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

[Christian Liberty]

Gotta chime in here.

Yes, you can. I don't care for the Enyarts of the world telling me what I "really" believe, Rusha, and if I take a nuanced and less-than-absolutist position on this particular scenario, what I truly believe and stand for is not up for re-definition by anyone else.



I don't think aborting, no matter what the situation, is ever "perfectly okay." What it can be, in extremely limited circumstances, is the best out of regrettable and tragic alternatives. When you're dealing with the eleven-year-old victim of a gang rape--which is so nightmarish it's hard for me to actually say--it's hard to imagine a truly happy ending for anyone involved, no matter what decision you make.

OK, so how, philosophically, can you justify allowing the 11 year old girl, assuming giving birth will not be a threat to her life (If it were a threat to her life, it could be considered self-defense) to murder her child in the womb?

I get that its not a happy ending in any case, but she should give birth and then give her child for adoption if she cannot love the child. But to murder the child is still unacceptable.

 

[Rusha]

Gotta chime in here.

Yes, you can. I don't care for the Enyarts of the world telling me what I "really" believe, Rusha,.

This isn't remotely similar to religious beliefs, Granite, if you are referring to having people tell you that you really believe in God. We KNOW rape happens and we know that women have unplanned pregnancies.

and if I take a nuanced and less-than-absolutist position on this particular scenario, what I truly believe and stand for is not up for re-definition by anyone else..

I am not sure what you are referencing, Granite. IF abortion (the intentional killing of an unborn baby) is permissible based on the way a the unborn child was conceived, that means that *some* unborn babies are unworthy of protection. Based on that argument, there is no longer ANY argument as to why the unborn should be protected if it's only a matter of opinion or value judgment. In this case, the unborn baby is seen as not deserving of life.

I don't think aborting, no matter what the situation, is ever "perfectly okay." What it can be, in extremely limited circumstances, is the best out of regrettable and tragic alternatives. When you're dealing with the eleven-year-old victim of a gang rape--which is so nightmarish it's hard for me to actually say--it's hard to imagine a truly happy ending for anyone involved, no matter what decision you make.

I am not denying the situation would be extremely frightening for ANY woman, ESPECIALLY a an eleven year old. However, thus far those who are the most vocal about having this girl abort have NOT even considered the option of life. They have already condemned this unborn baby to death because of who his/her father is and how he/she was conceived.

 

[fool]

I don't think aborting, no matter what the situation, is ever "perfectly okay." What it can be, in extremely limited circumstances, is the best out of regrettable and tragic alternatives. When you're dealing with the eleven-year-old victim of a gang rape--which is so nightmarish it's hard for me to actually say--it's hard to imagine a truly happy ending for anyone involved, no matter what decision you make.

I would never tell anyone to kill their kid.

 

[Doormat]

Would you allow your 11 year old to choose to keep the baby if the doctor told you it would kill her? Yes or no.

No.

Since you would not allow your daughter to keep the baby if she wanted to, it follows that you would force her to have an abortion.

Ive already said that here also.

That is why I wrote that your argument implies you would force her to have an abortion.

Please consider these facts:

1. If your daughter is a believer, she cannot die. See John 11:26.
2. If you are a believer, you should not interfere with someone willing to give their life to save another. See Matthew 16:23.
3. The unborn child is the temple of God. See 1 Corinthians 6:19 c.f. Acts 17:28.
4. God ordained that child's conception for a purpose. See Jeremiah 1:5.
5. Many doctors misdiagnose.
6. A doctor's prognosis is not necessarily certain.
7. An astoundingly large majority of medical procedures performed in the U.S. are not evidence-based.
8. Some doctors commit malpractice.
9. Girls younger than 11 have conceived, given birth, and even breastfed.

 

[Granite]

This isn't remotely similar to religious beliefs, Granite, if you are referring to having people tell you that you really believe in God. We KNOW rape happens and we know that women have unplanned pregnancies.

I was referring more to a certain attitude than specific beliefs.

I am not sure what you are referencing, Granite. IF abortion (the intentional killing of an unborn baby) is permissible based on the way a the unborn child was conceived, that means that *some* unborn babies are unworthy of protection.

Like I said earlier, this ultimately comes down to who is considered more important, and given more of a priority. I believe in limited, specific situations, the mother should be given precedence (or at least first consideration). I believe that is the decent, humane, and just course of action, difficult as it may be for some folks to acknowledge.

Based on that argument, there is no longer ANY argument as to why the unborn should be protected if it's only a matter of opinion or value judgment.

Ultimately, that is exactly what this comes down to, regardless of what side you identify with: We have our opinions and values and go from there. If there was anything by way of empiric evidence, then it's a completely different ballgame.

