Posted on 07/01/2022 6:25:39 PM PDT by Morgana
I know it’ possible but you know how the left reporters like to make the news supportive of their agendas.
Kathy Barnette’s mother was pregnant at 11 from rape.
It’s possible.
I believe the reason young girls are starting their periods so much younger, some younger than 10, I’ve read as young as 8, is because of over sexualization from an immoral exhibitionist society. Many have surmised hormones in food. No. I don’t believe that’s why.
If you actually read my comments objectively, you would know what you said is a complete lie. But you aren’t and you’ve shown it in every one of your reactive posts.
We’re done here.
>> exploiting a ten year old
The Left is all about exploitation. It exploits children, minorities, the confused, the mentally ill, women.
Since ObamaCare, the medical community has solidified into a cult — and that’s not an exaggeration.
I couldn't agree more.
My question exactly. They have to have known she was pregnant for a while. Why did they wait until she was three days past the acceptable date in Ohio to perform the procedure? If they had done it the day of the ruling, she would have been fine. Something doesn’t add up.
Periods start when people are exposed to sexual influence?
By that logic girls brought up in an all female Christian environment wouldn’t jit puberty till their late teens!
My wife’s in her mid forties, her periods starred at age 9.
Our kids went to a small village church school, only 80 kids in total over four year groups - 7 to 11), teachers were mostly women and that included the liaison with the diocese.
About 15 years ago the school governors approved a supply of sanity pads in the first aid room. They had to...
Because at least eight girls a year started their periods while at school. And probably half that number were completely unprepared - to be fair very few parents expect it.
Youngest that I know if was 7.
So if that’s reality in a charitable religious school in a rich, rural county in Britain, it’s probably a bigger issue in the larger inner city primary schools.
BS! There are always exceptions for things like this. What went unasked was who got a 10 year old pregnant?
Rather, a 10-year-old child abuse victim was forced to commit murder in Indiana after her home state of Ohio barred it, and she rejected adoption. If someone throws a child in your house or vehicle, then you are still obligated to care for it and find safety for it. “It’s my house/vehicle” will not justify murder of an innocent person. But here a few months of discomfort is rejected for a lifetime and eternity of guilt, unless she finds repentant faith in the Lord Jesus.
I most whole heartedly agree. There is much more here than meets the eye and this “6 weeks and 3 days” BS is just that.
Further, the inclusion/intrusion of these ‘doctors’ specializing in child abuse (for the one) and abortion (the other) is just a Planned Parenthood contrived-showcase supporting argument to keep on murdering babies and making billions of dollars.
There are literally no lengths to which PP and those who support their murder incorporated won’t go.
I’m a woman and I have a good understanding of how this works. I also started very young, at 11, and that was many decades ago.
Human biology happens. I know all about that.
I don’t like broad generalizations and I didn’t make one.
There are debatable issues here but I’m not going to take up that debate with you.
Rabid extremists like yourself is the reason babies will keep getting aborted in majority of USA. People do not like extremists from both sides. Helpful legislation in major population centers can not become law when people read that such extreme views as forcing a 10 year victim of abuse to go full term pregnancy. Shameful!
Extremists like you is the reason sensible pro-life laws will not pass in majority of US population areas. Shameful!
I noticed you never answered my post about your spastic whining about making a 10 year-old raise a baby.
If that's the quality of your arguments, you are a moron.
LOL, “sensible,” like “sensible gun control,” the cry of the middle-of-the road coward.
“ I would think there are exceptions for life of the mother”
there are, but not for the nebulous “health” of the mother.
Riiiight!
“Rather, a 10-year-old child abuse victim was forced to commit murder in Indiana after her home state of Ohio barred it, and she rejected adoption.”
That’s a reasonable emotional and moral response, but I would be wary of legislating on the basis of such an oversimplification. Hard cases make bad laws, but reinforcing one societal problem to eliminate another isn’t a great solution either.
A middle-aged man - an establishment straight-up pillar of the community - was raping my mom. She was only 13. Eventually my grandfather found out- because he got her pregnant. Rather than report that pedo to the police, he bussed my mom out of the county, to a “home for Wayward girls” (basically, a borstal, or juvie). She endured months of education in effect telling her she was a whore for having “loose morals”, before eventually having her newborn forcibly taken off her. I thrown into a really crappy orphanage system, and finally got adopted at the age of 7 after having nine different foster families.
Neither my mom nor me got out of that situation intact.
I have a disassociative personality disorder. Between ages 4 and 7, I maintained a packed suitcase, on the assumption that no matter how much I liked a foster family, at any time on any day a social worker could turn up and take me away.
My mom, by all accounts, was fine until she was being molested, she had a complete breakdown when she found out she was pregnant, but what REALLY sent her doolally was months in a detention center PURELY for being pregnant, followed by a forced adoption.
Coerced abortion for a pre-teen who’s been raped is pro-murder, can scar the girl mentally for life, and it can benefit the rapist. That goes without saying.
Coerced adoption under the exact same circumstances really is no better for the girl, and it also is an ideal get-out for the rapist.
Ideally the best solution is to give the girl all the moral and financial support, counselling and love that she needs to bring the baby up - but unfortunately in some cases the girl is simply far too young and far too underdeveloped to be able to carry the baby to term.
In such circumstances, there is no guaranteed right solution. The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness you have in America are just as inalienable to a child victim as they are to an unborn fetus in her. It may be the case that there is no way the unborn child can live, and forcing her to carry it will jeopardise her own life.
Only a sick society would ever trade one life off against the other over a point of principle.
If you’re going to outlaw abortion, you have to massively improve access to education, counselling, mental and physical health services, AND start prosecuting rapists instead of protecting them.
Since we're all about “feelings” how's that one? Ever hear of an ad homonym attack? Another fallacy. But why not? You haven't argued using a single fact of logically constructed argument yet...
Some issues are all or nothing. The “fence sitter,” the so called “moderate,” wants to feel good about himself but fails to realize a few things:
1. Compromises do not mean it is morally right, consistent, constitutional, economically viable/most efficient or logical.
2. Some issues are all or nothing and if you are on the fence, you are in reality for it, 100%, all of it, in every aspect, even if in your mind you try to come up with some rationalization like “Well, I support it but only in the first trimester,” for rape, incest...
If the door is opened, it will get slammed wide open eventually and that is true in the US, Germany, France, Italy... and in the US for the individual states. As time went on, the rules for abortion become more lax and government even began funding it... The same is true with gun rights. You are either for gun rights or you're not, and the fence sitter is basically someone that feels good about himself but is for gun control, even though he wants to be liked by everyone, appear smart, and wants to say what feels and sounds good to both sides... Yes, what feels and sounds good... But is it consistent, logical, economically viable/efficient, moral, constitutional... is that what nature or history tells us happens? You won't hear any arguments based on anything... just appeals to feelings as you did.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.