11 Year Old Girl Is Pregnant, Sparks Abortion Debate

[AVG-JOE]

Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
Why is abortion the first avenue here?

Abortion should be a necessity, not an ambivalent choice of convenience.

If this family doesn't qualify for "agonizing over the decision..." nobody should.

Does anyone know what the kid and/or her mother want?

 

[ABikerSailor]

So, you would have rather been aborted?

Never said I would have wanted to be aborted. Matter of fact, I was a child that was wanted by both my parents, and probably would have had a very nice childhood had I not been orphaned at the age of 8.

My Grandparents wanted me, and after I went through foster care and decided that I didn't want to live with people other than my family, they took me in for the last year of high school.

I just said that I know what it's like to be resented and not wanted in a family because you were the "extra".

However................like I said..................knowing what it's like to be resented by a family because you weren't born into it, I can only wonder how much worse it must be to remind your parent that you weren't wanted, weren't planned for, and came as a result of being the fruit of a very violent act.

Foster care was bad enough..................I can't imagine what it would be like to be a child of rape.

First of all, you don't know that this child would not be wanted. Second, you would choose life for yourself but death for somebody else. How compassionate of you.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Never said that the child would not be wanted, I just said I wondered how much worse it could be for a child born out of rape.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 

[Esmeralda]

Never said I would have wanted to be aborted. Matter of fact, I was a child that was wanted by both my parents, and probably would have had a very nice childhood had I not been orphaned at the age of 8.

My Grandparents wanted me, and after I went through foster care and decided that I didn't want to live with people other than my family, they took me in for the last year of high school.

I just said that I know what it's like to be resented and not wanted in a family because you were the "extra".

However................like I said..................knowing what it's like to be resented by a family because you weren't born into it, I can only wonder how much worse it must be to remind your parent that you weren't wanted, weren't planned for, and came as a result of being the fruit of a very violent act.

Foster care was bad enough..................I can't imagine what it would be like to be a child of rape.

First of all, you don't know that this child would not be wanted. Second, you would choose life for yourself but death for somebody else. How compassionate of you.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX


Never said that the child would not be wanted, I just said I wondered how much worse it could be for a child born out of rape.
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
.

It is also very possible the child would be born with mental retardation or severe physical handicaps. No one seems to be considering that. An 11 year old's body is not equiped to deal well with a full term pregnancy. No one wins if this fetus is carried to term.

 

[FA_Q2]

But it is a personal matter. That is why pro-choice leaves it up to the mother. Those that are anti-abortion for any reason (these bills being presented and passed in some states do not even make exceptions for rape or incest) believe that life begins at conception, and therefore a zygote should be considered a person, while many believe that at conception the zygote is just a group of cells with the potential to become a person. The Constitution agrees with the latter at this point.

There is no reason for an exception to rape or incest. Abortion should only be prevented when it passes a certain point in the pregnancy, as per the constitution and Roe, and before that point it is perfectly legal.

So, if a woman's doctor doesn't find out that the woman's life is at risk until after the designated time, then it is too bad for her? She'll just have to die is she has to? That is ridiculous. Sometimes things go wrong after the 20 weeks (even the 24 weeks allowed by Roe v Wade) - and the woman shouldn't be punished for not knowing prior to that time.

Why don’t you bother to read the posts that I have already made on this thread.

ALL abortion law MUST (and rightfully so) include provisions for the health of the mother (and I believe the fetus as well) or it is unconstitutional. I have already said that in this thread. YOU EVEN QUOTED IT. Rally mertex, are you even trying?

You are naive to the bills that are being pushed. If exceptions to rape/incest are not part of the bill, then late term abortions for these situations will not be allowed. If a child of incest gets pregnant, she may not even know she is pregnant, or if she does know, may not tell anyone that she is pregnant, and if her life is at risk, it doesn't matter at what point it is found out, she should be allowed to abort. Her life is certainly more important than the fetuses life.


TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - Kansas House members on Tuesday gave first-round approval to sweeping new restrictions on abortion after refusing to add exceptions that would allow victims of incest or rape -- including children who are raped -- to get late-term abortions.
Read more: Kan. House rejects rape, incest exceptions for abortion

The only abortions that must be allowed after that point is when the life of the mother is at risk or there are other significant problems with the pregnancy.

