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

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


  • Total voters
    63

Granite

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

If it was posted by ACW, definitely, considering I've had the mincing lying freakshow on ignore for as long as I can remember.

Having said that: A Google search leads me to believe this is a hideous pornographic lie (considering there's no proof of the story) leading me to believe that certain freaks with way too much time on their hands invented an urban legend that speaks to the foul of their imagination. If you can prove this happened, great, if not, it's a despicable and truly gut-ripping tale that informs me of the minds of certain evangelicals.

Charmed, I'm sure.

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

I asked a question of fool and Rusha, both of whom did a quick fade after I did so:

If the girl is not able to consent to sex, why should anyone give her the ability to consent to carrying? In other words, you're trusting an eleven-year-old child with life and death, but you don't trust her with sex. By what standard? What's more important: Getting it on, or getting an abortion? Why trust her with the decision to do one and not the other? Why trust a child with this decision and not her physician and her parents? What other life and death decisions would you entrust to an eleven-year-old? And why, since we're at it, would you not oppose a child of this age from having what she thinks is "consensual" sex? After all, you think she's old enough to make life and death decisions.

I'll bump this till I get an answer.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
if this was my daughter I would encourage her to abort yet, couldn't demand such.
I really don't believe the average 11yr old has the maturity nor capacity to understand the long term conseqences of her actions (either way) Yet, if I propose a solution that doesn't agree with you I'm "forcing my ideology on her". :idunno:

Yup, case closed. As a trusted authority figure you could probably talk her into suicide, too. That'll really clean things up. (not)
:plain:

Why waste both our times making stupid remarks such as this?

This is a life and death matter. And children need and love their parents/guardians so much that they will do practically anything to please them-to be accepted, including accepting physical or sexual abuse. That is why they cannot consent.

:Consensual sex has "everything to do with [your] point" regarding the rape and unintentional pregnancy of an eleven year old?!! :doh:

My point is not about her rape but about the idea of consenting to abortion. Please do not misrepresent me and waste my time.

3. There's no more risk involved with abortion than with giving birth...this point is moot.

What are you imagining the risks with abortion vs birth are?

4. "A valuable human being" says who...you? Subjective ramblings.

I thought you were a Buddhist, did I miss something? What kind of Karma would you be bringing on a child and yourself with your hypothetical advice?

For that matter, what message do you send a girl if you say her baby is not valuable by virtue of who the father is, to the point that you would encourage the shedding of innocent blood? Are you not saying that her worth is not great enough to save her child, or that she herself would not be worthy of life if she was in her child's position? Does this not cheapen her view of humanity and lessen her self worth in her eyes?

What would the Buddha say?

What makes you think that forcing her to give birth will not increase her suffering?

What makes you think abortion will not increase her suffering?

She will if a trusted authority takes her in where they will take off her clothes, hold her down and go into that already traumatized part of her body to re-traumatize it while denying her a living relative - all to please themselves that a "bastard child" won't be born. This is exactly the problem with forced abortion.
This is simply a barbaric scenario constructed as such to generate sympathy for your position.

I see the pro-aborts on this thread fishing for sympathy all the time by talking about how battered the girl is and how horrible the maternal condition supposedly is, but when you think about an abortion it's hard not to have sympathy for what that experience will be like for her. Why ignore that kind of suffering?

What makes you believe that therapy and compassion would not be shown during the procedure (for an already traumatized girl..no less)? This is mere contrived drama on your part.

All the therapy and compassion in the world while shedding blood through entering her body will not erase the reality of the procedure.

In an abortion there are only a few ways it can be done. Drugs are risky and painful, often requiring a D&C follow-up. Imagine a swollen possibly obstructed cervix/vagina trying to expel a pregnancy - excruciating and probably impossible to complete without surgical follow-up.

And surgical procedure will involve a trip to visit strangers, with removal of clothing, full exposure, being viewed and entered by strangers, which in the best of times is hard, and in a situation like this would be far more painful, humiliating and risky than normal.

And...your points are becoming increasingly pointless.

If, in this debate I lose sight of the sanctity of life I think you would be right. I'm trying to honor the unborn children of this world and all human life. And frankly at this rate I think I'd make a better Buddhist than you in that regard. What sort of Buddhism allows you to ease the suffering of one by killing another?
 

