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

[Rusha]

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?

Exactly. :thumb:

 

[Rusha]

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.

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:

lain:

 

[csuguy]

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.

From the secular standpoint- we are never anything except a bunch of cells.

 

[Desert Reign]

No, it really isn't.

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

IF individuals who claim to believe abortion is intentional murder actually believe so, then there is no grey area.

Yes that's probably true. But bear in mind that murder is illegal killing. So that's rather circular. If it were illegal for her to abort then it would automatically by that definition be murder. The question is if the 11 year old should be legally permitted to abort and what you say here doesn't address that at all.

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.

Yes, that's probably true too. It isn't of course about that so that's also irrelevant to the issue.

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

I don't know if that's true or not. It sounds rather opinionated. I generally dislike pro-abortionists and would place myself firmly in the anti-abortion camp.

 

[Rusha]

Thanks for sharing your opinion.

It's fact, and your welcome.

Yes that's probably true. But bear in mind that murder is illegal killing. So that's rather circular.

Had I used the word *murder*, you might have a point. However, I didn't. We all know that intentionally killing unborn babies is not considered murder ... legally. We also know that it's a loophole that allows certain human beings (the most innocent and defenseless) to be preyed on by those who would use that technicality.

If it were illegal for her to abort then it would automatically by that definition be murder.

Again, I had a specific reason for not using the word MURDER. I have been debating abortion for a very long time and prefer to bypass the ridiculous chants of "NO IT ISN'T. IT'S LEGAL. IF YOU THINK YOU ARE WITNESS TO A CHILD KILLING, WHY HAVEN'T YOU CALLED THE COPS!?"

THAT is the type of shady trickery used by those who are pro-aborts ...

The question is if the 11 year old should be legally permitted to abort and what you say here doesn't address that at all.

IF you truly believe an unborn baby is an innocent human being who deserves life and protection, then there is no argument for ABORTION ... the *intentional* killing of the unborn baby.

Yes, that's probably true too. It isn't of course about that so that's also irrelevant to the issue.

It absolutely IS relevant to the issue. Either ALL unborn babies are innocent and deserving of life or they are not. Which is it?

IF you believe abortion is fine ... which babies are you fine with aborting?

I don't know if that's true or not. It sounds rather opinionated. I generally dislike pro-abortionists and would place myself firmly in the anti-abortion camp.

It's not opinion. It's fact. The most ardent pro-abortion advocates will pick apart those who call one set of aborters child killers and then in turn say "well you were in an abusive relationship/raped/might have been at a higher medical risk so for you it's not the same thing".

It IS the same thing. An unborn baby is losing his/her life at the hands of the person who should be responsible for protecting them: THEIR MOTHER.

 

[Desert Reign]

Had I used the word *murder*, you might have a point. However, I didn't.

Again, I had a specific reason for not using the word MURDER.

I have been debating abortion for a very long time

THAT is the type of shady trickery used by those who are pro-aborts ...

These are your own words:

IF individuals who claim to believe abortion is intentional murder actually believe so, then there is no grey area.

It sounds like you need to take a rest from debating abortion. Thanks for playing.

 

[Rusha]

These are your own words:

Thanks for playing.

These are YOUR words (which I was responding to):

But bear in mind that murder is illegal killing.

:duh: Thanks for playing ...

 

[Desert Reign]

Rusha,

Here is your post no 460:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Desert Reign
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.

It shows that you used the word murder first and that I responded to it in my post no. 464, 4 posts later, and that you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Yes that's probably true. But bear in mind that murder is illegal killing. So that's rather circular. If it were illegal for her to abort then it would automatically by that definition be murder. The question is if the 11 year old should be legally permitted to abort and what you say here doesn't address that at all.

If you mean murder as a legalistic term, than Obama's drone killing of an 8 year old in a Yemeni school wasn't murder.

But that's clearly not what God means when he says "Thou shall not murder."

He means don't kill people unless they are trying to kill you or if it is as punishment for a serious crime.

If the unborn child was a threat to the mother's life, I could understand a self-defense argument. Otherwise... no... Your horiffic life circumstances don't give you a right to take the life of an innocent person.

 

[Doormat]

But bear in mind that murder is illegal killing.

Abortion is de facto murder according to the language in the Roe v. Wade decision.

The appellee and certain amici argue that the fetus is a "person" within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. In support of this, they outline at length and in detail the well known facts of fetal development. If this suggestion of personhood is established, the appellant's case, of course, collapses, for the fetus' right to life would then be guaranteed specifically by the Amendment. The appellant conceded as much on reargument.​

Since Roe v. Wade, Federal law has defined the unborn child at any stage of development as a person:

The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a child in utero as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb".​

Abortion can be rightfully called murder under U.S. law at this time, and the Roe decision is void under U.S. law at this time, whether or not people want to concede that blatantly obvious fact.

 

[Rusha]

Rusha,

Here is your post no 460:
It shows that you used the word murder first and that I responded to it in my post no. 464, 4 posts later, and that you don't know what you are talking about.

What I stated was "IF individuals who claim to believe abortion is intentional murder actually believe so, then there is no grey area."

In other words, there is no way to argue that abortion is murder and then allow for cases such as rape. Those who do so, are contradicting themselves.

