Since THIS story seemed to garner such an "interesting" response, I thought I would go ahead and put up some updated information.
President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva of Brazil has come forward and spoken out about the ugly decision by the Catholic Church to excommunicate the medical staff and people involved with saving the life of a nine year old rape victim. Good for him.
The Archbishop of Olinda and Recife, Jose Cardoso Sobrinho, said the excommunication would apply to the child's mother and the doctors, but not to the girl because of her age.
But his actions were criticised by President Lula, who said: "As a Christian and a Catholic I deeply regret that a bishop of the Catholic Church has such a conservative attitude.
"The doctors did what had to be done: save the life of a girl nine years old.
"In this case, the medical profession was more right than the Church," AFP news agency quoted him as saying.
The girl, who lives in the north-eastern state of Pernambuco, was allegedly sexually assaulted over a number of years by her stepfather, possibly since she was six.
The abortion was carried out on Wednesday.
The fact that the girl was pregnant with twins was only discovered after she was taken to hospital in Pernambuco complaining of stomach pains.
Her stepfather was arrested last week, allegedly as he tried to escape to another region of the country.
He is also suspected of abusing the girl's physically handicapped older sister who is now 14.
FULL STORY HERE . . .
2 comments:
I assume you enjoy the back and forth, which is why I'm jumping in with more.
In what sense did the doctors "save her life?" Were her stomach pains the normal discomfort of pregnancy, or a complication that was a medical emergency? The article didn't explain. If they saved her life in that they terminated what may or may not have been a difficult pregnancy, that's a problem. As I said, she could have been on bed rest and recieved medical attention for the next 3-5 weeks at which point the babies could have been delivered early. Perhaps they would not have survived, but perhaps they would have. When they were aborted, there was no chance.
Being sexually abused by your step father is a far more lasting and damaging problem than a pregnancy.
When this poor girl is twenty and realizes what horrible "choice" she was forced into she is going to be additionally traumatized. I do not wish a pregnancy like this on any little girl or woman, but I fail to see how murdering babies takes anything away from what happened in the first place.
Her family need not belong to the church. That is their choice. But if they believe what the church teaches and want to be in communion with it they must abide by Christ's teachings. Yep, that's right, the teachings of Jesus Christ, handed down 2000 years.
And, like a father must discipline his children, a bishop must out of love impose serious consequences on seriously sinful actions. Out of love. So that they can come back. Or they can leave the church on their own if they would like. See?
In what way did they save her life? Are you serious?
She was NINE YEARS OLD and pregnant with twins!!
The doctors who examinded her (and I shall bow to their medical expertise, as should you) said....
...doctors at the hospital said they had to take account of the welfare of the girl, and that she was so small that her uterus did not have the ability to contain one child let alone two.
So am I to assume you know more than the doctors who examined the child?
As for the "teachings of Jesus Christ"......would that be the same Jesus who said "Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned, forgive, and ye shall be forgiven." ~Luke 6:37~?
How about the church steps back, realizes the horror of the entire situation and offers support instead of condemnation?
What would Jesus do indeed....
Post a Comment