I am not denying the situation would be extremely frightening for ANY woman, ESPECIALLY a an eleven year old.

Of course. Beyond frightening. "Traumatizing" and "unbelievable" come to mind, as do a few others. And I'm sorry, but an eleven-year-old is no woman. She's a child, trapped in an unspeakable situation.

However, thus far those who are the most vocal about having this girl abort have NOT even considered the option of life.

I agree, and would take issue with people who make any kind of kneejerk reaction to this situation. Ultimately, this isn't really going to be her choice. It's up to the adults in her life to make the best decision they can.

 

[Christian Liberty]

I agree, and would take issue with people who make any kind of kneejerk reaction to this situation. Ultimately, this isn't really going to be her choice. It's up to the adults in her life to make the best decision they can.

OK, so if the girl herself was willing to let her child live but the parents and doctors wanted her to abort, you would allow them to do that?

 

[Granite]

OK, so if the girl herself was willing to let her child live but the parents and doctors wanted her to abort, you would allow them to do that?

A few things in play:

a) is the girl's life endangered by the pregnancy
b) what other complications exist, if any
c) is an eleven-year-old capable of making this kind of decision

 

[1PeaceMaker]

Pro-lifers do not put the baby ahead of the mother in priority.

There is no sparing of pain, blood, and anguish with abortion. In a case like this abortion does not make the fact she was pregnant go away or stop her from riding a hormonal and emotional rollercoaster. It only stops a baby from living.

One way or another she is pregnant with a baby that will come out of her. One way the baby comes out and lives. The other way it dies.

The only meaningful difference to the mother is a season more of time. Her body and medical history changes forever the moment she becomes pregnant. Nobody is saying she has to carry it to full term, since nobody forces grown women who want their children to do that either if they can't.

But trying to give the baby time to reach viability is merciful to both mother and child. And really that's all there is to it.

If the pregnancy can't get that far crudely guessing in advance of actual medical trouble that it won't work and forcing the baby out in the first trimester solves nothing, it only adds to the problem.

 

[Lighthouse]

It's still her child, no matter where the sperm came from.

Much more than that, to council for abortion is to make the victim a murderer. Being a rape victim is bad enough.

The worst part is she won't realize it until she has one.
Let's say she aborts after the rape, grows up, goes to college, marries the man of her dreams and has a baby.
The first time she holds her newborn what she has done will hit her like a ton of bricks.
She can have as many children as she wants and be the best mother in the world to them but there will always be a hole in her heart.
She'll never be able to forget that there was one other, that she didn't hold and take care of.

See, the baby is there, the only choice she has is how to deal with it. An abortion doesn't undo the baby or the rape, it makes her kill her first child. Then she has to live her life as a rape victim AND a child killer.

:thumb:

And i have told you and everyone repeatedly, i support ending a pregnancy only in the case of the life of the mother, which never needed abortion laws to begin with, it was already reality before roe v wade. Abortion laws were not needed to save a mothers life.

So if you want to call me a hypocrite for my consistent position, knock yourself out.

Do you honestly think it is impossible to remove the baby from the mother without intentionally killing it such circumstances?

 

[keypurr]

:sozo:ADAM CANNOT BE USED AS AN ARGUMENT HERE, AS HE WAS NEVER IN THE WOMB, YOU MORON! HOW MANY TIMES DO YOU NEED TO BE TOLD THIS?!

Lighthouse your speaking and acting like a child. Put on your big boy pants and talk like a person with some brains. We are talking about a very young girl.

 

[keypurr]

Yeah, using Adam is a ridiculous argument.

One might as well say life begins at adulthood. Which would be absurd.

I was not using Adam as the argument. The Bible says one must breath through his nostrils when he has the spirit. A fetus does not do that. So how do we define personhood? It is a very questionable subject. The mother should always be the top priority in a birthing room.

 

[keypurr]

Notice the phrase "became a living soul." You are implying a child in gestation is not living and doesn't have a soul until it breaths through his nostrils.

I didn't write the book

It begins when it began for Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 1:5 Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, And before you were born I consecrated you; I have appointed you a prophet to the nations

.

That was about Jeremiah, not everyone was like him.

An unborn child is the temple of God.

1 Corinthians 3:16-17 Do you not know that you are a temple of God and that the Spirit of God dwells in you? 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.

The question is what is a person not what is life.

And if you argue that the unborn child is only the temple of God under construction, where does that leave you?

Right where I am. I have a spirit, a body and a soul. A fetus is questionable.

You're wrongfully assuming that I'm not concerned for the mother and child equally. It is obvious you are only concerned with the mother because you deny the child is a person.

