11 Year Old Girl Is Pregnant, Sparks Abortion Debate

[Mr. H.]

It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.

For what reason?

Is this mother's life in eminent danger?

Here's what we do know- she's 11 and pregnant.

Anything else?

This reasonable person on the pro-life side would smother the kid with love, support, and encouragement.

And pre-natal vitamins.

Geez F Christ talk about sinking a seaworthy ship.

 

[Amelia]

It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.

There appear to be multiple people on this forum, including the generally reasonable Mr. H, who would deny the little girl an abortion.

 

[Mr. H.]

It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.

There appear to be multiple people on this forum, including the generally reasonable Mr. H, who would deny the little girl an abortion.

Is it not I who denies, it is you who advocates.

Like I said, you're determined to sink a perfectly seaworthy ship. You are so aggressively steeped in the concept of "choice" that you have forgotten that choice has two outcomes.

You have pre-condemned the pre-born in this instance.

And all I ask is "why".

Why not carry the child to post-mature un-Gosnell spine snipping murder?

And exactly what is the difference between "slicing" via cesarean in order to render a live birth, and "dicing" into the vaginal cavity and sucking out the remnants of a pre-born human being?

Oh yeah... "choice". But your concept of choice has only one outcome doesn't it?

 

[whitehall]

The abortion debate will never end. Even before the Roe/Wade decision nobody would have known it first of all and nobody would have had a problem with this little girl having an abortion. The post is an attempt to fuel the flames and try to make a legal case where there is none.

 

[Vandalshandle]

It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.

one would think so, wouldn't one, whithall?


one would be wrong. This seems to be the proper area of middle aged white men who live in a rich country and who see themselves as being best qualified to make moral judgements on what a abused and raped little girl in an impoverished country should do. the fact that they have absolutely nothing personllly to lose does not defer their judgement of what is the moral thing for such a little girl should do. a 12 year old girl raising a baby, with no education, skills, prospects for a better life is not their problem. such little girl should have thought about that before getting herself raped.

 

[Mr. H.]

It's only a motion away...

or is it?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIZwHUC_sgc]Paul Simon Track 1 - Mother & Child Reunion - YouTube[/ame]

 

[007]

Cut the father's ball sack off, and wait until the girl, if ever, is in grave physical danger. Otherwise carry the baby to term or until it can safely be delivered cesarean.

Anything else?

 

[Mr. H.]

Anything else?

Well as long as you're asking, you got any weed?

 

[007]

Anything else?

Well as long as you're asking, you got any weed?

Sorry pard, I don't smoke anything.

Got some good pills though...

 

[Amelia]

It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.

There appear to be multiple people on this forum, including the generally reasonable Mr. H, who would deny the little girl an abortion.

Is it not I who denies, it is you who advocates.

Like I said, you're determined to sink a perfectly seaworthy ship. You are so aggressively steeped in the concept of "choice" that you have forgotten that choice has two outcomes.

You have pre-condemned the pre-born in this instance.

And all I ask is "why".

Why not carry the child to post-mature un-Gosnell spine snipping murder?

And exactly what is the difference between "slicing" via cesarean in order to render a live birth, and "dicing" into the vaginal cavity and sucking out the remnants of a pre-born human being?

Oh yeah... "choice". But your concept of choice has only one outcome doesn't it?

Slicing via cesarean to render a live birth requires the female to carry the fetus in her womb long enough for the fetus to be viable.

An adult, non-raped woman who makes the decisions leading up to her impregnation then making the decision to have a cesarean is completely different from a small rape victim being forced to carry the fetus long enough for a live birth.

The rape victim should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy at the time when the least damage will be done to her body. Is it your position that a cesarean will cause less damage to the girl than the abortion?



You are quite mistaken about my concept of choice. If the little girl were informed of the risks and if they were not too great and she decided that she wanted to have the baby, then I would support her choice to do so.

