Photos of forcibly aborted late-term baby in China spark worldwide outrage
On May 30, 20 local Chinese officials dragged 23-yr-old pregnant mother Feng Jianmei from her home and held her three days for a 40,000 yuan ($6250) ransom before killing her seven-month-old baby en utero by lethal injection and delivering her tiny corpse after family failed to come up with the cash.
Feng and her husband Deng Jiayuan had failed to complete the proper paperwork required for rural families to have a second child. They already had a six-yr-old daughter.
On June 11 photographs taken by Feng’s cousin of Feng next to her murdered baby appeared on the Internet, with International outrage ensuing. This video news report alleges the photo itself was posted by Family Planning Officials, perhaps as a “warning” to other families of what happens when families do not comply with the law. According to USA Today:
In years past, Feng’s forced abortion would have happened with little public reaction, but Internet-based social media tools allow individual Chinese to take their stories directly to the people and are forcing the government to address complaints.
As of Thursday, comments on Feng’s abortion neared 1 million on the Twitter-like microblog site Sina Weibo.
According to ABC, all stories mentioning Feng have now been scrubbed in China.
Meanwhile, government authorities, who at first denied any wrong-doing, finally admitted “the abortion was illegal,” according to The Daily Telegraph, which also reported:
“At the hospital they held her down,” said Mr Deng to All Girls Allowed, a Christian organisation in the United States that campaigns against the One Child policy. “They covered her head with a pillowcase. She could not do anything because they were restraining her,” he added. He said his wife had tried to kill herself after the abortion.
Mrs Feng told All Girls Allowed that she could “feel the baby jumping around inside me all the time, but then she went still”….
Chai Ling, of All Girls Allowed, said officials had “launched a campaign of forced abortions”. Li Yuongjiou, of Ankang’s family planning department, told Caixin, a magazine, that the town had missed its targets under the One Child policy for two years, and this year there was an emphasis on stricter enforcement.
According to ABC News, the distraught Feng slit her wrists. MSNBC reported last night that “three officials would be relieved of their duties” in the wake of the murder and that a deputy mayor had apologized to the couple. A lot of good that will do.
The Susan B. Anthony List is calling on President Obama to condemn China’s One-Child forced abortion/sterilization policy and to immediately cut off funding to the United Nations Population Fund, which helps facilitate China’s horrific family planning program. Both Presidents Obama and Clinton reinstated funding to UNFPA after Presidents G.W. Bush and Reagan cut it off. Under Obama’s watch the U.S. has given $145 million to UNFPA, and he has requested another $47 million in his 2012 budget.
But vocal opposition from Obama may be slow to come, since China holds the largest share, 26%, of the United States’ $15.77 trillion debt.
Meanwhile, if any U.S. feminist or abortion groups are outraged by the forced denial of Feng’s “choice,” I can’t find evidence.
[Video HT: LauraLoo]
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
That poor baby looks (to me) to be a lot older than 7 months gestation and possibly almost full term.
Any info. on why the couple failed to complete the “paperwork” that might have prevented this ?
I’m sure our resident trolls will have no issue with this at all.
Why should the choice be between going through a lot of red tape and allowing a pregnancy to take its natural course?
Why shouldn’t they have been able to just have a second baby?
This isn’t a feminist issue. This is a basic human rights issue — and the worst sort of government tyranny.
After all, Mike, it’s none of our business.
So why am I in tears?
That’s just awful. Does anything good ever happen in China?
JDC, I am afraid we are heading in the same direction.
This can happen here in the USA, in 2012, because we have a President, who would stop at nothing to advocate for abortion! Not even at sex-selection abortion!
And remember, he said he will have free hands after the elections!
We need to stand up now before it’s too late.
Let’s make Obama unemployed and unemployable!
Hate to say it but we already do this..not by the government yet, but at 17 years old I was forced to abort by my parents and if you took a picture after my saline abortion it would have looked much like this…a teenager with her dead son in the bed next to her. I remember thinking “how can it be possible to do this in a hospital and be legal” but it was…countless women are pressured everyday in the US…may not be by the government “yet” but certainly by BF’s, husbands, parents etc…
My heart breaks for her..wish we could begin a post abortion ministry in china..for sure it is greatly needed.
I am sure “prolifers” will exploit this for their cause in the United States. Forced abortion in China is as wrong as trying to criminalize it in the U.S. Both deny women their choice.
Now, if these photos make you sick, look at some of the photos of dead or wounded Iraqi children in Iraq shortly after Bush invaded. Of course, those kids don’t matter as much to most of you, as they were unpreventable “collateral” damage during war, right?
