The following story is absolutely horrendous. I pray for the young girl to whom this life changing event has been inflicted. I also pray for the step-father, who truly deserves to have a millstone permanently strapped to him. I also have two huge ethical questions: 1.) What would you do in this case, if you were the one making the final decision in this situation? 2.) Should there be legal concessions for abortion for cases/situations like this one (story after the jump)?
RIO DE JANEIRO (AP) — A 9-year-old girl who was carrying twins, allegedly after being raped by her stepfather, underwent an abortion Wednesday despite complaints from Brazil’s Roman Catholic church.
Police said the stepfather has been jailed since last week.
Abortion is illegal in Brazil, but judges can make exceptions if the mother’s life is in danger or the fetus has no chance of survival.
Fatima Maia, director of the public university hospital where the abortion was performed, said the 15-week-old pregnancy posed a serious risk to the 80-pound (36-kilogram) girl.
“She is very small. Her uterus doesn’t have the ability to hold one, let alone two children,” Maia told the Jornal do Brasil newspaper.
But Marcio Miranda, a lawyer for the Archdiocese of Olinda and Recife in northeastern Brazil, said the girl should have carried the twins to term and had a cesarean section.
“It’s the law of God: Do not kill. We consider this murder,” Miranda said in comments reported by O Globo.
Calls to Miranda were not immediately returned.
Brazil is home to more Catholics than any other nation.
That’s the situation, terrible as it is. Now, what would you do? Where do we go now? Is it as black and white as some of us would suggest, or is ethics – or Christian ethics – something that we hold onto loosely? What say you?
Related posts:
What a terribly sad story. I am grieved by this. As a Christian, I know that ALL human life is precious. That includes not only the unborn, but also the living. Not just the fetus in the womb but also the woman (child in this case) carrying it. There is no clear-cut answer in these tragic situations. I can’t tell anyone else what to do, but if that little girl were a member of my family, I would not want to risk her life for the sake of the unborn babies that most likely would not live anyway. But the most important thing that we must realize is that decisions such as these are always difficult, usually tragic, and deeply personal. To stand on Mount Sinai and pontificate about what is right and what is wrong when you have no personal stake is easy. To be faced with such decisions when someone you love is involved is much more difficult.
A tough question for sure. This case would clearly fall under the 00.3% of US abortions that are related to rape or incest, or the 01.2% of US abortions that are related to the health of the mother. However it has nothing whatsoever to do with the remaining 98.5% of US abortions which are done for no reason other than the mother’s preference.
Here is another ethical question: is it ethical to use arguments that pertain only to the 00.3% or the 01.2% in order to justify laws that enable the 98.5% of the more than 1 million abortions per month that are done in this country?
The Brazilians’ laws are their concern. We should be concerned with our own.
Barry, you wrote, “However it has nothing whatsoever to do with the remaining 98.5% of US abortions which are done for no reason other than the mother’s preference.”
You are right; it has nothing to do with the remaining 98.5% of abortions which are done, as you say, for no other reason other than the mother’s preference.
So why are you talking about it then?
If the Israelites could, under God’s orders, drive out and exterminate the Canaanites – the “foreign enemies,” whether men, women, or children, and whether innocent or not – from the land that was given to them, then I have no problem with a woman at any age removing from her womb a child planted by a rapist.
Because it’s pertinent to how the debate proceeds. It’s common for pro-choice folks to introduce hard cases like this as though argument about the 1.5% of hard cases is where the debate is at in this country now.
It may be about that in Brazil now, but that’s not where it is in this country. Would that our conversation here were about whether we should allow exceptions for the hard cases or not. But it isn’t. For now it’s only about whether we can offer any protection at all to unborn children at any stage of pregnancy, for any reason.
There is no debate, only questions.
Fair enough. My answer to your question #2, “Should there be legal concessions for abortion for cases/situations like this one?” is “Yes, there should be such legal concessions”. However, I’m reluctant to give my answer without pointing out that this is not a controversial question in the US now. Of course the abortion that this girl needs would be allowed here. All abortions, for any reason, are allowed here.
What’s controversial in the US now is not whether some exceptions should be made to allow abortions now banned. It’s the opposite guestion: should there be some exceptions made to ban abortions now allowed? To that question, a majority of Americans now answer yes, but under Roe v. Wade it can’t be put to a vote.
Strict or permissive legislative environments both produce horror stories. This one from the current strict environment in Brazil is indeed horrific. But the current permissive environment here produces stories of it own, like the girl who recently went to an abortion clinic for her abortion, and gave birth to a live baby while waiting. The abortion provider, arriving late, wrapped the little girl in plastic and threw her in the trash, where she died. Shawn, why not google a version of that story and post it here under the title “A Collision of Faith and Ethics”, and then ask the question that’s really our issue here: “Should there be legal concessions for(banning)abortion for cases/situations like this one?”
I really like Pete’s attitude. I’m not for abortion. But I’m really tired of hearing people act as if mothers who decide to have an abortion are evil people who really enjoy the experience. It’s not as if a pregnant women wakes up one morning and says, “Oh, joy! I’m so excited! I get to have an abortion today!” Stop treating them as such. It is usually a difficult decision. And a traumatic experience. Perhaps we should not treat them like dogs. But as humans who need grace and support.
In my opinion, the problem is not that abortion is legal. The problem is that there are those who believe it’s their best option.
The problem with alcohol is not that it’s legal. The problem is that some think it’s the only way to stop the pain.