You are not paying attention to what I am saying. Some of the bills being passed by some of the states do not make exceptions for the life of the woman being at risk. (See link ab ove). In other words, it won't matter if her life is at risk, if it is past the 20 weeks nobody will be allowed to abort. That is what is a problem that I object to.

And I never challenged that point. I agree fully with the inane laws that have not bothered to follow the constitution (and said as much here) BUT I do challenge the idea that laws need to have exceptions outside of that because abortion is STILL on the table for those people under those circumstances already. You DIRECTLY pointed out not making exceptions for rape and incest. That is the part that is pointless, they ALREADY have that option. Exceptions for the life of the mother and fetus OTOH MUST be included because such a complication can occur even during delivery and might require an abortion even then to save the mother’s life. Rape though, does not happen at 30 weeks. You don’t wake up 8 months later and say, oh shit, that was actually a rape and NOW I don’t want the child. You don’t find out 8 months later that it was not your boyfriend that you were having sex with, it was actually your father.

These do not need exceptions as long as you have the option to abort within a reasonable amount of time. As that is not only current law but it is also constitutionally protected, we do not need those exceptions that you SPECIFICALLY pointed out. Those laws that are not following the constitution by making abortions hard to get, limiting them even in the case of danger to life and overly restricting the time that a mother has to get the abortion can, should and WILL be thrown out as they should be.

Again, that is a constitutional requirement so if there are state laws that block either of these situations they will vanish in the court system as they rule them unconstitutional.

I think most of these bills will be ruled Unconstitutional to begin with, so these states are just wasting taxpayer time and money, but heaven help us if the SCOTUS decides to make it part of Roe v Wade - then it will be a real problem.


Arizona's restrictive 20-week abortion law overturned as unconstitutional | God Discussion

Yes, the states are if they are not bothering to address the rather obvious requirements in Roe. I do not support such asshattery. The legislators that pass laws that are CLEARLY unconstitutional should be fired. That has nothing to do with my statements though. It would have some barring on the OP as abortions there are banned BUT I was clear as to why such matters are irrelevant in our own system as abortion is NOT banned. Rape and incestuous pregnancies are offered the option of abortion. That is a simple fact.

 

[Uncensored2008]

If this family doesn't qualify for "agonizing over the decision..." nobody should.

Does anyone know what the kid and/or her mother want?

Nope, we only know what Planned Parenthood wants.

Which is to expand their market.

A non-stop media blitz by abortion promoters.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
Why is abortion the first avenue here?

Abortion should be a necessity, not an ambivalent choice of convenience.

If this family doesn't qualify for "agonizing over the decision..." nobody should.

Does anyone know what the kid and/or her mother want?

Very True!

I believe that a fetus is a human being who is entitled to protection under our legal system. I think Roe v Wade got it wrong. But it is the law of our land.

But I also believe that if it is legal to kill someone who is threatening your own life - this principle applies in this case. I personally have a tough time telling a woman that she has no choice but to risk her own life, or that she must carry a baby conceived by rape to term.

So in this particular case - their are two reasons I could reluctantly accept an abortion. But it's not my call. And apparently, in this country it isn't the mother's, the mother's parents' or their doctors' call either. I respect the right of other countries to determine their own laws. I only have a say in trying to correct ours.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Yes, the states are if they are not bothering to address the rather obvious requirements in Roe. I do not support such asshattery. The legislators that pass laws that are CLEARLY unconstitutional should be fired.

But doing this is the only avenue available to challenge Roe v Wade and give the court the opportunity to change their previous ruling.

Isn't it?

 

[Mertex]

There is no reason for an exception to rape or incest. Abortion should only be prevented when it passes a certain point in the pregnancy, as per the constitution and Roe, and before that point it is perfectly legal.

So, if a woman's doctor doesn't find out that the woman's life is at risk until after the designated time, then it is too bad for her? She'll just have to die is she has to? That is ridiculous. Sometimes things go wrong after the 20 weeks (even the 24 weeks allowed by Roe v Wade) - and the woman shouldn't be punished for not knowing prior to that time.

Why don’t you bother to read the posts that I have already made on this thread.