Doormat

New member
Doormat said:
I guess you missed all those posts about the 11 year old girl gang raped by twenty men in Sweden.
If it was posted by ACW, definitely, considering I've had the mincing lying freakshow on ignore for as long as I can remember.

Having said that: A Google search leads me to believe this is a hideous pornographic lie (considering there's no proof of the story) leading me to believe that certain freaks with way too much time on their hands invented an urban legend that speaks to the foul of their imagination. If you can prove this happened, great, if not, it's a despicable and truly gut-ripping tale that informs me of the minds of certain evangelicals.

First, several people mentioned the story in this thread, so perhaps you have all of them on ignore. Second, I believe I was the first person in this thread to point out the story appears fabricated, if not entirely then at least to some degree. And I've mentioned that several times throughout this thread. Obviously you don't have me on ignore.

I asked a question of fool and Rusha, both of whom did a quick fade after I did so:

They've probably grown tired of going around in circles with people. I don't fault them for that.

If the girl is not able to consent to sex, why should anyone give her the ability to consent to carrying? In other words, you're trusting an eleven-year-old child with life and death, but you don't trust her with sex.

You are arguing she shouldn't be allowed to consent to sex, hence shouldn't be allowed to consent to remaining pregnant and having her baby. Therefore, you believe it's the parents decision whether the baby lives or dies. And you stated in your last post if her family (the parents) want her to have the baby you "have no problem with that."

Since you obviously have removed the girls consent from consideration by your argument, what your position boils down to is you "have no problem" with the parents forcing her to have the baby or forcing her to abort the baby. Additionally, it appears that you really don't have a problem with the girl suffering physical and psychological trauma and potential medical complications, as long as the parents get what they want.

Why trust a child with this decision and not her physician and her parents?

It's her body, and she's not contemplating doing something immoral with it like abortion.

What other life and death decisions would you entrust to an eleven-year-old?

Having a baby is not a "life and death" decision. Abortion is a "life and death" decision.

And why, since we're at it, would you not oppose a child of this age from having what she thinks is "consensual" sex?

I would oppose it for a number of reasons, one of them being to avoid the consequences of what we are discussing here.

I'll bump this till I get an answer.

A duck in a barrel needn't goad the shooter. Again, I'll give you the last word, if you like. ... or you can keep giving me ammo. Your choice.
 

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
First, several people mentioned the story in this thread, so perhaps you have all of them on ignore. Second, I believe I was the first person in this thread to point out the story appears fabricated, if not entirely then at least to some degree.

So it's all fake and you're a flake for running with it. In other words, you're a Christian.

They've probably grown tired of going around in circles with people. I don't fault them for that.

Or they don't have an argument, which is telling.

You are arguing she shouldn't be allowed to consent to sex, hence shouldn't be allowed to consent to remaining pregnant and having her baby. Therefore, you believe it's the parents decision whether the baby lives or dies. And you stated in your last post if her family (the parents) want her to have the baby you "have no problem with that."

They should all at least have the option, the one you refuse to accept because of your sickened concepts of "sanctity." Look: Pushed far enough, no life is sacred. And what kind of Bible-beating nutter doesn't take the time to point out a girl this age can't consent? Are you dense, dumb, or really this much of a zealot?

It's her body,

Oddly enough, the exact same argument used by PP. What are you now, a flippin' Sanger apologist? Precisely: It is her body. One you'd like to consistently ignore. Her infortune is a soapbox, not a reality, at least not as you count it.

Having a baby is not a "life and death" decision. Abortion is a "life and death" decision.

Actually yeah, it is. You clueless or what? And answer the question or sod off. P.S. What if she actually wanted an abortion? You'd disagree with her thought process once it disagreed with yours. Biggest double standard I've seen since a G&R/Metallica concert.

I would oppose it for a number of reasons, one of them being to avoid the consequences of what we are discussing here.

Then name your reasons. Smarts? Moral gut feeling? Makes you creepy? She knows best now, but not later? Spell it out. Unless...

Oh, wait: Every single reason you'd list is the same set this girl would use justifying an abortion. Smarts, morality, level head, the whole nine. You're with this poor thing till she disagrees with you. That's just lovely. "Sorry you got train wrecked, sweetheart, but this bundle of joy is yours whether you like it or not." Best not to argue with that kind of barbarian worldview. You're pro-life until someone deserves to die.
 
