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

[Christian Liberty]

Naturally not implanting and taking a pill to insure it does not are not the same thing. One intentionally ends a life if that life is present. And all the pills do that if the life is present.

I'm pretty sure the pill only ends life in like 5% of cases though, while preventing life being created in 95% or so of cases. In which case: I oppose it morally, and I believe churches should discourage it in their congregations, but I wouldn't support a law against it like I would the deliberate killing of an unborn child.

With the pill, you can't prove that anyone was murdered, so you cannot prove any actual aggression/crime.

It goes to Paradise to await the stage of accountability.

Wait, people can decide after death?

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm pretty sure the pill only ends life in like 5% of cases though, while preventing life being created in 95% or so of cases. In which case: I oppose it morally, and I believe churches should discourage it in their congregations, but I wouldn't support a law against it like I would the deliberate killing of an unborn child.

It has the ability to take that life, which is the issue.

If it fails in preventing the ovum for being produced and fertilized then it is "programmed" to prevent implantation.

With the pill, you can't prove that anyone was murdered, so you cannot prove any actual aggression/crime.

Irrelevant. The fact that it is designed to do as described above is enough reason to ban it.

Wait, people can decide after death?

Only those who die before reaching a stage where God holds them accountable.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Irrelevant. The fact that it is designed to do as described above is enough reason to ban it.

Is it actually "Designed" to do such, or does it simply happen to do so? Or, to put it another way, would it be possible to design a birth control pill that did not prevent implantation... accepting a slightly higher failure rate instead?

I'd also have to say, good luck banning the pill. All that's going to do is create even more abortions. I'm not really a utilitarian thinker, but if you're asking me to ban something that has a 5% chance to stop an abortion, when you know doing that is going to increase black market abortions by far more than 5%, AND is absolutely unenforceable without a police state.... yeah... no, if that makes me "liberal" on the issue, so be it. I'll settle for a law that defines deliberate killing of any fetus (Which happens after implantation) as being murder, and punishable by the same. I'll leave people who use birth control pills to education and ultimately... God.

 

[Christian Liberty]

It has the ability to take that life, which is the issue.

For the record, I agree with you that its an issue. I just think there's only so much you can do with laws. I'd say deliberately killing an unborn child is something the government should be prepared to punish, when appropriate. I would say that actions that may or may not result in prevention of implantation should be dealt with by peaceful methods, but that doesn't mean its OK.

Why do I make the distinction? Because there's a difference between murder of a being that already exists, and an action that may kill a being that may or may not exist in the future.

Only those who die before reaching a stage where God holds them accountable.

OK, can you find that for me in the Bible?

 

[keypurr]

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.

Are you that stupid that you can not see what I am saying?

Pull your head out of the dirt and see some light.

Did your church teach you how to talk to people like that?

If so, maybe you should change churches.

 

[Granite]

Do you guys seriously not understand how the pill works?

 

[Angel4Truth]

No, you are just hysterical because you realize that you have been exposed as not being an advocate for unborn babies.

Yes, if thats what you want me to be, since i would consider the CHILD that is already here bruised, beaten and with a horribly already traumatized body and mind - at an age already way too young to carry a child - without putting her further into trauma or killing her little body.

I care for her more, you don't. You would kill her(shes a child lets not forget) after she was already raped and beaten by 20 men. The baby would most likely die as well. 2 For the price of one in your view. Shameful.

No, i am not an advocate for unborn babies when it means killing the mother. You go tell women who have ectopic pregnancies that they are hypocrites when their doctors remove them so they don't die.

Im hysterical though? Hysteria is thinking more about a pregnancy than a CHILD already here - you have already decided that life is worth more than that of the mother, and if the mothers life is in danger and she died, that pregnancy would also die with her in MOST cases.

Sickening. I care about that 11 year horribly raped victimized CHILD. Shes been through enough and her body needs to HEAL.

20 BEATINGS AND RAPES - on a CHILD, do you have compassion for HER? THAT CHILD?

 

[WizardofOz]

No, i am not an advocate for unborn babies when it means killing the mother.

It's your assumption that it would.

If you're OK with an abortion to save the mother that's one thing. Age of the mother-to-be should be completely irrelevant.

 

[Angel4Truth]

It's your assumption that it would.

If you're OK with an abortion to save the mother that's one thing. Age of the mother-to-be should be completely irrelevant.

Is her beating and rape by 20 men in your view not something that could kill her on its own? I also posted obgyn statements that an 11 year old carrying a baby is already way high risk to the mother. Age of the mother lends to the risk of the pregnancy on both her and the pregnancy itself. Add that and the rape by 20 men and beatings together.

Would it kill her? Most likely.

 

[WizardofOz]

Is her beating and rape by 20 men in your view not something that could kill her on its own?

Could? Sure. It demonstrably did not, however.

