11-year-old Gang-Rape Victim: Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

[gcthomas]

What inaction?

This one below..

Just because you cannot save the unborn child does not mean you have to actively kill it. Save the mother's life, and if the unborn dies indirectly no one is guilty of murder. It's a tragedy, but not one that could have been avoided. Whereas actively killing can be avoided and is never necessary.

So allowing the baby to die (ie, take no action = inaction) is OK, but killing a baby that will die anyway is murder?

There is no moral difference here. Decision made, outcomes the same.

 

[WizardofOz]

So allowing the baby to die (ie, take no action = inaction) is OK, but killing a baby that will die anyway is murder?

There is no moral difference here. Decision made, outcomes the same.

Who is talking about inaction resulting in death? If you try to save both and the unborn dies, no one purposely killed it.

It's not like all that needed to be done was X and the doctor and mother decide not to act on it.

The distinction is natural death compared to purposely killing the unborn.

Otherwise, describe the "inaction" that results in death.

 

[gcthomas]

Otherwise, describe the "inaction" that results in death.

BOTH choices result in death, that's the point. The death cannot be avoided. But the 'action' will result in execution, in Brandon's opinion, while the 'inaction' is all fine and dandy. The foetus had no potential to become a person, but he'd consider it murder most foul anyway.

 

[Doormat]

Would you allow your 11 year old to choose to keep the baby if the doctor told you it would kill her? Yes or no.

If not, how can you claim you would not force her to have an abortion against her will?

That's a bit of a loaded question. If there was no actual doubt that pregnancy would kill the child then what loving parent wouldn't take steps to prevent or at the very least discourage her from carrying to term?

In a following post I stated some facts I asked A4T to consider. That should answer your question.

 

[WizardofOz]

BOTH choices result in death, that's the point.

But what causes the death is irrelevant? :AMR:
If grandpa is terminal is it different if we let him die or if we put a pillow over his face?

Both choices result in death, that's the point.

The death cannot be avoided. But the 'action' will result in execution, in Brandon's opinion, while the 'inaction' is all fine and dandy. The foetus had no potential to become a person, but he'd consider it murder most foul anyway.

That's how pro-life people view the unborn.

When a woman is pregnant, there are two patients. You do all you can to save them both. You don't purposely kill one to save the other. Sure, a procedure may result in the death of one but you do not purposely seek to kill it.

 

[Granite]

In a following post I stated some facts I asked A4T to consider. That should answer your question.

Oh, I'll take a stab at it...

The first four arguments aren't relevant and certainly don't apply to me, so I can set 'em aside.

Many doctors misdiagnose: Some do. The vast majority don't. That's like saying you should never take your car to the mechanic because some of them are underhanded. Taken far enough this argument might boil down to you never leaving your house, let alone your bedroom.

A doctor's prognosis is not necessarily certain: Lots of things aren't one hundred percent necessarily certain. But if the odds are on one side, we generally defer to experts and those who specialize in matters beyond the skills and knowledge of laymen. That's what medical professionals are there for. That there is a slim chance they've misdiagnosed is not compelling enough.

An astoundingly large majority of medical procedures performed in the U.S. are not evidence-based: I'd need to see a lot more documentation behind this. (Out of curiosity: Do you believe vaccines cause autism?)

Some doctors commit malpractice: As ridiculous as some of the arguments above. Some fathers molest their children; some pastors cheat on their wives; some realtors are unscrupulous; some mechanics are shady; ergo, you should never trust a father, real estate agent, man of the cloth, or auto mechanic.

Girls younger than 11 have conceived, given birth, and even breastfed: Which doesn't make it a good or ideal idea (and may in some cases not be medically feasible).

 

[Doormat]

But if the child mother's life is put at risk by even carrying the baby to the point where the baby can actually be possibly delivered artificially?

On another thread, A4T quoted a "expert" high-risk OBGYN who suggested only two potentially life threatening complications, and both of those have low incidence, are preventable, and occur in adult pregnant women, too. Are you suggesting that all women at risk for eclampsia and fatty liver should abort their babies? If yes, why would you opt for abortion when those are preventable complications?

If whoever is responsible cannot help her manage her birth to avoid those complications, her death would be the result of their ignorance or negligence, not the result of the girl's age. An eleven year who conceived evidently had a precocious puberty; she is not like average eleven year old girls. If she cannot carry, she will miscarry.

 

[Doormat]

Many doctors misdiagnose: Some do.

Correct.

With all the tools available to modern medicine — the blood tests and M.R.I.'s and endoscopes — you might think that misdiagnosis has become a rare thing. But you would be wrong. Studies of autopsies have shown that doctors seriously misdiagnose fatal illnesses about 20 percent of the time. So millions of patients are being treated for the wrong disease.

As shocking as that is, the more astonishing fact may be that the rate has not really changed since the 1930's. "No improvement!" was how an article in the normally exclamation-free Journal of the American Medical Association summarized the situation.​

Your sophomoric comparison to avoiding all auto mechanics is pointless.

A doctor's prognosis is not necessarily certain: Lots of things aren't one hundred percent necessarily certain. But if the odds are on one side, we generally defer to experts and those who specialize in matters beyond the skills and knowledge of laymen.

You may generally do that, but I don't. Instead, I study the evidence-based medical scientific literature and consider the advice of the medical technician I've consulted. They are often wrong.

An astoundingly large majority of medical procedures performed in the U.S. are not evidence-based: I'd need to see a lot more documentation behind this.

A link was provided.

(Out of curiosity: Do you believe vaccines cause autism?)

It's not a subject I've studied. Provide evidence and I will consider it.