The problem with terrible drugs like cocaine and meth is not that they were legal. No, for you see, they are now illegal but people still use them. The problem is that there are people who feel a need to use them. Like it’s the only place they can turn. You can outlaw them. But that doesn’t solve the root problem. The way to solve the root problem is to actually reach out to people in love and give them another option.
We can outlaw abortion. And I would probably vote for that if given the opportunity. But I hesitate to think secular laws are the answer to society’s problems. The answer lies in how you and I treat our neighbor. If you are really passionate about ending abortion, adopt an unwanted child. Counsel a teenage mother who is pregnant. Go into schools where teen pregnancy is high and talk to girls about sex and pregnancy prevention and self-esteem (like my wife did for 18 months). Love. That is the greatest commandment, and if implemented, the answer to so many problems in my opinion. But my opinion probably isn’t worth much. For I am a chief of sinners.
Shaun, you raise some interesting questions. They’re pretty gut-wrenching too. We’ve reached a point in history where we have choices to make and can actually make them regarding how and when to begin and end life. There are no clear cut answers. We can say that all life is sacred and, yeah, pretty much that’s true.
Except … when do we say that life begins? Two cells joining together in the womb are not life. They are a zygote. Pre-life if you will.
When do we say life ends? When brain function is no longer existent? Breathing? Heart beat?
What is it, exactly, that constitutes life? And why o why would we be so arrogant as to presume we know what is in the heart of another when they make such gut-wrenching decisions as to end a pregnancy? It never ceases to amaze me that men like to make such sweeping generalizations about women who have abortions. As if we were all stupid and callous.
Here’s the thing. We’re not. Regardless of what any of us may think about the moment of life, it is a decision that all of us carry with pain and longing for the rest of our lives. I have yet to meet a woman who said, “Yeah, I had an abortion once and I’m pretty darn happy about it.” Every single one of us knows that it was done out of some sort of brutal necessity in our lives … preference? Not on your life. Every woman I’ve ever met would have preferred to be able to be pregnant and have the child. That attitude is insulting and arrogant.
As for the poor child in Brazil. Her step-father should be castrated for starters. And perhaps we should lock him alone in a room with Lorena Bobbit for good measure. I have no mercy for child molesters. None whatsoever.
I absolutely believe she should have received an abortion. It’s not just that her body couldn’t carry those twins to term, it’s also that at that age (9) I’m quite certain the birth defects from lack of oxygen and other issues would be enormous … how could she be expected to cope as a mother at the age of 10? Who would adopt such children in the superstitious culture of Brazil?
In a perfect world there would be no homelessness, no rape, no molestation, no unwanted children, no drug use, no typhoons, no wars, none of the horrible effects of sin. But … hey … we don’t live there. We live here. So instead of casting aspersions on all the horrible people who don’t live as perfectly as you do, and don’t make perfect decisions, how about trying to walk a mile or two in their mocassins? I believe Jesus had a few words to say about that … something about loving your neighbor as yourself. I think it was Jesus … maybe not though.
Is science capable of giving that man a sex change and then transplanting the babies into him so that he could carry them to term? That would be some serious justice.
After years of working in the Pro-Life movement, because of friends I had first hand experienced with abortion – I can only come to the conclusion that removing the child is not a cure.
What her father did to her was true brokenness, and as you said very gut wrenching. Sadly, this happens more time’s then we’d like to admit. I know statistics say only less then 1% of Abortions (of the some 49 million since 1973) are aborted because of this – but that 1% is still a higher number then some people know about or want to face the reality of.
As her step father acted out of his brokenness, and excersisd them on her, she inherited some level of his brokenness and tons of embarresement through this situation. However, as in ANY situation of sin and brokenness we must face that passing on brokenness, or acted out of it …. will not bring the cure. Post-Abortive Syndrome is just a small symptom of acting out of that brokenness. I can quote the statistics that 68% of women will face other physical risks, and that 90% will face suicidal thoughts because of regret….however what we must face is that the fact is we will face consequence and quilt when we project our brokenness on others through situations like this. We must RESPOND in love in her descion, but realize utlimatly the best choice here was to have the baby to avoid the brokenness she added to her burden from abortion.
Amen.
Make that two Amens.
OK, but there will most likely be no “post” syndrome in this case because the 9 year old would be dead. Her uterus in not developed enough to hold one much less two. What do you do with that?
Talk about straining the gnat and swallowing the Camel. This is a sick story and logic and reason has to trump cold dogma in some cases I believe. It would have physically harmed an already emotionally and spiritually scared young girl. All the pro-life droids need to shut the hell up on this one!
I’ll throw out my “Amen’s” to Pete and Adam. I also agree with earlier comments that when you hear of crazy injustices like these, the desire to do something just as evil back to that person runs thick. I do not support the death penalty, as I consider myself completely pro-life, but man I would have trouble not doing wicked things to this man in a back alley…
Now that my confession and rage are out, to answer Shawn’s question – No. Ethics situations are never white and black. If I had to take a side though, I would say that abortion should at least be an option for this woman. My favorite quote thus far by readers has been from Adam who said: “In my opinion, the problem is not that abortion is legal. The problem is that there are those who believe it’s their best option.” So yes, there should be legal concessions made for situations like these, but ultimately it comes down to us as followers of Christ showing grace to people in these difficult situations and loving them. If we can encourage and support things like adoption, rather than beating people over the head about a ridiculously hard choice we haven’t had to make ourselves, I think we will be moving in the right direction.
Not limit the control or faith in God’s provision.
Can you explain this a bit more, Jeff? I’m not sure what you are saying.