I am not arguing FOR exemptions. Anyone who is claiming to be prolife, and state that abortion is murder, BUT allows for exemptions based on rape, is mislabeling themselves and doing a disservice to the prolife movement as a whole.

 

[Doormat]

... the Roe decision is void under U.S. law at this time, whether or not people want to concede that blatantly obvious fact.

See Marbury v. Madison:

...the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.​

 

[illusionray]

See Marbury v. Madison:

...the particular phraseology of the Constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written Constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void, and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.​

I don't like the US constitution.

 

[Doormat]

Ignorantia juris non excusat.

 

[Desert Reign]

What I stated was "IF individuals who claim to believe abortion is intentional murder actually believe so, then there is no grey area."

In other words, there is no way to argue that abortion is murder and then allow for cases such as rape. Those who do so, are contradicting themselves.

I am not arguing FOR exemptions. Anyone who is claiming to be prolife, and state that abortion is murder, BUT allows for exemptions based on rape, is mislabeling themselves and doing a disservice to the prolife movement as a whole.

Like I said, thank you for your opinion. I made a comment and then you responded to two other hypothetical groups of people: those who say that abortion is intentional murder and those who support 'picking and choosing which women can be blamed for allowing themselves to become pregnant'.

Neither of these were relevant to the OP nor to my post, which you were technically responding to, nor am I a member of either of those two groups. You obviously don't want a discussion, just a platform.

 

[Rusha]

Neither of these were relevant to the OP nor to my post,

Your posts have not been relevant to *this* OP ... outside of letting us know which side of the issue you stand on. According to your vote in this poll, you stand on the side of those who wish to keep the intentional killing of unborn babies legal. Perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining why you do not value children conceived out of rape.

 

[Desert Reign]

If you mean murder as a legalistic term, than Obama's drone killing of an 8 year old in a Yemeni school wasn't murder.

Irrelevant and off topic.

But that's clearly not what God means when he says "Thou shall not murder."

Firstly, I presume you are referring to the 10 commandments. This being the case, it says 'Thou shalt not kill', not 'Thou shalt not murder'.

Secondly, I don't see how it is relevant to the OP anyway. The OP asks if an 11 year old raped girl in America should be allowed legally to have an abortion. This has got nothing to with the legal system of a country 3000 years ago that doesn't exist anymore. Unless you are wishing to suggest that the USA's legal system should mimic that of ancient Israel?

He means don't kill people unless they are trying to kill you or if it is as punishment for a serious crime.

Thanks for sharing your opinion. I see a ray of hope here: the Mosaic commandment is absolute 'Thou shalt not kill' and yet you read it with a couple of juicy exceptions. And we all know that it is not the exception that proves the rule but it's the exception that disproves the rule. Perhaps you are not as absolute as you would like to think you are and that you could begin to accommodate yourself to my original post.

If the unborn child was a threat to the mother's life, I could understand a self-defense argument.

I agree with that. Although I didn't suggest a self-defense argument and I don't think the OP did either so I don't see why it is relevant.

Otherwise... no... Your horiffic life circumstances don't give you a right to take the life of an innocent person.

Wow, a relevant comment! But I don't see what it contributes. We all know that the unborn child in the rape of the 11 year old is innocent. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be a discussion. It would certainly be a hard decision to terminate it but all things considered, should the 11 year old be allowed to do so? Your post amounts to nothing more than 'I vote no'.

I can't as yet see anyone who has actually responded to my original post.

 

[Christian Liberty]

Irrelevant and off topic.

It shows that trying to use murder as a legalistic term is pointless.

Firstly, I presume you are referring to the 10 commandments. This being the case, it says 'Thou shalt not kill', not 'Thou shalt not murder'.

I'm pretty sure this depends on translation, but saying "Kill" contradicts the rest of the Bible.

Secondly, I don't see how it is relevant to the OP anyway. The OP asks if an 11 year old raped girl in America should be allowed legally to have an abortion. This has got nothing to with the legal system of a country 3000 years ago that doesn't exist anymore. Unless you are wishing to suggest that the USA's legal system should mimic that of ancient Israel?

I don't believe that, but I do believe anti-murder laws should be enforced.

Wow, a relevant comment! But I don't see what it contributes. We all know that the unborn child in the rape of the 11 year old is innocent. If this weren't the case, there wouldn't be a discussion. It would certainly be a hard decision to terminate it but all things considered, should the 11 year old be allowed to do so? Your post amounts to nothing more than 'I vote no'.

I can't as yet see anyone who has actually responded to my original post.

Why does being raped give you a right to kill an innocent person? That doesn't make any sense. Its easy to make an emotionally charged argument for such, but its impossible to defend logically.

 

[gcthomas]

From the secular standpoint- we are never anything except a bunch of cells.

I wrote small bunch of cells. More cells allows the complexity needed to support the functions required to maintain the personality of a person. Small bunches of cells don't have that, do they?

 

[Doormat]

It's not moral relativism, it's acknowledging that not all contexts are identical.

How is that different from descriptive moral relativism?

Forcing every situation into a box and applying a rigid law is what causes injustice.

That may be true in some cases, but in this case I believe the enforcement of the immutable law against murder (by prohibiting abortion) strictly prevents injustice. And even if I was convinced that it didn't strictly prevent injustice, I would still have to concede that it prevented a far greater amount of injustice than it caused.