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

[glorydaz]

Certainly. You surely won't protect it.

Unlike you, I would protect the child who was raped...the FIRST victim who has every right to life. She does not need to be further victimized...she needs to be restored to health....not sucked dry and have her body further ravished.

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

I don't deny God is allowing babies to be aborted at a staggering rate. His reasons are obviously beyond your comprehension. They aren't beyond mine.

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.

You informed me your girls thought people like me were horrible. I joked about my granddaughter being smarter because she knows mommies are supposed to have babies...not kids. If you can't handle that, then perhaps you should stop your own mud-slinging, you hypocrite. Make note of that while you're at it.

 

[glorydaz]

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

I've never seen an 18yr. old that wasn't physically able to have a baby. I'm sure there are some instances, though. Perhaps she has AIDS....perhaps she has cerebrial palsy. The baby's health and the mother's ability to successfully carry a baby should always be considered.

As far as laws go, if someone wants an abortion, they'll get one.

 

[Doormat]

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.

What your answer tells me is you don't know Sophie's Choice is a work of fiction that is not based on a true story.

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.

Members of my family were exterminated in the Holocaust.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Unlike you, I would protect the child who was raped...

Actually, you would lead her to a stranger, have her undress, have her feet put up in stirrups, have her swollen parts pried apart while still freshly injured and just starting to heal at the peak of tenderness, have her baby scraped out and not even tell her what you were doing. (and you add the little reconstruction idea as though you know it would be needed or even done in the same procedure.)

If your hypothetical 11 year old daughter was as smart as some girls that age, she'd probably realize what you were doing whether you lied or not. Regardless, it will be in her medical records for her to find and become enraged and saddened about the minute she goes to start prenatal care around 10 years later.

You have no protection for that. AND - no protection for her reliving all her abuse at that later point when she does find out, suicidal ideations, acting out with self abuse, drugs to calm her, broken trust in you, etc.

...she needs to be restored to health....not sucked dry and have her body further ravished.

Let me know when you find case studies of 11 year old girls well nourished in pregnancy with high quality intervention who end up with the supposed lethal or serious complications you mentioned.

Lina Medina menstruated at 9 months. When she got pregnant at 5 and gave birth at almost 6 years it did not damage her beyond repair - she had another child 30 years later!

I don't deny God is allowing babies to be aborted at a staggering rate. His reasons are obviously beyond your comprehension. They aren't beyond mine.

The babies who are murdered at any age (fetus or toddler) are not the ones who are cursed, it's their families and society at large. The mothers of those babes are hit the hardest. God allows it to spare the children from murderers raising them.

You informed me your girls thought people like me were horrible.

Don't slander my children.

Here's what was really said;

My oldest girls, 11 and 13, are appalled at the ideas you and your team are spouting.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

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

Pretending I didn't play it your way won't help you.

We said -

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.

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.

It has everything to do with what you said about aborting an 11 year old mother's baby.

You would abort/kill one child to keep another better nourished. You said so.

And I note you still failed to clarify that you would NOT feed one child to another, which makes sense given what you would do to a helpless unborn child competing for resources with her mother.

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

Don't confuse adulthood with sexual maturity.

Sexual maturity is the age or stage when an organism can reproduce. It is sometimes considered synonymous with adulthood, though the two are distinct.

 

[WizardofOz]

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

I've never seen an 18yr. old that wasn't physically able to have a baby. I'm sure there are some instances, though. Perhaps she has AIDS....perhaps she has cerebrial palsy. The baby's health and the mother's ability to successfully carry a baby should always be considered.

As far as laws go, if someone wants an abortion, they'll get one.

You're hinting at an answer but not outright providing one. I'll be more specific:

If an 18-year-old is raped and she and the baby are otherwise completely (physically) healthy, should she be able to legally obtain an abortion?

 

[glorydaz]

What your answer tells me is you don't know Sophie's Choice is a work of fiction that is not based on a true story.



Members of my family were exterminated in the Holocaust.

I know the book was based upon factual cases. The fact that you had family exterminated and haven't read the personal accounts of the many who had to make the same choice is telling. Are you expecting me to do the research for you? Bibi knows of such cases personally....that's why I posted the article so you would be spared having to read the personal testimonies.

You don't even have to go to the holocaust....go to your newpaper archives for accounts of parents having to choose between two drowning children or having to choose during a house fire. Burying your head in the sand won't make it go away.

 

[glorydaz]

Actually, you would lead her to a stranger, have her undress, have her feet put up in stirrups, have her swollen parts pried apart while still freshly injured and just starting to heal at the peak of tenderness, have her baby scraped out and not even tell her what you were doing. (and you add the little reconstruction idea as though you know it would be needed or even done in the same procedure.)

