Posted on 07/01/2022 6:25:39 PM PDT by Morgana
Reasonable people would change the law to make some reasonable exceptions, and it should be easier to change laws at the state level.
My twins both started at 10. I don’t think it was overly sexualized because they were pretty sheltered at that age. I do think it’s something with the hormones in food.
The problem is that forcing a child to carry a child is very bad for that child’s life. I know it’s bad on the development of bones. I’m not sure what other long term impacts a pregnancy would have on a yong girls health, butht there are numerous ones.
And, it may be hard for the young girl to carry a baby to full term.
It’s a terrible situation!
Is it possible? Sure, I suppose.
Yet, I would bet money that never in the history of legal abortion in the United States has a 10-year old girl received one.
In the UK, the youngest abortion recipient on record was 13.
Yet here we are, one week after Roe is overturned, and it just so happens that a 10-year old victim of incest needs an abortion in one of the few states where trigger laws have prevented it.
Sounds awfully convenient.
My bullsh*t flag is flying high.
As far as I know, "Abortion" is not a legitimately prescribed medical treatment for any complications of pregnancy, other than inconvenience.
I am a male, so if my uncderstanding is incorrect, I would appreciate being corrected.
That said, to my mind, the proper place for a young girl with a complicated pregnancy, one with possible serious health concerns, is in a hospital, and not some shitty ghetto abortion mill.
Quite frankly, a pregnant 10 year old should become a protected state witness to the most disguting kind of crime I could imagine, and should be cared for by every resource of the state to facilitate the punishment of the criminal responsible.
Please do not misunderstand what I said. I would never say all cases are from that. I read several studies on this that were interesting. That’s it.
I was raised extremely sheltered. I was raised at a time I call White Picket Fenceville. I knew nothing about sex. Lol trust me.
I’m talking about something else and a I told another poster this isn’t the place to debate that. Cheers.
According to what I've been reading, the term "abortion" seems to be an umbrella term used for many different things: For example, if a baby dies in utero, but the uterus does not expel the baby's remains, the baby's remains will need to be removed via an "abortion" (or the mother may become very sick and die).
Who knows whether this story of a pregnant 10yo girl is true, but it wouldn't be the first time a 10-year-old became pregnant. Hard to imagine a little girl's body could handle a full-term pregnancy. This is a very sad case, if it's true.
When people argue using feelings, that is not logic, reason, moral, fair or consistent what they seek. People flee into the realm of feelings and fallacies like the MSM does all the time when their arguments are weak, when logic and reason is not on their side, when morality tells them it is wrong, when they know they are inconsistent, what they believe in is economically dysfunctional, unnatural, and historically hasn't worked.
Look at climate change, Covid, gun control... Lot's of feelings. Little on the actual facts. Why do you think that is? How do you argue for climate change using facts if the models are fake or proven wrong again and again. Do you really want to discuss correlation vs. causality as it pertains to climate change? Is a conversation about who is profiting (politically and economically) from all of this climate change nonsense a discussion “believers” really want to have? Are the contradictions and uncovered cheating and lies something the “believer” wants to discuss?
These are the sensible arguments for climate change, covid, or yes abortion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVlRompc1yE
Why do you think the media digs up a 10 year old that got pregnant from rape? Sensible?
Your sensible sounds like emotional junk to me, sorry.
Your personal morality means zilch. Only thing that counts is what majority of Americans want. And majority do not want late term abortions and majority do not want complete ban on abortions. If extremists like you go away, the country could adopt a sensible plan restricting abortions and thus save many unborn lives and the excruciating pain the fully formed fetus feels when the skull is pierced with a sharp object.
Wrong. Extremists like you is the reason no sensible compromise is possible which would restrict millions of abortions.
Proof is in the pudding. Rabid extremists on both sides is the reason why late term abortions will be open to majority population centers in USA.
"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."
A terrible and tragic story, but which neither justifies abortion nor abuse upon abuse. And abortion could have left her scarred for life also. The crime of the rapist abuser here warrants the death penalty, while the victim should have received the caring counsel that pro-life centers overall provide, and the resources they can help one obtain, yet were lacking in your mom's time and should also be required now.
And now abortion will become big business in the states that allow it.
I completely agree.
Unfortunately, in some cases the fetus simply isn’t viable (or had already expired) and the law MUST account for that possibility - it is a legitimate basis of “reasonable doubt” as to the criminality of an action. Any criminal law that completely ignores all basis of reasonable doubt or mitigation is inherently unjust and has no place in a civilised society.
Any anti-abortion law MUST allow for the possibility that there are cases where the life of the mother was viable and the life of the infant had already ended, and the procedures necessary to save the mother are not substantially different to those that can kill the unborn.
Or, to put it rather more bluntly... You can try to prosecute a person for murder even if the facts of the case suggest that they were attacking a corpse in a coffin. Just don’t expect any sane jury to convict, if the facts of the case are allowed to be aired in the courtroom.
I don’t know how these laws work in the USA, but based on the mentality of the male elders in the community my mom grew up in and what it was like in the 70s at the time, I wouldn’t be surprised if none of the patriarchs had the first idea what an ectopic pregnancy actually is, or when a D&C or hysteroscopy would be used, or when labor might be induced, or a C-section for that matter - and if they did know, they didn’t care.
