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

[Silent Hunter]

That's a good point except that the argument for being pro-life isn't based upon logic alone. It's based upon scripture, and so is the argument for the death penalty so there is consistency there.

. . . tell it to the atheists who are pro-life :box:

Having your morals based only upon human rational can yield and does yield terrible havoc in the world. In fact, logically speaking, you can justify any act of what we consider to be evil.

. . . sort of like the christian fundamentalists I've met here :hammer:

 

[glorydaz]

Not at all. What I, and several of the others on this thread who you are *personally* attacking are ... is ANTI-ABORTION ... aka protector of our future generations.

Oh please. I have been "personally atttacked" since the moment I dared to say I would do anything to see my child was restored to health after a rape. So, don't you dare say I'm the one doing the personal attacks. Anything you get from me, you've asked for. Self defense is always justified.

It was these very type of *arguments* that you are making that caused me to reevaluate my position on abortion over a decade ago. Ironically enough, it was pro-abortion advocate who pointed out that IF it's okay to abort unborn babies who are conceived out of rape, then we are inconsistent in the value and concern we have for unborn babies.

I could care less about "consistency to a cause." I will always do what is right for any victim. When the unborn is the victim of a mothers's selfish desire for freedom, then I will be on the side of the unborn. When a child is a victim of rape by a gang or by an individual, I will be on the side of the child. The best interest of the child is to restore the child to her original condition before the damage was inflicted. Her mental and physical well-being depend upon it.

You are a pro-abortion advocate's perfect example of wishy-washy-only-prolife-to-punish-women thinkers.

You have not even considered the possibility that it is possible to care for both the mother and her unborn baby.

On the contrary. There is nothing "wishy washy" about my goal being the protection of my child, and not having her punished for being a victim. I know, for a fact, a child having a child is detrimental to both. They would BOTH be at high risk of death and serious health problems. I only need to use my eyes and the brain God gave me to see it. My granddaughter doesn't even weigh 60 lbs. She's 4'4" tall and no bigger around than a minute. It's stupid to say she should even make the attempt to have a baby.

 

[WizardofOz]

I don't want to make the decisions for others.

:sigh:
This is the default and most fundamental pro-choice rationalization.

Each child is different...some mature faster than others.

What does maturity have to do with it? If the girl is not mentally mature, the (grand)parents can help or the baby can be adopted.

Why kill it?

If the girl is not physically mature, she will miscarry. If she can give birth, why not allow nature to take its course?

Shall we blame Him for the growth hormones in our food? Shall we blame Him for birth defects? Shall we blame Him for sin in this world?

Who's talking about blaming God? I was asking if he should not have allowed such a young girl's body to be physically able to carry a child.

Why is an 11-year-old even able to become pregnant in the first place? :think:

The five year old girl in India didn't miscarry. It is NOT that simple. When a child has a baby....if she lives through it, her cardiovascular system is attacked because of the blood flow required. Her growth is stopped because the baby is stealing her nutrients, and she will never grow to her proper stature. Her bones are not even fully developed, and she can be left with deformities she carries with her forever. Hypertension and hormonal deficiencies do not just go away when the baby is born....if it's born, it is at great of death and abnormalities. Children are not meant to have children.

But sometimes they do. Every pregnancy carries a risk, regardless of age. Should we allow a 15-year-old to abort because she isn't fully developed?

I guess we should just let every female regardless of age choose whether or not to abort because each pregnancy is different and carries risks. Right?

Let's back up the focus. Should an 18-year-old rape victim be able to legally abort?

I honestly do not know where you stand and how pro-choice you are.

Most parents don't allow their children to consent to the TV shows they watch. They care enough to make important decisions for them.

What if the girl wants to keep the child but her parents insist she abort?

What then?

 

[Silent Hunter]

debasement isn't just another name for the cellar.

 

[WizardofOz]

That's a good point except that the argument for being pro-life isn't based upon logic alone. It's based upon scripture

A secular pro-life argument is more than sufficient, in my opinion.

. . . tell it to the atheists who are pro-life :box:

Exactly :thumb:

 

[Rusha]

I could care less about "consistency to a cause."

