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

[quip]

It says: "Do not do x." To forbid abortion is not the same thing as to command the giving of birth.

You're simply playing at semantics. I never said that the law "commands" her to give birth..... rather, both the natural circumstances regarding pregnancy (as you mentioned prior) and those of establishing anti-abortion legislation, forces her to give birth by default.

This should be obvious...even to those with such an irritating propensity for babbling impractical pedantics, such as yourself.

 

[Town Heretic]

shoot.

 

[genuineoriginal]

If you remove any opportunity to think on her own or make an independent decision, you are implicitly devaluing the mother. Like I said, this hypothetical's kind of a lose-lose situation all around.

If she is enough of an adult to make the decision to undergo a major medical operation that will end up killing a living human being, then let her buy beer on her own, too.

 

[kiwimacahau]

So by your reasoning Germany's genocidal streak, being instituted in law, was something Christians should not think of as murder? Should they have resisted the state or facilitated the program?

I DO love the way you folk pick and choose the sound-bites. We are speaking about a ten years old child being forced to carry to term the offspring of her rapists because some folk do not have the compassion to understand how mentally damaging that is to her.

 

[Traditio]

You're simply playing at semantics. I never said that the law "commands" her to give birth..... rather, both the natural circumstances regarding pregnancy (as you mentioned prior) and those of establishing anti-abortion legislation, forces her to give birth by default.

This should be obvious...even to those with such an irritating propensity for babbling impractical pedantics, such as yourself.

In the same way that the doctor's refusal to pump my stomach, combined with the fact that I just ate a hamburger, "forces" me to digest it.

To which, of course, my question is:

So what?

When you say "force," the implication is that some set of persons, through their actions, are compelling someone else to do something against their will. In point of fact, this is not the case here. Nature itself "forces" the result. No person "forces" the girl to do anything. What we are here talking about is, not acting in a way coercive to the girl, but a refusal to act. There's nothing coercive about that.

In other words, you're using the word "force" wrong. Use more properly descriptive, less emotionally charged terminology. Otherwise, your mode of speaking is sophistic and merely rhetorical.

 

[Town Heretic]

I DO love the way you folk pick and choose the sound-bites. We are speaking about a ten years old child

First, I'm one person, not a folk and I'm trying to see how considered your position is with you. I spoke to the logical extension of your principle/premise and asked a couple of questions raised by it.

If you can't defend or answer your own contextual posit then, reasonably, you should abandon it.

 

[quip]

In the same way that the doctor's refusal to pump my stomach, combined with the fact that I just ate a hamburger, "forces" me to digest it.

To which, of course, my question is:

So what?

Thus, if legislation were inacted that precluded one their right to a pumped stomach...we'd have a similar disagreement....yes?

When you say "force," the implication is that some set of persons, through their actions, are compelling someone else to do something against their will.

Yes, by threat of violence or imprisonment.

In point of fact, this is not the case here. Nature itself "forces" the result. No person "forces" the girl to do anything. What we are here talking about is, not acting in a way coercive to the girl, but a refusal to act. There's nothing coercive about that.

No, specific legislature is, by force, exacting a fruition which physically can - and by established right - be circumvented. (Birth is not a logically necessary result.)

In other words, you're using the word "force" wrong. Use more properly descriptive, less emotionally charged terminology. Otherwise, your mode of speaking is sophistic and merely rhetorical.

My mode and terminology are just fine....they simply don't speak an agreeable conclusion for you.

 

[Granite]

A woman that desires abortion, desires to kill her unborn child. The rape is beside the point.

It's this kind of attitude that's most striking and most disturbing.

When rape doesn't matter anymore, there's a serious problem. And that's what would make this a double violation of the victim.

Your position--and this goes for you too, Rusha--forces you to minimize, dismiss, and ultimately dismiss sexual assault. None of you who insist that the pregnancy must be carried to term seem to grapple with this issue or have any concerns with it whatsoever. That's bothersome. You don't see a rape victim anymore. You see an incubator.

 

[Granite]

So by your reasoning Germany's genocidal streak, being instituted in law, was something Christians should not think of as murder? Should they have resisted the state or facilitated the program?

Many did facilitate the program, so let's not go into that particular glass house.

 

[Town Heretic]

Many did facilitate the program, so let's not go into that particular glass house.

I agree it happened, but reject any attempt to justify it using Christ, which is part of why I continue to believe the best thing that can happen to religion is a lack of secular empowerment, taking the appeal out of it for sociopaths.

 

[Rusha]

It's this kind of attitude that's most striking and most disturbing.

When rape doesn't matter anymore, there's a serious problem. And that's what would make this a double violation of the victim.

The double violation would be in believing that it's the innocent child's turn to be victimized and assaulted due to the circumstances of his/her conception.