In this case it is the young mother that needs help. She is a living breathing person, the fetus is not yet.

Well, it appears to me that you are promoting abortion for rape victims, if they desire to murder their babies. And while you may be using your head, your thinking is evidently clouded by the pharmaceutical drugs you take. Do you deny that your thinking is clouded sometimes by those drugs?

I am not promoting anything. I am a thinking person who can rationalize the problem without your church's help. No kid should be forced to give birth to an unwanted child just because you or any one else does not like it. That is a personal decision to be made by her parents. If you wish to be led by the nose by your religion then do so, I won't.

Why do you think "the church" told me what to think? What church do you mean?

f you thought for yourself you would consider the age of the mother in this case, your not, your just going along with the majority about abortion.

If I am wrong, I'm sorry, but that is what I see in your answers.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Would you allow your 11 year old to choose to keep the baby if the doctor told you it would kill her? Yes or no.

If not, how can you claim you would not force her to have an abortion against her will?

That's a bit of a loaded question. If there was no actual doubt that pregnancy would kill the child then what loving parent wouldn't take steps to prevent or at the very least discourage her from carrying to term?

 

[Lighthouse]

Lighthouse your speaking and acting like a child. Put on your big boy pants and talk like a person with some brains. We are talking about a very young girl.

That's irrelevant to this specific point, you twit.

I was not using Adam as the argument. The Bible says one must breath through his nostrils when he has the spirit.

No it doesn't.

That's a bit of a loaded question. If there was no actual doubt that pregnancy would kill the child then what loving parent wouldn't take steps to prevent or at the very least discourage her from carrying to term?

One who recognizes that it is not necessary to actively kill the unborn child to save the mother.

 

[Arthur Brain]

One who recognizes that it is not necessary to actively kill the unborn child to save the mother.

Which is why I said it was a loaded question. Supposing there's little chance that the eleven year old can carry the unborn to a stage where it's a viable option to deliver the child "artificially" and in doing so causes significant risk to the child mother herself? I don't think an absolutist position on this particular does any 'side' any favours.

 

[Lighthouse]

Which is why I said it was a loaded question. Supposing there's little chance that the eleven year old can carry the unborn to a stage where it's a viable option to deliver the child "artificially" and in doing so causes significant risk to the child mother herself? I don't think an absolutist position on this particular does any 'side' any favours.

Just because you cannot save the unborn child does not mean you have to actively kill it. Save the mother's life, and if the unborn dies indirectly no one is guilty of murder. It's a tragedy, but not one that could have been avoided. Whereas actively killing can be avoided and is never necessary.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Just because you cannot save the unborn child does not mean you have to actively kill it. Save the mother's life, and if the unborn dies indirectly no one is guilty of murder. It's a tragedy, but not one that could have been avoided. Whereas actively killing can be avoided and is never necessary.

But if the child mother's life is put at risk by even carrying the baby to the point where the baby can actually be possibly delivered artificially? What then? It's a horrible situation all ends up no doubt, but I certainly couldn't condemn any parent for taking steps to intervene if they knew their eleven year old child was in serious danger if they continued with the pregnancy.

 

[gcthomas]

Just because you cannot save the unborn child does not mean you have to actively kill it. Save the mother's life, and if the unborn dies indirectly no one is guilty of murder. It's a tragedy, but not one that could have been avoided. Whereas actively killing can be avoided and is never necessary.

How is killing by deliberate inaction different from killing by deliberate action? The killing is deliberate in both cases.

 

[Granite]

How is killing by deliberate inaction different from killing by deliberate action? The killing is deliberate in both cases.

It's worth pointing out that if absolutist pro-lifers are convinced of fetal pain (and evidence doesn't indicate it exists), passively allowing a child to suffer and eventually die isn't as merciful as ending its misery quickly. Then again absolutists are usually the ones who insist on keeping people in active, terminal agony because they think life is so "sacred."

 

[Lighthouse]

But if the child mother's life is put at risk by even carrying the baby to the point where the baby can actually be possibly delivered artificially? What then? It's a horrible situation all ends up no doubt, but I certainly couldn't condemn any parent for taking steps to intervene if they knew their eleven year old child was in serious danger if they continued with the pregnancy.

:doh:

Making it "OK" to just kill the unborn is the reason it isn't viable to save both lives at this moment in time if complications arise early in pregnancy.

And as for your specific objection can you answer how far along a pregnancy must go before it is possible to remove the child from the parent?

How is killing by deliberate inaction different from killing by deliberate action? The killing is deliberate in both cases.

:bang:

What inaction?