Which is exactly what those who wish to keep the killing of unborn babies legal rely on. Inconsistency from those who *claim* to be prolife/anti-abortion.

I will always do what is right for any victim.

Actually, you WON'T. You are unwilling to do right for the unborn baby ... who you believe should die via abortion because his/her father is a rapist. Why would you blame an innocent baby for his/her existence and support their early extermination?

 

[Rusha]

Unlike some here, I don't want to make the decisions for others.

THAT is exactly what pro-abortion advocates say. They do not want anyone denying them the right to kill their unborn baby.

Is there ANY situation where you are actually against abortion?

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Gave it.

None of those words were evidence of it being a "maybe baby." Just evidence that they can die before birth.

I have, and more times than I even know about probably....as is true of all women. Yes, it was proven to be a "maybe baby" because it was never born.

If you want to speak of your child that way, I feel sorry for you but your next words deny this idea;

And I know all unborn babies will be in heaven.

You are playing God by putting the life of the unborn over the life of the child who got raped. Pat yourself on the back all you want to over that one.

Rendering all non-lethal aid possible is not playing God. Deciding you will play God to induce pregnancy loss, however, betrays your lack of faith in the one who is as able to cause miscarriage as to open the womb.

I'm certainly grateful YOU aren't in charge of MY children. Unborn babies die all the time and you don't even know it. Women and babies die all the time during childbirth. The US is one of the worst developing countries in which to have a baby. Every single birth holds great risk.

So the implication of you words is obvious, even if you don't see it or contradict yourself repeatedly. I need add nothing more.

You're simply ignorant of the facts. A D&C during the RECONSTRUCTIVE surgery that would be required after the gang rape of a child is easy and safe AND the best course in such an event.

You hypothetical continues to morph, I see. Regardless it's still illogical.

No, I would be doing what mothers should do. Protect their children from every danger they may face.

Then they wouldn't be gang raped. But if they did, you would overlook the danger of grief from pregnancy loss and the loss of control and ability to protect their own child, imposed by you, saving them from their first pregnancy.

I have faith that the mercy of the Lord endures forever, and your ranting and raving like some zealot with a cause only proves you live according to your cause instead of mercy and grace.

I have mercy enough for both children.

They have you for a mother, I'm not surprised. My granddaughter must have more brains than your girls. :chuckle:

My 13 year old read that. Her first words were "that's mean."

Why don't you pick on someone your own size?

I would take any risk for any child I ever had or would have. I don't value my own life, I value the children I have been given....those already alive and well. Break into my house, and I wouldn't defend myself, but I would fight tooth and nail for my kids.

But not for their unborn.

That said, I can tell you are not a loving person, and you're a hypocrite to boot. It's amazing what one can see from reading these posts. :ha:

Interesting, indeed.

 

[Doormat]

If you had two children, and a Nazi guard said you had to choose one and send the other to be exterminated, which would you choose? If you refused to choose, he grabs both. Which would you choose?

Neither. I would know he was a sadist intending to take them both after I had chosen anyway, then make me watch while he killed them both and then killed me. That's pretty obvious considering what happened in the Holocaust.

I love all unborn babies, and I can see the Lord is getting quite a collection of them up there in heaven. I thank Him daily for sparing the babies of crankers and perverts and drunks by taking them home before they have to suffer at the hands of this wicked and perverse generation.

If you are thankful the babies of sinners are aborted, and believe all people sin, and believe Christians continue to sin after being saved, it follows you should be pro-abortion.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

If you had two children, and a Nazi guard said you had to choose one and send the other to be exterminated, which would you choose? If you refused to choose, he grabs both. Which would you choose? Neither and let them both die? Saving both is not an option.

Rather than give you my own words, how about I share my teenager's thoughts? I do agree with her, anyway.

First of all, it's a false choice, meant to mentally torture. If that's the threat you can count on everyone dying eventually, anyway.

Second, if the choice was even for real, she'd rather go with her sister and keep her company than let her be given up to die alone. Some things are worth more than the chance to live a few more days.