Theresa, I am so sorry and my heart goes out to you with my prayers.
Thank you for sharing with all of us.
Unfortunately, it is because of law-makers and the government, with the support of the Planned Parenthood ( and the like) accomplices that these atrocities are legal here in the USA.
We need to start from here, today, when we still have freedom to speak up and mobilize our friends, our families, our churches.
If the government didn’t allow, all those abortions forced by “BF’s, husbands, parents etc…” would be illegal in this country and those crimes persecuted.
But, our government and the current “pro-abortion-in-chief” President is opposing even the simple law that would make illegal sex-selection abortions.
@Bob – you are a sick man. I believe your mother may have dropped you when you were born, but at least she had you. God help you.
God help us all.
Bob, “Of course, those kids don’t matter as much to most of you, as they were unpreventable “collateral” damage during war, right”
Bob. You are WRONG. All lives matter, born and pre-born, at all ages, at all stages, innocent and guilty.
The very important thing that you and others who make these arguments fail to recognize is that wars , as terrible as they are, involve mostly grown-up, well aremed, capable to defend themselves soldiers. Abortions, on the other hand, invlove innocent, powerless, voiceless, defenseless, pre-born human beings torn apart by the violence of adults. There’s no comparison in the gravity of the matter!
Poor rationalization, Richard. Those small children in Iraq couldn’t carry weapons. And if they mattered just as much as the unborn children, where were most of you then?
Bob I was pro-life.
Where were you?
Bob I see you are concerned about young (born) children.
That’s a good start!
I see the same violence and blood of a war in these pictures of forced abortions.
It’s the “war on women and children”!
I know where you are today. On this blog.
Why don’t you stand up now?
What are you going to do to end this war???
Well wasn’t it Joan who said she had no sympathy for these women because they “know the rules” or something to that effect?
I just hug my second-born son even tighter when I see these photos. He would be dead if I lived in China.
Bob, what you are failing to realize is that its not about “choice”. Its about killing children. And that is ALWAYS WRONG.
Bob the troll,
Everybody on this board believes it is wrong when children (born or unborn) get killed in war. Your post is drivel. Are you a DemocRAT?
This story is just heartbreaking.
Theresa, your story is heartbreaking too. I’m so sorry.
To Bob and those that share similar sentiments: Where do you get the idea that pro-lifers don’t care about people that have been born? I would love to understand where that false belief comes from. All the pro-lifers I know are involved in a multitude of charitable efforts, most of which are focused on those already born.
Bob, in the facing the picture above, you’re going to bring up BUSH? Really? That’s your contribution to this discussion??
That baby above was wanted, and we are sad. But what about the babies who aren’t wanted that look JUST LIKE HER? Talk about denying someone’s choice.
Look at the picture, Bob. That’s what abortion IS, baby wanted or not.
So true Courtnay. The tragedy of those pictures is not that a woman’s “choice” was denied. The tragedy is that a human being is now dead. Same as with every abortion: forced, coerced, or freely chosen.
Courtney said “That’s what abortion IS, baby wanted or not”
Courtney great point!
Reading your blog a thought came to mind.
Pro-abortion folks argue about a baby being “unwanted”, but that is always incorrect.
Every unborn human being is always “wanted”.
By GOD!
There’s no such a thing as an “unwanted Baby”!
@Theresa: I am so, so sorry that you went through that. It was wrong, and neither you or your child should’ve been treated that way.
truthseeker, if that is the case, then where was the outrage by prolifers during the Iraq war? I can tell you–they were more concerned about the “slutty women” who got pregnant and had abortions.
Bob, I see you are still on the blog.
You have not answered my questions yet.
Have you given any thought?
Bob, the Catholic Church has said babies who die from abortion go to Heaven. If that is true, then why would prolifers oppose this? Is it because they believe the babies should have to put up with the same stuff they do over 70 or so years?
Or, could it be that many prolifers simply don’t really know for sure what happens after death. Look at how many of them really fear death (even though they say they don’t).
The only folks who ever use the word “slut” on this site are the pro-aborts. As a former slut, I can tell you that abortion would have only compounded my issues a hundred times over, rather than solving them.
If you want to talk about Iraqi war, there are other forums on which to engage. Here we talk about the war on the unborn. To us, the travesty and tragedy of abortion is certainly not the only thing, but it is the first thing.
Maybe you just can’t hang with us.
Oh God. :( That baby looks very similar in size to my 38 weeker. I can’t imagine the trauma to the baby, not to mention the poor mother who will live with this her whole life.
