# 11 Year Old Girl Is Pregnant, Sparks Abortion Debate



## Noomi (Jul 5, 2013)

Doctors say the girl, who is 14 weeks pregnant, is at high risk if the pregnancy continues. In other words, she could die, because her body is not developed enough to carry a fetus to term. But abortions in her home country of Chile are not permitted for medical reasons.

Clearly this is a medical reason. We have a small child, who became pregnant after she was raped by her mothers partner, and the law doesn't allow her to have a termination, despite the fact the risk to both fetus and child/mother are high:



> THE case of a pregnant 11-year old girl who was raped in Chile by her mother's partner has set off a national debate about abortion.
> 
> State TV reported that the girl known only as "Belen'' is 14 weeks pregnant. Police arrested her mother's partner who confessed to abusing the fifth grader. Doctors say her life and that of the fetus are at high risk. But ending the pregnancy is not an option.
> 
> ...



Abortion is not even allowed in cases of rape. Its a total blanket ban, which is completely wrong.

My view - a child should not be having a child. She is 11 years old, she has been raped and abused by someone who should have been caring for her, she should have a termination in order to protect her health, and her life.

Opinions?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 5, 2013)

Well I suppose they could eventually do a C-section.


----------



## Jackson (Jul 5, 2013)

Do we know whether an 11 year old child could survive a C section? Are there risks there as well? For that matter, are there risks in an abortion?  Which carry the highest risks?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 5, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Well I suppose they could eventually do a C-section.



Should such a young child be put through major surgery at such a young age?

I think not.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 6, 2013)

Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
Why is abortion the first avenue here?

Abortion should be a necessity, not an ambivalent choice of convenience.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
> Why is abortion the first avenue here?
> 
> Abortion should be a necessity, not an ambivalent choice of convenience.



She has a better chance of surviving an abortion than a pregnancy. She is only 11, she needs to come first. Abortion in this case should be necessary to preserve her health.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
> ...



I'm just as concerned for the child as the mother. How about you?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



I am concerned about an 11 year old girl who was raped, and who may be physically and mentally ruined because of this pregnancy. My concern is not with the fetus.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I did some quick Googling and it appears this girl has little reason to be concerned, since childbirth at such a young age is well documented. And with today's medical achievements, her child is most certainly viable at any stage. 

So why would you like to see this baby killed?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Her own doctors have said that the pregnancy is high risk.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



i do not think anyone said they would like to see the baby killed, least of all noomi.

sometimes, very hard choices need to be made, but i do not think this a choice of convenience. no, this is not a question of convenience.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



My then 40 year old wife's pregnancy was designated "high risk". The physician attending the initial ultrasound quite emphatically pointed out Downs Syndrome indicators. He advised us to discuss our "options". 

"High risk" pregnancies these days are most certainly survivable. 

BTW, Ms. N., just who is "at risk" here? 

It appears that any compassion you may have for children begins at the vaginal ejection. And nothing prior. 

This isn't a discussion about trading a life for a life, it's a discussion about the Liberal ideology as it pertains to decisive rights.  And I'm not shy in advocating decisive rights for those not yet able to exert those rights.


----------



## Annie (Jul 6, 2013)

All 3 of my pregnancies were deemed 'high risk.' The last 26 years ago. All three are fine, married, and university graduates. Two are 'gifted' IQ wise, let's not get into commonsense. 

I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe this girl, and she is only a girl, is in a life-threatening position. If someone can show that she's less than 80 pounds, I'd reconsider my position. 

While personally I think that rape is one of the few reasons to terminate, it should be very early in pregnancy. Yes, 'health of the mother' too is a reason, but not a blanket reason. As indicated, if she's too developmentally small to sustain a pregnancy, I'd go with that. Truth is that girls are reaching puberty in 3rd and 4th grades now, at least in US.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



i am pro-life but this is the case of an 11 y.o. who has been raped and whose doctors say her life is in danger.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 6, 2013)

Annie said:


> All 3 of my pregnancies were deemed 'high risk.' The last 26 years ago. All three are fine, married, and university graduates. Two are 'gifted' IQ wise, let's not get into commonsense.
> 
> I've seen nothing that would lead me to believe this girl, and she is only a girl, is in a life-threatening position. If someone can show that she's less than 80 pounds, I'd reconsider my position.
> 
> While personally I think that rape is one of the few reasons to terminate, it should be very early in pregnancy. Yes, 'health of the mother' too is a reason, but not a blanket reason. As indicated, if she's too developmentally small to sustain a pregnancy, I'd go with that. Truth is that girls are reaching puberty in 3rd and 4th grades now, at least in US.



i think your attitude would be different were you 11 y.o. and the victim of a rape.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 6, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



And there you have it... the empirical extremes. The ultimate love of a mother is to her own progeny, not to herself. But these days, what's love got to do with it...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu8KFlfzk3Y]What's Love Got To Do With It (Black & White Version) - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Annie (Jul 6, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > All 3 of my pregnancies were deemed 'high risk.' The last 26 years ago. All three are fine, married, and university graduates. Two are 'gifted' IQ wise, let's not get into commonsense.
> ...



Based upon what?


----------



## eots (Jul 6, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VvWu1qwz0ac]More Doctors Smoke Camels Than Any Other Cigarette.flv - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 6, 2013)

The child was raped.  Here in the US, that is one of the reasons an abortion can be granted.

If she carries to full term, she could possibly die, because she's only 11 years old, and her body isn't equipped to bear children.  Health risk to the mother is another reason why abortions can be granted here in the US.

Besides...................do you really think an 11 or 12 year old KID is going to have the understanding, patience and knowledge to properly raise her child?  It's gonna end up falling to her mother who would have to take care of BOTH of them.

And......................I don't think that the 11 year olds mother is going to take good care of either child, because her boyfriend is the one that raped the 11 year old.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> The child was raped.  Here in the US, that is one of the reasons an abortion can be granted.
> 
> If she carries to full term, she could possibly die, because she's only 11 years old, and her body isn't equipped to bear children.  Health risk to the mother is another reason why abortions can be granted here in the US.
> 
> ...



Nothing is ever black and white, is it?

Outright bans never work and this is an illustration of why.  The real question is going to be whether or not she aborts regardless of the law.  That is a real possibility and not nearly as good for all involved.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Well I suppose they could eventually do a C-section.



Isn't it that she is at risk for carrying the child to term?  If so, then she won't survive long enough to have a C-section.

It depends on the girl doesn't it.  Here is a 9 year old girl that delivered a healthy baby girl, both mother and child survived quite nicely.

Girl, 9, Gives Birth in Mexico - ABC News

It is a good thing that in this country we provide for medically necessary abortions.  The age of the mother isn't exactly determinative around the world since there are many instances of ten year old girls having babies.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Well I suppose they could eventually do a C-section.
> ...



Not much concern in this thread about the baby...


----------



## whitehall (Jul 6, 2013)

Abortion in this case is justified and the earlier the better. If the late term butchers get hold of her they will reach inside and turn the baby around in the birth canal to cause a breach birth and cause her further suffering and danger just so they can "legally" stab it in the back of the head.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 6, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> > All 3 of my pregnancies were deemed 'high risk.' The last 26 years ago. All three are fine, married, and university graduates. Two are 'gifted' IQ wise, let's not get into commonsense.
> ...



It's rape because she's 11.  Otherwise, it's a consensual sexual relationship with her 17 year old boyfriend.  He's under 18.  Just a child himself.  It's not rape according to those who think that rape shouldn't be rape if both are under aged boyfriend and girlfriend.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



 Dont think that anyone within reason would argue that it was not rape.  I dont agree with statutory laws that would charge a 17 year old and a 16 year old but you have left reason when you reach back to 11.  It is no longer statutory at that point.  Then it becomes molestation if I am not mistaken.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 6, 2013)

Our laws do not apply in Chile. Our morality does not apply in Chile. This is a legal and moral question that must be addressed by the parties involved within the legal and moral codes that exist.

Life isn't always fair and I doubt that the father will even be prosecuted due to the codes of acceptable behavior in Chile.

I empathize with the mother and child but the reality is that she is going to have a baby, die or both will die. The father will likely get off - free to do it again.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 6, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Our laws do not apply in Chile. Our morality does not apply in Chile. This is a legal and moral question that must be addressed by the parties involved within the legal and moral codes that exist.
> 
> Life isn't always fair and I doubt that the father will even be prosecuted due to the codes of acceptable behavior in Chile.
> 
> I empathize with the mother and child but the reality is that she is going to have a baby, die or both will die. The father will likely get off - free to do it again.



?
Who said it did?

Just because those things dont apply does not mean that we, on this message board, cannot examine the situation in the light of our morality and laws.

The point you are making is moot, no one has demanded that we go over there and apply our rules on that girl.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 6, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


Three predominately Catholic countries, Chili, Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua are the only nations that make no exceptions in their abortion laws.  In these countries, if your child is raped and becomes pregnant, legally she must face childbirth even if prevailing medical opinion is that it will cost both your child's life and the baby.  That's the law.

The good news for this little girl is that safe illegal abortions are widely available in Chili as they are in many other countries with very strict abortion laws.  Her parents can also take her Uruguay where all abortions are legal.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 6, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



You are assigning love an arbitrary age?    Who are you to tell these children that they cannot love whom they choose?

See how that works?


----------



## Flopper (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


That's ultimate love, but it shouldn't be legislated by the state.


----------



## Coyote (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
> Why is abortion the first avenue here?
> 
> Abortion should be a necessity, not an ambivalent choice of convenience.



Abortion carries less risk than a pregnancy.

An 11 year old raped and impregnated is a crime - she should not be punished further by being forced to have the child.  That is not a choice of "convenience".

Rape is not convenient.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 6, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> The child was raped.  Here in the US, that is one of the reasons an abortion can be granted.


I think you're a little behind the times.  Remember Roe v. Wade, 1973.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Jul 6, 2013)

Poor child.

I feel for her.

Raped, forced to carry a child and give birth.

Probably going to die from it.

What a life.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 6, 2013)

In cases like these I most strenuously depart from some people on my side of the political aisle.  When people such as Santorum say things about how a child who was impregnated by a criminal who should have been looking out for her has received a "gift from God", I have violent feelings toward those speakers.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 6, 2013)

Her boyfriend that she had consensual sex with was 17.  In this country her 40 year old rapist could send her into Walgreens to buy plan b or drop her off at a planned parenthood abortion clinic and leave cab fare for her at the desk.

Doesn't that make you sick?   Seriously it should make any decent person vomit.

This country just loves abortion way too much.  Raping little girls is okay as long as she can get an abortion.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Her boyfriend that she had consensual sex with was 17.  In this country her 40 year old rapist could send her into Walgreens to buy plan b or drop her off at a planned parenthood abortion clinic and leave cab fare for her at the desk.
> 
> Doesn't that make you sick?   Seriously it should make any decent person vomit.
> 
> This country just loves abortion way too much.  Raping little girls is okay as long as she can get an abortion.




The article linked in the OP didn't mention that it was her "boyfriend" who had sex with her.  It says it was her mother's partner.

Whoever it was, the article said he was arrested, so what he did was apparently a crime in Chile.  However, a link to other details would be appreciated.  

I am sickened by 40-year-olds getting away with rape.  And I am sickened by people saying that if the 40-year-old impregnated the child that was a gift from God.  Are you sickened by only one of those? Do you actually believe that when a child is impregnated by an adult like a parent, stepparent, uncle, teacher, etc. who should have been looking out for her, that's God blessing her?


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Jul 6, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Her boyfriend that she had consensual sex with was 17.  In this country her 40 year old rapist could send her into Walgreens to buy plan b or drop her off at a planned parenthood abortion clinic and leave cab fare for her at the desk.
> 
> Doesn't that make you sick?   Seriously it should make any decent person vomit.
> 
> This country just loves abortion way too much.  Raping little girls is okay as long as she can get an abortion.



What? She was raped for 2 years by her mother's boyfriend and she's 11.


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Jul 6, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Her boyfriend that she had consensual sex with was 17.  In this country her 40 year old rapist could send her into Walgreens to buy plan b or drop her off at a planned parenthood abortion clinic and leave cab fare for her at the desk.
> ...