I also posted obgyn statements that an 11 year old carrying a baby is already way high risk to the mother.

And I posted a list of youngest mothers on record. An 11 year-old didn't even make the list.

An 11-year-old is a higher risk. 11-year-old's can carry a baby to term, even ones who were beaten and raped.

Age of the mother lends to the risk of the pregnancy on both her and the pregnancy itself. Add that and the rape by 20 men and beatings together.

Would it kill her? Most likely.

You're still assuming. Until the mother's life is in immediate peril there is no reason to electively‎ abort.

I'm surprised to see you argue otherwise :idunno:

 

[Lighthouse]

Is it actually "Designed" to do such, or does it simply happen to do so? Or, to put it another way, would it be possible to design a birth control pill that did not prevent implantation... accepting a slightly higher failure rate instead?

As far as I know it is designed to do that, but only if it fails in its primary function.

That is the primary purpose of Plan B, aka RU486, aka The Morning After Pill, though.

I do not know if it is possible to design one that will only prevent the production of ovum, and then not take secondary measures if it fails in that.

I'd also have to say, good luck banning the pill. All that's going to do is create even more abortions. I'm not really a utilitarian thinker, but if you're asking me to ban something that has a 5% chance to stop an abortion, when you know doing that is going to increase black market abortions by far more than 5%, AND is absolutely unenforceable without a police state.... yeah... no, if that makes me "liberal" on the issue, so be it. I'll settle for a law that defines deliberate killing of any fetus (Which happens after implantation) as being murder, and punishable by the same. I'll leave people who use birth control pills to education and ultimately... God.

PP seems to think that a personhood amendment, or any other complete abortion ban, would effectively ban the pill. And this is the reason they make that argument. Because it is an abortifacient if it fails in its primary function.

And it's not unenforceable to ban the pill.

For the record, I agree with you that its an issue. I just think there's only so much you can do with laws. I'd say deliberately killing an unborn child is something the government should be prepared to punish, when appropriate. I would say that actions that may or may not result in prevention of implantation should be dealt with by peaceful methods, but that doesn't mean its OK.

They will result in that if they fail in their primary function. It is a definite, not a maybe.

However, it is still possible they could fail in that as well. But that is the maybe, not the other way around.

Why do I make the distinction? Because there's a difference between murder of a being that already exists, and an action that may kill a being that may or may not exist in the future.

If the implantation of a zygote is prevented that is the killing of an extant being.

OK, can you find that for me in the Bible?

1. It's a logical conclusion.
2. Abraham's Bosom, aka Paradise, was set up for those who died while looking forward to Messiah. It makes sense it would still be there, for those who have not yet heard and are unable to make a decision.
3. As you are a Calvinist I don't expect you to believe it, as you believe individual people were elected from before the foundation of the world.

Are you that stupid that you can not see what I am saying?

Pull your head out of the dirt and see some light.

Did your church teach you how to talk to people like that?

If so, maybe you should change churches.

I left most churches behind because they either didn't know the truth or were too cowardly to preach it.

I know exactly what you're saying and you're a fool, following doctrines of hell.

I'm surprised to see you argue otherwise :idunno:

Sadly, I'm not.

 

[Rusha]

Yes, if thats what you want me to be, since i would consider the CHILD that is already here bruised, beaten and with a horribly already traumatized body and mind - at an age already way too young to carry a child - without putting her further into trauma or killing her little body.

You are the only person who has equated a pregnancy to *killing her little body*. Thus far the ONLY little body who would be killed is that of her unborn child who you believe it is fine to abort.

I care for her more, you don't.

Nope ... you just don't have an argument and feel the need to make unfounded accusations.

You would kill her(shes a child lets not forget) after she was already raped and beaten by 20 men. The baby would most likely die as well. 2 For the price of one in your view. Shameful.

Way to go, angel ... did your nose grow several inches while typing this post? Why do you feel the need to lie? My position on this is the same as Knight's, LH's, as well as several others and yet you have made no such false accusations towards them.

Feel free to show any such post where I have made the statement "two For the price of one".

No, i am not an advocate for unborn babies

No one has argued that you are, but thank you for the confirmation.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Do you guys seriously not understand how the pill works?

I honestly do not.

As far as I know it is designed to do that, but only if it fails in its primary function.

That is the primary purpose of Plan B, aka RU486, aka The Morning After Pill, though.

I'm almost certain the Morning After Pill is a different thing from RU486. I'm almost certain Ron Paul supports the morning after pill being legal while he supports RU486 not being legal.

PP seems to think that a personhood amendment, or any other complete abortion ban, would effectively ban the pill. And this is the reason they make that argument. Because it is an abortifacient if it fails in its primary function.

So, out of curiosity, if there were an amendment that would ban the abortion of any children, but did NOT also ban the pill, would you oppose it?