LOL That "little reconstruction idea" shows the level of your ignorance. A child who has suffered such a rape will require more than one trip to a doctor who will put her feet up in stirrups. This is a no brainer. Yes, I would have the doctor remove anything that might lead to future complications. If an egg were implanted, it wouldn't even be visible to the naked eye....scraping would be a part of the RECONTSTRUCTION. Just as repairing any tears and lacerations would be.

If your hypothetical 11 year old daughter was as smart as some girls that age, she'd probably realize what you were doing whether you lied or not. Regardless, it will be in her medical records for her to find and become enraged and saddened about the minute she goes to start prenatal care around 10 years later.

And how "saddened" would she be, if she survived, and if the baby survived to lose that baby before it reached it's year mark. You don't seem to even consider the fact that spontaneous abortion is HIGH among young teens....much less a 10 or 11 year old. Bury your head in the sand...that way you can live with your own denial.

When people take up a cause they become fanatics to that cause and lose all common sense.
It's true on both sides of this abortion debate. I just didn't realize it went so far on the prolife side. :think:

 

[glorydaz]

You would abort/kill one child to keep another better nourished. You said so.

I said I would not put my child's life at risk. If you don't like that, too bad.

Don't confuse adulthood with sexual maturity.

Sexual maturity is the age or stage when an organism can reproduce. It is sometimes considered synonymous with adulthood, though the two are distinct.

Sexual maturity is a PROCESS. It's only because of modern medicine, and a doctor's ability to cut the baby from the womb of an undeveloped child that any form of reproduction is possible for a child. You may continue to bury your head in the sand for your cause, but I would spare my own child from the grave risks she would be facing. I love my child too much to add to the trauma she would already have suffered. You aren't my child's mother...thank the Lord.

This little game of imagine has been very enlightening. It's wrong to ignore the plight of the unborn...it's just as wrong to put them above another living child. A child should not be called on to lay down her life and health for a child that JUST MIGHT manage to survive it's gestation and first year of life.

 

[glorydaz]

You're hinting at an answer but not outright providing one. I'll be more specific:

If an 18-year-old is raped and she and the baby are otherwise completely (physically) healthy, should she be able to legally obtain an abortion?

No, she shouldn't. As I have said, I am against a child be forced to have a baby before she is fully developed, and able to produce a healthy environment for a baby. The child deserves better and the baby deserves better.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

LOL That "little reconstruction idea" shows the level of your ignorance. A child who has suffered such a rape will require more than one trip to a doctor who will put her feet up in stirrups. This is a no brainer. Yes, I would have the doctor remove anything that might lead to future complications. If an egg were implanted, it wouldn't even be visible to the naked eye....scraping would be a part of the RECONTSTRUCTION. Just as repairing any tears and lacerations would be.

You do not need to "repair" vaginal lacerations even with a full term baby passing through, especially if you don't give an episiotomy. (episiotomy can cause the maximum level of laceration damage to internal structures, though)

Show me where you found such ideas.

Vaginas heal on their own. They do not require excessive inspection and manipulation for this to take place. In fact "repair" (I hardly think stiches deserve that word half the time.) can lead to lasting pain and sexual dysfunction, as opposed to the natural joining that happens after trauma. You can look up the midwifery articles on the subject yourself.

And an egg does not implant. A baby does. Killing it is not reconstruction. It's destruction.

And how "saddened" would she be, if she survived, and if the baby survived to lose that baby before it reached it's year mark.

Now you are dealing with "ifs" which are in God's domain verses certain violent death by man's hand. Can you see the difference?

You don't seem to even consider the fact that spontaneous abortion is HIGH among young teens....much less a 10 or 11 year old. Bury your head in the sand...that way you can live with your own denial.

Then let God take the child, don't stain your hands with innocent blood.

When people take up a cause they become fanatics to that cause and lose all common sense.
It's true on both sides of this abortion debate. I just didn't realize it went so far on the prolife side. :think:

Common sense says let God handle the miscarriage rather than being guilty of murder because you couldn't wait or trust His will for a commonly occurring natural demise.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

I said I would not put my child's life at risk. If you don't like that, too bad.

God "put that child at risk" - as you put it - when He opened the womb and allowed her to be impregnated. Those lives are His to give AND take, and only yours to love and protect. Murder is the destruction of the sacred temple of God.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17

"If any man destroys the temple of God, God will destroy him, for the temple of God is holy, and that is what you are."

It's only because of modern medicine, and a doctor's ability to cut the baby from the womb of an undeveloped child that any form of reproduction is possible for a child.

Undeveloped children do not even get pregnant.