Well wasn’t it Joan who said she had no sympathy for these women because they “know the rules” or something to that effect?
Yes, it was.
Bob, if the death toll from abortion matched that of the Iraq war, we would all be patting ourselves on the back.
Suppose pro-lifers didn’t react properly to the war, and are generally terrible people overall. How does this validate your position?
“Bob, the Catholic Church has said babies who die from abortion go to Heaven.”
The Catholic Church does not say this. The CCC says that we may hope for teh salvation of those who die without the sacrament of baptism, but it certainly does not teach that babies who die from abortion go to heaven.
“If that is true, then why would prolifers oppose this?”
But sure, suppose it was true. The reason is the same reason that Catholics don’t baptize their children and then immediately execute them (thereby in Catholic theology guaranteeing that their newly baptized baby goes to heaven) The reason is because Catholics (and most other orthodox Christians) do not hold to a utilitarian ethic i.e. one that says that the ends justify the means, which is what indeed you are proposing.
Also, not all pro-lifers are Catholic (or even Christian).
… or even theists!
Plus none of the most sophisticated arguments in favor of the pro-life position appeal to any kind of bible, religious teaching, or dogma.
Why are we “feeding the trolls”? Where’s Praxades? ;)
Bob, if you CARED as much about children as you do your political views, you’d be on OUR side.
This is heartbreaking! I think most of my thoughts on that matter have already been vocalized by other comments. However, I did have some thoughts on the person bringing up the Iraq War.
First, I don’t know of any pro-life person who would ever consider an innocent life “collateral damage” no matter what stage of life that person is in (pre-born, infant, child, adult, or elderly). The difference between the innocent children killed in Iraq and the innocent children killed in abortion is that the children in Iraq were not purposely and deliberately sought out for the sole intention of killing them. Of course the children in Iraq were precious and of course their deaths were tragic, but I have never heard anyone saying otherwise or advocating trying to kill them on purpose. With regards to abortion, you are taking children who are every bit as precious and every bit as innocent and advocating killing them simply because they are “inconvenient” (whether that inconvenience is perceived by the mother, people in the mother’s life, or even by government officials). This killing of innocent children in abortion is not only legal but actually thought of as some sort of “good” or “right” that needs to be protected. That is what is so awful, and that is what the pro-life movement is fighting. In an abortion, a child is sought out for the express purpose of taking his or her life. In a war, no one is seeking to take the life of a child (at least that is not the policy of our country), and the killing of those children was never the purpose of that war.
In fighting the atrocity of abortion, no one is minimizing other innocent lives that are taken (whether that is in war or not). On the contrary, we are trying to prevent more innocent lives from being taken! It’s not as if you have to pick which life you are going to defend. The purpose of the movement is to protect innocent children who are in the most vulnerable stages of their lives. It’s not about condemning that child’s mother. it’s not about forgetting other innocent lives. It’s not about feeling superior to anyone else. It is completely about protecting an innocent life. Period.
I agree 100% with what Sydney said about every child that is lost to abortion is just as tragic as this one. She is right – that is what abortion looks like whether the mother “chose” it or not.
Now we should move on to the issue at hand and realize that when someone who is “pro-choice” brings up some other subject (such as the Iraq War when the article was about forced abortions in China) it means that they really have no good argument for their “cause” and they need to try to distract to keep people from realizing that they really don’t have a leg to stand on with their so-called arguments. They are desperate because they are losing – no one can logically defend something that is so clearly wrong.
Oops, I think I gave Sydney credit for Courtnay’s comment above. I agree with what Sydney said as well, but the comment I was trying to mention was Courtnay’s. Sorry about that.
I’m here. I’m trying my best to stick to my diet but it is so hard! I gave up Ex-GOP, what more do ya want, Pamela? (:
I will not take a bite and will back away from the trolls. . . .
On a serious note, I am so, so sorry for what women like Feng and Theresa have been through. ):
Throwing in an unrelated and unproven accusation is typical pro-abort behavior. I don’t know anybody who thinks children should die in war or that its ok in any way. Further, I find it hypocritical of abortion defenders to only care about bigger children. I guess you have a minimum weight and height limit to be on this ride called life, eh pro-choicers?
If we looked at such photographs and the captions read: “Chinese woman willingly aborts..” then the pro-abortionists would just move on, ho hum, just another day in the business.. Why is this child more tragic than the rest? It shouldn’t be. All abortion is equally outrageous and should stop, right now.
