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

[Lighthouse]

The problem is: "Think about the 11 year old girl" is a purely emotion-based argument. There's nothing logical about it.

Yup.

 

[quip]

Trying to use the guilt by association fallacy? How many fallacies are you going to run through? I've never even thought such a thing.

It's not a guilt by association fallacy...its a conditional (if, then) logical statement.

As I've already stated, I am a mother to 6 children.

Hypothetically if one of them were conceived via rape they'd still be my children and that's all I'd be concerned with regarding their well being. Not who was their father.

And you're free to make such a choice. My concern would be with the trauma that my child experienced...not some microscopic, incipient human life form. As I stated to Oz earlier...the life that is currently suffering over the idealistic life that could be. More to the point...both of these are choices and I've no qualms with allowing either choice to manifest, you on the other hand demand otherwise.

I'm not into eugenics, and I don't see the child as deserving death to avoid motherhood or to clean a rapist's kid out of the gene pool.

That's no more than a straw-man.

Whenit's already been forced by the impregnation anyway killing the kid doesn't change the fact that I'm a mother, it just adds to it that I'm a killer if I do it.

No, you're not a mother simply because you get pregnant....that's a supposition on your part.

People not letting me murder a child already forced on me is not forcing a pregnancy - that's already done, it's not letting me become a murderer through hatred for my rapists.

Another straw-man. Nobody said anything about hatred for the rapists....rather its about the suffering of a little girl. Can't you get that through your head?

Besides, circumventing the natural process of birth puts a woman at a mental and physical disadvantage, which keeps being ignored by abortion supporters.

No more or no less than giving birth.

There is a hormonal symphony to be respected for the well being of a mother. But the psychological price of murder is even greater.

Only if your presupposing it as a murder.

The interests of mother and baby are one when their bodies are one. What is bad for the babe is bad for the mom.

That's wonderfully subjective...you could make that claim..either way it goes. Only one important caveat to mention: your idealism cares naught for the postpartum welfare of this child.. your pro-life cause rings loud yet..conspicuously shallow.

 

[Granite]

OK... so we have established that an 11 year old, by virtue of being raped, is made perpetually innocent and therefore has a right to commit murder...

One more time: Are you reading my posts, or just skimming them? Because it sounds like you're referring to someone else here.

The problem is: "Think about the 11 year old girl" is a purely emotion-based argument.

No, it is not. I'm thinking about physical and psychological trauma, therapy, PTSD, to say nothing of potential medical complications. That you keep on dismissing this little girl just demonstrates, yet again, how little you think of her, and how warped and misguided your thinking really is. You're thinking more like an Islamic misogynist and less like a 21st century American.

 

[Doormat]

I'm thinking about physical and psychological trauma, therapy, PTSD, to say nothing of potential medical complications. That you keep on dismissing this little girl just demonstrates, yet again, how little you think of her, and how warped and misguided your thinking really is.

Guys, for crying out loud: It's just porn. The human race has had it since the beginning. Deal with it and move on.

Porn's an expression of sexuality, end of story.

When it comes to porn it seems that Granite is willing to ignore its connection to sex trafficking, the physical and psychological trauma of women and children, the therapy they will need, and the PTSD and the medical complications associated with it; but when it comes to an eleven year old pregnant girl, he's worried about those things, and aborting an unborn child seems like a reasonable solution even though the girl will still have suffered the trauma, still need the therapy and still suffer from PTSD.

He can't provide any evidence of alleged "medical complications" an 11 year will suffer from pregnancy by virtue of her age (nobody on this thread has). He can't provide any evidence that her pregnancy or birth will be traumatic, require therapy, cause PTSD or any medical complication that's not a potential to any poorly managed pregnancy or birth. And in spite of the fact that post-pubescent girls younger than 11 have given birth and breastfeed their babies, and we have stories of women who love their children conceived through rape, he maintains his irrational position.

 

[Granite]

When it comes to porn it seems that Granite is willing to ignore its connection to sex trafficking, the physical and psychological trauma of women and children...