And it's not unenforceable to ban the pill.

It couldn't be enforced without draconian measures, anymore so than the drug laws can be,

If the implantation of a zygote is prevented that is the killing of an extant being.

Well, except for the fact that in most cases, the pill is taken, chronologically, BEFORE conception occurs.

1. It's a logical conclusion.
2. Abraham's Bosom, aka Paradise, was set up for those who died while looking forward to Messiah. It makes sense it would still be there, for those who have not yet heard and are unable to make a decision.
3. As you are a Calvinist I don't expect you to believe it, as you believe individual people were elected from before the foundation of the world.

OK so you don't actually have any scriptural evidence.

 

[gcthomas]

RU486 can be used as a contraceptive when taken daily, or to prevent fertilisation when taken as as a 'morning after' pill, as described in the Wikipedia entry:

Mifepristone as a regular contraceptive at 2 mg daily prevents ovulation (1 mg daily does not). A single preovulatory 10 mg dose of mifepristone delays ovulation by 3 to 4 days and is as effective an emergency contraceptive as a single 1.5 mg dose of the progestin levonorgestrel.[12]​

It can be used in larger doses as a first trimester abortifactant.

 

[Lighthouse]

I'm almost certain the Morning After Pill is a different thing from RU486. I'm almost certain Ron Paul supports the morning after pill being legal while he supports RU486 not being legal.

gcthomas has shown here why the Morning After Pill is an abortifacient:

RU486 can be used as a contraceptive when taken daily, or to prevent fertilisation when taken as as a 'morning after' pill, as described in the Wikipedia entry:

Mifepristone as a regular contraceptive at 2 mg daily prevents ovulation (1 mg daily does not). A single preovulatory 10 mg dose of mifepristone delays ovulation by 3 to 4 days and is as effective an emergency contraceptive as a single 1.5 mg dose of the progestin levonorgestrel.[12]​

It can be used in larger doses as a first trimester abortifactant.

So, even if they are not the same exact thing any pill taken the morning after copulation is intended to prevent fertilization, but will prevent implantation if fertilization has already taken place.

Ask PP; they'll be more than happy to tell you why personhood would ban the pill [any and all].

So, out of curiosity, if there were an amendment that would ban the abortion of any children, but did NOT also ban the pill, would you oppose it?

Because the pill is an abortifacient I don't see any complete abortion ban not also effectively banning the pill.

If it were not that would be a different story. But I do still oppose contraceptives in general.

It couldn't be enforced without draconian measures, anymore so than the drug laws can be,

It wouldn't be sold through legitimate retailers, or made by legitimate druggists. So it can be enforced to that point.

And would you really want to take a pill made in someone's garage or trailer?

Well, except for the fact that in most cases, the pill is taken, chronologically, BEFORE conception occurs.

It's supposed to be taken a certain amount of days before ovulation occurs in order to be effective in preventing it, so fertilization cannot take place. And failing that if it is taken enough time before copulation I assume it is intended to destroy the ovum so as to make fertilization impossible.

Anything taken after the fact, however, is more than likely going to prevent the implantation of an already extant zygote.

OK so you don't actually have any scriptural evidence.

The story of the rich man and Lazarus is the evidence for the existence of Abraham's Bosom, aka Paradise. It is where the thief was going to be with Jesus, [Jesus]"...this day..."[/Jesus]

Now, what other conclusion could one make if they did not believe in individual predestination? To believe one must make a decision, one must believe that those making said decision must be cognizant enough to make said decision, to understand it fully.

 

[quip]

You're still assuming. Until the mother's life is in immediate peril there is no reason to electively‎ abort.

I'm surprised to see you argue otherwise :idunno:

You've no moral qualms with forcing an 11 year old to birth a baby?! I'm likewise surprised...how about being pro-"the life that is" rather than pro-"the life that must be". (HINT: the former suffers; the latter doesn't have the capacity)

Is this 11 year old - now - not considered the same "child" she once was (apparently) at conception? This reeks of ....not pro-life but rather (inconsistant) anti-choice rhetoric.

 

[Lighthouse]

You've no moral qualms with forcing an 11 year old to birth a baby?! I'm likewise surprised...how about being pro-"the life that is" rather than pro-"the life that must be". (HINT: the former suffers; the latter doesn't have the capacity)

Is this 11 year old - now - not considered the same "child" she once was (apparently) at conception? This reeks of ....not pro-life but rather (inconsistant) anti-choice rhetoric.

Because it's impossible to be pro both lives.

You're a moron.

 

[quip]

Because it's impossible to be pro both lives.

:idea: ...steep that one just a little longer LH!

 

[Lighthouse]

:idea: ...steep that one just a little longer LH!

Idiot.

 

[quip]

Idiot.

Keep at it ..... you can do it!