Here's a link

Abortion debate flares in Chile over case of raped 11-year old. - The Washington Post


----------



## Noomi (Jul 6, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



With all due respect, your wife was not 11 years old at the time she became pregnant. BIG difference.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 6, 2013)

Annie said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Based on the fact you would be a CHILD.
I think your opinion would change if your child was 11 and pregnant. Because if you intended for that child to give birth, you should lose your parental rights.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Her boyfriend that she had consensual sex with was 17.  In this country her 40 year old rapist could send her into Walgreens to buy plan b or drop her off at a planned parenthood abortion clinic and leave cab fare for her at the desk.
> 
> Doesn't that make you sick?   Seriously it should make any decent person vomit.
> 
> This country just loves abortion way too much.  Raping little girls is okay as long as she can get an abortion.



Actually..............the thing that makes me sick is that you could possibly consider it okay to rape an 11 year old child.

They don't have the emotional, nor the intellectual capacity to understand what is happening.

What do you think "grooming" is all about?

Raping ANYONE is never okay, regardless of whether you can get an abortion or a morning after pill.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 7, 2013)

I'm sickened by the fact that anyone in this thread has yet to show compassion for the thing that is festering in this child's womb. 

Therefor, I am volunteering to step up for that child. 

Hi, mom.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 7, 2013)

If I had a child, he'd look just like Stewey...

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cNkp4QF3we8]Family Guy - Lois Mom Mum Mommy - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 7, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> I'm sickened by the fact that anyone in this thread has yet to show compassion for the thing that is festering in this child's womb.
> 
> Therefor, I am volunteering to step up for that child.
> 
> Hi, mom.



Really?  You're gonna step up for that child?

How many kids have you been willing to save via adoption or foster care?

(And yeah................I've been adopted and put into foster care, so I know the statistics, Casey Family Program told me what they were when I was 12).


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 7, 2013)

You are now listening to the voice of the zygote:

"That's one small (unintelligible) for humankind....

one giant (redacted) for (choice-overridden)". 

Mommy please...


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 7, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sickened by the fact that anyone in this thread has yet to show compassion for the thing that is festering in this child's womb.
> ...



I do respect you for sharing that. And for that I have no reply. No words here for that.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 7, 2013)

Just what I'd thought.................you want everyone else to pay for their "sins" while you condemn them from your ivory tower.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 7, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sickened by the fact that anyone in this thread has yet to show compassion for the thing that is festering in this child's womb.
> ...



I got 4 kids. 2 are abortion survivors. I know all too well what it's about.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 7, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Sure............................anyone can say anything on the internet.........................I've got a feeling that you're one of those who will say anything to try to prove their point, knowing that they can't really be disproven here on a messageboard.

Got anything to prove your point, or do we all have to regard you as some idiot who thinks they're better than everyone else?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



?
WTF are you ranting about.  Nothing in my post said anything about love.  I dont care about what she thought she felt.  You do understand that an 11 year old cannot consent to sex, right?  She is not mature enough to consent to it.  What the 17 year old did was a crime here; one of the worst crimes that I can think of.  Molestation is a horrible crime.

So, no, I dont see how that works.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 7, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


So can you so your admission to being an adopted child is rather worthless.  You can make any claim.

Mr H had the common decency to not call you a liar when you claimed to be adopted; you should have the decency to return the favor.  Of course, BOTH statements are meaningless because they have no connection with what happened here.  The demand that people who are against killing the unborn to adopt is a misnomer and a personal attack that makes no sense whatsoever.  Are you against parents having the right to kill their 2 year olds?  Why haven&#8217;t you adopted any then?

Pointless&#8230;


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 7, 2013)

Just because the girl is 11 years old she is automatically judged to be 'high risk'.

Yet in many African countries, and some Asian countries, girls that age get married and have children with no problems.

And the health care system in those countries is basically non existent.   

Go figure.  ..


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 7, 2013)

The problem is that &#8216;high risk&#8217; here is poorly defined.  It would be better for this discussion if we agreed to treat it as either dangerous or not.  If it is really dangerous to her life, are the people here still going to oppose an abortion?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 7, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Long stories, and I've posted both before. I'd rather not do it again.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 7, 2013)

BTW, that's MISTER idiot to you bub.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 7, 2013)

The needs of the already born child should trump the needs of the not-yet-born child.  I'm glad they still technically do in America.  I hope this child in Chile gets the help she needs before it is too late.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 7, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Her boyfriend that she had consensual sex with was 17.  In this country her 40 year old rapist could send her into Walgreens to buy plan b or drop her off at a planned parenthood abortion clinic and leave cab fare for her at the desk.
> ...



Stop shoving your religion down my throat.  I don 't need to bring up religion you do.  You must be fresh out of other arguments.

Abortion is murder.  The only question is who is the killer?  There is no problem with recognizing an adult as a murderer if that adult threatens one child into killing another.  Everyone recognizes the adult as the culpable party.  When little girls are forced to get an abortion start prosecuting the men for murder.  If an abortion provider refuses to turn over what they know prosecute them too.  They are accessories after the fact.  They have the same connection to that crime as a pawn shop who fences stolen goods has to the theft.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 7, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...





Shoving my religion down your throat?  Where the heck did that come from?

By American law, abortion is not murder.  It seems to me that most of the people who define abortion as murder are doing it from a religious perspective.  One clear fact here is that I did not bring up my religion, much less try to shove it down your throat, so I have to wonder why you accuse me of that. 

It is religious people such as Rick Santorum who say that when a man rapes a little girl and she is made pregnant, God gave her a gift.

It appears to be religious people who say it would be better for that little girl to die than to deny the "gift" God gave her when he let the adult in her life rape her.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



abortion is only murder when the law says it is murder.

people shove religion, or moral beliefs, down other people's throats (if you choose to refer to  it that way) all the time. religion has laid the goundwork for all legal systems that i can think of.

for the record, i am opposed to abortion generally, but not for religious reasons. i am not opposed to an abortion being performed on this little girl.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 8, 2013)

Amelia said:


> The needs of the already born child should trump the needs of the not-yet-born child.  I'm glad they still technically do in America.  I hope this child in Chile gets the help she needs before it is too late.



I agree. How people can put the life of a fetus ahead of a little girl who was raped is beyond me.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 8, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Of course you wouldn't want to post another story.

It's kinda hard to remember all the lies.


----------



## Agit8r (Jul 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Doctors say the girl, who is 14 weeks pregnant, is at high risk if the pregnancy continues. In other words, she could die, because her body is not developed enough to carry a fetus to term. But abortions in her home country of Chile are not permitted for medical reasons.
> 
> Clearly this is a medical reason. We have a small child, who became pregnant after she was raped by her mothers partner, and the law doesn't allow her to have a termination, despite the fact the risk to both fetus and child/mother are high:
> 
> ...



Well, a lot of pro-lifers idolize Pinochet (who is of course who they are talking about when they mention Chile's "success" at privatizing social security) so this probably is exactly what they are wanting here.  I mean if you look at Todd Akin or Louis Gohmert or any of the like, they certainly aren't people I would trust around my 11 year-old daughter


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 8, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Killing a human being is aka murder. A human being comes about at conception. Do the math.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 8, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
> Why is abortion the first avenue here?
> 
> Abortion should be a necessity, not an ambivalent choice of convenience.


*Why is abortion the first avenue here?*

Because *XXXXXX* Noomi wants to dictate to the little people's countries what they may and may not legislate. 

IOW, their laws should stay out of their own doctors' offices, but Noomi should be allowed to come and go with finger-pointing even though she doesn't have to go there and live with her decisions on people whose mores she abhors. 

*ADMIN EDIT: Remember folks this is the CDZ, please leave the personal digs out of your posts/responses. Thank you ~CK*


----------



## Noomi (Jul 8, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
> ...



Abortion should be the first and only option because this is an 11 year old CHILD!


----------



## Noomi (Jul 8, 2013)

Reminder folks - this thread is in the CDZ...

Don't want anyone getting into trouble.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 8, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



Really?  What about stillborn births?  Is it an abortion if you remove a child who is already dead from the mother?

I thought that the "Good Book" that most Christians revere said that Adam and Eve were dust until God breathed the breath of life into them?

Sorry.....................but until that child breathes and says they're alive, they're not really here at all.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 8, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Geez would ya lighten up. Use the search function if you're that intent. Those are rather dark and emotional times for me. 

But, you'd probably still call my accounts lies.


----------



## longknife (Jul 8, 2013)

The real question is what is the Chilean government going to do about the mother's boyfriend, a real scum bag? And the mother for letting this happen to her daughter?

What the hell's happened to the one time ethos of guiding and protecting one's child?


----------



## Wolfsister77 (Jul 8, 2013)

I wonder what will become of this girl. Her mother doesn't seem like a good choice as a parent. And abortion is illegal in Chile under any circumstances. So at 11, after being raped for 2 years, forced to carry and give birth to a child, if she survives, then what for her? 

Sad.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



It depends on the law where the murder occurred.   Ariel Castro is charged with fetal homicide, a murder, because of the miscarriage he induced.   Scott Peterson was convicted of fetal homicide for the unborn child and the murder of his wife Laci.

If you want the laws changed you have to work harder.


----------



## sealadaigh (Jul 8, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



no, murder is murder and a legal definition.

also, as a vet who has walked through an airport and has had piss tossed at me and been called a "murderer" and "baby killer", FREEDOMbecki, i resent your implication.

also, exactly what part exactly of "i am opposed to abortion generally, but not for religious reasons" are you having difficulty understanding. i am against abortion because i believe life begins at conception and i am unwilling to sit in judgement as to one life somehow being worth more than another.

stop rolling your eyes and do your own freaking math!!!


----------



## Flopper (Jul 8, 2013)

Sunni Man said:


> Just because the girl is 11 years old she is automatically judged to be 'high risk'.
> 
> Yet in many African countries, and some Asian countries, girls that age get married and have children with no problems.
> 
> ...


The World Health Organization estimates that the risk of death following pregnancy is twice as great for women between 15 and 19 years than for those between the ages of 20 and 24. The mortality rate is five times higher for girls aged between 10 and 14.   Yes, she at high risk at age of 11.

Just the suggestion that a 11 year old who has been raped will be force to go through a high risk child birth is unspeakable cruel.


----------



## High_Gravity (Jul 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Doctors say the girl, who is 14 weeks pregnant, is at high risk if the pregnancy continues. In other words, she could die, because her body is not developed enough to carry a fetus to term. But abortions in her home country of Chile are not permitted for medical reasons.
> 
> Clearly this is a medical reason. We have a small child, who became pregnant after she was raped by her mothers partner, and the law doesn't allow her to have a termination, despite the fact the risk to both fetus and child/mother are high:
> 
> ...



I'm with you on this, 11 is much too young.


----------



## Spoonman (Jul 8, 2013)

i like how the left is more focused on turning this into a pro abortion issue, rather then focusing on the real issue he which is some slob raping an underage kid.  lets allow abortions so  we  can continue to avoid the real issues .


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> i like how the left is more focused on turning this into a pro abortion issue, rather then focusing on the real issue he which is some slob raping an underage kid.  lets allow abortions so  we  can continue to avoid the real issues .




That is not the only issue.

The slob needs to go to prison.  The courts have time to judge him and hopefully put him away for a long time.

The 11-year-old victim faces a very real issue right now, a very real threat to her life.  How is that not an "issue"?


How can people be so cavalier about her insides being pulverized by this pregnancy and her life possibly being ended?  The 11-year-old child's needs should trump the needs of the unborn child.  She's there.  She needs help.  Whatever happens to the perp, this child deserves to live.  Unless you subscribe to the Rick Santorum/Sharron Angle school of thought.  I'm a rightwinger, but I don't subscribe to that school of thought and as long as there are noisy rightwingers out there who do, then it's a good thing there are people  who will stop them from having too much impact on our laws.


----------



## Spoonman (Jul 8, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > i like how the left is more focused on turning this into a pro abortion issue, rather then focusing on the real issue he which is some slob raping an underage kid.  lets allow abortions so  we  can continue to avoid the real issues .
> ...



Well unless we plan on invading and taking over the country, not a lot of what we think really matters.  We have no say what goes on in Chile

if it was up to me, he wouldn't be going to jail.  he would be shot on the spot.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Spoonman said:
> ...




True, we have no say about what goes on in Chile.  Unless somehow the sheer volume of worldwide revulsion might make Chile decide they could relax the law for medical cases, or at least in the case of this individual child might help mobilize resources to get this child to the help she needs.