Show me where I've ever defended the existence of child porn, you numbskull, and I'll find a hat to eat.:e4e:

He can't provide any evidence of alleged "medical complications" an 11 year will suffer from pregnancy by virtue of her age (nobody on this thread has).

WHO and others describe d such pregnancies as "high risk" and if you're too lazy to use Google to verify as much you're not interested in an honest discussion. I'll wait.

I do think I need to clarify something that's been lost on the hormonal hysterics and other assorted drama queens and kneejerkers who've wandered in, out, and about this thread.

(Aside: As my mother once said, if it doesn't apply to you, don't take offense.)

I don't believe an eleven-year-old carrying a child to term is ideal. A good idea. The best of all worlds. A wise decision. A sensible choice. Nothing will ever make this kind of nightmarish scenario better, and nothing will ever make me believe a child bearing a child as the result of sexual assault is morally or ethically superior to the alternative.

That said, the option to do so should, of course, be available. I don't believe it's a smart move, and if it's not medically prudent, shouldn't even be considered. I for one would never think twice about this if it was my little girl who'd been victimized. And when push comes to shove a lot of absolutists here who talk tough would, I'm sure, start having second thoughts if it was their daughter in an ICU, savaged and carrying a rapist's seed.

My priority here is the child--as patient, as victim, as unready to be a mother in every way except for a trick of hormones that enabled her to conceive under circumstances no one can calmly contemplate.

 

[Doormat]

Show me where I've ever defended the existence of child porn, you numbskull, and I'll find a hat to eat.:e4e:

I see you missed the point once again, but thanks for confirming you're okay with 18+ year old women experiencing physical and psychological trauma, needing therapy, and suffering PTSD and potential medical complications.

WHO and others describe d such pregnancies as "high risk" and if you're too lazy to use Google to verify as much you're not interested in an honest discussion. I'll wait.

You assume I have not, and you appear too lazy to post a link. Make sure it's not just someone asserting it's "high risk" because without scientific evidence to back up the assertion it amounts to no evidence, just someone's worthless opinion. You'll find, if you look, there has been no research done on the subject of pregnancy outcomes following precocious puberty. So the claim is bogus and not backed by evidence. Any pregnancy can turn high risk, and it's not as if those pregnancies can't be managed. Suddenly you think medical professionals are inept?

I don't believe an eleven-year-old carrying a child to term is ideal. A good idea. The best of all worlds. A wise decision. A sensible choice. Nothing will ever make this kind of nightmarish scenario better, and nothing will ever make me believe a child bearing a child as the result of sexual assault is morally or ethically superior to the alternative.

This isn't a thread about whether it's morally or ethically superior to the alternative, so your comment is rather pointless.

And when push comes to shove a lot of absolutists here who talk tough would, I'm sure, start having second thoughts if it was their daughter in an ICU, savaged and carrying a rapist's seed.

It's an innocent baby, not "a rapist's seed." Your attitude reminds me of male lions that kill the cubs of other male lions.

If my daughters conceived through rape, I would never consider abortion, and neither would my daughters. Same if my wife conceived through rape. It's not the babies fault, and I will raise him as my child.

My priority here is the child--as patient, as victim, as unready to be a mother in every way except for a trick of hormones that enabled her to conceive under circumstances no one can calmly contemplate.

You need to stop conflating the tragedy of the rape with the pregnancy, birth and desires of your hard heart.

 

[illusionray]

It's an innocent baby, not "a rapist's seed." Your attitude reminds me of male lions that kill the cubs of other male lions.

It's not really that surprising he considers a baby nothing more than dispensable seed is it now? It's not like he has a holy scripture or anything. What's concerning is that people with those kind of extreme viewpoints can and do from time to time shape domestic policy.

 

[Granite]

I see you missed the point once again, but thanks for confirming you're okay with 18+ year old women experiencing physical and psychological trauma, needing therapy, and suffering PTSD and potential medical complications.

Suggestion: Stop being a complete, utter, and deliberately obnoxious knob. You're capable of better. You made an idiotic point, accused me of something you knew to be untrue, doubled down, and dug yourself deeper by acting like a class clown. Let's try to keep discussions to one thread at a time. If you have anything to say in the porn-related thread I'll see you there.

Moving on.

You assume I have not, and you appear too lazy to post a link.

Lazy, no: If you took the time to read what I wrote I was challenging you to get off your duff and do some work and thinking for yourself. Any idiot can post a link and present it as the Holy Grail of search results (as you and I see all the time here).

This isn't a thread about whether it's morally or ethically superior to the alternative, so your comment is rather pointless.

Actually, it is. What exactly do you think we're discussing? Should she be allowed to abort, or not? Whether it's the best thing to do and is a superior choice to carrying the pregnancy is exactly what this thread is about.

If my daughters conceived through rape, I would never consider abortion, and neither would my daughters. Same if my wife conceived through rape. It's not the babies fault, and I will raise him as my child.

Which proves we (drumroll) disagree. Tell me something I didn't already know.

She conceived without ability to consent. That's one choice taken away. Absolutists just want to compound her degradation by taking away another. Quit trying to minimize her, and her trauma, and stop presuming she's nothing more than a vessel here to reinforce your bizarre ideas about mercy and the sanctity of life. Rhetoric isn't reality.

 

[Granite]

It's not really that surprising he considers a baby nothing more than dispensable seed is it now? It's not like he has a holy scripture or anything. What's concerning is that people with those kind of viewpoints can and do from time to time shape domestic policy.

You're a completely ignorant mat-groveling dipstick.:loser:

 

[illusionray]

You're a completely ignorant mat-groveling dipstick.:loser:

Very direct, no nonsense. I love it. See? You're catching on :first:

 

[Doormat]

If you took the time to read what I wrote I was challenging you to get off your duff and do some work and thinking for yourself.

You can't supply evidence for your claim. I have told you it doesn't exist. Now you want me to "get off my duff" to prove a negative. Why not just provide evidence for your claim or concede it doesn't exist?

If my daughters conceived through rape, I would never consider abortion, and neither would my daughters. Same if my wife conceived through rape. It's not the babies fault, and I will raise him as my child.

Which proves we (drumroll) disagree. Tell me something I didn't already know.

And that speaks volumes about your character.

 

[Granite]

You can't supply evidence for your claim.

Okay, what specifically are you referring to here?

And that speaks volumes about your character.

As your coldness, warped priorities, and misogyny speaks to yours.

 

[illusionray]

As your coldness, warped priorities, and misogyny speaks to yours.

Oh c'mon, give me a break. Coldness? Misogyny? Really? All he has done is view things from the perspective of preserving the life of the baby. That's the opposite of coldness. Clearly you disagree with that viewpoint but your accusations are not warranted.

 

[Doormat]

WHO and others describe d such pregnancies as "high risk" and if you're too lazy to use Google to verify as much you're not interested in an honest discussion. I'll wait.

You assume I have not, and you appear too lazy to post a link. Make sure it's not just someone asserting it's "high risk" because without scientific evidence to back up the assertion it amounts to no evidence, just someone's worthless opinion. You'll find, if you look, there has been no research done on the subject of pregnancy outcomes following precocious puberty. So the claim is bogus and not backed by evidence. Any pregnancy can turn high risk, and it's not as if those pregnancies can't be managed.

Lazy, no: If you took the time to read what I wrote I was challenging you to get off your duff and do some work and thinking for yourself. Any idiot can post a link and present it as the Holy Grail of search results (as you and I see all the time here).

You can't supply evidence for your claim. I have told you it doesn't exist. Now you want me to "get off my duff" to prove a negative. Why not just provide evidence for your claim or concede it doesn't exist?

Okay, what specifically are you referring to here?

Prove your claim is evidence-based or stop making the claim. Pretty simple.