What I entered this thread to say, and what I repeat now, is that I would not tell this child that her being raped and impregnated was God giving her a gift.

If her doctors thought she should have the abortion, then she should not be forced to undergo the risks of the continued pregnancy. She should not be told that her function as an incubator for a fetus is more important than her life is, and most especially it should not be intimated in any way that God wanted her to endure this.






I'm still curious as to how early you would allow the fetus to be removed from her body?

 

[Flopper]

The abortion debate will never end. Even before the Roe/Wade decision nobody would have known it first of all and nobody would have had a problem with this little girl having an abortion. The post is an attempt to fuel the flames and try to make a legal case where there is none.

Yes, the debate will end, probably not during my lifetime and probably not yours but it will end with legalized abortion throughout most of the world. I say that because that's the trend. As nations become more affluent, they legalize abortion, liberalize abortion laws, or simply don't enforce the laws. Chili has the strictest laws in world. However prosecution for violating of those laws are rare. In the Dominican Republic that has just as strict abortion laws as Chili, has an estimated abortion rate of 90,000/yr. yet prosecution is also rare.

Basically, abortion laws and particular strict abortion laws are found mostly in less developed countries. As those countries become more literate and affluent, attitudes on abortion will change just as they have in the developed countries.

 

[Mr. H.]

There appear to be multiple people on this forum, including the generally reasonable Mr. H, who would deny the little girl an abortion.

Is it not I who denies, it is you who advocates.

Like I said, you're determined to sink a perfectly seaworthy ship. You are so aggressively steeped in the concept of "choice" that you have forgotten that choice has two outcomes.

You have pre-condemned the pre-born in this instance.

And all I ask is "why".

Why not carry the child to post-mature un-Gosnell spine snipping murder?

And exactly what is the difference between "slicing" via cesarean in order to render a live birth, and "dicing" into the vaginal cavity and sucking out the remnants of a pre-born human being?

Oh yeah... "choice". But your concept of choice has only one outcome doesn't it?

Slicing via cesarean to render a live birth requires the female to carry the fetus in her womb long enough for the fetus to be viable.

An adult, non-raped woman who makes the decisions leading up to her impregnation then making the decision to have a cesarean is completely different from a small rape victim being forced to carry the fetus long enough for a live birth.

The rape victim should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy at the time when the least damage will be done to her body. Is it your position that a cesarean will cause less damage to the girl than the abortion?



You are quite mistaken about my concept of choice. If the little girl were informed of the risks and if they were not too great and she decided that she wanted to have the baby, then I would support her choice to do so.

What I entered this thread to say, and what I repeat now, is that I would not tell this child that her being raped and impregnated was God giving her a gift.

If her doctors thought she should have the abortion, then she should not be forced to undergo the risks of the continued pregnancy. She should not be told that her function as an incubator for a fetus is more important than her life is, and most especially it should not be intimated in any way that God wanted her to endure this.






I'm still curious as to how early you would allow the fetus to be removed from her body?

And what do you know about "viable".?

My daughter was quite premature. She spent the first week of her life in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The ward was full... full of non-murdered babies. Non- aborted children of parents who made a "choice".

Ma'am, pregnancy isn't God giving anyone a gift.

Pregnancy is progeny.

 

[Vandalshandle]

My daughter was quite premature. She spent the first week of her life in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The ward was full... full of non-murdered babies. Non- aborted children of parents who made a "choice".

...and, of course, you would deny others from having that "choice".

...and you would compare your wife's prgnancy with an 11 year old child's, which had resulted from rape....

 

[Amelia]

Is it not I who denies, it is you who advocates.

Like I said, you're determined to sink a perfectly seaworthy ship. You are so aggressively steeped in the concept of "choice" that you have forgotten that choice has two outcomes.

You have pre-condemned the pre-born in this instance.

And all I ask is "why".

Why not carry the child to post-mature un-Gosnell spine snipping murder?