Your position--and this goes for you too, Rusha--forces you to minimize, dismiss, and ultimately dismiss sexual assault.

So the ONLY way to support a woman is to pat her on the shoulder and tell her "at least you will be able to share your pain with your slaughtered child"?

None of you who insist that the pregnancy must be carried to term seem to grapple with this issue or have any concerns with it whatsoever. That's bothersome. You don't see a rape victim anymore. You see an incubator.

Oh please. The only way you see someone showing concern is for them to give the thumbs up to the slaughter of this innocent child.

It is not possible to be for protecting the life of unborn babies ... selectively ( based on their parents and circumstances). The goal has always been to preserve BOTH lives ... rather than indiscriminately slaughtering one.

 

[Ps82]

People who support abortion in the case of rape ... are just as guilty of abusing women and children as is the rapist.

You tell a lie to mothers that killing the child she is caring is okay and is good for her and good for the child.

What a lie that is!

 

[Granite]

The double violation would be in believing that it's the innocent child's turn to be victimized and assaulted due to the circumstances of his/her conception.

And yet again, you sidestep the rape victim. This is really kind of astonishing. For you and elo it's like she doesn't even exist. As far as you're concerned if she chooses not to continue the pregnancy she no longer has a voice, or a body of her own, or a choice to make. What would you usually call these kind of circumstances?

So the ONLY way to support a woman is to pat her on the shoulder and tell her "at least you will be able to share your pain with your slaughtered child"?

This may explain the disconnect we're having here.

I haven't once suggested the only solution to this scenario is aborting the pregnancy. Never. What I have said, repeatedly, is that the option to terminate should be available in this case given the extraordinary circumstances. For you to resort to snark considering the hypothetical is tone deaf at best and incredibly callous at worst.

Oh please. The only way you see someone showing concern is for them to give the thumbs up to the slaughter of this innocent child.

See above. P.S.: Not sure who you're trying to score points with but sneering at an imaginary rape victim isn't a real good look.

It is not possible to be for protecting the life of unborn babies ... selectively ( based on their parents and circumstances).

"Pro-life" is all-encompassing, which is fine. But it doesn't necessarily mean "pro-infant-life-only," for a variety of different reasons and circumstances.

 

[serpentdove]

You're just dying to kill the kids aren't you?

Fathers must not be put to death on account of their children's sin; nor shall children die on account of their fathers' sin (Deut 24:16A, ISV).

See:

Life Pledge

 

[serpentdove]

...Abortion, even in the case of rape, remains an act of aggression against an innocent child, and should never be LEGAL.

That's right. Where you see: theft, murder and destruction, you know a Leftist has been in your midst (Eccl 10:2, Jn 10:10). :BRAVO: Their days are coming to an end burnlib: Mt 25:41 opcorn.

See:

Left vs. Right: Political and Religious Divisions

 

[elohiym]

A woman that desires abortion, desires to kill her unborn child. The rape is beside the point.

It's this kind of attitude that's most striking and most disturbing.

When rape doesn't matter anymore, there's a serious problem. And that's what would make this a double violation of the victim.

I never claimed "rape doesn't matter anymore." It's beside the point I was making about the life the unborn human. The rape is tragic, but it doesn't justify a homicide.

Your position--and this goes for you too, Rusha--forces you to minimize, dismiss, and ultimately dismiss sexual assault. None of you who insist that the pregnancy must be carried to term seem to grapple with this issue or have any concerns with it whatsoever. That's bothersome. You don't see a rape victim anymore. You see an incubator.

I see a rape victim, hopefully a mother; and I see an unborn human, hopefully a daughter. The difference between us is that you are willing to let a woman murder an unborn human and I am not.

 

[serpentdove]

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

The solution is not to murder the child. Doctors try to save mother and child. :dizzy: That's what that pesky oath is all about, remember?

Elaborate on your desire to protect sexual sin, Satanist. :smokie: Pr 8:36

 

[Rusha]

"Pro-life" is all-encompassing, which is fine. But it doesn't necessarily mean "pro-infant-life-only," for a variety of different reasons and circumstances.

Just to make it clear, due to the fact that the term pro-life is believed to be *all-encompassing*, I am anti-abortion.

 

[Granite]

I never claimed "rape doesn't matter anymore." It's beside the point I was making about the life the unborn human. The rape is tragic, but it doesn't justify a homicide.

Tragic, but in your words, beside the point. That's a fairly minor "tragedy" from the looks of it, certainly one that's secondary if not incidental to the greater moral point you keep trying to make.

I see a rape victim, hopefully a mother; and I see an unborn human, hopefully a daughter.

Why would you say this?

 

[Granite]

Just to make it clear, due to the fact that the term pro-life is believed to be *all-encompassing*, I am anti-abortion.

Well that does clarify things, I suppose.