 

[Granite]

One thing to keep in mind with the data is that most of it is concerned with pregnancies involving women between 15-19, although given the high risks involved it's safe to assume the risks are greater for those younger than 15.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC411126/

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs364/en/

http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB130/B130_12-en.pdf

 

[Doormat]

One thing to keep in mind with the data is that most of it is concerned with pregnancies involving women between 15-19, although given the high risks involved it's safe to assume the risks are greater for those younger than 15.

You are comparing adolescent pregnancy and birth in developing countries to adolescent pregnancy and birth in developed countries. Apples and oranges. And nothing you posted is evidence of complications in pregnancy for a healthy adolescent girl. You can't project findings in specific impoverished populations to all populations, especially not a population of healthy girls in a developed country (like Sweden for example).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC411126/

Did you even read it? It only hints at two possible causes (in developing countries), and apparently with no research to prove the actual causes.

Obstructed labour was found to be common in teenage girls, resulting in increased risk of infant death and of maternal death or disability. The report also showed that young mothers and their babies were at greater risk of contracting HIV.​​

Okay. Let's look at the obstructed labor claim:

Obstructed labor is one of the common preventable causes of maternal and perinatal morbidity and mortality in developing countries.​

You want to project preventable causes of maternal mortality in developing countries as a reason to abort babies in developed countries. Epic fail.

http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs364/en/

Supra. And the "fact sheet" provides no evidence that an 11 year old in a developed country is at high risk.

http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/EB130/B130_12-en.pdf

Supra. And you apparently didn't read that one either.

Early, unwanted pregnancies are associated with increased levels of induced abortion, which when carried out in unsafe conditions carries severe health risks, including death.​

And this ...

Pregnant adolescent girls are more likely than older women to smoke and drink alcohol, practices that can contribute to stillbirth, low birth weight and other health problems in the child.​

And this ...

Similarly, pregnancy among unmarried girls in some cultures is reported as a ground for homicide, on the basis of maintaining family honour.​

Maybe you're thinking of this? ...

Up to 65% of women with obstetric fistula developed this during adolescence, with dire consequences for their lives, physically and socially.​

But...

Women in developed countries are typically not at risk of obstetric fistula, and it's not a complication unique to adolescent pregnancy or labor. See risk factors for obstetric fistula. Notice it will bring you full circle back to obstructed labor which I've shown is preventable.

So that's it. You've got no evidence of any complication in a developed nation, and no complication that needs to be remedied by induced abortion in a developed nation or an undeveloped nation. In the undeveloped nation the mothers need food and medical care, not abortions.

 

[Granite]

You are comparing adolescent pregnancy and birth in developing countries to adolescent pregnancy and birth in developed countries.

If you're going to keep moving the goalposts as it suits you just let me know. The data available for these age ranges is available because such pregnancies are exceptionally rare in the western/developed world. We need to work with what data are available based on where these pregnancies happen with regularity.

And nothing you posted is evidence of complications in pregnancy for a healthy adolescent girl.

As I said, the thread's hypothetical involves an eleven-year-old and, since pregnancies below 14-15 are exceedingly rare, there is not much data to work with in lower age ranges. We can extrapolate from the data available, however.

Side note: Nothing in the thread's opening question speaks to the health pre-assault of the victim...or her nationality. Statistically speaking, however, the odds are she lives in the third or developing world.

Supra. And the "fact sheet" provides no evidence that an 11 year old in a developed country is at high risk.

Again, goalposts. A study specifying eleven years of age probably doesn't exist, and you know that full well.

Not sure why you mentioned this: "Pregnant adolescent girls are more likely than older women to smoke and drink alcohol, practices that can contribute to stillbirth, low birth weight and other health problems in the child." If you're insisting we imagine the hypothetical victim lives in the developed world, none of these risk factors would be unavailable to her.

A few takeaways:

Moving the goalposts when convenient isn't an honest form of debate.

Pregnancies in adolescents were consistently described as "risky" or "high risk" in the studies cited.

Data available for pre-adolescent pregnancy is sparse given its rarity.

The overwhelming number of pregnancies cited were in the third world simply because that's where they usually occur.

To ask for studies in the developed/western world is absurd simply because it is with very rare exceptions a non-existent health issue.