Bobby Bambino, so this report is not true?
http://www.lifenews.com/2007/04/20/int-257/
No, it is correct, I’m just not sure you either read it or are being careful about distinctions. Some quotes:
“”There are reasons to hope that God will save these infants precisely because it was not possible (to baptize them),” it said.
Rev. Luis Ladaria, a Jesuit who an officer of the commission, told the Associated Press, “We can say we have many reasons to hope that there is salvation for these babies.”
The Catholic Church does not have a formal teaching on the issue but most Catholics have long believed the church’s position is that babies who die before baptism die with original sin and therefore do not go to Heaven.
The title of the document is the “The Hope of Salvation for Infants Who Die Without Being Baptised.”
”
Again, notice that they are talking about HOPE, not theological certainty. Notice that even in the headline, it says “may” go to heaven. That was my whole point- that the Catholic Church does not teach that babies who are aborted go to heaven, but rather that we may hope for their salvation. The document that came out in 2007 had to do with the tradition of limbo and how theologically certain it is, but it by no means “abolished” limbo or anything of the sort. As far as I know, one is still free to hold a belief in the existence of limbo, hence, one is free to believe that babies who die without baptism do not go to heaven and still be a Catholic in good standing (though I personally reject limbo).
Horrible. Women’s bodies aren’t to be treated as property.
Pamela & Praxedes, I agree that we should not feed the “trolls” and maybe Bob is behaving like one.
However, my intention was to take him on face value and have him commit to do something for what he claims matters to him. Since he’s not answering how’s going to help stop the war on women and unborn children, I guess, I will answer the question.
Ttoday, I will print out this story complete with pictures and send it with a handwritten letter to my representative in DC and ask him to act more decisively in order to make sure the UNPFA doesn’t get 1 cent more.
I will also ask him to report back to me on what he did.
How about you Bob?
It said that Feng slit her wrists, but it doesn’t say if she succeeded in ending her own life. I sure hope not. Where there is Life, there is Hope.
“Horrible. Women’s bodies aren’t to be treated as property.”
Neither should their unborn children’s be, whether they are wanted or not.
According to guys like Bob, Man can create a Heaven On Earth – UTOPIA - himself. This is the point of socialism. So, religion, that says that only God can create heaven, whether on earth or elsewhere, must be stamped out, because it is antithetical to this belief in a UTOPIAN society. Socialism is an Atheistic system. One socialist goal is to destroy the moral values of our society. The plan has always been: encourage contraception, which has several negative consequences. 1. Leads to a breakdown of an orderly society 2. encourages promiscuity – sex before, during, and after marriage (divorce.) Which also leads to moral decay. 3. Leads to surprise and unwanted pregnancies – which soon leads to a cry for relief from those pregnancies through abortion. All these things for the purpose of destroying the moral values of the society. (This is directly from the communist/socialist playbook) So, when your support the Pro-choice side of the argument, you’re supporting the socialist/communist/atheist agenda. Is that really what you want?
Theresa says:
June 15, 2012 at 11:00 am
Hate to say it but we already do this..not by the government yet, but at 17 years old I was forced to abort by my parents and if you took a picture after my saline abortion it would have looked much like this…a teenager with her dead son in the bed next to her.
(Denise) How far along were you when aborted?
JDC, you beat me to it.
“JDC, you beat me to it. “
Great minds think alike. :)
ninek—“Further, I find it hypocritical of abortion defenders to only care about bigger children. I guess you have a minimum weight and height limit to be on this ride called life, eh pro-choicers?”
I recently read where a prominent “population control” official said that “children under the age of 2 were not productive members of society” in his effort to rationalize why we need less of them. (I tried and tried to find his name before posting this, but just couldn’t…sorry.) So maybe this is why pro-choicers seem to not care about the babies…they don’t “contribute” enough to society.
How did the baby get placed in the bed with Feng?
Where did the picture of the baby on the garbage bag come from?
“Horrible. Women’s bodies aren’t to be treated as property.”
Nevermind the babies body….. Slaughter it all you want.
Catholics have alot of rules and beliefs written down on paper, but if they don’t teach or enforce these these rules or beliefs it doesn’t mean a damn thing.
Jasper says:
June 15, 2012 at 6:46 pm
“Horrible. Women’s bodies aren’t to be treated as property.”
Nevermind the babies body….. Slaughter it all you want.
(Denise) You have to acknowledge that there is a knot or crunch here. One body is inside another body, depending on it completely for nourishment. There really is nothing else in nature analogous to the special circumstances of pregnancy. In order for the unborn to live, they have to grow inside the girl or woman’s body, causing it to get bigger and bigger and causing many other changes that are often uncomfortable and may be extremely painful.