Last edited:

quip

BANNED
Banned
This is a life and death matter. And children need and love their parents/guardians so much that they will do practically anything to please them-to be accepted, including accepting physical or sexual abuse. That is why they cannot consent.

So, this is your justification for forcing her to give birth? And how does this not qualify as abuse?



My point is not about her rape but about the idea of consenting to abortion. Please do not misrepresent me and waste my time.

Well, it is about her rape...her rape led to pregnancy which led to the issue to abort or not. Sorry, in this particular scenario, they're causally related, you can't simply ignore the rape.

What are you imagining the risks with abortion vs birth are?

The risks may vary yet, the point is that there's risk either way.


I thought you were a Buddhist, did I miss something? What kind of Karma would you be bringing on a child and yourself with your hypothetical advice?

Please give me your interpretation of Karma. (Prob. some TV version.) Red herring.

For that matter, what message do you send a girl if you say her baby is not valuable by virtue of who the father is, to the point that you would encourage the shedding of innocent blood? Are you not saying that her worth is not great enough to save her child, or that she herself would not be worthy of life if she was in her child's position? Does this not cheapen her view of humanity and lessen her self worth in her eyes?

It was conceived in violence; its not the equal moral value of the eleven year old; eleven year old girls aren't at the level of maturity to handle motherhood; it would possibly be a constant, living reminder of the violent rape she experienced. Not much of value here in birthing the baby.

What would the Buddha say?

Think for yourself.

What makes you think abortion will not increase her suffering?

Another dodge?

Simply because getting rid of the unborn child commences her healing...who would desire another nine months of physical suffering on top of what she's already experienced?

I see the pro-aborts on this thread fishing for sympathy all the time by talking about how battered the girl is and how horrible the maternal condition supposedly is, but when you think about an abortion it's hard not to have sympathy for what that experience will be like for her. Why ignore that kind of suffering?

When you have a tooth ache...you get an extraction. What's your point? We have imminent suffering that should be mitigated as fast as possible vs. your dramatic appeals to emotion for no more than your particular strain of moral idealism. Hmmm. An argument to succor current tactile suffering or one to supplant it via moral idealism? Which one seems the most rational to you?



All the therapy and compassion in the world while shedding blood through entering her body will not erase the reality of the procedure.

In an abortion there are only a few ways it can be done. Drugs are risky and painful, often requiring a D&C follow-up. Imagine a swollen possibly obstructed cervix/vagina trying to expel a pregnancy - excruciating and probably impossible to complete without surgical follow-up.

And surgical procedure will involve a trip to visit strangers, with removal of clothing, full exposure, being viewed and entered by strangers, which in the best of times is hard, and in a situation like this would be far more painful, humiliating and risky than normal.

Then the quicker the better! Don't think that pregnancy is any less personally and physically invasive. The poor girl has a tough road ahead...no matter which path is taken.

If, in this debate I lose sight of the sanctity of life I think you would be right. I'm trying to honor the unborn children of this world and all human life. And frankly at this rate I think I'd make a better Buddhist than you in that regard. What sort of Buddhism allows you to ease the suffering of one by killing another?

Buddhist's believe in easing the suffering of all sentient beings...one being here is sentient, the other is not....I let you connect the dots on this one.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
So, this is your justification for forcing her to give birth? And how does this not qualify as abuse?

So letting a minor who is pregnant give birth is abuse? At what age do you draw the line? With that mentality the 11% of children born in the USA aught to have been aborted and their grandparents are abusive for not taking their lives.

Yet I wonder, how is abortion not abusive?


The risks may vary yet, the point is that there's risk either way.

Answer the question.


Please give me your interpretation of Karma.(Prob. some TV version.)

Hinduism, Buddhism. action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation:

Red herring.

It's at the heart of the matter, the sanctity of life.

Abortion is bad karma. For both mother and fetus.


While it's pretty obvious why abortion is considered to generate bad karma for the mother and the abortionist it may not be so obvious why it generates bad karma for the foetus.

The foetus suffers bad karma because its soul is deprived of the opportunities that an earthly existence would have given it to earn good karma, and is returned immediately to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Thus abortion hinders its spiritual progress.