Women with stillborn babies (i.e. died in the womb at or after 24 weeks) were expected to stay the course until labor set in. This can dramatically increase clotting and other risks to the life of the mother. In Israel now, hospitals treat a stillbirth as a near emergency, and will not allow the mother to bear a dead fetus for more than three days. In my birth family’s community, they’d have dragged it out for weeks and if a man’s wife died or gave birth to a dead baby, all the sympathies would be with the father.
That’s the kind of community my mom grew up in. She was scarred for life by forced pregnancy at a very young age AND by ostracisation AND by effective imprisonment AND by forced adoption... AND SHE WAS ONE OF THE LUCKY ONES.
So I see that as not really a defensible moral or cultural position. For the clinician it’s a similar ethical dilemma presented with a Jehovah’s Witness refusing simple life-saving treatment for a child because of their personal religious beliefs, or misguided sense of pride.
A far wider topic needs discussion. At what point does the decision of the parent(s) override the duty of care to the child - OR vice versa in the case of an unborn child; how far can a controlling man force his wife or daughter to put her life at risk for the sake of his own pride.
You still don't get it and you still can't formulate a single logical and consistent argument.
No-
We live in a Republic and Democracy is merely a process that allows for the will of the people to be included in the decision making.
***The US CONSTITUTION is that law of the land.***
A democratic made decision which contradicts basic constitutional rights (the Bill of Rights - which don't seem to matter much anymore in this country) or defined processes is “unconstitutional” which our public servants sworn to uphold the Constitution should not obey/follow, but that has become a big joke today (DHS, DOJ, heck you have the NIH/CDC influence policy making which is flagrantly unconstitutional).
Back to abortion. It all boils down to one simple question: At what point do you define this baby as living?
At conception, 7, 12, 20 weeks (the most common thresholds) or once born?
Regardless of where you define it, once you cross that line, it is killing someone, and the fact that this person was conceived through a rape or incest plays “Zilch” role.
It will all boild down to where states define life as begining, or if it can be elevated to the federal government and have them define it across the board. But wherever that point is, once you cross it, you would be killing someone (The US Constitution would be defending the rights of that person from that point on).
The entire issue of abortion is really just an issue where some folks (abortion industry, feminists, socialists) have managed to obfuscate things to a point where life no longer begins at conception (in the eyes of the majority), just like XX and XY no longer define ones sex (another radical extremist idea today).
Using emotional words (extremist, sensible), creating some image of a scenario (a 10 year old caring for a baby) ad hominem attacks, bandwagon (majority agrees)... none of these are arguments, those matter “zilch.”
The problem is once you open that door of abortion and ask the question of where does life really begin, you have some people which think a sensible answer is months after birth, since the brain has not really fully developed yet (it's not unlike killing a dog). And of course there are .0001% scenarios given which appeal to the emotions of folks for why that is a good idea: https://www.government.nl/topics/euthanasia/euthanasia-and-newborn-infants (how long do you think it will be before the definition of a horrible debilitating disease may include duress of the mother? Crowns disease? A cleft lip?...)
And yet as you may know, only about 1 in every 50 pregnancies in the U.S. is an ectopic pregnancy and a third of women with an ectopic pregnancy have a healthy pregnancy, while possible risk factors for an ectopic pregnancy which may boost risk higher than average include,
But proabortion polemics are strained. See my response to one here, by the grace of God:
When you open the door for abortion, you ultimately support abortion (period).
It will, as it has (history shows this to be true), may that be in conservative states or even nations, as a rule become more permissive over time (slippery slope). Before long, even if you want to be an intellectual, moderate, or a sensible person, you become (here's the ad homenim attack: the “useful idiot” Lenin spoke of). There are issues where there is no middle ground. Taking the so called measured, compromised, compassionate middle ground which allows one to have one foot on either side and appear so inclusive, tolerant and nice, really just throws your support for abortion et al.
If you could chase down these women today and ask them, who of you supports late term tax funded abortions for under age girls without parental consent? What percent do you think would agree. Yet when they supported safe legal abortions (a very moderate idea to protect women - the BS argument used), what did they support?
You are no different. If you support abortions, that's OK, that's your opinion and freedom to feel and vote that way... but do not pretend you are “sensible, moderate, compassionate, measured, compromising.” You might as well come out of the abortion closet, you agree with and support abortion, and that's the end of it. Because we all know what follows long term may it be the US, Germany, California or Texas... When the door is open and you have both the economic interests pulling for this, and human vice/sin pushing this the long term trend is obvious.
For example, I support the legalization of marijuana. However, I will not sit here and lie that I support some moderate, sensible, measured (all these BS terms that convey a feeling but are meaningless) approach. Once you legalize marijuana, the long term trend will be that it will be legal also for recreational use, why? Because once it's legal and the money starts flowing, you have those making the money off it pulling and those that want to use it pushing and eventually the barriers and restrictions will fall, one by one over time.
Any low IQ chap who wants a 10 your old child rape victim to go full term is extreme rabid nutcase.
That’s actually a compliment you made, thank you.
When people have no arguments, they flee into the realm of fallacies.
I win.
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.