And exactly what is the difference between "slicing" via cesarean in order to render a live birth, and "dicing" into the vaginal cavity and sucking out the remnants of a pre-born human being?

Oh yeah... "choice". But your concept of choice has only one outcome doesn't it?

Slicing via cesarean to render a live birth requires the female to carry the fetus in her womb long enough for the fetus to be viable.

An adult, non-raped woman who makes the decisions leading up to her impregnation then making the decision to have a cesarean is completely different from a small rape victim being forced to carry the fetus long enough for a live birth.

The rape victim should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy at the time when the least damage will be done to her body. Is it your position that a cesarean will cause less damage to the girl than the abortion?



You are quite mistaken about my concept of choice. If the little girl were informed of the risks and if they were not too great and she decided that she wanted to have the baby, then I would support her choice to do so.

What I entered this thread to say, and what I repeat now, is that I would not tell this child that her being raped and impregnated was God giving her a gift.

If her doctors thought she should have the abortion, then she should not be forced to undergo the risks of the continued pregnancy. She should not be told that her function as an incubator for a fetus is more important than her life is, and most especially it should not be intimated in any way that God wanted her to endure this.






I'm still curious as to how early you would allow the fetus to be removed from her body?

And what do you know about "viable".?

My daughter was quite premature. She spent the first week of her life in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The ward was full... full of non-murdered babies. Non- aborted children of parents who made a "choice".

Ma'am, pregnancy isn't God giving anyone a gift.

Pregnancy is progeny.

Santorum said that it was God giving the rape victim a gift. *vomit*

My nephew was born at 22 weeks. He is my brother's 3rd child. It was their fifth pregnancy - my SIL miscarried twice. His APGAR score at one-minute was a 1 -- because he had a heartbeat. It was months before he was in the clear. He is 8 years old now. The main vestige of his premature status is his low vision.

Because my brother's 22-week preemie ultimately thrived, I thought my brother would be against abortions, at least after 22 weeks. But no, his experience with his beloved son makes him adamantly opposed to getting in the way of people making whatever decision they are moved to make at that tenuous time.

As someone who has never had to face anything like that, I put a lot of weight on my brother's experience and how much empathy he has for people in the middle of deciding whether to continue or to terminate a crisis pregnancy.

 

[Amelia]

That 11-year-old girl never had a choice. Not a choice to have sex or not have sex. Not a choice to get pregnant or not get pregnant. And not a choice to save her own life.

 

[S.J.]

So this one case is supposed to justify the millions of abortions done for reasons of convenience? Is that what you're trying to say, Noomi?

 

[Noomi]

So this one case is supposed to justify the millions of abortions done for reasons of convenience? Is that what you're trying to say, Noomi?

It should justify abortion in this case. Any child who is pregnant should not be having a baby. This is a little girl, and where is the compassion for her?

 

[Noomi]

This can be simply resolved. All pregnancies are presumed to be intended. If a woman or a girl if under age claims the pregnancy is the result of rape she has to give up the rapist. Or the abortion provider has to both give up the rapist and a dna sample of the aborted fetus so the rapist can be identified.

You would be prepared to force a traumatised rape victim, who may have been threatened by her rapist - to give up his name? What if she doesn't know who it is? What if she never saw his face during the rape?

 

[FA_Q2]

Abortion should be the first and only option because this is an 11 year old CHILD!

That is barbaric as having abortion denied. As wrong as it is for someone to force that child to get an abortion, it is equally wrong to require it.

The choice should be hers and no one else.

People have to live with their own country's laws.

And? What’s your point? Again, we are not discussing what is actually going to happen to the girl or what it is legal but rather what we thing should happen in this situation. This is a debate board, not a news cast. We are here specifically to debate these issues, to think about how thing should be.

 

[Noomi]

Becki says that people have to live with their own countries laws. Does this mean she wouldn't object if a woman was to be buried up to her neck and stoned to death for being raped in a country governed by extremists?