As for me, I'd refuse to choose and would even willingly follow them both.

And I'll even venture to say that I'd be willing to let both my children die instead of killing one to feed the other. (not before we would have been eating dirt, worms, etc)

I'll accept your implied admission that you'd feed one to the other. Unless you'd like to retract that.

Yeah we can play all kinds of what ifs. An already living breathing child is not worth losing for the sake of one with very little chance to even take it's first breath. We're talking a child having a baby...not a teenager who is engaging in sex.

We are talking about a "child" who has already reached sexual maturity and the point of natural ovulatory cycles before being raped, albeit at an unusually young age.

 

[Lighthouse]

It's funny how many pro-lifers there are who want to be first in line to pull the switch to execute a criminal . . . :kookoo:

How is that funny?

 

[glorydaz]

:sigh:
This is the default and most fundamental pro-choice rationalization.

I don't bow down to any cause.

What does maturity have to do with it? If the girl is not mentally mature, the (grand)parents can help or the baby can be adopted.

If the girl is not mentally mature? No child of 10 or 11 is mentally mature. Nor is she physically mature. She isn't even close.

Why kill it?

If the girl is not physically mature, she will miscarry. If she can give birth, why not allow nature to take its course?

Wrong, there have been a few young girls who have managed to deliver...one was 5 years old. Only a person with absolutely NO COMPASSION for the living child, and a near adoration for the CAUSE of the unborn would even suggest a child should have a baby. "Nature" messes up all the time. Birth defects of every sort and the highest percentage is among the very young.

Who's talking about blaming God? I was asking if he should not have allowed such a young girl's body to be physically able to carry a child.

I won't be telling God what He should or should not allow. He allows old women to have Down's Syndrome babies, and alcoholics to have babies with fetal alchohol disease and autism. We live in a world corrupted by sin and we see the results of that all around us. Our foods are laced with growth hormones and additives of every sort. There are babies born with no spine, no openings for bodily functions, heart defects, palsy........ :hammer:

Why is an 11-year-old even able to become pregnant in the first place? :think:

Because a woman's body is made to mature over time slowly and gradually. Part of having an egg released is a change in hormones that starts to change the shape of the girl's body. She is not supposed to be gang raped (sin) or molested (sin), but sin affects all of us who live in this sinful world. Some run head on into a semi. Why did God allow Semi's?

But sometimes they do. Every pregnancy carries a risk, regardless of age. Should we allow a 15-year-old to abort because she isn't fully developed?

We should mind our own business and not try to force our will onto other parents. You shouldn't have the right to make my kids go to school. You shouldn't have the right to make my kids eat vegetables. You shouldn't have the right to tell me what's best for MY OWN children. It's the parent's decision...not the government's and not the do-gooders who think they can dictate what's right and wrong for some one else's child.

I guess we should just let every female regardless of age choose whether or not to abort because each pregnancy is different and carries risks. Right?

Let's back up the focus. Should an 18-year-old rape victim be able to legally abort?

I honestly do not know where you stand and how pro-choice you are.

What makes you think it matters what you will "allow" or not?

What if the girl wants to keep the child but her parents insist she abort?

What does it matter what I think? I see a child and I see parents, but I sure don't see how what I think or you think makes a bit of difference.

 

[glorydaz]

THAT is exactly what pro-abortion advocates say. They do not want anyone denying them the right to kill their unborn baby.

Is there ANY situation where you are actually against abortion?

I'm against most abortions. That won't stop them from happening.

Every unborn baby requires a healthy enviornment in which to grow and develop. Children do not provide that. You might as well cover them with leeches and see how much loss they can endure before one or the other dies or suffers permanent damage. The Nazis did experiments quite similar to this "idea" of a child being forced to carry a baby to term.

A pregnant 10 or 11 year old is repulsive to even consider. Picturing my little granddaughter pregnant makes me sick to my stomach.
It's a freak of nature like a two headed calf. Children are not meant to be mothers...they are to be protected by their mothers.

 

[glorydaz]

None of those words were evidence of it being a "maybe baby." Just evidence that they can die before birth.