Yes, pregnancy can be a wonderful experience and many yearn for pregnancy. However, a girl or woman who has just been raped is unlikely to look forward to the idea of her belly expanding and people shouting, “Congratulations!” as her body grows with the results of the attack.
Of course, 1% of abortions are of rape conceptions. But the point is important that pregnancy can be extremely demanding.
Conceding this doesn’t mean abortion must be legal. We demand of young men that they endure the ordeals of combat in order to protect our society. It is arguable that we can demand of women that they carry pregnancies to term and give birth because the right to live supercedes the right to avoid an ordeal, however horrible.
After all, people survive all sorts of ordeals. The embryo or fetus is killed when extracted so its need to impose on the pregnant girl or woman may entitle the unborn to special privileges.
how can you look at these photos and continue to defend abortion?
Jamie Garcia says:
June 15, 2012 at 7:42 pm
how can you look at these photos and continue to defend abortion?
(Denise) Is this directed at me? I don’t defend abortion. I point out the inevitable complexities of this issue.
This photographs are blood curdling and heartbreaking.
When I saw that photo of Feng Jianmei and her murdered child I thought of ‘the obamateur’ and his not wanting his daughters to be ‘punished with a baby’.
I can only speculate why the corpse of the murdered baby ended up in the same bed with Jianmei, but it is most likely the bureaucrats intended this ‘mother and child reunion’ as means of punishing Jianmei for having the audacity to violate their one child policy.
Maybe that’s where Feng actually gave birth and some brave soul with a cell phone captured the brutality in the hope that the graphic images would shame the Chi-Coms.
The brutality has sickened and shamed me.
Jenna, that would be Peter Singer (Sanger? Can’t remember the spelling. He is the foremost pro-infanticide ‘ethicist’ in the world and just won some big award out in Australia. He advocates for parent or doctor choice infanticide for any reason until age 2 when non-person humans become ‘persons’ by means of reaching the developmental milestone of self-awareness)
Another difference between children who die in war and those that die in abortion: since before the Revolutionary War America (and most of our allies) have done everything possible to limit non-combatant deaths, including giving citizens advanced warnings of attacks and bombings (as in both World Wars), and harshly prosecuting soldiers who not only intentionally killed noncombatants but even those whose actions neglegently caused unnecessary deaths. If absolutely everything is not done to avoid noncombatant deaths the soldiers are held responsible. But, as someone else already said, in abortion the ‘noncombatants’ are intentionally hunted down and destroyed. That hasn’t been ‘standard’ war practice for most of the world’s governments since before the Industrial Revolution. (Not that some places don’t still practice that like in Africa or South America, but that most of the countries fielding armies today do not and have not for sometime.)
… until age 2 when non-person humans become ‘persons’ by means of reaching the developmental milestone of self-awareness
Peter Singer is such an incredibly insightful man. My children at age 1 year and 364 days were as self aware as a rock. It was most amazing on their second birthday when, *shazam*, they knew who they were and began to speak as intelligently as a Princeton bioethicist.
Sorry kids, that was a rather low blow.
Eric, :) yeah, always figured if he was going to be assine about it he should really include the standard continuim (18-36 months) and maybe propose the scientific standard ‘mirror’ test to determine when a baby becomes a self-aware ‘person’ as opposed to just pulling the average 2 years out of the hat. I mean, if it’s ok to kill a 20 month old because they are not yet ‘self-aware’, shouldn’t the ‘people’ involved at least have to check to make sure *this* human isn’t an early bloomer and isn’t already a self-aware person? My son, while ahead of the curve in language and creative milestones wouldn’t have passed a self-aware mirror test until he was about 26 months, my daughter, on the other hand, is at the lower end of normal for language but was self-aware by 20 months.
(If you didn’t get my mirror test reference, the standard test to see if a person or animal shows self-awarenes, that is the awareness that they themselves are unique individuals, is to show them their likeness in a mirror then put some mark on their body or face. If they react to seeing the marking in the mirror by touching it on themselves they are considered self aware [other than humans only 2 or 3 animals will do this, dolphins and chimps, can’t remember if a 3rd was recently added or not], if they try to interact with the new marking in the mirror [as a young babe and most animals will] they are not considered self-aware.)
@Booby Bambino….