Buddhism and Abortion

It was conceived in violence; its not the equal moral value of the eleven year old

What if that's how the 11 year old was conceived, herself?

eleven year old girls aren't at the level of maturity to handle motherhood

So she's unworthy and so is her baby, right? Wouldn't her parents be there for the baby like they were for her?

it would possibly be a constant, living reminder of the violent rape she experienced. Not much of value here in birthing the baby.

So the daughter you have, if she was not biologically yours but conceived in rape, would you look at her today and say "not much of value here?"

Think for yourself.

Are you sure he wouldn't say ""Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill."

Simply because getting rid of the unborn child commences her healing...who would desire another nine months of physical suffering on top of what she's already experienced?

...Because "life is suffering" right?

your dramatic appeals to emotion for no more than your particular strain of moral idealism.

Are you suggesting that a baby is no more than my "particular strain of moral idealism?"

Hmmm. An argument to succor current tactile suffering or one to supplant it via moral idealism? Which one seems the most rational to you?

How is further injury to healing parts and hearts "succor?"

Then the quicker the better! Don't think that pregnancy is any less personally and physically invasive.

I've been pregnant many times. Your idea of the process is uninformed.

The poor girl has a tough road ahead...no matter which path is taken.

That's a good reason to choose the better karmic path.

Buddhist's believe in easing the suffering of all sentient beings...one being here is sentient, the other is not....I let you connect the dots on this one.

Untrue by my standards and yours.


Buddhism believes in rebirth and teaches that individual human life begins at conception. The new being, bearing the karmic identity of a recently deceased individual, is therefore as entitled to the same moral respect as an adult human being.

 

1PeaceMaker

New member
Quip, I think I'm done here. I want to be with my 6 children and dear husband -and I've defended the innocent against the desire for bloodshed on this thread long enough. If you want the last word, I think I'll be going so have at it.
 

Doormat

New member
Doormat said:
First, several people mentioned the story in this thread, so perhaps you have all of them on ignore. Second, I believe I was the first person in this thread to point out the story appears fabricated, if not entirely then at least to some degree.
So it's all fake and you're a flake for running with it. In other words, you're a Christian.

I see. You ignore what I posted above and what I have posted several times in this thread so you can misrepresent me and hurl an insult at Christians in general. Let's see what I've written and what you've written in this thread proving that I did not run with the story while you did run with it.

In post #79 I was the first to question the legitimacy of the story:

I don't believe that is the eleven year old rape victim, so if you want to use an eleven year old rape victim's face as a political football, perhaps you should actually use the face of the real victim. The same picture appears in 2005 story on FrontPage Magazine in a story titled Muslim Rape Wave in Sweden. It doesn't appear to be the picture of an eleven year old, and she was brutally beaten but the girl in the public bathhouse was not, if I am not mistaken. You can Google it yourself; I will not provide a link because of the offensive, vulgar, curse filled statements made about Swedish women that were quoted in the article.

Then in post # 120 I mentioned it again:

That's not what happened. Didn't you watch the video about the incident? The 11 year old girl was not beaten; the bloodied woman in the picture is not 11 and from a different rape story, as I pointed out in a previous post. The video doesn't claim 20 men raped an eleven year old, but that an incident that involved several young victims confronted by up to 20 "adult male" attackers ended in one reported rape of an 11 year old girl. There is no evidence that the 11 year old victim in that incident became pregnant.

Here we see you responded to the OP that contained the link to the fabricated story:

Can someone who considers themselves pro-life argue that it should be legal for an 11-year-old rape victim to legally obtain an abortion?

What is she was 13? 15? 18?

What if an 11-year-old gets pregnant through consensual sex?

Draw your arbitrary line in the sand and let us know your thoughts!

When should abortion be legal?

Would giving birth or continuing the pregnancy for any length of time endanger her life?

That's the only litmus test you really need.

We see that 1) you were aware of the story being discussed, 2) you ran with it making you a flake according to your own measure of flakiness, and 3) you established a litmus test that you have since undermined with your own irrational arguments.

Is there any current medical reason to believe that the mother's life is in danger?
No, which is why I used the word "if." A danger to the mother's life is my litmus test. And it's an obvious concern given this girl's age.