ALL abortion law MUST (and rightfully so) include provisions for the health of the mother (and I believe the fetus as well) or it is unconstitutional. I have already said that in this thread. YOU EVEN QUOTED IT. Rally mertex, are you even trying?

The health of the mother/fetus provision that you mention is loosely defined in Roe v Wade.

Since a state's requirement per Roe v Wade is only "protecting pre-natal life and protecting woman's health, all it takes is for a state to redefine these conditions, then they can work around them. We have already witnessed their attempt at redefining rape, and considering that so many feel that only at the point of death should a woman be allowed an abortion under the "risk to mother's life provision", that really restricts abortion beyond what Roe v Wade intended. It wouldn't allow for a woman to decide well in advance to have an abortion because her doctor has told her that her life is at risk, she must wait until she reaches that "at risk" point, which in some cases may be too late. And adopting a new law that excludes these two situations, could give the states the right to deny women in those conditions the right to an abortion, up and to the point where the law is challenged and taken out and could impact many women in the meantime.

The only abortions that must be allowed after that point is when the life of the mother is at risk or there are other significant problems with the pregnancy. Again, that is a constitutional requirement so if there are state laws that block either of these situations they will vanish in the court system as they rule them unconstitutional.
http://www.usmessageboard.com/7549598-post239.html

Do you have a link to support your stance, because "protecting pre-natal life" and "protecting women's health" can be redefined to mean something other than what we now have. What is the Constitutional requirement that you are using over these situations?

And I never challenged that point. I agree fully with the inane laws that have not bothered to follow the constitution (and said as much here) BUT I do challenge the idea that laws need to have exceptions outside of that because abortion is STILL on the table for those people under those circumstances already. You DIRECTLY pointed out not making exceptions for rape and incest. That is the part that is pointless, they ALREADY have that option.

Again, can you provide a link to back that up, because "protecting pre-natal life" does not say in any way that it makes rape an exception, and "protecting women's health" is not clearly defined.

Exceptions for the life of the mother and fetus OTOH MUST be included because such a complication can occur even during delivery and might require an abortion even then to save the mother’s life.

Partial birth abortions have been banned in some states and others are not enforcing them, and there have been proponents that believe that a child, no matter how deformed or what kind of health problems it will face for life, deserves to live, which may negate the mother's right to an abortion at the time of delivery. So, nothing is set in concrete as you think it is.

Rape though, does not happen at 30 weeks. You don’t wake up 8 months later and say, oh shit, that was actually a rape and NOW I don’t want the child. You don’t find out 8 months later that it was not your boyfriend that you were having sex with, it was actually your father.

I guess you missed where I said a young 11/12 year old girl that becomes pregnant through incest may not even know that she is pregnant, and if she does may try to hide it. Yet if it poses a risk to her life, what difference does it make at what stage she is in, why should her life be placed at risk just because she didn't tell in time to meet some ignorant legislator's time limit.

These do not need exceptions as long as you have the option to abort within a reasonable amount of time. As that is not only current law but it is also constitutionally protected, we do not need those exceptions that you SPECIFICALLY pointed out.

We wouldn't need them if we didn't have crazy legislators out there trying to find ways to work around them. Claiming that the body rejects rape sperm automatically, or that God intended the child of rape to be conceived are just a few of the reasons why we have to make sure that it is always an option. When it is left out, you really have no guarantee.

Those laws that are not following the constitution by making abortions hard to get, limiting them even in the case of danger to life and overly restricting the time that a mother has to get the abortion can, should and WILL be thrown out as they should be.

Are you able to guarantee that they will be thrown out in time to not affect any woman?

Yes, the states are if they are not bothering to address the rather obvious requirements in Roe. I do not support such asshattery. The legislators that pass laws that are CLEARLY unconstitutional should be fired. That has nothing to do with my statements though. It would have some barring on the OP as abortions there are banned BUT I was clear as to why such matters are irrelevant in our own system as abortion is NOT banned. Rape and incestuous pregnancies are offered the option of abortion. That is a simple fact.

Yes, it is so easy to fire legislators that are passing these laws, especially when a majority of people in their state are voting them into office.

You may claim they are irrelevant, but unless you can guarantee that these laws will be thrown out before any woman is hurt by them, then they need to at least include them, that's all I'm saying.