I would have to disagree with. Blessed John Paul II in his encyclical (which, correct me if I am wrong, is the official teaching of the church) “The Gospel of Life” wrote the following:
I would now like to say a special word to women who have had an abortion. The Church is aware of the many factors which may have influenced your decision, and she does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even shattering decision. The wound in your heart may not yet have healed. Certainly what happened was and remains terribly wrong. But do not give in to discouragement and do not lose hope. Try rather to understand what happened and face it honestly. If you have not already done so, give yourselves over with humility and trust to repentance. The Father of mercies is ready to give you his forgiveness and his peace in the Sacrament of Reconciliation. To the same Father and his mercy you can with sure hope entrust your child. (Evangelium Vitea, 99) (my emphasis added in bold).
So what did he mean when he said “To the same Father and his mercy you can with SURE HOPE entrust your child”???? Certainly not “you know we (we as in Catholic Church) don’t think you child is with God, since it was not baptized and therefore we can’t be sure”!!!!
Every aborted child is embraced by the Heavenly Father. It is my SURE HOPE…. and I pray it will be yours as well.
Just my two cents….
A Priest,
Notice the word HOPE. Bobby is correct on the Church’s teaching and so was JP2. Wheres the beef?
If I saw ANYBODY do this to a woman and her baby I would feel compelled to kill them.
There is a priest I know personally (he was a good friend of my father’s for years) and I had made arrangements for him to baptize my child. Unfortunately he became bed-ridden and needed back surgery. I told him I wanted to wait till he recovered and have him perform the baptism. He said no way; you get that child baptized! IMO he was a righteous man. Just my 2 bits……..
“Horrible. Women’s bodies aren’t to be treated as property.”
So glad that with the plural usage of women, Megan appears to be recognizing that the little woman pictured dead in fact deserved to be born, and that she shouldn’t have been treated as property either.
Wow- everyone should have the right to live. Now that’s progressive!!
@truthseeker
Notice the words “SURE Hope”
In the bible Hope is not “a wishful thinking” it is indeed a “strong and confident expectation” that is rooted in our faith. It is not a rooted on a 50/50 chance or a lottery ticket.
Bobby Bambino’s interpretation of Hope is not correct and a bit confused. Hope for those who believe IS “theological certainty” as he puts it…
The document that he quoted specifically talking about aborted children mentioned that church ”as mother and teacher, she cannot fail to reflect on the destiny of all human beings, created in the image of God, and especially of the weakest.”
So ask both you and Bobby Bambino what is that destiny if not being with God forever?
@ both truthseeker and Bobby Bambino
Here is rather lengthy article from Catholic Encyclopedia on Hope…. Notice it has reference that hope is a virtue and in a way is inseparable from faith and charity…
Do you think it is a “charity” to put a doubt in a woman’s mind about the destiny of her aborted child???
Anyway if you have a few minutes I would highly recommend you the following article:
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07465b.htm
Hi a priest.
First of all, you must understand that I was addressing a troll. There was certainly no attempt to expound upon the theological virtue of hope or give any kind theologically sophisticated reasoning. I simply wanted to point out that it is not a dogmatic teaching of the Church that infants who die without baptism go to heaven, which I still maintain.
“So what did he mean when he said “To the same Father and his mercy you can with SURE HOPE entrust your child”????”
I think he meant that it is a sure thing to hope that your child is in heaven, not that it is surely the case that your child is in heaven.
“Every aborted child is embraced by the Heavenly Father. It is my SURE HOPE…. and I pray it will be yours as well.”
As i mentioned above, Father, it is my sure hope that those who die without baptism go to heaven. I pray often that every. single. aborted baby and baby who dies without baptism will go to heaven. I don’t deny a 100% guarantee of salvation for the unbaptized because I “like” it or am excited at the prospect of them going to limbo. Rather, I hold to the theological virtue of hope that they will be saved because I believe that is what the Church allows. I have in mind Paragraph 1261 of the CCC
1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,” allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
If we can only entrust them to the mercy of God, it is difficult to see how this translates into absolute certainty (perhaps my choice of the term “theological certainty” was confusing because I meant something different than how you would understand it. See below). Again, I trust them to the mercy of God under theological virtue of hope that they will be saved, just like I trust with the theological virtue of hope that my grandparents and friends who have died presumably in God’s friendship will be saved. But I cannot presume.
“So ask both you and Bobby Bambino what is that destiny if not being with God forever?”
It very well could be limbo, which as you know is part of hell where those who go there will be eternally happy in a sort of “natural” way, but deprived of the beatific vision.