I linked you to an article showing that an 11 year old gave birth vaginally. I read in another article on the same story that the medical team wanted to cut the baby out for fear of what might happen if she birthed him naturally but they didn't even get a chance, the baby came so fast, with mother and baby both doing just fine.

Sure, the medical establishment wants women to fear birth (makes them more money) and women who are of ample size can have arrested labor, so we will see them rushing for a knife on the birth day, but that is no proof of your fears.

And thank God they can cut a child out of any woman who is pregnant. Vaginal birth should not be the litmus test to qualify a woman for carrying a child.

This little game of imagine has been very enlightening. It's wrong to ignore the plight of the unborn...

If this was a game to me, I would not have participated. I just couldn't help noticing how fast this thread has built up views. Children need defending. God only knows if my words saved someone's life. It's the only reason I would spend my family's time - I do have a lot of people waiting on me to finish with you.

In the news a 21 week old fetus was aborted from it's 11 year old mother in Spain. Remember, it's people like you that would have taken her for that procedure. Remember your own words; don't ignore the plight of the unborn.

it's just as wrong to put them above another living child.

Not killing them is not putting them above that little mother, it's trying to love and care for them both at the same time. Time and money and all the love in the world should go towards any and all interventions needed to ensure the best outcome for both.

A child should not be called on to lay down her life and health for a child that JUST MIGHT manage to survive it's gestation and first year of life.

It's not our decision to kill a baby God is forming in the womb. It is our duty to protect and serve them both.

I think that makes a good enough closing argument.

But one last thing. I think your analogy of saving drowning children is terrible. A better one would be throwing a baby overboard to ensure the boat doesn't sink because you think it's weighed down too much already.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

If Glorydaz spouts any more hype I ask that another defender step in, please. I've got 6 "living children" - as she puts it - who need my time and attention.

 

[Rusha]

If Glorydaz spouts any more hype I ask that another defender step in, please. I've got 6 "living children" - as she puts it - who need my time and attention.

I wouldn't sweat it. It's fairly obvious that her nasty comments stem from the fact that she KNOWS her position is indefensible. She is standing up for those who advocate that right to kill their own innocent unborn babies ... aka promoting the death of the innocent.

You, OTOH, are defending the life of unborn babies, children and women.

 

[glorydaz]

You do not need to "repair" vaginal lacerations even with a full term baby passing through, especially if you don't give an episiotomy. (episiotomy can cause the maximum level of laceration damage to internal structures, though)

Show me where you found such ideas.

Vaginas heal on their own. They do not require excessive inspection and manipulation for this to take place. In fact "repair" (I hardly think stiches deserve that word half the time.) can lead to lasting pain and sexual dysfunction, as opposed to the natural joining that happens after trauma. You can look up the midwifery articles on the subject yourself.

Clearly you people live in a little make believe world. There simply is no reasoning with a zealot. Have fun in LaLa Land. I'll leave you to bask in your own ignorance. :nono:

11-year-old has gone through 14 reconstructive surgeries after gang-rape http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/1...constructive-surgeries-after-gang-rape-312675​

A 10-year-old east Stockton girl who was brutally raped Sunday afternoon underwent a second round of reconstructive surgery Tuesday at a Sacramento hospital. The child, who also needed a transfusion because of massive blood loss, was in stable condition at the University of California, Davis, Medical Center. http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020403/A_NEWS/304039986​

 

[csuguy]

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?

The age and consent, or the lack thereof, of the mother is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion should or shouldn't be permissible. The real question is: when is it OK to murder an innocent child?

 

[WizardofOz]

The age and consent, or the lack thereof, of the mother is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion should or shouldn't be permissible. The real question is: when is it OK to murder an innocent child?

:first:

Exactly.

Welcome back csuguy :e4e:

 

[gcthomas]

The age and consent, or the lack thereof, of the mother is irrelevant to the question of whether abortion should or shouldn't be permissible. The real question is: when is it OK to murder an innocent child?

That's not the real question, unless you consider the term murder to apply to small bundles of cells. Which most people do not, so you're more begging the question than stating the real one.

 

[Desert Reign]

What is she is 12, 13, 15? Where does your moral relativism change?

It's not moral relativism, it's acknowledging that not all contexts are identical. Forcing every situation into a box and applying a rigid law is what causes injustice.

 

[Rusha]

It's not moral relativism, it's acknowledging that not all contexts are identical. Forcing every situation into a box and applying a rigid law is what causes injustice.

No, it really isn't. IF individuals who claim to believe abortion is intentional murder actually believe so, then there is no grey area.

IF, OTOH, this is about picking and choosing which women can be blamed for allowing themselves to become pregnant, then allowing for rape would apply.

Pro-abortion advocates eat this type of wishy-washy/only-my-abortion-was-moral type of thinking up.