I know that vaccines I was given contained aluminium in quantities that cause motor neuron death (second study), and it has been suggested in VA documents that those vaccines may have contributed to soldier disabilities. There is also aluminium in vaccines for children, which some physicians warn against.

Some doctors commit malpractice: As ridiculous as some of the arguments above. Some fathers molest their children; some pastors cheat on their wives; some realtors are unscrupulous; some mechanics are shady; ergo, you should never trust a father, real estate agent, man of the cloth, or auto mechanic.

Yes, your argument here is as ridiculous as your arguments above. You are implying you should always trust your doctor's judgement because the odds are in his favor.

Girls younger than 11 have conceived, given birth, and even breastfed: Which doesn't make it a good or ideal idea (and may in some cases not be medically feasible).

You suggest it's not good that babies of 11 year old mothers survived birth and were breastfed by those mothers, and you claim that something is not medically feasible without evidence.

 

[Granite]

Your sophomoric comparison to avoiding all auto mechanics is pointless.

Not at all. You seem to be saying since some doctors are wrong some of the time we should either ignore their expertise or pick and choose what they tell us as it suits you.

It's not a subject I've studied. Provide evidence and I will consider it.

Well that kind of tells me you're not willing to rule it out, which kind of tells me all I need to know.

Yes, your argument here is as ridiculous as your arguments above. You are implying you should always trust your doctor's judgement because the odds are in his favor.

The burden isn't on a physician to demonstrate there's a chance he's made a diagnosis if the overwhelming evidence is in his favor. It'd be on a layman to somehow presume he or she knows better than a physician. I trust a neurosurgeon more than myself and some time spent on WebMD.

Saying there's a chance a professional may be mistaken is not a compelling argument.

 

[drbrumley]

Well that kind of tells me you're not willing to rule it out, which kind of tells me all I need to know

All you need to know about what since he seems to not rule anything out?

 

[Granite]

All you need to know about what since he seems to not rule anything out?

Vaccines don't cause autism, doc, and a reluctance to say as much bends towards quackery.

 

[Doormat]

You seem to be saying since some doctors are wrong some of the time we should either ignore their expertise or pick and choose what they tell us as it suits you.

I implied no such thing.

Well that kind of tells me you're not willing to rule it out ...

It should tell you I'm not willing to give my opinion on something I haven't studied, something completely off topic. Your question and response to my answer says something different about you.

 

[Granite]

I implied no such thing.

Yeah, you did. "They're wrong sometimes, so I won't listen to them and I'll do some of my own research for which I'm not qualified" is either lunacy, or Dunning-Kruger taken to an extreme.

It should tell you I'm not willing to give my opinion on something I haven't studied, something completely off topic. Your question and response to my answer says something different about you.

Uh, yeah. That I know what I'm talking about.

Your argument here, such as it is, boils down to: "Doctors are human."

 

[Cruciform]

Should She Be Able To Legally Abort?

Let's first be clear that the question being asked is this:

Should she (or anyone else) be able to legally kill an innocent human being?​

Gaudium de veritate,

Cruciform
+T+

 

[Lighthouse]

This one below..

So allowing the baby to die (ie, take no action = inaction) is OK, but killing a baby that will die anyway is murder?

There is no moral difference here. Decision made, outcomes the same.

Who said anything about allowing the baby to die? You must be trippin' on some powerful acid, 'cause you're seein' things that ain't there.

You try to save the baby; if you can't and it dies that is not the same thing as killing it.

So, how's that working out for you?

 

[keypurr]

That's irrelevant to this specific point, you twit.


No it doesn't.


One who recognizes that it is not necessary to actively kill the unborn child to save the mother.

You need to see the difference between an unborn CHILD and a fetus.
Where is the line drawn? When does a acorn become a tree?

Respect your elders Lighthouse or you will not get respect.

 

[Iwannaknow]

My answer is that it should be between God, the parents and their doctor when we're talking about an 11 year old girl who isn't fully formed yet herself. This isn't something that's black or white IMO...there are nuances to consider. Things like, can she have this baby without it killing her or the baby? What would be Gods will for this child? No one knows...only God. This has to be left up to the parents and doctor.

 

[Lighthouse]

You need to see the difference between an unborn CHILD and a fetus.
Where is the line drawn? When does a acorn become a tree?

Respect your elders Lighthouse or you will not get respect.

Shut your deceitful little mouth, troll.

Acorns and trees are not people. And a child not being an adult doesn't negate its personhood. That acorn is still of the oak family, just as an unborn fetus, or even a zygote, that is human is a person, because it is human.

 

[Iwannaknow]

We have to remember that before Roe vs wade became law, it was always left up to God, the parents and the doctor with regard to whether it was expedient to abort or not in life or death circumstances.

Like I said, this isn't an issue I believe that we can simply sit in judgment and say..."this little girl should be forced to continue with this pregnancy if her chances of survival or the child isn't good. I just don't know... If I were the parent of this 11 year old child that this had been done to, I would have to ask our Lord for guidance and to consider the life of my own child who isn't fully formed yet and what the consequences would be for her if she were continue with this pregnancy. There are two lives to consider here...not just one.

I believe that sometimes we have to resign ourselves that there isn't always a good answer for situations like these and that it should be left up to God and the parents. This is a tragic and horrible circumstance that I couldn't even begin to imagine happening to a child of mine. Very difficult indeed.

 

[gcthomas]

an unborn fetus, or even a zygote, that is human is a person, because it is human.

We all know that is what you assert, but WHY do you think that human and person are synonyms?

There is hardly a jurisdiction in the world that treats day old foetuses as legal people. And there is a good reason for that. What is your reasoning?

(The bible has nothing to say about early foetuses in general - so where does your position come from?)