“the souls of those who depart in actual mortal sin or in original sin only, descend immediately into hell but to undergo punishments of different kinds.” (Denzinger 693)
“If anyone shall say that baptism is optional, that is, not necessary for salvation: let him be anathema.” (Denzinger 861)
“Since infant children have no other means of salvation except Baptism, we may easily understand how griveously those persons sin who permit them to remain without the grace of the Sacrament longer than necessity may require….” Catechism of Council of Trent
Again, I don’t hold that limbo exists, and I do believe the above quotes can be understood in a way that squares with the idea that all unborn baptized are saved. But given these quotes and others, I simply do not see how one possible interpretation of one sentence in JPII somehow makes limbo a theological impossibility and hence an absolute certainty that those who die without baptism are saved.
“Hope for those who believe IS “theological certainty” as he puts it…”
Father, the newdavent article on hope distinguishes between 3 kinds of certainty. Again, because I was talking to a troll, I meant “theological certainty” in sense 3 of the definitions on newadvent (the one I assumed he would understand it as) as meaning “a thing is certain absolutely, ie., not conditionally upon the verification of some other thing, but quite independently of any such event.” This is not the kind of certainty we may hope for in the theological virtue of hope, and that was my point.
So given the CCC, the tradition of the Church, and the non-definitional language of the ITC’s document, I cannot see the idea that “infants who die without baptism go to heaven” being on a theological par with other dogmatic definitions. Again, it doesn’t mean I reject it or even would encourage others not to hold to it (quite the contrary actually) but simply that I would not condemn anyone who held to the idea of limbo. God love you.
Isn’t it possible that Feng WANTED her baby next to her so she could say good-bye and grieve over the child whose life was so brutally ended?
In fact, I am thinking about this more, Father, and I see another reason why it can’t be the case that salvation of the unbaptized is a dogmatic teaching of the Church, thereby making Limbo a theological impossibility. As you know, there are 3 kinds of baptism: water, blood, and desire. Their necessity for salvation is without question, as Ott explains:
“Baptism by water is, since the promulgation of the Gospel, necessary for all men without exception, for salvation.” Ott, p. 356
Ott lists this as De Fide. On the same page, he also says
“In case of emergency baptism by water can be replaced by Baptism of desire of Baptism of blood.”
The Church only recognizes Baptism of blood, water, and desire as means of baptism. Water is ORDINARY and blood or desire is EXTRAORDINARY. Any other means of salvation is know to God and God alone. It may be possible that infants who die without baptism fall under baptism of desire, but that is far from obvious. Or there may be another way known to God alone as to how they are saved, since God is not bound by the sacraments. But the point is that given all this, it simply can’t be a dogmatic teaching of the Church that every single infant who dies without baptism is saved through some means known to God alone given all the uncertainty of how they would be saved since it is not through water or blood baptism, it MIGHT be desire, or it might be some way known to God alone.
Here is rather lengthy article from Catholic Encyclopedia on Hope…. Notice it has reference that hope is a virtue and in a way is inseparable from faith and charity…
The Catholic Encyclopedia….. I look to the Catechism for authentic teaching as passed on by over two thousand church leaders. I don’t usually look to encyclopedias for authentic church teaching. Is everything in their Imprimatur?
Do you think it is a “charity” to put a doubt in a woman’s mind about the destiny of her aborted child???
No I don’t. But I also don’t see a need for you to misrepresent the teaching of the Catholic church in order to be “charitable. Here is the clear teaching from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
”1283 With respect to children who have died without Baptism, the liturgy of the Church invites us to trust in God’s mercy and to pray for their salvation. ”
“ 1261 As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: “Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,”64 allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.
This is why my good friend and priest told me not to wait till he had recovered from surgery to have him baptise my child. His instruction was based on authentic church teaching. There are a couple more references from the CCC about the necessity of baptism:
In summary (my two cents) is that the church teaches us that the Holy Spirit is present at the conception and as such ALL babies are children of God. I would also say that it is the faith and hope of the Catholic Church to stand in unity with every post-abortive mother who desires to be united with their aborted child in heaven. As a community our intention is to will to do implicitly for this child what the Church does explicitly when she baptizes.
To be fair, Truthseeker, I think the Catholic Encyclopedia is valid source for Catholics to share with each other. It is a good authoritative source though indeed, I would think below that of the CCC and many other Church documents. But even then, I don’t think anything in the Catholic Encyclopedia contradicts what we were saying; rather, it helped to clarify the different levels of certainty, especially given the fact that I was using Catholic language with a non-Catholic but in a non-Catholic way (which I admit was confusing).
I SURE HOPE that the mispelling of Bobby’s name by A Priest was accidental but there is no way I can know this for sure. . . .