Regardless of what happens in Chile, we can use it as a lesson of possible consequences of extremism here.  From the individual consequences on the lives of children who could be deprived of lifesaving medical procedures, to the political consequences of rallying behind extremists like Santorum.   I don't believe that we'll ever go back to a time where an 11-year-old rape victim here would be forced to carry the child to term, but I can totally understand why people on the left and in the middle would hear the words of people like Santorum, Akin, Mourdock, Perry, etc. and would think "better safe than sorry" and vote straight ticket Democrat.  Anti-abortion extremists are working against their own interests on the abortion issue and sacrificing ground on a lot of other important issues in the process.


----------



## GHook93 (Jul 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Doctors say the girl, who is 14 weeks pregnant, is at high risk if the pregnancy continues. In other words, she could die, because her body is not developed enough to carry a fetus to term. But abortions in her home country of Chile are not permitted for medical reasons.
> 
> Clearly this is a medical reason. We have a small child, who became pregnant after she was raped by her mothers partner, and the law doesn't allow her to have a termination, despite the fact the risk to both fetus and child/mother are high:
> 
> ...



This is one end of the sectrum. The vast majority of conservatives, at least in the US, would support abortion under this circumstance. See what many liberal like you try to do is state this the the majority view for the pro-life community, yet it's not. It's the extremist view. It's the equivalent of the extreme left pro-choicer support who support allowing a late term abortion baby survivor being murdered even after the baby is born alive!


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

GHook93 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Doctors say the girl, who is 14 weeks pregnant, is at high risk if the pregnancy continues. In other words, she could die, because her body is not developed enough to carry a fetus to term. But abortions in her home country of Chile are not permitted for medical reasons.
> ...




There are people on this board who talk like they think  the 11-year-old should not get an abortion even if the doctors claim the pregnancy is high risk.  And people on this board who would have voted for a man who said that when a child is impregnated by a rapist that was God giving her a "gift".  

I think the vast majority of conservatives would allow the child to get an abortion, but the vocal extremists are too high profile and are making it easy for the left to portray the bulk of the right as extreme.  

The vocal extremists include people who think it wasn't "real rape" because the child got pregnant.  People who think it wasn't "real rape" because the child may not have fought when the adult impregnated her.  And people who outright say that it is God's will that the rape victim carry the pregnancy to term. They're on this board.  And they're facilitating unhelpful legislation in statehouses.  And they're making moderate voices lose elections.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



That is barbaric as having abortion denied.  As wrong as it is for someone to force that child to get an abortion, it is equally wrong to require it.

The choice should be hers and no one else.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2013)

Abortionists do everything they can to protect the rapists of under age girls.   If someone wanted to reduce rape instead of increase abortion they would be demanding that abortion providers turn over the names.   They would have fought over the counter plan b with no age restriction.!


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 8, 2013)

Sometimes our moral issues conflict with laws. The law trumps personal morality every time. 
In this case a foreign country has different laws than we do. That is their right as a sovereign nation.
Trying to push a sovereign nation to change their laws makes as much sense as allowing Muslims to insert Sharia laws on the United States. None at all! 

I feel for this girl and I also feel for the life within her but I can't dictate to her or her country what they should do - I am not even sure what she wants or what I would do in her place. The only debate sparked is apparently here in the USA and not in Chile at all. We can't agree with what is right or even best for our own people how can we believe that we have the answers for another country?


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> Sometimes our moral issues conflict with laws. The law trumps personal morality every time.
> In this case a foreign country has different laws than we do. That is their right as a sovereign nation.
> Trying to push a sovereign nation to change their laws makes as much sense as allowing Muslims to insert Sharia laws on the United States. None at all!
> 
> I feel for this girl and I also feel for the life within her but I can't dictate to her or her country what they should do - I am not even sure what she wants or what I would do in her place. The only debate sparked is apparently here in the USA and not in Chile at all. We can't agree with what is right or even best for our own people how can we believe that we have the answers for another country?




The OP gave a link from Australia.   Whatever the extent of the debate it is not limited to the U.S. 

 How would you fairly conclude what the extent of the debate is in Chile?  An English-based google search wouldn't suffice.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 8, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...


Therapeutic abortions were legal in Chili until a military dictatorship abolished them in 1989. While there are no accurate statistics, it is estimated that between 2000 and 2002 there were between 132,000 and 160,000 illegal abortions in the country. Abortion is the third leading cause of maternal mortality in the country.

There are organizations that arrange safe abortions in Uruguay where abortions are legal.  This is where those that are financial able go.  However, those without the financial resources resort to back alley abortions.  Since the hospitals are diligent in reporting to police botched abortions, few girls will go to the hospitals for treatment which probably accounted for the high rate of death.


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 8, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...


 Yep. Nope. Nope.
Sorry, they are alive human beings in vitro. (in life).


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 8, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...


People have to live with their _own_ country's laws.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > freedombecki said:
> ...






"in vitro" means "in glass"

fwiw


----------



## freedombecki (Jul 8, 2013)

Amelia said:


> freedombecki said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


 I stand corrected. Thank you, Amelia.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 8, 2013)

This can be simply resolved.  All pregnancies are presumed to be intended.  If a woman or a girl if under age claims the pregnancy is the result of rape she has to give up the rapist.  Or the abortion provider has to both give up the rapist and a dna sample of the aborted fetus so the rapist can be identified.


----------



## Avatar4321 (Jul 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



And what about the mental and emotional damage by encouraging killing a woman's child?


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> This can be simply resolved.  All pregnancies are presumed to be intended.  If a woman or a girl if under age claims the pregnancy is the result of rape she has to give up the rapist.  Or the abortion provider has to both give up the rapist and a dna sample of the aborted fetus so the rapist can be identified.




What is it that this will resolve?  It doesn't resolve the problem of a child whose doctors say she is at risk of dying not being able to get the medical care she needs.

In this case the rapist was identified.

In general, I would ask you who you are to tell a rape victim what she has to do.  In many if not most countries an 11-year-old who is pregnant is by definition a rape victim and the child shouldn't be forced to say any more than she is ready to handle.  

Again, that is moot in this case.  The rapist is known.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 8, 2013)

Maybe they can do a late-term C-section to _deliver_ the child. 
That late term stuff didn't deter Gosnell from doing his handywork


----------



## Flopper (Jul 8, 2013)

Of the 30 highest developed nations, the vast majority have no restrictions on abortion, most of the remainder have limited restrictions and none outlaw all abortions.  Of the 47 highest developed nations Chili ranks 40.  The other nations that outlaw all abortions, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic don't even make the list.  

If you look at list of nations with the highest GDP, only two of the top 20 have any restrictions on abortion. I think there is strong coloration between human development and permissiveness toward abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_law
Human Development Index - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Maybe they can do a late-term C-section to _deliver_ the child.
> That late term stuff didn't deter Gosnell from doing his handywork





How long would you make the little girl wait before you so kindly slice her open?  How premature would you let the newborn be?


----------



## National Socialist (Jul 8, 2013)

I know I have seen in the news girls younger than that having babies...she should be fine....its horrible what happened to her and I hope they put the baby up for adoption but its no reason to murder the baby....I MIGHT have a wreck every time I drive.....so ya know it might happen it might not...


----------



## auditor0007 (Jul 8, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Doctors say the girl, who is 14 weeks pregnant, is at high risk if the pregnancy continues. In other words, she could die, because her body is not developed enough to carry a fetus to term. But abortions in her home country of Chile are not permitted for medical reasons.
> 
> Clearly this is a medical reason. We have a small child, who became pregnant after she was raped by her mothers partner, and the law doesn't allow her to have a termination, despite the fact the risk to both fetus and child/mother are high:
> 
> ...



There are many Americans who agree with Chile's laws on abortion.  They want us to be just like Chile.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 8, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe they can do a late-term C-section to _deliver_ the child.
> ...



"So kindly slice"?

I beg your pardon, I have four children - three born by cesarean. 

Speaking of slicing, how'd that Gosnell procedure work out for those kids that you and yours refuse to take under your wings?

A little postmature wouldn't you think?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 8, 2013)

It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...





Those children were born to you by adult women who chose to do actions which resulted in pregnancy.  You are advocating slicing an  11-year-old rape victim open.  

You didn't answer the question though.  How long are you going to have the little girl wait before you allow her to have her body back?  Does she have to wait until the fetus is  6 months? 7 months?  8 months?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 8, 2013)

whitehall said:


> It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.



For what reason?

Is this mother's  life in eminent danger? 

Here's what we do know- she's 11 and pregnant. 

Anything else?

This reasonable person on the pro-life side would smother the kid with love, support, and encouragement. 

And pre-natal vitamins. 

Geez F Christ talk about sinking a seaworthy ship.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

whitehall said:


> It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.




There appear to be multiple people on this forum, including the generally reasonable Mr. H, who would deny the little girl an abortion.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 8, 2013)

Amelia said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.
> ...



Is it not I who denies, it is you who advocates.

Like I said, you're determined to sink a perfectly seaworthy ship. You are so aggressively steeped in the concept of "choice" that you have forgotten that choice has two outcomes. 

You have pre-condemned the pre-born in this instance. 

And all I ask is "why". 

Why not carry the child to post-mature un-Gosnell spine snipping murder?

And exactly what is the difference between "slicing" via cesarean in order to render a live birth, and "dicing" into the vaginal cavity and sucking out the remnants of a pre-born human being?

Oh yeah... "choice".  But your concept of choice has only one outcome doesn't it?


----------



## whitehall (Jul 8, 2013)

The abortion debate will never end. Even before the Roe/Wade decision nobody would have known it first of all and nobody would have had a problem with this little girl having an abortion. The post is an attempt to fuel the flames and try to make a legal case where there is none.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 8, 2013)

whitehall said:


> It's an old trick to take an extreme case and pretend it's the norm rather than the exception. I doubt if there is any reasonable person on the pro-life side who wouldn't authorize an abortion in this case.



one would think so, wouldn't one, whithall?


one would be wrong. This seems to be the proper area of middle aged white men who live in a rich country and who see themselves as being best qualified to make moral judgements on what a abused and raped little girl in an impoverished country  should do. the fact that they have absolutely nothing personllly to lose does not defer their judgement of what is the moral thing for such a little girl should do. a 12 year old girl raising a baby, with no education, skills, prospects for a better life is not their problem. such little girl should have thought about that before getting herself raped.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 8, 2013)

It's only a motion away...

or is it?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIZwHUC_sgc]Paul Simon Track 1 - Mother & Child Reunion - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## 007 (Jul 8, 2013)

Cut the father's ball sack off, and wait until the girl, if ever, is in grave physical danger. Otherwise carry the baby to term or until it can safely be delivered cesarean. 

Anything else?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 8, 2013)

007 said:


> Anything else?



Well as long as you're asking, you got any weed?


----------



## 007 (Jul 8, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> 007 said:
> 
> 
> > Anything else?
> ...



Sorry pard, I don't smoke anything.

Got some good pills though...


----------



## Amelia (Jul 8, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...





Slicing via cesarean to render a live birth requires the female to carry the fetus in her womb long enough for the fetus to be viable.  

An adult, non-raped woman who makes the decisions leading up to her impregnation then making the decision to have a cesarean is completely different from a small rape victim being forced to carry the fetus long enough for a live birth.    

The rape victim should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy at the time when the least damage will be done to her body.  Is it your position that a cesarean will cause less damage to the girl than the abortion?  



You are quite mistaken about my concept of choice.  If the little girl were informed of the risks and if they were not too great and she decided that she wanted to have the baby, then I would support her choice to do so.   

What I entered this thread to say, and what I repeat now, is that I would not tell this child that her being raped and impregnated was God giving her a gift.  

If her doctors thought she should have the abortion, then she should not be forced to undergo the risks of the continued pregnancy.  She should not be told that her function as an incubator for a fetus is more important than her life is, and most especially it should not be intimated in any way that God wanted her to endure this.






I'm still curious as to how early you would allow the fetus to be removed from her body?


----------



## Flopper (Jul 8, 2013)

whitehall said:


> The abortion debate will never end. Even before the Roe/Wade decision nobody would have known it first of all and nobody would have had a problem with this little girl having an abortion. The post is an attempt to fuel the flames and try to make a legal case where there is none.


Yes, the debate will end, probably not during my lifetime and probably not yours but it will end with legalized abortion throughout most of the world.  I say that because that's the trend.  As nations become more affluent, they legalize abortion, liberalize abortion laws, or simply don't enforce the laws.  Chili has the strictest laws in world. However prosecution for violating of those laws are rare.   In the Dominican Republic that has just as strict abortion laws as Chili, has an estimated abortion rate of 90,000/yr. yet prosecution is also rare.

Basically, abortion laws and particular strict abortion laws are found mostly in less developed countries.  As those countries become more literate and affluent, attitudes on abortion will change just as they have in the developed countries.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



And what do you know about "viable".? 

My daughter was quite premature. She spent the first week of her life in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The ward was full... full of non-murdered babies. Non- aborted children of parents who made a "choice". 

Ma'am, pregnancy isn't God giving anyone a gift. 

Pregnancy is progeny.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 9, 2013)

My daughter was quite premature. She spent the first week of her life in the Neonatal Intensive Care Unit. The ward was full... full of non-murdered babies. Non- aborted children of parents who made a "choice". 

...and, of course, you would deny others from having that "choice". 

...and you would compare your wife's prgnancy with an 11 year old child's, which had resulted from rape....


----------



## Amelia (Jul 9, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...




Santorum said that it was God giving the rape victim a gift.  *vomit*

My nephew was born at 22 weeks.   He is my brother's 3rd child.  It was their fifth pregnancy - my SIL miscarried twice.   His APGAR score at one-minute was a 1 -- because he had a heartbeat.  It was months before he was in the clear.  He is 8 years old now.  The main vestige of his premature status is his low vision.  

Because my brother's 22-week preemie ultimately thrived, I thought my brother  would be against  abortions, at least after 22 weeks.  But no, his experience with his beloved son makes him adamantly opposed to getting in the way of people making whatever decision they are moved to make at that tenuous time.  

As someone who has never had to face anything like that, I put a lot of weight on my brother's experience and how much empathy he has for people in the middle of deciding whether to continue or to terminate a crisis pregnancy.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 9, 2013)

That 11-year-old girl never had a choice. Not a choice to have sex or not have sex. Not a choice to get pregnant or not get pregnant. And not a choice to save her own life.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 9, 2013)

So this one case is supposed to justify the millions of abortions done for reasons of convenience?  Is that what you're trying to say, Noomi?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 9, 2013)

S.J. said:


> So this one case is supposed to justify the millions of abortions done for reasons of convenience?  Is that what you're trying to say, Noomi?



It should justify abortion in this case. Any child who is pregnant should not be having a baby. This is a little girl, and where is the compassion for her?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 9, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> This can be simply resolved.  All pregnancies are presumed to be intended.  If a woman or a girl if under age claims the pregnancy is the result of rape she has to give up the rapist.  Or the abortion provider has to both give up the rapist and a dna sample of the aborted fetus so the rapist can be identified.



You would be prepared to force a traumatised rape victim, who may have been threatened by her rapist - to give up his name? What if she doesn't know who it is? What if she never saw his face during the rape?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 9, 2013)

freedombecki said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



And?  Whats your point?  Again, we are not discussing what is actually going to happen to the girl or what it is legal but rather what we thing should happen in this situation.  This is a debate board, not a news cast.  We are here specifically to debate these issues, to think about how thing should be.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 9, 2013)

Becki says that people have to live with their own countries laws. Does this mean she wouldn't object if a woman was to be buried up to her neck and stoned to death for being raped in a country governed by extremists?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 9, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > This can be simply resolved.  All pregnancies are presumed to be intended.  If a woman or a girl if under age claims the pregnancy is the result of rape she has to give up the rapist.  Or the abortion provider has to both give up the rapist and a dna sample of the aborted fetus so the rapist can be identified.
> ...



If the rapist is known prosecuting him for the murder of the unborn child should be easy.  Ariel Castro is charged with the murders of five unborn children.  Amanda Berry was forced to have a baby conceived by rape.  Should this six year old be executed?


----------



## R.C. Christian (Jul 9, 2013)

Avatar4321 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Life sux. Not the kids fault.


----------



## Votto (Jul 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Doctors say the girl, who is 14 weeks pregnant, is at high risk if the pregnancy continues. In other words, she could die, because her body is not developed enough to carry a fetus to term. But abortions in her home country of Chile are not permitted for medical reasons.
> 
> Clearly this is a medical reason. We have a small child, who became pregnant after she was raped by her mothers partner, and the law doesn't allow her to have a termination, despite the fact the risk to both fetus and child/mother are high:
> 
> ...



It sure beats 14 year old children being driven to abortion clinics without parental notification so that the abuser never gets caught I suppose.  That way monsters like Gosnell can get rich of them.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 9, 2013)

I've looked up this story, and its very vague. "Doctors say she is at risk" but don't give any details. So, we dont really know how dangerous carrying will be, and we dont know if she wants to abort or not. Although Im not even sure if a child this young is capable of deciding on issues like this. 

I think it's barbaric to have a blanket ban on abortions. Health of the mother should always be priority, and I hope that even those arguing against abortion in this case would agree that if the pregnancy poses a serious danger to her health than she should be allowed to save herself by terminating.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 9, 2013)

R.C. Christian said:


> Avatar4321 said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



You're right. The kid should be carried to term.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 9, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> R.C. Christian said:
> 
> 
> > Avatar4321 said:
> ...



I believe in this case, there is a serious question if "carrying to term" is possible, or if the little girl and fetus can even survive that outcome.

If doctors are saying there is a good chance that the little girl will die or be seriously harmed, then I hope all the petitions and outrage this story has sparked gets her the abortion she needs. Or at the very least, I hope she can travel somewhere that will provide it.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 9, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > R.C. Christian said:
> ...



Looking at the other end of the age spectrum, when is a grown woman's pregnancy considered "at risk"? 30 - 40 - even 50 years old? Medicine today is advanced enough to protect both that child and her child. 

Doctors can be wrong- even the best. Mrs. H. got pregnant at 40, and we were told by the doctor observing the first ultrasound that there were strong indications that our child would be born with Down's Syndrome. 

His advice? "Go down to the coffee shop and discuss your options". 

So we did just that. We were stunned. And heartbroken. 

The first words out of my Liberal man-hating eco-Nazi wife's mouth were....

...you take what life gives you.

And this is what life gave us. She's on the right:







I love my second perfectly healthy un-aborted baby. Yeah, there's another. But I'll save that for another time... and another bottle.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 9, 2013)

Its an 11 year old CHILD who never had a choice as to whether she became pregnant. This has nothing to do with convenience.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 9, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Your wife was 40, this is a child of 11. Its hardly the same thing.

And I did not know your daughter was a ballet? dancer? It looks like ballet - what is she, in some kind of performance?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 9, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



She's in an un-aborted state. Thanks for asking.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 9, 2013)

"Looking at the other end of the age spectrum, when is a grown woman's pregnancy considered "at risk"? 30 - 40 - even 50 years old? Medicine today is advanced enough to protect both that child and her child."

But appparantly not Palin's accidental child, which was born when she was 40 or over. Any doctor could have told her that the risk of Down's Sydrome was astronomical, campared with a mother in her twenties or early 30's. But as she told us while dragging the kid from one campaign speech to another, "The world needs MORE children like mine!"


----------



## S.J. (Jul 10, 2013)

Noomi said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Mr Clean said:
> ...


Sorry, noomi.  I didn't make myself very clear.  I wasn't referring to the 11 year old child, I was referring to the many millions of abortions performed for reasons of convenience.  I don't disagree with you on this one.  Having said that, I don't think this one incident should be used to open the flood gates to abortion on demand at any point in the pregnancy.  *XXXXXXX*


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 10, 2013)

I'm still wondering how an 11 (or 12 year old) can have any idea as to how to raise a kid?

She was raped.   Let her get the abortion so she can live a (semi) normal life.

Does she really need to have the kid to prove the point of a bunch of men?


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 10, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Yes, doctors can be wrong. I'm happy that was the case for you and your wife. 


However, shouldn't this little girl have the choice? Demanding that she risk her life to attempt to carry a fetus she may not even want seems wrong to me. Again, the details of this case are vague, but going under the assumption that doctors are saying she may die, or damage her body(perhaps forfeit the chance to have more children in the future) than she should be allowed to decide if this fetus is worth the risk to herself.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 10, 2013)

Tim Tebow's mother was advised to get an abortion.   Justin Beiber's mother was pressured into having an abortion.  Both women resisted.   Elaine Tebow resisted out of religious conviction.  Pattie Mallette read a book about Mozart and learned that his mother was pressured into having an abortion in her day and chose to be a single mother.  Mallette decided that had Mozart been aborted, the world would not be better off.


----------



## Amelia (Jul 10, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Tim Tebow's mother was advised to get an abortion.   Justin Beiber's mother was pressured into having an abortion.  Both women resisted.   Elaine Tebow resisted out of religious conviction.  Pattie Mallette read a book about Mozart and learned that his mother was pressured into having an abortion in her day and chose to be a single mother.  Mallette decided that had Mozart been aborted, the world would not be better off.




Both _women_ resisted.  Key factor there.  They were _women_.  

If the 11-year-old little girl resists an abortion on her own, then that matters.  

If the 11-year-old girl is forced to carry the pregnancy to term despite the advice of her doctors, that is a travesty.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 10, 2013)

Are we just listing random abortion stories now? I sort of thought this thread was about a little girl who was repeatedly raped and now may die if not granted an abortion.


----------



## Caroljo (Jul 10, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



Noomi thinks a woman (of any age) should be able to have an abortion for any reason right up to the time of birth.  Ask her.....


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 10, 2013)

There are extremes on both sides. Considering the girl in this story lives in a country that has a blanket ban on abortion, and makes no exception for the life of the mother, I'd think that's obvious.


----------



## peach174 (Jul 10, 2013)

The 11 year old girl says she wants to have the baby.
She does not know anything at all bout what it will be like.
She says "It will be like having a doll in my arms".
This little 11 yr. old thinks that having this baby will be like having a living baby doll.
They really do need to change their laws on abortion for rape, incest or for health reasons.


----------



## Caroljo (Jul 10, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> > Annie said:
> ...



Agree!  And, have you seen SOME 11-12 yr olds???  I think it was America's Got Talent (love that show!)...there was a girl and her brother that sang, she said she was 12 yrs old and my jaw dropped!  She looked and was built like at least a 17 or 18 yr old!


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 10, 2013)

So lets recap, we have an 11 year old girl who was raped by her mothers boyfriend over a 2 year period. Her mother is a disgusting twat who insists its the little girls fault because she wanted it. Doctors are saying her life is at risk, but the little girl now says she doesn't want to abort because it'll be just like having "a living doll".

And she's still stuck in a country that doesn't allow her to make the decision anyway.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 10, 2013)

Caroljo said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > reabhloideach said:
> ...



You and Katz are right, I'm sure when she was 9 she was desperate to get into her mothers boyfriends pants. And she probably didn't "look" 9, so that makes it ok.

*gag*


You should both be ashamed.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 10, 2013)

Amelia said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > Tim Tebow's mother was advised to get an abortion.   Justin Beiber's mother was pressured into having an abortion.  Both women resisted.   Elaine Tebow resisted out of religious conviction.  Pattie Mallette read a book about Mozart and learned that his mother was pressured into having an abortion in her day and chose to be a single mother.  Mallette decided that had Mozart been aborted, the world would not be better off.
> ...



If this 11 year old girl moseyed on into the local drug store to buy plan b, she'd be a woman.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 10, 2013)

I'm not saying this child should have an abortion, or shouldn't.  Merely pointing out the very clear confusion of the left in thinking that abortion is not an answer, it is the ONLY answer.


----------



## Flopper (Jul 10, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Tim Tebow's mother was advised to get an abortion.   Justin Beiber's mother was pressured into having an abortion.  Both women resisted.   Elaine Tebow resisted out of religious conviction.  Pattie Mallette read a book about Mozart and learned that his mother was pressured into having an abortion in her day and chose to be a single mother.  Mallette decided that had Mozart been aborted, the world would not be better off.


and had the mother's of Attila The Hun, Adolph Hitler, and Joseph Stalin had an abortion the world would have been a lot better off.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 10, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> I'm not saying this child should have an abortion, or shouldn't.  Merely pointing out the very clear confusion of the left in thinking that abortion is not an answer, it is the ONLY answer.



For an 11 year old girl, it should be.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 11, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> Tim Tebow's mother was advised to get an abortion.   Justin Beiber's mother was pressured into having an abortion.  Both women resisted.   Elaine Tebow resisted out of religious conviction.  Pattie Mallette read a book about Mozart and learned that his mother was pressured into having an abortion in her day and chose to be a single mother.  Mallette decided that had Mozart been aborted, the world would not be better off.



Ever notice the age difference between the women you've cited as examples, and the little girl that was raped?

Would Tebow's mother have carried him to full term if she were 11, and told that she could die by carrying him to term?

How about Bieber's mom?  Would she have been comfortable carrying him to term if she were 11 as well?

Sorry, but your example is nothing more than a very weak strawman.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not saying this child should have an abortion, or shouldn't.  Merely pointing out the very clear confusion of the left in thinking that abortion is not an answer, it is the ONLY answer.
> ...


It is worthy to point out at this juncture that some on the left here are no longer arguing for free choice.  It apparently, to the poster above at least, is NOT the womans decision.  Rather, the abortion should be mandatory.

What really sickens me here is that you some dont even realize that there is little difference in the two positions.  Forcing the girl to have her child is no different or more horrific than forcing her to have the abortion.

For all that talk about womans right to choose there are certainly a few here who would take that right away in a hurry as long as it involves an abortion.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 11, 2013)

Yes, it is horrific to force a woman to have an abortion, and horrific to force her to carry to term but this is a child, and what is in the child's best interests here?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Yes, it is horrific to force a woman to have an abortion, and horrific to force her to carry to term but this is a child, and what is in the child's best interests here?



To allow here a modicum of decency and not tear her rights over her own body by letting her have then option if she want to kill a living person in her body or carry an outcome of rape for 9 months; giving birth to a child.

I thought that was simple.  For those of you that push a womans right, this should be a given.  Taking the position you have belittles the position you claim to have.  Essentially, women should have the right as long as YOU think it is okay and then as soon as you find a situation, BAM, you think taking that away and forcing an abortion is hunky dory.

It is also interesting that you have decided that the ONE place that you are willing to remove a womans right over her body, you have made the decision to abort.  This might be one of those rare times when we have located an actual pro-abortion stance rather than a pro-choice one.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 11, 2013)

If an 11 year old girl is a child, she should not be considered a woman for purposes of buying her own birth control, like over the counter Plan B.   11 year old girls are children whose parents know what they are doing and make decisions for them, or they make the decisions that liberals decide for them.

Liberals are all abortion all the time.  The best interests of the child only go so far, and that's as far as having an abortion.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 11, 2013)

Do they even sell plan B in Chile?

Why are you obsessed with trying to make this little girl seem like an adult Katz?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 11, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Do they even sell plan B in Chile?
> 
> Why are you obsessed with trying to make this little girl seem like an adult Katz?



Because to libtards an 11 year old girl is a child or a woman depending on how libtards feel about what she's doing.   Sometimes its a child, but when parents want to exercise authority she's a woman able to make her own decisions.   

This is Chile, another country.  A country that passes its own laws according to what that country finds best for their citizens.   Yet, libtards want to impose their murderous views on the whole world, no matter HOW the people in that country feel.    Chileans elected their government.   If they don't like it, it's not up to American libtards to change it.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 11, 2013)

An 11 year old is always a child, however every situation is different. Typically a child this young would never be allowed to make medical decisions, but in the US she can decide to risk her life and have this child, and in some states she can decide to abort.

This story has caused a huge backlash in Chile, and many want to amend the laws to allow women to have life saving abortions when needed. You're right, ultimately its up to the people of Chile to decide to get rid of such a terrible ban, but that doesn't stop the rest of us from commenting on how awful the law there is.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 11, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> An 11 year old is always a child, however every situation is different. Typically a child this young would never be allowed to make medical decisions, but in the US she can decide to risk her life and have this child, and in some states she can decide to abort.
> 
> This story has caused a huge backlash in Chile, and many want to amend the laws to allow women to have life saving abortions when needed. You're right, ultimately its up to the people of Chile to decide to get rid of such a terrible ban, but that doesn't stop the rest of us from commenting on how awful the law there is.



11 year old female children in this country make medical decisions all the time.  They decide to have sex and get pregnant, planned parenthood provides cover for them and their rapists by concealing the rape and never telling parents what their daughter is doing.  They can buy their own birth control, once the rapist gives them the money.

Now all of a sudden an 11 year old is a child and cannot make these decisions for themselves.  Therefore an overbearing and overreaching government must decide for that child to have an abortion.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 11, 2013)

Oh stop it


You're argument is completely ridiculous and has no basis in the OP at all. Stop trying to make this little girl into something she's not. This isn't about someone who choose to have sex or someone who purchased birth control. I don't care how "old" you think she may look. 

You are tossing up nonsense statements in an attempt to avoid the argument. Women in Chile don't get a choice. This little girl doesn't have a choice. She didn't choose to be raped, she didn't choose to have a disgusting mother, and she doesn't get to choose what happens with her pregnancy at this point.

In Chile, women are not allowed to have an abortion to save their life.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 11, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Oh stop it
> 
> 
> You're argument is completely ridiculous and has no basis in the OP at all. Stop trying to make this little girl into something she's not. This isn't about someone who choose to have sex or someone who purchased birth control. I don't care how "old" you think she may look.
> ...



Do you know for a fact that this wasn't consensual sex and therefore the rape was merely stautory?


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 11, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Oh stop it
> ...



The man confessed to raping her repeatedly over a 2 year period, starting when she was 9.


And I really wish i could neg you for such a disgusting question.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 11, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



Unless you know for sure that it wasn't consensual but under age sex, it was an ordinary question.

Kaitlyn Hunt raped her victim too.   Would you like to see that rapist punished?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 11, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > Oh stop it
> ...



We are passed rape and onto molestation.

She was far too young, period.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 11, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> > AmyNation said:
> ...



If she's far too young, she's far too young period.  She's far too young to decide whether or not she wants an abortion.   She can't be old enough when it suits and far too young when it doesn't.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 11, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Abortion is not even allowed in cases of rape. Its a total blanket ban, which is completely wrong.
> 
> My view - a child should not be having a child. She is 11 years old, she has been raped and abused by someone who should have been caring for her, she should have a termination in order to protect her health, and her life.
> 
> Opinions?



You should fly to Chile and DEMAND they obey you and offer abortion on demand.

After that, you should make the rounds to Muslims countries and demand abortion on demand.

Edit: Didn't notice this was the CDZ


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 11, 2013)

Katzndogz said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Katzndogz said:
> ...



You can when you are talking about two completely different issues.  She IS tou young to decide on an abortion HOWEVER she is in a situation that demands an answer.  Simple as that.  She might be too young to have sex and too young to have an abortion but she has already had sex (through rape) so not she is STUCK with the latter situation.  Nothing can be done t rectify it.  She is to young to have a baby as well.  There is really only 2 outcomes and 2 decent options, she either passes on the abortion or she gets one.  Trying to take the decision out of her hands only allows the parents to FORCE an abortion on her.

How would you feel if anyone, at any age, FORCED you to have an abortion?  Can you square that with yourself?


----------



## Flopper (Jul 11, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Do they even sell plan B in Chile?
> 
> Why are you obsessed with trying to make this little girl seem like an adult Katz?


Not legally


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 11, 2013)

All abortion was abolished in Chile by the former dictator in 89'. The majority of Chileans agree that there should be an exception for health of the mother. However the current president is devout and the church plays a huge role in their policy decision.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 12, 2013)

Yanno......................all of you who think she should have the kid, should think back to when you were 11 or 12 years old.

Did YOU have the experience, the intelligence and the knowledge of how to raise a child at that age?

If not.....................why are you trying to force her into having the child?


----------



## S.J. (Jul 12, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno......................all of you who think she should have the kid, should think back to when you were 11 or 12 years old.
> 
> Did YOU have the experience, the intelligence and the knowledge of how to raise a child at that age?
> 
> If not.....................why are you trying to force her into having the child?


Why are you trying to force her to have an abortion?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 12, 2013)

S.J. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno......................all of you who think she should have the kid, should think back to when you were 11 or 12 years old.
> ...



Why are you trying to force her to have a child when she's neither mentally, physically (remember, they said it could endanger her life) or emotionally prepared to do it?

Like I said.................at the age of 11 or 12, did you have the physical, emotional, or mental strength to raise a child?


----------



## S.J. (Jul 12, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


I'm not trying to force her to do anything, but you sure seem to be.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 12, 2013)

Apparently, you want her to have the kid, even if she's not ready to do so.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 12, 2013)

The left weeps at the prospect of live human birth.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 12, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The left weeps at the prospect of live human birth.



No, at the prospect of an 11 year old rape victim dying trying to give birth.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 12, 2013)

Give her a C-Section.  The law forbids abortion.   Or, change the law.  It was just done in Ireland.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 12, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> No, at the prospect of an 11 year old rape victim dying trying to give birth.



As sad as it is, 11 year olds give birth all the time,

If this were in Brazil instead of Chile - it wouldn't be news. If it were in Venezuela, it would be the norm.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 12, 2013)

In Brazil and Venezuela she would have the right to have an abortion if the pregnancy threatened her life.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 12, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> In Brazil and Venezuela she would have the right to have an abortion if the pregnancy threatened her life.



Which means that American abortion promoters would ignore her and she would be off to have the baby as thousands of other 11 year olds do each year.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 12, 2013)

What? 

Why are you referencing anything American? We are talking about the fact that an 11 year old rape victim cannot get a life saving abortion in Chile.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 12, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> What?
> 
> Why are you referencing anything American? We are talking about the fact that an 11 year old rape victim cannot get a life saving abortion in Chile.



"Life saving" is nonsense the pro-abortion advocates have thrown out. The girl has a normal pregnancy - no different than any other. 

Now I support abortion in the case of rape, but I am not in Chile and have no desire to force my views on them. American abortion promoters are using this case to push their agenda. IF the girl were in Brazil, she would be ignored, because she wouldn't be of use as a pawn for Abortion promoters.

In the 3rd world, 11 year olds have babies every single day.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 12, 2013)

So, you dispute the OP, in which doctors are saying her life and health are at risk?

Seems kind of odd to wait 13 pages to question the OP...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 12, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> So, you dispute the OP, in which doctors are saying her life and health are at risk?
> 
> Seems kind of odd to wait 13 pages to question the OP...



Yes, the "doctors" are abortionists and speaking in general, not specific terms. Again, the fact is that 11 year olds have babies every single day in South America. This girl, who will be 12 by the time the baby is born, is at no greater risk than her peers. 

Oh, and I noted the OP was propaganda from the git go. Rape in Chile at least makes the news - in Brazil it sure wouldn't.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 12, 2013)

Even if you question the doctors who are saying how dangerous this pregnancy might be for the little girl, it still doesn't change the fact that Chile does no allow abortions, even to save the life of the mother.

You keep saying "abortionist" are pushing this story, but this is a huge story in Chile, and it has the people of Chile riled up. The fact is, the majority of Chileans think abortion should be legal for the health of the mother, and hopefully this story will be the catalyst for change there.


----------



## Mertex (Jul 12, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Well I suppose they could eventually do a C-section.



After she dies?  It's not necessarily about her being able to deliver vaginally, it may have to do with carrying the baby.  Why is a fetus more important than an 11 year old innocent girl-child?


----------



## Mertex (Jul 12, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Even if you question the doctors who are saying how dangerous this pregnancy might be for the little girl, it still doesn't change the fact that Chile does no allow abortions, even to save the life of the mother.
> 
> You keep saying "abortionist" are pushing this story, but this is a huge story in Chile, and it has the people of Chile riled up. The fact is, the majority of Chileans think abortion should be legal for the health of the mother, and hopefully this story will be the catalyst for change there.



I shudder to think that Republicans/conservatives would have the US have laws the same as in Chile.  Hard to understand how one can have more compassion for a "fetus" than for an innocent 11 year old girl.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 12, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Well I suppose they could eventually do a C-section.
> ...



Who said this kid is going to die?
One thing's for sure, her baby will if you had your way. Her baby is just as innocent. 
They are all innocents. Every aborted one of them.


----------



## Mertex (Jul 12, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...


There is plenty of risk.  Sure there have been cases where it has happened, but would you allow your 11 year old daughter to go through something so risky?  That pro-lifers are so non-chalant about 10/11 year olds giving birth is beyond belief.  For someone to be so concerned over a fetus and risk the life of an 11 year old is insane.

A 10-year-old girl in Colombia recently gave birth via caesarian section, placing her among the youngest mothers in the world. Though the girl is now recovering,* her case highlights the dangers of pregnancy before maturity, doctors say.*

*"No 10-year-old anywhere in the world should be having a baby," Lewis Wall, a professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis, told LiveScience.*
Why 10-Year-Olds Shouldn't Give Birth | Pregnancy & Health | LiveScience



> One thing's for sure, her baby will if you had your way. Her baby is just as innocent.
> They are all innocents. Every aborted one of them.


Her baby?  She was raped by a monster who has no respect for children and you are calling it "her baby"?  So, go ahead and let her risk her life, after all the fetus is so much more important than her, and then after it is born it can be denied Obamacare and Welfare, since obviously an 11 year old is in no position to go out and work to support it.  Brilliant thinking.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 12, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Sure there have been cases where it has happened, but would you allow your 11 year old daughter to go through something so risky?



We have. 

We were told there were strong indications that our daughter would be born with Down's Syndrome. Then we were matter-of-factly advised to go down to the coffee shop "and discuss our options". 

She'll be 18 in September. Perfectly healthy, smart as a tack, and a talented dancer.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 12, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Sure there have been cases where it has happened, but would you allow your 11 year old daughter to go through something so risky?
> ...



Your wife was not a child when she became pregnant, Mr. H. You know that is not the same thing.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 12, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Yes, ma'am. Whatever you say, ma'am.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 12, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



You weren't in that hospital coffee shop contemplating the life of your child, your own future as a parent, or the emotional financial and societal burdens that lay ahead. 

And you weren't me, sitting across the table from a Liberal feminist man-hating eco-nazi. 

So I stay silent, hoping she would make the first move. And all she said was "you take what life gives you". I nodded, and that was that. 

So you see, it is the same thing. I fear for the life of that 11 year old, yet I also respect her own child - to the point of giving him/her the very same respect and recognition and opportunity.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 13, 2013)

Liberals crow about opportunity and rights, yet deny their own progeny those same basic virtues. 

The muted voices that are vacuumed from countless mothers' *XXXXX*. 

Lives without voices never to be heard. 

Saunter to the clinic "a little off the top". 

Pedicures, manicures, child cures. 

Tiny throbbing hearts silenced by choice. 

Untold millions left without voice.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 13, 2013)

Mr H, do you think a woman should have the right to have an abortion when her life and health are in danger?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 13, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Mr H, do you think a woman should have the right to have an abortion when her life and health are in danger?



I'd appreciate it if you first address my previous posts. 

Abortion is no longer an issue of a mother's health.
It's about a mother's calendar of appointments. 

*XXXXXXX*


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 13, 2013)

This thread is specifically about the potential life or death abortion for an 11 year old rape victim.


I understand its not the norm. We are not discussing the norm. We are not discussing abortions in America. 


So, do you think a woman should have the right to abort when being told her life and health are in danger.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 13, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> This thread is specifically about the potential life or death abortion for an 11 year old rape victim.
> 
> 
> I understand its not the norm. We are not discussing the norm. We are not discussing abortions in America.
> ...



If you addressed my previous posts like I kindly asked you, you would very well know that my own child's life and health were in danger.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 13, 2013)

I have nothing to say about your previous posts. I have no comments about your man hating nazi feminist wife, or evil liberals crowing about rights then running out to get abortions and pedicures.

This thread is specifically about the law in Chile that does not allow any woman to get an abortion to save her life. I think that's wrong. I hope you think it's wrong too.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 13, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> I have nothing to say about your previous posts. I have no comments about your man hating nazi feminist wife, or evil liberals crowing about rights then running out to get abortions and pedicures.
> 
> This thread is specifically about the law in Chile that does not allow any woman to get an abortion to save her life. I think that's wrong. I hope you think it's wrong too.



The country of Chile, as it appears to me, saves more pre-born lives than it destroys 

Should this 11 year old die, then so be it. If both she and her child die, then so be it. 

Chile has faith in humanity. The United States has faith in murder. 

Abortion is in fact a murderous endeavor.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 13, 2013)

Quick question Mr. H........................

Hypothetically speaking, and no, I'm not talking about anyone's family.............................

Say that YOU had an 11 year old daughter, and she was raped, and that rape resulted in pregnancy.

Would YOU want your 11 year old child to carry the baby to full term?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 13, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > This thread is specifically about the potential life or death abortion for an 11 year old rape victim.
> ...



Respectfully, this thread hasn't a thing to do with your child. Your child was not expecting a child at the tender age of 11.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 13, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> > I have nothing to say about your previous posts. I have no comments about your man hating nazi feminist wife, or evil liberals crowing about rights then running out to get abortions and pedicures.
> ...



So it is preferable that the child die rather than have an abortion to save her life?


----------



## PaulS1950 (Jul 13, 2013)

Well, I can applaud your wife's morals in your case but this is a different case Mr. H. - a case where the mother's life is in danger. 
The question is, Do you throw away two lives or give the mother a chance to live.
If one breaks their leg and gangrene sets in, do you say, "you deal with what life gives you." or do you allow them to have the leg amputated and save the life?


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 13, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quick question Mr. H........................
> 
> Hypothetically speaking, and no, I'm not talking about anyone's family.............................
> 
> ...



Yup.


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 13, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> This thread is specifically about the potential life or death abortion for an 11 year old rape victim.
> 
> 
> I understand its not the norm. We are not discussing the norm. We are not discussing abortions in America.
> ...



Either the girl is a child or a woman.   Make up your mind.  She can't be a child, then suddenly be a woman depending on the circumstances.   She either is a child or a woman.


----------



## Dot Com (Jul 13, 2013)

The choice is obvious, save the life of the mother. I doubt a female of her age would survive birthing. Besides, getting pregnant is easy. She can get voluntarily get pregnant, as opposed to the way she was impregnated this time, at a later date.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 14, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Quick question Mr. H........................
> ...



Really?  You would accept the bastard child of some unknown rapist to be the heir of your family fortune and name?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



What does that have to do with anything?  Are you trying to pin the way the child was conceived (not in the childs control) on the child?  Who cares if they are a bastard or conceived in rape  that is totally irrelevant once the child is born.  It matters not one iota.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 14, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Gosh, I didn't know abortion came with so many qualifiers. 

My wife and I were ready to accept a Down's child into our lives. How could that be any more difficult?


----------



## Katzndogz (Jul 14, 2013)

Adopted children are left family names and fortunes all the time.   Is there nothing about step children and the family fortunes they get.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 14, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



So.....................if your 11 year old was raped by some idiot, you're cool with her carrying the child to full term and having the child, and then raising not only your daughter, but also the child that was brought about by unfortunate circumstances?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 15, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Quick question Mr. H........................
> ...



Even if there was a high chance that 11 year old daughter would die, or become severely injured as a result of the pregnancy?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 15, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



My god, he has answered the question several times.  How hard is the concept to understand?

Seriously, it is not that difficult to understand.  For some reason, you all seem to think that there is a difference if the child was conceived in rape.  Guess what, there are no horns on that kids head.  There is nothing different about that child than there is any other child in the world.  Raising them would be no different than raising any other child that was not a planned conception (the vast majority).  

What would take a great deal of fortitude is actually on the one that has to carry and live with the child as a reminder of the rape.  THAT would be quite difficult.  What is the answer to that conundrum though, I dont know.  Abortion might be an option but clearly Mr. H does not believe in that option for his family and, if I am not mistaken, he has made that clear.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 15, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> Even if you question the doctors who are saying how dangerous this pregnancy might be for the little girl, it still doesn't change the fact that Chile does no allow abortions, even to save the life of the mother.
> 
> You keep saying "abortionist" are pushing this story, but this is a huge story in Chile, and it has the people of Chile riled up. The fact is, the majority of Chileans think abortion should be legal for the health of the mother, and hopefully this story will be the catalyst for change there.



I keep saying it because it is the fact. Chile is a democracy, if the Chilean people want this changed, they will vote for change. Currently, we have American backed abortion promoters creating a media stir. We will see if the people of Chile give Planned Parenthood the market expansion they seek.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 15, 2013)

AmyNation said:


> This thread is specifically about the potential life or death abortion for an 11 year old rape victim.



It is not a life or death abortion. That is a lie.



> I understand its not the norm. We are not discussing the norm. We are not discussing abortions in America.



A 12 year old having a baby in South America may not be the norm, but it isn't terribly unusual either. 



> So, do you think a woman should have the right to abort when being told her life and health are in danger.



Of course, but that is not relevant to this case.


----------



## AmyNation (Jul 15, 2013)

While I think Mr H is a fun poster, In grateful most Americans don't agree with his way of thinking. There are, luckily, very few people who think women shouldn't be granted life saving abortions.


----------



## Intense (Jul 15, 2013)

*This is the CDZ. Zone 1 Posting Rules Apply.*


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 15, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Actually, I DO believe there is a difference of a child resulting from rape, because not only does the mother have a permanent memory of what happened to her from the rape (i.e. the child), but because of the circumstances regarding the conception, she is more likely to end up resenting the child, which could lead to child abuse (or worse).


----------



## S.J. (Jul 15, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Speculation on your part, and worth nothing.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Not speculation on my part.

I became an orphan at age 8, and most family members (with the exception of my Grandparents) resented the fact that I was there.  Also, I was a foster child for around 5 years (and the foster kids, as well as the wife resented me), and know how it feels.

You may call it speculation, but I know what it's like to be resented by an entire family.  Do you?


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



That is a difference for the MOTHER, not the child.  I noted that on my original post as well.  The reality is the child themselves did nothing and is no different than any other child.

I support the right to choose and understand why someone would want to abort after being raped BUT that does not make it the right or best choice.  There are others as well, adoption being chief among those, if you are not capable of raising a child connived in that manner.

All I was pointing out is the rather inane idea that somehow there is a difference from a child conceved in rape vs. conceived in any other way.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 16, 2013)

A child conceived out of rape is DEFINITELY different than an accidental pregnancy.

Sorry you missed the difference.


----------



## Esmeralda (Jul 16, 2013)

reabhloideach said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...



I once knew someone who had gotten pregnant at 11 and had a child at 12.  She was the victim of rape/molestation by a relative, uncle.  I  knew this woman as an adult.  She was really messed up in the head because of this experience.  It is very wrong to force a child of that age to go through with a pregnancy; when all of that happened to her, abortion was illegal in the States; as well, I think she came from a very much lower class background and didn't know she was pregnant until well along, and no one knew how to deal with it at that time. All in all, as the authorities know about this pregnancy of the girl in Chile, they should end it as the child is in danger physically, mentally and emotionally.  Also, the baby is likely to have problems. That woman's child ended up with mental and physical disabilities.  It was just a tragedy for everyone.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> A child conceived out of rape is DEFINITELY different than an accidental pregnancy.
> 
> Sorry you missed the difference.



I am sorry that you seem to think that the value of ones life is determined by the circumstances that led to your conception.  The very idea is pretty strange if you ask me but I doubt that you can even get passed the exterior debate about abortion here as most cannot.  The subject itself is too emotionally charged.  Like I said before though, I support the right to choose; I just do not need to weigh the value of an unborn child against other unborn children to justify that position to myself.  The decision to abort lies with the mother and the reasons for choosing such are entirely irrelevant.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 16, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



Oh, I think that you failed to mention the* meat *of Mr. H's position. He does not accept the abortion option for ANYBODY's family, because it offends his *personal* standards of what is right and wrong.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 16, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Oh no, I did not miss that.  The posts in question were not challenging that though.  Instead, they were challenging if he would be okay with this situation if it were his daughter.  As you can see, here we are a page later still droning on about that.  It is a bad way to turn the debate in that it only servers to make the case personal rather than logical.  You cant tell a person that there personal convictions are wrong because your personal conviction cant be wrong; they are personal.  We can argue very well though that your personal convictions cannot and should not be applied to others.  The abortion debate has always belonged in the realm of rights, control and safety.  When you start making this about personal decisions we end up going nowhere.

We dont need to go there for the abortion debate.


----------



## earlycuyler (Jul 16, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Well I suppose they could eventually do a C-section.
> ...



An abortion is not like having a mole removed. She is also in a third world shit hole. If she were wealthy she would have gotten an RU486 pill and it would have been done and over. As it is, she will likely die from this how ever it go's.


----------



## earlycuyler (Jul 16, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. H. said:
> ...



There is one huge difference, the unborne child doesn't have a say either way.


----------



## earlycuyler (Jul 16, 2013)

S.J. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



Gross speculation on his part. Lots of children are the product of rape. Many get adopted, many are raised by their mothers just fine. I find it odd, all this talk about minorities, and protecting those with no voice, yet those who scream the loudest advocate killing children who have done nothing.  Just scramble them up and suck them out because the mother may not like them, or won't be able to hit the clubs or what ever. Life s become so cheap thees days.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Not speculation on my part.
> 
> I became an orphan at age 8, and most family members (with the exception of my Grandparents) resented the fact that I was there.  Also, I was a foster child for around 5 years (and the foster kids, as well as the wife resented me), and know how it feels.
> 
> You may call it speculation, but I know what it's like to be resented by an entire family.  Do you?



Yet I suspect you would not wish your mother had killed you.


----------



## earlycuyler (Jul 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> Quick question Mr. H........................
> 
> Hypothetically speaking, and no, I'm not talking about anyone's family.............................
> 
> ...


 
That's a stupid hypo, but if it were my kid, and its her ass on the line what ever she said gos.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 16, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



It is a personal matter, whenever anyone wants to restrict_ my _rights based on _their _morals.

To be even more specific, if anyone does not believe in abortion, but acknowledges that everyone should have the right to a choice, I don't even have a debate, or issue to discuss at all. That is NOT the position that I have read on this thread by most of those that are opposed to this child having an abortion.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 16, 2013)

Vandalshandle said:


> It is a personal matter, whenever anyone wants to restrict_ my _rights based on _their _morals.
> 
> To be even more specific, if anyone does not believe in abortion, but acknowledges that everyone should have the right to a choice, I don't even have a debate, or issue to discuss at all. That is NOT the position that I have read on this thread by most of those that are opposed to this child having an abortion.



You are right.  That has nothing to do with my statement though.  I was simply stating that we should have this debate without asking questions like what would you do if it was your daughter because what you are going to do with your daughter is irrelevant to the rights that my daughter and I have.  That road only leads to bickering without dealing in actual facts and reality.

Your daughter (or his or anyone) has no bearing on my rights.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 16, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


So, you would have rather been aborted?


----------



## Mertex (Jul 16, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...


It is different from any other child in that it was not conceived in love, as most children should be.
If the mother was raped, neither did the mother (do anything).



> I support the right to choose and understand why someone would want to abort after being raped BUT that does not make it the right or best choice.  There are others as well, adoption being chief among those, if you are not capable of raising a child connived in that manner.


Nobody that I know says that abortion is right or the best choice, but neither is rape nor incest (for creating a child).  Most that support choice are saying that it is the mother's decision to make, not anyone else, and certainly not the government.



> All I was pointing out is the rather inane idea that somehow there is a difference from a child conceved in rape vs. conceived in any other way.


Well, FYI, there is a difference.  A child conceived by rape is certainly not one the mother would choose, although some women may want to go ahead and carry it to delivery and some would even consider keeping it, but it is their choice, not anyone else's.


----------



## Mertex (Jul 16, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



But it is a personal matter.  That is why pro-choice leaves it up to the mother.  Those that are anti-abortion for any reason (these bills being presented and passed in some states do not even make exceptions for rape or incest) believe that life begins at conception, and therefore a zygote should be considered a person,  while many believe that at conception the zygote is just a group of cells with the potential to become a person.  The Constitution agrees with the latter at this point.


----------



## Vandalshandle (Jul 16, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Vandalshandle said:
> 
> 
> > It is a personal matter, whenever anyone wants to restrict_ my _rights based on _their _morals.
> ...



*Agreed.....*


----------



## SayMyName (Jul 17, 2013)

Chile is a great country. Many changes have taken place over the last couple of decades in a very positive direction. I am sure the people of Chile will deal with this subject in the time and manner that is best for them.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 17, 2013)

S.J. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Never said I would have wanted to be aborted.  Matter of fact, I was a child that was wanted by both my parents, and probably would have had a very nice childhood had I not been orphaned at the age of 8.

My Grandparents wanted me, and after I went through foster care and decided that I didn't want to live with people other than my family, they took me in for the last year of high school.

I just said that I know what it's like to be resented and not wanted in a family because you were the "extra".

However................like I said..................knowing what it's like to be resented by a family because you weren't born into it, I can only wonder how much worse it must be to remind your parent that you weren't wanted, weren't planned for, and came as a result of being the fruit of a very violent act.

Foster care was bad enough..................I can't imagine what it would be like to be a child of rape.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 17, 2013)

Mertex said:


> But it is a personal matter.  That is why pro-choice leaves it up to the mother.  Those that are anti-abortion for any reason (these bills being presented and passed in some states do not even make exceptions for rape or incest) believe that life begins at conception, and therefore a zygote should be considered a person,  while many believe that at conception the zygote is just a group of cells with the potential to become a person.  The Constitution agrees with the latter at this point.



There is no reason for an exception to rape or incest.  Abortion should only be prevented when it passes a certain point in the pregnancy, as per the constitution and Roe, and before that point it is perfectly legal.  You have 20 weeks in most laws that have been presented to kill your unborn.  Rape, incest or whatever reason that you choose.  Why would rape and incest get an exception, you already have the right to abort a rape or incestuous child.

The only abortions that must be allowed after that point is when the life of the mother is at risk or there are other significant problems with the pregnancy.  Again, that is a constitutional requirement so if there are state laws that block either of these situations they will vanish in the court system as they rule them unconstitutional.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 17, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


First of all, you don't know that this child would not be wanted.  Second, you would choose life for yourself but death for somebody else.  How compassionate of you.


----------



## Mertex (Jul 17, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > But it is a personal matter.  That is why pro-choice leaves it up to the mother.  Those that are anti-abortion for any reason (these bills being presented and passed in some states do not even make exceptions for rape or incest) believe that life begins at conception, and therefore a zygote should be considered a person,  while many believe that at conception the zygote is just a group of cells with the potential to become a person.  The Constitution agrees with the latter at this point.
> ...



So, if a woman's doctor doesn't find out that the woman's life is at risk until after the designated time, then it is too bad for her?  She'll just have to die is she has to?  That is ridiculous.  Sometimes things go wrong after the 20 weeks (even the 24 weeks allowed by Roe v Wade) - and the woman shouldn't be punished for not knowing prior to that time.





> You have 20 weeks in most laws that have been presented to kill your unborn.  Rape, incest or whatever reason that you choose.  Why would rape and incest get an exception, you already have the right to abort a rape or incestuous child.


You are naive to the bills that are being pushed.  If exceptions to rape/incest are not part of the bill, then late term abortions for these situations will not be allowed.  If a child of incest gets pregnant, she may not even know she is pregnant, or if she does know, may not tell anyone that she is pregnant, and if her life is at risk, it doesn't matter at what point it is found out, she should be allowed to abort.  Her life is certainly more important than the fetuses life.


TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - Kansas House members on Tuesday *gave first-round approval to sweeping new restrictions on abortion after refusing to add exceptions that would allow victims of incest or rape -- including children who are raped -- to get late-term abortions*.
Read more: Kan. House rejects rape, incest exceptions for abortion



> The only abortions that must be allowed after that point is when the life of the mother is at risk or there are other significant problems with the pregnancy.


You are not paying attention to what I am saying.  Some of the bills being passed by some of the states do not make exceptions for the life of the woman being at risk. (See link ab ove).  In other words, it won't matter if her life is at risk, if it is past the 20 weeks nobody will be allowed to abort.  That is what is a problem that I object to.



> Again, that is a constitutional requirement so if there are state laws that block either of these situations they will vanish in the court system as they rule them unconstitutional.


I think most of these bills will be ruled Unconstitutional to begin with, so these states are just wasting taxpayer time and money, but heaven help us if the SCOTUS decides to make it part of Roe v Wade - then it will be a real problem.


Arizona's restrictive 20-week abortion law overturned as unconstitutional | God Discussion


----------



## AVG-JOE (Jul 17, 2013)

Mr. H. said:


> Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
> Why is abortion the first avenue here?
> 
> Abortion should be a necessity, not an ambivalent choice of convenience.



If this family doesn't qualify for "agonizing over the decision..." nobody should.

Does anyone know what the kid and/or her mother want?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 18, 2013)

S.J. said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



*XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
*
Never said that the child would not be wanted, I just said I wondered how much worse it could be for a child born out of rape.
*
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX*


----------



## Esmeralda (Jul 18, 2013)

ABikerSailor said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



It is also very possible the child would be born with mental retardation or severe physical handicaps.  No one seems to be considering that.  An 11 year old's body is not equiped to deal well with a full term pregnancy.  No  one wins if this fetus is carried to term.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Jul 18, 2013)

Mertex said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Why dont you bother to read the posts that I have already made on this thread.

ALL abortion law MUST (and rightfully so) include provisions for the health of the mother (and I believe the fetus as well) or it is unconstitutional.  I have already said that in this thread.  YOU EVEN QUOTED IT.  Rally mertex, are you even trying?


Mertex said:


> You are naive to the bills that are being pushed.  If exceptions to rape/incest are not part of the bill, then late term abortions for these situations will not be allowed.  If a child of incest gets pregnant, she may not even know she is pregnant, or if she does know, may not tell anyone that she is pregnant, and if her life is at risk, it doesn't matter at what point it is found out, she should be allowed to abort.  Her life is certainly more important than the fetuses life.
> 
> 
> TOPEKA, Kan. (AP) - Kansas House members on Tuesday *gave first-round approval to sweeping new restrictions on abortion after refusing to add exceptions that would allow victims of incest or rape -- including children who are raped -- to get late-term abortions*.
> Read more: Kan. House rejects rape, incest exceptions for abortion






Mertex said:


> > The only abortions that must be allowed after that point is when the life of the mother is at risk or there are other significant problems with the pregnancy.
> 
> 
> You are not paying attention to what I am saying.  Some of the bills being passed by some of the states do not make exceptions for the life of the woman being at risk. (See link ab ove).  In other words, it won't matter if her life is at risk, if it is past the 20 weeks nobody will be allowed to abort.  That is what is a problem that I object to.


And I never challenged that point.  I agree fully with the inane laws that have not bothered to follow the constitution (and said as much here) BUT I do challenge the idea that laws need to have exceptions outside of that because abortion is STILL on the table for those people under those circumstances already.  You DIRECTLY pointed out not making exceptions for rape and incest.  That is the part that is pointless, they ALREADY have that option.  Exceptions for the life of the mother and fetus OTOH MUST be included because such a complication can occur even during delivery and might require an abortion even then to save the mothers life.  Rape though, does not happen at 30 weeks.  You dont wake up 8 months later and say, oh shit, that was actually a rape and NOW I dont want the child.  You dont find out 8 months later that it was not your boyfriend that you were having sex with, it was actually your father.

These do not need exceptions as long as you have the option to abort within a reasonable amount of time.  As that is not only current law but it is also constitutionally protected, we do not need those exceptions that you SPECIFICALLY pointed out.  Those laws that are not following the constitution by making abortions hard to get, limiting them even in the case of danger to life and overly restricting the time that a mother has to get the abortion can, should and WILL be thrown out as they should be.


Mertex said:


> > Again, that is a constitutional requirement so if there are state laws that block *either of these situations* they will vanish in the court system as they rule them unconstitutional.
> 
> 
> I think most of these bills will be ruled Unconstitutional to begin with, so these states are just wasting taxpayer time and money, but heaven help us if the SCOTUS decides to make it part of Roe v Wade - then it will be a real problem.
> ...


Yes, the states are if they are not bothering to address the rather obvious requirements in Roe.  I do not support such asshattery.  The legislators that pass laws that are CLEARLY unconstitutional should be fired.  That has nothing to do with my statements though.  It would have some barring on the OP as abortions there are banned BUT I was clear as to why such matters are irrelevant in our own system as abortion is NOT banned.  Rape and incestuous pregnancies are offered the option of abortion.  That is a simple fact.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 18, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> If this family doesn't qualify for "agonizing over the decision..." nobody should.
> 
> Does anyone know what the kid and/or her mother want?



Nope, we only know what Planned Parenthood wants. 

Which is to expand their market.

A non-stop media blitz by abortion promoters.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Jul 18, 2013)

AVG-JOE said:


> Mr. H. said:
> 
> 
> > Could an 11 year old survive an abortion?
> ...



Very True!

I believe that a fetus is a human being who is entitled to protection under our legal system. I think Roe v Wade got it wrong. But it is the law of our land.

But I also believe that if it is legal to kill someone who is threatening your own life - this principle applies in this case. I personally have a tough time telling a woman that she has no choice but to risk her own life, or that she must carry a baby conceived by rape to term.

So in this particular case - their are two reasons I could reluctantly accept an abortion.  But it's not my call. And apparently, in this country it isn't the mother's, the mother's parents' or their doctors' call either. I respect the right of other countries to determine their own laws. I only have a say in trying to correct ours.


----------



## nodoginnafight (Jul 18, 2013)

> Yes, the states are if they are not bothering to address the rather obvious requirements in Roe. I do not support such asshattery. The legislators that pass laws that are CLEARLY unconstitutional should be fired.



But doing this is the only avenue available to challenge Roe v Wade and give the court the opportunity to change their previous ruling.

Isn't it?


----------



## Mertex (Jul 18, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



The health of the mother/fetus provision that you mention is loosely defined in Roe v Wade.

Since a state's requirement per Roe v Wade is only "protecting pre-natal life and protecting woman's health, all it takes is for a state to redefine these conditions, then they can work around them.  We have already witnessed their attempt at redefining rape, and considering that so many feel that only at the point of death should a woman be allowed an abortion under the "risk to mother's life provision", that really restricts abortion beyond what Roe v Wade intended.  It wouldn't allow for a woman to decide well in advance to have an abortion because her doctor has told her that her life is at risk, she must wait until she reaches that "at risk" point, which in some cases may be too late.  And adopting a new law that excludes these two situations, could give the states the right to deny women in those conditions the right to an abortion, up and to the point where the law is challenged and taken out and could impact many women in the meantime.



> The only abortions that must be allowed after that point is when the life of the mother is at risk or there are other significant problems with the pregnancy. Again, that is a constitutional requirement so if there are state laws that block either of these situations they will vanish in the court system as they rule them unconstitutional.
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/7549598-post239.html


Do you have a link to support your stance, because "protecting pre-natal life" and "protecting women's health" can be redefined to mean something other than what we now have.  What is the Constitutional requirement that you are using over these situations?



> And I never challenged that point.  I agree fully with the inane laws that have not bothered to follow the constitution (and said as much here) BUT I do challenge the idea that laws need to have exceptions outside of that because abortion is STILL on the table for those people under those circumstances already.  You DIRECTLY pointed out not making exceptions for rape and incest.  That is the part that is pointless, they ALREADY have that option.


Again, can you provide a link to back that up, because "protecting pre-natal life" does not say in any way that it makes rape an exception, and "protecting women's health" is not clearly defined.



> Exceptions for the life of the mother and fetus OTOH MUST be included because such a complication can occur even during delivery and might require an abortion even then to save the mothers life.


Partial birth abortions have been banned in some states and others are not enforcing them,  and there have been proponents that believe that a child, no matter how deformed or what  kind of health problems it will face for life, deserves to live, which may negate the mother's  right to an abortion at the time of delivery.  So, nothing is set in concrete as you think it is.



> Rape though, does not happen at 30 weeks.  You dont wake up 8 months later and say, oh shit, that was actually a rape and NOW I dont want the child.  You dont find out 8 months later that it was not your boyfriend that you were having sex with, it was actually your father.


I guess you missed where I said a young 11/12 year old girl that becomes pregnant through incest may not even know that she is pregnant, and if she does may try to hide it.  Yet if it poses a risk to her life, what difference does it make at what stage she is in, why should her life be placed at risk just because she didn't tell in time to meet some ignorant legislator's time limit.



> These do not need exceptions as long as you have the option to abort within a reasonable amount of time.  As that is not only current law but it is also constitutionally protected, we do not need those exceptions that you SPECIFICALLY pointed out.


We wouldn't need them if we didn't have crazy legislators out there trying to find ways to work around them.  Claiming that the body rejects rape sperm automatically, or that God intended the child of rape to be conceived are just a few of the reasons why we have to make sure that it is always an option.  When it is left out, you really have no guarantee.



> Those laws that are not following the constitution by making abortions hard to get, limiting them even in the case of danger to life and overly restricting the time that a mother has to get the abortion can, should and WILL be thrown out as they should be.


Are you able to guarantee that they will be thrown out in time to not affect any woman?  



> Yes, the states are if they are not bothering to address the rather obvious requirements in Roe.  I do not support such asshattery.  The legislators that pass laws that are CLEARLY unconstitutional should be fired.  That has nothing to do with my statements though.  It would have some barring on the OP as abortions there are banned BUT I was clear as to why such matters are irrelevant in our own system as abortion is NOT banned.  Rape and incestuous pregnancies are offered the option of abortion.  That is a simple fact.


Yes, it is so easy to fire legislators that are passing these laws, especially when a majority of people in their state are voting them into office.

You may claim they are irrelevant, but unless you can guarantee that these laws will be thrown out before any woman is hurt by them, then they need to at least include them, that's all I'm saying.


----------



## snowdenisahero (Jul 20, 2013)

A person must have autonomy over their OWN body. Government has no place in a girls body, period.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 21, 2013)

snowdenisahero said:


> A person must have autonomy over their OWN body. Government has no place in a girls body, period.


Wrong.  The fetus is an individual, not a tumor.


----------



## Mr. H. (Jul 21, 2013)

I'd look forward to being this kid's grandparent. 

Beats the shit out of sucking fetal material from the vaginal cavity. 

Kids.. ya love 'em or ya kill 'em.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 21, 2013)

S.J. said:


> snowdenisahero said:
> 
> 
> > A person must have autonomy over their OWN body. Government has no place in a girls body, period.
> ...



It is not separate from the woman's body, and not an individual until its attachment has been severed.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 21, 2013)

Noomi said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > snowdenisahero said:
> ...


Bullshit, you're trying to justify murder for the sake of some twisted sense of power you feel you're entitled to because you're a woman and have no physical power over men.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 21, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Are you really trying to justify forcing an 11 year old rape victim to bear a child?

I think it is women who have the power over men - the power to abort a fetus the man helped to create. Men hate that, which is why Republican men love making anti abortion laws.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 21, 2013)

Noomi said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


Thank you.  You just confirmed everything I just said.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 21, 2013)

You said that women have no physical power over men. How can you agree with that?


----------



## S.J. (Jul 22, 2013)

Noomi said:


> You said that women have no physical power over men. How can you agree with that?


You just confirmed that your only power over men is to kill their babies.


----------



## Noomi (Jul 22, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > You said that women have no physical power over men. How can you agree with that?
> ...



They are not babies.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 22, 2013)

Noomi said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Noomi said:
> ...


What are they then, puppies?

fetus noun    (Concise Encyclopedia)
Unborn young of any vertebrate, particularly mammals, after it has acquired its basic form. In humans, this stage begins about eight weeks after conception (see embryo). The fetal stage, marked by increased growth and full development of the organ systems, climaxes in birth (see pregnancy, parturition). By the end of the third month, the arms and legs of the human fetus begin to move and reflexive movements (such as sucking) begin. Four months after conception, the fetus is about 5.3 in. (135 mm) long and weighs about 6 oz (170 g). During the fifth month, downy hairs (lanugo) cover the body and the skin becomes less transparent. At seven months, a protective greasy substance (vernix caseosa) covers the reddish, wrinkled skin. Fat is deposited under the skin during the eighth month, when the fetus typically weighs about 5 lbs (2.2 kg). A full-term fetus is about 266 days old.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 22, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > S.J. said:
> ...



Actually.............women DO have a lot of power over men.  Ever heard of Helen of Troy?  She started a war just because of how she looked.  There are many stories since then of where women have had power over men.

I just find it interesting that when it becomes very hard for women to choose their fate as far as having children, it's decided by a council of men.

News flash.....................there hasn't been a single woman on an anti-abortion measure in Congress since they started introducing them

Yeah...........Sandra Fluke was a witness, but she didn't have a vote.

Sorry...............but the anti-abortion crowd is a bunch of mindless men who think they know what happens to women.

They don't.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Jul 22, 2013)

I am against abortion on demand... except in two cases.  In the case of rape/incest and if the health of the mother is in jeopardy.

An 11-year old child is pregnant because the mother's 'partner' raped her?  As much as I would agree that the child is not responsible for the horrible circumstances of the pregnancy, to make an 11-year old girl continue on with this pregnancy is raping the girl a second time.  That defies any logic what-so-ever.

If it is said that this 11-year old girl wants to continue with the pregnancy, I would argue that an 11-year old girl does not have the faculties to make that decision.

Terminate the pregnancy... throw the bastard who raped her into the deepest, darkest hole that you can find.


----------



## S.J. (Jul 22, 2013)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> I am against abortion on demand... except in two cases.  In the case of rape/incest and if the health of the mother is in jeopardy.
> 
> An 11-year old child is pregnant because the mother's 'partner' raped her?  As much as I would agree that the child is not responsible for the horrible circumstances of the pregnancy, to make an 11-year old girl continue on with this pregnancy is raping the girl a second time.  That defies any logic what-so-ever.
> 
> ...


Force her to have an abortion?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 23, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > It is not separate from the woman's body, and not an individual until its attachment has been severed.
> ...



A newborn is not permanently attached to a breast, is it?


----------



## Noomi (Jul 23, 2013)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> > They are not babies.
> ...



Actually, I do - and a fetus is not a person until it has taken a breath. 

It may vary from state to state, but in no state is a fetus considered a person with the same legal rights as a person.


----------



## OldUSAFSniper (Jul 23, 2013)

S.J. said:


> OldUSAFSniper said:
> 
> 
> > I am against abortion on demand... except in two cases.  In the case of rape/incest and if the health of the mother is in jeopardy.
> ...



I do not say to terminate the pregnancy lightly.  This situation to me is one of the absolute worst that one could encounter.  Regardless of what anyone else says, the baby inside that 11-year old's womb IS a baby.  However, logic dictates that an 11-year old girl is not mature enough and would probably be severely harmed by a forced pregnancy at that time of her life.  I cannot even imagine, having been a father to girls myself, the thoughts that would go through her mind during these formative years and the damage to her mental health which WOULD result.

The termination of that baby would result in the childs death.  To stand there and try to tell me that it is nothing but a mass of tissues is obscene.  It is not and the death of the fetus is appalling.  But the 11-year old was raped by a maggot who deserves to not see the light of day for the rest of his natural life.

Nothing good comes of the act.  Nothing... and a child will die no matter what occurs, the abortion or carrying the infant to full term.  Either the abortion will kill a child or the carrying of the child to term will kill the 11-years olds mental health.  It is a lose-lose either way.

In this situation, whether you are pro-choice or pro-life, you should weep for the victims because their are TWO OF THEM...


----------



## S.J. (Jul 23, 2013)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > OldUSAFSniper said:
> ...


First of all, you're assuming the girl would die.  That's pure speculation on your part.  Second, you're avoiding my question.  Would you support forcing the girl to have an abortion?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> A newborn is not permanently attached to a breast, is it?



No more than it is permanently attached to the placenta. 

Most pro-abortion activist promote the "magic vagina" theory, that a blob is just a blob, until passing through the magic vagina, then the blob transmutes into a baby. 

I'll give Obama credit for this, he wants to kill the baby on either side of the birth canal, so at least he's consistent.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Jul 23, 2013)

Noomi said:


> Actually, I do - and a fetus is not a person until it has taken a breath.
> 
> It may vary from state to state, but in no state is a fetus considered a person with the same legal rights as a person.



Sounds hauntingly familiar...

It may vary from state to state, but in no state is a negro considered a person with the same legal rights as a person.


----------



## Vox (Jul 23, 2013)

OldUSAFSniper said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > OldUSAFSniper said:
> ...




I am sorry but you obviously have no idea what you are talking about - when you talk about 11yo will die, the baby will die, so let's just kill the baby.

If the girl was able to get pregnant, she is obviously physiologically already in puberty. 
Modern medicine can provide care in many situations which were considered deadly before, so considering that 11 yo will be "damaged" is a big overreach. there are different 11 yo as there are different 15 yo as well. We are not anatomically and physiologically identical and develop in different pace.
She wants the baby and if one forces her to terminate pregnancy - now THAT will definitely make her damaged much more, than physiology ever can.
Obviously, she should be closely monitored for any signs of potential ills. And by no means should she be pushed to have an abortion, unless it is a decision of her doctors ( not just one, it should be a panel of doctors).


----------