There you confirmed your "litmus test" that you have since undermined.

And then there's this bit:

This subject is illuminating in that everyone's priorities are made extremely clear.

The mother is consistently regarded as secondary by the more hard-core pro-lifers. Seriously. She might as well not even exist.

And so you indict yourself because as I wrote ...

Doormat said:
You are arguing she shouldn't be allowed to consent to sex, hence shouldn't be allowed to consent to remaining pregnant and having her baby. Therefore, you believe it's the parents decision whether the baby lives or dies. And you stated in your last post if her family (the parents) want her to have the baby you "have no problem with that."

Since you obviously have removed the girls consent from consideration by your argument, what your position boils down to is you "have no problem" with the parents forcing her to have the baby or forcing her to abort the baby. Additionally, it appears that you really don't have a problem with the girl suffering physical and psychological trauma and potential medical complications, as long as the parents get what they want.

So you have nothing left to argue.

Oddly enough, the exact same argument used by PP. What are you now, a flippin' Sanger apologist? Precisely: It is her body.

Notice how you omitted the rest of my comment to misrepresent me?

Then name your reasons.

I already provided one reason but you ignored it so you can imagine reasons that are not mine, so you can misrepresent me because you are a sore loser.

Best not to argue with that kind of barbarian worldview.

Then I'll ignore anything else you have to say on the matter. :e4e:
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
So letting a minor who is pregnant give birth is abuse? At what age do you draw the line? With that mentality the 11% of children born in the USA aught to have been aborted and their grandparents are abusive for not taking their lives.

Yet I wonder, how is abortion not abusive?

You're avoiding important qualifications to this statement: Forcing an 11 yr. old child to birth her own child after a violent rape. YES...that is abuse!




Answer the question.

I don't know the specifics. You may know them ....but you're only spinning the dangers and complications of abortion. This clearly shows the level of intellectual dishonesty you're displaying here.


Hinduism, Buddhism. action, seen as bringing upon oneself inevitable results, good or bad, either in this life or in a reincarnation:

It's at the heart of the matter, the sanctity of life.

Abortion is bad karma. For both mother and fetus.


While it's pretty obvious why abortion is considered to generate bad karma for the mother and the abortionist it may not be so obvious why it generates bad karma for the foetus.

The foetus suffers bad karma because its soul is deprived of the opportunities that an earthly existence would have given it to earn good karma, and is returned immediately to the cycle of birth, death and rebirth. Thus abortion hinders its spiritual progress.



Buddhism and Abortion

Since you're giving reincarnation lip-service perhaps the fetus is paying a karmic debt by being aborted. Plus, if the aborted fetus will experience rebirth...where's the "hindered" spirited progress. The author of this biased quote does not and cannot answer these questions...instead I'll ask them one question they should answer: Why would you or perhaps this author wish a suffering existence on a being when there's a possibility to avoid suffering? These are philosophical points your superficial pseudo-Buddhists web-sights don't even consider yet alone contemplate. Don't come on here quoting Buddhists web-factoids and offer up shallow, perfunctory Buddhist instruction.


What if that's how the 11 year old was conceived, herself?

And what's the relevance if it was?

So she's unworthy and so is her baby, right? Wouldn't her parents be there for the baby like they were for her?

Unworthy..were are you getting this?

Sure all the more reason to add the parent's opinion to the mix...which might be to abort.

So the daughter you have, if she was not biologically yours but conceived in rape, would you look at her today and say "not much of value here?"

This is no more than a straw-take. First, this is about the 11 yr old (her abuse) second it's the fetus and whether to abort or not....I see it as further abuse to demand a raped little girl give birth. Second, my general view is that the fetus has less moral value than the mother; not the fetus has zero value. Again, you're exaggerating facts for effect and to fit your ideology.

Are you sure he wouldn't say ""Everyone fears punishment; everyone fears death, just as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill. Everyone fears punishment; everyone loves life, as you do. Therefore do not kill or cause to kill."



...Because "life is suffering" right?

Fetus' can't fear death nor are they sentient so the "everyone" qualification fails here.
Why do you say life is suffering with quotes?

Are you suggesting that a baby is no more than my "particular strain of moral idealism?"

No. forcing every woman to give birth under any form of circumstances under the mantra "All life is sacred"....is your particular strain of moral idealism.