You may have a baby or you may not. Whether you have a miscarriage..... spontaneous abortion or not.

If you want to speak of your child that way, I feel sorry for you but your next words deny this idea

I feel sorry for you, too.

Rendering all non-lethal aid possible is not playing God. Deciding you will play God to induce pregnancy loss, however, betrays your lack of faith in the one who is as able to cause miscarriage as to open the womb.

No, I have enough faith to know the baby will be safer and better protected with the Lord than it will in the uterus of my child. And, my child won't risk death and serious health risks because her mom had enough common sense to know children should not have babies. Women should have babies. Fully formed women with all their parts in good working order and a body prepared to nourish a baby.

So the implication of you words is obvious, even if you don't see it or contradict yourself repeatedly. I need add nothing more.

The implication of your words is obvious to me. You have put the unborn baby on a higher level than my child. I haven't.

You hypothetical continues to morph, I see. Regardless it's still illogical.

I haven't morphed....you are just too busy lecturing me to listen to what I've said. It isn't a hypothetical in the least.

Then they wouldn't be gang raped. But if they did, you would overlook the danger of grief from pregnancy loss and the loss of control and ability to protect their own child, imposed by you, saving them from their first pregnancy.

The "grief" would be from being raped. I would not add to that truama for anything. Yep, I definately would do anything I needed to in order to avoid any further trial or risk.

I have mercy enough for both children.

Your mercy won't matter one whit. What good will your mercy do if you lose one or both? What good will it do to be sorry when your child dies from pre-eclampsia and the baby is stillborn? Weep then, mother.

My 13 year old read that. Her first words were "that's mean."

You should be ashamed to drag your kids into this.

Why don't you pick on someone your own size?

How big are you?

But not for their unborn.

It's not "our" unborn. You're just a looker on with a long nose. :chuckle:

 

[Rusha]

I'm against most abortions.

WHY?

That won't stop them from happening.

The same could be said about theft, murder, rape, etc. Are you opposed to them or only against *most*? When do victims of these acts cease being victims?

Every unborn baby requires a healthy enviornment in which to grow and develop.

As does every BORN baby and child.

Children do not provide that. You might as well cover them with leeches and see how much loss they can endure before one or the other dies or suffers permanent damage. The Nazis did experiments quite similar to this "idea" of a child being forced to carry a baby to term.

Children at this age HAVE given birth to healthy babies ...

A pregnant 10 or 11 year old is repulsive to even consider.

The ACT that produced the pregnancy is repulsive. Being that all unborn babies are valuable and worthy of love and protection, I disagree with you that the innocent, unborn baby is *repulsive*.

Picturing my little granddaughter pregnant makes me sick to my stomach.

This isn't about you.

It's a freak of nature like a two headed calf.

*Sigh* It's disgusting that you view innocent, unborn babies as *a freak of nature like a two headed calf*. This unborn child that you hold in such disdain and wish to destroy is every bit as innocent his/her mother.

Children are not meant to be mothers...they are to be protected by their mothers.

Mothers and grandmothers are not meant to intentionally (and with malice) kill their unborn children's unborn babies aka grandchildren.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

No, I have enough faith to know the baby will be safer and better protected with the Lord than it will in the uterus of my child.

Certainly. You surely won't protect it.

And your de facto denial that God opens and shuts the womb continues.

You should be ashamed to drag your kids into this.

When this is about them and other girls their age?

You insulted them knowing they were interested in this thread. You should know better. I guess TOL isn't really family friendly with the likes of you around. I'm making note of that.

 

[WizardofOz]

Glorydaz - Should an 18-year-old rape victim be able to legally abort?

 

[glorydaz]

Neither. I would know he was a sadist intending to take them both after I had chosen anyway, then make me watch while he killed them both and then killed me. That's pretty obvious considering what happened in the Holocaust.

That only tells me you are naive. If you'd like to ponder the difficult choices parents have been forced to make, do some reading about the victims of the holocaust instead of just pretending it would never happen. Ask the parents who have been forced to decide which child to save when they fall out of a boat into the river, or when a building is burning down.