Even if risk to the fetus and mother were greatly reduced, this plays only one part in the overall discussion of whether or not the mother should be allowed the option to abort.

Noteworthy quotes: "The youngest mothers—those aged 14 and under—faced the greatest risks. Research from Bangladesh showed that the risk of maternal mortality may be five times higher for mothers aged 10 to 14 than for mothers aged 20 to 24."

"Having babies during adolescence has serious consequences for the health of the girl and her infant, especially in areas with weak health systems."

"In 2008, there were 16 million births to mothers aged 15–19 years, representing 11% of all births worldwide. About 95% of these births occurred in low- and middle-income countries....Pregnancies in and births to adolescents aged 10 to 14 years are relatively rare events in most countries; nevertheless in some sub-Saharan African countries the proportion of women who give birth before the age of 15 years has ranged from 0.3% to 12% since 2000, according to various sources. In Latin America, births in this age group represented less than 3% of all births among adolescents."

"First pregnancy at an early age is risky."

 

[Doormat]

We can extrapolate from the data available, however.

No, you can't. I've already stated the reasons.

Side note: Nothing in the thread's opening question speaks to the health pre-assault of the victim...or her nationality. Statistically speaking, however, the odds are she lives in the third or developing world.

It seems that people have been discussing a rape victim from Sweden (a developed country), but fine. Let's assume the victim is from a developing country. Using the information in the sources you provided, what should be done?

1. Provide the girl food and medical care to prevent the complications so she can carry and give birth to her baby.

2. Take her to have an abortion.

Keep in mind that, according to your sources, induced abortions are responsible for maternal deaths in those countries, and induced abortion whether surgical or medical (chemical) can cause trauma and life threatening complications. Also, keep in mind the drugs used for chemical abortions have not been tested for safety or efficacy in girls that young.

As for the rest of your post, I've already dealt with those claims by dissecting the sources you provided and showing you the causes of the maternal death related to pregnancy and birth complications are preventable.

 

[Granite]

No, you can't. I've already stated the reasons.

Yes, you can. You don't like my reasons but facts don't lie. To continue...

It seems that people have been discussing a rape victim from Sweden (a developed country), but fine.

First time I've seen Sweden mentioned here was when you mentioned it. I'm pretty sure the question is purely hypothetical.

Let's assume the victim is from a developing country.

With ya so far. That's the likeliest scenario.

1. Provide the girl food and medical care to prevent the complications so she can carry and give birth to her baby.

No problem with that if this is the family's decision.

2. Take her to have an abortion.

No problem with that, either. My issue comes from denying her and her family even the option to consider this alternative.

Keep in mind that, according to your sources, induced abortions are responsible for maternal deaths in those countries...

Some deaths, yes. An abortion is not a guarantee of killing her any more than carrying the pregnancy to term is.

As for the rest of your post...

I'll just call this The Doormat from now on. Whenever I don't want to address what someone posts I'll just ignore it.:dunce:

 

[Doormat]

First time I've seen Sweden mentioned here was when you mentioned it. I'm pretty sure the question is purely hypothetical.

I guess you missed all those posts about the 11 year old girl gang raped by twenty men in Sweden.

Using the information in the sources you provided, what should be done?

1. Provide the girl food and medical care to prevent the complications so she can carry and give birth to her baby.

No problem with that if this is the family's decision.

What if the girl wants the baby, but her parents want her to have an abortion?

2. Take her to have an abortion.

Keep in mind that, according to your sources, induced abortions are responsible for maternal deaths in those countries...

No problem with that, either. My issue comes from denying her and her family even the option to consider this alternative.

Some deaths, yes. An abortion is not a guarantee of killing her any more than carrying the pregnancy to term is.

Option 1 doesn't carry the risk of death because it prevents the only pregnancy and birth complications your source mentioned. Whereas option 2 still carries the risk of death, but you consider putting the girl through the physical and psychological trauma of an abortion and other potential medical complications acceptable.

I'd say your argument has been dispatched. You can have the last word.