How is further injury to healing parts and hearts "succor?"

I not sure what you're talking about here. I already gave you the "toothache" analogy...which you seem to have conveniently deleted.

I've been pregnant many times. Your idea of the process is uninformed.

Then you know the risks and what it does or potentially do to the body...I've been through five of my own - from the male side of the equation :eek: - during none of those five births were the risks and pain negligible...makes me wonder why you're ignoring the issue!

That's a good reason to choose the better karmic path.
The Karma is tough either way...zero sum.


Untrue by my standards and yours.


Buddhism believes in rebirth and teaches that individual human life begins at conception. The new being, bearing the karmic identity of a recently deceased individual, is therefore as entitled to the same moral respect as an adult human being.


No, quite wrong. There is no dogma in Buddhism and that's exactly what you're implying here. Many, in fact, most Buddhists would favor easing the suffering of the mother over a non-sentient, incipient life-form. You're simply quoting a pro-life, biased Buddhist web-sight.
 
Last edited:

Granite

New member
Hall of Fame
Doormat: I was unaware of any Sweden-related story and after investigation it appears to be a complete invention. You're a sucker, I'm not, I'm honest, and you have a problem with honesty. Admit as much or just take your ball and go home.:cheers:

You're as cold-blooded and unfeeling as the imaginary Muslims in this fake story who excited you. And that's...pretty godawful, come to think about it.
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
You're avoiding important qualifications to this statement: Forcing an 11 yr. old child to birth her own child after a violent rape. YES...that is abuse!

I understand. You feel that if the child is allowed to suffer anything further after she has already suffered, that is abuse. For you, that is worth the shedding of "non-sentient" human blood. This is your bottom line.

Yet you cannot quantify which is the harder path and have not proven that denying her an abortion is abuse.

It just makes me wonder if you would feel the same about forcing her to live rather than letting her be painlessly euthanized if she would rather end her inevitable suffering. You yourself said she has a tough road ahead no matter what.

So what's your personal judgment? Is it virtue or abuse to not provide euthanasia for a depressed, suffering, pregnant 11 year old who is begging to die to avoid the misery of an abortion choice or a life of reflection on her moments of abuse?
 

quip

BANNED
Banned
I understand. You feel that if the child is allowed to suffer anything further after she has already suffered, that is abuse. For you, that is worth the shedding of "non-sentient" human blood. This is your bottom line.

Yet you cannot quantify which is the harder path and have not proven that denying her an abortion is abuse.

It just makes me wonder if you would feel the same about forcing her to live rather than letting her be painlessly euthanized if she would rather end her inevitable suffering. You yourself said she has a tough road ahead no matter what.

So what's your personal judgment? Is it virtue or abuse to not provide euthanasia for a depressed, suffering, pregnant 11 year old who is begging to die to avoid the misery of an abortion choice or a life of reflection on her moments of abuse?


:rolleyes:

Are you grasping or what?
You're nothing but a colossal time waster! :wave2:
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame
Simply because getting rid of the unborn child commences her healing...who would desire another nine months of physical suffering on top of what she's already experienced?
Who would desire a lifetime of being a child killer?



When you have a tooth ache...you get an extraction.
Teeth aren't kids.
When you understand that it will become clear to you.






Buddhist's believe in easing the suffering of all sentient beings...one being here is sentient, the other is not....I let you connect the dots on this one.
How does telling her to kill her kid ease her suffering?
Oh yeah, teeth, see the thing is Quip she's lost teeth before, even she knows the difference between teeth and a baby.
 

bybee

New member
Who would desire a lifetime of being a child killer?




Teeth aren't kids.
When you understand that it will become clear to you.



Apparently the rapist doesn't mind destroying this young child's life? Her body lives but she is irreparably damaged. And apparently the rapist doesn't mind spilling his depraved genetic material resulting in an unwanted, unloved and highly problematic pregnancy?
This situation would not occur if men behaved responsibly.




How does telling her to kill her kid ease her suffering?
Oh yeah, teeth, see the thing is Quip she's lost teeth before, even she knows the difference between teeth and a baby.
 

fool

Well-known member
Hall of Fame

Apparently the rapist doesn't mind destroying this young child's life?[/QUOTE]
What does he have to do with anything?