Benyamin (Bibi) Netanyahu has a fearful choice to make, like Sophie in William Styron's novel Sophie's Choice. The young Sophie of Styron's novel was forced to choose which of her two young children were to be murdered in a Nazi concentration camp. I have known real Sophies in my life, among Holocaust Survivors; they were literally forced to choose which of their toddlers to save from death, and to single out those who would not be saved. The Nazis sent an estimated 1.2 million Jewish children to be killed in concentration camps, along with thousands of Gypsy and handicapped children. Sophie and her children were real. Just ask any Holocaust survivor. http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/sophies_choice_and_bibis.html​

If you are thankful the babies of sinners are aborted, and believe all people sin, and believe Christians continue to sin after being saved, it follows you should be pro-abortion.

Since I don't believe any of your IFs, then if follows that you think you're a mind reader. :chuckle:

I am thankful when a baby is taken home to be with the Lord rather than be held captive in an attic as a sex tool for perverts to enjoy.
Many babies are spared....and many are delivered to a living hell on earth. That's the nature of the world we live in.

 

[glorydaz]

Rather than give you my own words, how about I share my teenager's thoughts? I do agree with her, anyway.

First of all, it's a false choice, meant to mentally torture. If that's the threat you can count on everyone dying eventually, anyway.

Second, if the choice was even for real, she'd rather go with her sister and keep her company than let her be given up to die alone. Some things are worth more than the chance to live a few more days.

As for me, I'd refuse to choose and would even willingly follow them both.

It's not a false choice. You just don't want to face it.

And I'll even venture to say that I'd be willing to let both my children die instead of killing one to feed the other. (not before we would have been eating dirt, worms, etc)

Yeah, you'd venture to say a lot of things, but you have no idea what you would do in every possible situation. I don't know why your imagination allowed you to go down the path of one child "eating" the other child since that has nothing to do with anything.

I'll accept your implied admission that you'd feed one to the other. Unless you'd like to retract that.

I'll accept the proof you've just given of your ignorance.

We are talking about a "child" who has already reached sexual maturity and the point of natural ovulatory cycles before being raped, albeit at an unusually young age.

No, just because an egg can be released and fertilized, does NOT mean the child is "sexually mature". Your lack of knowledge is amazing.

 

[glorydaz]

WHY?

Because most abortions are not necessary to preserve the life and health of the mother.

The same could be said about theft, murder, rape, etc. Are you opposed to them or only against *most*? When do victims of these acts cease being victims?

I'm against children having babies before they're physically mature enough to have them.

Theft? I'm against people stealing kids to rape and murder them.
Rape? I'm against rape. Can't think of one rape I'd ever condone.
Murder? I'm against murder but not all killing. Malice should have consequences.

Children at this age HAVE given birth to healthy babies ...

You won't find any statistics to prove that one. They survived birth.

The ACT that produced the pregnancy is repulsive. Being that all unborn babies are valuable and worthy of love and protection, I disagree with you that the innocent, unborn baby is *repulsive*.

You can't even tell the truth, Rusha. I said a pregnant child is repulsive. Just like a man who has a sex change is repulsive. Just like the woman that became a man and had a baby is repulsive. Just like a 5 yr. old dressed like a tramp dancing on a stage like a stripper is repulsive.

This isn't about you.

This isn't about YOU, either, but you act like it is. If you want your 10 or 11 yr. old to have a baby, that's YOUR business. It's not YOUR business to dictate what I would or would not allow MY child to do.

*Sigh* It's disgusting that you view innocent, unborn babies as *a freak of nature like a two headed calf*. This unborn child that you hold in such disdain and wish to destroy is every bit as innocent his/her mother.

It's disgusting that you would allow your child to risk death, growth retardation, cardiovascular damage, and future inability to have more children instead of protecting her from further truama.

Mothers and grandmothers are not meant to intentionally (and with malice) kill their unborn children's unborn babies aka grandchildren.

LIAR. There is NO malice. You're so evil you can't even see your own malice and lack of compassion for the FIRST and true victim in this crime. :nono: