Huckabee Backs Denying Abortion To 10-Year-Old Raped By Stepfather

[Lonestar_logic]

You think a ten year old after being raped and going through an abortion will be the same? End result, both the ten year old and her baby are alive and well. How do you know they will live in poverty? Do you know the girl?

Thankfully, physically she might be doing well, but is that all you think matters? You don't think a 10 year old who was raped & had a baby is ever going to be psychologically well again? A grown woman who has gone through that same trauma is never the same again. But, ya THE END RESULT is all you seem to care about as far as the birth being completed. As for living in poverty?


Paraguay is one of the most malnourished countries in Latin America and the developing world. Although the region as a whole has made progress in reducing malnutrition, Paraguay is among the Latin American countries that have made little to no progress, especially with regard to chronic malnutrition.

According to the World Health Organization, 1.55 percent of deaths that occur in Paraguay are a result of malnutrition. Additionally, 32 percent of the population in Paraguay lives under the poverty lines, while 17 percent of the population is considered to be in extreme poverty. Among those populations, food insecurity is more prominent and varies from household to household.

Of those living in poverty, 25.5 percent are undernourished. Additionally, statistics reveal that 60,000 of the 150,000 children born in Paraguay will be born in impoverished households. A 2013 U.N. report states that Paraguay is one of the countries with the highest percentage of malnourished and food deprived people in Latin America..."

Malnutrition in Paraguay - The Borgen Project

Housing need in Paraguay

Paraguay is the third poorest country in South America. Of its 6,340,000 inhabitants (2011), more than 35 percent lives in conditions of poverty and nearly 20 percent in extreme poverty, earning less than US $1 per day.

In Paraguay, thousands of farmers and indigenous families have been expelled from the land through corruption. More than 85 percent of the land parcels greater than 500 hectares (1,235 acres) are owned by just 2.6 percent of landowners. This polarization of land tenure is accentuated year after year and directly relates to the housing situation.

An estimated 1.1 million houses are needed in Paraguay, according to the SENAVITAT 2011- PLANHAVI Report, and this number grows every year.

In addition, 43 out of 100 families— 39 percent in urban areas and 50 percent in rural areas — live in an inadequate house, according to a report by the Inter-American Development Bank.

Lack of access to soft credit for housing and the rural exodus — mass migration from rural to urban areas — are the main reasons families are living in unsafe and overcrowded houses. These situations are producing a rapid growth in the housing deficit..."

Paraguay

11-year-old gives birth to girl in Paraguay

By PEDRO SERVIN August 13, 2015 6:05 PM


ASUNCION, Paraguay (AP) — An 11-year-old girl who was denied an abortion after being raped gave birth Thursday, the culmination of a case that put a spotlight on child rape in this poor South American nation and drew criticism from human rights groups.

Elizabeth Torales, a lawyer for the girl's mother, told The Associated Press that the minor gave birth to a baby girl via cesarean in a Red Cross hospital in Asuncion, Paraguay's capital.

11-year-old gives birth to girl in Paraguay

How many permanent Red Cross Hospitals in a nation's capital indicate that it is not a poverty-stricken country? This was the first pic that came up when I typed in 'typical Paraguay poverty'

Take a look at the rest of them , but as long as that baby was birthed, it's all good, right?

paraguay - Google Search

You start off by asking me virtually the same question I asked you.

Reading comprehension is something you need to work on.

You have not proven she was or is from a poverty stricken home.

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

Young girls have a much higher risk of dying during childbirth. Would you still be saying "a life saved" if she had died?

If she had died it would have been a tragedy. But, that didn't happen.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You start off by asking me virtually the same question I asked you.

Reading comprehension is something you need to work on.

You have not proven she was or is from a poverty stricken home.

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

 

[aris2chat]

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

Thankfully, physically she might be doing well, but is that all you think matters? You don't think a 10 year old who was raped & had a baby is ever going to be psychologically well again? A grown woman who has gone through that same trauma is never the same again. But, ya THE END RESULT is all you seem to care about as far as the birth being completed. As for living in poverty?


Paraguay is one of the most malnourished countries in Latin America and the developing world. Although the region as a whole has made progress in reducing malnutrition, Paraguay is among the Latin American countries that have made little to no progress, especially with regard to chronic malnutrition.

According to the World Health Organization, 1.55 percent of deaths that occur in Paraguay are a result of malnutrition. Additionally, 32 percent of the population in Paraguay lives under the poverty lines, while 17 percent of the population is considered to be in extreme poverty. Among those populations, food insecurity is more prominent and varies from household to household.

Of those living in poverty, 25.5 percent are undernourished. Additionally, statistics reveal that 60,000 of the 150,000 children born in Paraguay will be born in impoverished households. A 2013 U.N. report states that Paraguay is one of the countries with the highest percentage of malnourished and food deprived people in Latin America..."

Malnutrition in Paraguay - The Borgen Project

Housing need in Paraguay

Paraguay is the third poorest country in South America. Of its 6,340,000 inhabitants (2011), more than 35 percent lives in conditions of poverty and nearly 20 percent in extreme poverty, earning less than US $1 per day.

In Paraguay, thousands of farmers and indigenous families have been expelled from the land through corruption. More than 85 percent of the land parcels greater than 500 hectares (1,235 acres) are owned by just 2.6 percent of landowners. This polarization of land tenure is accentuated year after year and directly relates to the housing situation.

An estimated 1.1 million houses are needed in Paraguay, according to the SENAVITAT 2011- PLANHAVI Report, and this number grows every year.

In addition, 43 out of 100 families— 39 percent in urban areas and 50 percent in rural areas — live in an inadequate house, according to a report by the Inter-American Development Bank.

Lack of access to soft credit for housing and the rural exodus — mass migration from rural to urban areas — are the main reasons families are living in unsafe and overcrowded houses. These situations are producing a rapid growth in the housing deficit..."

Paraguay

11-year-old gives birth to girl in Paraguay

By PEDRO SERVIN August 13, 2015 6:05 PM


ASUNCION, Paraguay (AP) — An 11-year-old girl who was denied an abortion after being raped gave birth Thursday, the culmination of a case that put a spotlight on child rape in this poor South American nation and drew criticism from human rights groups.

Elizabeth Torales, a lawyer for the girl's mother, told The Associated Press that the minor gave birth to a baby girl via cesarean in a Red Cross hospital in Asuncion, Paraguay's capital.

11-year-old gives birth to girl in Paraguay

How many permanent Red Cross Hospitals in a nation's capital indicate that it is not a poverty-stricken country? This was the first pic that came up when I typed in 'typical Paraguay poverty'

Take a look at the rest of them , but as long as that baby was birthed, it's all good, right?

paraguay - Google Search

You start off by asking me virtually the same question I asked you.

Reading comprehension is something you need to work on.

You have not proven she was or is from a poverty stricken home.

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

Young girls have a much higher risk of dying during childbirth. Would you still be saying "a life saved" if she had died?

If she had died it would have been a tragedy. But, that didn't happen.

If she had not had a c-section a few weeks before term they both would have died. She was too small to give birth naturally.

Two lives would have been lost instead of just the fetus with an abortion, and the girl would still have had her childhood and time to grow to womanhood before having children.

Now there is a child raising a child, without the support of parents.

Where is the logic?

 

[Coyote]

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

That's key. You were both willing. You made a choice.

 

[aris2chat]

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

We decided that being together was better than one raising our children alone. I lost one early and nearly died from our second. As much as I love my children, I would have chosen life and adoption.

Our instructions were made clear to my doctors and family.

We each did what we feel is best, not because someone forced us to. We had that choice. Why should anyone take that from other women or victims of rape?

They have the right to choose, just as you and your wife did.

Each woman has to make the decision that is best for her, not because others force her one way or the other.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

You start off by asking me virtually the same question I asked you.

Reading comprehension is something you need to work on.

You have not proven she was or is from a poverty stricken home.

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

Young girls have a much higher risk of dying during childbirth. Would you still be saying "a life saved" if she had died?

If she had died it would have been a tragedy. But, that didn't happen.

If she had not had a c-section a few weeks before term they both would have died. She was too small to give birth naturally.

Two lives would have been lost instead of just the fetus with an abortion, and the girl would still have had her childhood and time to grow to womanhood before having children.

Now there is a child raising a child, without the support of parents.

Where is the logic?

The logic is there are too many "if's".

The mother nor the baby died.

Are you certain that no one is there to help the take care of the newborn?

It's amazing the lengths one goes to, to justify the taking of an innocent life.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

That's key. You were both willing. You made a choice.

Honestly, there it wasn't really a choice. Neither of us would ever consider killing an innocent life. Even if it meant saving our own.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

We decided that being together was better than one raising our children alone. I lost one early and nearly died from our second. As much as I love my children, I would have chosen life and adoption.

Our instructions were made clear to my doctors and family.

We each did what we feel is best, not because someone forced us to. We had that choice. Why should anyone take that from other women or victims of rape?

They have the right to choose, just as you and your wife did.

Each woman has to make the decision that is best for her, not because others force her one way or the other.

When a women gets pregnant, it's no longer just "her" body. If a woman does not want to have a baby, there are solutions other than getting an abortion. But that would require taking some responsibility.

 

[aris2chat]

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

Young girls have a much higher risk of dying during childbirth. Would you still be saying "a life saved" if she had died?

If she had died it would have been a tragedy. But, that didn't happen.

If she had not had a c-section a few weeks before term they both would have died. She was too small to give birth naturally.

Two lives would have been lost instead of just the fetus with an abortion, and the girl would still have had her childhood and time to grow to womanhood before having children.

Now there is a child raising a child, without the support of parents.

Where is the logic?

The logic is there are too many "if's".

The mother nor the baby died.

Are you certain that no one is there to help the take care of the newborn?

It's amazing the lengths one goes to, to justify the taking of an innocent life.

Step father is in jail and now that she has given birth, so is her mother.

>>Erika Guevara, Americas director at Amnesty International, said in a statement that Mainumby was “lucky to be alive”, adding that “only time will tell the true extent of the physical and psychological consequences of her tragic ordeal”.

“The fact that Mainumby did not die does not excuse the human rights violations she suffered at the hands of the Paraguayan authorities, who decided to gamble with her health, life and integrity despite overwhelming evidence that this pregnancy was extremely risky,” she said.<<

Now the girls lawyer wants to place both girls back into the care of the mother who let the girl be abused by the step-father.

600 girls under the age of 14 give birth each year in Paraguay. How is this moral?

Human rights organization, including UN, officials spoke out for the right of the girl to have an abortion.

There was nothing good that came from this. So many lives in turmoil just to deny a child her childhood after being raped.

No rape victim should be denied the option of an abortion. No child not conceived in love should be forced on a woman/girl.

 

[aris2chat]

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

We decided that being together was better than one raising our children alone. I lost one early and nearly died from our second. As much as I love my children, I would have chosen life and adoption.

Our instructions were made clear to my doctors and family.

We each did what we feel is best, not because someone forced us to. We had that choice. Why should anyone take that from other women or victims of rape?

They have the right to choose, just as you and your wife did.

Each woman has to make the decision that is best for her, not because others force her one way or the other.

When a women gets pregnant, it's no longer just "her" body. If a woman does not want to have a baby, there are solutions other than getting an abortion. But that would require taking some responsibility.

It is always her body till after birth. She should never be denied that right to control what happens to her. Even if she chooses to have a child, she is still the one in control of taking care, or not, of her body and thus the fetus. She is not a slave to others. She will only care for the fetus if she chooses to. Without her willingness there is a high risk of birth defects, and poor health of both her and the fetus as well as the risk of death during childbirth.

A woman has to want to be a mother. It should not be something she has no choice in. No victim of rape should be denied the choice of her body.

 

[thanatos144]

They kill preborn babies. Would it really shock you if they killed some after their birth? They have no feeling and it would not shock me at all.

Someone makes the final decision over that uterus. Not You. Not the Government. Smaller less intrusive Government is what is always desired by the right, except when it comes to the bedroom, marriage, & a woman's body. Then Big Brother is your buddy.

That once the baby is conceived it is no longer just her body for the next 9 months

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

Bullshit. She doesn't give up her body just because she gets pregnant. You're fucking crazy.

She shares it with another human

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

That human has no rights to it.

So you admit that some humans (white) are better then others

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

Young girls have a much higher risk of dying during childbirth. Would you still be saying "a life saved" if she had died?

If she had died it would have been a tragedy. But, that didn't happen.

If she had not had a c-section a few weeks before term they both would have died. She was too small to give birth naturally.

Two lives would have been lost instead of just the fetus with an abortion, and the girl would still have had her childhood and time to grow to womanhood before having children.

Now there is a child raising a child, without the support of parents.

Where is the logic?

The logic is there are too many "if's".

The mother nor the baby died.

Are you certain that no one is there to help the take care of the newborn?

It's amazing the lengths one goes to, to justify the taking of an innocent life.

Step father is in jail and now that she has given birth, so is her mother.

>>Erika Guevara, Americas director at Amnesty International, said in a statement that Mainumby was “lucky to be alive”, adding that “only time will tell the true extent of the physical and psychological consequences of her tragic ordeal”.

“The fact that Mainumby did not die does not excuse the human rights violations she suffered at the hands of the Paraguayan authorities, who decided to gamble with her health, life and integrity despite overwhelming evidence that this pregnancy was extremely risky,” she said.<<

Now the girls lawyer wants to place both girls back into the care of the mother who let the girl be abused by the step-father.

600 girls under the age of 14 give birth each year in Paraguay. How is this moral?

Human rights organization, including UN, officials spoke out for the right of the girl to have an abortion.

There was nothing good that came from this. So many lives in turmoil just to deny a child her childhood after being raped.

No rape victim should be denied the option of an abortion. No child not conceived in love should be forced on a woman/girl.

Sad situation when a person feels that killing an innocent life is the answer.

 

[aris2chat]

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

That's key. You were both willing. You made a choice.

Honestly, there it wasn't really a choice. Neither of us would ever consider killing an innocent life. Even if it meant saving our own.

It was a choice. You chose the children over your wife's life. You let your wife die when she could have been saved.

You made that choice, so why should other women be denied the right to choose for themselves?

 

[aris2chat]

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

Young girls have a much higher risk of dying during childbirth. Would you still be saying "a life saved" if she had died?

If she had died it would have been a tragedy. But, that didn't happen.

If she had not had a c-section a few weeks before term they both would have died. She was too small to give birth naturally.

Two lives would have been lost instead of just the fetus with an abortion, and the girl would still have had her childhood and time to grow to womanhood before having children.

Now there is a child raising a child, without the support of parents.

Where is the logic?

The logic is there are too many "if's".

The mother nor the baby died.

Are you certain that no one is there to help the take care of the newborn?

It's amazing the lengths one goes to, to justify the taking of an innocent life.

Step father is in jail and now that she has given birth, so is her mother.

>>Erika Guevara, Americas director at Amnesty International, said in a statement that Mainumby was “lucky to be alive”, adding that “only time will tell the true extent of the physical and psychological consequences of her tragic ordeal”.

“The fact that Mainumby did not die does not excuse the human rights violations she suffered at the hands of the Paraguayan authorities, who decided to gamble with her health, life and integrity despite overwhelming evidence that this pregnancy was extremely risky,” she said.<<

Now the girls lawyer wants to place both girls back into the care of the mother who let the girl be abused by the step-father.

600 girls under the age of 14 give birth each year in Paraguay. How is this moral?

Human rights organization, including UN, officials spoke out for the right of the girl to have an abortion.

There was nothing good that came from this. So many lives in turmoil just to deny a child her childhood after being raped.

No rape victim should be denied the option of an abortion. No child not conceived in love should be forced on a woman/girl.

Sad situation when a person feels that killing an innocent life is the answer.

Rather than risking the lives of both woman/girl and fetus?

 

[playtime]

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

I think the female (I try to refrain from the word 'woman' because like this case, she may not be a 'woman') that has a history...a past.. a life that has had experiences does have more value because that conscience, that thinking, breathing, person already born can decide for themselves. If that embryo / fetus is aborted, it is not going to miss what it never had...

 

[playtime]

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

I think the female (I try to refrain from the word 'woman' because like this case, she may not be a 'woman') that has a history...a past.. a life that has had experiences does have more value because that conscience, that thinking, breathing, person already born can decide for themselves. If that embryo / fetus is aborted, it is not going to miss what it never had... you should not get to decide what doesn't belong to you. QUOTE]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

We decided that being together was better than one raising our children alone. I lost one early and nearly died from our second. As much as I love my children, I would have chosen life and adoption.

Our instructions were made clear to my doctors and family.

We each did what we feel is best, not because someone forced us to. We had that choice. Why should anyone take that from other women or victims of rape?

They have the right to choose, just as you and your wife did.

Each woman has to make the decision that is best for her, not because others force her one way or the other.

When a women gets pregnant, it's no longer just "her" body. If a woman does not want to have a baby, there are solutions other than getting an abortion. But that would require taking some responsibility.

It is always her body till after birth. She should never be denied that right to control what happens to her. Even if she chooses to have a child, she is still the one in control of taking care, or not, of her body and thus the fetus. She is not a slave to others. She will only care for the fetus if she chooses to. Without her willingness there is a high risk of birth defects, and poor health of both her and the fetus as well as the risk of death during childbirth.

A woman has to want to be a mother. It should not be something she has no choice in. No victim of rape should be denied the choice of her body.

Is that right? Tell me, when a person murders a pregnant woman, why is the penalty more harsh than a simple homicide?

Why do 38 states have "fetal homicide" laws? At least 23 of those states have fetal homicide laws that apply to the earliest stages of pregnancy.

Most people that kill a pregnant woman are charged with two counts of homicide.

North Carolina Man Charged for Killing Pregnant Woman, Baby

Man Sentenced to Life in Prison for deaths pregnant woman, unborn baby

Killing pregnant woman would be double homicide under N.J. bill

Seems to me, it's her body when she wants to kill the life inside her but a totally separate body when the life is taken by someone else.

Here's a novel idea. Women that do not want to become mothers should stop engaging in activities that would make them into mothers.

 

[playtime]

The fact that she went to a Red Cross Hospital indicates that she had no other means of health care. The odds certainly indicate that she is poverty stricken. Would that have mattered to you at all if she was dirt poor?

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

The female that has a history, a past- a thinking, breathing, feeling, already born & has lived life already does indeed have more value. An embryo / fetus that is aborted, will not miss something it never experienced. You should not have the power 'to speak for' something that does not belong to you.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

If it meant saving your wife's life, would you have prevented or ended the pregnancy so the two of your could have raised your children together? Could you have been happy with just the three kids if it meant keeping your wife?

It is not a question of you not loving your children, but would you have changed things for the love of your wife, for her life?

You could always have adopted if you wanted more children.

Abortion is not about killing children, but caring for the life of the woman and what she needs or wants.
Children should be brought into the world when they are loved and wanted, not as an accident or violation.

It is not about denying life but choosing when to give life. When is it best for both mother and child.

We knew it was a risky pregnancy and we were both wiling to take that risk. We knew the option of abortion was there, we chose not to go that route. I have no regrets and would not have done anything differently.

That's key. You were both willing. You made a choice.

Honestly, there it wasn't really a choice. Neither of us would ever consider killing an innocent life. Even if it meant saving our own.

It was a choice. You chose the children over your wife's life. You let your wife die when she could have been saved.

You made that choice, so why should other women be denied the right to choose for themselves?

I didn't let anyone die. You're being overly dramatic.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I think it's more because they were the best and probably the only medical services available.

Her mother is represented by a lawyer, not something a poor person could afford in a civil case.

Actually no it doesn't matter if she was poor or not, the fact is a life was saved. But I suppose you would rather see an innocent life snuffed out instead of living in what you deem to be less than desirable circumstances.

I would rather see a life not suffer perpetual hunger, disease, pain.... how many have you adopted?

And the mother is being charged with neglect. That is a criminal, not a civil charge, so she very well could be given a public defender.

I raised five children as a single father, four daughters and a son, after my wife passed away giving birth to our twins.

She should be charged with neglect, she should have protected her child.

Using your logic, all these poor children should be euthanized instead of living a poverty stricken life. You're all heart!

I am sorry for your loss, I truly am. I give you the highest kudos for being the daddy those kids needed.

However, you are being absolutely ridiculous with that statement about my logic. What you seem to forget, is I want the choice for females to decide for THEMSELVES about bringing kids into situations like that. Not forced to. That's all.

So that life inside their body has no value? Someone needs to be the voice for the voiceless. All human life is precious. You would agree that killing a baby right out of the womb is murder, would you not? So why does taking that life a few months before it makes its way out of the womb any different?

I see how people react around pregnant women, everyone would ask her about the baby. They don't ask "how is the fetus", or "how is the zygote" or whatever term pro-abortion people use to justify killing an innocent life.

I would rather a child live in poverty and have a chance at making something of themselves than never allowing them that chance at all.

The female that has a history, a past- a thinking, breathing, feeling, already born & has lived life already does indeed have more value. An embryo / fetus that is aborted, will not miss something it never experienced. You should not have the power 'to speak for' something that does not belong to you.

Yes, we should speak for those that are unable to speak for themselves. The most fragile needs the most protection. It's sad that you see no value in a human life.