Her body lives but she is irreparably damaged.
Killing her kid doesn't undo that.

And apparently the rapist doesn't mind spilling his depraved genetic material
Is the baby depraved?



resulting in an unwanted,
Does being unwanted make you un human?



You don't know that.
You would tell that 11 year old that she should kill her child.
But she won't buy that, she might understand life better than you do.


and highly problematic pregnancy?
That's her choice, not yours.

This situation would not occur if men behaved responsibly.
What the hell is that suposed to mean?
Am I not supposed to have an opinioin because I'm a Man?
 

1PeaceMaker

New member
I consider this medical reason, not rape reason. An 11 year olds body is not developed enough for childbirth.

EXACTLY. :thumb:

If my 11 yrd old grandchild got raped, I would make sure she had a D&C ASAP. I wouldn't even let her know there could be a pregnancy. There is a place in the Law for MERCY, and if ever there was a case, it's this one.

Be clear.

Would you abort a child like this one? (notice that the mother didn't even need a C-section.)

Choose your reasons and make sure they are really justified.

Neither rape nor age are good enough qualifiers for shedding innocent blood.
 

glorydaz

Well-known member
Be clear.

Would you abort a child like this one? (notice that the mother didn't even need a C-section.)

Choose your reasons and make sure they are really justified.

Neither rape nor age are good enough qualifiers for shedding innocent blood.

That's like showing me the picture of the latest lottery winner, and asking me why I don't spend my rent money on a lottery ticket. :nono:


I wouldn't gamble with the life of the child the Lord has already blessed us with, nor would I want the baby to have to try to leech nourishment, and struggle to survive in an environment not ready to maintain a healthy life. Neither child deserves the fate you would subject them to. I'm actually surprised at the lack of compassion I've seen for the child victim of a rape. She should not be exposed to risk of death and future truama to appease the convictions of those looking on.


A recent report by the Guttmacher Institute said teen pregnancies in the U.S. were up 3 percent in 2006. But this case is not about a teenager, noted Dr. Abdulla Al-Khan, a leading high-risk obstetrician — it’s about a pre-teen whose body is not yet built to carry a child.

"Her body is clearly not defined for pregnancy with its short stature," Al-Khan said. "Her chest is not extensively developed for breast tissue, her bones aren't quite fused, and once you expose a child this young to high amounts of progesterone and especially estrogen, there is (a possibility) that it could halt her growth."

Al-Khan said other medical challenges facing a pregnant girl as young as 10 or 11 include:

— The pelvis is not defined for natural childbirth;

— The vagina could sustain injury during a natural birth;

— The patient is at high risk for preeclampsia, a pregnancy condition marked by high blood pressure and protein in the urine, and which can lead to convulsions and multi-system organ failure;

— A higher risk of pre-term labor and delivery, which would mean the baby’s size would be compromised, leaving the baby at risk for developmental issues, fetal growth restriction and chromosomal abnormalities;

— Higher incidence of stillbirth;

— Higher incidence of cholestasis of pregnancy, a condition caused by the blockage of bile, which can lead to stillbirth and placenta issues;

— A chance of developing fatty liver, which can be fatal.

"The textbooks don’t even tell you how to deal with a 10-year-old; it’s completely different even though we understand the basics," Al-Khan said.

Al-Khan said it was likely that the possibility of terminating the baby would have come up in this case, because as sensitive a subject as it is, going through with the pregnancy would be a greater risk than having an abortion.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/story/2010/0...baby-boy-in-northeast-hospital/#ixzz2cZJd9FBl



Having a child at a young age is risky for both mother and baby. Worldwide, the World Health Organization estimates that the risk of death following pregnancy is twice as great for women between 15 and 19 years as for those between 20 and 24 and as much as five times higher for mothers 14 and under. Outcomes can also be risky for babies. The March of Dimes reports that babies of teenage mothers are more likely to die during their first year of life, and the younger the mother, the higher the risk. According to a study in 2005, out of every 1,000 babies in the U.S., 16.4 died during their first year of life when the mother was younger than 15 years old. When the mother was older, only 6.8 out of every 1,000 babies lost their lives.

http://www.medicalbillingandcoding.org/blog/12-studied-effects-of-teenage-pregnancy/

 
Top