail to see the unborn as human beings, but the Church holds that the unborn are people too. No one is making light of this dilemma. Could the doctors and hospital have made some attempt to maintain the pregnancy long enough for the twins to be delivered reasonably safely while minimizing the risk to the mother? In some respects the situation is similar to organ donation—there is a decision as to who will receive a heart or kidney and who will not, who will have a chance to live and who will see his or her chances dwindle.
  I don’t believe I ever mentioned Todd Akin but maybe I did. However, an interesting book on the subject of abortion was written by Dr. Bernard Nathanson, who died not long ago.  He advocated for the legalization of abortion years ago and admitted to performing many thousands of abortions in the course of his career. His story is a compelling one. My problem with abortion is that each one takes an innocent life. More than 45 million abortions have been performed in the US, a devastating statistic.

What Akin said wasn’t completely wrong: Ovulation CAN be delayed by stress, but this does not happen every time. BUT the woman is only half the equation. Rape and pregnancy both take two.

The real science is a bit more complicated: Women resist rape pregnancies, behaviorally and biologically. Rapists act to forcibly impregnate their victims, behaviorally and biologically. The two effects roughly cancel each other out. (It’s evolution, baby!)

His “legitimate rape” comment, however, was inexcusable.

Anyone who has experience in the pro-life movement knows that this ‘rape’scenario has nothing to do with the issue, and what the governor said was common medical teaching at the time. The rape thing , is and always was a means to legalize and fund ALL abortions. OK, we’ll take abortion in case of rape,, you think there going to refuse the other 99% rich people’s abortions?.. abortion is what it is, a choice to kill because i’m too selfish, and a doctor’s way to make a killing. It is incomprehensible to me how any honest person, let alone Catholic, can vote for such a militantly pro-abortion presiendent, who also has your jobs and economy in a mess.. Pleasse , if you don’t want Romney and Ryan!!!!, send to us in Canada, we need them!!!!!!!!!!!!...

I guess it depends what you mean by “legitimate”. Obviously he’s using it to mean the case you describe, where the victim is forced. Of course legally all she has to do is say “no” at any point for it to be a legitimate rape. But he’s not using “legitimate” in a legal sense. He means “forced” where the victim is incapable of preventing it.

The discredited notion that a woman’s body can resist conception in a sexual assault has persisted in anti-abortion circles for decades, largely because of the efforts of a Cincinnati obstetrician who is considered a godfather of the movement.

Dr. John C. “Jack” Willke founded the National Right to Life Committee and wrote the influential 1971 “Handbook on Abortion,” which has shaped the thinking of generations of anti-abortion activists.

Rep. Todd Akin’s comments this week on rape and pregnancy helped upend a Senate race and roiled the Republican Party in a tough election year. But they reflect ideas that the 87-year-old Willke began peddling years ago.

“There’s no greater emotional trauma that can be experienced by a woman than an assault rape,” Willke wrote in 1999 in the journal Christian Life Resources. “This can radically upset her possibility of ovulation, fertilization, implantation and even nurturing of a pregnancy.”

To anti-abortion activists, Willke is a revered figure. To abortion-rights activists, the onetime sex education lecturer perpetuates myths, eschews facts and ignores science. And to fellow physicians, his ideas are pure fiction.

After Akin’s remarks, the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists said a woman who is raped “has no control over ovulation, fertilization or implantation of a fertilized egg. ... To suggest otherwise contradicts basic biological truths.”

Still, the last time Willke appeared at the Ohio Statehouse, GOP lawmakers were “almost worshipful,” recalled Cincinnati attorney Al Gerhardstein, an abortion-rights proponent who has often debated Willke. “He’s always been a very sincere, passionate advocate for his cause. And I’ve always been wary that he doesn’t let the facts get in the way.”

The doctor and his wife, Barbara, have six children. They were prompted to write the handbook by their daughters, who complained about encountering what they regarded as bad information on the subject in college.