I SURE HOPE that A Priest will return here to let me know but again there is no way I can guarantee this for sure. . . .
I agree Bobby that it is likely chock full of good information but I would hesitate to look to an encyclopedia as any kind of authoritative source.
Praxedes, I put it in context and I support what I believe was ‘A Priest’s” goal.. he saw Bobby’s comment as insensitive to post-abortive women and it lead him to defense….IMO understandable and with good intentions…but it could have been done without misinterpretation of the catechism or insult to Bobby.
The holocaust must stop. The people in China must be in revolt but what can we do. It disgusts me when the topic comes up and people like Ex-RINO or Joe Biden look at it as “interesting” and analyze from economic issues and how it relates to their ability to get their own government subsidized health care. I could vomit just thinking about it. A US president who would unabashedly denounce this for the holocaust it is would make a HUGE difference to the entire world.
Beautifully said above by Priest, Father. I once heard Mother Angelica talk about abortion and that she believes God in His Mercy has His hand in it and the baby is baptized in his/her blood.
Oh, and yay Jill, you reached the over 5.000 mark on facebook likes!!!
Doe says:
June 16, 2012 at 6:48 pm
Beautifully said above by Priest, Father. I once heard Mother Angelica talk about abortion and that she believes God in His Mercy has His hand in it and the baby is baptized in his/her blood.
(Denise) Did you know Mother Angelica goes to confession ONCE A WEEK? People would wonder what she has to confess. She said, “We need confession for our venial sins. It doesn’t have to be a biggie.”
An elderly lady at my church said of regular confession: “Once you get past the shoplifting and the cheating, you get down to the really deep character flaws..”
This never ceases to amaze me – The very same people who rally against abortion are also the ones who rally against universal health care for all, and welfare for poor/indigent mothers. I guess children’s lives only matter in the womb?
That said, I will log off and cry for a while for this poor sweet baby and mother.
Confused – I think the word you want is “rail”, not rally. And you’ve got this very wrong. We don’t rail against abortion and poor women, and universal health care. We’re against having the government take care of us from cradle to grave. We want to take care of ourselves. We don’t mind giving to help the poor, but not to the government to help the poor. That is not the job of the government. Having the government do it, will ultimately make us all slaves to the government. Universal health care is a concept of Socialism. Our country was not founded on those principles. No, all these things matter to us, but so do the lives of innocent, unborn children. They matter for more reasons than you can even understand.
EdK
Confused, the confusion lies in what will help poor/indigent women and children. You, apparently, and socialist liberals think big government taking from some of the populous to give to those it thinks needs help will help more than it harms, advancing the greater good and is therefore worthwhile and worthy. Constitutionalists, conservative republicans, and free market capitalists think big government regulating charity by taking from those it thinks should give and giving to those it thinks needs help does far more harm then good, stiffling the greater good and therefore is worthless and harmful. We want to help the poor just as much as the most “bleeding heart liberal”, socialist, marxist, et all. We want poor children to have food and clothes and education, indigent mothers to find housing they can afford and a safety net to raise their childre. We want humanity to reach out and help their fellow man. We also see the historical reality that socialistic governments do a *really* bad job at obtaining those things while people, when left to themselves, do a really *good* job at this. The irony is that, while most conservative realize liberals pursue socialistic agendas out of a (misguided but) sincere attempt to help, the average liberal denigrates conservatives, who are pursuing free market agendas out of the exact same sincere attempt to help, as heartless creatures who care nothing for their fellow man.
@Denise, I haven’t been on in a couple of days. I didn’t know Mother Angelica went to weekly confession, but I’m not surprised. I think John Paul 2 did, as well. Ihope I got that information correct. I watched the Mother Angelica episode a long time ago and she was discussing abortion. I’m no theologian, but the baptism of blood seems to make sense. All we can do is hope. :)
@Mike, you asked how they could have “prevented” this… They needed to come up with more than $6,000. Even if they didn’t fill up the required paperwork or pay the fee, that does not justify murder.
Jespren: It was Peter Singer, holding the DeCAmp Chair of Bioethics at Princeton University who initially advocated that children ought to be put to death up until the age of six years if their parents decided that they did not want them. That Australia gave him an award is frightening because Singer was exported from Australia, Germany refused him entrance and he is here now. He called it “after birth abortion” and it now is acceptable. Peter Singer is an atheist who repudiates our unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. If the soul of the aborted person does not gain entrance to heaven because it was scandaliized by the abortion, then it is perfectly Just that the soul return to give his abortionist HELL. 54 million and counting