 

[snowdenisahero]

A person must have autonomy over their OWN body. Government has no place in a girls body, period.

 

[S.J.]

A person must have autonomy over their OWN body. Government has no place in a girls body, period.

Wrong. The fetus is an individual, not a tumor.

 

[Mr. H.]

I'd look forward to being this kid's grandparent.

Beats the shit out of sucking fetal material from the vaginal cavity.

Kids.. ya love 'em or ya kill 'em.

 

[Noomi]

A person must have autonomy over their OWN body. Government has no place in a girls body, period.

Wrong. The fetus is an individual, not a tumor.

It is not separate from the woman's body, and not an individual until its attachment has been severed.

 

[S.J.]

A person must have autonomy over their OWN body. Government has no place in a girls body, period.

Wrong. The fetus is an individual, not a tumor.

It is not separate from the woman's body, and not an individual until its attachment has been severed.

Bullshit, you're trying to justify murder for the sake of some twisted sense of power you feel you're entitled to because you're a woman and have no physical power over men.

 

[Noomi]

Wrong. The fetus is an individual, not a tumor.

It is not separate from the woman's body, and not an individual until its attachment has been severed.

Bullshit, you're trying to justify murder for the sake of some twisted sense of power you feel you're entitled to because you're a woman and have no physical power over men.

Are you really trying to justify forcing an 11 year old rape victim to bear a child?

I think it is women who have the power over men - the power to abort a fetus the man helped to create. Men hate that, which is why Republican men love making anti abortion laws.

 

[S.J.]

It is not separate from the woman's body, and not an individual until its attachment has been severed.

Bullshit, you're trying to justify murder for the sake of some twisted sense of power you feel you're entitled to because you're a woman and have no physical power over men.

Are you really trying to justify forcing an 11 year old rape victim to bear a child?

I think it is women who have the power over men - the power to abort a fetus the man helped to create. Men hate that, which is why Republican men love making anti abortion laws.

Thank you. You just confirmed everything I just said.

 

[Noomi]

You said that women have no physical power over men. How can you agree with that?

 

[S.J.]

You said that women have no physical power over men. How can you agree with that?

You just confirmed that your only power over men is to kill their babies.

 

[Noomi]

You said that women have no physical power over men. How can you agree with that?

You just confirmed that your only power over men is to kill their babies.

They are not babies.

 

[S.J.]

You said that women have no physical power over men. How can you agree with that?

You just confirmed that your only power over men is to kill their babies.

They are not babies.

What are they then, puppies?

fetus noun (Concise Encyclopedia)
Unborn young of any vertebrate, particularly mammals, after it has acquired its basic form. In humans, this stage begins about eight weeks after conception (see embryo). The fetal stage, marked by increased growth and full development of the organ systems, climaxes in birth (see pregnancy, parturition). By the end of the third month, the arms and legs of the human fetus begin to move and reflexive movements (such as sucking) begin. Four months after conception, the fetus is about 5.3 in. (135 mm) long and weighs about 6 oz (170 g). During the fifth month, downy hairs (lanugo) cover the body and the skin becomes less transparent. At seven months, a protective greasy substance (vernix caseosa) covers the reddish, wrinkled skin. Fat is deposited under the skin during the eighth month, when the fetus typically weighs about 5 lbs (2.2 kg). A full-term fetus is about 266 days old.

 

[ABikerSailor]

Wrong. The fetus is an individual, not a tumor.

It is not separate from the woman's body, and not an individual until its attachment has been severed.

Bullshit, you're trying to justify murder for the sake of some twisted sense of power you feel you're entitled to because you're a woman and have no physical power over men.

Actually.............women DO have a lot of power over men. Ever heard of Helen of Troy? She started a war just because of how she looked. There are many stories since then of where women have had power over men.

I just find it interesting that when it becomes very hard for women to choose their fate as far as having children, it's decided by a council of men.

News flash.....................there hasn't been a single woman on an anti-abortion measure in Congress since they started introducing them

Yeah...........Sandra Fluke was a witness, but she didn't have a vote.

Sorry...............but the anti-abortion crowd is a bunch of mindless men who think they know what happens to women.

They don't.